My criticism is not even about the overap, per se... it's about the fact that so many people say it, when so few actually do. It's more about what they are saying when they talk about leaving their country (and then don't) than it is about any lack of taking action over what they might think is the right thing for them to do.
I expect this is particularly true for presidential elections than other kinds of political issues because even a terrible president will only be in power for a maximum of 8 years, which I suppose is viewed by most as being less of an issue on the grand scheme of things than leaving their country behind entirely. If the USA is truly a great country, and many Americans believe that it is, then in reality, it will take much more than just one lousy president to bring it to absolute ruin.
And preachers who have been willing to break what they perceive to be a bad law is not a new thing.
Considering the small actual number of genuinely required people to be in attendance at a wedding, it is improbable to the extreme that they would even necessarily get caught. Official documents can be post-dated.
So when a supposedly obviously superior technology doesn't really fly, it must be because of some conspiracy to "deliberately restrict" the market? How about considering just the possibility that it doesn't do what people actually seem to want.
When epaper can do what OLEDs currently do with regards to color and full motion video, it will really take off.. but until then, it simply isn't going to be ubiquitous enough to have really widespread appeal, even for applications where it probably would be adequate.
Arguing that many applications don't require it has no bearing on what people seem to actually want. That the current OLED market has all but destroyed the market for epaper suggests that people want what they *LIKE*, not necessarily what they *NEED*.
Not even half a million left over that though.... that's the *total* number of people permanently living in Canada right now that were formerly or still are citizens of the USA. The number of people who have left in just the past few years is not statistically any different from the number of people who have been immigrating into Canada from the USA in the years preceding.
*THAT* is the what I refer to when I say that most Americans that say they will move to Canada over the results of a presidential election are just actually spouting bullshit. Millions say they will... and then after the election, nothing happens.
Okay... some probably do what they said they will, and I won't dispute that. But even if you allege that *EVERY* American that actually moves into Canada from the USA is doing so over some previously announced claim that they would do so because of election results, that number is not even 1% of the number that previously threatened they did (closer, in fact, to about 1/10 of a percent)... and there is no statistical basis to assume that all of them did anyways. While millions of Americans actually do threaten to move to Canada over election results in the months leading up to an American election, it is not anywhere close to a majority of Americans, so there's no sustainable reason to conclude that a majority of Americans that actually immigrate to the Canada had previously threatened to do so either. Even arguing the possibility that this *might* have been true rests on nothing but conjecture, while what I am talking about is supported both by actual historical immigration rates and ordinary statistics.
The last time there was actually a significant number of immigrants from the USA into Canada was in the 60's and 70's. And back then, they didn't publicly announce they were going to do it, they just did.
You don't need to know (2) or (3) when actual immigration data from the USA into Canada can't even begin to corroborate the claim of (1). In fact, even the *TOTAL* number of people permanently residing in Canada who were born in the USA is only around half a million... which is barely a tenth of the number of people that said they would leave if Obama was re-elected. And that's the total number of Americans who've moved into Canada *EVER*... not just during Obama's run as president... and of course, there weren't any noteworthy spikes in immigration from the USA after the election either.
I said nothing about a politically driven exodus being something that never happens. I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do. It is less of a criticism that they won't ever move when they feel it is right for them to do so than it is a criticism of what they are saying, because what they are saying is usually just so much hot air if it involves actually leaving their home.
And there are applications where at least one or sometimes both are desirable, even if not necessarily strictly needed. Other technologies exist that do both, so they are used instead. When epaper can do both, I'm sure there'll be a mass migration to it, but consider that it wasn't until LCD displays were both full color and affordable that they really started started taking off... eventually obsoleting the CRT display entirely..
Your example is not really a counterpoint to the one I was making. In fact, most of the Americans who moved to Canada at the time you refer to did not ever "threaten" to do so... they simply did, without any announcement of their intention in advance (in fact, to have done so would have defeated the purpose because of the situation they were trying to get away from).
My point remains... historically, almost all Americans who announce that they will move to Canada based on the outcome of an election before the election has even happened do not. If the situation is truly dire enough for them, they will move without feeling any need to announce it so long in advance. In fact, the very fact that they *CAN* freely announce such a claimed intention is actually proof that the situation is not that dire anyways, and probably not worth moving to another country for. At least not for most people.
In the months leading up to every US election I always keep hearing about how so many Americans will want to move up to Canada if or when so-and-so becomes president, and then it never happens.... even when that person wins the election.
Honestly, it's getting old... how many times do you think you can cry 'wolf' and people will believe you?
Every single one of those would be a *VERY* serious offense at the full serve station that I used to work at, and because security cam footage can corroborate the allegation, some of them could land the employee (or probably former employee, since they would likely be fired) in no small amount of legal hot water, or maybe even facing jail time. As for genuine accidents, "honest mistake" or no, a gas jockey still has a responsibility to be careful, and that includes paying for one's mistakes. If one does not feel they are being paid enough to be responsible for their actions, consider that being paid even minimum wage is still a hell of a lot better than not having a job at all, or finding yourself under arrest, or getting sued when there is video evidence to show what you did.
... devices can evaluate the state of mind of the person using whatever pass code is required to ordinarily access it, and then failing to allow such access if what would otherwise be the correct pass is provided while under any kind of duress?
"From within" requires physical access... tricking a user requires that they are gullible. This proposal doesn't entitle law enforcement to the former, and people who are competent network managers are not prone to the latter. My point is that this proposal does not prohibit someone from securing their own networks, and any difficulty that law enforcement might have trying to hack in, however lawfully they are permitted to attempt to do so, may be entirely fruitless. The end user still possesses entirely legally valid absolute veto power here against this proposal as long as no laws are passed that require that backdoors exist in all systems connected to a public network... all that is required at most is education.
"Tricking" the user plays on a user's gullibility... a trait that is not generally widely held among people who are actually competent with computers and networks.
My point is that if a person is smart enough to have defenses against this, then they are probably also not dumb enough to be tricked by phishing attempts, and any browser they run will be in an isolated enough sandbox that any vulnerabilities which might exist in it will have very limited effects outside of itself, if any.
Okay... so they are idiots. My point is that even though this proposal might empower law enforcement to have the authority to try and hack into other people's computers in the interests of a criminal investigation, as long as no law exists *requiring* that hardware vendors deliberately compromise their systems so that such intrusion is relatively easy, a competent computer knowledgeable person can harden their network against absolutely any attempts to hack into it from outside, regardless of who is trying to do so.
Afaik, the network vendor is *NOT* required to put in a back door... That's my whole point... that this proposal does not prevent someone from securing their own network against intrusion.
Agreed... but unless laws exist that require the manufacturer to do this, the consumer can research different manufacturers and decide for themselves which is the most reputable and meets their security requirements
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is step 2. You can't enforce it because you don't necessarily have any way to know that a wedding might even be happening.
My criticism is not even about the overap, per se... it's about the fact that so many people say it, when so few actually do. It's more about what they are saying when they talk about leaving their country (and then don't) than it is about any lack of taking action over what they might think is the right thing for them to do.
I expect this is particularly true for presidential elections than other kinds of political issues because even a terrible president will only be in power for a maximum of 8 years, which I suppose is viewed by most as being less of an issue on the grand scheme of things than leaving their country behind entirely. If the USA is truly a great country, and many Americans believe that it is, then in reality, it will take much more than just one lousy president to bring it to absolute ruin.
No you do not.... all you need is a preacher.
And preachers who have been willing to break what they perceive to be a bad law is not a new thing.
Considering the small actual number of genuinely required people to be in attendance at a wedding, it is improbable to the extreme that they would even necessarily get caught. Official documents can be post-dated.
When epaper can do what OLEDs currently do with regards to color and full motion video, it will really take off.. but until then, it simply isn't going to be ubiquitous enough to have really widespread appeal, even for applications where it probably would be adequate.
Arguing that many applications don't require it has no bearing on what people seem to actually want. That the current OLED market has all but destroyed the market for epaper suggests that people want what they *LIKE*, not necessarily what they *NEED*.
Not even half a million left over that though.... that's the *total* number of people permanently living in Canada right now that were formerly or still are citizens of the USA. The number of people who have left in just the past few years is not statistically any different from the number of people who have been immigrating into Canada from the USA in the years preceding.
*THAT* is the what I refer to when I say that most Americans that say they will move to Canada over the results of a presidential election are just actually spouting bullshit. Millions say they will... and then after the election, nothing happens.
Okay... some probably do what they said they will, and I won't dispute that. But even if you allege that *EVERY* American that actually moves into Canada from the USA is doing so over some previously announced claim that they would do so because of election results, that number is not even 1% of the number that previously threatened they did (closer, in fact, to about 1/10 of a percent)... and there is no statistical basis to assume that all of them did anyways. While millions of Americans actually do threaten to move to Canada over election results in the months leading up to an American election, it is not anywhere close to a majority of Americans, so there's no sustainable reason to conclude that a majority of Americans that actually immigrate to the Canada had previously threatened to do so either. Even arguing the possibility that this *might* have been true rests on nothing but conjecture, while what I am talking about is supported both by actual historical immigration rates and ordinary statistics.
The last time there was actually a significant number of immigrants from the USA into Canada was in the 60's and 70's. And back then, they didn't publicly announce they were going to do it, they just did.
You don't need to know (2) or (3) when actual immigration data from the USA into Canada can't even begin to corroborate the claim of (1). In fact, even the *TOTAL* number of people permanently residing in Canada who were born in the USA is only around half a million... which is barely a tenth of the number of people that said they would leave if Obama was re-elected. And that's the total number of Americans who've moved into Canada *EVER*... not just during Obama's run as president... and of course, there weren't any noteworthy spikes in immigration from the USA after the election either.
If you won't take my word for it... listen to what the Prime Minister has to say about it.
The market would seem to think that sucking in direct sunlight is an acceptable compromise to otherwise having color and full motion video.
I said nothing about a politically driven exodus being something that never happens. I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do. It is less of a criticism that they won't ever move when they feel it is right for them to do so than it is a criticism of what they are saying, because what they are saying is usually just so much hot air if it involves actually leaving their home.
And there are applications where at least one or sometimes both are desirable, even if not necessarily strictly needed. Other technologies exist that do both, so they are used instead. When epaper can do both, I'm sure there'll be a mass migration to it, but consider that it wasn't until LCD displays were both full color and affordable that they really started started taking off... eventually obsoleting the CRT display entirely..
I don't even understand how that is logically possible.
Two things.
Full color.
Video capable update speeds.
No? Pass.
Can I mod a headline down as -1 Obvious?
Your example is not really a counterpoint to the one I was making. In fact, most of the Americans who moved to Canada at the time you refer to did not ever "threaten" to do so... they simply did, without any announcement of their intention in advance (in fact, to have done so would have defeated the purpose because of the situation they were trying to get away from).
My point remains... historically, almost all Americans who announce that they will move to Canada based on the outcome of an election before the election has even happened do not. If the situation is truly dire enough for them, they will move without feeling any need to announce it so long in advance. In fact, the very fact that they *CAN* freely announce such a claimed intention is actually proof that the situation is not that dire anyways, and probably not worth moving to another country for. At least not for most people.
In the months leading up to every US election I always keep hearing about how so many Americans will want to move up to Canada if or when so-and-so becomes president, and then it never happens.... even when that person wins the election.
Honestly, it's getting old... how many times do you think you can cry 'wolf' and people will believe you?
That assumes that an AI cannot be any better at a person at determining if somebody is being truthful in how they are presenting themselves.
Every single one of those would be a *VERY* serious offense at the full serve station that I used to work at, and because security cam footage can corroborate the allegation, some of them could land the employee (or probably former employee, since they would likely be fired) in no small amount of legal hot water, or maybe even facing jail time. As for genuine accidents, "honest mistake" or no, a gas jockey still has a responsibility to be careful, and that includes paying for one's mistakes. If one does not feel they are being paid enough to be responsible for their actions, consider that being paid even minimum wage is still a hell of a lot better than not having a job at all, or finding yourself under arrest, or getting sued when there is video evidence to show what you did.
... devices can evaluate the state of mind of the person using whatever pass code is required to ordinarily access it, and then failing to allow such access if what would otherwise be the correct pass is provided while under any kind of duress?
Pun(s) intended.
Yes but I'm not sure what that has to do with what I've said.
"From within" requires physical access... tricking a user requires that they are gullible. This proposal doesn't entitle law enforcement to the former, and people who are competent network managers are not prone to the latter. My point is that this proposal does not prohibit someone from securing their own networks, and any difficulty that law enforcement might have trying to hack in, however lawfully they are permitted to attempt to do so, may be entirely fruitless. The end user still possesses entirely legally valid absolute veto power here against this proposal as long as no laws are passed that require that backdoors exist in all systems connected to a public network... all that is required at most is education.
"Tricking" the user plays on a user's gullibility... a trait that is not generally widely held among people who are actually competent with computers and networks.
My point is that if a person is smart enough to have defenses against this, then they are probably also not dumb enough to be tricked by phishing attempts, and any browser they run will be in an isolated enough sandbox that any vulnerabilities which might exist in it will have very limited effects outside of itself, if any.
Okay... so they are idiots. My point is that even though this proposal might empower law enforcement to have the authority to try and hack into other people's computers in the interests of a criminal investigation, as long as no law exists *requiring* that hardware vendors deliberately compromise their systems so that such intrusion is relatively easy, a competent computer knowledgeable person can harden their network against absolutely any attempts to hack into it from outside, regardless of who is trying to do so.
Afaik, the network vendor is *NOT* required to put in a back door... That's my whole point... that this proposal does not prevent someone from securing their own network against intrusion.
Agreed... but unless laws exist that require the manufacturer to do this, the consumer can research different manufacturers and decide for themselves which is the most reputable and meets their security requirements