Similar, yes, in the same way that Sony turning off the servers for $multiplayer_game is similar to Sony removing OtherOS. But that doesn't put them on the same level.
For a car analogy, radios and tires are both advertised features of cars. But if car companies discovered that they could remove the radio after purchase and get away with it, and after years of doing so, one car company decides to remove the tires, and causes a huge outrage, I cannot see that having an impact on future radio removals. Only when the radio removals causes a huge outrage, will the car companies stop that particular act.
well the thing is what is puzzling me is that aren't they still supplying these services for the wii-u?
Yes.
More like no.
The apps were already unavailable in the Wii U's backwards compatibility mode
So unless they are floating around somewhere in standard Wii U mode, they are not providing, and according to TFA, have never provided, those services for the Wii U.
Except it isn't about them not seeing it, it's about them making sure that others cannot see it, conveniently wrapped up in the guise of making sure their precious little Bobby and Suzie cannot see it.
Unfortunately for them, technology has advanced to the point that they no longer require the government's assistance to block Bobby and Suzie from accessing certain channels/shows. Though now we have to wait for the slow-as-molasses bureaucracy to catch up.
But if I eat it at work, where a cook makes my meal instead of my wife... that I get taxed for?
When put that way, sure. You get taxed if you go out to a sit-down restaurant, don't you?
But that doesn't seem to be the angle here. It looks like the guy is saying that those "free" meals count as compensation, and are therefore taxable. Which given my limited understanding of the tax code, I can see that as being true.
Yes, but how is that relevant? The point I was making is that you do your converting of X into YX on the ground, and then you do not need to carry around that extra 2 gallons of fuel.
Question, does your car require you to carry around raw, unprocessed oil, complete with an oil refinery to convert it into gasoline, or can you just fill it straight with gasoline?
All of the evidence points to people, that is, the 'addicts' in question, make better choices when those choices are available to them and viable. Its not clear to me what regulation is needed to accomplish here.
I think we're talking about two different kinds of regulations. Unless you are including regulations such as those surrounding the processing of animal carcasses into food for humans.
How exactly does prohibition being bad automatically mean that regulation is bad? Sure, all prohibitions are regulations, but not all regulations are prohibitions. And it sounds like jbolden is talking about regulations that do not amount to full-on prohibition.
jbolden perhaps over-exaggerates the number of people, but there are people that would try it were it legal. I'm one of them. Would I continue to use it, and in a way detrimental to myself and/or others? The first I do not know, and the second.. well, I manage to use alcohol responsibly.
Agreed. People really need to stop saying that as it tends to be detrimental to the cause. There are people who, for whatever reason (too much hassle, don't know what the dealer may have laced in, etc), don't do illegal drugs, but would at least try it if it were legal. I myself am in that boat.
What we should be asking is how many of those people would continue to use those drugs, using them in a way detrimental to themselves and/or others. While the first part cannot be answered (how can someone know if they would continue to do something until they know whether or not they like that something?), the second part we can at least get an idea on. How many people abuse alcohol? Tobacco? Yet these things are legal in one form or another. So why can't the non-troublesome users of those substances be trusted to use other, presently-illegal substances?
Not OP, but in a similar boat. While I see the "Click for a FREE PREVIEW of the decrypted version of this story!" link, it just takes me right back to this "encrypted" version. Curiously, I also see that link when not logged in.
Perhaps, but it isn't the government committing the crime. Unless you think it should be a crime to even ask such a question, in which case I must strongly disagree with you.
While It may be illegal for an entity being asked a question to answer that question, and while it may be illegal what the asker does next to try and get an answer, the act of asking a question should, in all instances, be perfectly legal. No matter who is doing the asking or what they are asking.
Though I would probably be ok with it if it was explained as "since the government wrote the laws, they cannot claim they did not know they were asking someone to do something illegal. So for that reason, it should be illegal for them to even ask the question".
Standing in line for days for some consumer product that you can have shipped to your door the moment it's available is just retarded.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but I thought it wouldn't be shipped the moment it's released. That due to the volume of pre-orders, it could several weeks before the person gets their shiney if they were to order online vs waiting out in the cold rain.
Now whether the shortage is an actual shortage, or a manufactured shortage, I don't know.
If they're not following due process for a hosting provider, what makes you think they'll do the same for your in-house data center.
The problem, I believe, isn't the government acquiring the data through illegal means. It's the government politely asking the service provider, "hey, I don't actually have a warrant, but could you please give me XYZ information?"
Ahh, now that I was not aware of. I knew that data encrypted with the public key could only be decrypted with the private key, but I did not know that data encrypted with the private key could only be decrypted with the public one. And I did know that you cannot determine the private key with just the public key, but did not know the reverse of that was true as well.
would a reasonable person be able to memorize a 2048 bit RSA key?
Depends. Maybe the private key is a hash of, say, the US Constitution. My knowledge of encryption is pretty much non-existent, so I'm afraid I do not know how public/private keys are generated, and if it is possible to take a given private key and work backwards to produce a public key.
If not, then that key goes from being something you know to something you have.
But its location is a "something you know". If you are arrested while carrying a set of physical keys, is it ok for you to remain silent on what each key goes to? If so, I would think that it should also be ok for you to remain silent when asked to hand over a key not on your person, because what's the difference between "what does this key go to?" and "where is the key for this?"?
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
Well, I see something potentially wrong with your interpretation of it. You assume that Satan is the "losing side", and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Does it have to do with that fact that, from the Christian perspective, bad people will be tortured for eternity when they die? If so, then while I am not a Satanist, I'm fairly certain they probably do not believe that (unless we're talking masochist Satanists).
Clearly confirmation bias all the way. Atheists are not the ones stealing packages from religious people.
Sorry, but that isn't really a conclusion that can be made from this experiment. That would require a second experiment, with half the packages unmarked, and the other half marked as containing Christian merchandise.
I can see why the parents would be deeply concerned, but I can't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. Which is that Christians out-breeding Atheists is not going to cause a Christian takeover, because the majority of Christian offspring end up rejecting Christianity.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF is a "womyn-born-womyn"?
Careful, your last name also begins with "W". You don't want people to start making a connection between this and you.
...unless this was actually a clever ploy to try and throw people off from making that connection.
Similar, yes, in the same way that Sony turning off the servers for $multiplayer_game is similar to Sony removing OtherOS. But that doesn't put them on the same level.
For a car analogy, radios and tires are both advertised features of cars. But if car companies discovered that they could remove the radio after purchase and get away with it, and after years of doing so, one car company decides to remove the tires, and causes a huge outrage, I cannot see that having an impact on future radio removals. Only when the radio removals causes a huge outrage, will the car companies stop that particular act.
Yes.
More like no.
The apps were already unavailable in the Wii U's backwards compatibility mode
So unless they are floating around somewhere in standard Wii U mode, they are not providing, and according to TFA, have never provided, those services for the Wii U.
this wouldn't have happened if Sony had been harmed by removing OtherOS.
Why is that? This is more like Sony turning off the servers for $multiplayer_game than it is them removing OtherOS.
Not saying it's right, only that it is a different scenario.
If you find the program indecent, turn it off.
Except it isn't about them not seeing it, it's about them making sure that others cannot see it, conveniently wrapped up in the guise of making sure their precious little Bobby and Suzie cannot see it.
Unfortunately for them, technology has advanced to the point that they no longer require the government's assistance to block Bobby and Suzie from accessing certain channels/shows. Though now we have to wait for the slow-as-molasses bureaucracy to catch up.
If any of those things are "compensation", then technically, probably yes.
But if I eat it at work, where a cook makes my meal instead of my wife ... that I get taxed for?
When put that way, sure. You get taxed if you go out to a sit-down restaurant, don't you?
But that doesn't seem to be the angle here. It looks like the guy is saying that those "free" meals count as compensation, and are therefore taxable. Which given my limited understanding of the tax code, I can see that as being true.
Yes, but how is that relevant? The point I was making is that you do your converting of X into YX on the ground, and then you do not need to carry around that extra 2 gallons of fuel.
As long as Cave Johnson isn't heading their development.
Question, does your car require you to carry around raw, unprocessed oil, complete with an oil refinery to convert it into gasoline, or can you just fill it straight with gasoline?
All of the evidence points to people, that is, the 'addicts' in question, make better choices when those choices are available to them and viable. Its not clear to me what regulation is needed to accomplish here.
I think we're talking about two different kinds of regulations. Unless you are including regulations such as those surrounding the processing of animal carcasses into food for humans.
So you are saying that you A. think that drugs destroy lives as an inherent property of the drugs
Um, no, I said no such thing. Could you please quote the part of my post that you believe conveys that message?
How exactly does prohibition being bad automatically mean that regulation is bad? Sure, all prohibitions are regulations, but not all regulations are prohibitions. And it sounds like jbolden is talking about regulations that do not amount to full-on prohibition.
jbolden perhaps over-exaggerates the number of people, but there are people that would try it were it legal. I'm one of them. Would I continue to use it, and in a way detrimental to myself and/or others? The first I do not know, and the second.. well, I manage to use alcohol responsibly.
Agreed. People really need to stop saying that as it tends to be detrimental to the cause. There are people who, for whatever reason (too much hassle, don't know what the dealer may have laced in, etc), don't do illegal drugs, but would at least try it if it were legal. I myself am in that boat.
What we should be asking is how many of those people would continue to use those drugs, using them in a way detrimental to themselves and/or others. While the first part cannot be answered (how can someone know if they would continue to do something until they know whether or not they like that something?), the second part we can at least get an idea on. How many people abuse alcohol? Tobacco? Yet these things are legal in one form or another. So why can't the non-troublesome users of those substances be trusted to use other, presently-illegal substances?
Not OP, but in a similar boat. While I see the "Click for a FREE PREVIEW of the decrypted version of this story!" link, it just takes me right back to this "encrypted" version. Curiously, I also see that link when not logged in.
Perhaps, but it isn't the government committing the crime. Unless you think it should be a crime to even ask such a question, in which case I must strongly disagree with you.
While It may be illegal for an entity being asked a question to answer that question, and while it may be illegal what the asker does next to try and get an answer, the act of asking a question should, in all instances, be perfectly legal. No matter who is doing the asking or what they are asking.
Though I would probably be ok with it if it was explained as "since the government wrote the laws, they cannot claim they did not know they were asking someone to do something illegal. So for that reason, it should be illegal for them to even ask the question".
Standing in line for days for some consumer product that you can have shipped to your door the moment it's available is just retarded.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but I thought it wouldn't be shipped the moment it's released. That due to the volume of pre-orders, it could several weeks before the person gets their shiney if they were to order online vs waiting out in the cold rain.
Now whether the shortage is an actual shortage, or a manufactured shortage, I don't know.
If they're not following due process for a hosting provider, what makes you think they'll do the same for your in-house data center.
The problem, I believe, isn't the government acquiring the data through illegal means. It's the government politely asking the service provider, "hey, I don't actually have a warrant, but could you please give me XYZ information?"
and vice versa
Ahh, now that I was not aware of. I knew that data encrypted with the public key could only be decrypted with the private key, but I did not know that data encrypted with the private key could only be decrypted with the public one. And I did know that you cannot determine the private key with just the public key, but did not know the reverse of that was true as well.
would a reasonable person be able to memorize a 2048 bit RSA key?
Depends. Maybe the private key is a hash of, say, the US Constitution. My knowledge of encryption is pretty much non-existent, so I'm afraid I do not know how public/private keys are generated, and if it is possible to take a given private key and work backwards to produce a public key.
If not, then that key goes from being something you know to something you have.
But its location is a "something you know". If you are arrested while carrying a set of physical keys, is it ok for you to remain silent on what each key goes to? If so, I would think that it should also be ok for you to remain silent when asked to hand over a key not on your person, because what's the difference between "what does this key go to?" and "where is the key for this?"?
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
Well, I see something potentially wrong with your interpretation of it. You assume that Satan is the "losing side", and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Does it have to do with that fact that, from the Christian perspective, bad people will be tortured for eternity when they die? If so, then while I am not a Satanist, I'm fairly certain they probably do not believe that (unless we're talking masochist Satanists).
Clearly confirmation bias all the way. Atheists are not the ones stealing packages from religious people.
Sorry, but that isn't really a conclusion that can be made from this experiment. That would require a second experiment, with half the packages unmarked, and the other half marked as containing Christian merchandise.
I can see why the parents would be deeply concerned, but I can't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. Which is that Christians out-breeding Atheists is not going to cause a Christian takeover, because the majority of Christian offspring end up rejecting Christianity.