Is it speech ? Or is it "Here's a search warrant, unlock the damn door".
If you really want to get finicky then the order can be changed to force him to enter the passcode himself and, under supervision by an oficer of the court, disable it - and he never has to reveal it.
It's not speech, it's a key - a judge has every right to compel you to hand over the key to private property when a duly justified search warrant is issued pursuant to probable cause.
My Core-I7 desktop desktop has the very first model Core-I7 chip, it's pushing 5 or 6 years old now. In that time I've added hard drive space, increased the RAM to 16Gb and upgraded the video card a couple of times.
It still runs like the day I bought it - and I am busy playing Shadow of Morder on Ultra level graphics on it at the moment.
Desktop safari uses the KHTML engine, the exact same engine that drives Konqueror and Google-Chrome - if it works in those it will almost certainly work in Safari as well - the only difference between the three are their javascript engines. If your site is javascript heavy and not absolutely standards compliant (which makes you evil) then you may need to use safari to test that your JS runs on safari.
If the police have strong evidence that the stolen diamonds are in your wall safe, and that the things is rigged to blow if they try to crack it - do you think a judge could NOT compel you to give up the combination ?
I absolutely agree that backdoors are a terrible idea. But what happened here however was perfectly fine to my mind. The police already had strong evidence linking the suspects to a crime, the evidence was reviewed by a court - and the suspects were only compelled to give up their passcodes after a judge, in a public and open court, determined there was genuine probable cause.
Wouldn't surprise me, but just because you were likely to get gored by a buffalo before your diet did you in, that doesn't mean the diet wouldn't do you in if you managed to avoid all the buffaloes.
I would just love to see your citation for this. Because there are people still in the world today who live very much as we did in the paleo era, genuine hunter-gatherer societies still exist: and they rarely live to be old.
And these are the people who argue against raising minimum wage - yet apparently have no idea whatsoever what it entails when your salary goes 80% or more just into sleeping dry.
>Your wife and kids love your cooking because they're used to the blandness and lack of balance That wouldn't explain why she loved my cooking on our second date, when she had just met me, and I cooked her dinner. There was no prior 'getting used to' time there.
And it wasn't that I couldn't have bought salt INSTEAD of other things - but I would rather give up the salt than the pepper.
Absolutely, saving money is important but it's not more important than everything else. Ultimately, it's more important to accumulate memories than money.
Honestly, I find that salt mostly overpowers over flavours, leaving it out allows flavours that would otherwise vanish to be more prominent. There is a delightful cacophony of flavours in a well-made waterless curry, when you're already using at least 5 different spices aside from the 3 different curries in the mix, what is salt going to add ?
This started during my first job ever, when rent was 2/3rd of my income and most of the rest went to textbooks (I was working by day, studying by night). I would buy a week's supply of fresh food at a time, veggies and some cheap meat (mostly chicken) but that was it. There wasn't even milk in my cupboards. I could have had a bit more if I didn't go to weekly poetry nights at the local rock-bar where I consumed vast amounts of cheap red wine and read bad poetry while listening to other people reading THEIR bad poetry. But I honestly think that was worth more than salt, I made some truly great memories at that bar (and got laid a couple of times too).
That's hardly new - though it has accelerated in recent years. One of the most famous examples is Star Trek. The original series was a network show, and Roddenberry was never entirely happy with the result because he had to constantly deviate from his real vision to please network executives who didn't want to show anything that may upset conservatives. That first interracial kiss may have been groundbreaking but it was about as far as he could go.
When he decided to do Star Trek again - he didn't go back to the network, he funded it himself, in a studio rented from a movie company and made it independently - then syndicated a result defined by his own vision - and produced TNG. Personally I consider TNG a far superior series - exactly because he didn't have to compromise. A lot of the logical inconsistencies of TOS went away when nobody told him he couldn't show his preferred solutions. The extreme misogyny that is oh so prevalent in TOS is completely missing from TNG, where women characters were multi-dimensional and excelled even in positions of authority. As Doctor Katherine Polaski pointed out in her final appearance: she was the one person on board the enterprise who could order Picard to do something he didn't want to do. And one of the sequels to that even had a women captain. Meantime ToS had exactly one notable female character and her role mostly consisted of repeating whatever the computer said and one-time kissing the captain.
And that will be a factor only until every other state, country, and town has the same problem with massive unemployment and they ALL start taxing the robots.
Simple. For tax purposes it's any mechanical device used for commercial purposes. YOUR washing machine won't be a robot - but the ones at the fully automated no-employees-at-all laundromat down the road would be, even if the only significant difference in the washing machine is that those have a coin-slot.
The interesting thing is that the specific business I chose already exists, and in fact, has existed for decades. It was an easy thing to fully automate. I've been using fully automated laundromats with zero human staff since the 1980s. Those were at camping sites and still had human cleaners (though they cleaned a lot more than the laundromat) but adding a roomba isn't hard.
This wasn't a problem so far- because it happened in specific, very narrow, industries only. What happens when EVERY shop and service in town is operated without a single employee ? If you don't give people a way to generate new income - the whole system collapses that's what.
But maybe there is a simper way to do it than taxes. 1) All companies must pay dividends to share holders on a monthly basis 2) When a worker is let go due to downsizing of any kind (i.e. any non-disciplinary dismissal) you have to give him shares - the exact amount/percentage we can figure out some fair formula for.
Result - you get displaced by a robot who now does your job, but you still get money from the job being done. These shares can be traded and inherrited. So you can pass them on to your kids who will never have a job, use some of the income to buy MORE shares in OTHER companies to generate income for you (which you spend buying the goods the robots produce). This is a simple transitional way to turn everybody who used to be a 'worker' into an 'investor' instead. That solves the income problem - and it also solves the inequality problem (which as Pickering has shown - largely derives from the huge difference between wage income growth compared to investment income growth). And then you don't tax the robots - you just do proper capital gains taxes. Use some of those taxes to buy shares in some of the companies and give those shares to the poor who never *had* a job to gain some from - so they can start earning an income too. In a generation or two NOBODY actually HAS to work - we will work, we will ALWAYS work - but we'll be doing things we like to do, not things we HAVE to do.
And not even the rightwingers can say this is 'interfering' in the market - I mean, investors are supposedly a key ingredient in the market - allocating funds where it is most productive... right ? So having more investors can only benefit everybody right ?
I mean one can refine the idea a bit, and different variations will have different pros and cons. For example instead of giving individuals shares you could establish indexed funds that pay out 50% of the growth every year and reinvests the rest on top of the initial funds - so people get a steady income and growing wealth. This could prevent a "damn they sold all their shares and went binging and now they are poor again" problem, but it will piss the libertarians off no end (while I am generally in favour of pissing libertarians off - it shouldn't be done to the extend that you cut your nose to spite your face). Smarter people than me can work through the details - but the idea of automating all labour - and making all people part of the investor class, that sounds about as close to a Star Trek utopia as you're ever going to get - and I've always been a fan of UBI, but maybe this is an even better idea.
5 years dude. Probably less. You've got not one but about ten of the biggest, best-resourced tech companies all heavily investing in products to achieve that. Do you seriously think all those people - already billionaires because of knowing what to invest in when - are putting their money into a pipe dream that will never pan out - it's happened on occasion in the past, but it's hardly the norm. These people are rich because they are good at spotting the next big thing and investing early. Or do you really believe that between them all, none has the engineers to make it happen ?
Frankly - it's one of the most obvious things to target for AI - because right now the horribly primitive self driving cars we have, which have serious reasons for concern are ALREADY much safer than any human driver. And the more of them there are, the safer each and every one of them becomes - because they can communicate with each other in ways humans cannot and they are immune to some of the worst psychological problems that plague human drivers (like a feeling or power and invincibility behind the wheel) which grossly reduce average human driving skill below what even humans could actually achieve if they were doing it as a purely rational exercise. Emotions are an important part of thinking - they are the lessons stored in our brains from billions of years of evolution. But those lessons get terrible when applied to things evolution never encountered - emotion ceases to be valuable when you are using it in a situation where it has not had the opportunity to develop appropriate responses. Fear triggered by visual cues - bad idea when threats no longer have a distinctive visual shape like "lion" but instead look just like you - and we end up afraid of humans who look a bit different, which harms everybody - and doesn't actually make us safer. That's where emotion stops working because the environment you're using it in is no longer compatible with the one it evolved in. Driving is the same.
Humans are terrible at driving. It's a job that even a BAD robotic driver will do better than the best of us.
In my much younger years I developed an interest in cooking, I was also earning minimum wage. So I had to make sacrifices - one of which was to completely stop adding salt to my food (mostly because I couldn't afford to buy salt).
Thing is, I came to like it - now it's nearly 20 years later, I cook with much better quality ingredients and have turned it into a craft. My wife loves my cooking. My kid loves my cooking. I cook lovely and elaborate foodie kind of meals with interesting flavor mixtures and prepared in interesting ways... and I still almost never add salt to anything I cook.
The vast majority of fresh foods already contain more than enough salt for your health needs, you don't need to add more to be healthy. And you only think you need it for flavour because you've been overdosing on it for decades. Stop adding it, and very soon not only do you stop missing it - the food tastes BETTER without it.
Sorry, no. There are lots of software that make up the infrastructure of the internet, not one little protocol implementation.
And you're claim is bullshit too. It's true that the particular tcp/ip stack which is in most OS's today is based on the one that was in the BSD kernel - but that was not the origin of it. Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn invented TCP/IP in 1972. At that stage Unix was a freshly released AT&T product. Work on BSD unixes wouldn't even start until the 1980s. So it's bullshit to claim TCP/IP is *the* infrastructure of the internet (it's just one small part of a large bunch of things that form part of that) - it's even bigger bullshit to claim it was a BSD invention - it was not. And the version of the code that does the vast majority of the work on the internet - is, in fact, the GPLd version inside the Linux kernel - which has been so extensively hacked on over the past more than 25 years as to be hardly recognisable anyway.
I never said you needed a mass production facility for prototyping. I said you need a production facility. As it happens - the Commodore company was quite adamant that their success sprouted from prototyping in the SAME mass production facility where the final product would be made.
>Since WWII, only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost. Both of whom were significantly more popular than Trump, especially in their first 100 days.
>Just getting through a first term without any major disasters will remove that doubt. If Trump has avoided major disasters it's only because the court keeps blocking his disastrous moves. But unless he actually manages some notable achievements along the way - he'll have the same problem Carter had - people will think he just couldn't get anything useful done - and Carter was at least likeable and charming (not that, that helped when he ran against the even more charming Reagan - hey I may hate the guy but I won't pretend he wasn't good at being likeable - especially before he was president).
> Democrats still suffer from a shallow bench. Really not true anymore. If anything we could see up to 20 candidates in the democratic primaries.
You also ignored the most likely scenario of all - which is that Trump won't finish his first term. There has never been a more impeachable president in America. Now the republicans won't likely do that, nobody likes to impeach a president from your own party no matter how horrible he is - but I am also expecting that the massive popular discontent, those angry town halls, those protesters everywhere, a hugely energized democratic based and a crap-load of pissed conservatives AND the rust-belters getting screwed over after switching parties for him will add up in 2018. I would be surprized if the democrats are not the majority party in both houses after (and there history is on my side - the incumbent president's party tends to lose badly in midterms), but even if they only get smaller gains - that could well be enough. Already the republicans are proving to be incapable of achieving anything because of the severity of their own infighting. These guys couldn't repeal Obamacare because the tripe they came up with had half their congressmen saying "this is too brutal and we will lose our seats if we support this" and the other half saying "this is not brutal enough". The budget seems to indicate a pattern where, for the foreseeable future, the government will not be able to get ANYTHING done without the democrats on board. A few more votes, and that could be the end of orange hitler.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it speech ? Or is it "Here's a search warrant, unlock the damn door".
If you really want to get finicky then the order can be changed to force him to enter the passcode himself and, under supervision by an oficer of the court, disable it - and he never has to reveal it.
It's not speech, it's a key - a judge has every right to compel you to hand over the key to private property when a duly justified search warrant is issued pursuant to probable cause.
My Core-I7 desktop desktop has the very first model Core-I7 chip, it's pushing 5 or 6 years old now. In that time I've added hard drive space, increased the RAM to 16Gb and upgraded the video card a couple of times.
It still runs like the day I bought it - and I am busy playing Shadow of Morder on Ultra level graphics on it at the moment.
Then again - I run Linux.
Subnote: WebKIT is a derivative of KHTML - but I couldn't remember the name at that moment.
Desktop safari uses the KHTML engine, the exact same engine that drives Konqueror and Google-Chrome - if it works in those it will almost certainly work in Safari as well - the only difference between the three are their javascript engines. If your site is javascript heavy and not absolutely standards compliant (which makes you evil) then you may need to use safari to test that your JS runs on safari.
If the police have strong evidence that the stolen diamonds are in your wall safe, and that the things is rigged to blow if they try to crack it - do you think a judge could NOT compel you to give up the combination ?
I absolutely agree that backdoors are a terrible idea. But what happened here however was perfectly fine to my mind. The police already had strong evidence linking the suspects to a crime, the evidence was reviewed by a court - and the suspects were only compelled to give up their passcodes after a judge, in a public and open court, determined there was genuine probable cause.
That's exactly how it's SUPPOSED to work.
Wouldn't surprise me, but just because you were likely to get gored by a buffalo before your diet did you in, that doesn't mean the diet wouldn't do you in if you managed to avoid all the buffaloes.
I would just love to see your citation for this. Because there are people still in the world today who live very much as we did in the paleo era, genuine hunter-gatherer societies still exist: and they rarely live to be old.
I just eat quite a lot of actual Kelp. I love sushi.
I live in Cape Town and I'm not nearly as active as I ought to be :P
And these are the people who argue against raising minimum wage - yet apparently have no idea whatsoever what it entails when your salary goes 80% or more just into sleeping dry.
>Your wife and kids love your cooking because they're used to the blandness and lack of balance
That wouldn't explain why she loved my cooking on our second date, when she had just met me, and I cooked her dinner. There was no prior 'getting used to' time there.
And it wasn't that I couldn't have bought salt INSTEAD of other things - but I would rather give up the salt than the pepper.
Absolutely, saving money is important but it's not more important than everything else. Ultimately, it's more important to accumulate memories than money.
Honestly, I find that salt mostly overpowers over flavours, leaving it out allows flavours that would otherwise vanish to be more prominent. There is a delightful cacophony of flavours in a well-made waterless curry, when you're already using at least 5 different spices aside from the 3 different curries in the mix, what is salt going to add ?
This started during my first job ever, when rent was 2/3rd of my income and most of the rest went to textbooks (I was working by day, studying by night). I would buy a week's supply of fresh food at a time, veggies and some cheap meat (mostly chicken) but that was it. There wasn't even milk in my cupboards.
I could have had a bit more if I didn't go to weekly poetry nights at the local rock-bar where I consumed vast amounts of cheap red wine and read bad poetry while listening to other people reading THEIR bad poetry. But I honestly think that was worth more than salt, I made some truly great memories at that bar (and got laid a couple of times too).
That's hardly new - though it has accelerated in recent years. One of the most famous examples is Star Trek. The original series was a network show, and Roddenberry was never entirely happy with the result because he had to constantly deviate from his real vision to please network executives who didn't want to show anything that may upset conservatives. That first interracial kiss may have been groundbreaking but it was about as far as he could go.
When he decided to do Star Trek again - he didn't go back to the network, he funded it himself, in a studio rented from a movie company and made it independently - then syndicated a result defined by his own vision - and produced TNG. Personally I consider TNG a far superior series - exactly because he didn't have to compromise. A lot of the logical inconsistencies of TOS went away when nobody told him he couldn't show his preferred solutions. The extreme misogyny that is oh so prevalent in TOS is completely missing from TNG, where women characters were multi-dimensional and excelled even in positions of authority. As Doctor Katherine Polaski pointed out in her final appearance: she was the one person on board the enterprise who could order Picard to do something he didn't want to do. And one of the sequels to that even had a women captain. Meantime ToS had exactly one notable female character and her role mostly consisted of repeating whatever the computer said and one-time kissing the captain.
And that will be a factor only until every other state, country, and town has the same problem with massive unemployment and they ALL start taxing the robots.
Simple. For tax purposes it's any mechanical device used for commercial purposes. YOUR washing machine won't be a robot - but the ones at the fully automated no-employees-at-all laundromat down the road would be, even if the only significant difference in the washing machine is that those have a coin-slot.
The interesting thing is that the specific business I chose already exists, and in fact, has existed for decades. It was an easy thing to fully automate. I've been using fully automated laundromats with zero human staff since the 1980s. Those were at camping sites and still had human cleaners (though they cleaned a lot more than the laundromat) but adding a roomba isn't hard.
This wasn't a problem so far- because it happened in specific, very narrow, industries only. What happens when EVERY shop and service in town is operated without a single employee ?
If you don't give people a way to generate new income - the whole system collapses that's what.
But maybe there is a simper way to do it than taxes.
1) All companies must pay dividends to share holders on a monthly basis
2) When a worker is let go due to downsizing of any kind (i.e. any non-disciplinary dismissal) you have to give him shares - the exact amount/percentage we can figure out some fair formula for.
Result - you get displaced by a robot who now does your job, but you still get money from the job being done. These shares can be traded and inherrited. So you can pass them on to your kids who will never have a job, use some of the income to buy MORE shares in OTHER companies to generate income for you (which you spend buying the goods the robots produce). This is a simple transitional way to turn everybody who used to be a 'worker' into an 'investor' instead. That solves the income problem - and it also solves the inequality problem (which as Pickering has shown - largely derives from the huge difference between wage income growth compared to investment income growth). And then you don't tax the robots - you just do proper capital gains taxes. Use some of those taxes to buy shares in some of the companies and give those shares to the poor who never *had* a job to gain some from - so they can start earning an income too.
In a generation or two NOBODY actually HAS to work - we will work, we will ALWAYS work - but we'll be doing things we like to do, not things we HAVE to do.
And not even the rightwingers can say this is 'interfering' in the market - I mean, investors are supposedly a key ingredient in the market - allocating funds where it is most productive... right ? So having more investors can only benefit everybody right ?
I mean one can refine the idea a bit, and different variations will have different pros and cons. For example instead of giving individuals shares you could establish indexed funds that pay out 50% of the growth every year and reinvests the rest on top of the initial funds - so people get a steady income and growing wealth. This could prevent a "damn they sold all their shares and went binging and now they are poor again" problem, but it will piss the libertarians off no end (while I am generally in favour of pissing libertarians off - it shouldn't be done to the extend that you cut your nose to spite your face). Smarter people than me can work through the details - but the idea of automating all labour - and making all people part of the investor class, that sounds about as close to a Star Trek utopia as you're ever going to get - and I've always been a fan of UBI, but maybe this is an even better idea.
5 years dude. Probably less. You've got not one but about ten of the biggest, best-resourced tech companies all heavily investing in products to achieve that. Do you seriously think all those people - already billionaires because of knowing what to invest in when - are putting their money into a pipe dream that will never pan out - it's happened on occasion in the past, but it's hardly the norm. These people are rich because they are good at spotting the next big thing and investing early. Or do you really believe that between them all, none has the engineers to make it happen ?
Frankly - it's one of the most obvious things to target for AI - because right now the horribly primitive self driving cars we have, which have serious reasons for concern are ALREADY much safer than any human driver. And the more of them there are, the safer each and every one of them becomes - because they can communicate with each other in ways humans cannot and they are immune to some of the worst psychological problems that plague human drivers (like a feeling or power and invincibility behind the wheel) which grossly reduce average human driving skill below what even humans could actually achieve if they were doing it as a purely rational exercise.
Emotions are an important part of thinking - they are the lessons stored in our brains from billions of years of evolution. But those lessons get terrible when applied to things evolution never encountered - emotion ceases to be valuable when you are using it in a situation where it has not had the opportunity to develop appropriate responses. Fear triggered by visual cues - bad idea when threats no longer have a distinctive visual shape like "lion" but instead look just like you - and we end up afraid of humans who look a bit different, which harms everybody - and doesn't actually make us safer. That's where emotion stops working because the environment you're using it in is no longer compatible with the one it evolved in.
Driving is the same.
Humans are terrible at driving. It's a job that even a BAD robotic driver will do better than the best of us.
In my much younger years I developed an interest in cooking, I was also earning minimum wage. So I had to make sacrifices - one of which was to completely stop adding salt to my food (mostly because I couldn't afford to buy salt).
Thing is, I came to like it - now it's nearly 20 years later, I cook with much better quality ingredients and have turned it into a craft. My wife loves my cooking. My kid loves my cooking. I cook lovely and elaborate foodie kind of meals with interesting flavor mixtures and prepared in interesting ways... and I still almost never add salt to anything I cook.
The vast majority of fresh foods already contain more than enough salt for your health needs, you don't need to add more to be healthy. And you only think you need it for flavour because you've been overdosing on it for decades. Stop adding it, and very soon not only do you stop missing it - the food tastes BETTER without it.
Well, it will make school students great again - and by great I mean large.
And then you will be nice and thin when, like your paleolithic ancestors, you die at the ripe old age of 28.
Sorry, no.
There are lots of software that make up the infrastructure of the internet, not one little protocol implementation.
And you're claim is bullshit too. It's true that the particular tcp/ip stack which is in most OS's today is based on the one that was in the BSD kernel - but that was not the origin of it. Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn invented TCP/IP in 1972. At that stage Unix was a freshly released AT&T product. Work on BSD unixes wouldn't even start until the 1980s.
So it's bullshit to claim TCP/IP is *the* infrastructure of the internet (it's just one small part of a large bunch of things that form part of that) - it's even bigger bullshit to claim it was a BSD invention - it was not.
And the version of the code that does the vast majority of the work on the internet - is, in fact, the GPLd version inside the Linux kernel - which has been so extensively hacked on over the past more than 25 years as to be hardly recognisable anyway.
I never said you needed a mass production facility for prototyping. I said you need a production facility.
As it happens - the Commodore company was quite adamant that their success sprouted from prototyping in the SAME mass production facility where the final product would be made.
>Since WWII, only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost.
Both of whom were significantly more popular than Trump, especially in their first 100 days.
>Just getting through a first term without any major disasters will remove that doubt.
If Trump has avoided major disasters it's only because the court keeps blocking his disastrous moves. But unless he actually manages some notable achievements along the way - he'll have the same problem Carter had - people will think he just couldn't get anything useful done - and Carter was at least likeable and charming (not that, that helped when he ran against the even more charming Reagan - hey I may hate the guy but I won't pretend he wasn't good at being likeable - especially before he was president).
> Democrats still suffer from a shallow bench.
Really not true anymore. If anything we could see up to 20 candidates in the democratic primaries.
You also ignored the most likely scenario of all - which is that Trump won't finish his first term. There has never been a more impeachable president in America. Now the republicans won't likely do that, nobody likes to impeach a president from your own party no matter how horrible he is - but I am also expecting that the massive popular discontent, those angry town halls, those protesters everywhere, a hugely energized democratic based and a crap-load of pissed conservatives AND the rust-belters getting screwed over after switching parties for him will add up in 2018. I would be surprized if the democrats are not the majority party in both houses after (and there history is on my side - the incumbent president's party tends to lose badly in midterms), but even if they only get smaller gains - that could well be enough. Already the republicans are proving to be incapable of achieving anything because of the severity of their own infighting. These guys couldn't repeal Obamacare because the tripe they came up with had half their congressmen saying "this is too brutal and we will lose our seats if we support this" and the other half saying "this is not brutal enough".
The budget seems to indicate a pattern where, for the foreseeable future, the government will not be able to get ANYTHING done without the democrats on board. A few more votes, and that could be the end of orange hitler.