It is implausible, but not for all the reasons you state. Hence constant vigilance is required more than you make it appear.
To record constantly would consume too much power
The GP didn't say "constantly", nor "always". User trust is broken even if it record once without permission. It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
and would also need to either transmit a lot of data or do power-hungry processing
Not immediately transmit. Steganographically transmit when it is transferring something else with user permission. Local processing is unlikely - but again, their decision. If they do decide to do local processing, they could hide it opportunistically when there is some other processing power spike.
Simple traffic analysis will tell you if recordings are being transmitted
Steganography renders it less simple.
Simple power analysis (power spike when talking to decode the speech) will tell you if the phone is transcribing your words.
Opportunism renders it less simple.
Also, it's quite hard to hide anything in an Android ROM. If there was any audio collection mechanism it would surely be discovered, just like Apple's "accidental" recording of location data was, just like HTC's plain-text fingerprint storage was.
Yes, that is correct. It gets easier to hide things the less open the architecture gets, but currently it is hard to hide things. But only from smart investigators. Who investigate only because they don't believe your other untrue arguments for implausibility.
If they only do it once in every 100 OS / phone / app builds, they could sow a lot of disagreements in casual testers. If this keeps changing in a downloaded app, all the better. Any whistle blower discredited is a win for Zuckerberg.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ? Any significant case history where privacy violation led to losses for big companies or jails for rich individuals ? By the laws we are making and upholding, are we even telling them to stop violating privacy , except in empty words and rhetoric ?
'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology.
1. Hate communication is older than speech itself. Wolves communicate to express hate. Literally, internet non-audio communication is also not "speech" as in human vocal cords being involved, so if wolves are excluded from "speech", so are internet communications. If you deem human language necessary for "speech", hate speech is tens of thousands of years old. The "concept" of hate speech, on the other hand, only developed with civilization, which is "only thousands of years new". Especially in the US, where it has been legal hence not an interesting concept, it is relatively new - as the so-called SJWs are "punishing" hate speech by their own extra-legal means. Yeah, decades new.
Calling 'Hate speech" new makes any sense only after giving so many concessions. This makes the (US) American definition of "conservatives" almost seem logical in comparison.
2. Even if hate speech is new, conservatives will also find the "progressive" (change embracing) communication worthy of bans. So if moderators are "conservative", they could ban progressive speech and if moderators are progressive, they could ban conservative speech. So only if you give evidence of moderators being largely progressive, does it make any sense that conservatives are more moderated as hate speech.
That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.
Another consequence - conservatives moderate progressive speech as hate speech.
If you are saying conservatives, being vehemently resistant to change, refuse categorically to use the new tool called "moderating" :
1. They would also refuse to use the communication (speech) tool which was being moderated in the first place 2. Every breath is a new one, every day is a new one - if such vehemence against change is being assumed no conservative should be alive today. 3. Hence, the commonly observed distribution of conservatism needs to be assumed to explain obvious reality - different people would be conservative to different extents about different topics. Here, the relevant conservatives are those who already have embraced the newer tools of communication that are subject to moderation. Hence : 3a. Being "less conservative", they could also have embraced moderation to mark progressive speech as "hate speech". 3b. They could be less conservative about using moderation than about potato farming - hence they could freely moderate progressive speech about potato farming as "hate speech".
Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.
Americans (US) have created stupid labels like Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, even Republicans unrelated to the idea of a republic and Democrats unrelated to the idea of democracy. When they use these words, it means nothing logical. The definition you have supplied is logical, hence not applicable in American discourse.
2.
I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definition_.
How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.
Or are you saying the people doing the moderating are always non-conservative hence they will not agree with conservatives much ? If so, I don't see any evidence for that either unless you are talking about some moderators I haven't heard of.
The problem with using a logical definition is that you are able to, hence expected to, deduce more logically and state your assumptions if any. Americans have exempted themselves from this requirement by using non-logical definitions.
Double blind study does not take long to start. It takes long to finish. I an not talking about the finishing of the double blind study, I am taking about the duration of the double blind study.
Double blind study is not just the direct path to approval : along the way to approval, it is also the fast track for usage.
All participants in the double blind study are on the "fast track" to use an experimental drug - at least those that don't get placebo. All participants in the double blind study are experimental users of the "unapproved drug".
If someone wants to be on the fast track to use an experimental drug, they can volunteer to be on the double blind study - and voilà : within one or two days of preparation for the study, they are on the experimental drug.
If someone wants to benefit from the knowledge of mankind (use an experimental drug for free, that took a lot of money to develop ) it is only fair that they contribute to the knowledge of mankind (participate in the double blind study).
You say a double blind study is expensive. That is irrelevant. Since it is indispensable : being expensive is no argument for not doing it. Nor is it an argument for a particular patient to not participate in the double blind study : as it is not expensive for the patient. Too bad if you get placebo. Or maybe lucky people get placebo.
While there do need to be double blind studies, there also needs to be a "fast usage" track for drugs like this
The double blind studies ARE the fast usage track.
The doctor is supposed to ask terminally ill / patients with extreme symptoms if they want to participate in a study about unproven but promising drug. The next-of-kin decide if the patient is deemed unable to decide for himself. The drug is promising because of in-vitro / animal studies. There is a chance they will get placebo - neither the patient nor the doctor will know. The "promising" drug is generally free for such patients, and some additional monitoring for regular intake of the medicine is installed. I've seen patients being provided with a device that needs to be updated after every intake of drug. This is simpler for in-patients, of course.
If you sweat a lot when you work, and you're already in shape, it often means you'll be able to work or exercise a lot harder than the next person, especially on a hot day
1. Only if you keep consuming water. Otherwise you die of dehydration before the "next person".
2. While sweat helps in heat dissipation, this does not mean more sweat always results in more heat dissipation. At any given temperature, humidity level and wind-speed relative to your body, there is an ideal amount of sweat per unit time. More sweat than that - and you are wasting water (and the other minerals in the sweat). Less sweat than that, and you are not cooling yourself fast enough.
The example of Houston is important because in humid conditions, sweat is not that helpful in cooling the human body.
If TSLA stock is that underpriced, why don't you make a fortune with it ? Invest borrowed money in it, and voila - Rei is richer than Jeff Bezos within a decade. By informing others about this great opportunity, you are spoiling your own chances of profit.
Except for patents, is there any reason why GM etc. cannot quickly start battery production of their own? For double points, they hire ex-Tesla employees or conduct some good-natured spying / social engineering to learn from Tesla's manufacturing ?
And if Tesla sues GM etc. for patent infringements - can't they use 2-fold strategy ? 1. At least produce batteries where Tesla hasn't registered those patents. GM etc. have presence in around hundred countries , I guess ?
2. Counter-sue Tesla and keep the lawyers busy until patents expire. Past century of automobile production experience has to count for something ?
GPL, one of his babies, already limits freedom more than some other licenses that preceded it (and even followed it). GPLv3 is far more limiting than the initial GPL he released. This limiting of freedom is one of the common criticisms against GPL - by supporters of less limiting licenses like MIT / BSD etc.
Freedom is a complex concept. Frequently, you have to limit / subdue freedom for an overall improved freedom environment. This is what Stallman has always understood better than others - and he continues to do that.
No groundbreaking event has actually happened in him saying this.
please refrain from trying to define exactly what corporatism/fascism/socialism is and then argue from that
The post which you linked to, explains there is no value in arguing about the exact definition of socialism (and some other isms). Because, as you correctly point(ed) out, there are too many definitions, none would satisfy all people.
But there is a lot of value in defining exactly what one means by socialism (and some other isms) and then arguing from that. That is the basis of any logical argument. This is the reason law and science exactly defines seemingly well-defined terms - and then argue from that. So much so that a layman sometimes doesn't understand what is meant by simple words like "flood" in law. Or "power" in physics. Or "depression" in psychology.
Such "argument from that" would not be applicable to any other definition of socialism, of course.
So basically you don't even disagree with what Stallman really said. But you imagine him to be saying something he isn't and then you disagree with THAT.
gravewax said ".EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations."
Doesn't directly say when the entity resides in the EU - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.
The ones I listed are eligibility criteria. Does not directly say when they are to be applied - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.
The other parts of the document say that the Registry "may" revoke , but not when or whether it is necessary for it to revoke immediately. gravewax also didn't say that the Registry "has to" do anything - at least in this thread.
These domains were properly registered by EU people, who have built communities and businesses under these names. Taking them away, after they were properly and legitimately registered and may have been in active use for several years is petty.
1. UK people should have thought about this when voting to exit. Actions have consequences.
2. If they have significant business presence in the EU, they can get an EU address and register. In breaking any relationship, there are some "problems" - you need to do some work to keep using the advantages of the relationship.
3. Why should the EU "communities" do business with non-EU businesses which are in a jurisdiction that doesn't even agree to abide by EU rules , under false pretense of a.eu TLD giving them a false sense of the business being subject to EU rules ?
These are the principles why there are laws against false advertising , trademark infringement, bait and switch etc. Your TLD says something about the rules you operate under - let that something be the truth.
I understand why you didn't quote the "claim". Because you are being dishonest about it.
Read:
If you work in tech
and you haven't deleted Facebook already, you're behind the curve I'm afraid. You KNOW what they're doing. Why are you still there ?
It does not mean what your strawman said:
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
Specifically, "you know what they're doing" does not mean "everyone knew that Facebook leaked information like a sieve".
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
As usual, you are inverting the burden of proof. It is not up to Facebook avoiders / avoidance enthusiasts to prove that information is / will be leaked. It is up to Facebook to prove that it could not be. Since it cannot be unleaked once leaked.
just applying post hoc confirmation of your prior irrationally
No, it is "evidence" for people who do not understand logic, who earlier mistakenly claimed that Facebook not having been caught as a vector of large scale data abuse is proof that it is impossible. While it was always a mistaken claim, now the prior action is increasingly justified even according to their faulty logic.
Now that we see how leaky Facebook has been, our estimate of probability of actual harm from leakage of private data must increase
Only with foresight impaired massively. If you can't plan your way out of a paper bag. Since they cannot un-share the information they shared, or willingly allowed to be shared with Facebook earlier. And this was known with full certainty all along - data can never provably be "deleted" at a remote location not controlled by you.
I don't have facebook, because I value my privacy.
But privacy is an excuse, and it's not cool to...
So, if he said "I don't use facebook, because I value my privacy.", it would be "cool" ? Isn't not having something is a nice way of not using it, in general ? And in the specific case of Facebook, isn't not having it a nice way of using it less?
Or are you saying it is the duty of everyone to make an account with Facebook ? Or "have" Facebook with some other definition like installing the App on one's phone and staying logged into it ? So that idiots who like to tag people can tag the specific Mohammed Lee that is me instead of just saying "Mohammed Lee" and letting Facebook do the hard work of finding out which one they mean ?
In essence, what is wrong with not having it in order to value one's privacy ?
Slashdot Mirror
It is implausible, but not for all the reasons you state. Hence constant vigilance is required more than you make it appear.
To record constantly would consume too much power
The GP didn't say "constantly", nor "always". User trust is broken even if it record once without permission. It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
and would also need to either transmit a lot of data or do power-hungry processing
Not immediately transmit. Steganographically transmit when it is transferring something else with user permission. Local processing is unlikely - but again, their decision. If they do decide to do local processing, they could hide it opportunistically when there is some other processing power spike.
Simple traffic analysis will tell you if recordings are being transmitted
Steganography renders it less simple.
Simple power analysis (power spike when talking to decode the speech) will tell you if the phone is transcribing your words.
Opportunism renders it less simple.
Also, it's quite hard to hide anything in an Android ROM. If there was any audio collection mechanism it would surely be discovered, just like Apple's "accidental" recording of location data was, just like HTC's plain-text fingerprint storage was.
Yes, that is correct. It gets easier to hide things the less open the architecture gets, but currently it is hard to hide things. But only from smart investigators. Who investigate only because they don't believe your other untrue arguments for implausibility.
If they only do it once in every 100 OS / phone / app builds, they could sow a lot of disagreements in casual testers. If this keeps changing in a downloaded app, all the better. Any whistle blower discredited is a win for Zuckerberg.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ? Any significant case history where privacy violation led to losses for big companies or jails for rich individuals ? By the laws we are making and upholding, are we even telling them to stop violating privacy , except in empty words and rhetoric ?
'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology.
1. Hate communication is older than speech itself. Wolves communicate to express hate. Literally, internet non-audio communication is also not "speech" as in human vocal cords being involved, so if wolves are excluded from "speech", so are internet communications.
If you deem human language necessary for "speech", hate speech is tens of thousands of years old.
The "concept" of hate speech, on the other hand, only developed with civilization, which is "only thousands of years new". Especially in the US, where it has been legal hence not an interesting concept, it is relatively new - as the so-called SJWs are "punishing" hate speech by their own extra-legal means. Yeah, decades new.
Calling 'Hate speech" new makes any sense only after giving so many concessions. This makes the (US) American definition of "conservatives" almost seem logical in comparison.
2. Even if hate speech is new, conservatives will also find the "progressive" (change embracing) communication worthy of bans. So if moderators are "conservative", they could ban progressive speech and if moderators are progressive, they could ban conservative speech. So only if you give evidence of moderators being largely progressive, does it make any sense that conservatives are more moderated as hate speech.
That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.
Another consequence - conservatives moderate progressive speech as hate speech.
If you are saying conservatives, being vehemently resistant to change, refuse categorically to use the new tool called "moderating" :
1. They would also refuse to use the communication (speech) tool which was being moderated in the first place
2. Every breath is a new one, every day is a new one - if such vehemence against change is being assumed no conservative should be alive today.
3. Hence, the commonly observed distribution of conservatism needs to be assumed to explain obvious reality - different people would be conservative to different extents about different topics. Here, the relevant conservatives are those who already have embraced the newer tools of communication that are subject to moderation. Hence :
3a. Being "less conservative", they could also have embraced moderation to mark progressive speech as "hate speech".
3b. They could be less conservative about using moderation than about potato farming - hence they could freely moderate progressive speech about potato farming as "hate speech".
1.
Conservatives, by definition, resist change and support the maintenance of the status quo.
Americans (US) have created stupid labels like Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, even Republicans unrelated to the idea of a republic and Democrats unrelated to the idea of democracy. When they use these words, it means nothing logical. The definition you have supplied is logical, hence not applicable in American discourse.
2.
I would expect more conservatives to be moderated (banned, cautioned, censored etc.) _by_definition_.
How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.
Or are you saying the people doing the moderating are always non-conservative hence they will not agree with conservatives much ? If so, I don't see any evidence for that either unless you are talking about some moderators I haven't heard of.
The problem with using a logical definition is that you are able to, hence expected to, deduce more logically and state your assumptions if any. Americans have exempted themselves from this requirement by using non-logical definitions.
Double blind study does not take long to start. It takes long to finish. I an not talking about the finishing of the double blind study, I am taking about the duration of the double blind study.
Double blind study is not just the direct path to approval : along the way to approval, it is also the fast track for usage.
All participants in the double blind study are on the "fast track" to use an experimental drug - at least those that don't get placebo. All participants in the double blind study are experimental users of the "unapproved drug".
If someone wants to be on the fast track to use an experimental drug, they can volunteer to be on the double blind study - and voilà : within one or two days of preparation for the study, they are on the experimental drug.
If someone wants to benefit from the knowledge of mankind (use an experimental drug for free, that took a lot of money to develop ) it is only fair that they contribute to the knowledge of mankind (participate in the double blind study).
You say a double blind study is expensive. That is irrelevant. Since it is indispensable : being expensive is no argument for not doing it. Nor is it an argument for a particular patient to not participate in the double blind study : as it is not expensive for the patient. Too bad if you get placebo. Or maybe lucky people get placebo.
Are your needs worth destroying democracy in many places in the world ? Are they worth concentrating power over the multitudes in a few people ?
What is the default ? An overwhelming majority of users are not going to change anything in the Settings app in Privacy -> Advertising.
While it is wrong to say there isn't a menu option to "opt out" of sending a unique advertising ID, Tim Cook's Apple is allowing a lot of creepiness.
While there do need to be double blind studies, there also needs to be a "fast usage" track for drugs like this
The double blind studies ARE the fast usage track.
The doctor is supposed to ask terminally ill / patients with extreme symptoms if they want to participate in a study about unproven but promising drug. The next-of-kin decide if the patient is deemed unable to decide for himself. The drug is promising because of in-vitro / animal studies. There is a chance they will get placebo - neither the patient nor the doctor will know. The "promising" drug is generally free for such patients, and some additional monitoring for regular intake of the medicine is installed. I've seen patients being provided with a device that needs to be updated after every intake of drug. This is simpler for in-patients, of course.
If you sweat a lot when you work, and you're already in shape, it often means you'll be able to work or exercise a lot harder than the next person, especially on a hot day
1. Only if you keep consuming water. Otherwise you die of dehydration before the "next person".
2. While sweat helps in heat dissipation, this does not mean more sweat always results in more heat dissipation. At any given temperature, humidity level and wind-speed relative to your body, there is an ideal amount of sweat per unit time. More sweat than that - and you are wasting water (and the other minerals in the sweat). Less sweat than that, and you are not cooling yourself fast enough.
The example of Houston is important because in humid conditions, sweat is not that helpful in cooling the human body.
If TSLA stock is that underpriced, why don't you make a fortune with it ? Invest borrowed money in it, and voila - Rei is richer than Jeff Bezos within a decade. By informing others about this great opportunity, you are spoiling your own chances of profit.
Except for patents, is there any reason why GM etc. cannot quickly start battery production of their own? For double points, they hire ex-Tesla employees or conduct some good-natured spying / social engineering to learn from Tesla's manufacturing ?
And if Tesla sues GM etc. for patent infringements - can't they use 2-fold strategy ?
1. At least produce batteries where Tesla hasn't registered those patents. GM etc. have presence in around hundred countries , I guess ?
2. Counter-sue Tesla and keep the lawyers busy until patents expire. Past century of automobile production experience has to count for something ?
thanks
Good joke, but kind of difficult to tell in English. It is easier in German ?
GPL, one of his babies, already limits freedom more than some other licenses that preceded it (and even followed it). GPLv3 is far more limiting than the initial GPL he released. This limiting of freedom is one of the common criticisms against GPL - by supporters of less limiting licenses like MIT / BSD etc.
Freedom is a complex concept. Frequently, you have to limit / subdue freedom for an overall improved freedom environment. This is what Stallman has always understood better than others - and he continues to do that.
No groundbreaking event has actually happened in him saying this.
please refrain from trying to define exactly what corporatism/fascism/socialism is and then argue from that
The post which you linked to, explains there is no value in arguing about the exact definition of socialism (and some other isms). Because, as you correctly point(ed) out, there are too many definitions, none would satisfy all people.
But there is a lot of value in defining exactly what one means by socialism (and some other isms) and then arguing from that. That is the basis of any logical argument. This is the reason law and science exactly defines seemingly well-defined terms - and then argue from that. So much so that a layman sometimes doesn't understand what is meant by simple words like "flood" in law. Or "power" in physics. Or "depression" in psychology.
Such "argument from that" would not be applicable to any other definition of socialism, of course.
So basically you don't even disagree with what Stallman really said. But you imagine him to be saying something he isn't and then you disagree with THAT.
What challenge ? In the US, courts have already ruled that you can sign away your rights to approach a court.
I read exactly what is written. If I suspect any allusion or amounting to, I ask the author before going off.
Yeah, "amounted to", and " alluded to". Basically your imagination.
gravewax said ".EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations."
Doesn't directly say when the entity resides in the EU - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.
The ones I listed are eligibility criteria. Does not directly say when they are to be applied - maybe at the time of accreditation, maybe at any given time, maybe at the discretion of some office.
The other parts of the document say that the Registry "may" revoke , but not when or whether it is necessary for it to revoke immediately. gravewax also didn't say that the Registry "has to" do anything - at least in this thread.
For eligibility, it refers to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002. Which says
(b) register domain names in the.eu TLD through any accredited.eu Registrar requested by any:
(i) undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, or
(ii) organisation established within the Community without prejudice to the application of national law, or
(iii) natural person resident within the Community;
These domains were properly registered by EU people, who have built communities and businesses under these names. Taking them away, after they were properly and legitimately registered and may have been in active use for several years is petty.
1. UK people should have thought about this when voting to exit. Actions have consequences.
2. If they have significant business presence in the EU, they can get an EU address and register. In breaking any relationship, there are some "problems" - you need to do some work to keep using the advantages of the relationship.
3. Why should the EU "communities" do business with non-EU businesses which are in a jurisdiction that doesn't even agree to abide by EU rules , under false pretense of a .eu TLD giving them a false sense of the business being subject to EU rules ?
These are the principles why there are laws against false advertising , trademark infringement, bait and switch etc. Your TLD says something about the rules you operate under - let that something be the truth.
Words have meanings. Spying on others has never been called enhancing one's own privacy. Either by the "average person", nor by " most readers ".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
I understand why you didn't quote the "claim". Because you are being dishonest about it.
Read :
If you work in tech
and you haven't deleted Facebook already, you're behind the curve I'm afraid.
You KNOW what they're doing. Why are you still there ?
It does not mean what your strawman said :
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
Specifically, "you know what they're doing" does not mean "everyone knew that Facebook leaked information like a sieve".
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
As usual, you are inverting the burden of proof. It is not up to Facebook avoiders / avoidance enthusiasts to prove that information is / will be leaked. It is up to Facebook to prove that it could not be. Since it cannot be unleaked once leaked.
just applying post hoc confirmation of your prior irrationally
No, it is "evidence" for people who do not understand logic, who earlier mistakenly claimed that Facebook not having been caught as a vector of large scale data abuse is proof that it is impossible. While it was always a mistaken claim, now the prior action is increasingly justified even according to their faulty logic.
Now that we see how leaky Facebook has been, our estimate of probability of actual harm from leakage of private data must increase
Only with foresight impaired massively. If you can't plan your way out of a paper bag. Since they cannot un-share the information they shared, or willingly allowed to be shared with Facebook earlier. And this was known with full certainty all along - data can never provably be "deleted" at a remote location not controlled by you.
I don't have facebook, because I value my privacy.
But privacy is an excuse, and it's not cool to ...
So, if he said "I don't use facebook, because I value my privacy.", it would be "cool" ? Isn't not having something is a nice way of not using it, in general ? And in the specific case of Facebook, isn't not having it a nice way of using it less?
Or are you saying it is the duty of everyone to make an account with Facebook ? Or "have" Facebook with some other definition like installing the App on one's phone and staying logged into it ? So that idiots who like to tag people can tag the specific Mohammed Lee that is me instead of just saying "Mohammed Lee" and letting Facebook do the hard work of finding out which one they mean ?
In essence, what is wrong with not having it in order to value one's privacy ?