|
Post by firestorm on Feb 24, 2016 20:08:31 GMT -8
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. As I understand it, the Apple vs. FBI case could go to the Supreme Court. If so, The FBI probably wishes that Justice Scalia could hear the case, because his originalist interpretation of The Constitution did not extend to what he considered a mythical "right to privacy." Here is an exchange with Chris Wallace several years ago on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965?
SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.
WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was.
SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was – that was wrong.
The question is, how will the remaining eight justices rule, or will they punt until a ninth justice is finally confirmed by the Senate in 2025? Inquiring minds want to know.
Meanwhile, I am still considering my reaction to Apple's stand. My concern is that if they give in on this case, that they will have to give in to totalitarian regimes around the world and tailor the operating system to each little barney fifedom's desire.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Feb 24, 2016 21:20:59 GMT -8
Olson was on Cavuto on Fox Business today and it got pretty heated and Cavuto is catching a lot of flak. I am at a loss how this issue can put two polar opposites (Firestorm and Cavuto) on the same side. Cavuto showed a lack of understanding about Apple's stance and Olson is a genius and staunch defender of the COTUS who quite clearly defined the problem with the government's case. I will hand it to Cavuto though, he had several follow up guests who backed Olson up. I also liked how Charlie Gasparino brought up the hypocrisy of Apple and other firms who say that this will encroach the Constitution and their 4th Amendment protections and then support infringement of the 2nd Amendment by Mr. Obama. This is typical of the Elitists within Silicon Valley and their seeming to pick and choose what part of the Constitution is valid. I bring this up only because it was perfectly demonstrated in the Monday thread in two different posts and because it directly relates to the cause and effect of the iPhone debate. People either support the COTUS or they don't. I support Apple's position on their phone but I acknowledge that their management team is hypocritical in their support of said document. 14 people killed vs. 32,000 per year because you have to have guns that you use irresponsibily every day. How many deaths by guns are too many? What if it was 300,000 per year? How about 1,000,000. Maybe that's why the liberal, elitist, commie pinko lefties that you disparage at every turn, have a problem. Apple isn't hypocritical, they're just smart and actually care about their fellow citizens.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Feb 24, 2016 22:16:43 GMT -8
Just thinking out loud.......
Increasing gun violence in the liberal media over the last 40 years has been horrendous. It has made our society more violent, so drop the second amendment.
A few people kill people, harm themselves and others with guns so take them away or make it extremely difficult for everyone else to own.
A few people with cars harm themselves or kill people (35000/yr) so take the cars away. (or make them Autonomous)
A few phones need hacked so hack them all.
Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 24, 2016 22:48:57 GMT -8
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. As I understand it, the Apple vs. FBI case could go to the Supreme Court. If so, The FBI is probably relieved that Justice Scalia will not be hearing the case, because his originalist interpretation of The Constitution did not extend to what he considered a mythical "right to privacy." Here is an exchange with Chris Wallace several years ago on Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965? SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy. WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was. SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was – that was wrong. The question is, how will the remaining eight justices rule, or will they punt until a ninth justice is finally confirmed by the Senate in 2025? Inquiring minds want to know. Meanwhile, I am still considering my reaction to Apple's stand. My concern is that if they give in on this case, that they will have to give in to totalitarian regimes around the world and tailor the operating system to each little barney fifedom's desire. That soon? I've aways appreciated your optimism, firestorm.
|
|
|
Post by ahmpower on Feb 25, 2016 0:04:16 GMT -8
I see that this board is no longer about Apple Finance. Is there no moderator to bring us back to topic? Or should we change the name of the board or quit it.. Yes I think I might stop coming here for info. Already the technical part is dead, and now the intraday discussions are dead
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Feb 25, 2016 2:31:11 GMT -8
I see that this board is no longer about Apple Finance. Is there no moderator to bring us back to topic? Or should we change the name of the board or quit it.. Yes I think I might stop coming here for info. Already the technical part is dead, and now the intraday discussions are dead The problem now is that the Apple vs. FBI case is political, and that it can affect the stock. So politics in this context is probably acceptable in the forum. Meanwhile, I miss all the technical analysts of various sorts that used to post here. Though I still wonder if technical analysis is valid, or if there is extremely limited value to trying to mathematically model stocks that are driven mostly by opinions and emotions. After all, if the math was going to give an investor a leg up on everyone else, everyone would be using those tools and the advantage would be lost.
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Feb 25, 2016 8:03:17 GMT -8
I see that this board is no longer about Apple Finance. Is there no moderator to bring us back to topic? Or should we change the name of the board or quit it.. Yes I think I might stop coming here for info. Already the technical part is dead, and now the intraday discussions are dead The problem now is that the Apple vs. FBI case is political, and that it can affect the stock. So politics in this context is probably acceptable in the forum. Meanwhile, I miss all the technical analysts of various sorts that used to post here. Though I still wonder if technical analysis is valid, or if there is extremely limited value to trying to mathematically model stocks that are driven mostly by opinions and emotions. After all, if the math was going to give an investor a leg up on everyone else, everyone would be using those tools and the advantage would be lost. I think that the point of technical analysis is that everyone IS using the same tools and thus, in the aggregate, acts in a predictable manner. An example is Elliot wave theory. Given the weakest possible links to mathematics, it uses the Fibonnaci sequence to predict a drop of 68% under certain conditions. Not 65%, not 72% but 68%. Today, you will often see stocks reverse at 68% as people act based on the theory. If you are trying to time the stock movement, you ignore technical analysis at your own risk, not because it is right, but because it is self fulfilling.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Feb 25, 2016 8:14:54 GMT -8
The problem now is that the Apple vs. FBI case is political, and that it can affect the stock. So politics in this context is probably acceptable in the forum. Meanwhile, I miss all the technical analysts of various sorts that used to post here. Though I still wonder if technical analysis is valid, or if there is extremely limited value to trying to mathematically model stocks that are driven mostly by opinions and emotions. After all, if the math was going to give an investor a leg up on everyone else, everyone would be using those tools and the advantage would be lost. I think that the point of technical analysis is that everyone IS using the same tools and thus, in the aggregate, acts in a predictable manner. An example is Elliot wave theory. Given the weakest possible links to mathematics, it uses the Fibonnaci sequence to predict a drop of 68% under certain conditions. Not 65%, not 72% but 68%. Today, you will often see stocks reverse at 68% as people act based on the theory. If you are trying to time the stock movement, you ignore technical analysis at your own risk, not because it is right, but because it is self fulfilling. A good, succinct explanation. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 25, 2016 8:16:54 GMT -8
I still like this board and find the discussions interesting and often insightful. I hope it all continues, and that more people come back or join.
|
|