Habib

Another layer to this that I haven't seen touched on: Apple has substantial business reasons not to develop this backdoor. Security has become an area of competition, especially in the device/smartphone market where people are increasingly storing and sending sensitive personal and financial data. If Apple creates this backdoor, then it essentially neuters their encryption claims and weakens their competitiveness against the rest of the industry.

It's certainly a thorny problem in this new age of technology, but the ends can't be used to justify the means, especially when the means are essentially determined through government fiat. If Congress wants to pass a law regulating the use of encryption or other security features and they can do so in a way that can survive 1st and 4th amendment challenges in court, then it would at least give their practices some legitimacy, though I would still oppose it. This is one of the same problems with the various NSA surveillance programs. They were entirely unknown to the public until Snowden's leak. These were not laws or programs created through a democratic process where people were aware of what was at stake. The NSA dreamt up the programs and enacted them on their own. Among the perverse outcomes is that people who have since attempted to challenge the programs in court have largely been rebuffed along the lines of this Catch-22: Because the programs are secret, challengers can't prove that their information was collected by them, therefore they don't have standing to challenge them. The other issue is that by making exceptions for what powers the government can have or conditionalizing rights of citizens in cases of terrorism opens the door for more exceptions. When we say that terrorism is such a tremendous issue that we must make these exceptions to prevent it, what happens when another issue comes along to supplant it? I expect that these exceptions will carry over to new issues. Or if the executive branch is allowed to create its own programs in secret and free themselves from legal challenges as long it's to stop "terrorism," and if the executive branch gets to define what "terrorism" is, then what is to stop them from expanding that definition (and how will we know)? It would seem there is nothing to stop the expansion of the definition of "terrorism" into "cyberterrorism" and then including things like file sharing or cyberbullying under its scope, justifying even more invasive surveillance and enforcement. This is the context through which I see this case with Apple. One might argue that this is merely one case where the government is asking for cooperation. But we know that the government has asked for a "backdoor" into encryption as a matter of universal policy well before this case and it has been a contentious issue among Apple, Samsung, and other tech firms. David Cameron has demanded it in the UK and has banned services like What's App that use it. Therefore, I don't expect the government's use of such a backdoor to be limited to this one case, but to become standard practice going forward. So, I think Tim Cook is in the right to demand a higher and more legitimate burden than pointing out that this case involves terrorism.

From Tim Cook's statement to Apple users. Customer Letter - Apple

I have Weather Pro for, obviously, weather and forecasts. I use Google Tasks which is basically an electronic notepad for keeping a to-do list. I use LastPass for passwords and such. I use Instapaper to save pages to read later and I use OneTab to consolidate tabs when I have a bunch open. I have Ghostery which prevents websites from tracking your visits or collecting your data. I also have a Virtru extension for encrypting email.

What do you want it to use it for? I have a Kindle Fire that I'm perfectly happy with. I mainly use it to read and browse the web. Sometimes I use the Netflix or HBO apps. I have another tablet with a microSD port that I keep all of my music on and that's all I use it for. Just depends on what you want to use it for.

It's on my shortlist for the next time I'm at the record store. His Tiny Desk concert is really good too.

As an aside, Hockman was on ESPNU a few weeks ago coaching high school in Georgia. His son is a 4-star QB committed to UGA.

I also think a few teams would be remembered differently if the playoffs were structured the way they are now. Ryle ran into the Trinity buzzsaw in the first round a handful of times, whereas more recently that matchup couldn't happen until the championship or semis (I forget).

Leaving out a lot of guys before Warner got there. Eddie Smith, Travis Grant, Justin Parr, Mark Gray, Steve Mace, Adam Oglesbee, Wayne Price, Tom Ross, Anthony Coleman, Reed Young, Josh Reichert, Vince Bowman.

Nope. Good ol' PC. The thing is, I can plug in a usb or run a, AUX cable to my receiver and play my iPod or connect my computer, but it's a hassle. It'd be really nice to do it over wi-fi. And iTunes on my computer is lightyears better than the usb interface when playing music. So, when I saw this thing was $35 I paid attention.

I mostly agree with Clyde but I think success has to be part of the evaluation within reason. Here are a few questions: Are students who play for less than competitive teams getting the same experiences from playing a sport as their peers? Does competitiveness affect the viability of the program? Are students less likely to play if the team is poor (whether families move districts or the students opt for other sports or simply opt to stay home)? Is school pride a relevant consideration? Alumni and the community being engaged can be important for the school overall. Does a routinely sub-par team hinder this?

Anyone have one of these? I've been looking for a way to integrate my speaker setup as much as possible, especially with my computer, and this looks promising. But, I'm weary of the whole "casting" idea in that you need a certain webpage open or that it's only available on certain apps. So, my big question is can I "cast" iTunes from my computer? I can't seem to figure that out from reviews and such.

"We set out for the data center on a spare tire, stopping along the way to fix the old one at a Firestone store. Its employees dealt with us in an upbeat, tightly scripted manner that appeared to stem from their awareness of several cameras angled toward the service counter. The situation reminded me that the ferreting-out of secrets is merely one purpose of surveillance; it also disciplines, inhibits, robbing interactions of spontaneity and turning them into self-conscious performances. The Firestone employees, with their smiles and good manners, had the same forced cheerfulness I’d long ago noticed in my Facebook feed, a parallel universe of marriage announcements and birthday well-wishes straight out of the Midwestern 1950s. Both were miniature versions, it occurred to me, of the society we’d all soon inhabit—or already did but had yet to fully acknowledge."

Interesting article in the Atlantic this month. How to Protect Your Personal Data?and Humanity?From the Government - The Atlantic

Never remember it happening or seeing it happen in NKY. I remember after the homecoming game lots of people and parents were mingling and taking pictures, but that's it.

This stream is pretty great, though. I've had to stop myself from thinking the refs were about to review a play a couple of times.

These announcers are about to fill us in...

Relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faa-records-detail-hundreds-of-close-calls-between-airplanes-and-drones/2015/08/20/5ef812ae-4737-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?hpid=z4

That adds some more nuance to what happened here. The altitude of 272 feet seems to be about exactly where quads are expected to cruise or hover (I say this because regular aircraft are supposed to stay above 500 feet, so there have been some proposals to allow quad traffic below 500 feet). On the other hand, that's still plenty low enough to be a menace if flown over private property, yet how do you can you determine (and thus regulate) whether someone is hovering simply to get their bearings or to harass? Is the solution to disallow quads to be flown over private property? And if so does this shut down any opportunity for them to be used for commercial purposes, like delivery?

I think the cross is pretty distinctive. There's quite a bit of merit in a "timeless" or classic look (think how outdated and tacky most fads look a few years down the road; if you're trying to build/improve a brand you don't want that), and from what you said before it seems they want something universal and long-term. I know a whole lot of people have an intense connection to the old logo, but it was a little gaudy. The only thing I would do differently is to put the logo on the chest of the jerseys, especially the soccer kit a la Chelsea. I don't know if there are requirements about number placement or something, though.

I think I'll buy my own quadcopter and attack others' when they enter my airspace. :lol2:

Definitely, but I think it can be done easily. I think the proposed FAA regulations about cover it. We might need an additional clarification about privacy/private property, but that's about it. The worst case scenario is that ambiguous and conflicting regulations end up before a federal court and then they set the policy on them. It's unlikely they would be good for everyone.

Is there? I haven't really seen a lot of complaints about them, other than they get called "drones" which evokes their much larger, weaponized cousins. I think they are pretty cool. But I still think their potential use for harassment or something ought to be stamped out.

^ No doubt, but the potential for misuse is still there.

It's a pretty interesting subject and this story gets at the heart of it. From what I gather, most laws about this sort of thing are fairly murky. The FAA regulates that a plane can't be flown lower than 500 feet (takeoff and landing excepted) and can't be flown under 1,000 feet in a "congested" area. The FAA proposed a regulation for drones (or, really, quadcopters) that they could fly under and up to 500 feet, ostensibly to keep them out of regular air traffic, but that they had to remain within eye sight of their operator and that they couldn't be operated over anyone not "participating," which would preclude the sort of snooping (or nuisance, otherwise) that seemed to be going on here. But, I don't know where these proposals now stand. Either way, there are some interesting privacy concerns that are left out of the current laws.