Not "our", but if the US starves because it can't have the mindless factory jobs, it's its own fault. The developing countries - not to mention machines - are providing a huge surplus of wealth as goods in exchange for paper notes, freeing up a lot of resources. You could probably produce enough to feed the whole country with less than 1% of the total manpower. If anyone goes hungry in the US, it's a result of a screw-up society, not the fact that you can't get jobs wiping iPhones (which no one would be able to afford anyway).
People in 'developing' countries are poor because of local corruption or foreign colonialism, not because of Apple's failure to relocate a factory over there.
And the US workers aren't unemployed because the Chinese and Indian workers are cheaper. They're unemployed because their wealth is so much greater that they can't compete, not to mention their own local corruption and protectionism like the one you're arguing for (the GM story is a great example).
Maybe somebody who is more articulate can pick up...
And would you rather starve the locals for the sole benefit of the company
It's not for the sole benefit of the company. It's for the benefit of millions of people, who have much less opportunities to create new jobs than the locals.
And in any case, if you think that "locals" would get the jobs, you should read up on the number of manufacturing jobs per unit of production in the developed world. You know who is getting manufacturing jobs locally? Machines.
How is that 'banning' them from 'competing? That's not competition, it's exploitation. And would you rather starve the locals for the sole benefit of the company, just so you can have a cheaper iPhone? Because that's exactly what happens.
Really? How? Are these people being forced to work?
Newsflash: people work on those factories because the alternative is worse, and all you're trying to do is remove their choice and force them to the worst of a bad situation. It's OK that they die as long as you don't feel guilty because they're not making iPhones, right?
The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
------------
If a domestic company wants to move its factory offshore, it's only fair that our people have the same right to move with it if they desire.
Be my guest, move to India or China if you want to.
Yeah, fuck the starving people, they're foreigners so who cares if they die of hunger, right? It's easier to ban them from competing than to innovate and make new jobs.
There's plenty of work to be done that most people could do. Elderly care, for example, is an important and growing sector.
Then again, if there's any group that deserves to be on the losing side of this dog-eat-dog battle, it's bankers.
There's no losing side. A person in the middle class today lives better than kings did in many ways (food balance, health, access to entertainment, etc).
Sure, we need to push back against the imbalances, but that kind of zero-sum thinking is poisonous.
Not exactly; it does deduplication before uploading, so it only sends and stores new and changed blocks. In practice, I think it's even better, since it also deals with multiple copies - even if slightly edited - of the same file.
Well, you don't have to do anything wrong to be subjected to a warrant - just be a suspect.
But regardless, I still don't agree. If by taken, you mean copied and analyzed, that's almost irrelevant if it's well encrypted - which I mentioned in my first post.
And if you mean taken down as a causality, that's only if you use a crappy service. Tarsnap, for example, is very cheap and uses S3, which means there's always copies on multiple devices across multiple facilities. The probability of having all the copies accidentally seized is probably lower than an airplane falling on your home.
So, if they enter your home and take your drive, how have they not prevented access to it? There's no such thing as a place "that no-one could have prevented access".
Nothing is ever "really" yours, since property is just an idea.
But I'd say that an encrypted blob (encrypted locally!) in a cloud service somewhere is more "yours" than an unencrypted blob in a hard drive in your home. Most people don't live in bunkers where you need more than a few tools to get into, but an encrypted blob requires you to disclose the passphrase (voluntarily or not).
Since the communication happened only so that the client could commit a tort, I don't think attorney-client privileges apply, since they would fall under the crime/tort/fraud exception: http://www.taxlitigator.com/articles/168364.htm
We're talking about Smartphones. Talking is hardly the only activity that requires active transmission. Facebook, Twitter, email, music streaming, Latitude-like apps, all require regular transmission of data.
No, they promise a radio chip that uses less than half the power, which is why it could cut down on the overall consumption by 50%. It's perfectly possible, as long as the chip currently uses a big enough percentage of the total energy consumption.
That's a great argument for a closed App Store. It's not an argument for the impossibility of choosing other stores and/or installing apps from other sources.
Also, if you think there's no malicious code in the App Store, I have a bridge to sell you.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not cheating. The problem is all the people who would have to decide between their candidate and their job, relationship, etc.
Secret voting enables voting free from coercion.
http://slashdot.org/submission
That is not the wavelength you're looking for. Cheap cameras can see into the near infrared, not the mid/long infrared of thermal imaging.
Not "our", but if the US starves because it can't have the mindless factory jobs, it's its own fault. The developing countries - not to mention machines - are providing a huge surplus of wealth as goods in exchange for paper notes, freeing up a lot of resources. You could probably produce enough to feed the whole country with less than 1% of the total manpower.
If anyone goes hungry in the US, it's a result of a screw-up society, not the fact that you can't get jobs wiping iPhones (which no one would be able to afford anyway).
People in 'developing' countries are poor because of local corruption or foreign colonialism, not because of Apple's failure to relocate a factory over there.
And the US workers aren't unemployed because the Chinese and Indian workers are cheaper. They're unemployed because their wealth is so much greater that they can't compete, not to mention their own local corruption and protectionism like the one you're arguing for (the GM story is a great example).
Maybe somebody who is more articulate can pick up...
Here's someone more articulate: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
And would you rather starve the locals for the sole benefit of the company
It's not for the sole benefit of the company. It's for the benefit of millions of people, who have much less opportunities to create new jobs than the locals.
And in any case, if you think that "locals" would get the jobs, you should read up on the number of manufacturing jobs per unit of production in the developed world.
You know who is getting manufacturing jobs locally? Machines.
How is that 'banning' them from 'competing? That's not competition, it's exploitation. And would you rather starve the locals for the sole benefit of the company, just so you can have a cheaper iPhone? Because that's exactly what happens.
Really? How? Are these people being forced to work?
Newsflash: people work on those factories because the alternative is worse, and all you're trying to do is remove their choice and force them to the worst of a bad situation. It's OK that they die as long as you don't feel guilty because they're not making iPhones, right?
The only reason developing countries have been able to compete with those industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations, anything that curtails that growth is very much against their interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries.
------------
If a domestic company wants to move its factory offshore, it's only fair that our people have the same right to move with it if they desire.
Be my guest, move to India or China if you want to.
Yeah, fuck the starving people, they're foreigners so who cares if they die of hunger, right? It's easier to ban them from competing than to innovate and make new jobs.
Yes, what /. clearly lacks is stories about the EFF.
Counter-example: Rupert Murdoch is rich too, and even own media companies.
So? Are you planning on living thousands of years?
There's plenty of work to be done that most people could do. Elderly care, for example, is an important and growing sector.
Then again, if there's any group that deserves to be on the losing side of this dog-eat-dog battle, it's bankers.
There's no losing side. A person in the middle class today lives better than kings did in many ways (food balance, health, access to entertainment, etc).
Sure, we need to push back against the imbalances, but that kind of zero-sum thinking is poisonous.
Not exactly; it does deduplication before uploading, so it only sends and stores new and changed blocks. In practice, I think it's even better, since it also deals with multiple copies - even if slightly edited - of the same file.
Well, you don't have to do anything wrong to be subjected to a warrant - just be a suspect.
But regardless, I still don't agree. If by taken, you mean copied and analyzed, that's almost irrelevant if it's well encrypted - which I mentioned in my first post.
And if you mean taken down as a causality, that's only if you use a crappy service. Tarsnap, for example, is very cheap and uses S3, which means there's always copies on multiple devices across multiple facilities. The probability of having all the copies accidentally seized is probably lower than an airplane falling on your home.
Copyright is not property, it's a different legal right.
I'm surprised it took someone this long to think of this.
Tarsnap, designed and developed by the FreeBSD Security Officer and security researcher (Colin Percival) is four years old.
Its BSD licensed client encrypts everything on the client - including file names - and then uploads it to Amazon S3.
It's awesome.
http://www.tarsnap.com/
So, if they enter your home and take your drive, how have they not prevented access to it? There's no such thing as a place "that no-one could have prevented access".
Nothing is ever "really" yours, since property is just an idea.
But I'd say that an encrypted blob (encrypted locally!) in a cloud service somewhere is more "yours" than an unencrypted blob in a hard drive in your home. Most people don't live in bunkers where you need more than a few tools to get into, but an encrypted blob requires you to disclose the passphrase (voluntarily or not).
Since the communication happened only so that the client could commit a tort, I don't think attorney-client privileges apply, since they would fall under the crime/tort/fraud exception: http://www.taxlitigator.com/articles/168364.htm
IANAL, though.
The context was CP distribution, not copyright infringement.
We're talking about Smartphones. Talking is hardly the only activity that requires active transmission. Facebook, Twitter, email, music streaming, Latitude-like apps, all require regular transmission of data.
Seems like a "rotatable" 16:10 would be better for your use case.
Does the screen really use more than 1/2? Or is that only when the phone is being used?
During about 90% of the day, my phone is in idle, with the screen turned off but still pinging the network.
No, they promise a radio chip that uses less than half the power, which is why it could cut down on the overall consumption by 50%. It's perfectly possible, as long as the chip currently uses a big enough percentage of the total energy consumption.
That's a great argument for a closed App Store. It's not an argument for the impossibility of choosing other stores and/or installing apps from other sources.
Also, if you think there's no malicious code in the App Store, I have a bridge to sell you.