The society went from no video, to video surveillance everywhere. Are we now coming full circle where videos will carry no credibility at all, therefore equivalent of not having any video surveillance anyways? Revenge porn, no problem if nobody can prove it's real or not.
Close, it's a great way for Intel to marginalize used PC/server market as none of the old machines get the microcode/BIOS patches. All old servers are now for air-gapped applications only.
Banks, insurance companies, and other big business tend to have pre-recorded "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes" before you're passed to a live person. Tada, permission given for google to record for QA and training of Duplex.
A self made/installed Linux box probably the least secure solution for most people. Unless you really know how to secure and lock down your Linux box AND keep it up to date on weekly basis, your "router" is far from secure. There are few people who really know what they're doing in this domain. Just because you can't hack it, doesn't mean it's safe. Misconfiguration is the most common cause for security holes (do you really know each and every piece of software you have running on it, every kernel module, driver, server, etc?), but even if you do manage to lock it down, security vulnerabilities in Linux and other open source software that Linux uses are discovered all the time and need to be patched fast as scripts exploiting them come just as fast. It's a full time job to keep a Linux box secured on the open internet.
If in fact homelessness is caused mostly by Amazon raising the home prices, wouldn't it be more efficient to relocate the homeless somewhere where there is no Amazon or other large corporations inflating housing prices?
I use Microsoft products. I have a Skype for Business included in another subscription, but after trying it for a month about a year ago I abandoned it completely for webex. Skype for business screen sharing is horrible! Time wasted on glitches and disconnects is just not worth it. Webex or TeamViewer on the very same machines works great. Even Windows to Windows sessions. If you're just trying to make a phone call, sure, it works, but the same as the free personal Skype. And yes, the UI got less intuitive and slower over time.
1. You say that a business doesn't have to pay thousands. Ok, so for less than $2,000 a contractor familiar with GDPR will come and ensure that a business is compliant, without any significant impact on existing staff (as that would be considered cost). Will you do that for less than thousands?
2. You say you don't have to hire (which implies pay) a Data Protection Officer but only name one. Do you agree to be the officer for any businesses who want to name you, without any compensation?
Bottom line is that it will cost thousands or more for businesses to comply, even if people like you will split hairs on documentation vs. compliance - if something is required for compliance it counts towards the cost of compliance. If a business does have a clue about GDPR and has no significant revenue from Europeans (free users only), it really is cheaper to just block them.
"You leave your DNA in a place that is a public domain,"
So any DNA found in a public space is considered public domain? I can collect DNA from any public space and use it any way I want, including selling it or any information I gather from it (genetic predisposition to diseases, etc).?
Be careful. If you classify anything on the planet earth as public and having no expectation of privacy, that could be a Pandora's box you may not want to open, though the NSA might love it.
My father used to say, "if it's not clear what something is about, it's probably about money". In this case, a government agency sees a way to profit from selling licenses. Launch companies have money, therefore they need to "pay their fair share" to any government agency that can find a way to tax it using obscure interpretations of old laws.
While I never had a Facebook account and do not plan on having one, I can see the paid opt-out as a valid option since they do have to make money to survive. HOWEVER, that would only make sense if it comes with some hefty guarantees, or insurance if you will. The warranty cannot be just "money back for last x months of opt-out" since that simply turns it back to "we refunded your opt-in, therefore we own your data" model. Let Facebook state what the chances of mistakenly releasing the data are, and then sell insurance premiums against it. If it's a million to one, $2 should buy people a $1M payout (and leave room for FB to profit) in an event of their information being sold, shared, given away, lost, of disseminated in other ways, whether directly or as part of statistical "anonymized" data.
How is what they are doing even legal? It sounds like a textbook definition of hacking (see reply title). Just because someone installed their browser does not authorize them to gain access to non-browser files. They let people connect to their servers, does that mean they authorize people to gain access to anything they can get access to through that connection?
Such a bill could bring attention to securing you data in the cloud, and potentially encourage companies to encrypt data in the cloud in such a way that the could provider cannot access it. Would help not just against government spying, but also against cloud companies getting hacked.
The "too late" has a much more profound effect. For me it was the continually increasing monthly bill while on a "fixed price" plan. Once I cut the cord, I realized I can get more of what I want for less money simply with an HD antenna, a DVR, and content I purchase to stream over the internet. What Comcast didn't realize that once people cut the cord, they find better alternatives which make Comcast service worth less to those people. It's like, "I used to pay you $30/month. Comcast decided to raise by $0.50 to $1.50 per month. Once it reached $80 I cut the cord and realized I get all I want for less than $25/month (on top of internet, but I need internet anyways, different provider) and I get it commercial free. The only way I see myself again using cable TV with commercials is if it was completely free, since really it would just replace my HD antenna and give me a handful more channels that I might care to watch.
Sorry Comcast, want to feed me ads, you gotta provide the content for free now that I know I can get it elsewhere commercial free for less money that I used to pay you.
All this analysis seems to have missed one very big factor. US carriers used to subsidize the phones to the point where the phones used to be free or near-free every 2 years or so. Today those subsidies are gone, or at least are not keeping up with the prices of phones going up. My family used to upgrade with Verizon to new phones every 2 years. Today that will run us ~$500/phone, so we don't do it (even with buy one get one free, a two $1000 phones cost $500 each). A family of 5 would have to spend an average of $200+ per month to upgrade every 2 years. Why are people surprised they prefer to hang onto their phones longer? Combine that with no new "must have" features, and of course people will hand onto their old phones, they do everything they need. Nothing cool enough in new phones to pay $200/month - you can almost lease a car for that much.
Picking 1999 as your start, when the unemployment was at a record all time low (peak of dot-com boom) and comparing to 2016 is like picking a record low and record high price of a mutual fund and calculating an average annual return. In 1999 anyone with a heartbeat could get a job. A 3 or 4 month course in computer programming landed most people a 6 digit salary. Why not show the actual workforce numbers per year from 1990 through today and show a trend, rather than pick a large difference and focus on that? Oh yea, because it doesn't make for as good of a headline.
In the past, the new grads were a lot more prepared. There was a lot fewer of them, but the demand was lower too. Since dot-com boom the schools of various quality produce more and more junior developers like pez dispensers, however the quality of education has dropped. A lot of programs don't even teach what a pointer is nowadays (heck, I had HR at one of my past employers - a very large software company - tell me to stop asking pointer questions as they showed up as "most stressful" in their post interview surveys). So, post a junior embedded developer position today, and get 2,000 resumes a day or two later, thousands more in the days to follow. They all claim to know how to program, all have the same courses on their resumes, but a whole lot of them when presented with "what is a pointer?" question they freak out and scream "discrimination" or some other social justice term of today's times. Weeding out such folks from thousands of resumes is next to impossible - no work experience and past projects to distinguish between them. It is much more efficient to pick good schools, hire interns from those schools, then fill the junior developer roles with past interns. That is why you often don't see the junior positions posted externally, they are usually filled with prior interns.
PS> Before any of you get offended because you are, or know of, very capable new-grad programmers; of course they exist, they simply get lost in the sea of mediocre or plain horrible ones.
So if someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people get trampled to death while attempting to exit, you would let the yeller go and prosecute people whose shoeprints are found on the dead, correct?
There is tremendous amount of ambiguity. Let me list some main points: 1. How is "electronics" defined? Cell phone? Calculator? Tire pressure sensor? Heart pacer? Do you really want to mandate end-user access to heart pacers, their parts and diagnostics? 2. What is "reasonable diagnostic or repair function"? Password recovery? Battery exchange? Cracked screen repair? You want to mandate access to test mode of heart pacer/defibrillator (which btw induces a heart attack in a patient so that the defibrillator can be tested - this is usually only done with the patient on the operating table with a doctor ready to intervene)? 3. Define "difficult". For whom? With that means, time, and tools? Is replacing a CPU on a PC mother board difficult? Yes for my mother-in-law, no for my 13 year old son. Is soldering 2 wires together difficult? Again, it all depends for whom.
Additionally, such legislation limits design choices which some customers prefer. What if someone prefers a smaller device which has an integrated, non-serviceable battery. Sometimes this is not just a matter of taste but also functionality or cost, for example tire pressure sensors (a.k.a. TPMS) typically have integrated batteries because making them serviceable would make then large, expensive and heavy, since they have to withstand very large G-forces while in the tire.
I don't think the law-makers have thought this through much, but that's not surprising from today's politicians. Next, they'll be voting to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide, since it is one of leading causes of human deaths in the world, it's the primary component of acid-rain, and is deadly when inhaled in any larger quantity.
It seems Apple is saying their products are aimed at people who don't know or care what a computer is. Maybe it's their new marketing strategy, or maybe, must maybe, if you know what a computer is you won't want to buy Apple products?
If the legislature confirms selling loot boxes is not gambling, I am starting a Lootery which will work just a lottery, but instead of lottery tickets you buy a virtual loot box. You are guaranteed to win a minimum of $0.01 per loot box which costs $1. 1 in 100M will win $1M dollars. 1 in 10 will win $2, and a bunch of odds and winning between those. I'll adjust the odds to compete and be better than the Washington State Lottery. The best news, it won't be gambling so won't be taxed and regulated as such!
Slashdot Mirror
The society went from no video, to video surveillance everywhere. Are we now coming full circle where videos will carry no credibility at all, therefore equivalent of not having any video surveillance anyways? Revenge porn, no problem if nobody can prove it's real or not.
Close, it's a great way for Intel to marginalize used PC/server market as none of the old machines get the microcode/BIOS patches. All old servers are now for air-gapped applications only.
Banks, insurance companies, and other big business tend to have pre-recorded "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes" before you're passed to a live person. Tada, permission given for google to record for QA and training of Duplex.
Another example of stupid things the government does with good intentions. Same people who voted to ban dihydrogen-monoxide I bet.
A self made/installed Linux box probably the least secure solution for most people. Unless you really know how to secure and lock down your Linux box AND keep it up to date on weekly basis, your "router" is far from secure. There are few people who really know what they're doing in this domain. Just because you can't hack it, doesn't mean it's safe. Misconfiguration is the most common cause for security holes (do you really know each and every piece of software you have running on it, every kernel module, driver, server, etc?), but even if you do manage to lock it down, security vulnerabilities in Linux and other open source software that Linux uses are discovered all the time and need to be patched fast as scripts exploiting them come just as fast. It's a full time job to keep a Linux box secured on the open internet.
If in fact homelessness is caused mostly by Amazon raising the home prices, wouldn't it be more efficient to relocate the homeless somewhere where there is no Amazon or other large corporations inflating housing prices?
What percentage of employees at Amazon do you think were educated in Seattle?
Catch a drone, load it up with contraband, release it, catch it at the destination, retrieve your stuff.
Or, just build ones that look just like them - coastguard will likely ignore them (no humans on board to even as to stop and board).
I use Microsoft products. I have a Skype for Business included in another subscription, but after trying it for a month about a year ago I abandoned it completely for webex. Skype for business screen sharing is horrible! Time wasted on glitches and disconnects is just not worth it. Webex or TeamViewer on the very same machines works great. Even Windows to Windows sessions. If you're just trying to make a phone call, sure, it works, but the same as the free personal Skype. And yes, the UI got less intuitive and slower over time.
1. You say that a business doesn't have to pay thousands. Ok, so for less than $2,000 a contractor familiar with GDPR will come and ensure that a business is compliant, without any significant impact on existing staff (as that would be considered cost). Will you do that for less than thousands?
2. You say you don't have to hire (which implies pay) a Data Protection Officer but only name one. Do you agree to be the officer for any businesses who want to name you, without any compensation?
Bottom line is that it will cost thousands or more for businesses to comply, even if people like you will split hairs on documentation vs. compliance - if something is required for compliance it counts towards the cost of compliance. If a business does have a clue about GDPR and has no significant revenue from Europeans (free users only), it really is cheaper to just block them.
"You leave your DNA in a place that is a public domain,"
So any DNA found in a public space is considered public domain? I can collect DNA from any public space and use it any way I want, including selling it or any information I gather from it (genetic predisposition to diseases, etc).?
Be careful. If you classify anything on the planet earth as public and having no expectation of privacy, that could be a Pandora's box you may not want to open, though the NSA might love it.
Or did they take footage in space, unicast it down to earth, then broadcast it using the internet or other traditional medium?
My father used to say, "if it's not clear what something is about, it's probably about money". In this case, a government agency sees a way to profit from selling licenses. Launch companies have money, therefore they need to "pay their fair share" to any government agency that can find a way to tax it using obscure interpretations of old laws.
While I never had a Facebook account and do not plan on having one, I can see the paid opt-out as a valid option since they do have to make money to survive. HOWEVER, that would only make sense if it comes with some hefty guarantees, or insurance if you will. The warranty cannot be just "money back for last x months of opt-out" since that simply turns it back to "we refunded your opt-in, therefore we own your data" model. Let Facebook state what the chances of mistakenly releasing the data are, and then sell insurance premiums against it. If it's a million to one, $2 should buy people a $1M payout (and leave room for FB to profit) in an event of their information being sold, shared, given away, lost, of disseminated in other ways, whether directly or as part of statistical "anonymized" data.
How is what they are doing even legal? It sounds like a textbook definition of hacking (see reply title). Just because someone installed their browser does not authorize them to gain access to non-browser files. They let people connect to their servers, does that mean they authorize people to gain access to anything they can get access to through that connection?
Such a bill could bring attention to securing you data in the cloud, and potentially encourage companies to encrypt data in the cloud in such a way that the could provider cannot access it. Would help not just against government spying, but also against cloud companies getting hacked.
The "too late" has a much more profound effect. For me it was the continually increasing monthly bill while on a "fixed price" plan. Once I cut the cord, I realized I can get more of what I want for less money simply with an HD antenna, a DVR, and content I purchase to stream over the internet. What Comcast didn't realize that once people cut the cord, they find better alternatives which make Comcast service worth less to those people. It's like, "I used to pay you $30/month. Comcast decided to raise by $0.50 to $1.50 per month. Once it reached $80 I cut the cord and realized I get all I want for less than $25/month (on top of internet, but I need internet anyways, different provider) and I get it commercial free. The only way I see myself again using cable TV with commercials is if it was completely free, since really it would just replace my HD antenna and give me a handful more channels that I might care to watch.
Sorry Comcast, want to feed me ads, you gotta provide the content for free now that I know I can get it elsewhere commercial free for less money that I used to pay you.
All this analysis seems to have missed one very big factor. US carriers used to subsidize the phones to the point where the phones used to be free or near-free every 2 years or so. Today those subsidies are gone, or at least are not keeping up with the prices of phones going up. My family used to upgrade with Verizon to new phones every 2 years. Today that will run us ~$500/phone, so we don't do it (even with buy one get one free, a two $1000 phones cost $500 each). A family of 5 would have to spend an average of $200+ per month to upgrade every 2 years. Why are people surprised they prefer to hang onto their phones longer? Combine that with no new "must have" features, and of course people will hand onto their old phones, they do everything they need. Nothing cool enough in new phones to pay $200/month - you can almost lease a car for that much.
Picking 1999 as your start, when the unemployment was at a record all time low (peak of dot-com boom) and comparing to 2016 is like picking a record low and record high price of a mutual fund and calculating an average annual return. In 1999 anyone with a heartbeat could get a job. A 3 or 4 month course in computer programming landed most people a 6 digit salary. Why not show the actual workforce numbers per year from 1990 through today and show a trend, rather than pick a large difference and focus on that? Oh yea, because it doesn't make for as good of a headline.
In the past, the new grads were a lot more prepared. There was a lot fewer of them, but the demand was lower too. Since dot-com boom the schools of various quality produce more and more junior developers like pez dispensers, however the quality of education has dropped. A lot of programs don't even teach what a pointer is nowadays (heck, I had HR at one of my past employers - a very large software company - tell me to stop asking pointer questions as they showed up as "most stressful" in their post interview surveys). So, post a junior embedded developer position today, and get 2,000 resumes a day or two later, thousands more in the days to follow. They all claim to know how to program, all have the same courses on their resumes, but a whole lot of them when presented with "what is a pointer?" question they freak out and scream "discrimination" or some other social justice term of today's times. Weeding out such folks from thousands of resumes is next to impossible - no work experience and past projects to distinguish between them. It is much more efficient to pick good schools, hire interns from those schools, then fill the junior developer roles with past interns. That is why you often don't see the junior positions posted externally, they are usually filled with prior interns.
PS> Before any of you get offended because you are, or know of, very capable new-grad programmers; of course they exist, they simply get lost in the sea of mediocre or plain horrible ones.
So if someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and people get trampled to death while attempting to exit, you would let the yeller go and prosecute people whose shoeprints are found on the dead, correct?
There is tremendous amount of ambiguity. Let me list some main points:
1. How is "electronics" defined? Cell phone? Calculator? Tire pressure sensor? Heart pacer? Do you really want to mandate end-user access to heart pacers, their parts and diagnostics?
2. What is "reasonable diagnostic or repair function"? Password recovery? Battery exchange? Cracked screen repair? You want to mandate access to test mode of heart pacer/defibrillator (which btw induces a heart attack in a patient so that the defibrillator can be tested - this is usually only done with the patient on the operating table with a doctor ready to intervene)?
3. Define "difficult". For whom? With that means, time, and tools? Is replacing a CPU on a PC mother board difficult? Yes for my mother-in-law, no for my 13 year old son. Is soldering 2 wires together difficult? Again, it all depends for whom.
Additionally, such legislation limits design choices which some customers prefer. What if someone prefers a smaller device which has an integrated, non-serviceable battery. Sometimes this is not just a matter of taste but also functionality or cost, for example tire pressure sensors (a.k.a. TPMS) typically have integrated batteries because making them serviceable would make then large, expensive and heavy, since they have to withstand very large G-forces while in the tire.
I don't think the law-makers have thought this through much, but that's not surprising from today's politicians. Next, they'll be voting to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide, since it is one of leading causes of human deaths in the world, it's the primary component of acid-rain, and is deadly when inhaled in any larger quantity.
It seems Apple is saying their products are aimed at people who don't know or care what a computer is. Maybe it's their new marketing strategy, or maybe, must maybe, if you know what a computer is you won't want to buy Apple products?
If the legislature confirms selling loot boxes is not gambling, I am starting a Lootery which will work just a lottery, but instead of lottery tickets you buy a virtual loot box. You are guaranteed to win a minimum of $0.01 per loot box which costs $1. 1 in 100M will win $1M dollars. 1 in 10 will win $2, and a bunch of odds and winning between those. I'll adjust the odds to compete and be better than the Washington State Lottery. The best news, it won't be gambling so won't be taxed and regulated as such!