Technology advances have clearly overrun our privacy laws. Much of our privacy was based on the simple impossibility of violating it. There were no cameras or microphones when the Constitution was written. Until recently, as you point out, there was no reliable facial recognition and no system large enough to correlate all of the data to track people's movements. Even keeping all of the recordings for a month would have been a serious strain, much less being able to actually find the relevant recording for a time and place.
We relied on difficulty and time consumed to restrict police surveillance to situations where they had ample probable cause. Now, it's easy enough that they might speculatively surveil someone based on the faintest trace of suspicion or even at random.
Slow down and read the thread again *CAREFULLY* this time. I was clearly speaking of the general case . That is, the possibility that any software team anywhere working on anything might not be able to see all of the source that eventually makes up the program they're producing. So unless the only compiler in existence is LLVM, you're talking irrelevant nonsense.
In spite of that, I am willing to consider that you simply made an error that just happens to make you look like a braying ass. Thus, I am prepared to accept your apology.
I am well versed in several modern revision control systems. It's irrelevant to the question of linking against a library. Only a very inexperienced programmer wouldn't understand that. If I develop a library in my own repo that you have no access to, then toss the lib and header over the wall to you, you will have no way to see the source.
Pop up? No. Have a job, then it gets categorically off-shored leaving them with little prospect just a few years short of retirement? Happens all the time. Get replaced by H1-Bs? All the time. Reasonably intelligent and ready to learn but no entry level jobs available? All the time. Newly minted degree in a useful field but nobody's hiring? All too common.
Been reading too much cyberpunk? In real life, a new skill takes more than $50 and plugging a memory stick into a socket at the back of your skull. It costs a good bit of money and time they don't have.
Like I said, a Randian dreamland.
But of course, you now say you don't believe in any government so I guess you've converted to anarchism?
You are living in some Randian dreamland, obviously. I never claimed that farming wasn't work or anything of the sort. I claimed that not everyone who is willing to work is able to find a job that pays enough to live on and that because of the surrounding laws, having sufficient wealth is necessary to comply with the law. Are you prepared to repeal all vagrancy laws?
But enough of trying to spoon feed you like a baby that doesn't want his strained carrots for one day.
So this is more of an "I got mine, screw you" sort of thing. Personal;ly, I'm fine in that department, but I recognize that there are plenty of people looking for but not finding work that pays enough for food, clothing, and shelter.
Undo the enclosure so they have a place to legally live and grow food and you might have a point. Otherwise, having money *IS* a requirement and so it amounts to coercion, which you claim to abhor.
Homelessness is constructively illegal in the U.S. So is farming on property you don't own. So yes, you are legally required to have at least some wealth, even if you somehow perfect breatharianism in spite of the laws of physics.
No, I just know enough to realize that it's not so unlikely for one team to not know what the other is doing, sufficient flexibility of thought to consider the possibility of a paranoid management, and the reading ability to know that the claim I was refuting was that only someone who hasn't programmed would think it is possible for one team to not be able to see what the other team wrote.
Are you claiming you haven't even linked against libraries from a proprietary compiler before?
Actually, there is a very good reason. Anything above half the sample frequency will create aliases in the hearable range. To prevent that, you must use a low-pass filter to remove those higher frequencies but low pass filters are not perfect. They begin cutting before their set frequency. You can use multiple low pass filters, but then you introduce other distortions. Keep in mind, these are analog filters.
So high quality gear is sensitive well into the ultrasonic and uses a cutoff high enough that they begin cutting the signal above the threshold of hearing and so the cutoff is in the ultrasonic range. The sample rate needs to be double that frequency.
Consumer grade gear such as CDs use a "brick wall" cutoff and sample at 44K knowing that the audio won't typically be further mixed and that very few people have headphiones that go anywhere near a frequency response that would reveal the distortions, but that's consumer gear.
No, it doesn't. Nobody has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of police just lying around waiting to tamp down on the next million person secession. Nor is that a job that police can do.
Don't be silly. Naturally they wouldn't try to arrest a million people all at once. They would choose a few key people to arrest. They would be well prepared to bring in federal forces and the national guard.
It seems more likely they'll send the police first and if they're arrested, the national guard. It'll happen as soon as they notice no tax money coming in or the use of drugs not approved by the FDA.
Given all of the expensive farting around in the Middle East, it seems unlikely that they would waste a perfectly good chance to turn millions of dollars worth of weapons into dead people so close to home. Just as soon as the media portrays the new nation as a pack of crazies harboring terrorists.
If they only offer unmetered service if you get cable television, it *IS* tying. If they offer it but give you a discount if you also get cable, then it might be considered bundling. It's a grey area if the total cost of unmetered TC plus TV is lower than the cost of unnmetered alone.
So they can't go up three times as much as GP suggested without losing business. Would an incremental increase of $0.30 have driven you away if Chick-fil-a had also gone up by $0.30?
It's helpful to remember, many of the "self made millionaires" out there only made it after multiple failures at grabbing the brass ring. Many who are struggling haven't been able to afford even a single try. The self-satisfied wealthy so easily forget that they got where they are by a combination of sheer luck and daddy's money backing their many failures.
Sure, because if me and a million others all move to a small city and announce our secession from the U.S. the feds will wish us well and leave us to our own devices. Right?
He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job.
Naturally. He himself probably hasn't been able to face up to "I'm canning you because I'm a greedy SOB who would grind your children into burgers if I could get away with it"
It's funny how so many businesses that managed to be closed every Sunday and holiday while paying more money to more people (in adjusted dollars) now suddenly can't hack it.
In principle I am happy to see human labor done by machines instead. My objection is to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not making compensating changes that allow the bulk of society to enjoy the benefits of progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Since that something includes enabling the e-mail and document virus, I'm not so sure Clooney wouldn't be the better target...
Technology advances have clearly overrun our privacy laws. Much of our privacy was based on the simple impossibility of violating it. There were no cameras or microphones when the Constitution was written. Until recently, as you point out, there was no reliable facial recognition and no system large enough to correlate all of the data to track people's movements. Even keeping all of the recordings for a month would have been a serious strain, much less being able to actually find the relevant recording for a time and place.
We relied on difficulty and time consumed to restrict police surveillance to situations where they had ample probable cause. Now, it's easy enough that they might speculatively surveil someone based on the faintest trace of suspicion or even at random.
Slow down and read the thread again *CAREFULLY* this time. I was clearly speaking of the general case . That is, the possibility that any software team anywhere working on anything might not be able to see all of the source that eventually makes up the program they're producing. So unless the only compiler in existence is LLVM, you're talking irrelevant nonsense.
In spite of that, I am willing to consider that you simply made an error that just happens to make you look like a braying ass. Thus, I am prepared to accept your apology.
I am well versed in several modern revision control systems. It's irrelevant to the question of linking against a library. Only a very inexperienced programmer wouldn't understand that. If I develop a library in my own repo that you have no access to, then toss the lib and header over the wall to you, you will have no way to see the source.
Pop up? No. Have a job, then it gets categorically off-shored leaving them with little prospect just a few years short of retirement? Happens all the time. Get replaced by H1-Bs? All the time. Reasonably intelligent and ready to learn but no entry level jobs available? All the time. Newly minted degree in a useful field but nobody's hiring? All too common.
Been reading too much cyberpunk? In real life, a new skill takes more than $50 and plugging a memory stick into a socket at the back of your skull. It costs a good bit of money and time they don't have.
Like I said, a Randian dreamland.
But of course, you now say you don't believe in any government so I guess you've converted to anarchism?
The danger of judicial councils is forming an echo chamber but I honestly don't have a better answer.
You are living in some Randian dreamland, obviously. I never claimed that farming wasn't work or anything of the sort. I claimed that not everyone who is willing to work is able to find a job that pays enough to live on and that because of the surrounding laws, having sufficient wealth is necessary to comply with the law. Are you prepared to repeal all vagrancy laws?
But enough of trying to spoon feed you like a baby that doesn't want his strained carrots for one day.
So this is more of an "I got mine, screw you" sort of thing. Personal;ly, I'm fine in that department, but I recognize that there are plenty of people looking for but not finding work that pays enough for food, clothing, and shelter.
Undo the enclosure so they have a place to legally live and grow food and you might have a point. Otherwise, having money *IS* a requirement and so it amounts to coercion, which you claim to abhor.
Homelessness is constructively illegal in the U.S. So is farming on property you don't own. So yes, you are legally required to have at least some wealth, even if you somehow perfect breatharianism in spite of the laws of physics.
Are you willing to undo the enclosure?
There's a big difference between private property and a public sidewalk.
Very much THIS!
You're comparing apples to oranges. Occupy didn't create a currency, elect a president, and declare their territory to no longer be a part of the U.S.
And you sound like the "I got mine, fuck you!" type we don't need on this planet ever.
You do realize moving closer would mean moving to a different country again, don't you?
No, I just know enough to realize that it's not so unlikely for one team to not know what the other is doing, sufficient flexibility of thought to consider the possibility of a paranoid management, and the reading ability to know that the claim I was refuting was that only someone who hasn't programmed would think it is possible for one team to not be able to see what the other team wrote.
Are you claiming you haven't even linked against libraries from a proprietary compiler before?
You've never linked against a library where you had only headers and a binary?
Actually, there is a very good reason. Anything above half the sample frequency will create aliases in the hearable range. To prevent that, you must use a low-pass filter to remove those higher frequencies but low pass filters are not perfect. They begin cutting before their set frequency. You can use multiple low pass filters, but then you introduce other distortions. Keep in mind, these are analog filters.
So high quality gear is sensitive well into the ultrasonic and uses a cutoff high enough that they begin cutting the signal above the threshold of hearing and so the cutoff is in the ultrasonic range. The sample rate needs to be double that frequency.
Consumer grade gear such as CDs use a "brick wall" cutoff and sample at 44K knowing that the audio won't typically be further mixed and that very few people have headphiones that go anywhere near a frequency response that would reveal the distortions, but that's consumer gear.
No, it doesn't. Nobody has tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of police just lying around waiting to tamp down on the next million person secession. Nor is that a job that police can do.
Don't be silly. Naturally they wouldn't try to arrest a million people all at once. They would choose a few key people to arrest. They would be well prepared to bring in federal forces and the national guard.
It seems more likely they'll send the police first and if they're arrested, the national guard. It'll happen as soon as they notice no tax money coming in or the use of drugs not approved by the FDA.
Given all of the expensive farting around in the Middle East, it seems unlikely that they would waste a perfectly good chance to turn millions of dollars worth of weapons into dead people so close to home. Just as soon as the media portrays the new nation as a pack of crazies harboring terrorists.
They know it isn't likely to be free. If they did anything to obscure the constant tracking and use of data, they should be forced to pay.
If they only offer unmetered service if you get cable television, it *IS* tying. If they offer it but give you a discount if you also get cable, then it might be considered bundling. It's a grey area if the total cost of unmetered TC plus TV is lower than the cost of unnmetered alone.
So they can't go up three times as much as GP suggested without losing business. Would an incremental increase of $0.30 have driven you away if Chick-fil-a had also gone up by $0.30?
It's helpful to remember, many of the "self made millionaires" out there only made it after multiple failures at grabbing the brass ring. Many who are struggling haven't been able to afford even a single try. The self-satisfied wealthy so easily forget that they got where they are by a combination of sheer luck and daddy's money backing their many failures.
Sure, because if me and a million others all move to a small city and announce our secession from the U.S. the feds will wish us well and leave us to our own devices. Right?
RIGHT ON! If I believe that robbing and pillaging for a living is the way to go, who the hell are you to say it's wrong! Now, Stick 'em up!
He's not telling them they are making too much money. He's telling them that due to outside regulation, keeping them around is more expensive than automating the job.
Naturally. He himself probably hasn't been able to face up to "I'm canning you because I'm a greedy SOB who would grind your children into burgers if I could get away with it"
It's funny how so many businesses that managed to be closed every Sunday and holiday while paying more money to more people (in adjusted dollars) now suddenly can't hack it.
In principle I am happy to see human labor done by machines instead. My objection is to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not making compensating changes that allow the bulk of society to enjoy the benefits of progress.