Very true, but likely still an improvement over the harm done by massive piles of rotting horse manure. Also, you mean "harming our parents / us", unless you were born in the 1920s or earlier.
Only if the states can demonstrate that printable guns are a compelling safety risk. That's an impossible argument to make with 3D printing technology where it is, and would be hard even if you could print guns that are as functional as what you can buy. Given the hundreds of millions of manufactured guns in the US, a few more isn't going to have any effect.
This decision makes no sense. First, there's a ridiculous amount of respect given to "natural" processes, as though they're anything other than purely random. But the really dumb part is considering targeted, controlled editing to be more dangerous than dousing plants in mutagenic chemicals and/or radiation in order to accelerate selective breeding. In the former case, we may not have a perfect understanding of what the change is going to do, but in the latter case we have no idea what the changes even are, we just know that there are orders of magnitude more of them than normal.
It's like deciding that it's safer to do an appendectomy with a shotgun than with a scalpel.
Spacex looked into that. To glide back, you need wings and control surfaces added to the rocket. All additional weight. Spacex came up with a way to do it that uses the rocket engines that are part of the rocket already.
For a fair comparison you have to consider the extra fuel that must be carried by the SpaceX rocket for the deceleration and landing burns. Well, I suppose the spaceplane may also require a deceleration burn, unless its exterior can handle the heat of aerobraking. The SpaceX rocket has small control surfaces as well.
All in all, it seems like the SpaceX approach is more efficient, but it's not free.
The UBI etc presumes to maintain the economy whilst destroying the feedback loops.
Most economists disagree, particularly the libertarian ones you'd expect to be really opposed to such universal forced redistribution programs. This is because they believe UBI would do far less to distort incentives than minimum wages (which say that some people's labor is worth too little to allow them to work and some jobs have too little value to pay for them to be done) or needs-based welfare systems (which are often structured to degrade as much as assist, and to actually disincent work).
We really need some large-scale, long-term tests of these ideas to find out for sure.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that there are no significant differences between Texas and California gun laws. I definitively showed that is not true... and I didn't even include all the differences. Man up and admit you were wrong, and I'll respect you for it. Or prove you're a putz. Your choice.
Magazine size limits (well, until they were struck down by the 9th circuit last week; we'll see where that goes), no rifles with detachable magazines, a whole raft of restrictions on "assault weapons",.50 BMG is banned, there's a specific list of "approved" handguns -- no gun not on the list can be bought or sold in the state, only handguns that implement microstamping may be sold, only one handgun purchase in any 30-day period, to buy a any gun you have to get a Firearm Safety Certificate, 10 day waiting period for all purchases, out-of-state long gun purchases must go through a California FFL (federal law requires this only for handguns), a ban on possession of gun and ammunition at a gun show, no carry in the vicinity of a polling place, no carry near a demonstration, when transporting handguns the must be unloaded and in a locked container, may issue (in many counties effectively no-issue) rather than shall issue concealed carry, radically different laws around the legal use of lethal force...
Vast, vast differences between California and Texas. As I said, perhaps they don't affect what you do, but they certainly affect others. I, for one, would never live in California specifically because I cannot stomach their gun laws. I'm actually not so enamored of Texas' gun laws either, but they're a lot better than California's.
Yes, you can certainly disable it. Though I'd strongly recommend leaving it turned on.
If you turn it on, that means more spying. Google watches what you run. No thanks! I want to sideload things, and have them be my own business and not Google's.
The only thing GPP does is act as a built-in AV. No data is collected for use in advertising, etc.
I have. Including several who have killed people in perfectly justified situations. And it really messed them up, even though shooting was the best option they had. Most eventually worked through it. Others... didn't.
I can tell you that my rights here don't differ significantly than they did when I lived in Texas
This is not remotely true. Perhaps the portion of your rights that you choose to exercise don't differ significantly, but the scope of the rights that you have differ tremendously. From the types of guns you can own, to the process of obtaining them, to where you can have them, to the conditions under which you're allowed to use them, there are tremendous differences between California and Texas.
Keep in mind that we're talking about public roads that are built and maintained by the city. Why should they not charge for them? A truly libertarian, small government solution would be to privatize all of the roads and let the new owners charge what the market will bear for their use. I'd be okay with that. How about you?
Also, I find it interesting that you think that more congestion equals a higher standard of living. I think the opposite. Yes, government could do nothing and then congestion would increase to the point that taking the subway is faster. This would have the side effect of making it impossible for emergency services to move around. Do you truly believe that would be better? Seriously?
I'm a big fan of the promise of self-driving vehicles... so much human time and effort is wasted on manual driving, and the death toll is horrific. Not to mention the incredible amount of labor and natural resources that are invested in vehicles that are parked most of the time, and all of the space we waste on parking lots. And self-driving vehicles promise of mobility to populations that don't currently have it, especially youth and the elderly. It's a good thing in so many ways.
But, I predict that commercial self-driving taxi fleets, like the system Waymo is about to launch in Phoenix, are going to create a large increase in traffic. Not so much in Phoenix and similar cities that don't really have effective mass transit systems anyway. They'll see a slight increase in traffic.
In cities that do have functional mass transit systems, though, the cost of a self-driving cab is going to be so low that it will attract lots of people away from mass transit. If you can pay 3X as much to have a quiet, private car that takes you right to your destination rather than a noisy, crowded subway train, or bus that doesn't... lots of people will do that. I think it's going to get very bad if cities don't do something.
The solution seems obvious to me, though: Make surface transportation more expensive. One hackneyed way to do that is through a medallion-type system that caps the number of vehicles that are allowed to operate there. A better solution is for cities to charge for usage of the streets. Making everything a toll road would be the fairest approach, but would require some mechanism for tracking all vehicles. It might be easier just to charge a fee for any vehicle owner who wishes to drive in the city, on a yearly, monthly, daily or even hourly basis, with steep fines for violation. Then, whenever congestion gets too high you just increase the fees until it gets back to a manageable level. If some vehicles cause more congestion than others, because they're bigger or stop a lot, charge them higher rates. If pollution is a problem, charge higher rates for vehicles that pollute more. Assuming you can effectively distribute real-time pricing information so drivers aren't hit with unexpectedly large bills the rates could even fluctuate in real time, driven by an algorithm that optimizes for maximally-effective use of the streets. Internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. Markets are very good at that, as long as all relevant costs are factored in.
Google doesn't remove apps from your device retroactively when they ban them from the store.
In rare cases they do, at least if your device has the Google Play Protect (formerly called Verify Apps) service enabled. Automatic removal is only done for particularly harmful apps, though. Normally GPP just warns you.
How often do you update your router? If your up time is over 60 days you are missing updates and are insecure.
I don't know any home/small business router company (TP-Link, Linksys, Netgear,...) updating routers every 60 days. More like 1-2 times per year, for 1-2 years. And then nothing.
My Google OnHub has received monthly-ish updates for almost three years now.
However, FISA requests are only a miniscule fraction of the numbers the article talks about, so the vast majority of these requests must be traditional warrants and subpoenas.
Just as Democrats came out strong for Obama, skin color or gender don't actually matter all that much
I think they do. Identity politics have become huge in this country. The left likes to talk about them, but it's the right where they're really, really powerful.
Sanders would be well positioned to win. But if he doesn't run, or (just as likely) the party tips the scales to force nominate another widely despised candidate like Warren, Harris, or god f'ing forbid Hillary again, all of whom they continue to insist can only possibly be opposed on the grounds of their genitals, and not their right-wing economics/pro-corporate positions, supporting abridgements of rights and due process in the name of national security, platforms heavy on identity politics pushing enhanced rights for a few while light on traditional liberal values like advancing civil rights and criminal justice reform for all*, and all the other wonderful positions that made Democrats stay home in such record numbers that we got Trump... yeah in that case it's going to be Trump 2020.
The Democrats should nominate a young healthy white male Christian moderate from the South. Another Bill Clinton, or LBJ. Bonus points if he's wealthy. Now is not the time to break race/gender barriers, nor is it the time to attempt a hard turn to the left. Now is the time to stake out the center and choose a candidate that doesn't provoke identity politicking by the right. Now is the time to defeat Trump and Trumpism and restore a measure of rationality.
The last use case I can see would be for shuttling kids around.
Yes, but don't think school, think karate class, soccer practice, clarinet lessons, dance class, going to friends houses, trips to the mall, etc., etc.
Parents spend a huge amount of time shuttling their kids to various activities. Giving the kid a Waymo app instead will be a big win for them, and the kids will appreciate their new mobility as well. Though I expect kids to stop caring about getting a driver's license.
TPMs do address most of the issues. One they don't address is proof of user presence. If the TPM can be activated from software at any time, an attacker who compromises the machine remotely can use it to gain access to user accounts. Of course, an attacker who does that can also wait until the user touches the U2F key, or try to prompt the user to do so, or just scrape data when the user accesses the site. But with a TPM in the same scenario, the attacker has unlimited access as long as he retains (remote) access to the machine.
Not if you have an iPhone. It doesn't work on an iPhone so you can't access any of your accounts from the phone.
Works great on Android:-)
(Though you have to get an NFC-enabled U2F key. Also, Android devices with appropriate security hardware implement the new FIDO standard, so in many cases the phone itself can act as the U2F key.)
Sure, if chain of custody was maintained and documented.
The chain of custody on the forensic images has not been questioned.
Well, maybe by Hannity or Alex Jones or someone. Not by anyone who doesn't froth.
Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about the chain of custody issues. I don't read (or watch/listen to) Hannity or Alex Jones or anyone like that, though. Most of my news comes from the NYT and The Economist. If i can find a reference, I'll post it.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true, but likely still an improvement over the harm done by massive piles of rotting horse manure. Also, you mean "harming our parents / us", unless you were born in the 1920s or earlier.
So the air went from being smelly to causing cancer?
From being a vector of immediate disease affecting all ages to being a vector of delayed disease affecting primarily the elderly, yes.
http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html
Only if the states can demonstrate that printable guns are a compelling safety risk. That's an impossible argument to make with 3D printing technology where it is, and would be hard even if you could print guns that are as functional as what you can buy. Given the hundreds of millions of manufactured guns in the US, a few more isn't going to have any effect.
This decision makes no sense. First, there's a ridiculous amount of respect given to "natural" processes, as though they're anything other than purely random. But the really dumb part is considering targeted, controlled editing to be more dangerous than dousing plants in mutagenic chemicals and/or radiation in order to accelerate selective breeding. In the former case, we may not have a perfect understanding of what the change is going to do, but in the latter case we have no idea what the changes even are, we just know that there are orders of magnitude more of them than normal.
It's like deciding that it's safer to do an appendectomy with a shotgun than with a scalpel.
Spacex looked into that. To glide back, you need wings and control surfaces added to the rocket. All additional weight. Spacex came up with a way to do it that uses the rocket engines that are part of the rocket already.
For a fair comparison you have to consider the extra fuel that must be carried by the SpaceX rocket for the deceleration and landing burns. Well, I suppose the spaceplane may also require a deceleration burn, unless its exterior can handle the heat of aerobraking. The SpaceX rocket has small control surfaces as well.
All in all, it seems like the SpaceX approach is more efficient, but it's not free.
The UBI etc presumes to maintain the economy whilst destroying the feedback loops.
Most economists disagree, particularly the libertarian ones you'd expect to be really opposed to such universal forced redistribution programs. This is because they believe UBI would do far less to distort incentives than minimum wages (which say that some people's labor is worth too little to allow them to work and some jobs have too little value to pay for them to be done) or needs-based welfare systems (which are often structured to degrade as much as assist, and to actually disincent work).
We really need some large-scale, long-term tests of these ideas to find out for sure.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that there are no significant differences between Texas and California gun laws. I definitively showed that is not true... and I didn't even include all the differences. Man up and admit you were wrong, and I'll respect you for it. Or prove you're a putz. Your choice.
Magazine size limits (well, until they were struck down by the 9th circuit last week; we'll see where that goes), no rifles with detachable magazines, a whole raft of restrictions on "assault weapons", .50 BMG is banned, there's a specific list of "approved" handguns -- no gun not on the list can be bought or sold in the state, only handguns that implement microstamping may be sold, only one handgun purchase in any 30-day period, to buy a any gun you have to get a Firearm Safety Certificate, 10 day waiting period for all purchases, out-of-state long gun purchases must go through a California FFL (federal law requires this only for handguns), a ban on possession of gun and ammunition at a gun show, no carry in the vicinity of a polling place, no carry near a demonstration, when transporting handguns the must be unloaded and in a locked container, may issue (in many counties effectively no-issue) rather than shall issue concealed carry, radically different laws around the legal use of lethal force...
Vast, vast differences between California and Texas. As I said, perhaps they don't affect what you do, but they certainly affect others. I, for one, would never live in California specifically because I cannot stomach their gun laws. I'm actually not so enamored of Texas' gun laws either, but they're a lot better than California's.
Yes, you can certainly disable it. Though I'd strongly recommend leaving it turned on.
If you turn it on, that means more spying. Google watches what you run. No thanks! I want to sideload things, and have them be my own business and not Google's.
The only thing GPP does is act as a built-in AV. No data is collected for use in advertising, etc.
have you?
I have. Including several who have killed people in perfectly justified situations. And it really messed them up, even though shooting was the best option they had. Most eventually worked through it. Others... didn't.
I can tell you that my rights here don't differ significantly than they did when I lived in Texas
This is not remotely true. Perhaps the portion of your rights that you choose to exercise don't differ significantly, but the scope of the rights that you have differ tremendously. From the types of guns you can own, to the process of obtaining them, to where you can have them, to the conditions under which you're allowed to use them, there are tremendous differences between California and Texas.
Thanks.
NXP is a very different company than it was before due to the number of changes that were made to get the merger through.
Can you elaborate on that?
Keep in mind that we're talking about public roads that are built and maintained by the city. Why should they not charge for them? A truly libertarian, small government solution would be to privatize all of the roads and let the new owners charge what the market will bear for their use. I'd be okay with that. How about you?
Also, I find it interesting that you think that more congestion equals a higher standard of living. I think the opposite. Yes, government could do nothing and then congestion would increase to the point that taking the subway is faster. This would have the side effect of making it impossible for emergency services to move around. Do you truly believe that would be better? Seriously?
Yes, you can certainly disable it. Though I'd strongly recommend leaving it turned on.
And it's only reasonable to have it on by default, since most users have no clue what they are doing.
No user can possibly know everything that the apps installed on their devices do, especially since it changes day by day as updates are delivered.
I'm a big fan of the promise of self-driving vehicles... so much human time and effort is wasted on manual driving, and the death toll is horrific. Not to mention the incredible amount of labor and natural resources that are invested in vehicles that are parked most of the time, and all of the space we waste on parking lots. And self-driving vehicles promise of mobility to populations that don't currently have it, especially youth and the elderly. It's a good thing in so many ways.
But, I predict that commercial self-driving taxi fleets, like the system Waymo is about to launch in Phoenix, are going to create a large increase in traffic. Not so much in Phoenix and similar cities that don't really have effective mass transit systems anyway. They'll see a slight increase in traffic.
In cities that do have functional mass transit systems, though, the cost of a self-driving cab is going to be so low that it will attract lots of people away from mass transit. If you can pay 3X as much to have a quiet, private car that takes you right to your destination rather than a noisy, crowded subway train, or bus that doesn't... lots of people will do that. I think it's going to get very bad if cities don't do something.
The solution seems obvious to me, though: Make surface transportation more expensive. One hackneyed way to do that is through a medallion-type system that caps the number of vehicles that are allowed to operate there. A better solution is for cities to charge for usage of the streets. Making everything a toll road would be the fairest approach, but would require some mechanism for tracking all vehicles. It might be easier just to charge a fee for any vehicle owner who wishes to drive in the city, on a yearly, monthly, daily or even hourly basis, with steep fines for violation. Then, whenever congestion gets too high you just increase the fees until it gets back to a manageable level. If some vehicles cause more congestion than others, because they're bigger or stop a lot, charge them higher rates. If pollution is a problem, charge higher rates for vehicles that pollute more. Assuming you can effectively distribute real-time pricing information so drivers aren't hit with unexpectedly large bills the rates could even fluctuate in real time, driven by an algorithm that optimizes for maximally-effective use of the streets. Internalize the externalities and let the market sort it out. Markets are very good at that, as long as all relevant costs are factored in.
Google doesn't remove apps from your device retroactively when they ban them from the store.
In rare cases they do, at least if your device has the Google Play Protect (formerly called Verify Apps) service enabled. Automatic removal is only done for particularly harmful apps, though. Normally GPP just warns you.
How often do you update your router? If your up time is over 60 days you are missing updates and are insecure.
I don't know any home/small business router company (TP-Link, Linksys, Netgear, ...) updating routers every 60 days. More like 1-2 times per year, for 1-2 years. And then nothing.
My Google OnHub has received monthly-ish updates for almost three years now.
Every request should have to be approved by a judge.
This is how it used to work. Interception warrants were required before the anti-terrorism acts were passed in the 2000s.
You mean before 1978.
However, FISA requests are only a miniscule fraction of the numbers the article talks about, so the vast majority of these requests must be traditional warrants and subpoenas.
Just as Democrats came out strong for Obama, skin color or gender don't actually matter all that much
I think they do. Identity politics have become huge in this country. The left likes to talk about them, but it's the right where they're really, really powerful.
Sanders would be well positioned to win. But if he doesn't run, or (just as likely) the party tips the scales to force nominate another widely despised candidate like Warren, Harris, or god f'ing forbid Hillary again, all of whom they continue to insist can only possibly be opposed on the grounds of their genitals, and not their right-wing economics/pro-corporate positions, supporting abridgements of rights and due process in the name of national security, platforms heavy on identity politics pushing enhanced rights for a few while light on traditional liberal values like advancing civil rights and criminal justice reform for all*, and all the other wonderful positions that made Democrats stay home in such record numbers that we got Trump... yeah in that case it's going to be Trump 2020.
The Democrats should nominate a young healthy white male Christian moderate from the South. Another Bill Clinton, or LBJ. Bonus points if he's wealthy. Now is not the time to break race/gender barriers, nor is it the time to attempt a hard turn to the left. Now is the time to stake out the center and choose a candidate that doesn't provoke identity politicking by the right. Now is the time to defeat Trump and Trumpism and restore a measure of rationality.
The last use case I can see would be for shuttling kids around.
Yes, but don't think school, think karate class, soccer practice, clarinet lessons, dance class, going to friends houses, trips to the mall, etc., etc.
Parents spend a huge amount of time shuttling their kids to various activities. Giving the kid a Waymo app instead will be a big win for them, and the kids will appreciate their new mobility as well. Though I expect kids to stop caring about getting a driver's license.
TPMs do address most of the issues. One they don't address is proof of user presence. If the TPM can be activated from software at any time, an attacker who compromises the machine remotely can use it to gain access to user accounts. Of course, an attacker who does that can also wait until the user touches the U2F key, or try to prompt the user to do so, or just scrape data when the user accesses the site. But with a TPM in the same scenario, the attacker has unlimited access as long as he retains (remote) access to the machine.
> U2F is much more convenient
Not if you have an iPhone. It doesn't work on an iPhone so you can't access any of your accounts from the phone.
Works great on Android :-)
(Though you have to get an NFC-enabled U2F key. Also, Android devices with appropriate security hardware implement the new FIDO standard, so in many cases the phone itself can act as the U2F key.)
The chain of custody on the forensic images has not been questioned.
Well, maybe by Hannity or Alex Jones or someone. Not by anyone who doesn't froth.
Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about the chain of custody issues. I don't read (or watch/listen to) Hannity or Alex Jones or anyone like that, though. Most of my news comes from the NYT and The Economist. If i can find a reference, I'll post it.