Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?
Only to those whose grasp of reality is a bit tenuous. There have always been currencies not controlled by a particular government, not to mention bullion and other de-facto currencies. The fact that it isn't a fiat currency is irrelevant. There is absolutely no chance that governments will not get involved in regulating anything resembling a currency. Anyone who thought otherwise is delusional.
The problem with subscription services is that they don't scale.
That's demonstrably not true as long as you can get to a minimum viable number of subscribers. Not necessarily easy but it's certainly scalable. Slashdot's costs are a good approximation of fixed so as long as the subscription fee X number of subscribers is sufficiently large they will be fine. Might not be the next Google but it can be a solidly profitable little business. Magazines take the model of charging low subscription fees and make their real money on advertising. I question that model in the face of ad blocking software.
There are sites that I frequent, and in some cases pay money to in order to do so. In these cases, I'm willing to pay enough money that the site can make a profit after transaction fees. There's a lot of other sites that I like to use once in a while, or when Google sends me there, and while I'd be willing to pay them a very small amount of money there's no practical way to do it.
You're talking about scaling down transaction size but I don't think that's really a relevant concern for Slashdot. They aren't likely to do anything involving micro-transactions.
Privacy Badger will block the tracking, by learning which sites track you. It will block the cookies or entire sites outright if they're bad enough.
I already use Privacy Badger. And Adblock. And uBlock Origin. Plus some other counter measures.
But it will not act like an adblocker. So you'll see the ads, without being tracked.
I don't want to see the ads. My biggest problem with ad networks is the tracking but it's not my only problem with them. They slow things down. They are malware vectors. If I don't allow tracking the ads will have even less relevance to me and I don't want to be tracked. Etc. Even without cookies there are other means of being tracked, some clever and others not so much. Short version is that there is no real upside for me because I cannot trust the advertisers to behave themselves.
Any subscription service we would provide would have zero ads
The problem with that as a business proposition unfortunately is that I already can block ads. I have no fine grained way to permit ads from a party I trust because I don't trust the ad networks. There really is no way for slashdot to put ads in front of me that I am willing to trust. It isn't slashdot's fault, it's just the world we live in.
For a subscription service to work I need actual value added features, not just removal of annoyances that I can already handle myself. For an illustrative example (not an actual suggestion) something like giving subscribers 3 mod points per day that they can use even on articles they have commented on would be a value add. Give people something they cannot get otherwise. Maybe some special moderation categories (-1 idiotic or +1 clever troll). You get the idea. Nothing too extreme but something valuable to people in the slashdot community.
1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?
Provide enough value I'm willing to pay for it directly. I do that with several websites I frequent. If people aren't willing to pay for what you are doing directly then it probably isn't worth all that much to them.
Speaking for myself I value my privacy FAR more than any random article you could possibly entice me to read. I have NO interest in being tracked by advertising networks and I will take harsh measures to ensure it doesn't happen. If their crappy business model can't handle that then too bad. Your bad business model is not my problem.
To be frank I'd be willing to pay a subscription to Slashdot. I do so for other sites I value. I get a lot of value from the site in the form of entertainment and have for a long time. It would be nice if a subscription got you some real value added features but I'd be willing to pay something less for what I get for free now.
I'm fairly militant however about my ad blocking. It is HIGHLY unlikely any advertiser on slashdot is going to dangle something in front of me that I care about enough to buy. But more importantly I value my privacy and since advertising networks can help themselves in trying to track my every click and search I am forced to take pretty harsh steps to maintain my privacy. This is not going to change. Ever.
Exactly what you might guess. It means the party doing the lending is paying the borrower to take the loan instead of the more normal charging the borrower. There are all sorts of knock on effects of this, most of which are bad for the same reasons deflation is generally bad.
Are there banks that *seriously* expect the customer to pay them money to keep their money for them....?
Actually it's really the Fed lending to the banks more than the banks lending to us. You aren't likely to see a negative interest loan on a house but you might see the federal funds rate go negative.
Direct transfer, of course. You transfer the money, and he or she sees it in his or her account within a minute, and it's instantly usable.
About 8% of adults in the US do not have and/or cannot get bank accounts. Banks will not give everyone who asks for one an account and some people cannot afford even the modest fees that come with a low end bank account. Unless you want the government getting into the banking business this isn't going to change any time soon either.
Because the government was embarrassed by him and has no incentive of any kind to provide a fair trial. Remember that this is the same government that for the last 15 years has been holding people without charges in Cuba because they know the prosecution would lose if it came before a jury or unbiased judge because the government broke the law.
But the thing is a Fair trial doesn't mean he isn't guilty, it just means they will weigh all the evidence.
A fair trial also means that if he is guilty that the punishment is proportional to the crime and any mitigating considerations. It means that he would have the right to face his accuser, have all evidence presented publicly and on the record, have an impartial jury of his peers, have the reasons for his actions considered and weighed, to consider whether his actions were reasonable and/or justified, that he has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, that the laws he is being judged by are consistent with the Constitution, that the prosecution isn't withholding evidence, etc. A fair trial means a lot of things. There is no reason to believe the US government has shown the slightest interest in giving Mr Snowden a fair trial based on previous actions and public statements.
Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant. The guy killed some people then did some unrelated stuff and then was caught. Why do I give a shit that the unrelated stuff happened to be driving for Uber? I'm pretty sure some regular taxi drivers do some nefarious shit too sometimes. If he used Uber to find victims then that is relevant but I've heard no indication that is the case here. If Uber did background checks on this person then all it indicates is the general futility of most background checks. I know Uber is all the watercooler talk these days but this is just bad journalism.
I have no stance on Uber. Never used them and I have no firm opinion (positive or negative) regarding their company, products or services. I just don't see how they are relevant to this story.
Where are the game-changers? A hypersonic plane? Really? Great description of the X-15.
The X15 was a manned rocket with wings. The X51 is a scramjet powered unmanned hypersonic aircraft. If you don't see where the boundaries are being pushed there I suggest you conduct a little study session. We've gone FAR past what we learned from the X15 program.
GPS? You're proving my point! The concept was understood since before Sputnik, and it was first implemented 40 years ago.
Who gives a shit when the "concept was understood"? We understood the concept of supersonic flight before WWII but that didn't mean we could do it. You claimed that there had been no progress in the last 50 years which is complete nonsense. GPS is a great example. GPS has HUGELY changed navigation particularly in the last 20 years. Do NOT make the mistake of underestimating the importance of that.
"Utility, efficiency, reliability"...Buzz words that essentially mean "more of the same but a little bit better".
Correct. What you don't seem to get is how much those things matter. ALL aircraft design is incremental and builds on what existed before. Including the SR-71 and the X-15. If you don't understand this then you don't understand how the engineering for this stuff is done. The improvements are always incremental. Big changes happen when those incremental changes add up to something that changes the paradigm we've been operating under. That gets harder as a technology matures. 50 years ago it was a lot easier to push boundaries in aviation than it is today and that isn't because people aren't trying.
Also I have to say I disagree with your assertion that satellites can replace the SR-71. They don't have the same flexibility...not even close.
Your error is in presuming that the military relies solely on the satellites. You can be certain they do not. They retired the SR-71 because it cost a fortune and the few corner cases where it added value were too rare to justify. Once you have sufficient satellite coverage (which we probably do) the SR-71 becomes redundant 99% of the time AND carries higher risks both operational and geopolitical. Much of the remaining cases can be covered by more conventional aircraft and drones. The SR-71 survived by being fast compared to what was shooting at it. Today there are missiles that are MUCH faster than the SR-71 and a better survival strategy arguably is stealth. People routinely make the error of thinking that the best way to replace a groundbreaking aircraft is with one that does the same thing but better. We don't understand when things have progressed beyond that operational paradigm. It's a really easy mistake to make and we've all done it at one time or another, myself included.
Sigh... Just because somebody did some piece of the technology before doesn't mean the current versions aren't new. If you think there is nothing new about drones today over the versions we had 50 years ago you need to pay better attention. Drones aren't just cheaper. They are better too. Lots better. They are FAR more capable in literally every measurable way. It's like comparing the wright flyer to the Bell X1. They are both manned aircraft but only a fool would argue there is "nothing new" between the two. You managed to completely miss my point which is that aircraft today are routinely pushing frontiers of things not previously achieved.
Is there anything in the air today that can compare to the X-15 or the Blackbird?
Sure. On what specific basis are you comparing? Speed? Stealth? Utility? Efficiency? Avionics? Reliability? I'd be happy to provide you examples in any specific category you care to mention. We retired the Blackbird because we've exceeded what it could do in most ways. The X15 was an experiment and we've long since had the capability to exceed what it can do in literally every respect. What is the point of duplicating it today? Sure they were cool and cutting edge for their time but that time was a loooong time ago.
Furthermore remember that some of the most advanced stuff is still classified. We didn't know much about the SR71 for much of its early operational history. Stuff like the B2 and F117 were almost complete surprises when they were unveiled. Quite likely there is some pretty nifty classified stuff the US military is working on that we know little/nothing about.
What has the US accomplished in the last 50 years that can even touch those accomplishments?
Plenty! Just off the top of my head: Stealth, hypersonic aircraft, drones, private spacecraft, engine efficiency/power, avionics, GPS, the list goes on and on and on. If you think we haven't exceeded the SR-71 or the X15 then you haven't been paying attention. Just because we aren't making drop-in replacements for vehicles whose service life is complete doesn't mean we aren't progressing.
And when was the last time an astronaut went further into space than anybody with a half-assed camera and a cheap pair of binoculars can photograph?
1972 but you knew that. Unclear what that has to do with experimental aircraft.
The got the Olympics. I'd say they outsmarted everyone.
Apparently you've never heard of the winner's curse. It's not hard to argue that "winning" the right to host the Olympics is something of a Pyrrhic victory. It's really expensive to host the games and relatively few games are profitable for the host country.
The U.S. will send 48 rowers to Rio, and they will be as forewarned and forearmed as the federation can make them, starting with squeeze bottles of hand sanitizer that will be distributed on the flight to Brazil.
Hand sanitizer will do absolutely nothing to keep athletes from being infected with pathogens from the water. If they cannot deal with the problem then they need to change the venue. If that is not in Brazil then so be it.
Hannafin says the athletes have been asked to get hepatitis A vaccinations and polio boosters and take the oral typhoid vaccine. Their oar handles will be bleached and their boats washed inside and out after each training session or competition. Gear will be laundered at a high enough temperature to kill microbes."
All fine but if the water is filled with fecal matter or other pathogens there are countless other ways they can get sick, many of which can affect their athletic performance. Hard to win a gold medal when you are puking your guts out from exposure to pathogens.
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
Spare us the histrionics. Treason is a very narrowly defined crime in the US and it isn't remotely in play here on either side. I think Apple is completely justified to refuse this ridiculous court order but no one at Apple is in danger of being tried for treason or needs to protect themselves from such accusations.
You do realize that the actual law is considerably more nuanced than you are implying, right? Protections against self incrimination do not necessarily apply to evidence you generate including evidence left on computers. The accused doesn't have to help the government make their case against him but that doesn't mean the government can't take action to gather the evidence. What is at stake here is whether the government should be able to compel a company to take extraordinary action to defeat security measures against a third party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self incrimination. If the phone was unlocked and unecrypted then this isn't even a conversation.
So by your very logic the software is already not secure - if it were, Apple wouldn't be able to retrofit a backdoor.
If the software does not currently exist to backdoor the device then it IS secure - for now. The fact that it might be possible to change that is a separate issue.
It's inherently insecure already and Apple are merely being asked to hack it.
This presumes that Apple can hack the device. It has not been conclusively established that this is possible. But let's presume that it is possible for argument's sake since if Apple can't do it then it isn't worthy of discussion. If Apple is able to hack into the device to retrieve the data then in theory the device is insecure in the same sense that a lock that can be picked is insecure. However the tools to hack the device (allegedly) do not currently exist so as things stand the device IS secure. If it wasn't then the FBI would not have any need to ask Apple to hack the device.
If it's secure then Apple can't introduce a backdoor, as the secure software prevents this.
That's like arguing that a lock is insecure because the technology exists to develop lock picks for it. Security is never absolute particularly when a party has physical access to the device. Apple should in principle have the best idea how to go about picking this particular "lock" just like one would expect the maker of a safe to have the best idea how to circumvent the security features of their own product.
I'm sorry but your assumptions precipitate a paradox.
Hardly. A device can be entirely secure today with full knowledge of how it can be made insecure tomorrow. The point is that asking Apple to facilitate this action would have the knock on effect of making ALL devices immediately insecure today instead of theoretically insecure tomorrow.
How can Apple comply with an order that they have no ability to follow? The court order is for Apple to help decrypt a specific phone, not to change how they make phones.
A distinction without a difference in this case. Presuming the request is technologically possible, asking Apple to decrypt one phone is tantamount to asking them to decrypt ALL phones. The process would be the same and you can be sure it would not be the last time it would be used.
There is no such thing as a single case back door. Either the software is secure for all or it isn't secure at all. There is no middle ground here.
I don't understand why this can't be in a temporary fashion, specific to this particular iphone, and only for this specific case.
Because once you develop the software you can't un-develop it and it WILL be used again. The government is ordering Apple to develop what amounts to a backdoor. Apple is (very sensibly) fighting against this because it is a terrible idea with far reaching consequences. Once they develop the software then you can be certain as the sun rising tomorrow that the government would order it to be used in the future. Furthermore 2/3 of Apple's sales come from outside the US and if other countries governments/citizens believe Apple to be beholden to the US government it could very easily hurt their sales very badly.
Basically there is no upside for this for anyone except the investigators in this case. That is not sufficient justification for Apple to demolish everyone's privacy.
Uber is an app. An app that's already written and finished. How the HELL do they burn through so much money?
Uber is a company. Uber the company has an app which is also called Uber. Uber the company has marketing, sales, legal, administrative and a lot of other costs. The actual percentage of Uber's expenses from building and maintaining the app is probably something around 10-15% of their total expenses if their books are like any other software company. Most of the expenses for any software company are not in engineering. This is true for Microsoft, Oracle, and pretty much any other software company you care to name. Also Uber has to pay its drivers. If they are paying the drivers more than the revenue from providing the service it would be quite easy to lose a lot of money very quickly. They might be doing this to attract drivers to the service though I have no idea if this is actually the case.
While I have no idea if Uber is actually losing $1B in China, I can say with certainty that it is not from their software development.
I think the idea is that you should be a conscious person already and aware of the environmental impacts and working to mitigate the issues associated with waste.
Let's presume for a moment I am an environmentally conscientious person which is actually true in my case. It does not matter because I have NO ability to compel companies to produce products that are energy efficient. Their economic self interest is in selling me a device and for that device to cost as little as possible. I have the option of not buying the device but in many cases by doing that I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face. It's hard for me to find out in advance who is being wasteful and who isn't. It's nearly impossible for me to communicate my displeasure to manufacturers in a way that will result in positive action. It is HUGELY inefficient and wasteful for me to try to monitor all these companies. It is far more sensible to use government for what it is good for which is to regulate companies whose economic incentives are contrary to the public good. If free market forces cannot effectively compel energy efficiency then the only viable option is to have government step in to force the issue.
I'm not particularly a fan of "Big Government" but situations like this are EXACTLY what government is actually useful for.
If you go through the legal process and get a court order that is the system working as intended.
Not when the court doesn't really understand the full ramifications of what they are ordering. You can have due process and end up with a terrible ruling if the court is clueless. Hopefully it will be sorted out in due course. Apple is clearly correct in their position as far as I can tell.
It's when they want backdoors and unregulated access to your information that it's a problem.
In this case the court is apparently ordering Apple to CREATE a backdoor since one supposedly does not currently exist. This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous for me to mention here. You cannot create a backdoor for one party without creating it for ALL parties. If you don't see how that is a problem then I can't help you.
Why bother, when this problem could be resolved by the free market.
The "free market" has utterly failed to solve this problem to date. QED your faith in the free market to solve all problems is misplaced.
I mean, who'd want to buy a power supply that constantly drains power even when it's off?
No one but you are implying that there is a choice. Many of these power supplies are designed to be as cheap as possible and/or badly designed. If I buy a TiVo or a router it's not as if I have a choice of what power supply it comes with. Companies that sell these things do not care AT ALL about your home or office electricity budget because they have no financial or regulatory incentive to care. This is called a market failure. The pure self interest of the companies making the product conflicts with the need to minimize power consumption.
This would only make sense if you assume the average consumer is an idiot.
Has nothing to do with the intellect of the consumer. The consumer isn't being given a choice and even if they were it's not clear they would choose to buy something that minimizes power consumption even though that is in our best interest as a society.
But why do what we all should do, and instead add in Government controls on what we can can and cannot do, simply because we're too lazy to do what we ought to do.
You are asserting we all "should" waste our time monitoring badly designed electronic vampire devices and I think your premise is flawed. I have better things to do with my time. Has nothing to do with laziness AND it rewards companies for designing inefficient products. The correct solution is to ensure that the products are power efficient in the first place and make the problem go away without placing a huge collective burden on the citizenry with pointless busywork.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the whole point of digital currencies to avoid the need for a government to bless (and therefore control) a particularly unit of money?
Only to those whose grasp of reality is a bit tenuous. There have always been currencies not controlled by a particular government, not to mention bullion and other de-facto currencies. The fact that it isn't a fiat currency is irrelevant. There is absolutely no chance that governments will not get involved in regulating anything resembling a currency. Anyone who thought otherwise is delusional.
The problem with subscription services is that they don't scale.
That's demonstrably not true as long as you can get to a minimum viable number of subscribers. Not necessarily easy but it's certainly scalable. Slashdot's costs are a good approximation of fixed so as long as the subscription fee X number of subscribers is sufficiently large they will be fine. Might not be the next Google but it can be a solidly profitable little business. Magazines take the model of charging low subscription fees and make their real money on advertising. I question that model in the face of ad blocking software.
There are sites that I frequent, and in some cases pay money to in order to do so. In these cases, I'm willing to pay enough money that the site can make a profit after transaction fees. There's a lot of other sites that I like to use once in a while, or when Google sends me there, and while I'd be willing to pay them a very small amount of money there's no practical way to do it.
You're talking about scaling down transaction size but I don't think that's really a relevant concern for Slashdot. They aren't likely to do anything involving micro-transactions.
Privacy Badger will block the tracking, by learning which sites track you. It will block the cookies or entire sites outright if they're bad enough.
I already use Privacy Badger. And Adblock. And uBlock Origin. Plus some other counter measures.
But it will not act like an adblocker. So you'll see the ads, without being tracked.
I don't want to see the ads. My biggest problem with ad networks is the tracking but it's not my only problem with them. They slow things down. They are malware vectors. If I don't allow tracking the ads will have even less relevance to me and I don't want to be tracked. Etc. Even without cookies there are other means of being tracked, some clever and others not so much. Short version is that there is no real upside for me because I cannot trust the advertisers to behave themselves.
Any subscription service we would provide would have zero ads
The problem with that as a business proposition unfortunately is that I already can block ads. I have no fine grained way to permit ads from a party I trust because I don't trust the ad networks. There really is no way for slashdot to put ads in front of me that I am willing to trust. It isn't slashdot's fault, it's just the world we live in.
For a subscription service to work I need actual value added features, not just removal of annoyances that I can already handle myself. For an illustrative example (not an actual suggestion) something like giving subscribers 3 mod points per day that they can use even on articles they have commented on would be a value add. Give people something they cannot get otherwise. Maybe some special moderation categories (-1 idiotic or +1 clever troll). You get the idea. Nothing too extreme but something valuable to people in the slashdot community.
1. How do you propose funding websites, if not with ads?
Provide enough value I'm willing to pay for it directly. I do that with several websites I frequent. If people aren't willing to pay for what you are doing directly then it probably isn't worth all that much to them.
Speaking for myself I value my privacy FAR more than any random article you could possibly entice me to read. I have NO interest in being tracked by advertising networks and I will take harsh measures to ensure it doesn't happen. If their crappy business model can't handle that then too bad. Your bad business model is not my problem.
To be frank I'd be willing to pay a subscription to Slashdot. I do so for other sites I value. I get a lot of value from the site in the form of entertainment and have for a long time. It would be nice if a subscription got you some real value added features but I'd be willing to pay something less for what I get for free now.
I'm fairly militant however about my ad blocking. It is HIGHLY unlikely any advertiser on slashdot is going to dangle something in front of me that I care about enough to buy. But more importantly I value my privacy and since advertising networks can help themselves in trying to track my every click and search I am forced to take pretty harsh steps to maintain my privacy. This is not going to change. Ever.
What exactly is a negative interest rate?
Exactly what you might guess. It means the party doing the lending is paying the borrower to take the loan instead of the more normal charging the borrower. There are all sorts of knock on effects of this, most of which are bad for the same reasons deflation is generally bad.
Are there banks that *seriously* expect the customer to pay them money to keep their money for them....?
Actually it's really the Fed lending to the banks more than the banks lending to us. You aren't likely to see a negative interest loan on a house but you might see the federal funds rate go negative.
Direct transfer, of course. You transfer the money, and he or she sees it in his or her account within a minute, and it's instantly usable.
About 8% of adults in the US do not have and/or cannot get bank accounts. Banks will not give everyone who asks for one an account and some people cannot afford even the modest fees that come with a low end bank account. Unless you want the government getting into the banking business this isn't going to change any time soon either.
Why would you say he wouldn't get a fair trial?
Because the government was embarrassed by him and has no incentive of any kind to provide a fair trial. Remember that this is the same government that for the last 15 years has been holding people without charges in Cuba because they know the prosecution would lose if it came before a jury or unbiased judge because the government broke the law.
But the thing is a Fair trial doesn't mean he isn't guilty, it just means they will weigh all the evidence.
A fair trial also means that if he is guilty that the punishment is proportional to the crime and any mitigating considerations. It means that he would have the right to face his accuser, have all evidence presented publicly and on the record, have an impartial jury of his peers, have the reasons for his actions considered and weighed, to consider whether his actions were reasonable and/or justified, that he has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, that the laws he is being judged by are consistent with the Constitution, that the prosecution isn't withholding evidence, etc. A fair trial means a lot of things. There is no reason to believe the US government has shown the slightest interest in giving Mr Snowden a fair trial based on previous actions and public statements.
Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant. The guy killed some people then did some unrelated stuff and then was caught. Why do I give a shit that the unrelated stuff happened to be driving for Uber? I'm pretty sure some regular taxi drivers do some nefarious shit too sometimes. If he used Uber to find victims then that is relevant but I've heard no indication that is the case here. If Uber did background checks on this person then all it indicates is the general futility of most background checks. I know Uber is all the watercooler talk these days but this is just bad journalism.
I have no stance on Uber. Never used them and I have no firm opinion (positive or negative) regarding their company, products or services. I just don't see how they are relevant to this story.
Where are the game-changers? A hypersonic plane? Really? Great description of the X-15.
The X15 was a manned rocket with wings. The X51 is a scramjet powered unmanned hypersonic aircraft. If you don't see where the boundaries are being pushed there I suggest you conduct a little study session. We've gone FAR past what we learned from the X15 program.
GPS? You're proving my point! The concept was understood since before Sputnik, and it was first implemented 40 years ago.
Who gives a shit when the "concept was understood"? We understood the concept of supersonic flight before WWII but that didn't mean we could do it. You claimed that there had been no progress in the last 50 years which is complete nonsense. GPS is a great example. GPS has HUGELY changed navigation particularly in the last 20 years. Do NOT make the mistake of underestimating the importance of that.
"Utility, efficiency, reliability"...Buzz words that essentially mean "more of the same but a little bit better".
Correct. What you don't seem to get is how much those things matter. ALL aircraft design is incremental and builds on what existed before. Including the SR-71 and the X-15. If you don't understand this then you don't understand how the engineering for this stuff is done. The improvements are always incremental. Big changes happen when those incremental changes add up to something that changes the paradigm we've been operating under. That gets harder as a technology matures. 50 years ago it was a lot easier to push boundaries in aviation than it is today and that isn't because people aren't trying.
Also I have to say I disagree with your assertion that satellites can replace the SR-71. They don't have the same flexibility...not even close.
Your error is in presuming that the military relies solely on the satellites. You can be certain they do not. They retired the SR-71 because it cost a fortune and the few corner cases where it added value were too rare to justify. Once you have sufficient satellite coverage (which we probably do) the SR-71 becomes redundant 99% of the time AND carries higher risks both operational and geopolitical. Much of the remaining cases can be covered by more conventional aircraft and drones. The SR-71 survived by being fast compared to what was shooting at it. Today there are missiles that are MUCH faster than the SR-71 and a better survival strategy arguably is stealth. People routinely make the error of thinking that the best way to replace a groundbreaking aircraft is with one that does the same thing but better. We don't understand when things have progressed beyond that operational paradigm. It's a really easy mistake to make and we've all done it at one time or another, myself included.
Drones aren't new, they're just cheap now.
Sigh... Just because somebody did some piece of the technology before doesn't mean the current versions aren't new. If you think there is nothing new about drones today over the versions we had 50 years ago you need to pay better attention. Drones aren't just cheaper. They are better too. Lots better. They are FAR more capable in literally every measurable way. It's like comparing the wright flyer to the Bell X1. They are both manned aircraft but only a fool would argue there is "nothing new" between the two. You managed to completely miss my point which is that aircraft today are routinely pushing frontiers of things not previously achieved.
Is there anything in the air today that can compare to the X-15 or the Blackbird?
Sure. On what specific basis are you comparing? Speed? Stealth? Utility? Efficiency? Avionics? Reliability? I'd be happy to provide you examples in any specific category you care to mention. We retired the Blackbird because we've exceeded what it could do in most ways. The X15 was an experiment and we've long since had the capability to exceed what it can do in literally every respect. What is the point of duplicating it today? Sure they were cool and cutting edge for their time but that time was a loooong time ago.
Furthermore remember that some of the most advanced stuff is still classified. We didn't know much about the SR71 for much of its early operational history. Stuff like the B2 and F117 were almost complete surprises when they were unveiled. Quite likely there is some pretty nifty classified stuff the US military is working on that we know little/nothing about.
What has the US accomplished in the last 50 years that can even touch those accomplishments?
Plenty! Just off the top of my head: Stealth, hypersonic aircraft, drones, private spacecraft, engine efficiency/power, avionics, GPS, the list goes on and on and on. If you think we haven't exceeded the SR-71 or the X15 then you haven't been paying attention. Just because we aren't making drop-in replacements for vehicles whose service life is complete doesn't mean we aren't progressing.
And when was the last time an astronaut went further into space than anybody with a half-assed camera and a cheap pair of binoculars can photograph?
1972 but you knew that. Unclear what that has to do with experimental aircraft.
They've developed a drumstick-wielding wearable robotic limb that's able to respond to both the music being played and the movements of the player.
Shouldn't this be from the solving-problems-that-aren't-problems-department?
The got the Olympics. I'd say they outsmarted everyone.
Apparently you've never heard of the winner's curse. It's not hard to argue that "winning" the right to host the Olympics is something of a Pyrrhic victory. It's really expensive to host the games and relatively few games are profitable for the host country.
The U.S. will send 48 rowers to Rio, and they will be as forewarned and forearmed as the federation can make them, starting with squeeze bottles of hand sanitizer that will be distributed on the flight to Brazil.
Hand sanitizer will do absolutely nothing to keep athletes from being infected with pathogens from the water. If they cannot deal with the problem then they need to change the venue. If that is not in Brazil then so be it.
Hannafin says the athletes have been asked to get hepatitis A vaccinations and polio boosters and take the oral typhoid vaccine. Their oar handles will be bleached and their boats washed inside and out after each training session or competition. Gear will be laundered at a high enough temperature to kill microbes."
All fine but if the water is filled with fecal matter or other pathogens there are countless other ways they can get sick, many of which can affect their athletic performance. Hard to win a gold medal when you are puking your guts out from exposure to pathogens.
Apple is protecting itself from charge of Treason, something you yourself are guilty of.
Spare us the histrionics. Treason is a very narrowly defined crime in the US and it isn't remotely in play here on either side. I think Apple is completely justified to refuse this ridiculous court order but no one at Apple is in danger of being tried for treason or needs to protect themselves from such accusations.
You do realize that the actual law is considerably more nuanced than you are implying, right? Protections against self incrimination do not necessarily apply to evidence you generate including evidence left on computers. The accused doesn't have to help the government make their case against him but that doesn't mean the government can't take action to gather the evidence. What is at stake here is whether the government should be able to compel a company to take extraordinary action to defeat security measures against a third party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self incrimination. If the phone was unlocked and unecrypted then this isn't even a conversation.
So by your very logic the software is already not secure - if it were, Apple wouldn't be able to retrofit a backdoor.
If the software does not currently exist to backdoor the device then it IS secure - for now. The fact that it might be possible to change that is a separate issue.
It's inherently insecure already and Apple are merely being asked to hack it.
This presumes that Apple can hack the device. It has not been conclusively established that this is possible. But let's presume that it is possible for argument's sake since if Apple can't do it then it isn't worthy of discussion. If Apple is able to hack into the device to retrieve the data then in theory the device is insecure in the same sense that a lock that can be picked is insecure. However the tools to hack the device (allegedly) do not currently exist so as things stand the device IS secure. If it wasn't then the FBI would not have any need to ask Apple to hack the device.
If it's secure then Apple can't introduce a backdoor, as the secure software prevents this.
That's like arguing that a lock is insecure because the technology exists to develop lock picks for it. Security is never absolute particularly when a party has physical access to the device. Apple should in principle have the best idea how to go about picking this particular "lock" just like one would expect the maker of a safe to have the best idea how to circumvent the security features of their own product.
I'm sorry but your assumptions precipitate a paradox.
Hardly. A device can be entirely secure today with full knowledge of how it can be made insecure tomorrow. The point is that asking Apple to facilitate this action would have the knock on effect of making ALL devices immediately insecure today instead of theoretically insecure tomorrow.
How can Apple comply with an order that they have no ability to follow? The court order is for Apple to help decrypt a specific phone, not to change how they make phones.
A distinction without a difference in this case. Presuming the request is technologically possible, asking Apple to decrypt one phone is tantamount to asking them to decrypt ALL phones. The process would be the same and you can be sure it would not be the last time it would be used.
But for this specific case only.
There is no such thing as a single case back door. Either the software is secure for all or it isn't secure at all. There is no middle ground here.
I don't understand why this can't be in a temporary fashion, specific to this particular iphone, and only for this specific case.
Because once you develop the software you can't un-develop it and it WILL be used again. The government is ordering Apple to develop what amounts to a backdoor. Apple is (very sensibly) fighting against this because it is a terrible idea with far reaching consequences. Once they develop the software then you can be certain as the sun rising tomorrow that the government would order it to be used in the future. Furthermore 2/3 of Apple's sales come from outside the US and if other countries governments/citizens believe Apple to be beholden to the US government it could very easily hurt their sales very badly.
Basically there is no upside for this for anyone except the investigators in this case. That is not sufficient justification for Apple to demolish everyone's privacy.
Uber is an app. An app that's already written and finished. How the HELL do they burn through so much money?
Uber is a company. Uber the company has an app which is also called Uber. Uber the company has marketing, sales, legal, administrative and a lot of other costs. The actual percentage of Uber's expenses from building and maintaining the app is probably something around 10-15% of their total expenses if their books are like any other software company. Most of the expenses for any software company are not in engineering. This is true for Microsoft, Oracle, and pretty much any other software company you care to name. Also Uber has to pay its drivers. If they are paying the drivers more than the revenue from providing the service it would be quite easy to lose a lot of money very quickly. They might be doing this to attract drivers to the service though I have no idea if this is actually the case.
While I have no idea if Uber is actually losing $1B in China, I can say with certainty that it is not from their software development.
I think the idea is that you should be a conscious person already and aware of the environmental impacts and working to mitigate the issues associated with waste.
Let's presume for a moment I am an environmentally conscientious person which is actually true in my case. It does not matter because I have NO ability to compel companies to produce products that are energy efficient. Their economic self interest is in selling me a device and for that device to cost as little as possible. I have the option of not buying the device but in many cases by doing that I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face. It's hard for me to find out in advance who is being wasteful and who isn't. It's nearly impossible for me to communicate my displeasure to manufacturers in a way that will result in positive action. It is HUGELY inefficient and wasteful for me to try to monitor all these companies. It is far more sensible to use government for what it is good for which is to regulate companies whose economic incentives are contrary to the public good. If free market forces cannot effectively compel energy efficiency then the only viable option is to have government step in to force the issue.
I'm not particularly a fan of "Big Government" but situations like this are EXACTLY what government is actually useful for.
If you go through the legal process and get a court order that is the system working as intended.
Not when the court doesn't really understand the full ramifications of what they are ordering. You can have due process and end up with a terrible ruling if the court is clueless. Hopefully it will be sorted out in due course. Apple is clearly correct in their position as far as I can tell.
It's when they want backdoors and unregulated access to your information that it's a problem.
In this case the court is apparently ordering Apple to CREATE a backdoor since one supposedly does not currently exist. This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous for me to mention here. You cannot create a backdoor for one party without creating it for ALL parties. If you don't see how that is a problem then I can't help you.
Why bother, when this problem could be resolved by the free market.
The "free market" has utterly failed to solve this problem to date. QED your faith in the free market to solve all problems is misplaced.
I mean, who'd want to buy a power supply that constantly drains power even when it's off?
No one but you are implying that there is a choice. Many of these power supplies are designed to be as cheap as possible and/or badly designed. If I buy a TiVo or a router it's not as if I have a choice of what power supply it comes with. Companies that sell these things do not care AT ALL about your home or office electricity budget because they have no financial or regulatory incentive to care. This is called a market failure. The pure self interest of the companies making the product conflicts with the need to minimize power consumption.
This would only make sense if you assume the average consumer is an idiot.
Has nothing to do with the intellect of the consumer. The consumer isn't being given a choice and even if they were it's not clear they would choose to buy something that minimizes power consumption even though that is in our best interest as a society.
But why do what we all should do, and instead add in Government controls on what we can can and cannot do, simply because we're too lazy to do what we ought to do.
You are asserting we all "should" waste our time monitoring badly designed electronic vampire devices and I think your premise is flawed. I have better things to do with my time. Has nothing to do with laziness AND it rewards companies for designing inefficient products. The correct solution is to ensure that the products are power efficient in the first place and make the problem go away without placing a huge collective burden on the citizenry with pointless busywork.