Ok, and how do you prove which religion is the core of their very being? Because they said so? What if some non-devout follower of a headgear requiring religion wears headgear in the photograph when removing the headgear would NOT imperil their soul in their own belief? What is the legal test for a belief in an activity causing soul imperilment?
If a pastafarian said their religion is the very core of their being, why don't you trust them just because they said so?
No. One does not encourage a change in behaviour by openly defying the rules set by the powers that be. That method only works if the others respect the opinion of the one doing the defying. If my friends or family defy me, I don't like it because I care about their not defying me. If some stranger does it, I just think he's an asshole. If I don't respect what a stranger thinks, it merely serves to encourage division if he defies me.
More to the point, the offensive and destructive portions of racism have very little to do with whether or not they occupy the right part of a bus or give up their seats for the right people. Not only did Rosa Parks did the wrong thing, she targeted the wrong behavior!
Racially discriminated against people that partake in this bus seat occupation contest represent the greatest threat to the racial movement because they mirror all the behaviors most racially discriminated against people hate about the racially "privileged" ones. And... drop a few names... Rosa Parks was an asshole.
But say, you have a step sister you don't care about much (data you don't care much about if it goes missing or falls into wrong hands). You let her live with your fun buddy and not worry about it.
And, you have technology to make your sister enjoy the company of the fun buddy yet save her from bad effects (encryption and backup). You protect your sister using that technology and let her live with the fun buddy and not worry about it. The fun buddy doesn't make it easy to use the technology, but can't do much about it if you do.
I take serious exception to this. At worst, it will do worse than a human. Obviously. It is worst, remember?
CPUs are excellent at doing arithmetic. This doesn't mean there wasn't an famous and funny Intel CPU bug that reported 2+2=3.999999 or something like this.
Not quite. I've actually read about the Google vehicle
Hope the reading included the fact that they are not yet approved for use in most jurisdictions of the world. By the time they are approved, much might change, so your reading about a trial vehicle amounts to zilch. Which is what I mean by you also only commenting on YOUR imagination of what the "car" would be like, and not on facts. Because facts don't exist yet.
AND there are other autonomous car projects besides Google's. No doubt you have proof that Google's will be the one that is adopted, unchanged.
The idea that a human can opt to control the car (the topic of this discussion) is not an assumption, it is the way the car actually works, from the documentation provided thus far
Right, and laws have never been known to be made on the basis of imagined threats. "Think of the *" is a statement I am inventing right now with no history of being used for overreaching laws.
from the laws written so far.
And laws never change on the basis of new technology, especially when the technology starts getting spread wide. Got it.
Your NSA paranoia is your own, I don't share that at all and I will vote accordingly.
Yes, because Snowden's allegations have been proven utterly baseless.
All they have to do is have the lights all go red and you will be trapped in traffic.
Very impractical. The resulting traffic chaos will make the arrest more difficult than ever. Best bet currently is have specifically the victim's GPS tell them about wrong route - even that easily beatable by a victim who has a pair of eyes and looks before driving somewhere.
As compared to the "autonomous" car which simply "arrests" the contents of a particular car and brings them to prison. NSA spooks don't have to get off their asses. They will get some autonomous prison building machines also because existing prisons are already overflowing.
If phone and operating systems companies decide to go nuclear over something as simple as software interfaces - imaging how they will fight with this.
Ford cars will give wrong information to GM cars just to make GM cars look bad. GM, already expecting this, will ask Ford cars but not listen to their answer at all but ask the centralized GMCloud for data which is populated with data from GM cars only. But that will have been patented by Toyota by then, so Toyota will sue and win. But then President will use his by then acquired special powers to overrule courts to let GM doing it anyway.
They are reacting to what they think the vehicle will be like, rather than what they actually do
What else can people do when the vehicles are not widely available yet? Actually you are doing so yourself.
to enable her to remain independent
This is your reaction to what you think the vehicle will be like - you think it will make your mom independent. Like everybody else, you are also speculating / imagining the vehicle to be like something and commenting on it. So get off the high autonomous horse as if you are yourself not doing what everyone else is doing.
Exactly like others are concerned NSA will simply order the vehicles to "arrest" someone and bring over to prison rather than getting off their asses to do so.
While true, I have seen examples of one leg growing much bigger and stronger than another leg of the same person at the same time. Reason - a knee problem forcing him to subconsciously use one leg for most exercises.
Okay, sounds good to me. We pay them far, far more than the best-of-the-best who actually contribute to the good of humanity. I have no problem with our modern gladiators destroying their bodies in the process, to at least earn that fat wad o' cash.
Maybe you know it, but 1. These professions come with glamour. 2. People who don't know better would want to enter it, regardless of consequences. At least until they know better. 3. With the human body the way it is, typically a "sports star" has to start training way before adulthood. Where adulthood is defined as legally "knowing better". And this legal fact roughly mirrors moral idea of age of "knowing better" for many people in the jurisdiction. 4. Most wannabe "sports stars" fail to be sports stars but do well in other professions, content with following the game and playing amateur. Their one time ambition for sports stardom only enriches their life, typically improving their health. The time they wasted on the ambition would have been wasted on something else anyway, childhood and adolescence being what they are. 5. Now, in the "steroidally enlightened" world, even when these "failure" kids grow to be an adult and now officially "know better", they are unfit for any other job, or even life itself. So now, an immature ambition in a child costs him his life. 6. Everyone is immature at some time in their life.
You might be fine with it, but I completely understand how lots of people are not. I am with them.
People in the US don't BEGIN to understand the word "vary". In India, a currency note has the amount written in 16 languages. And half the population complains their language is not on it. How many languages are respected in the US? 2 is stretching it.
Religion? Haha. The US state apparatus, even the Constitution, gets away with references to the Christian God as if its the only possible idea of God, without much trouble. No state apparatus in India can survive a day without recognizing the religious pluralism, including a healthy dose of atheism of 2 varieties - original Buddhism and the one that springs from communism.
Forget about "vary", you will never understand it.
Yes, but (attempt to) making sure that *nobody* can crack this can be done together with trying to crack it themselves.
Even in an organization of 20 people, if some are trying to prevent public "crackage", others would try to crack it themselves. Skillsets of the two attempts are quite different - one needs diplomacy, physical coercion, dialoge with the Executive; the other needs pure cryptographical skills. NSA being so humongous, they'd be fools if they don't give their best at cracking it themselves.
So I was replying to your statement that since they know what is inside, cracking it won't help them. Which is not true. First thing any victim of burglary asks is - what the burglars took. Even if they know whatever they took was from their home.
Microsoft is a monopolist now. I assume they will try to utilize this monopoly for business advantage when they can
Contradicted by the "used to be" from yourself, quoted in bold below from your post.
You Now :
Assigning labels like "evil" and "good" to companies I leave to mentally retarded children. It's infantile
Ok, I don't believing in name calling, but you just called yourself one of mentally retarded children and infantile. See "evil" below, quoted in bold from your post.
You Earlier :
The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be
So decide if you are a mentally retarded child, and infantile; or not. If yes, how can I continue the discussion? If no, why did you assign labels like "evil" to companies?
So it was reasonable for Microsoft to release versions of their operating systems that would make the competitions applications not run? I don't think so
You just said it is reasonable for Microsoft to release a patch so that Google chrome browser doesn't run. I am done reminding you of your own statements. Enjoy talking to yourself as you can have a nice argument all by yourself without needing any one else.
I'll reply when you recall your own statements, at least those made in this thread.
Every person is first of all about self-preservation. Then anything else. Stay alive to fight another day.
Your statement is that a soldier should never take cover from enemy gunfire, but just expose his chest and fire on. Because that is all a soldier is about. It almost never happens in real life - soldiers have to take cover to protect themselves temporarily to ATTACK LATER. Few exceptions to this, prove the rule.
Look, 400 GB can not contain ALL of NSA's secrets. It is important for NSA to know which of the secrets are in the leaked 400 GB. Is it even true? Or just/dev/random ? Accordingly they may or may not agree to wikileaks' demands for not releasing the key to public.
Depending on their security system, it can also narrow down the list of potential leakers if they find out what was leaked. This is even more important than getting at the leaked data itself because it has to do with future leaks too.
Actually, it might be a good test of whether NSA has the ability to beat AES encryption. In that case, the decrypted files have information that will lead to some obvious action from NSA or Government at large, which will prove they beat encryption without the key.
I think NSA can't beat AES, but how can I be sure?
Confirming that will be a great service to mankind.
Again, "reasonable" for Microsoft to block something is when they stand to lose money or their business model. Like when Google chrome publishes Microsoft's source code (somehow).
Youtube lost money or their business model because of Microsoft's recent malicious behaviour.
Read again and then answer : People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, and how do you prove which religion is the core of their very being? Because they said so? What if some non-devout follower of a headgear requiring religion wears headgear in the photograph when removing the headgear would NOT imperil their soul in their own belief? What is the legal test for a belief in an activity causing soul imperilment?
If a pastafarian said their religion is the very core of their being, why don't you trust them just because they said so?
Ok, so it is 1955.
No. One does not encourage a change in behaviour by openly defying the rules set by the powers that be. That method only works if the others respect the opinion of the one doing the defying. If my friends or family defy me, I don't like it because I care about their not defying me. If some stranger does it, I just think he's an asshole. If I don't respect what a stranger thinks, it merely serves to encourage division if he defies me.
More to the point, the offensive and destructive portions of racism have very little to do with whether or not they occupy the right part of a bus or give up their seats for the right people. Not only did Rosa Parks did the wrong thing, she targeted the wrong behavior!
Racially discriminated against people that partake in this bus seat occupation contest represent the greatest threat to the racial movement because they mirror all the behaviors most racially discriminated against people hate about the racially "privileged" ones. And ... drop a few names ... Rosa Parks was an asshole.
Well played.
But say, you have a step sister you don't care about much (data you don't care much about if it goes missing or falls into wrong hands). You let her live with your fun buddy and not worry about it.
And, you have technology to make your sister enjoy the company of the fun buddy yet save her from bad effects (encryption and backup). You protect your sister using that technology and let her live with the fun buddy and not worry about it. The fun buddy doesn't make it easy to use the technology, but can't do much about it if you do.
at worst it will do no worse
I take serious exception to this. At worst, it will do worse than a human. Obviously. It is worst, remember?
CPUs are excellent at doing arithmetic. This doesn't mean there wasn't an famous and funny Intel CPU bug that reported 2+2=3.999999 or something like this.
Not quite. I've actually read about the Google vehicle
Hope the reading included the fact that they are not yet approved for use in most jurisdictions of the world. By the time they are approved, much might change, so your reading about a trial vehicle amounts to zilch. Which is what I mean by you also only commenting on YOUR imagination of what the "car" would be like, and not on facts. Because facts don't exist yet.
AND there are other autonomous car projects besides Google's. No doubt you have proof that Google's will be the one that is adopted, unchanged.
The idea that a human can opt to control the car (the topic of this discussion) is not an assumption, it is the way the car actually works, from the documentation provided thus far
Right, and laws have never been known to be made on the basis of imagined threats. "Think of the *" is a statement I am inventing right now with no history of being used for overreaching laws.
from the laws written so far.
And laws never change on the basis of new technology, especially when the technology starts getting spread wide. Got it.
Your NSA paranoia is your own, I don't share that at all and I will vote accordingly.
Yes, because Snowden's allegations have been proven utterly baseless.
No one would buy a car that would do this. There's no market for it
Yeah, no one would vote for a government which would do all the things Snowden is saying they did. There is no public support for it.
Wait! People DID vote for just such a government!! The paranoids have been proven "not paranoid enough".
All they have to do is have the lights all go red and you will be trapped in traffic.
Very impractical. The resulting traffic chaos will make the arrest more difficult than ever. Best bet currently is have specifically the victim's GPS tell them about wrong route - even that easily beatable by a victim who has a pair of eyes and looks before driving somewhere.
As compared to the "autonomous" car which simply "arrests" the contents of a particular car and brings them to prison. NSA spooks don't have to get off their asses. They will get some autonomous prison building machines also because existing prisons are already overflowing.
If phone and operating systems companies decide to go nuclear over something as simple as software interfaces - imaging how they will fight with this.
Ford cars will give wrong information to GM cars just to make GM cars look bad. GM, already expecting this, will ask Ford cars but not listen to their answer at all but ask the centralized GMCloud for data which is populated with data from GM cars only. But that will have been patented by Toyota by then, so Toyota will sue and win. But then President will use his by then acquired special powers to overrule courts to let GM doing it anyway.
They are reacting to what they think the vehicle will be like, rather than what they actually do
What else can people do when the vehicles are not widely available yet? Actually you are doing so yourself.
to enable her to remain independent
This is your reaction to what you think the vehicle will be like - you think it will make your mom independent. Like everybody else, you are also speculating / imagining the vehicle to be like something and commenting on it. So get off the high autonomous horse as if you are yourself not doing what everyone else is doing.
Exactly like others are concerned NSA will simply order the vehicles to "arrest" someone and bring over to prison rather than getting off their asses to do so.
the facts were publicly presented with honourable intent to publicly discredit them
FTFY
I'm sure Microsoft employs lots of professionals to audit their code as well
And to put in backdoors to be used at NSA's behest. Which may or may not align with Germany's interests.
TPM is great for security
Yes, security of the entity the module trusts. And of no one else.
but corps and governments should love it?!
Only the corp or government whom the module trusts. Rest all should doubly hate it.
While true, I have seen examples of one leg growing much bigger and stronger than another leg of the same person at the same time. Reason - a knee problem forcing him to subconsciously use one leg for most exercises.
So not completely true.
Okay, sounds good to me. We pay them far, far more than the best-of-the-best who actually contribute to the good of humanity. I have no problem with our modern gladiators destroying their bodies in the process, to at least earn that fat wad o' cash.
Maybe you know it, but
1. These professions come with glamour.
2. People who don't know better would want to enter it, regardless of consequences. At least until they know better.
3. With the human body the way it is, typically a "sports star" has to start training way before adulthood. Where adulthood is defined as legally "knowing better". And this legal fact roughly mirrors moral idea of age of "knowing better" for many people in the jurisdiction.
4. Most wannabe "sports stars" fail to be sports stars but do well in other professions, content with following the game and playing amateur. Their one time ambition for sports stardom only enriches their life, typically improving their health. The time they wasted on the ambition would have been wasted on something else anyway, childhood and adolescence being what they are.
5. Now, in the "steroidally enlightened" world, even when these "failure" kids grow to be an adult and now officially "know better", they are unfit for any other job, or even life itself. So now, an immature ambition in a child costs him his life.
6. Everyone is immature at some time in their life.
You might be fine with it, but I completely understand how lots of people are not. I am with them.
We have ~50 states that vary quite a bit
People in the US don't BEGIN to understand the word "vary". In India, a currency note has the amount written in 16 languages. And half the population complains their language is not on it. How many languages are respected in the US? 2 is stretching it.
Religion? Haha. The US state apparatus, even the Constitution, gets away with references to the Christian God as if its the only possible idea of God, without much trouble. No state apparatus in India can survive a day without recognizing the religious pluralism, including a healthy dose of atheism of 2 varieties - original Buddhism and the one that springs from communism.
Forget about "vary", you will never understand it.
Come on, get real. Abuse is just use that the author of the word "abuse" doesn't like. End of story.
If I don't like some use of law, I can perfectly cromulently call it abuse even if the corrupt legislators making the law intended that use.
Yes, but (attempt to) making sure that *nobody* can crack this can be done together with trying to crack it themselves.
Even in an organization of 20 people, if some are trying to prevent public "crackage", others would try to crack it themselves. Skillsets of the two attempts are quite different - one needs diplomacy, physical coercion, dialoge with the Executive; the other needs pure cryptographical skills. NSA being so humongous, they'd be fools if they don't give their best at cracking it themselves.
So I was replying to your statement that since they know what is inside, cracking it won't help them. Which is not true. First thing any victim of burglary asks is - what the burglars took. Even if they know whatever they took was from their home.
An organization run by persons who want to survive to fight another day. That wasn't hard, was it?
Not sure to whom to respond - one who feels it is reasonable for Microsoft to disable chrome on windows, or to one who feels it is not.
Could you clarify by explaining posts to the contrary?
You :
Microsoft is a monopolist now. I assume they will try to utilize this monopoly for business advantage when they can
Contradicted by the "used to be" from yourself, quoted in bold below from your post.
You Now :
Assigning labels like "evil" and "good" to companies I leave to mentally retarded children. It's infantile
Ok, I don't believing in name calling, but you just called yourself one of mentally retarded children and infantile. See "evil" below, quoted in bold from your post.
You Earlier :
The appropriate term is "utilizing a de-facto monopoly in one area to crush competition in another area". It is illegal. It is evil. It is what Microsoft used to be
So decide if you are a mentally retarded child, and infantile; or not. If yes, how can I continue the discussion? If no, why did you assign labels like "evil" to companies?
So it was reasonable for Microsoft to release versions of their operating systems that would make the competitions applications not run? I don't think so
You just said it is reasonable for Microsoft to release a patch so that Google chrome browser doesn't run. I am done reminding you of your own statements. Enjoy talking to yourself as you can have a nice argument all by yourself without needing any one else.
I'll reply when you recall your own statements, at least those made in this thread.
Every person is first of all about self-preservation. Then anything else. Stay alive to fight another day.
Your statement is that a soldier should never take cover from enemy gunfire, but just expose his chest and fire on. Because that is all a soldier is about. It almost never happens in real life - soldiers have to take cover to protect themselves temporarily to ATTACK LATER. Few exceptions to this, prove the rule.
You've never lost something, have you?
Look, 400 GB can not contain ALL of NSA's secrets. It is important for NSA to know which of the secrets are in the leaked 400 GB. Is it even true? Or just /dev/random ? Accordingly they may or may not agree to wikileaks' demands for not releasing the key to public.
Depending on their security system, it can also narrow down the list of potential leakers if they find out what was leaked. This is even more important than getting at the leaked data itself because it has to do with future leaks too.
Actually, it might be a good test of whether NSA has the ability to beat AES encryption. In that case, the decrypted files have information that will lead to some obvious action from NSA or Government at large, which will prove they beat encryption without the key.
I think NSA can't beat AES, but how can I be sure?
Confirming that will be a great service to mankind.
Again, "reasonable" for Microsoft to block something is when they stand to lose money or their business model. Like when Google chrome publishes Microsoft's source code (somehow).
Youtube lost money or their business model because of Microsoft's recent malicious behaviour.
Read again and then answer : People using Youtube app use Google's resources, costing Google money. Google has to see value in letting its resources being used, and control the way it is used so that not only it brings revenue but doesn't expose loopholes as Microsoft are abusive with permissions e.g. the earlier episode of letting people download videos.