I totally agree, they probably work harder than me, I hate cleaning toilets and am not very good at it, and are just as essential, if not more, to the smooth running of society as doctors and lawyers. If all the garbage collectors stopped working tomorrow, may more people would die than if all the doctors did.
If a person is working, then they deserve dignity and wage that they can live off. What is more important? That you have the latest phone, bigger house, flasher car? Or that everyone that works can afford a place to live, and enough food to eat.
That's the problem with the political system isn't it, two main parties, both pretty similar, both sponsored by the same corporates. None of them I agree with, and if you vote for someone else, people will say don't do that its a wasted vote. It gives the perception of choice without actually providing you with one.
I say vote the way you want. I also say you should be able to vote no confidence in any of them. I don't know what you do if no confidence was significant, probably wouldn't make a difference but at least it would be embarrassing. At the moment if you don't vote they count it as you don't care, this way they can count it as you don't think any of them can run the country, and maybe take there egos down a peg.
I am not sure how it works in the US but my power costs are divided into 2 a daily charge and a cost per kw. I assume the daily charge covers fixed costs such as: cost of lines, maintenance, you can also have different rates at different times of the day, so if you are producing power in the middle of the day when everyone else is you simply pay less, for it, but you must also charge less for it.
I don't think anything that bad will happen Greece defaults, sure the government may not loans, for a while, that will just force them live within there means, while removing any interest burden. Who in their right mind lending more money to Greece anyway, and simply not trying to recover as much money back as they can. Private companies will still get loans, the wouldn't have defaulted.
If you lend people money to take on a risk (Isn't that the justification for charging interest), and if you lend too much money to people and they can't pay, well like any investment you can loose, and I don't feel sorry for the lenders. These are large banks and countries that have lent to Greece and as such should have done due diligence.
Maybe if Greece defaults, It will teach these people, don't lend to people who can't afford to pay (even countries), and it will not allow countries like Greece to get into these situations, in the first place.
At some point going bankrupt, is the only sane choice, probably better than having your entire economy crippled by interest repayments for the foreseeable future.
I wasn't saying that people don't buy movies older than 2 years old, I was saying the majority of money is not made at that point.
If movies where public domain, then we would not need Disney to re-author the movie someone would probably do it for free.
Look at your example Snow White (and many other Disney Movies), it is clearly a story based of public domain, yes they changed it, improved it, made it into a movie. Like all creations/ideas it is based on others. Is it not fair and beneficial that they return there creation in a timely manner to the public domain, in order so others can base there creations of there work, like they based their work on others. Re-authoring is one such improvement.
I tried to get beauty and the beast a few years ago, I couldn't buy it Disney weren't distributing at that point. They had it in their Disney vault. Where it was easy to download it. What we have is not allowing content to be seen, but a way of stopping it.
This like most things in life is a trade off, yes you may need a way of compensating the creator, I think 2 years is an adequate amount of time, for a movie to make its money back plus a tidy profit. If you haven't though luck, lots of money making ventures fail.
I personally think neither side can think of the right amount of money that is a fair return on investment. There will always be people who want the movie for cheaper, and not aware of the costs of development. Companies will all ways want more money. I would say that the government is the right place to decide, if it wasn't the massively disproportionate sway that big business has as compared to the average voter.
It is probably not by owning IP. If he is like most people, he works, gets paid for the hours worked, that's it. No ongoing rent for the work done by his great grandfather up to 75 year after he died.
Companies can still be paid to develop stuff for other entities, paid for running servers, they don't need to release source code, paid for support of software, you will probably get a premium if you developed it.
Plenty of ways to make money without intellectual property.
Would you make a movie if every theater could immediately show it without paying you?
Seen Youtube, people make movies all the time, release them for free. People love to create and show other people.
Would you write a book?
Of course they would, I wouldn't but I don't like writing. If you want to get your opinion across, you would most certainly do it. In fact right now I am writing for free, what about blogs.
People would also pay for it even if they can get it for free, People can go down to the library and read books for free, but somehow they still go out and buy them too.
Would you, as movie theater owner, pay the artist that made a movie, while your neighbouring theater doesn't,
of course, within reason, as long as the viewers are informed for, one movie money goes to the creator and another doesn't. People would be willing to pay a premium for that. You obviously would too since, you think it is unfair not to pay the creator, or are your morals bound only by the law, and not what you think is right. People still buy movies when downloading it is cheaper, and more convenient.
Also, without IP, licenses like the AGPL or even the GPL wouldn't be possible
Without IP they wouldn't be necessary.
I don't necessarily agree we should have no IP at all but 1 or 2 years max on a movie, music is fine. After that if you want more money make another movie. How many movies run for more than a couple of months, in the theater, or have significant DVD sales after 2 years?
if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about
Is just a lie, ask anybody in power (well anybody really, apart from close friends and family) if you can have access to their email, and see the response you get. I can just imagine Obama, say of course I have nothing to hide.
I find it rather ironic that spy agencies, who rely on secrecy to do there job, cannot see why other people may require privacy, for a perfectly valid reason.
First I wouldn't consider simple SQL coding, you an entering fields into field on a UI coding too, or using spreadsheet formulas coding? If the the situation required doctors to access more advanced search then the program is wrong. It is much more efficient to have person code the interface than all the doctors learn to code. There are GUIs that allow you to "program" SQL queries, of course a natural language parser that could accurately work out the query from the doctors request would be better.
Yes coding can be useful, but English and Maths are much more so. It would be useful for everyone to have basic electrical, plumbing knowledge too. There is no need for everyone to code, there is a need for every to read, write, and understand basic maths. You could consider programing a specialization of maths.
This is not about job security, even if everyone could code it would just mean that they could do some basic scripting on their phone/computer. It would not detract from people who write large programs.
Specialization is good, it means people can focus on the things they are good at.
Perhaps he doesn't want a 100" TV. A projector can project at any size, so yes if want a really large screen go for a projector, if you are actually on a budget, which judging from the question he is, then go for a much smaller screen 4K TV, I am sure you could find for well under $11,000.
I agree, but i can only think of one instance that gotos are appropriate and that is cleanup. I think this is basically because C does not have any nice way to handle cleanup, a finally block would get rid of most valid uses of goto.
My paid for virus checker, bitdefender pops up adds for me to buy the latest version (before my subscription is up), interrupting games.
By a dvd, go to the movies, have to watch advertisements.
People will try to extract as much money out of you as they can, that is what capitalism is all about, just because you have paid doesn't stop or even encourage them to stop making money out of you in as many ways as they possibly can. I fact I feel it is sometimes the opposite, the more you pay the more they want.
While the study normalized for socialization, which may favor saying alcohol is bad, studies that say people who drink a moderate amount is good for you have removed people who drink excessively. Having a society that encourages moderate drinking will probably increase the amount of heavy drinkers.
Also maybe people who don't drink don't like to socialize as much because they don't like hanging out with a bunch of drunks. Most social gatherings are based on alcohol consumption. If we had more events that where more than just drinking and talking shit, perhaps non-drinkers may socialize more.
Although I know you are being sarcastic, I fear not exposing children to men therefore not exposing men to children will have the reverse effect. I don't know of any study that looks into this but I have my suspicions.
When you see someone often you see them, as a person, not just a thing.
Think about it this way, you hear about people dieing in Africa all the time, it is sad yes but doesn't really effect you but how would you feel if it was someone you knew?
Unless I misunderstand this that means, the school will get less/no money more teaching boys. How can that do anything but discourage boys from attending. Encourage and Discourage are 2 sides of the same coin, if you go around saying we really want girls then boys will get the message that they are not wanted, which of course is true since each girl in computer class is worth more to the school. Or if there are limited places then boys will be refused entry in favor of girls.
I don't really see why we need every profession to have equal distribution of the sexes, anyway? Men and women are different, no matter how much the PC brigade want them to be the same. If a girl doesn't want to do computers why does society see the need to brainwash them into doing it.
Also in areas where men are underrepresented. It seems like the law forbids this type of behavior. (I know different country)
He said despite male teachers being in a minority, scholarships were only available for women, disabled people and those from varying ethnic backgrounds.
The commission had said it would be unlawful to offer male-only scholarships.
I personally think the gender in-balance in teachers is much more important than the one in technology, teachers are major role models children's lives, and children need role models of both sexes, where who cares who wrote the latest app, or the latest network protocol.
We should tax corporations, because they use the services provided by the country. They use the roads, the legal system, medical facilities, police. They are legal entities with rights.
Sure if capital gains both short and long term, matched income tax it would be fair. But then you get the problem that ordinary people could loose there homes just because house prices when up and they couldn't afford to pay the tax it.
I also believe capital gains tax should be adjusted for inflation, if I bought a house for the value of 100 donkeys and 10 years later sold the value of 100 donkeys I really haven't made any money.
No they don't, they transfer the money to the country with the least tax and pay it there.
How? they set up in the lower tax country and charge an expense to the US country.
E.g. say a company earns $1,000,000 the overseas office charges them a $1,000,000 for an admin fee. so the company ends up paying tax on $0 in the US, and tax on $1,000,000 in the company with the low tax rate.
If you think that allowing an entity control an idea just simply because they "though of it first" is practical solution simply imagine a world where this is the case for everything. The wheel, fire screws, language... we would go crazy trying to attribute value to people. In fact since every idea is based on others, giving the person who thought of it first indefinite control means you will stifle new ideas. Ok patents have a limited life, but as the pace of technology increases, the length of a patients should decrease, as soon as everybody in the world can improve on an idea, not just the inventor the better. I think 20 years is far too long. I don't think there is evidence that patients increase innovation.(http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFIQtwIwCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dq1Pi4w8ddA8&ei=ilOGVKnhDsLs8AWtr4K4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHKvJQ8POQ4jnw6Jlda2o31NmIIYw) or http://www.nber.org/papers/w99...
Knowledge is not like physical things its replication comes without cost and the more people that can use that knowledge the better off everyone will be. That is why we teach our children isn't it? So that they can learn the ideas of the past, in order that they can build on them in the future.
The internet's, power lies in people sharing ideas (not porn, cat movies, or what I had for breakfast) it seems ironic that we have invented a mechanism which drastically increases our ability to share knowledge and people are jumping up and downs saying don't share its evil, its just like stealing.
Don't get me wrong we should compensate the entity that came up with an idea fairly, but I don't think the entity getting the money is the right person to come up with what is fair, they will always want as much as possible. (Neither is the person spending the money)
It really depends on how much "safer" autonomous cars are doesn't it. The current problem with software is that when it fails it fails usually catastrophically, what do you do when you fail, stop that could be dangerous, keep going dangerous too. People don't usually fail as completely as software they make lots of small mistakes but usually do a good enough job.
the road toll is 14.9 per 100,000 per year that is quite low considering how much people drive, you would need a lot of testing, in real life scenarios to convince me that automated car was safer. And each release would need that level of testing. Yes you may get one driver who is bad kill a few people but a bad software release could kill much more.
I am not saying automated cars aren't safer, just that just because they are automated doesn't automatically make them so.
The Government already has *all* the power, should it wish to exercise it.
Not true it does have a lot, but only to the point that people don't rebel against it. The trick is to make the people happy enough so they don't rebel while getting as much power as possible. Monitoring everyone greatly increases this power since you can squash dissidents (opponents to your power) much sooner, you can do this by labeling them the boogie man of the time, (currently terrorist) and imprison then for as long as you like without trial, or just assassinate them of course.
The scarey thing is, I think they will do it believing that they are doing for the common good. Your beliefs are obviously right, and your opponents are wrong, they wouldn't be your beliefs if you didn't consider your beliefs right. You wouldn't want someone in power that you think would do the wrong thing, would you?
It actually could, well much more than the current system, given a couple things.
1. The hardware does a challenge response, that way the private key is never given to untrusted hardware software system. Ok the untrusted system could log in once but only once. 2. The USB key doesn't allow the firmware to be reprogramed (https://srlabs.de/badusb/). 3. There is no other way than physically pressing the USB key to activate the challenge response each time. 4. Do not allow a session to remain open indefinitely especially if the same dongle is used to log in form somewhere else.
I have been saying for years that this mechanism would be great for credit cards, and a password replacement, of course you could still have passwords but with this mechanism would be fine for me without them.
You could log in to any site with this, if the system used private/public key encryption simply give the site your public key, and use it to log by encrypting the challenge with your private key. Now if you ever use a password on a website you may as well consider it compromised.
You could have multiple USB keys, if you wanted. You could even allow them to change the private key as long there was a physical block on writing the key, a switch or something.
Of course its right to use technical means to stop the government accessing your files. It always has been like that, you could always write you documents in code, or hide them and you where under no obligation to reveal the code or location, you have the right to remain silent.
The government has the ability to watch us more than it ever has in history, but it will never be enough.
I think it is less about allowing encryption on cell phones as opposed to having it on by default. Most people will not bother (mainly because they don't understand how easy it is to monitor someone) so it is an indicator to look further if your phone is encrypted, once everyone has encryption turned on it will no longer be an indicator.
Really its the spy agencies own fault they overstepped their bounds, by issuing secret warrants to companies and monitoring everyone, now they get the backlash.
When something you had is taken away it feels much worse than if you never had it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree, they probably work harder than me, I hate cleaning toilets and am not very good at it, and are just as essential, if not more, to the smooth running of society as doctors and lawyers. If all the garbage collectors stopped working tomorrow, may more people would die than if all the doctors did.
If a person is working, then they deserve dignity and wage that they can live off. What is more important? That you have the latest phone, bigger house, flasher car? Or that everyone that works can afford a place to live, and enough food to eat.
That's the problem with the political system isn't it, two main parties, both pretty similar, both sponsored by the same corporates. None of them I agree with, and if you vote for someone else, people will say don't do that its a wasted vote. It gives the perception of choice without actually providing you with one.
I say vote the way you want. I also say you should be able to vote no confidence in any of them. I don't know what you do if no confidence was significant, probably wouldn't make a difference but at least it would be embarrassing. At the moment if you don't vote they count it as you don't care, this way they can count it as you don't think any of them can run the country, and maybe take there egos down a peg.
I am not sure how it works in the US but my power costs are divided into 2 a daily charge and a cost per kw. I assume the daily charge covers fixed costs such as: cost of lines, maintenance, you can also have different rates at different times of the day, so if you are producing power in the middle of the day when everyone else is you simply pay less, for it, but you must also charge less for it.
I don't think anything that bad will happen Greece defaults, sure the government may not loans, for a while, that will just force them live within there means, while removing any interest burden. Who in their right mind lending more money to Greece anyway, and simply not trying to recover as much money back as they can. Private companies will still get loans, the wouldn't have defaulted.
If you lend people money to take on a risk (Isn't that the justification for charging interest), and if you lend too much money to people and they can't pay, well like any investment you can loose, and I don't feel sorry for the lenders. These are large banks and countries that have lent to Greece and as such should have done due diligence.
Maybe if Greece defaults, It will teach these people, don't lend to people who can't afford to pay (even countries), and it will not allow countries like Greece to get into these situations, in the first place.
At some point going bankrupt, is the only sane choice, probably better than having your entire economy crippled by interest repayments for the foreseeable future.
I wasn't saying that people don't buy movies older than 2 years old, I was saying the majority of money is not made at that point.
If movies where public domain, then we would not need Disney to re-author the movie someone would probably do it for free.
Look at your example Snow White (and many other Disney Movies), it is clearly a story based of public domain, yes they changed it, improved it, made it into a movie. Like all creations/ideas it is based on others. Is it not fair and beneficial that they return there creation in a timely manner to the public domain, in order so others can base there creations of there work, like they based their work on others. Re-authoring is one such improvement.
I tried to get beauty and the beast a few years ago, I couldn't buy it Disney weren't distributing at that point. They had it in their Disney vault. Where it was easy to download it. What we have is not allowing content to be seen, but a way of stopping it.
This like most things in life is a trade off, yes you may need a way of compensating the creator, I think 2 years is an adequate amount of time, for a movie to make its money back plus a tidy profit. If you haven't though luck, lots of money making ventures fail.
I personally think neither side can think of the right amount of money that is a fair return on investment. There will always be people who want the movie for cheaper, and not aware of the costs of development. Companies will all ways want more money. I would say that the government is the right place to decide, if it wasn't the massively disproportionate sway that big business has as compared to the average voter.
It is probably not by owning IP. If he is like most people, he works, gets paid for the hours worked, that's it. No ongoing rent for the work done by his great grandfather up to 75 year after he died.
Companies can still be paid to develop stuff for other entities, paid for running servers, they don't need to release source code, paid for support of software, you will probably get a premium if you developed it.
Plenty of ways to make money without intellectual property.
All these cases people do can and do:
Would you make a movie if every theater could immediately show it without paying you?
Seen Youtube, people make movies all the time, release them for free. People love to create and show other people.
Would you write a book?
Of course they would, I wouldn't but I don't like writing. If you want to get your opinion across, you would most certainly do it. In fact right now I am writing for free, what about blogs.
People would also pay for it even if they can get it for free, People can go down to the library and read books for free, but somehow they still go out and buy them too.
Would you, as movie theater owner, pay the artist that made a movie, while your neighbouring theater doesn't,
of course, within reason, as long as the viewers are informed for, one movie money goes to the creator and another doesn't. People would be willing to pay a premium for that. You obviously would too since, you think it is unfair not to pay the creator, or are your morals bound only by the law, and not what you think is right. People still buy movies when downloading it is cheaper, and more convenient.
Also, without IP, licenses like the AGPL or even the GPL wouldn't be possible
Without IP they wouldn't be necessary.
I don't necessarily agree we should have no IP at all but 1 or 2 years max on a movie, music is fine. After that if you want more money make another movie. How many movies run for more than a couple of months, in the theater, or have significant DVD sales after 2 years?
definition of privacy:
a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people.
In order to have secrecy you must have some level of privacy, you can't have just anybody watching what you do, it won't be much of a secret will it.
The statement itself implies both secrecy and privacy.
if you have nothing to hide (have a secret) you have nothing to worry about (worry about loosing your privacy, by being watched)
if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about
Is just a lie, ask anybody in power (well anybody really, apart from close friends and family) if you can have access to their email, and see the response you get. I can just imagine Obama, say of course I have nothing to hide.
I find it rather ironic that spy agencies, who rely on secrecy to do there job, cannot see why other people may require privacy, for a perfectly valid reason.
First I wouldn't consider simple SQL coding, you an entering fields into field on a UI coding too, or using spreadsheet formulas coding? If the the situation required doctors to access more advanced search then the program is wrong. It is much more efficient to have person code the interface than all the doctors learn to code. There are GUIs that allow you to "program" SQL queries, of course a natural language parser that could accurately work out the query from the doctors request would be better.
Yes coding can be useful, but English and Maths are much more so. It would be useful for everyone to have basic electrical, plumbing knowledge too. There is no need for everyone to code, there is a need for every to read, write, and understand basic maths. You could consider programing a specialization of maths.
This is not about job security, even if everyone could code it would just mean that they could do some basic scripting on their phone/computer. It would not detract from people who write large programs.
Specialization is good, it means people can focus on the things they are good at.
The US will never invade any country that pose an actual threat to them, unless they that country actually invades the US first.
Perhaps he doesn't want a 100" TV. A projector can project at any size, so yes if want a really large screen go for a projector, if you are actually on a budget, which judging from the question he is, then go for a much smaller screen 4K TV, I am sure you could find for well under $11,000.
But you knew that, didn't you.
I agree, but i can only think of one instance that gotos are appropriate and that is cleanup. I think this is basically because C does not have any nice way to handle cleanup, a finally block would get rid of most valid uses of goto.
Others offset it by mining user data and charging companies to target ads to their users
Just because you pay doesn't guarantee anything:
Samsung:http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/11/8017771/samsung-smart-tvs-inserting-unwanted-ads, http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa...
My paid for virus checker, bitdefender pops up adds for me to buy the latest version (before my subscription is up), interrupting games.
By a dvd, go to the movies, have to watch advertisements.
People will try to extract as much money out of you as they can, that is what capitalism is all about, just because you have paid doesn't stop or even encourage them to stop making money out of you in as many ways as they possibly can. I fact I feel it is sometimes the opposite, the more you pay the more they want.
While the study normalized for socialization, which may favor saying alcohol is bad, studies that say people who drink a moderate amount is good for you have removed people who drink excessively. Having a society that encourages moderate drinking will probably increase the amount of heavy drinkers.
Also maybe people who don't drink don't like to socialize as much because they don't like hanging out with a bunch of drunks. Most social gatherings are based on alcohol consumption. If we had more events that where more than just drinking and talking shit, perhaps non-drinkers may socialize more.
Although I know you are being sarcastic, I fear not exposing children to men therefore not exposing men to children will have the reverse effect. I don't know of any study that looks into this but I have my suspicions.
When you see someone often you see them, as a person, not just a thing.
Think about it this way, you hear about people dieing in Africa all the time, it is sad yes but doesn't really effect you but how would you feel if it was someone you knew?
I also think people live down to expectations.
how is
boys-don't-count gender-based CS teacher funding
Unless I misunderstand this that means, the school will get less/no money more teaching boys. How can that do anything but discourage boys from attending. Encourage and Discourage are 2 sides of the same coin, if you go around saying we really want girls then boys will get the message that they are not wanted, which of course is true since each girl in computer class is worth more to the school. Or if there are limited places then boys will be refused entry in favor of girls.
I don't really see why we need every profession to have equal distribution of the sexes, anyway? Men and women are different, no matter how much the PC brigade want them to be the same. If a girl doesn't want to do computers why does society see the need to brainwash them into doing it.
Also in areas where men are underrepresented. It seems like the law forbids this type of behavior. (I know different country)
from http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa....
He said despite male teachers being in a minority, scholarships were only available for women, disabled people and those from varying ethnic backgrounds.
The commission had said it would be unlawful to offer male-only scholarships.
I personally think the gender in-balance in teachers is much more important than the one in technology, teachers are major role models children's lives, and children need role models of both sexes, where who cares who wrote the latest app, or the latest network protocol.
We should tax corporations, because they use the services provided by the country. They use the roads, the legal system, medical facilities, police. They are legal entities with rights.
Sure if capital gains both short and long term, matched income tax it would be fair. But then you get the problem that ordinary people could loose there homes just because house prices when up and they couldn't afford to pay the tax it.
I also believe capital gains tax should be adjusted for inflation, if I bought a house for the value of 100 donkeys and 10 years later sold the value of 100 donkeys I really haven't made any money.
No they don't, they transfer the money to the country with the least tax and pay it there.
How? they set up in the lower tax country and charge an expense to the US country.
E.g. say a company earns $1,000,000 the overseas office charges them a $1,000,000 for an admin fee. so the company ends up paying tax on $0 in the US, and tax on $1,000,000 in the company with the low tax rate.
If you think that allowing an entity control an idea just simply because they "though of it first" is practical solution simply imagine a world where this is the case for everything. The wheel, fire screws, language ... we would go crazy trying to attribute value to people. In fact since every idea is based on others, giving the person who thought of it first indefinite control means you will stifle new ideas. Ok patents have a limited life, but as the pace of technology increases, the length of a patients should decrease, as soon as everybody in the world can improve on an idea, not just the inventor the better. I think 20 years is far too long. I don't think there is evidence that patients increase innovation.(http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFIQtwIwCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dq1Pi4w8ddA8&ei=ilOGVKnhDsLs8AWtr4K4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHKvJQ8POQ4jnw6Jlda2o31NmIIYw) or http://www.nber.org/papers/w99...
Knowledge is not like physical things its replication comes without cost and the more people that can use that knowledge the better off everyone will be. That is why we teach our children isn't it? So that they can learn the ideas of the past, in order that they can build on them in the future.
The internet's, power lies in people sharing ideas (not porn, cat movies, or what I had for breakfast) it seems ironic that we have invented a mechanism which drastically increases our ability to share knowledge and people are jumping up and downs saying don't share its evil, its just like stealing.
Don't get me wrong we should compensate the entity that came up with an idea fairly, but I don't think the entity getting the money is the right person to come up with what is fair, they will always want as much as possible. (Neither is the person spending the money)
It really depends on how much "safer" autonomous cars are doesn't it. The current problem with software is that when it fails it fails usually catastrophically, what do you do when you fail, stop that could be dangerous, keep going dangerous too. People don't usually fail as completely as software they make lots of small mistakes but usually do a good enough job.
the road toll is 14.9 per 100,000 per year that is quite low considering how much people drive, you would need a lot of testing, in real life scenarios to convince me that automated car was safer. And each release would need that level of testing. Yes you may get one driver who is bad kill a few people but a bad software release could kill much more.
I am not saying automated cars aren't safer, just that just because they are automated doesn't automatically make them so.
The Government already has *all* the power, should it wish to exercise it.
Not true it does have a lot, but only to the point that people don't rebel against it. The trick is to make the people happy enough so they don't rebel while getting as much power as possible. Monitoring everyone greatly increases this power since you can squash dissidents (opponents to your power) much sooner, you can do this by labeling them the boogie man of the time, (currently terrorist) and imprison then for as long as you like without trial, or just assassinate them of course.
The scarey thing is, I think they will do it believing that they are doing for the common good. Your beliefs are obviously right, and your opponents are wrong, they wouldn't be your beliefs if you didn't consider your beliefs right. You wouldn't want someone in power that you think would do the wrong thing, would you?
It actually could, well much more than the current system, given a couple things.
1. The hardware does a challenge response, that way the private key is never given to untrusted hardware software system. Ok the untrusted system could log in once but only once.
2. The USB key doesn't allow the firmware to be reprogramed (https://srlabs.de/badusb/).
3. There is no other way than physically pressing the USB key to activate the challenge response each time.
4. Do not allow a session to remain open indefinitely especially if the same dongle is used to log in form somewhere else.
I have been saying for years that this mechanism would be great for credit cards, and a password replacement, of course you could still have passwords but with this mechanism would be fine for me without them.
You could log in to any site with this, if the system used private/public key encryption simply give the site your public key, and use it to log by encrypting the challenge with your private key. Now if you ever use a password on a website you may as well consider it compromised.
You could have multiple USB keys, if you wanted. You could even allow them to change the private key as long there was a physical block on writing the key, a switch or something.
Agreed, In real life you don't go to jail for 2 year for being rude what makes the internet so special.
Of course its right to use technical means to stop the government accessing your files. It always has been like that, you could always write you documents in code, or hide them and you where under no obligation to reveal the code or location, you have the right to remain silent.
The government has the ability to watch us more than it ever has in history, but it will never be enough.
I think it is less about allowing encryption on cell phones as opposed to having it on by default. Most people will not bother (mainly because they don't understand how easy it is to monitor someone) so it is an indicator to look further if your phone is encrypted, once everyone has encryption turned on it will no longer be an indicator.
Really its the spy agencies own fault they overstepped their bounds, by issuing secret warrants to companies and monitoring everyone, now they get the backlash.
When something you had is taken away it feels much worse than if you never had it in the first place.