boltsfan17

seneca72 said:

I thought the US had separation of powers such that Law and Executive were independent of each other.  If so why is the Supreme Court asking the opinion of the President as to whether it should hear a case?   Surely it either should or shouldn't based on a matter of law? 

Viewed from this side of the pond it looks a little odd.

The Supreme Court isn't asking for the opinion of Trump. The Supreme Court sent the request to U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. The Solicitor General is the third highest ranking official in the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court is asking the Department of Justice, which overseas laws. 

Technically this isn't copyright infringement since you can't copyright a logo. You can only trademark a logo. I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes. 

I have an Echo and I think its doesn't do that great of a job at separating background noise. Every day, it picks up sound from my TV and always says it doesn't understand what I'm saying. It actually gets quite annoying. 

lol

volcan said:

Looks like it was probably not made in China. Most likely an English speaking country other than the US because the water bottle label in the background is in English but shows the contents to be Net 350ml. In the US they usually list both ounces and milliliters or sometimes just ounces. 

It's made in China. Having been there many times, I recognize the water bottle. It's C'estbon water, a Chinese brand. 

bbh said:

I hope she prevails. I don't think we are a "police state". Yet.

The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement doesn't apply at the border. 

MplsP said:

lkrupp said:

This sounds like these tools don’t really work very well. Why would a $6000 piece of equipment being going for $1000 or lower on eBay? You would think these tools would command a king’s ransom on the open market and that hackers would be trying to outbid each other. The whole thing sounds fishy. But more than that it completely squashes the government’s claim that any backdoor or master key manufacturers would provide could be kept secure. 

Do we know if they even work on a device with iOS 12? that may be why the dump - Apple updated iOS and they're suddenly useless.

I was checking out the listings. The majority of them say expired license key. Most seem to be on outdated software so they are probably useless on newer iPhone's. I did visit Cellebrite's website and was looking at the services they provide. Their website says they can unlock data from iPhone's on iOS 5 to iOS 11. 

designr said:

dws-2 said:

However, it is _less_ likely that a vaccinated person would get sick and spread Covid.

Is there any data on this?

What I've read on this is that vaccinated people who get a delta-variant "breakthrough" infection seem to be more likely to be asymptomatically infectious.

From the studies I've seen, that seems to be the case. I think the statement that it's less likely a vaccinated person would get sick and spread Covid was true before the delta variant. On a personal basis, I got covid from a vaccinated person last month and I'm vaccinated as well. 

This is a perfect example of why it would have been a disaster if Apple was forced to create a backdoor to iOS for the government. 

GeorgeBMac said:

I have always been in favor of net neutrality -- enforced by government.   The idea of "government control of the internet is as ridiculous as government control of any utility.  The regulations are there to insure a fair shake for consumers and effective management of national infrastructure, nothing more, nothing less.   But, that was all "back in the day" of internet being delivered over coax, FiOS, and LTE.

With the advent of 5G that could all change.   Not only does 5G have the capacity to replace most or all of today's conventional delivery methods, but 5G can be software targeted to deliver pinpoint accuracy for critical functions like remote surgery and self-driving or remotely driven vehicles -- and a ton more.

I think this whole thing needs to be thought through as to how it will be used, how it fits into and supports critical U.S. infrastructure, and who says which resources get which resources?   For instance:   Do you trust Verizon to provide and decide how much you pay for remote surgery over their network?  What will stop them from price gouging based on willingness to pay -- the same as Big Pharma does for life saving critical medications?  Or say, your self driving car travels from the area covered by your Verizon network into AT&T's -- can AT&T then charge you a "roaming fee"?

If you look at the big picture, net neutrality hasn't done anything. I think the mandate by Obama in 2015 declaring internet a public utility made things worse. Net neutrality caused investment into broadband internet to decrease. With net neutrality, Title II regulations were imposed on ISP's. Under the regulations, all proposals had to be submitted to the FCC for approval. Look at how long it took the FCC to allow T-Mobile's Binge On service. Another huge problem in this country net neutrality doesn't address is the local monopolies all around the nation. All these restrictions city, county, and state governments have done has stymied competition. Almost every place I've lived in only had one option for high speed internet. Net neutrality also hasn't helped rural customers, who represent 20% of the U.S. population. I've seen quite a few local projects aimed at rural customers get the ax due to the bureaucracy of net neutrality regulations. Bottom line, I just think enforcing Great Depression era laws on the internet don't protect the consumer or help broadband growth. There is just too much misinformation out there where people continue to falsely believe net neutrality creates an open and free internet, which it doesn't. The hands off approach prior to the 2015 mandate is the way to go.