Buying a new one every year isn't mandatory. I've never changed phones after less than 5 years. I might soon, although with a phone that's already over 5 years old...
I'm considering the Asus ROG phone, Razer Phone 2, and Black Shark Helo for my next phone. Make a landscape slider keyboard addon for the ROG phone and you'll get an instant niche of power user customers - all the people still using Droid 4s, Photon Qs and even Maemo phones like the N900.
That was priorities. They did make changes that will eventually lead to the system's practical collapse, but to avoid quickly becoming too unpopular to win even with the playing field heavily tilted in their favor, they chose not the kill the system outright. This gave them plausible deniability.
To put some law or regulation in place which couldn't be undone he'd have to usurp democracy. Which is something Trump and the Republicans have demonstrated they're willing to try, but Obama was too good for that. You call that "impotent?"
Heh I used to always make sure I brought a paper map on offroad rallies as a backup to the tablet-based navigation system. These days it's not so important as I now have the exact same setup on my phone, but I haven't bothered to take the folded paper map out of the navigator's clipboard...
Closest I came to needing it is when the tablet's microSD card spontaneously ejected into a field somewhere, good thing I had that backed up and the map files were in onboard storage...haven't put a microSD back in it since.
"Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves. Unless... engineered. And I can only make so many." - Niander Wallace
He did a good number of things to help reduce global warming: Restrict coal power plant emissions, improve automotive fleet emissions standards, sign the Paris climate accord, and subsidize renewable energy and EV sales. All things Trump has undone or is working on undoing.
China will have the US over a barrel once global carbon trading is mandatory. I'd say that you collectively deserve it, but on the other hand most Americans who voted didn't vote for this.
Russia has given us robots pretending to be humans, humans pretending to be robots, spies pretending to be diplomats, assassins pretending to be tourists, and a US president pretending to act in America's best interests. None are convincing.
Heh came to say the same thing. Make a "service dock" that the robot needs to be in for 8 hours a night (for sleeping and dumping human waste), and request to be paid in lithium batteries (which you resell for a wage).
They're really not. The formula is the same Country A has law. Country B doesn't recognize that law. Someone from Country B breaks a Country A law while in Country B. What makes it a law according to your argument above is that they used Service C and Service C is from Country A.
That's the formula. Service C can be a bank or an ISP. You wouldn't approve if the tables are turned and simply using a Chinese "Service C" such as an ISP threw you in the slammer.
(...)
It doesn't matter the country. If you are in country B and you are working for a company in country B you're not beholden to country A rules. Laws in one country have no jurisdiction over rules in another country. They can only police what happens on their own soil.
Alright let's do this. First we'll have to assume that making Winnie the Pooh jokes about Xi Jinping anywhere on the Internet is illegal in China, because it's nothing like that IRL. Next we have to assume that it's only illegal to do through a Chinese ISP, because in your hypothetical scenario it was fine to do through an American ISP. In that case, yes, China could issue a warrant for my arrest and arrest me if I travel to China or a place that has an extradition treaty with them. Laws in one country have no jurisdiction over laws in another country, that's true, that's why they can't arrest you from just anywhere. But they can arrest you from places where they have jurisdiction or extradition treaties. Real-life example: Try leaking a ton of classified US military info from Australia and see how many arrest warrants aren't out for you, some guy in an embassy could tell you...
If a Romanian stole a credit card from an American in Hungary that would be up to Hungarian police to tackle the issue, not American, and America would have no right to extradite.
Wrong, when the crime is done by remote, physical locations don't matter, The Romanian hacker attacked a company under American jurisdiction, that's all the US would need to get a warrant for the Romanian's arrest. Real-life example: "UFO hacker" Gary McKinnon who only avoided extradition on human rights grounds.
I want to play along with your hypothetical scenario and tried to make assumptions to make the two situations more similar, but it's pointless, they're just too different.
So let's do something more like a direct script-flipping: Suppose China has sanctions against, say, Iceland, and I, as a hypothetical American and executive of tech megacorp WuhWay which does business in China, set up a shell company that's practically just a subsidiary of WuhWay to do business with Iceland while keeping the heat off the big secret-parent company. This subsidiary even sells Chinese tech to Iceland. Call it WinnieCom. In order to do this I make fraudulent statements to a Chinese bank that there is no relationship between WuhWay and WinnieCom. In China this is fraud, it would be very clear-cut if I was a regular Chinese businessman doing it with a Chinese business in China. But it doesn't matter that I'm not a Chinese citizen or even that I'm not in China. It was committed against a Chinese-registered company operating in China - that is, I committed a crime not just within Chinese jurisdiction but also against a Chinese entity, even if from afar, so I could expect a warrant for my arrest to be issued in China, and if I travel to a place that has an extradition treaty with China then I could be arrested and extradited.
You might've read that Huawei's CFO radically changed her travel patterns to avoid the US leading up to the arrest so she must've had some suspicion that there could be a warrant for her arrest. Odd thing to do if you're legally in the clear.
Let's use another example: If I was a Romanian, and from Romania, I hacked some American's computer, stole his credit card number, and bought stuff with it, if I were identified would I not risk arrest if I traveled to the US? It's another financial crime performed at a distance, just a simpler one.
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company within China to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company in the US to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Everything I can find says yes to both. I haven't been able to find any support for your argument that it's basically HSBC's fault for falling for it and she's legally in the clear.
The bank used to facilitate the deal was a company operating and registered in the US that she directly acted to defraud (possibly while physically in the US). This link may help explain it:
So you think that foreigners should be free to perpetrate fraud against American companies without facing any potential consequences from American law enforcement, interesting. Does it matter if she was physically in the US when she perpetrated the frauds? She may have been, it isn't clear, just wondering.
It doesn't matter that she's not American, she committed crimes in the US (which involved American companies), and is thus legally subject to arrest there and in places that have extradition treaties with the US:
I'd had head crashes in the '90s and no clear control board failures so far. Since the new millennium, I haven't had any totally unexpected hard drive failures, and no unrecoverable ones. With the custom SMART reporting/alerting script (to work around the soft and interpretive SMART statistics and focus on the ones that matter) on my home server, I've been able to see them all coming far in advance. The firmware-level SMART alerting system on the servers at the office seems to catch them well in advance too.
It may be more than a shot across the bow, and it didn't happen just because she was a Chinese national, even a prominent one, but because she evaded sanctions on Iran, which is a pretty serious crime.
Average Chinese nationals, who haven't committed serious international financial crimes, have no reason to worry that anything similar may happen to them.
And yes for a few million, if she really wanted to, she could hire a team of mercenaries to take out the security team around her, wrap some foil around her ankle, and speed her to a waiting private jet to China (and her dad could probably pull some strings to have a fighter escort waiting on the edge of international airspace), but that would make her an international fugitive who would have to be careful where she travels for the rest of her life, while if she behaves herself she's likely to get what amounts to a slap on the wrist for a 0.01%er. She'd probably prefer that since she seems to enjoy what most of the first world would consider an upper-middle class lifestyle with her family in Vancouver.
Also, compare her treatment to Assange's to see where the US' priorities lie.
If you don't attach a Google account to your phone and disable Google's wifi location service, that pretty much excises the Google-related privacy problems from the base OS immediately.
SSDs really are unpredictable timebombs, so act appropriately - take frequent backups and use RAID if the downtime from a sudden SSD failure with zero warning is unacceptable. Any IT department that hasn't been prepared for the nature of SSD failures since long before they were available off the shelf was doing it wrong anyway.
I'm most worried about what SSDs mean for the Average Joe, whose data is largely protected by the predictability and recoverability of most hard drive failures. SSDs throw all of that out the window and lure them in with the warm glow of performance like moths to a flame. Average Joes need a real wake-up call on the importance of backups with the switch to SSDs.
On the other hand, it's far easier to stop salting the damn roads than to switch away from all fossil fuels globally and start artificially sequestering carbon on a planetary scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying a new one every year isn't mandatory. I've never changed phones after less than 5 years. I might soon, although with a phone that's already over 5 years old...
I'm considering the Asus ROG phone, Razer Phone 2, and Black Shark Helo for my next phone. Make a landscape slider keyboard addon for the ROG phone and you'll get an instant niche of power user customers - all the people still using Droid 4s, Photon Qs and even Maemo phones like the N900.
That was priorities. They did make changes that will eventually lead to the system's practical collapse, but to avoid quickly becoming too unpopular to win even with the playing field heavily tilted in their favor, they chose not the kill the system outright. This gave them plausible deniability.
To put some law or regulation in place which couldn't be undone he'd have to usurp democracy. Which is something Trump and the Republicans have demonstrated they're willing to try, but Obama was too good for that. You call that "impotent?"
Heh I used to always make sure I brought a paper map on offroad rallies as a backup to the tablet-based navigation system. These days it's not so important as I now have the exact same setup on my phone, but I haven't bothered to take the folded paper map out of the navigator's clipboard...
Closest I came to needing it is when the tablet's microSD card spontaneously ejected into a field somewhere, good thing I had that backed up and the map files were in onboard storage...haven't put a microSD back in it since.
"Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. We lost our stomach for slaves. Unless... engineered. And I can only make so many." - Niander Wallace
He did a good number of things to help reduce global warming: Restrict coal power plant emissions, improve automotive fleet emissions standards, sign the Paris climate accord, and subsidize renewable energy and EV sales. All things Trump has undone or is working on undoing.
China will have the US over a barrel once global carbon trading is mandatory. I'd say that you collectively deserve it, but on the other hand most Americans who voted didn't vote for this.
Russia has given us robots pretending to be humans, humans pretending to be robots, spies pretending to be diplomats, assassins pretending to be tourists, and a US president pretending to act in America's best interests. None are convincing.
That is a nasty slash to the throat of America's credibility, and the blood sprays onto Canada.
How long until Trump starts calling himself the Generalissimo and wearing ridiculous outfits?
Heh came to say the same thing. Make a "service dock" that the robot needs to be in for 8 hours a night (for sleeping and dumping human waste), and request to be paid in lithium batteries (which you resell for a wage).
They're really not. The formula is the same Country A has law. Country B doesn't recognize that law. Someone from Country B breaks a Country A law while in Country B. What makes it a law according to your argument above is that they used Service C and Service C is from Country A.
That's the formula. Service C can be a bank or an ISP. You wouldn't approve if the tables are turned and simply using a Chinese "Service C" such as an ISP threw you in the slammer.
(...)
It doesn't matter the country. If you are in country B and you are working for a company in country B you're not beholden to country A rules. Laws in one country have no jurisdiction over rules in another country. They can only police what happens on their own soil.
Alright let's do this. First we'll have to assume that making Winnie the Pooh jokes about Xi Jinping anywhere on the Internet is illegal in China, because it's nothing like that IRL. Next we have to assume that it's only illegal to do through a Chinese ISP, because in your hypothetical scenario it was fine to do through an American ISP. In that case, yes, China could issue a warrant for my arrest and arrest me if I travel to China or a place that has an extradition treaty with them. Laws in one country have no jurisdiction over laws in another country, that's true, that's why they can't arrest you from just anywhere. But they can arrest you from places where they have jurisdiction or extradition treaties. Real-life example: Try leaking a ton of classified US military info from Australia and see how many arrest warrants aren't out for you, some guy in an embassy could tell you...
If a Romanian stole a credit card from an American in Hungary that would be up to Hungarian police to tackle the issue, not American, and America would have no right to extradite.
Wrong, when the crime is done by remote, physical locations don't matter, The Romanian hacker attacked a company under American jurisdiction, that's all the US would need to get a warrant for the Romanian's arrest. Real-life example: "UFO hacker" Gary McKinnon who only avoided extradition on human rights grounds.
I want to play along with your hypothetical scenario and tried to make assumptions to make the two situations more similar, but it's pointless, they're just too different.
So let's do something more like a direct script-flipping: Suppose China has sanctions against, say, Iceland, and I, as a hypothetical American and executive of tech megacorp WuhWay which does business in China, set up a shell company that's practically just a subsidiary of WuhWay to do business with Iceland while keeping the heat off the big secret-parent company. This subsidiary even sells Chinese tech to Iceland. Call it WinnieCom. In order to do this I make fraudulent statements to a Chinese bank that there is no relationship between WuhWay and WinnieCom. In China this is fraud, it would be very clear-cut if I was a regular Chinese businessman doing it with a Chinese business in China. But it doesn't matter that I'm not a Chinese citizen or even that I'm not in China. It was committed against a Chinese-registered company operating in China - that is, I committed a crime not just within Chinese jurisdiction but also against a Chinese entity, even if from afar, so I could expect a warrant for my arrest to be issued in China, and if I travel to a place that has an extradition treaty with China then I could be arrested and extradited.
You might've read that Huawei's CFO radically changed her travel patterns to avoid the US leading up to the arrest so she must've had some suspicion that there could be a warrant for her arrest. Odd thing to do if you're legally in the clear.
Let's use another example: If I was a Romanian, and from Romania, I hacked some American's computer, stole his credit card number, and bought stuff with it, if I were identified would I not risk arrest if I traveled to the US? It's another financial crime performed at a distance, just a simpler one.
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company within China to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Would it be illegal for a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company in the US to fool a US bank into working with Iran?
Everything I can find says yes to both. I haven't been able to find any support for your argument that it's basically HSBC's fault for falling for it and she's legally in the clear.
The bank used to facilitate the deal was a company operating and registered in the US that she directly acted to defraud (possibly while physically in the US). This link may help explain it:
https://law.stackexchange.com/...
Also at some point SkyCom sold US-made equipment to Iran.
So you think that foreigners should be free to perpetrate fraud against American companies without facing any potential consequences from American law enforcement, interesting. Does it matter if she was physically in the US when she perpetrated the frauds? She may have been, it isn't clear, just wondering.
I think you missed a few zeroes there, 170 gigapascals is around 25 million psi.
She committed crimes in the US involving a US company:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
How has she not broken the law?
It doesn't matter that she's not American, she committed crimes in the US (which involved American companies), and is thus legally subject to arrest there and in places that have extradition treaties with the US:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
I'd had head crashes in the '90s and no clear control board failures so far. Since the new millennium, I haven't had any totally unexpected hard drive failures, and no unrecoverable ones. With the custom SMART reporting/alerting script (to work around the soft and interpretive SMART statistics and focus on the ones that matter) on my home server, I've been able to see them all coming far in advance. The firmware-level SMART alerting system on the servers at the office seems to catch them well in advance too.
Sooo, they should've looked the other way from her Iran sanctions evasion for political reasons, is what you're saying?
It may be more than a shot across the bow, and it didn't happen just because she was a Chinese national, even a prominent one, but because she evaded sanctions on Iran, which is a pretty serious crime.
Average Chinese nationals, who haven't committed serious international financial crimes, have no reason to worry that anything similar may happen to them.
And yes for a few million, if she really wanted to, she could hire a team of mercenaries to take out the security team around her, wrap some foil around her ankle, and speed her to a waiting private jet to China (and her dad could probably pull some strings to have a fighter escort waiting on the edge of international airspace), but that would make her an international fugitive who would have to be careful where she travels for the rest of her life, while if she behaves herself she's likely to get what amounts to a slap on the wrist for a 0.01%er. She'd probably prefer that since she seems to enjoy what most of the first world would consider an upper-middle class lifestyle with her family in Vancouver.
Also, compare her treatment to Assange's to see where the US' priorities lie.
If you don't attach a Google account to your phone and disable Google's wifi location service, that pretty much excises the Google-related privacy problems from the base OS immediately.
It's possible but very unusual for HDDs to fail irrecoverably and without warning, but that's the normal failure mode for SSDs, that's the difference.
SSDs really are unpredictable timebombs, so act appropriately - take frequent backups and use RAID if the downtime from a sudden SSD failure with zero warning is unacceptable. Any IT department that hasn't been prepared for the nature of SSD failures since long before they were available off the shelf was doing it wrong anyway.
I'm most worried about what SSDs mean for the Average Joe, whose data is largely protected by the predictability and recoverability of most hard drive failures. SSDs throw all of that out the window and lure them in with the warm glow of performance like moths to a flame. Average Joes need a real wake-up call on the importance of backups with the switch to SSDs.
On the other hand, it's far easier to stop salting the damn roads than to switch away from all fossil fuels globally and start artificially sequestering carbon on a planetary scale.