"Over the past couple of centuries, automation has never shrunk the available work pool. Why would it start doing that now?"
Just an example off the top of my head: switchboard operators, but let's look into the future. Cashiers, delivery drivers, car washers, dishwashers, etc are all fair game to be eliminated within 10 years. We can see cases today where automation has shrunk the job pool for these positions today. Machines are increasing doing things like counting pills at pharmacies and providing customer service features. The very act of shrinking available jobs is enough to hurt, you don't even have to eliminate them 100%...just enough. Another big area of jobs that are shrinking today, very rapidly, are within the farming sector. Farmers need fewer and fewer farmhands. Heck, farmers have had self-driving tractors for a couple of decades now and remote monitoring is becoming a thing for the larger operations.
Yes and no. What the FBI wants is a way to do something to a phone to disable the "account lockout/erase phone" functionality on an iDevice so that they can just run password attempt after password attempt at the device and bruteforce their way in totally unhindered. The whole encryption debate has blown into something where most people think the FBI wants to stop encryption. The specific order to Apple only specifies that Apple should allow them the ability to bruteforce their way in after supply a special passcode/certificate/whatever. The issue with the encryption is a supposition on the basis that a couple of the orders seek information from Apple, but Apple cannot provide the info due to the information being encrypted with keys Apple does not have and thus POSSIBLY Apple would PRESUMABLY, be ordered to write backdoors into their encryption routines.
Either way this is all a little stupid. Don't have encryption on the phones...just give the ability to create a container that I have root to and an application acts like Truecrypt and encrypts the container's storage. I'll store all my terrorist activity there instead. Or don't even give me a container and I'll still have an application that can encrypt text/images/etc and hide my terrorist activity there. There is literally NO WAY the government can win. As long as the internet exists, I can find and get software for my phone.
Most OSes do this. On smartphones, services are used by apps to do things like notifications (Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc), keep critical things running (Alarm clocks, timers, etc), and other functions (yes even spying on you). This is done by design, because there's not really a better way of doing it. iOS does it (to some degree) as does Windows Mobile and Blackberry OS. What Google could have done is reviewed such apps and recognized the security risk and demanded disclosure, but the act of having a "service" is hardly an issue.
So he's building a "cloud platform" for cars and he didn't bother checking to see if fast internet was available BEFORE purchasing the lease? Then his next braintard was to go out and get Crapcast? I'm more than certain that in Mountain View, there are plenty of other options. This company won't be going places.
Perhaps it's time to start shifting the economic model? It'll likely happen whether you like it or not. Automation will continue to take over jobs and it'll continue to shrink the available job pool. Advances in material science and engineering will lower the amount of maintenance needed for a machine and may provide opportunities to automate machine maintenance. There will come a point where "having a job" won't simply be possible for the vast majority of people. Not everyone can be programmers or senior executives. Whether you like it or not we're moving that way and it won't stop or slow down. The human worker is becoming obsolete and the way we take of our weaker parts of society will set the stage for how we take care of ourselves in the future.
COBRA is prohibitively expensive for the majority of people it would apply to. There's no real good argument against Single Payer other than "it would hurt precious insurance companies." I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in a Japanese, British, Nordic, French, or German hospital. Arguably their care is about the same as the care that 99% of us get at a hospital. Where 'MURICA shines is the few who can afford to pay far beyond what insurance pays and bring in the absolute best...but that's not 99% of us.
Wait? What community? The Linux one? So are the LibreSSL guys not part of the Linux community anymore? What about the PolarSSL guys? The "Linux community" deals with Linux and arguably each distro is a subset of that community. The third-party packages (or rather the developers of those packages) aren't. At best they just work with the Linux community when needed (testing, getting the updates shipped, etc).
The team working on OpenSSL is not the same team working on Linux. This is like being upset because the Photoshop team is thin on resources so you dump Windows. It's, frankly, a stupid thing to think.
Considering that at the State level it's generally the DoD that classifies or declassifies documents and not the FBI, I find your claim dubious at best.
Personally I believe the average Trump supporter is happy that Trump is acting like a bigot. Asking "protestors" if they're Mexican, calling people bimbos, etc. Essentially his supporters feel that Trump says anything he needs to without concern if it's "PC." They want to be able to call people racist or bigoted names. No sane person can honestly say any of Trump's unspecific one-liner "policies" are worthwhile. "WE'LL MAKE MEXICO BUILD A WALL AND THEY'LL PAY FOR IT AND BE HAPPY TO DO IT" isn't a plan. Anyone who thinks it is, shouldn't vote. No really, I believe that -- you're stupid and have no right to do something as dangerous as choose the leaders of this nation. If the Founding Fathers knew what we were seriously considering they'd have written out the right for the average low brow moron to vote. Voter laziness and stupidity has surpassed anything our nation's founders could have dreamed.
1. Does it play Skyrim? Batttlefield? Eve Online? Or any other number of good games that people play en masse? Do you play games or are you one of those who doesn't play games, but believe that 30 different chess engines are the same as some of the top games in the world?
2. Macros, brah. Most businesses use Excel sheets with Macros. Some are compatible and some are not. VBAScript isn't heavily supported either and guess what? Those are in use too.
3. And? My office worked with Microsoft to get discounts to their employees for Windows, Office, etc. I run applications that are not available on Linux. I'm not interested in playing the version matching game that is WINE.
4. It's not hard. I dual boot Linux for whenever I feel the need to get my gibbies wet. Frankly I use Windows because I don't particularly mind it. As for privacy -- if you're on the internet you're not private, but regardless I don't really care about the privacy bit. I don't do stupid crap that would embarrass me if everyone knew. So I like porn, who cares? I only pay for stuff via credit card so like if you steal it...not really my problem. It's probably been stolen 10 times with all of the data breaches. I'm not liable. The stuff I'm worried about for privacy are things that are offline. Which is where they should remain if you have any REAL desire for privacy.
The excuse is that you own a license for the OS. You don't own its content. And most people will not agree with you. Linux and Apple don't have applications that Windows does. They don't have all of the games. MS is still, by far and wide, the biggest laptop/desktop player in town. Bar none. Getting all pissy doesn't change the fact that people aren't going to move to Linux or Crapple any faster because of something lie this. It's an ad and people see them whenever they browse, watch tv, or drive down the road. More people will leave Windows over them removing the start menu button than they will over ads.
I want my phone to know the lottery numbers in advance. I want my phone to automatically know what I want, before I know I want it, and have whatever I want ready for me once I realized I wanted whatever it was. I want my phone to be able to create time ports so I can go to the future and get the next version of the phone with money I put into bonds. I want my phone to attack talking dogs with speech impediments.
Fair enough. I should have said systems configured to automatically update -- which Linux, Windows, OSX, and so on can do. I will grant that on Linux and perhaps on Mac OSX it is opt-in (not sure on Mac...) and on Windows it is opt-out. But the point remains valid, the attack vector exists anywhere. To elaborate on my example, it's like having Windows in your house that you can open up to let the breeze in. Some houses have them locked when you move in, others do not. Again the article would be newsworthy with a discussion on various approaches to securing this vulnerability. I still stand by my statement that this is basically a "duuuuhhh" type article and not newsworthy. Forgive me for not clarifying it further.
I hate Apple as much as the next anti-Apple-fan boy, but come on. Literally EVERY OS has this concern. I wouldn't call it a backdoor anymore than I would suggest that having a window not made out of bulletproof glass is an open invitation for robbers into your house. In other words, this is sort of like "duhhhhhhh" material and hardly newsworthy. Now having an open and honest discussion about the security of update services for OS and the security methodologies employed, would be a fantastic article.
Businesses don't have a choice. They report the breaches or they should be shut down and the executive officers should go to jail. Businesses are not above the law and they're required to report breaches. And I completely disagree with your reasonable ground...breaches will happen, but there's no reason that not every byte of data in the database isn't encrypted. There's no reason that every server shouldn't have the latest security patches, that penetration testing and social engineering testing isn't done monthly, and that every company workstation is secured, email is filtered, and end-users cannot run/install applications that they haven't been given specific access to. That would be reasonable, but it doesn't happen because businesses make the decision that it's cheaper to pay a measly fine as a "cost of doing business" and they leave their customers/employees out in the cold to pick up the pieces after a breach happens. It's reckless and should be treated as coldly and harshly as they treat MY data.
...from risk "acceptance" to risk mitigation and avoidance. Too long companies haven't been going that extra mile because, hey, it's cheaper to pay out for the 2--3 years of credit monitoring and letting customers spend hundreds of hours and potential legal/attorney/specialist fees to clean up the mess. When risk "acceptance" is saying "eh...3 million stolen IDs is cheaper than it would be to put serious effort into making it very hard to get those IDs from us" then we will NEVER be clear of this. I hope Anthem gets hit with billions in lawsuits and gets crippled. It'll serve as a nice warning to every other major company in the US that it's time to start taking security seriously or your businesses will start getting sunk.
I would disagree with it not being truthful. I think the real debate is whether the company is intentionally screwing over drivers by cutting fares while dumping hundreds of millions in China just to establish a foothold. It's not really a debate that Uber is asking non-Chinese drivers to take a lower fare, but is spending big money in another market. Hence the reason for my questioning AC's being marked down.
I'm unclear why you're being marked down, it's not an untrue statement. Even if it's not intentional, it's certainly happening. Uber cut rates and while they offered a "guarantee' the prices posted are before Uber takes a 20% cut (again...even off of the "guaranteed fee"). Uber didn't drop their commission rate with the cuts and is, instead, spending gobs of money in China. This would appear, by any reasonable person, to look like they're exploiting their US-based Uber drivers. I can't see a good reason to really disagree with him other than to say "well maybe it's not intentional." And that's not really a disagreement about the nature of what his message throwing out.
What they're doing is closing down the internal IT shop, bringing in a vendor, and it JUST so happens to be that the vendor uses H1B Visas. They save money and call it a cost-reduction strategy and it's just "weird man" how that works out against our favor. I say shut that shit down. If your company needs someone that out of the 300 million people in the US can't do...well you fucking pay to train someone. Otherwise you accepted the risk when you decided to not have a backup.
But wait, all these marketing people keep telling me that they're important. That they know how to make people buy something that they don't want or care about! Oh think of the advertising budgets why don't you!?
It's more about acceptable risk in non-critical applications. If you're relying on someone else's service chances are that what you're doing isn't that critical. After all, if you can read Facebook's data, so can other people. The competitive advantage then transforms into not WHAT you have, but HOW you present it or HOW you handle the data. If you're using someone else's data that anyone else, ostensibly, has access to then your application isn't really critical to anyone anywhere. So you can feel free to code within a higher risk acceptability metric.
Slashdot Mirror
"Over the past couple of centuries, automation has never shrunk the available work pool. Why would it start doing that now?"
Just an example off the top of my head: switchboard operators, but let's look into the future. Cashiers, delivery drivers, car washers, dishwashers, etc are all fair game to be eliminated within 10 years. We can see cases today where automation has shrunk the job pool for these positions today. Machines are increasing doing things like counting pills at pharmacies and providing customer service features. The very act of shrinking available jobs is enough to hurt, you don't even have to eliminate them 100%...just enough. Another big area of jobs that are shrinking today, very rapidly, are within the farming sector. Farmers need fewer and fewer farmhands. Heck, farmers have had self-driving tractors for a couple of decades now and remote monitoring is becoming a thing for the larger operations.
Yes and no. What the FBI wants is a way to do something to a phone to disable the "account lockout/erase phone" functionality on an iDevice so that they can just run password attempt after password attempt at the device and bruteforce their way in totally unhindered. The whole encryption debate has blown into something where most people think the FBI wants to stop encryption. The specific order to Apple only specifies that Apple should allow them the ability to bruteforce their way in after supply a special passcode/certificate/whatever. The issue with the encryption is a supposition on the basis that a couple of the orders seek information from Apple, but Apple cannot provide the info due to the information being encrypted with keys Apple does not have and thus POSSIBLY Apple would PRESUMABLY, be ordered to write backdoors into their encryption routines.
Either way this is all a little stupid. Don't have encryption on the phones...just give the ability to create a container that I have root to and an application acts like Truecrypt and encrypts the container's storage. I'll store all my terrorist activity there instead. Or don't even give me a container and I'll still have an application that can encrypt text/images/etc and hide my terrorist activity there. There is literally NO WAY the government can win. As long as the internet exists, I can find and get software for my phone.
Most OSes do this. On smartphones, services are used by apps to do things like notifications (Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc), keep critical things running (Alarm clocks, timers, etc), and other functions (yes even spying on you). This is done by design, because there's not really a better way of doing it. iOS does it (to some degree) as does Windows Mobile and Blackberry OS. What Google could have done is reviewed such apps and recognized the security risk and demanded disclosure, but the act of having a "service" is hardly an issue.
So he's building a "cloud platform" for cars and he didn't bother checking to see if fast internet was available BEFORE purchasing the lease? Then his next braintard was to go out and get Crapcast? I'm more than certain that in Mountain View, there are plenty of other options. This company won't be going places.
Perhaps it's time to start shifting the economic model? It'll likely happen whether you like it or not. Automation will continue to take over jobs and it'll continue to shrink the available job pool. Advances in material science and engineering will lower the amount of maintenance needed for a machine and may provide opportunities to automate machine maintenance. There will come a point where "having a job" won't simply be possible for the vast majority of people. Not everyone can be programmers or senior executives. Whether you like it or not we're moving that way and it won't stop or slow down. The human worker is becoming obsolete and the way we take of our weaker parts of society will set the stage for how we take care of ourselves in the future.
It's like giving a rapist a job as a sex toy consultant.
Well if you put the Seamonkey in water, I hear it comes back to life.
COBRA is prohibitively expensive for the majority of people it would apply to. There's no real good argument against Single Payer other than "it would hurt precious insurance companies." I wouldn't feel uncomfortable in a Japanese, British, Nordic, French, or German hospital. Arguably their care is about the same as the care that 99% of us get at a hospital. Where 'MURICA shines is the few who can afford to pay far beyond what insurance pays and bring in the absolute best...but that's not 99% of us.
Wait? What community? The Linux one? So are the LibreSSL guys not part of the Linux community anymore? What about the PolarSSL guys? The "Linux community" deals with Linux and arguably each distro is a subset of that community. The third-party packages (or rather the developers of those packages) aren't. At best they just work with the Linux community when needed (testing, getting the updates shipped, etc).
The team working on OpenSSL is not the same team working on Linux. This is like being upset because the Photoshop team is thin on resources so you dump Windows. It's, frankly, a stupid thing to think.
Considering that at the State level it's generally the DoD that classifies or declassifies documents and not the FBI, I find your claim dubious at best.
Personally I believe the average Trump supporter is happy that Trump is acting like a bigot. Asking "protestors" if they're Mexican, calling people bimbos, etc. Essentially his supporters feel that Trump says anything he needs to without concern if it's "PC." They want to be able to call people racist or bigoted names. No sane person can honestly say any of Trump's unspecific one-liner "policies" are worthwhile. "WE'LL MAKE MEXICO BUILD A WALL AND THEY'LL PAY FOR IT AND BE HAPPY TO DO IT" isn't a plan. Anyone who thinks it is, shouldn't vote. No really, I believe that -- you're stupid and have no right to do something as dangerous as choose the leaders of this nation. If the Founding Fathers knew what we were seriously considering they'd have written out the right for the average low brow moron to vote. Voter laziness and stupidity has surpassed anything our nation's founders could have dreamed.
1. Does it play Skyrim? Batttlefield? Eve Online? Or any other number of good games that people play en masse? Do you play games or are you one of those who doesn't play games, but believe that 30 different chess engines are the same as some of the top games in the world?
2. Macros, brah. Most businesses use Excel sheets with Macros. Some are compatible and some are not. VBAScript isn't heavily supported either and guess what? Those are in use too.
3. And? My office worked with Microsoft to get discounts to their employees for Windows, Office, etc. I run applications that are not available on Linux. I'm not interested in playing the version matching game that is WINE.
4. It's not hard. I dual boot Linux for whenever I feel the need to get my gibbies wet. Frankly I use Windows because I don't particularly mind it. As for privacy -- if you're on the internet you're not private, but regardless I don't really care about the privacy bit. I don't do stupid crap that would embarrass me if everyone knew. So I like porn, who cares? I only pay for stuff via credit card so like if you steal it...not really my problem. It's probably been stolen 10 times with all of the data breaches. I'm not liable. The stuff I'm worried about for privacy are things that are offline. Which is where they should remain if you have any REAL desire for privacy.
The excuse is that you own a license for the OS. You don't own its content. And most people will not agree with you. Linux and Apple don't have applications that Windows does. They don't have all of the games. MS is still, by far and wide, the biggest laptop/desktop player in town. Bar none. Getting all pissy doesn't change the fact that people aren't going to move to Linux or Crapple any faster because of something lie this. It's an ad and people see them whenever they browse, watch tv, or drive down the road. More people will leave Windows over them removing the start menu button than they will over ads.
I want my phone to know the lottery numbers in advance. I want my phone to automatically know what I want, before I know I want it, and have whatever I want ready for me once I realized I wanted whatever it was. I want my phone to be able to create time ports so I can go to the future and get the next version of the phone with money I put into bonds. I want my phone to attack talking dogs with speech impediments.
Fair enough. I should have said systems configured to automatically update -- which Linux, Windows, OSX, and so on can do. I will grant that on Linux and perhaps on Mac OSX it is opt-in (not sure on Mac...) and on Windows it is opt-out. But the point remains valid, the attack vector exists anywhere. To elaborate on my example, it's like having Windows in your house that you can open up to let the breeze in. Some houses have them locked when you move in, others do not. Again the article would be newsworthy with a discussion on various approaches to securing this vulnerability. I still stand by my statement that this is basically a "duuuuhhh" type article and not newsworthy. Forgive me for not clarifying it further.
I hate Apple as much as the next anti-Apple-fan boy, but come on. Literally EVERY OS has this concern. I wouldn't call it a backdoor anymore than I would suggest that having a window not made out of bulletproof glass is an open invitation for robbers into your house. In other words, this is sort of like "duhhhhhhh" material and hardly newsworthy. Now having an open and honest discussion about the security of update services for OS and the security methodologies employed, would be a fantastic article.
Businesses don't have a choice. They report the breaches or they should be shut down and the executive officers should go to jail. Businesses are not above the law and they're required to report breaches. And I completely disagree with your reasonable ground...breaches will happen, but there's no reason that not every byte of data in the database isn't encrypted. There's no reason that every server shouldn't have the latest security patches, that penetration testing and social engineering testing isn't done monthly, and that every company workstation is secured, email is filtered, and end-users cannot run/install applications that they haven't been given specific access to. That would be reasonable, but it doesn't happen because businesses make the decision that it's cheaper to pay a measly fine as a "cost of doing business" and they leave their customers/employees out in the cold to pick up the pieces after a breach happens. It's reckless and should be treated as coldly and harshly as they treat MY data.
...from risk "acceptance" to risk mitigation and avoidance. Too long companies haven't been going that extra mile because, hey, it's cheaper to pay out for the 2--3 years of credit monitoring and letting customers spend hundreds of hours and potential legal/attorney/specialist fees to clean up the mess. When risk "acceptance" is saying "eh...3 million stolen IDs is cheaper than it would be to put serious effort into making it very hard to get those IDs from us" then we will NEVER be clear of this. I hope Anthem gets hit with billions in lawsuits and gets crippled. It'll serve as a nice warning to every other major company in the US that it's time to start taking security seriously or your businesses will start getting sunk.
I would disagree with it not being truthful. I think the real debate is whether the company is intentionally screwing over drivers by cutting fares while dumping hundreds of millions in China just to establish a foothold. It's not really a debate that Uber is asking non-Chinese drivers to take a lower fare, but is spending big money in another market. Hence the reason for my questioning AC's being marked down.
I'm unclear why you're being marked down, it's not an untrue statement. Even if it's not intentional, it's certainly happening. Uber cut rates and while they offered a "guarantee' the prices posted are before Uber takes a 20% cut (again...even off of the "guaranteed fee"). Uber didn't drop their commission rate with the cuts and is, instead, spending gobs of money in China. This would appear, by any reasonable person, to look like they're exploiting their US-based Uber drivers. I can't see a good reason to really disagree with him other than to say "well maybe it's not intentional." And that's not really a disagreement about the nature of what his message throwing out.
What they're doing is closing down the internal IT shop, bringing in a vendor, and it JUST so happens to be that the vendor uses H1B Visas. They save money and call it a cost-reduction strategy and it's just "weird man" how that works out against our favor. I say shut that shit down. If your company needs someone that out of the 300 million people in the US can't do...well you fucking pay to train someone. Otherwise you accepted the risk when you decided to not have a backup.
But wait, all these marketing people keep telling me that they're important. That they know how to make people buy something that they don't want or care about! Oh think of the advertising budgets why don't you!?
It's more about acceptable risk in non-critical applications. If you're relying on someone else's service chances are that what you're doing isn't that critical. After all, if you can read Facebook's data, so can other people. The competitive advantage then transforms into not WHAT you have, but HOW you present it or HOW you handle the data. If you're using someone else's data that anyone else, ostensibly, has access to then your application isn't really critical to anyone anywhere. So you can feel free to code within a higher risk acceptability metric.
Is gold or silver any different? That's pretty much ANY currency system.