Yeah, but nobody was buying cheap Android phones to do that, but they are buying RPi's to do it. So either there's something different about the device (unlikely) or there's something different about the way it's being presented. It's simply better marketing. That doesn't mean there wasn't a need for better marketing. Sometimes you need to present it as a completely different product to get people to accept it (think Windows 7 vs. Vista).
A person who keeps things around because they "might be useful" is not the type of break things "just because it would be cool". Completely opposite personalities there. The reason it's being kept around is because the person sees value in it. Destroying it is devaluing it.
If you think about a virus for a second, it's the same thing. You can't reason with a virus. It doesn't make moral decisions. It just does what its DNA programs it to do, and it's even more dangerous because it's self-replicating. We need to deal with autonomous robots the same way we deal with bio-warfare.
Here's the thing about allowing employees to work remotely. It works for some jobs and *some people*. Clearly there are people who can work remotely and get lots done, usually even more done. These people have motivation and self-discipline. However, I don't know if you've looked around, but self-discipline isn't something that *most* people have. Given the chance they over-indulge in everything from junk food to credit to addictive forms of entertainment even while abstaining from all of these things would be in their own long term best interest. As a manager you certainly wouldn't want *those* people working from home.
So... a company that allows workers to work from home has to be able to say "no" to someone with no self-discipline. This is the *right* thing to do, but it's a potential mess for management. "Sue can work from home and I have the same job, same responsibilities, and same glowing employee evaluations as her, so why can't I work from home?" "Well, I don't think you'd actually function well in that environment." "Why?"
I'm not saying it can't work, but do you see how, as a manager, it's easier to just make everyone come to the office?
This is exactly true. I actually went into the office this morning (Saturday) which is extremely rare for me, but there was an interesting project to work on, and we were limited with equipment time. At any rate, during the morning I said to my co-worker, "coming in on Saturdays is addictive because nobody bothers you so you get so much more done!" He agreed 100%.
I know you're joking, but I was once stuck on a project where the customer was really breathing down our necks, the previous manager had already been fired over it, and I was sent onsite to "get it working" which honestly meant rewriting most of it, as usual. At any rate, the new manager was on IM with me, and literally every hour he would contact me on IM and ask me to call him so I could give him an update on how it was going. It was absurd! I now work at a new place where my projects are almost all internally facing systems, and even though that's supposed to be worse, I find it much more sane. Having a reasonable manager counts for so much.
Just to be clear, I don't think the iPhone's "slide to unlock" would qualify as locking the phone, but if you have one of those gesture locks, like on Android, where you have to slide around 3 or 4 different points in the right order, then that would qualify. I also think facial recognition would be the same, though it's iffy. What if the officer just holds it up to your face?
Not quite the same. Your wallet doesn't contain a log of all electronic communications you've had with other people. Remember, they're searching through the communication histories of *those* people too. That means even if you lock your own cell phone, the police can get access to communications you've had by searching other people's unlocked phones. I'm not saying that's wrong, exactly, but it's different from a wallet.
My understanding based on a news story this morning was that if the device was in any way "locked" then they needed a warrant. Locking, even with a gesture unlock or face recognition unlock doesn't really say anything about encryption.
I don't think it will take that long. Speculators will increase demand for *new sets* but it's not a precious commodity. If Lego sees more demand for a new set, they'll make sure they make more of them. It's just plastic. That will mean lots of speculators will be sitting on sets they don't really want, and there'll be a glut of them on E-Bay. That will transfer wads of cash from speculators to Lego. Possibly lots of cash from late speculators to early speculators, but that's it. People who actually want Lego to play with might be able to pick up newer sets for cheaper than retail price on E-Bay too, which would be OK.
Yes, Lego is definitely winning in this. Now it's true that they likely won't make another Millennium Falcon (but who really knows?) so those prices might stay high, now you're going to have collectors running in and buying all the new collector's edition Lego sets, and Lego will just make sure to make more of those sets to meet the demands of the collectors who are in it for the money (not the people who actually want to buy a set because it's cool/nostalgic/whatever). That means all future models will likely have more supply than the true demand. Either you got in early with the Millennium Falcon set, or you're late to the game like everyone else.
I'm sure it worked well when there were only a few people doing it, buying the collector's edition sets and selling them when they're no longer available, but once this kind of information about an imbalance in the market hits the news (as it just has) then you'll see a whole bunch of people pile into the market. They're all speculators. The price goes up. It's a bubble. The first people out "win" and the rest lose money. It's such a scam for them to talk about it in terms of annualized returns. That makes it sound like you can do this over and over every year. This is just market prices changing, and they tend to correct quickly. If you're thinking of getting into this market, I caution you it's a very bad idea.
So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.
When I called for support for my XPS desktop (audio problems with Vista), I did get routed to a different 1-800 number I had to call. I got a person who treated me like an adult.
If the car was following the speed limit and staying in its lane and the bus swerved into its lane, then it wouldn't have to do anything except brake. The bus is in the wrong. If a malfunction happened and the car lost control, well, then it doesn't have control and can't really do anything anyway. Maybe it was on ice and got control back? Well, it's probably in some kind of automated loop trying to just stop itself as quickly as it can, so it's not going to try to swerve anyway. So I agree, this is a silly example. A more apt example might be what speed to drive when it's foggy out (there's likely some risk/reward curve there, so we have to weight how much risk to take vs. how soon we want to get there). That's a problem that's calculated and solved ahead of time, so it's totally under the control of a person.
That would be a problem if... we had to choose between running over two pregnant women vs. running over 3 adult male pedestrians? The fact is that unless there's a law stating which alternative is correct, the manufacturer will choose the less expensive option, whatever that means.
I wonder what will happen when the people who are teenagers now grow up and want to run for politics. Most of them have spent the last few years doing extremely embarrassing things online (from an adult's perspective) and all this is going to get dug up by their opponents when they run for office.
That's when you might start to see a push for these "rights to be forgotten".
If a company releases a new product, they have to add new features to get you to buy it. Why add features to a product people have already bought when they're trying to push the new shiny?
The real story would be if they didn't continue with security updates and bug fixes, but I doubt that's the case.
I agree, but the difference is that these are marketed as a toy. The gov't isn't going to allow the seller to label it as "age 12 and up" and let that be the end of it.
While I disagree with the ban, your logic doesn't make sense. Toddlers aren't running into Walmart and buying these, and I don't think anyone's worried about 12-year-olds ingesting them. Limiting it to 18 would do nothing.
Sure, and while we're at it, I'm not sure why we don't make everyone pay for primary and secondary school too. After all the only reason it's so expensive is because it's propped up by the government. If only the people who could afford primary and secondary school actually went, things would be a lot better in this country, right?
No one is stopping you from saying how you voted. It's about stopping you from proving it (and therefore being coerced into voting for someone you *didn't* want to vote for).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but nobody was buying cheap Android phones to do that, but they are buying RPi's to do it. So either there's something different about the device (unlikely) or there's something different about the way it's being presented. It's simply better marketing. That doesn't mean there wasn't a need for better marketing. Sometimes you need to present it as a completely different product to get people to accept it (think Windows 7 vs. Vista).
It's the same with grains. Trees were clearly winning over grasses and grains on a lot of this planet before we came along and tipped the scales.
A person who keeps things around because they "might be useful" is not the type of break things "just because it would be cool". Completely opposite personalities there. The reason it's being kept around is because the person sees value in it. Destroying it is devaluing it.
If you think about a virus for a second, it's the same thing. You can't reason with a virus. It doesn't make moral decisions. It just does what its DNA programs it to do, and it's even more dangerous because it's self-replicating. We need to deal with autonomous robots the same way we deal with bio-warfare.
Here's the thing about allowing employees to work remotely. It works for some jobs and *some people*. Clearly there are people who can work remotely and get lots done, usually even more done. These people have motivation and self-discipline. However, I don't know if you've looked around, but self-discipline isn't something that *most* people have. Given the chance they over-indulge in everything from junk food to credit to addictive forms of entertainment even while abstaining from all of these things would be in their own long term best interest. As a manager you certainly wouldn't want *those* people working from home.
So... a company that allows workers to work from home has to be able to say "no" to someone with no self-discipline. This is the *right* thing to do, but it's a potential mess for management. "Sue can work from home and I have the same job, same responsibilities, and same glowing employee evaluations as her, so why can't I work from home?" "Well, I don't think you'd actually function well in that environment." "Why?"
I'm not saying it can't work, but do you see how, as a manager, it's easier to just make everyone come to the office?
This is exactly true. I actually went into the office this morning (Saturday) which is extremely rare for me, but there was an interesting project to work on, and we were limited with equipment time. At any rate, during the morning I said to my co-worker, "coming in on Saturdays is addictive because nobody bothers you so you get so much more done!" He agreed 100%.
I know you're joking, but I was once stuck on a project where the customer was really breathing down our necks, the previous manager had already been fired over it, and I was sent onsite to "get it working" which honestly meant rewriting most of it, as usual. At any rate, the new manager was on IM with me, and literally every hour he would contact me on IM and ask me to call him so I could give him an update on how it was going. It was absurd! I now work at a new place where my projects are almost all internally facing systems, and even though that's supposed to be worse, I find it much more sane. Having a reasonable manager counts for so much.
As stated above, the title is wrong. It's saying if it's "locked" they need a warrant. Doesn't have to be encrypted.
Just to be clear, I don't think the iPhone's "slide to unlock" would qualify as locking the phone, but if you have one of those gesture locks, like on Android, where you have to slide around 3 or 4 different points in the right order, then that would qualify. I also think facial recognition would be the same, though it's iffy. What if the officer just holds it up to your face?
Not quite the same. Your wallet doesn't contain a log of all electronic communications you've had with other people. Remember, they're searching through the communication histories of *those* people too. That means even if you lock your own cell phone, the police can get access to communications you've had by searching other people's unlocked phones. I'm not saying that's wrong, exactly, but it's different from a wallet.
My understanding based on a news story this morning was that if the device was in any way "locked" then they needed a warrant. Locking, even with a gesture unlock or face recognition unlock doesn't really say anything about encryption.
I don't think it will take that long. Speculators will increase demand for *new sets* but it's not a precious commodity. If Lego sees more demand for a new set, they'll make sure they make more of them. It's just plastic. That will mean lots of speculators will be sitting on sets they don't really want, and there'll be a glut of them on E-Bay. That will transfer wads of cash from speculators to Lego. Possibly lots of cash from late speculators to early speculators, but that's it. People who actually want Lego to play with might be able to pick up newer sets for cheaper than retail price on E-Bay too, which would be OK.
Yes, Lego is definitely winning in this. Now it's true that they likely won't make another Millennium Falcon (but who really knows?) so those prices might stay high, now you're going to have collectors running in and buying all the new collector's edition Lego sets, and Lego will just make sure to make more of those sets to meet the demands of the collectors who are in it for the money (not the people who actually want to buy a set because it's cool/nostalgic/whatever). That means all future models will likely have more supply than the true demand. Either you got in early with the Millennium Falcon set, or you're late to the game like everyone else.
I'm sure it worked well when there were only a few people doing it, buying the collector's edition sets and selling them when they're no longer available, but once this kind of information about an imbalance in the market hits the news (as it just has) then you'll see a whole bunch of people pile into the market. They're all speculators. The price goes up. It's a bubble. The first people out "win" and the rest lose money. It's such a scam for them to talk about it in terms of annualized returns. That makes it sound like you can do this over and over every year. This is just market prices changing, and they tend to correct quickly. If you're thinking of getting into this market, I caution you it's a very bad idea.
So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.
When I called for support for my XPS desktop (audio problems with Vista), I did get routed to a different 1-800 number I had to call. I got a person who treated me like an adult.
If the car was following the speed limit and staying in its lane and the bus swerved into its lane, then it wouldn't have to do anything except brake. The bus is in the wrong. If a malfunction happened and the car lost control, well, then it doesn't have control and can't really do anything anyway. Maybe it was on ice and got control back? Well, it's probably in some kind of automated loop trying to just stop itself as quickly as it can, so it's not going to try to swerve anyway. So I agree, this is a silly example. A more apt example might be what speed to drive when it's foggy out (there's likely some risk/reward curve there, so we have to weight how much risk to take vs. how soon we want to get there). That's a problem that's calculated and solved ahead of time, so it's totally under the control of a person.
That would be a problem if... we had to choose between running over two pregnant women vs. running over 3 adult male pedestrians? The fact is that unless there's a law stating which alternative is correct, the manufacturer will choose the less expensive option, whatever that means.
I wonder what will happen when the people who are teenagers now grow up and want to run for politics. Most of them have spent the last few years doing extremely embarrassing things online (from an adult's perspective) and all this is going to get dug up by their opponents when they run for office.
That's when you might start to see a push for these "rights to be forgotten".
They only test specific markers, or that's my understanding.
If a company releases a new product, they have to add new features to get you to buy it. Why add features to a product people have already bought when they're trying to push the new shiny?
The real story would be if they didn't continue with security updates and bug fixes, but I doubt that's the case.
I agree, but the difference is that these are marketed as a toy. The gov't isn't going to allow the seller to label it as "age 12 and up" and let that be the end of it.
While I disagree with the ban, your logic doesn't make sense. Toddlers aren't running into Walmart and buying these, and I don't think anyone's worried about 12-year-olds ingesting them. Limiting it to 18 would do nothing.
Sure, and while we're at it, I'm not sure why we don't make everyone pay for primary and secondary school too. After all the only reason it's so expensive is because it's propped up by the government. If only the people who could afford primary and secondary school actually went, things would be a lot better in this country, right?
No one is stopping you from saying how you voted. It's about stopping you from proving it (and therefore being coerced into voting for someone you *didn't* want to vote for).