That's kind of my point... we hide some things from other people not because we have done anything wrong, but simply because they are private....
Of course, even *IF* the government's claim of benevolent intention were completely trustworthy, giving them the keys to an otherwise secure encryption scheme is still a bad idea because if such a government government can read it, then so can somebody else with less benevolent intentions who doesn't care about breaking the law and is simply hoping they will not be caught (because a computer does not and actually cannot know if some random person who has done sufficient research and is claiming to be from the government, and otherwise provides what appears to be legitimate credentials for their claim is lying) . Even if the perpetrator is later caught and punished appropriately, as the law would ordinarily demand in such circumstances, the damage will have still been done, damage that can oftentimes be completely irreparable, regardless of the punishment, damage that would otherwise have been completely preventable in the first place if such a government were not insisting that law abiding citizens are forbidden from utilizing the most basic precautions to protect themselves from the bad guys in the first place.
... And a computer can identify you strictly by your brainwaves?
Further, such a system could theoretically be programmed to determine if you are under duress, and not permit access in such circumstances.
Even threatening to throw a person in jail if they don't surrender their password wouldn't help in such a case... all that they would accomplish is putting a person in jail and still not having access to whatever information they thought was worth putting someone in jail for, and keeping someone in jail isn't free, by the way, and at some point it will cross the threshold of making even the slightest economic sense to do so, even if they tried to increase taxation levels to pay for it.
... And one who has done nothing wrong should have nothing to hide, then why do government workers wear clothing while working? After all, clothes cover up the body, and if you wear them then you are keeping something hidden fom those around you. Is there something wrong with their bodies that they feel they should cover them up?
The question is, of course, rhetorical. One generally wears clothes around other people not because there anything (necessarily) wrong with what is underneath the clothing, but because they cover something that most people consider private.
Living not much more than a metaphorical stone's throw from the Canada-USA border, I always find it annoying when I am planning a largely east-west route for a trip and google's first (and sometimes only) suggestions are to take routes which cross that border, and one time while I was planning a family vacation, and wanted to pass through a particular place that was also quite near the border, it suggested that we cross the border two more times for the whole trip! I don't have anything against really going into or travelling inside of another country, when I actually have some business to attend to there, but whenever I am crossing the border for whatever reason, I always find that the wait times at the border crossings are quite long... (one time in particular I recall waiting for about 3 hours... and my shortest wait ever was still about 45 minutes), and adding the average amount of time it seems to take onto a trip would end up making what is otherwise a trip that can be comfortably completed in one day easily running into two unless I were to push myself past my normal endurance and risk driving while tired. Despite my proximity to the border, I actually don't really have occasion to travel across the border very often, so it makes no sense for me to invest in any kind of "frequent flier" membership that would enable me to use the faster lanes. Still very annoying when using google maps, I often have to manually drag points along the suggested route back across the border into my own country.
1. Not really relevant... a payer can decide they are willing to pay any workers they can get for a particular job some certain set amount.... and if a would-be worker doesn't want to accept that amount, then they aren't obligated to do the work in the first place. That doesn't remotely make them an employee. At worst, it only makes them an unemployed contractor.
2. Again, not really relevant... if an independant contractor kept refusing job after job that he was being offered by some payer, there's every probability that the payer would stop even trying to contact that contractor for future jobs. Again, that doesn't make them an employee.
3. A contractor can still be required to sign a non-compete for the duration of the contract. If I'm an IC who's doing work for you, I can be required to not work for your competition as long as I am working for you. Once the contract ends, however, so does the non-compete. I'm not fully in-the-know on Uber's non-compete policy because I've never seen it,. but I'm pretty damn sure that it does not prohibit drivers from getting a job as a taxi driver if they cease being an Uber driver, for instance.
4. That's because of expectations that are generally going to be on the part of the passengers, not because Uber necessarily exercises any control over that issue. If a client were willing to pay the agreed amount for transportation by whatever means that the driver showed up with, what difference would that make to Uber, as long as Uber received appropriate payment?
Does the payer provide the tools and equipment for the worker to use, or does the worker provide his or her own?
How much ability, authority, or right does the payer have to exercise control (even if they do not they ever exercise it as such) over a worker concerning what work is to be done, and the manner in which it is done?
Does the payer assume responsibility for any regular operating expenses, or is does this responsibility fall to the worker?
Uber drivers are independant conractors. Obviously. Why is there even any question?
Please... if you are going to troll, at least try a little harder to make it sound like you might actually have put some reasoned thought into the perspective you may be trying to present, instead of simply uttering nonsense whose phrasing appears to only be an unimaginative attempt at provoking an emotional reaction.
Because computer science classes are not actually 90% male.... the actual figure is closer to 80%, depending on the institution. I believe the actual average number of male graduates from computer science is 82% in the USA.
Of course, that also suggests that computer science is an exceedingly likely place for a single woman who is interested enough in the field to have something in common with most of her peers in class is also quite likely to also find a mate. The exact opposite can be said for men.
This is anecdotal, but almost all of the women I knew while I was taking computer science eventually hooked up with someone else in class before graduation. I do not know how permanent those relationships were after graduation, however.
Copyright infringement is a crime in several other countries as well, actually, I cited the relevant sections for US law o ly because I knew exactly where to look for them. I believe similar statutes exist in a least several European countries, and I know as a positive fact that is also how it is in Canada. But what part about "is" implies that is the way it has always been?
Title 17, Chapter 5, section 106 outlines the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, one of which is to reproduce the copyrighted work. Sections 107 through 122 outline limitations on those rights.
title 17, chapter 5, section 501 defines copyright infringement. The mere act of copying without permission, which encroaches on the exclusive rights described in section 106, is infringement. Copying for personal use is an argument for fair use, which is a limitation on copyright as outlined in section 107, but it does not necessarily automatically follow that all private copies necessarily qualify for such exemption. The circumstances surrounding the making of the copy are examined to determined if fair use applies.
If no such exemption is applicable, then title 18, part 1, chapter 113, section 2319, subsection b.3, the weakest case listed therein, and covering all cases that are neither repeat offenses or for commercial gain cites a penalty of one year for any willfull copyright infringement. A prison penalty of up to one year. Infringement for commercial gain and repeat offenses have higher penalties.
Actually, copyright is violated when you copy the work without permission and the purpose for copying the work does not otherwise make it exempt from infringement. If you don't distribute at all, and you do not profit from it in any way, then nobody else is necessarily even going to know you copied it, let alone want to prosecute you for it, but that does not necessarily mean it is necessarily legal (some jurisdictions even have private copying as exempt from infringement anyways, or for example, in Canada, have private-use copying exempt only so long as a mechanism for compensating at least some percentage private-use copies exists, such as levies on blank media where such copied content is considered by said controlling agencies to be likely to be copied onto).
Distribution of unauthorized copies is usually taken as gold-bar standard proof of infringement, since it establishes, in an objectively verifiable way, a non-private-use purpose for making those copies which can be presented by the copyright holder as a basis for the claim against the infringer. The action of distributing unauthorized copies is generally considered illegal as well, a crime related to infringement and no less than at least evidence of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, but is not technically copyright infringement, not is it absolutely required to commit infringement... at most it may only be required to be held accountable for infringement.
If they are going to try to claim that the real rhino horn they are selling are fake so that they don't get caught, then they should also be willing to sell them at "fake" prices, which presumably is low enough that it is no longer particularly profitable to do so. Any attempt to charge so-called "real rhino horn" prices for fake rhino horn should be prosecuted exactly as if they were selling real rhino horn.
Artificial diamonds hasn't killed the market for natural diamonds because natural diamonds are cheaper to come by for the distributors than artificial diamonds actually cost to make. They only cost so much because people will pay that much for them.
Believing something to be true does not make it true... The difference between the two may sometimes be rarely discernible without keen observation , but that does not make them equivalent
Lies cannot become truth... they can be believed, even by many, but that does not make them truth. It may have been accepted one day as truth that the earth was the center of the universe, but that does not mean that it is actually ever was so, and it happens to be the case that sufficient observations since that time were able to ascertain that.
How do you threaten a robocall, exactly? In my experience, you never get to talk to a live person without explicitly taking action to do so (which initiates a voluntary agreement to have a dialog and therefore does not constitute an unsolicited call).
Obviously you don't need a license to make phone calls that aren't for solicitation purposes... but otherwise, isn't that what a telemarketer's license is for?
Average power consumption != peak usage. The power rating for this was 20kw, which suggests that 20kw is its peak providing capacity. It could only meet the needs of 40 households if each of them had radically differing peak usage patterns.
.... then why is it impacting the ability for a man to supposedly move on with his life?
If people care enough about it to allow it to affect how they judge the man today, then it still has at least some historical significance... if for no other reason than to give the people that this man meets the tools with which to know what the truth is. In the end, if he has genuinely repented, then it will still be up to each and every person he meets to evaluate the man for how he presents himself today, and it is THEIR problem, not Google's if they might still judge him harshly for it.
n one sense of the term secrecy is in itself a hostile action...
Really?
Care to tell me what hostile act wearing clothes in public constitutes? Clothes, after all, cover up your body... keep it hidden from view. That's secrecy.
Wanting to keep something private isn't a hostile act... wanting to know something that somebody was trying to keep private can be, however.
Your line of reasoning parrots those who would say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...
Except that almost everyone *DOES* have something to hide. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they have things that are private or personal.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, even *IF* the government's claim of benevolent intention were completely trustworthy, giving them the keys to an otherwise secure encryption scheme is still a bad idea because if such a government government can read it, then so can somebody else with less benevolent intentions who doesn't care about breaking the law and is simply hoping they will not be caught (because a computer does not and actually cannot know if some random person who has done sufficient research and is claiming to be from the government, and otherwise provides what appears to be legitimate credentials for their claim is lying) . Even if the perpetrator is later caught and punished appropriately, as the law would ordinarily demand in such circumstances, the damage will have still been done, damage that can oftentimes be completely irreparable, regardless of the punishment, damage that would otherwise have been completely preventable in the first place if such a government were not insisting that law abiding citizens are forbidden from utilizing the most basic precautions to protect themselves from the bad guys in the first place.
Further, such a system could theoretically be programmed to determine if you are under duress, and not permit access in such circumstances.
Even threatening to throw a person in jail if they don't surrender their password wouldn't help in such a case... all that they would accomplish is putting a person in jail and still not having access to whatever information they thought was worth putting someone in jail for, and keeping someone in jail isn't free, by the way, and at some point it will cross the threshold of making even the slightest economic sense to do so, even if they tried to increase taxation levels to pay for it.
The question is, of course, rhetorical. One generally wears clothes around other people not because there anything (necessarily) wrong with what is underneath the clothing, but because they cover something that most people consider private.
Living not much more than a metaphorical stone's throw from the Canada-USA border, I always find it annoying when I am planning a largely east-west route for a trip and google's first (and sometimes only) suggestions are to take routes which cross that border, and one time while I was planning a family vacation, and wanted to pass through a particular place that was also quite near the border, it suggested that we cross the border two more times for the whole trip! I don't have anything against really going into or travelling inside of another country, when I actually have some business to attend to there, but whenever I am crossing the border for whatever reason, I always find that the wait times at the border crossings are quite long... (one time in particular I recall waiting for about 3 hours... and my shortest wait ever was still about 45 minutes), and adding the average amount of time it seems to take onto a trip would end up making what is otherwise a trip that can be comfortably completed in one day easily running into two unless I were to push myself past my normal endurance and risk driving while tired. Despite my proximity to the border, I actually don't really have occasion to travel across the border very often, so it makes no sense for me to invest in any kind of "frequent flier" membership that would enable me to use the faster lanes. Still very annoying when using google maps, I often have to manually drag points along the suggested route back across the border into my own country.
1. Not really relevant... a payer can decide they are willing to pay any workers they can get for a particular job some certain set amount.... and if a would-be worker doesn't want to accept that amount, then they aren't obligated to do the work in the first place. That doesn't remotely make them an employee. At worst, it only makes them an unemployed contractor.
2. Again, not really relevant... if an independant contractor kept refusing job after job that he was being offered by some payer, there's every probability that the payer would stop even trying to contact that contractor for future jobs. Again, that doesn't make them an employee.
3. A contractor can still be required to sign a non-compete for the duration of the contract. If I'm an IC who's doing work for you, I can be required to not work for your competition as long as I am working for you. Once the contract ends, however, so does the non-compete. I'm not fully in-the-know on Uber's non-compete policy because I've never seen it,. but I'm pretty damn sure that it does not prohibit drivers from getting a job as a taxi driver if they cease being an Uber driver, for instance.
4. That's because of expectations that are generally going to be on the part of the passengers, not because Uber necessarily exercises any control over that issue. If a client were willing to pay the agreed amount for transportation by whatever means that the driver showed up with, what difference would that make to Uber, as long as Uber received appropriate payment?
Does the payer provide the tools and equipment for the worker to use, or does the worker provide his or her own?
How much ability, authority, or right does the payer have to exercise control (even if they do not they ever exercise it as such) over a worker concerning what work is to be done, and the manner in which it is done?
Does the payer assume responsibility for any regular operating expenses, or is does this responsibility fall to the worker?
Uber drivers are independant conractors. Obviously. Why is there even any question?
Please... if you are going to troll, at least try a little harder to make it sound like you might actually have put some reasoned thought into the perspective you may be trying to present, instead of simply uttering nonsense whose phrasing appears to only be an unimaginative attempt at provoking an emotional reaction.
Because computer science classes are not actually 90% male.... the actual figure is closer to 80%, depending on the institution. I believe the actual average number of male graduates from computer science is 82% in the USA.
Of course, that also suggests that computer science is an exceedingly likely place for a single woman who is interested enough in the field to have something in common with most of her peers in class is also quite likely to also find a mate. The exact opposite can be said for men.
This is anecdotal, but almost all of the women I knew while I was taking computer science eventually hooked up with someone else in class before graduation. I do not know how permanent those relationships were after graduation, however.
Copyright infringement is a crime in several other countries as well, actually, I cited the relevant sections for US law o ly because I knew exactly where to look for them. I believe similar statutes exist in a least several European countries, and I know as a positive fact that is also how it is in Canada. But what part about "is" implies that is the way it has always been?
You are mistaken.
Let's take US law for example.
Title 17, Chapter 5, section 106 outlines the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, one of which is to reproduce the copyrighted work. Sections 107 through 122 outline limitations on those rights.
title 17, chapter 5, section 501 defines copyright infringement. The mere act of copying without permission, which encroaches on the exclusive rights described in section 106, is infringement. Copying for personal use is an argument for fair use, which is a limitation on copyright as outlined in section 107, but it does not necessarily automatically follow that all private copies necessarily qualify for such exemption. The circumstances surrounding the making of the copy are examined to determined if fair use applies.
If no such exemption is applicable, then title 18, part 1, chapter 113, section 2319, subsection b.3, the weakest case listed therein, and covering all cases that are neither repeat offenses or for commercial gain cites a penalty of one year for any willfull copyright infringement. A prison penalty of up to one year. Infringement for commercial gain and repeat offenses have higher penalties.
So yes... It's a crime.
Actually, copyright is violated when you copy the work without permission and the purpose for copying the work does not otherwise make it exempt from infringement. If you don't distribute at all, and you do not profit from it in any way, then nobody else is necessarily even going to know you copied it, let alone want to prosecute you for it, but that does not necessarily mean it is necessarily legal (some jurisdictions even have private copying as exempt from infringement anyways, or for example, in Canada, have private-use copying exempt only so long as a mechanism for compensating at least some percentage private-use copies exists, such as levies on blank media where such copied content is considered by said controlling agencies to be likely to be copied onto).
Distribution of unauthorized copies is usually taken as gold-bar standard proof of infringement, since it establishes, in an objectively verifiable way, a non-private-use purpose for making those copies which can be presented by the copyright holder as a basis for the claim against the infringer. The action of distributing unauthorized copies is generally considered illegal as well, a crime related to infringement and no less than at least evidence of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, but is not technically copyright infringement, not is it absolutely required to commit infringement... at most it may only be required to be held accountable for infringement.
If they are going to try to claim that the real rhino horn they are selling are fake so that they don't get caught, then they should also be willing to sell them at "fake" prices, which presumably is low enough that it is no longer particularly profitable to do so. Any attempt to charge so-called "real rhino horn" prices for fake rhino horn should be prosecuted exactly as if they were selling real rhino horn.
Artificial diamonds hasn't killed the market for natural diamonds because natural diamonds are cheaper to come by for the distributors than artificial diamonds actually cost to make. They only cost so much because people will pay that much for them.
Nature has nothing to do with it. What they would be failing to adapt to in this case is human beings hunting them to extinction.
Believing something to be true does not make it true... The difference between the two may sometimes be rarely discernible without keen observation , but that does not make them equivalent
You are conflating "facts" with "history".
Lies cannot become truth... they can be believed, even by many, but that does not make them truth. It may have been accepted one day as truth that the earth was the center of the universe, but that does not mean that it is actually ever was so, and it happens to be the case that sufficient observations since that time were able to ascertain that.
That's how I read the headline as well... not sure if it's missing a comma or just needs to be rephrased.
How do you threaten a robocall, exactly? In my experience, you never get to talk to a live person without explicitly taking action to do so (which initiates a voluntary agreement to have a dialog and therefore does not constitute an unsolicited call).
Obviously you don't need a license to make phone calls that aren't for solicitation purposes... but otherwise, isn't that what a telemarketer's license is for?
Average power consumption != peak usage. The power rating for this was 20kw, which suggests that 20kw is its peak providing capacity. It could only meet the needs of 40 households if each of them had radically differing peak usage patterns.
That's for like, what.... a quadplex, at most?
Why should it be Google's problem if people are superficial?
If people care enough about it to allow it to affect how they judge the man today, then it still has at least some historical significance... if for no other reason than to give the people that this man meets the tools with which to know what the truth is. In the end, if he has genuinely repented, then it will still be up to each and every person he meets to evaluate the man for how he presents himself today, and it is THEIR problem, not Google's if they might still judge him harshly for it.
Really?
Care to tell me what hostile act wearing clothes in public constitutes? Clothes, after all, cover up your body... keep it hidden from view. That's secrecy.
Wanting to keep something private isn't a hostile act... wanting to know something that somebody was trying to keep private can be, however.
Your line of reasoning parrots those who would say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide...
Except that almost everyone *DOES* have something to hide. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they have things that are private or personal.