And that's my point.... that the employer would have had to *AT LEAST* compensate her for the time that she worked until she discovered she had been fired... Perhaps not that big a deal when it is only a matter of an hour or two, but would have been very interesting if she had not found out for several days.
Do you know what real despair is? I'm betting that you've never experienced it.... count yourself lucky.
Of course not enough never turns into enough.... but even not enough is still better than being homeless.
Obviously, a person with any sense will continue to look for additional (or better paying) work while they are working at a place where they aren't making enough to really meet their needs, but looking does not mean that one will necessarily find anytime soon... particularly when one is already employed and has their hours restricted by what their current employer is expecting.
Presuming that anyone who would complain about being underemployed as somehow only brought upon themselves the fruit of their own labors is nothing less than veiled snobbery, and shows a distinct lack of compassion and awareness of the world around them.
What kind of idiot takes a full time job that would only pay 80% of their rent, without having moved as soon as they knew they were taking the job?
An "idiot" that has been trying for months to find work and has realized that I even 80% is better than zero when their unemployment benefits run out, and has not been able to find anything better
I'm not suggesting it doesn't happen, I'm suggesting that I can't imagine that it is genuinely legal.
Bear in mind that I understand that an employer may not have to give any *advance* notice of things such as schedule changes or even termination... one can usually be fired for (nearly) any reason, or even no reason at all at any time... but even then, it would seem to me that if the employer did not actually tell the employee that they were fired, then the employer would still have to pay for all hours worked until such communication was made, so it is not in the employer's best financial interest to not tell the employee at all.
Even not having enough to pay for utilities or food is a whole lot better than being homeless. Sometimes you take what you can get... obviously if its not enough you're gonna move on when you find something better. But something better doesn't always come around that quickly.
I get that in a lot of states there is this thing called "at will employment" that allows an employer to fire an employee for almost any reason (or no reason), as long as the reason does not violate federal rights, but is it legal to fire someone without actually communicating to them that their services are no longer required, apparently letting them somehow figure it out on their own?
While the situation with Milton in the movie Office Space was funny, I can't imagine it is remotely legal in real life.
That's only applicable if one claims that one is an actual professional legal practitioner. although any so-called legal advice that does not come from someone who practices law professionally certainly may be suspect, it is not by any means illegal.
What is the typical attack vector for something like this? I understand how it might affect a home users own computers either by visiting malicious websites, or being unconcerned with what one runs that was downloaded from ithe Internet, but how does a place like a school get hit?
While zp access takes fewer bytes, and would indeed reduce the fetch time, the time it took to execute indirect addressing instructions on the 6502 was 5 to 6 cycles, and were among the instructions that take the longest time to execute (the only instruction taking more time was the 7-cycle ASL instruction).
What happens if Apple tries to cooperate, attempts to write a version of iOS that will do what the FBI wants, and the result does not work? What if it takes a long time to write? Who compensates Apple for the programmers' time while that tool is being developed, tested, and debugged? What if the code they make accidentally has bugs that cause data loss on the device that simply were not exposed during QA testing?
The biggest issue I can see with NSL's is the non-disclosure aspect... to the point that you aren't even allowed to say why you won't talk about something even if you are directly asked, and what I can see being the biggest problem there is that can put a person in a position where the only way that they may be able to prevent revealing that they aren't allowed to talk about something (by explicitly avoiding talking about it if they are asked, for example, which may suggest to someone who pays attention to non-verbal cues that they are being compelled to not talk about it) is to make up some answer to what they are being asked that isn't true. In addition to potentially violating one's personal ethics on the matter of telling lies (which has potential to run afoul with the human right of freedom of religion), it can also require that the person possess certain levels of improvisational skills in order to convincingly tell such a lie, or else it may still be evident to whomever they are lying to that they *are* hiding something, and an observant person or someone who knows that person very well may still be able to conclude from this that they have been given a gag order.
Obviously, if they are never asked about it by anyone else, then there is no problem.... but this is not necessarily entirely within one's control... and easily the most problematic issue of such a gag order.
An increasing number of submissions lately have had text copy-pasted right out of the article, only to get mangled by Slashdot's inability to cope with UTF8.
It's 2015, can Slashdot please join the 21st century already?
The 6502, for example, makes for a beautiful stack machine...
As the 6502 only had a single stack, limited in size to 256 bytes, and hard coded to reside at memory address range 0x0100-0x01ff, I might tend to disagree with that assessment.
That wholly would depend on whether they actually had the ability to decrypt it in that amount of time. If not, they would simply try to find the bomb before the deadline, and not bother trying to decrypt it at all, because that is more likely to produce the desired results than doing something that they already know they could not offer any guarantee of success before their time was up.
Would *YOU* want to even try to do something that you knew you could offer no guarantee of success within a human lifetime with current technology, and that you would have to do entirely at your own expense? (because I have not seen anywhere that the FBI is required to pay Apple for their time)
Basically, the FBI doesn't want to have to get a warrant for the phone records from the providers and then track down all the frequently called numbers.
It seems to me that would actually be a whole lot easier than all of this.
Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job.
I hear this kind of stuff being said all the time like it is some sort of general rule but the reality it seems that this is not actually happening in most companies. With most places, any pay discrepancies that might exist between two people of any gender who work for the same employer can almost always be accounted for by the fact that the people whose salaries are being compared are doing different jobs, or have else have differing responsibilities at work.
To suggest that it would be as you said is to suggest that laws can't ever be made that require companies or people to change what they may have formerly been doing. That is only true to the extent that they will generally not be expected to change things that are genuinely outside of their control, such as trying to change something that has already happened, or control property that may have formerly been theirs, but whose ownership has been lawfully transferred to somebody else. Whether a company cooperates with law enforcement, however, is by definition entirely in their control and so the prohibition against making laws apply to things which happened before the law was made would not be applicable if the company were to continue to refuse afterwards.
The biggest issue I would have with a law like this is that in some cases, it may be impossible for a company to show that it tried to cooperate with a request, because with particularly strong encryption no indication of effort to try decrypting would necessarily even exist unless the effort were successful, and it can be utterly impossible to guarantee success in any reasonable amount of time. This is further complicated by the fact that understanding why it it is impossible to guarantee success generally requires understanding the mathematics behind it that most people would not want to be bothered learning. The remaining alternatives are to either take an expert's word for it that it is hard without really understanding why, or to equally blindly believe that such so-called experts are actually not being truthful about how difficult it is, and attempting to obscure the issue with mathematics that they can't comprehend.
Murderers, pedophiles, drug dealers and the others are already using this technology to cover their tracks
If they had covered their tracks, then nobody would know they were doing those things, and if they somehow do know, then they aren't using it to cover their tracks are they?
Slashdot Mirror
And that's my point.... that the employer would have had to *AT LEAST* compensate her for the time that she worked until she discovered she had been fired... Perhaps not that big a deal when it is only a matter of an hour or two, but would have been very interesting if she had not found out for several days.
Do you know what real despair is? I'm betting that you've never experienced it.... count yourself lucky.
Of course not enough never turns into enough.... but even not enough is still better than being homeless.
Obviously, a person with any sense will continue to look for additional (or better paying) work while they are working at a place where they aren't making enough to really meet their needs, but looking does not mean that one will necessarily find anytime soon... particularly when one is already employed and has their hours restricted by what their current employer is expecting.
Presuming that anyone who would complain about being underemployed as somehow only brought upon themselves the fruit of their own labors is nothing less than veiled snobbery, and shows a distinct lack of compassion and awareness of the world around them.
An "idiot" that has been trying for months to find work and has realized that I even 80% is better than zero when their unemployment benefits run out, and has not been able to find anything better
I'm not suggesting it doesn't happen, I'm suggesting that I can't imagine that it is genuinely legal.
Bear in mind that I understand that an employer may not have to give any *advance* notice of things such as schedule changes or even termination... one can usually be fired for (nearly) any reason, or even no reason at all at any time... but even then, it would seem to me that if the employer did not actually tell the employee that they were fired, then the employer would still have to pay for all hours worked until such communication was made, so it is not in the employer's best financial interest to not tell the employee at all.
Nothing like that in the article... where did you see this?
Even not having enough to pay for utilities or food is a whole lot better than being homeless. Sometimes you take what you can get... obviously if its not enough you're gonna move on when you find something better. But something better doesn't always come around that quickly.
I get that in a lot of states there is this thing called "at will employment" that allows an employer to fire an employee for almost any reason (or no reason), as long as the reason does not violate federal rights, but is it legal to fire someone without actually communicating to them that their services are no longer required, apparently letting them somehow figure it out on their own?
While the situation with Milton in the movie Office Space was funny, I can't imagine it is remotely legal in real life.
Except when you do, of course.
That's only applicable if one claims that one is an actual professional legal practitioner. although any so-called legal advice that does not come from someone who practices law professionally certainly may be suspect, it is not by any means illegal.
What is the typical attack vector for something like this? I understand how it might affect a home users own computers either by visiting malicious websites, or being unconcerned with what one runs that was downloaded from ithe Internet, but how does a place like a school get hit?
While zp access takes fewer bytes, and would indeed reduce the fetch time, the time it took to execute indirect addressing instructions on the 6502 was 5 to 6 cycles, and were among the instructions that take the longest time to execute (the only instruction taking more time was the 7-cycle ASL instruction).
What happens if Apple tries to cooperate, attempts to write a version of iOS that will do what the FBI wants, and the result does not work? What if it takes a long time to write? Who compensates Apple for the programmers' time while that tool is being developed, tested, and debugged? What if the code they make accidentally has bugs that cause data loss on the device that simply were not exposed during QA testing?
The biggest issue I can see with NSL's is the non-disclosure aspect... to the point that you aren't even allowed to say why you won't talk about something even if you are directly asked, and what I can see being the biggest problem there is that can put a person in a position where the only way that they may be able to prevent revealing that they aren't allowed to talk about something (by explicitly avoiding talking about it if they are asked, for example, which may suggest to someone who pays attention to non-verbal cues that they are being compelled to not talk about it) is to make up some answer to what they are being asked that isn't true. In addition to potentially violating one's personal ethics on the matter of telling lies (which has potential to run afoul with the human right of freedom of religion), it can also require that the person possess certain levels of improvisational skills in order to convincingly tell such a lie, or else it may still be evident to whomever they are lying to that they *are* hiding something, and an observant person or someone who knows that person very well may still be able to conclude from this that they have been given a gag order.
Obviously, if they are never asked about it by anyone else, then there is no problem.... but this is not necessarily entirely within one's control... and easily the most problematic issue of such a gag order.
So basically, if Apple can do it at all, then the backdoor already exists, and is already awaiting exploitation.
Right you are. I didn't notice the typo
An increasing number of submissions lately have had text copy-pasted right out of the article, only to get mangled by Slashdot's inability to cope with UTF8.
It's 2015, can Slashdot please join the 21st century already?
As the 6502 only had a single stack, limited in size to 256 bytes, and hard coded to reside at memory address range 0x0100-0x01ff, I might tend to disagree with that assessment.
Do you have any proof of that?
That wholly would depend on whether they actually had the ability to decrypt it in that amount of time. If not, they would simply try to find the bomb before the deadline, and not bother trying to decrypt it at all, because that is more likely to produce the desired results than doing something that they already know they could not offer any guarantee of success before their time was up.
Does Apple get paid even if they don't succeed? How do they prove that they even tried at all if they are unsuccessful?
Would *YOU* want to even try to do something that you knew you could offer no guarantee of success within a human lifetime with current technology, and that you would have to do entirely at your own expense? (because I have not seen anywhere that the FBI is required to pay Apple for their time)
It seems to me that would actually be a whole lot easier than all of this.
I hear this kind of stuff being said all the time like it is some sort of general rule but the reality it seems that this is not actually happening in most companies. With most places, any pay discrepancies that might exist between two people of any gender who work for the same employer can almost always be accounted for by the fact that the people whose salaries are being compared are doing different jobs, or have else have differing responsibilities at work.
To suggest that it would be as you said is to suggest that laws can't ever be made that require companies or people to change what they may have formerly been doing. That is only true to the extent that they will generally not be expected to change things that are genuinely outside of their control, such as trying to change something that has already happened, or control property that may have formerly been theirs, but whose ownership has been lawfully transferred to somebody else. Whether a company cooperates with law enforcement, however, is by definition entirely in their control and so the prohibition against making laws apply to things which happened before the law was made would not be applicable if the company were to continue to refuse afterwards.
The biggest issue I would have with a law like this is that in some cases, it may be impossible for a company to show that it tried to cooperate with a request, because with particularly strong encryption no indication of effort to try decrypting would necessarily even exist unless the effort were successful, and it can be utterly impossible to guarantee success in any reasonable amount of time. This is further complicated by the fact that understanding why it it is impossible to guarantee success generally requires understanding the mathematics behind it that most people would not want to be bothered learning. The remaining alternatives are to either take an expert's word for it that it is hard without really understanding why, or to equally blindly believe that such so-called experts are actually not being truthful about how difficult it is, and attempting to obscure the issue with mathematics that they can't comprehend.
If they had covered their tracks, then nobody would know they were doing those things, and if they somehow do know, then they aren't using it to cover their tracks are they?