But a government what works for it's citizens should not be so focused on breaking into our computers without due process.
The government needs to attack iPhones owned by foreign powers. It would be nice if the technology could be restricted to avoid use on citizens, but that's just not possible, except via regulations.
Look, we trust the government with: men with M-16's, fighter jets, and nukes. We have to to avoid getting conquered by China/Russia/Canada. Information warfare weapons are no less important.
What we can do is criminalize their use by state police agencies and rigorously enforce regulations against abuse.
Yup, and those small companies may all lease a self-driving car for their exclusive use. Or maybe you load in at the beginning of the work week and load out at the end (so people can move over the weekend.).
Police departments will be the last to get self-driving cars, as they wouldn't be able to run red lights whenever they are late to the doughnut shop with real enforced rules.
I mean, I get that it was "clever" to put analog audio pins in the USB-C standard. Sure, fewer ports. But I'm just going to have to plug a converter in, so build in the damn port.
Also, the lightning plug is very secure. microUSB always wear out due to there torus plug and pins on the inside design. I'm guessing USB-C does as well. Why isn't the plug a sold piece of metal that slots in?
Occasionally, there are 53 week years. This is because there are an extra 1.25 (technically, 1.2425) days that don't fall into a week in any given year. And things are done on week boundaries (mostly salaries). So every.... 7/1.25 years... they add an extra week.
Nonsense. You won't own a self-driving car. And then it will be illegal for you to drive a car one the road yourself. Your choice will be whether Google, Uber, or some third party tracks your every motion in their automated taxi service.
Alternatively, the smart criminals are using the dumb criminals to absorb all the vitriol, news attention, law enforcement and special council resources.
I was agreeing with you up to this point. They probably have a ceasefire with their competitor over patents and just use jointly use them to keep out the riffraff.
So is the problem that one can't just sit back and stop working/innovating and expect to get paid?
The problem is that if you come up with a great app, a company will come along, copy it, and put marketing dollars behind it. You won't "not continue to make money", your app won't have time to go viral before someone else's does. Look at Farmville - it was a pretty direct clone of an existing game. However, Zanga was able to copy it and market it such that more people saw Farmville first than the original. So the original developer didn't "develop a reputation", Zynga did. So the original developer didn't "stop getting paid", Zynga took all the money.
It repeats again and again. It's fine to say that don't like 95 year copyrights (we agree). It's another to say "your work will be ripped off by someone with a PR budget, and fuck you."
Except I gave examples where we're already doing that. In fact, felons are already forbidden to own a gun. It's not only the not a fundamental change, it's the status quo.
While most don't have a criminal conviction, they do usually have a record of interaction with the police.
We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help)
I thought, to encourage people to get help, their records were sealed and unopenable without their explicit consent. Or are there records of involuntary commitments that you are referring to?
Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
Unless you add in that it's a lot harder to earn enough money to buy a car than to earn enough money to buy a gun. But that's true of almost anything you compare to a car, except for other vehicles and real estate.
If someone has served their sentence for committing a crime, shouldn't they have their rights restored to them after that?
Because binary "you are being punished" or "you are not being punished" is coarse, stupid and was done away with a while ago. We recognize that serial DUI drivers don't ever deserve the freedom to not have an interlock that technically prevents (or at least inconvenience) drunk driving. We recognize that wife beaters should be forbidden from making contact with their wife after they get out. We recognize a need for a parole system that manages behavior while still allowing for some freedom.
I'm not saying every crime needs to have an inability to own a gun, but there are definitely some where that right should be forfeit forever.
ot quite show how the hell Trump could have not known this.
I'm not sure how he would know. His kids are too old (and he probably wasn't involved in helping choose their movies/games) for him to have personally seen it. Heck, I had no clue about the MPAA adding subratings, even though I've sat through that screen, because ratings have no information that I need to make decisions (at least right now). I know TV did, but only because they verbally announce the rating.
To figure out how blatant the opportunities were, we need to ask how many online threats and how many "my relative is..." tips the FBI gets. (Keep in mind the Orlando shooter had also been reported to the FBI by relatives.) There is a huge difference between "these reports were two in several million, and therefore only valuable in hindsight" and "these reports were among the three dozen that they investigated that year".
One aspect people fail to consider is that if your car reports your location to advertisers, it also can be compelled to report your location to law enforcement, creditors, lawyers.
Yep. Scary ain't it?
Not really. I'm far more scared of my data being reported to advertisers (people trying to manipulate me) and their associated big data tracking than creditors (I pay my bills, and don't really mind skiptracers finding deadbeats), law enforcement (I have no illusions about avoiding a manhunt) or lawyers (because this sounds like general lawyerbashing so I'm ignoring it). In other words, from that list only advertisers fall into the union of: "These assholes tracking you is unreasonable" and "These assholes tracking you can be stopped by reasonable measures"
Whatever else you want to say about the virtues of most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (where we have a difference of taste), Black Panther is NOT a typical example. Absent some of the required fight scenes/tie-ins/stupid villian name its not a comic book movie. It has a real plot.
Advertising is about selling you shit you don't need. Selling you shit you do need is easy
That's an oversimplification. There are three other cases I can think of:
(a) Buy my shit you need instead of my competitors' shit you need: I'm going to buy a new car. However, I haven't decided which new car I want want to buy. Advertising may convince me to get a Honda instead of a Toyota.
(b) Learn about this shit you really need: There was a time when toothbrushes and toothpaste weren't considered needs. People just sometimes lost teeth. At some point, there had to be education that you need that shit.
(c) I got some new shit here: Look, if I invent an anti-gravity surfboard, people are going to have to find out about it before they start handing me money. I'll probably get on the news with anti-gravity tech, but not with a new windshield wiper that lasts three times longer and costs $1 more.
Can someone just come by and inspect the house while it's being constructed? If it's not good enough, order it to be repaired/rebuilt?
As other people have explained, you cannot sufficiently inspect it post-hoc. But, were it possible, those "local homeless kids" you hired have the financial ability to make restorations. I mean, if a $50,000 job has to be redone cause you hired the lowest cost bidder, what are the odds you'll be able to collect that $50,000 back to hire someone else?
if you want, you can build your house yourself
The other thing you're missing is that licensing almost never prevents someone from acting on their own behalf. You can cut out your own appendix, act as your own lawyer, or frame your own house. It's when you start entering into commerce, and other people start relying on your work, that licenses come into play.
Slashdot Mirror
The government needs to attack iPhones owned by foreign powers. It would be nice if the technology could be restricted to avoid use on citizens, but that's just not possible, except via regulations.
Look, we trust the government with: men with M-16's, fighter jets, and nukes. We have to to avoid getting conquered by China/Russia/Canada. Information warfare weapons are no less important.
What we can do is criminalize their use by state police agencies and rigorously enforce regulations against abuse.
Yup, and those small companies may all lease a self-driving car for their exclusive use. Or maybe you load in at the beginning of the work week and load out at the end (so people can move over the weekend.).
Police departments will be the last to get self-driving cars, as they wouldn't be able to run red lights whenever they are late to the doughnut shop with real enforced rules.
Yes. And this was the case in NYC before they gave out taxi medallions. In fact, it's why they gave out taxi medallions.
I mean, I get that it was "clever" to put analog audio pins in the USB-C standard. Sure, fewer ports. But I'm just going to have to plug a converter in, so build in the damn port.
Also, the lightning plug is very secure. microUSB always wear out due to there torus plug and pins on the inside design. I'm guessing USB-C does as well. Why isn't the plug a sold piece of metal that slots in?
Occasionally, there are 53 week years. This is because there are an extra 1.25 (technically, 1.2425) days that don't fall into a week in any given year. And things are done on week boundaries (mostly salaries). So every.... 7/1.25 years... they add an extra week.
Wow, it's pretty much the exact plot of Contact, only destructive. Which is how Rick and Morty played it a few years ago.
Nonsense. You won't own a self-driving car. And then it will be illegal for you to drive a car one the road yourself. Your choice will be whether Google, Uber, or some third party tracks your every motion in their automated taxi service.
Alternatively, the smart criminals are using the dumb criminals to absorb all the vitriol, news attention, law enforcement and special council resources.
Sure there are: Ben Carson, Rex Tillerson and Ajit Pai. Note, IQ above room temperature does not preclude insanity, apathy or corruption.
Well, if your patent is worth in the 100's of millions, sure. But I believe they do have a ceasefire over their giant arrays of stupid patents.
I was agreeing with you up to this point. They probably have a ceasefire with their competitor over patents and just use jointly use them to keep out the riffraff.
The problem is that if you come up with a great app, a company will come along, copy it, and put marketing dollars behind it. You won't "not continue to make money", your app won't have time to go viral before someone else's does. Look at Farmville - it was a pretty direct clone of an existing game. However, Zanga was able to copy it and market it such that more people saw Farmville first than the original. So the original developer didn't "develop a reputation", Zynga did. So the original developer didn't "stop getting paid", Zynga took all the money.
It repeats again and again. It's fine to say that don't like 95 year copyrights (we agree). It's another to say "your work will be ripped off by someone with a PR budget, and fuck you."
Except I gave examples where we're already doing that. In fact, felons are already forbidden to own a gun. It's not only the not a fundamental change, it's the status quo.
While most don't have a criminal conviction, they do usually have a record of interaction with the police.
I thought, to encourage people to get help, their records were sealed and unopenable without their explicit consent. Or are there records of involuntary commitments that you are referring to?
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
Unless you add in that it's a lot harder to earn enough money to buy a car than to earn enough money to buy a gun. But that's true of almost anything you compare to a car, except for other vehicles and real estate.
Because binary "you are being punished" or "you are not being punished" is coarse, stupid and was done away with a while ago. We recognize that serial DUI drivers don't ever deserve the freedom to not have an interlock that technically prevents (or at least inconvenience) drunk driving. We recognize that wife beaters should be forbidden from making contact with their wife after they get out. We recognize a need for a parole system that manages behavior while still allowing for some freedom.
I'm not saying every crime needs to have an inability to own a gun, but there are definitely some where that right should be forfeit forever.
In fairness,you are at least half wrong. If there's no wall, then you can validly say that Mexico paid for it (or Greece, or you personally).
I'm not sure how he would know. His kids are too old (and he probably wasn't involved in helping choose their movies/games) for him to have personally seen it. Heck, I had no clue about the MPAA adding subratings, even though I've sat through that screen, because ratings have no information that I need to make decisions (at least right now). I know TV did, but only because they verbally announce the rating.
To figure out how blatant the opportunities were, we need to ask how many online threats and how many "my relative is..." tips the FBI gets. (Keep in mind the Orlando shooter had also been reported to the FBI by relatives.) There is a huge difference between "these reports were two in several million, and therefore only valuable in hindsight" and "these reports were among the three dozen that they investigated that year".
Or answered with "we are technically unable to do this". Apple's whole thing is "we won't keep data on you to turn over.
Not really. I'm far more scared of my data being reported to advertisers (people trying to manipulate me) and their associated big data tracking than creditors (I pay my bills, and don't really mind skiptracers finding deadbeats), law enforcement (I have no illusions about avoiding a manhunt) or lawyers (because this sounds like general lawyerbashing so I'm ignoring it). In other words, from that list only advertisers fall into the union of: "These assholes tracking you is unreasonable" and "These assholes tracking you can be stopped by reasonable measures"
Whatever else you want to say about the virtues of most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (where we have a difference of taste), Black Panther is NOT a typical example. Absent some of the required fight scenes/tie-ins/stupid villian name its not a comic book movie. It has a real plot.
I highly recommend you see it.
That's an oversimplification. There are three other cases I can think of:
(a) Buy my shit you need instead of my competitors' shit you need: I'm going to buy a new car. However, I haven't decided which new car I want want to buy. Advertising may convince me to get a Honda instead of a Toyota.
(b) Learn about this shit you really need: There was a time when toothbrushes and toothpaste weren't considered needs. People just sometimes lost teeth. At some point, there had to be education that you need that shit.
(c) I got some new shit here: Look, if I invent an anti-gravity surfboard, people are going to have to find out about it before they start handing me money. I'll probably get on the news with anti-gravity tech, but not with a new windshield wiper that lasts three times longer and costs $1 more.
As other people have explained, you cannot sufficiently inspect it post-hoc. But, were it possible, those "local homeless kids" you hired have the financial ability to make restorations. I mean, if a $50,000 job has to be redone cause you hired the lowest cost bidder, what are the odds you'll be able to collect that $50,000 back to hire someone else?
The other thing you're missing is that licensing almost never prevents someone from acting on their own behalf. You can cut out your own appendix, act as your own lawyer, or frame your own house. It's when you start entering into commerce, and other people start relying on your work, that licenses come into play.