The courts have ruled that a fingerprint is not compelling to testify against yourself, especially if a warrant is given. However, they have also ruled that a passcode IS testifying against yourself. Which is entirely the reason why the government wants you to use your fingerprint, and not a passcode.
They cannot compel you to give up a Passcode. They can compel you to give up your fingerprint. The Government wants people to encrypt their phones with Fingerprints. And if you can connect the dots along that line, it makes perfect sense that the government wants you to use your finger, not a passcode.
Therefore, use a Passcode. Do Not Use your fingerprint, if you're concerned at all about government getting into your phone.
And I would really love to see a panic button version of the Passcode, where if you enter that code it locks the phone permanently.
And if you're a criminal, use multiple phones, with multiple accounts and never re-use accounts. And if you plan your crime correctly, you'll have deleted the most relevant account(s) before doing the crime, so the authorities don't have access to anything on any device(destroyed).
The problem is, criminals tend to be kind of dumb, and/or poor and cannot do crimes correctly. If they could, they would be legitimate criminals in Politics or Corporate America;)
Google, has in the last two years, really begun to fuck up the things that made it great. The Simplicity of the search engine, that powered the search behind the curtain, and presented RELEVANT search results, has gone the way of presenting non-relevant information at the wrong time, in the wrong way, in what appears to be a direct attempt to annoy the user (customer).
Case in point, on Android, the Popover notification for "important" messages, rather than using the previously usable (and out of the way) notification area at the top of the screen. So, while you're actively using your phone in one app, the notification activates over the top, gets in your way, and often causes you to accidentally change focus to the notifying app for no reason other than because it got in the way.
I get the idea, for "Important" notification you want it presented to you, unfortunately what is "important" is set by the Apps themselves, and every app thinks it is "important" for everything it does. The user has no control, other than turning it off at the App level (or all together) defeating the purpose, and making it just an annoying thing you turn off (app by app).
I should decide what is Important, not the App. And it should be tunable so that I can have my wife's txt messages pop up, but not my idiots friend's drunken ones. IT shouldn't be "all or nothing". I'd rather it just go away at this point, as it doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy me at the worst possible times.
It is beyond its Maximum, which is why we are in a constant deficit spending situation. The moment a surplus appears, it disappears just as quickly. Budgets that are growing are called "Drastically cut" when they go up by 1% instead of the requested 9%, and programs and departments in government that have long since served their purpose are still around.
Governments are bureaucracies and will grow until resource constrained.
Nope, they grow. Period. And people get into a tizzy fit if they don't grow. Democrats cry "Republicans want grandma to eat dog food" and Republicans cry "Democrats want every illegal on welfare". We are in a perpetual state of hyperbole that is so obviously meaningless, yet people still drink that Kool-Aide
We're in an election year, the airwaves are filled with false advertising. Unfortunately it is POLITICAL speech and legal to spew lies under the guise of electioneering.
you don't run national campaigns without support from somewhere.
Bernie Sanders and Trump both show this to be false, and for nearly the same reason.
I think there should be better ways to finance national politics (contribution limits, transparency, etc.), but am lacking in any real power to influence the system to adopt better ways.
I have a solution, it is simple and easy to regulate.
Unlimited Campaign contributions with the following rules: 1) Individuals may only donate to campaigns they can vote on; individuals cannot donate to anyone they can't actually vote for. 2) PACs cannot donate to individual campaigns 3) PACs must list all donations in a publicly available format. 4) PACs cannot mention candidates (either pro/con) by name or use their likeness in any campaign, they must be ISSUES oriented. 5) PACs may publicly endorse candidates, but cannot campaign for them, candidates may refer to those endorsements in their campaigns.
These changes would remove a huge amount of problems with SuperPACs that have dominated both political parties. The biggest problem is that most people don't feel like their voice matters, and is being drowned out by special interests. Both D and R parties have this problem, and often the special interest groups want things that are at odds with the average voter.
Yes. Because the field will be open for anyone to choose who they prefer on the Primary ballot, and the parties will not be named on the ballot. I have no problem with party bosses picking who they want to run for their party. I sincerely hope that people wouldn't join a party they had no voice in. But then again, that is exactly how we got to this place, but only thinly veiled
I can get a better burger, if I am willing to wait. And it really isn't that much more expensive (if at all). Compare In-n-Out pricing to McDonalds. Within a buck of each other for a "meal"
I do not represent the view that change is impossible. Identifying the problem is the first step in resolving it.
Yes, the Two Party system is entrenched. IT will take major effort to break it up. That has already started to happen. The problem is, it is being done within the confines of the two party system, which is designed to protect itself.
I don't have a (D) or (R) phobia, I have a deep hatred for the two parties that have managed to screw us (the US Citizen) playing "Divide and conquer" with the voters. And no, I can't vote for Bernie, because I am not a (D), and I can't vote for Trump because I am not an (R) (Until the November general election), and the Libertarian Party has principles so they don't have nomination process being run on taxpayer dimes. I really resent my taxes paying for a "voluntary" system I do not support. Let the parties pay for their own shenanigans themselves.
In short, I do not support false dichotomy voting systems that create self serving feedback loops.
Our Archiac Pluralistic Voting system includes having parties nominate their own candidates on the tax payer dime.If the PARTIES can't identify themselves on a ballot (no D or R or S or L after the name) then we can stop voting for Party's with planks we don't agree with.
I want people to be able to smoke weed and don't want our government to run massive debts. Which party represents me? Not the two main ones. And there are a shit ton of people like me, who don't give a shit about gay / straight people and just want government to leave us the hell alone! I mean I don't give a shit if Target wants pedophiles in the girls bathroom because they are too short sighted to see the actual problems with policies that are based on warm fuzzy feelings. Make a damn bathroom that can be used by anyone, and lets not give a shit about who is or isn't a boy/girl or whatever. We don't need government MANDATING our bathroom etiquette.
I disagree. Why should the Taxpayer fund the nomination process for the party in the first place? Shouldn't the Parties fund their own nomination process, and let EVERYONE vote on those results in the Primary?
The nominating process for the party's nominee is defined by the Party. A Private entity.
FTFY
And is exactly why, I would LOVE to sue the states election boards for providing Taxpayer funds to nomination processes for private parties. Make the DNC and GOP fund their own damn nominating process. THEN they can run it any way they want.
So, by some logic, this structure exists to prevent Donald Trump and people like Donald Trump, who are of the moment.
Which basically proves(if it is how things really are) how incompetent the Republican Party elites actually are. They exist to prevent it, but couldn't prevent it even as they have tried. And kind of proving Donald Trump and all the others pulling the curtain back to expose who the real wizard of OZ really is.
The biggest gatekeepers are the two main parties themselves. They host their nominating process on the dime of the taxpayer, not all support the two party system.
1) I don't have a problem with the parties picking who they are going to run, anyway they want. I oppose it being funded by Tax payers. They should pay for it themselves.
2) Primaries should have all parties represented with their OWN (singular) candidate. This is to get to the top two candidates.
3) I am all for the electoral college. Imagine for a second, the top two California Candidates are Bernie(Socialist Party) and Hillary(DNC). And the top two Texas Candidates being Ted (TeaParty) and Donald (GOP) and really messing up the Electoral Collage being the ONLY candidates available for those two states in November. No GOP/Conservative in CA, and no Liberal/Socialist in TX. And the VP is the runner up (rather than party ticket) (like it was before)
The fact is PARTY(aka Group) politics has ruined this country, and there is no going back. I hate the fact that Parties are listed next to candidate's names as prima fascia evidence of divide and conquer of the elites who run the current system, trading favors for election cycle wins.
I don't know about your phone, but my phone is accurate to 9 ft most of the time. Even when it isn't accurate to 9 ft (3 Meters) it is still fairly close to accurate, within 40 meters or so. Which is close enough to be accurate enough to show you aren't "late".
Part of that reason is because content ownership/rights are bounded by those very same boundaries they are being enforced at. My guess, is that Netflix library's availability has more to do with Canada's programming laws and rights owners than anything else. This has been an ongoing issue with Canada for a very long time (since Cable), and the people who are complaining about it, do not outnumber those that like it that way.
There are lots of laws that are selectively enforced. To the point where they actually become irrelevant, but remain on the books. And when we selectively are either complicit or outraged on the selective enforcement, it says a lot about our own duplicity. The problem is, the bureaucracy doesn't have the balls to either remove nor the balls to enforce these selectively applied laws. Which leaves the people to feel entitled to do whatever they want, because the system itself cannot follow the rules it has set up (and often doesn't even pretend to).
Here's the deal, if the laws are not being enforced, remove them. If you don't like a law, remove it. Which brings me to the real point, it is often much harder to remove a bad law, than it is to pass them. We need to change this.
It doesn't even have to be mediocre, it just hast to be consistent. McDonalds didn't get to be a big huge restaurant chain by making good or even average burgers. It got there making passible (D-) burgers that were completely consistent from New York to Los Angeles.
That is the whole point of the bureaucracy, is to provided consistent services / products, and the more consistent, the better the margins (and profit). But there in lies the problem, the more consistent you are, the closer you are to the center mean (average) and the tighter the curve, the better consistency you have, which ultimately lowers the mean over time. The problem here, is that there is NO effort applied to making better quality at all, just consistency.
True greatness comes from those that are outside of the statistics of average that provide consistency. BUT that also requires the ability to fail, spectacularly. True greatness (unique) has great risk and artistry requires taking chances on the off chance of creating something spectacular.
To make it into a car analogy, you can build and engine to get 200,000 miles without much maintenance, or you can build an engine that can produce 500 HP that is always on the verge of blowing up spectacularly and needing all sorts of constant attention. Both are "great" in their class, however, one is more consistent.
This applies to all systems that are built. You can build for consistency or you can build for greatness. Once you realize that these systems built for consistency are driving towards the mean, then you can realize where the actual problems are when trying to move to greatness. That is one of the great barriers that I think Edwards Deming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming ) helped to break down. But his style processes MUST be a conscience decision. It is also something I think Breaks down the Bureaucracy that leads to mediocrity. Mid to Upper Management cannot adequately understand the process to make improvements to it, and therefore are incapable of modifying the process to improve it.
From that article, I can easily surmise the probable application of the patent. Underwater Fiber Taps. Once you have the general scope of the application, the specifics are completely unneeded. The Government doesn't want people to know, what everyone already suspects (and is vaguely confirmed) that they are tapping underwater Fiber to spy on people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, being around a bunch of pretentious pseudo-know-it-alls correcting each other with bad information is just as comical.
The courts have ruled that a fingerprint is not compelling to testify against yourself, especially if a warrant is given. However, they have also ruled that a passcode IS testifying against yourself. Which is entirely the reason why the government wants you to use your fingerprint, and not a passcode.
They cannot compel you to give up a Passcode. They can compel you to give up your fingerprint. The Government wants people to encrypt their phones with Fingerprints. And if you can connect the dots along that line, it makes perfect sense that the government wants you to use your finger, not a passcode.
Therefore, use a Passcode. Do Not Use your fingerprint, if you're concerned at all about government getting into your phone.
And I would really love to see a panic button version of the Passcode, where if you enter that code it locks the phone permanently.
And if you're a criminal, use multiple phones, with multiple accounts and never re-use accounts. And if you plan your crime correctly, you'll have deleted the most relevant account(s) before doing the crime, so the authorities don't have access to anything on any device(destroyed).
The problem is, criminals tend to be kind of dumb, and/or poor and cannot do crimes correctly. If they could, they would be legitimate criminals in Politics or Corporate America ;)
Google, has in the last two years, really begun to fuck up the things that made it great. The Simplicity of the search engine, that powered the search behind the curtain, and presented RELEVANT search results, has gone the way of presenting non-relevant information at the wrong time, in the wrong way, in what appears to be a direct attempt to annoy the user (customer).
Case in point, on Android, the Popover notification for "important" messages, rather than using the previously usable (and out of the way) notification area at the top of the screen. So, while you're actively using your phone in one app, the notification activates over the top, gets in your way, and often causes you to accidentally change focus to the notifying app for no reason other than because it got in the way.
I get the idea, for "Important" notification you want it presented to you, unfortunately what is "important" is set by the Apps themselves, and every app thinks it is "important" for everything it does. The user has no control, other than turning it off at the App level (or all together) defeating the purpose, and making it just an annoying thing you turn off (app by app).
I should decide what is Important, not the App. And it should be tunable so that I can have my wife's txt messages pop up, but not my idiots friend's drunken ones. IT shouldn't be "all or nothing". I'd rather it just go away at this point, as it doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy me at the worst possible times.
Yeah, there's no hyperbole in anything you said /sarcasm
Meanwhile, Bernie measures success in the formation of bread lines, because without lines, only the Rich can buy bread. (yes, he actually said that).
It is beyond its Maximum, which is why we are in a constant deficit spending situation. The moment a surplus appears, it disappears just as quickly. Budgets that are growing are called "Drastically cut" when they go up by 1% instead of the requested 9%, and programs and departments in government that have long since served their purpose are still around.
Governments are bureaucracies and will grow until resource constrained.
Nope, they grow. Period. And people get into a tizzy fit if they don't grow. Democrats cry "Republicans want grandma to eat dog food" and Republicans cry "Democrats want every illegal on welfare". We are in a perpetual state of hyperbole that is so obviously meaningless, yet people still drink that Kool-Aide
That, and nobody seems to remember Tipper Gore's crusade. People love to make fun of the R,
False advertising? That's the FTC.
We're in an election year, the airwaves are filled with false advertising. Unfortunately it is POLITICAL speech and legal to spew lies under the guise of electioneering.
So in essence, you're not correct ;)
you don't run national campaigns without support from somewhere.
Bernie Sanders and Trump both show this to be false, and for nearly the same reason.
I think there should be better ways to finance national politics (contribution limits, transparency, etc.), but am lacking in any real power to influence the system to adopt better ways.
I have a solution, it is simple and easy to regulate.
Unlimited Campaign contributions with the following rules: 1) Individuals may only donate to campaigns they can vote on; individuals cannot donate to anyone they can't actually vote for. 2) PACs cannot donate to individual campaigns 3) PACs must list all donations in a publicly available format. 4) PACs cannot mention candidates (either pro/con) by name or use their likeness in any campaign, they must be ISSUES oriented. 5) PACs may publicly endorse candidates, but cannot campaign for them, candidates may refer to those endorsements in their campaigns.
These changes would remove a huge amount of problems with SuperPACs that have dominated both political parties. The biggest problem is that most people don't feel like their voice matters, and is being drowned out by special interests. Both D and R parties have this problem, and often the special interest groups want things that are at odds with the average voter.
Yes. Because the field will be open for anyone to choose who they prefer on the Primary ballot, and the parties will not be named on the ballot. I have no problem with party bosses picking who they want to run for their party. I sincerely hope that people wouldn't join a party they had no voice in. But then again, that is exactly how we got to this place, but only thinly veiled
Removing Party Nomination processes from public funded process would kill it too.
Thomas Kinkade Paintings vs Monet.
Both are decent, but there was no point KinKade was going to ever measure up to Monet in artistry. I don't care how good his process was. ;)
fast, and cheap.
Fast. Not Cheap
I can get a better burger, if I am willing to wait. And it really isn't that much more expensive (if at all). Compare In-n-Out pricing to McDonalds. Within a buck of each other for a "meal"
I do not represent the view that change is impossible. Identifying the problem is the first step in resolving it.
Yes, the Two Party system is entrenched. IT will take major effort to break it up. That has already started to happen. The problem is, it is being done within the confines of the two party system, which is designed to protect itself.
I don't have a (D) or (R) phobia, I have a deep hatred for the two parties that have managed to screw us (the US Citizen) playing "Divide and conquer" with the voters. And no, I can't vote for Bernie, because I am not a (D), and I can't vote for Trump because I am not an (R) (Until the November general election), and the Libertarian Party has principles so they don't have nomination process being run on taxpayer dimes. I really resent my taxes paying for a "voluntary" system I do not support. Let the parties pay for their own shenanigans themselves.
In short, I do not support false dichotomy voting systems that create self serving feedback loops.
Our Archiac Pluralistic Voting system includes having parties nominate their own candidates on the tax payer dime.If the PARTIES can't identify themselves on a ballot (no D or R or S or L after the name) then we can stop voting for Party's with planks we don't agree with.
I want people to be able to smoke weed and don't want our government to run massive debts. Which party represents me? Not the two main ones. And there are a shit ton of people like me, who don't give a shit about gay / straight people and just want government to leave us the hell alone! I mean I don't give a shit if Target wants pedophiles in the girls bathroom because they are too short sighted to see the actual problems with policies that are based on warm fuzzy feelings. Make a damn bathroom that can be used by anyone, and lets not give a shit about who is or isn't a boy/girl or whatever. We don't need government MANDATING our bathroom etiquette.
I disagree. Why should the Taxpayer fund the nomination process for the party in the first place? Shouldn't the Parties fund their own nomination process, and let EVERYONE vote on those results in the Primary?
The nominating process for the party's nominee is defined by the Party. A Private entity.
FTFY
And is exactly why, I would LOVE to sue the states election boards for providing Taxpayer funds to nomination processes for private parties. Make the DNC and GOP fund their own damn nominating process. THEN they can run it any way they want.
So, by some logic, this structure exists to prevent Donald Trump and people like Donald Trump, who are of the moment.
Which basically proves(if it is how things really are) how incompetent the Republican Party elites actually are. They exist to prevent it, but couldn't prevent it even as they have tried. And kind of proving Donald Trump and all the others pulling the curtain back to expose who the real wizard of OZ really is.
The biggest gatekeepers are the two main parties themselves. They host their nominating process on the dime of the taxpayer, not all support the two party system.
1) I don't have a problem with the parties picking who they are going to run, anyway they want. I oppose it being funded by Tax payers. They should pay for it themselves.
2) Primaries should have all parties represented with their OWN (singular) candidate. This is to get to the top two candidates.
3) I am all for the electoral college. Imagine for a second, the top two California Candidates are Bernie(Socialist Party) and Hillary(DNC). And the top two Texas Candidates being Ted (TeaParty) and Donald (GOP) and really messing up the Electoral Collage being the ONLY candidates available for those two states in November. No GOP/Conservative in CA, and no Liberal/Socialist in TX. And the VP is the runner up (rather than party ticket) (like it was before)
The fact is PARTY(aka Group) politics has ruined this country, and there is no going back. I hate the fact that Parties are listed next to candidate's names as prima fascia evidence of divide and conquer of the elites who run the current system, trading favors for election cycle wins.
I don't know about your phone, but my phone is accurate to 9 ft most of the time. Even when it isn't accurate to 9 ft (3 Meters) it is still fairly close to accurate, within 40 meters or so. Which is close enough to be accurate enough to show you aren't "late".
Part of that reason is because content ownership/rights are bounded by those very same boundaries they are being enforced at. My guess, is that Netflix library's availability has more to do with Canada's programming laws and rights owners than anything else. This has been an ongoing issue with Canada for a very long time (since Cable), and the people who are complaining about it, do not outnumber those that like it that way.
Does that mean I am exempt from said laws?
There are lots of laws that are selectively enforced. To the point where they actually become irrelevant, but remain on the books. And when we selectively are either complicit or outraged on the selective enforcement, it says a lot about our own duplicity. The problem is, the bureaucracy doesn't have the balls to either remove nor the balls to enforce these selectively applied laws. Which leaves the people to feel entitled to do whatever they want, because the system itself cannot follow the rules it has set up (and often doesn't even pretend to).
Here's the deal, if the laws are not being enforced, remove them. If you don't like a law, remove it. Which brings me to the real point, it is often much harder to remove a bad law, than it is to pass them. We need to change this.
predictable mediocrity
It doesn't even have to be mediocre, it just hast to be consistent. McDonalds didn't get to be a big huge restaurant chain by making good or even average burgers. It got there making passible (D-) burgers that were completely consistent from New York to Los Angeles.
That is the whole point of the bureaucracy, is to provided consistent services / products, and the more consistent, the better the margins (and profit). But there in lies the problem, the more consistent you are, the closer you are to the center mean (average) and the tighter the curve, the better consistency you have, which ultimately lowers the mean over time. The problem here, is that there is NO effort applied to making better quality at all, just consistency.
True greatness comes from those that are outside of the statistics of average that provide consistency. BUT that also requires the ability to fail, spectacularly. True greatness (unique) has great risk and artistry requires taking chances on the off chance of creating something spectacular.
To make it into a car analogy, you can build and engine to get 200,000 miles without much maintenance, or you can build an engine that can produce 500 HP that is always on the verge of blowing up spectacularly and needing all sorts of constant attention. Both are "great" in their class, however, one is more consistent.
This applies to all systems that are built. You can build for consistency or you can build for greatness. Once you realize that these systems built for consistency are driving towards the mean, then you can realize where the actual problems are when trying to move to greatness. That is one of the great barriers that I think Edwards Deming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming ) helped to break down. But his style processes MUST be a conscience decision. It is also something I think Breaks down the Bureaucracy that leads to mediocrity. Mid to Upper Management cannot adequately understand the process to make improvements to it, and therefore are incapable of modifying the process to improve it.
From that article, I can easily surmise the probable application of the patent. Underwater Fiber Taps. Once you have the general scope of the application, the specifics are completely unneeded. The Government doesn't want people to know, what everyone already suspects (and is vaguely confirmed) that they are tapping underwater Fiber to spy on people.
Just my opinion.
Trade your Freedom for Illusion of Security all you want. I prefer Freedom myself.
In the end, you'll have neither, and you're just too stupid to realize it before it is too late.