schismsubv

7 ms·

31.
by schismsubv 11y ago
Thanks for working with me, I understand your point about distrusting future courts over current ones. I don't think it's too hard for Apple to do this; they could probably turn out the request in very short order. However, as so
32.
by schismsubv 11y ago
> To argue against that, you'd need to claim that precedent makes it easier for the later court to fail. No, I'm arguing that incrementalism means the court doesn't have to fail (as a court) - the follow-on steps that I ou
33.
by schismsubv 11y ago
It's possible that I missed any concern the judge may have had for precedent when I read the ruling. If you know of any (or any other document I may have missed), I'd appreciate a pointer. I think you're applying some fairly
34.
by schismsubv 11y ago
I conclude that you potentially misunderstand what is perhaps the core governing doctrine of US law because you keep re-presenting the same tired argument that this is about a single firmware tied to a single phone. If you truly believe it
35.
by schismsubv 11y ago
I'm pretty certain you and rtpg don't understand stare decisis. This isn't about this specific phone, or even the methodology. This is about the FBI cherry-picking a nearly throwaway (in terms of probable data value) case t
36.
by schismsubv 11y ago
Apple _will_ be compelled. You either don't understand the US legal doctrine of stare decisis or are being intentionally obtuse. Furthermore, the US legal system encourages elaboration on stare decisis, applying prior case law to nove
37.
by schismsubv 11y ago
I think the point is that "100 million" is an extremely suspicious round number, and smacks of pulling a number out. It could be an "Everest" number ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080&
38.
by schismsubv 11y ago
Perhaps you jest, but if not, what you've described here the general function of an audio compressor. Compressors are repsonsible for a lot of the lack of dynamics in modern recorded (and some live) music. A compressor has a setpoint