And I warned about this right here on Slashdot a month or two ago.
If they have a warrant to search, they can use whatever physical means they have on hand to do so. They can crack open your phone -- even if that means breaking it -- to diddle with the chips, for example. This is long settled 4th Amendment stuff. If you have a safe, then can break it open with explosives if they want. As long as they have that warrant.
What they cannot do, because of the 5th Amendment (not the 4th), is compel you to supply a password or PIN.
They can try to guess it all they like. That's within the rules. But neither police or courts are not allowed to compel you to divulge "a product of the mind", such as a password.
And I warned that this biometric stuff, like fingerprints and face recognition, would lead to just exactly this.
If you really want your phone to be secure (assuming there's no known backdoor), encrypt it with a good, long, well-thought-out password. Period. End of story.
China, for decades, has been engaging in very severely "protectionist" trade policies, which the prior 2 administrations just bent over for and didn't do a damned thing.
In particular, China engages in "hidden" barriers to trade, rather than tariffs. But they are no less barriers.
For example, China may say there is no tariff on imported steel. But will order the semi-state-controlled automobile manufacturers to use only Chinese steel in their factories.
So even though there is not a "tariff", per se, they still aren't buying American steel.
(That's just an illustration, by the way. I'm not talking about steel in particular. They've done similar things all across their centrally-planned economy.)
Trump realizes that... but you didn't. He's negotiating, using tariffs, to get China to bring down those other trade barriers. In an attempt to ultimately remove trade barriers and move closer to free trade.
Honestly. Learn a little about the subject you are discussing. He may be using tariffs, but only as a lever to eventually remove trade barriers.
It's not possible for Trump to start a "trade war" with China. They've been at trade war with us for decades. You just didn't know it, and past administrations were sitting on their thumbs.
... on average, I estimate (and maybe even estimate badly, but that's my guess) something else is claiming the underdeveloped countries are in danger from X and we must therefore give them money Y.
It's not exactly like clockwork, but more like the tides versus a clock. Not regular, but repeated.
Most people have no real idea about the actual history of Net Neutrality.
We had de facto net neutrality regulations for 6 of about the last 7 1/2 years. And not was so bad that hardly anybody even noticed.
We also had Title II coverage when the internet was all done over phone landlines.
Which means that actually, during the majority of the history of the Internet in the United States, it was covered by one or another version of Net Neutrality.
When cable companies started offering Internet services, the FCC agreed to not try to regulate them as long as they voluntarily agreed to certain Net Neutrality rules. So while it wasn't a matter of law, there were conditions for FCC keeping its hands off.
But over a period of about 15 years or so, the cable company lobbyists chipped and chipped and chipped away at these provisions until by 2015, there wasn't much left.
That's why a separate Net Neutrality regulation was passed in 2015.
And it should have stayed there. This notion that they will all play like nice competitive capitalists given lack of regulation is demonstrable BS. They cheated on the rules even when they were regulated.
EFF has a very good history of Net Neutrality on their website.
They had muzzle loading flintlocks. That's it. The Gatling gun wasn't invented until the 1861, in time for the Civil war. If you don't know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War then it's back to eighth grade history for you.
They didn't have gatling guns.
BUT repeating arms had been around since before the first British colony was established since 1606. They were just very expensive, that's all.
A fully automatic gun, called the "Puckle Gun" was invented in 1708. Here's a replica of it.
They didn't "not exist", they were just not affordable by your average army.
They were certainly known about by the founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written. So yeah... the guys who wrote the second amendment knew about repeating and even automatic guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Should have been "But neither police or courts are allowed to compel you to divulge..."
Actually, this doesn't violate any rights.
And I warned about this right here on Slashdot a month or two ago.
If they have a warrant to search, they can use whatever physical means they have on hand to do so. They can crack open your phone -- even if that means breaking it -- to diddle with the chips, for example. This is long settled 4th Amendment stuff. If you have a safe, then can break it open with explosives if they want. As long as they have that warrant.
What they cannot do, because of the 5th Amendment (not the 4th), is compel you to supply a password or PIN.
They can try to guess it all they like. That's within the rules. But neither police or courts are not allowed to compel you to divulge "a product of the mind", such as a password.
And I warned that this biometric stuff, like fingerprints and face recognition, would lead to just exactly this.
If you really want your phone to be secure (assuming there's no known backdoor), encrypt it with a good, long, well-thought-out password. Period. End of story.
My home internet connection caps at 1TB and I've come close to hitting that mark before.
I easily blow through 10GB in less than a day. Easily.
You're both ignorant of what's going on here.
China, for decades, has been engaging in very severely "protectionist" trade policies, which the prior 2 administrations just bent over for and didn't do a damned thing.
In particular, China engages in "hidden" barriers to trade, rather than tariffs. But they are no less barriers.
For example, China may say there is no tariff on imported steel. But will order the semi-state-controlled automobile manufacturers to use only Chinese steel in their factories.
So even though there is not a "tariff", per se, they still aren't buying American steel.
(That's just an illustration, by the way. I'm not talking about steel in particular. They've done similar things all across their centrally-planned economy.)
Trump realizes that... but you didn't. He's negotiating, using tariffs, to get China to bring down those other trade barriers. In an attempt to ultimately remove trade barriers and move closer to free trade.
Honestly. Learn a little about the subject you are discussing. He may be using tariffs, but only as a lever to eventually remove trade barriers.
It's not possible for Trump to start a "trade war" with China. They've been at trade war with us for decades. You just didn't know it, and past administrations were sitting on their thumbs.
... on average, I estimate (and maybe even estimate badly, but that's my guess) something else is claiming the underdeveloped countries are in danger from X and we must therefore give them money Y.
It's not exactly like clockwork, but more like the tides versus a clock. Not regular, but repeated.
I mean: after all, advertising $$ are what make news outlets.
It has always been that way.
Nope. Just advertising $$.
Which I think most people will agree is an important measure.
Google certainly does.
Fringe?
Breitbart is #198 in the Top 1000 international websites.
Just below Washington Post and HuffPo, and just above ESPN, Buzzfeed, and Walmart.
I think that's a bit more than "Fringe", bud.
Who would put surveillance equipment in a solar observatory when its findings are basically public anyway?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I don't think he didn't understand. I think he implied exactly that.
Having said that: I agree. EU would be cutting itself off from too much of the world economy, which would refuse to do business with them.
I sure as hell wouldn't.
Further prompting Brexit, by the way, which has been unconscionably delayed.
And that's exactly why it shouldn't be done.
What kind of dumbass wants to pay a premium for a car that someone can just disable with an entry in a database table?
No thanks.
I meant #1 paying profession.
I don't know whether there is an actual "actuary degree" these days.
Not much really new here.
Actuary was the #1 paying college major 40 years ago.
They should not be steering the ship.
That's the whole problem.
We're supposed to steer the ship. THEY are supposed to be the engines and rudders.
That's just a redirect to the same address.
And redirects you didn't ask for are not cool.
Not only that, but as someone else mentioned here, it's indecipherable.
For all you know (before clicking), that could go to some kiddie porn site.
Exactly.
I didn't say automatic. I said repeating.
A six-gun is a repeating arm, but it's not an automatic.
Most people have no real idea about the actual history of Net Neutrality.
We had de facto net neutrality regulations for 6 of about the last 7 1/2 years. And not was so bad that hardly anybody even noticed.
We also had Title II coverage when the internet was all done over phone landlines.
Which means that actually, during the majority of the history of the Internet in the United States, it was covered by one or another version of Net Neutrality.
When cable companies started offering Internet services, the FCC agreed to not try to regulate them as long as they voluntarily agreed to certain Net Neutrality rules. So while it wasn't a matter of law, there were conditions for FCC keeping its hands off.
But over a period of about 15 years or so, the cable company lobbyists chipped and chipped and chipped away at these provisions until by 2015, there wasn't much left.
That's why a separate Net Neutrality regulation was passed in 2015.
And it should have stayed there. This notion that they will all play like nice competitive capitalists given lack of regulation is demonstrable BS. They cheated on the rules even when they were regulated.
EFF has a very good history of Net Neutrality on their website.
It happened in 2015. But reversed before it took effect by Ajit Pai and friends.
Actually, ISPs were common carriers, back when the internet was on phone lines.
That was long ago. Now, there are more guns in Australia (and even a higher % of population with guns) than before the mandatory buy-back.
By the way: the Chinese made a repeating crossbow 4 centuries before Christ was born.
You just pulled the trigger, cranked the lever, and pulled the trigger again.
They had muzzle loading flintlocks. That's it. The Gatling gun wasn't invented until the 1861, in time for the Civil war. If you don't know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War then it's back to eighth grade history for you.
They didn't have gatling guns.
BUT repeating arms had been around since before the first British colony was established since 1606. They were just very expensive, that's all.
A fully automatic gun, called the "Puckle Gun" was invented in 1708. Here's a replica of it.
They didn't "not exist", they were just not affordable by your average army.
They were certainly known about by the founding fathers at the time the Constitution was written. So yeah... the guys who wrote the second amendment knew about repeating and even automatic guns.
My story is not intended to be any kind of "proof". It's merely an example.
That makes it a very powerful tool that you do not have the wherewithal to use carefully enough, so you should not be allowed near it.
Why would you choose a language that is the virtual equivalent of a huge dangerous tool, when there are better options available, like Rust or Go?
Because it's far faster and far smaller than either of them. WTF? How old are you?
Yes, it's dangerous. And that's why rookies like YOU should never be allowed to run free with it.
They aren't "better". They're "different". They have their own problems too. You're trading careful integrity for ease of use. Watch out, cowboy.
Yep.