Me. I am neither paid nor ignorant. What Google Photos does for me is a trade I am happy to make.
I can export all the data Google has on me. That's important to me because I care about getting out what I put in. That's why the behavior of Google toward its services doesn't worry me. They sell the opportunity to market to me in ways advertisers think might appeal to me. Fair enough, I want advertisements that are tailor made to show me what I might want. Sure, I see crap that doesn't appeal, but less of that than I would with advertisements randomly sent to the general world. Admittedly, I get those too sometimes. I'm fine with that. Nothing forces me to spend money, but if I do choose to, then I spend my money on those things that most appeal to my personality. Nothing is evil about that. If they could influence me to do things I would regret, then I'd reject their influence. I don't believe advertising has that degree of power over me. I'm nearly always happy with the choices I make on spending my money.
Mostly, people upset by the trade they make with "free" services are those without the the strength of character to resist the lure of advertisements going against their own benefit.
I like this answer. The words "practical" and "standard" are underrepresented in these comments, but that's the most practical standard I think I've seen suggested.
When I saw this article pop up, I thought perhaps there would be a discussion about competing standards and how practical each was. I understand the philosophical question that isn't fully resolvable, but I was thinking of ways that you could get consistent answers and was disappointed not to see more posts along that line.
Perhaps you draw a straight line from one extreme point on the coastline to greatest distance opposite point, then expand that by putting points at a determined distance nearest the intersection of water and land at GMT. You'd still be able to alter the answer by varying the distance between points, but it'd give reasonably consistent answers. You could then say the western border of the US coastline of X km at a resolution of 1km. You could get a completely different number by switching to a resolution of 1m or 1cm, but the usefulness of the number for comparisons would be similar to how we weigh things. Sure, it's impossible to know how much a 1cm^2 of water weighs exactly due to quantum and gravity fluctuation, but you can get consistent answers if you define the environment and measurement scale.
Saying "nobody knows exactly" may be technically accurate for all measurements, but that's philosophy when what most people need is a practical answer for the purpose of doing work. I suspect I'm more inclined to an engineering perspective than a philosophical one, but that's what you need if you're estimating how much concrete you'll need for a coastline road.
I started to post this as AC to avoid getting dinged for expressing the unpopular opinion. I only decided to bother because somebody ought to say some things that I haven't seen said already. After previewing it, I decided I should put my name on it, even if it's unpopular.
" we can only hope the company doesn't ignore it."
Wrong. What you can do is take control of your hardware with an OS that permits it.
Or take control of your hardware and software to ensure it does exactly what you want, the way you want. Not that I disagree with using an OS that facilitates making sure your computer does what you want. I've used open source for my primary home OSs for nearly two decades for exactly that reason. Periodically, I use a closed source OS for a while, mostly to ensure I deeply understand how it works.
I own my computer. That means I can choose to control it. At the moment, it is running Windows 10 and it does what I want. In any instance where it doesn't do it, or doesn't do it the way I want, there are two possibilities: Either I fix it, or admit that I am too lazy to fix it. I'm rarely too lazy, but if I am, I acknowledge that's on me, not some company I buy hardware or software from.
This perspective has led me to rather enjoy working with Windows 10. Certainly Microsoft has made a multitude of decisions that I disagree with, but that's nothing new. If MS needs to push more people into using Edge in order to gather the necessary data for building better systems, it won't force me to do anything, but it might be a benefit to their ecosystem. In the long run, I think that benefits me too.
the US average is a little over 10 cents per kilowatt-hour...
Plattsburgh... industrial operations, which include cryptocurrency operations, paid even less at 2 cents per kWh for electricity. Plattsburgh obtains its electricity from a hydroelectric power dam... The city's moratorium isn't designed to remove cryptocurrency mining from Plattsburgh.
The city was able to make a deal to give a very attractive benefit to it's residents and businesses, a benefit which stopped making sense when they started exceeding their capacity. Now they're having to respond to an emergency situation and doing it thoughtfully. It's only making a big news splash because it has the right buzzwords for clickbait. If this were a city with cheap water responding to a sudden surge in bottled water companies, it'd be the same basic situation, but zero clickbait interest.
With Apple more than almost any other company, and with phones more than almost any other product, "you put yourself into the manufacturer's hands." Apple has been clear from the start that they don't really care what customers want, so long as they can get more iPhone sales.
Customers wanted physical keyboards, to be able to add Apps from anywhere, free ring tones and the ability to record your own, standard chargers, and being able to plug in audio devices with a universal jack. Guess what? Apple does their best to make those things either impossible or very, very difficult. They don't seem to think it would sell more phones to do what customers want. Their profits tend to make me think they're right.
How is it even a little surprising that Apple would behave in this manner?! This is completely predictable and typical of the company. The reason they apologized was obviously to prevent it from becoming a big enough news story that the average iPhone buyer might notice.
And guess what? Most people who get frustrated with their slowing phone won't get the battery fixed because they won't know it's even an option. They'll buy another iPhone and Apple knows that. The few who actually know about it and take advantage of the offer will think Apple's doing something really good for them.
What should Apple have done? Exactly what they did. It's the best way to get money and that's exactly what they're accomplishing.
Maybe your brain was clouded by alcohol or THC or whatever and this reply finds you a little more sober. If so, please put a post-it note on your computer that you must never, ever, support the fourth amendment online unless sober. If you weren't intoxicated, then you should go back and read the links I provided in the first post. You obviously missed the point of my comments. You're arguing on the same side I am, but doing it so badly that you're hurting our cause.
Seriously, it's like every time I try to work on the arguments to protect the fourth amendment's purpose; the idiots unite to make it look bad. Practically every reply is a comment supposedly in favor of protecting strong cryptography, but actually helping the case of people who want to break it or outlaw it. I can't help but wonder if all the idiots with stupid arguments are actually secretly fighting to weaken encryption.
It's like being an advocate of first amendment lately. It's hard to get anyone to care about protecting freedom because all the Nazis are screaming that they're on our side.
How does that work exactly? Which business would halt all activities in the US rather than submit to the hypothetical law? And don't kid yourself that it'd move their taxes out of reach either, because with that kind of political atmosphere, seizing local assets is a no brainer. Look at what the EU is doing with Ireland right now and you can assume based on our recent history that the US will be even more aggressive.
I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt; assuming you're considering the hypothetical argument, rather than being stupid enough to think you're arguing against someone desirous of the situation I described. Your response could have made that clearer.
Okay, this is an argument I haven't considered. I think what most people mean by "won't work" is that with the existing tools and suggested methods, there would be nothing stopping someone who wished to use cryptographically secure tools on top of, or beyond the consumer level system. (See http://www.phantomcode.com/com...)
What you suggest is that we would mandate all encryption without government access illegal. Banks and large corporations would get a registration for their crypto/certificates and then just add software to their servers to log/transmit the unencrypted data at government requirement. Other encryption, like iPhone system level encryption, could still be legal (see http://www.phantomcode.com/com...) with access available to government requirement and, otherwise, with no discernible change to the security to the average voter.
Then the government could snoop on streams of data and servers and have just cause to arrest anyone using encryption that isn't authorized and accessible. The result would be that most data streams would be monitored by programs essentially looking for data streams that aren't authorized. It'd be tricky to kill off all the non-US certificates, but a MITM with certs issued by someone like Symantec or Google could do effectively the same thing.
I think this is the ultimate goal of the great firewall of China. They haven't been successful. Yet. I'm not confident they won't be mostly successful in the long run though. I'm not confident the US won't get to the same place eventually.
The government is for the people, by the people and of the people, so this must be a thing the people want. I propose we mandate that anyone selling a mobile phone in the US must have the option to toggle on an opt-in option for "make my data available to the government if they want it."
There. Now law abiding citizens with nothing to hide and who don't care about privacy can have what they want and the rest of us can quit hearing ignorant law enforcement officials whine about it.
I'm kind of with you. For most of my working life, I've needed to use Windows there. Almost all that time, I've used some Unix variant (usually Linux) at home.
I've loved and hated both Windows and Linux depending on what nuisance "feature" I was having to work around. I've had problems with both, and also with the BSD variants, AIX, SCO, and even Xenix. All that I ask of an OS really is that it does the basics without too much trouble and that it gets out of my way.
Windows 10 gets in my way a bit, but most of the time it's fine, better than its predecessors and not much worse than Ubuntu. It's not as good for that as many of the *nix variants, but it goes a long way toward the "just works" principle most of the time.
Can I run the software I want? Yes. Does it support the programming languages I use? Yes. Does it support my preferred shell? No, at least not well. Not until recently. I like bash. I'm good with DOS, functionally literate with PowerShell (not great,) but I missed bash when working with Windows and the dozens of tools like sed, nl, wc, awk and similar whenever I was in Windows. There are so many little things that I want to do from time to time which were just a pain to do in Windows, so much so that usually I have to put time into importing some poor substitute versions of the tools I missed. Finally, Windows gives me the tools that make daily work easier in a way that is actually supported. I can't help but be ecstatic about that.
I see the holy war of Unix/Linux/BSD vs Apple/Microsoft still makes tolerance of the "enemy" a crime. Be that as it may, I'm happy that the OS that I'm forced to use on a daily basis finally has the tools that make my life easier.
Having not seen the blog, it's hard for me to make a guess about how well it would be considered parody. TFA quotes "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
criticism: It certainly sounds like the pictures were being criticized, or at the very least being used for critical review
comment: this sounds obvious as well, the point of the blog sounds like commentary
news reporting: if the blog is reporting on what's happening, then I think it sounds like news
I don't see teaching, scholarship or research being viable defenses
The only thing that sounds questionable to me is the parody angle. Why would you choose to defend your work as parody unless you were deliberately imitating a copyrighted work? That's the thing that just doesn't quite mesh with what I would expect in this kind of situation.
Of course the real issue is the company with expensive lawyers can quash the person who can't afford a legal battle. I sincerely hope somebody with the resources to do so will take this up as a cause to make it clear that simply having lawyers doesn't give you the ability to squash the little guy with impunity.
I've read the books. Maybe all of them, though probably not, considering how many he wrote. I don't know if your original post about the three laws was intended to be a joke, but if it was, it managed to be both rich and subtle. Be not offended by the angry nerds, our misguided fury is itself funny to those with the self awareness to recognize when we've been... well you know https://youtu.be/xLzHj3aFCaE?t...
The three laws sound rational and his stories make the programming seem reliable, but then he proceeds to point out all the ways they can go wrong. Many of the books are essentially boiled down to the idea that sounding good isn't enough to ensure a plan will work. Imagine you believe AI is inevitable so you spend years studying the idea and getting cautionary tales into the public eye in a manner that not-for-nothing, makes you a living.
If I were writing science fiction, I'd make Asimov a time traveler.
In other news today, the sole surviving music label has managed to wrestle the last penny from the last old granny in her hovel.
The music label lawyer was quoted as saying "I can't believe we aren't able to make any more money now, it's just criminal, and we're looking into ways to forcibly take body parts in the future."
Side note: the cake maker was happy to provide the service until told the cake was for a lesbian couple.
Finding something offensive and refusing to participate in something offensive is your right only so far as the law recognizes that right. As an individual, having to pay taxes may be offensive, but the individual is required to pay taxes regardless of beliefs. As a business, refusing to offer a service the individual may find offensive is illegal if the service is refused based on the customer's protected class.
A cake maker may refuse to create a cake for anyone based on any personal preference, unless that preference is contrary to the law. In some states, it is illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual preference.
Personally, I find the compulsion to offer a service you believe is immoral to be objectionable, but I do understand the need lawmakers feel to protect certain classes from discrimination. With race and sex, the individual has no choice, and so discrimination against women, men, blacks or whites seems like something that the law should consider. However, with religion and sexual preference, the only way that someone can be a part of a protected class is by making a decision. One could argue that you are a part of a religion even by abstaining from participating any religious activity since "atheist" and "agnostic" are labels used to describe those belief systems. Even so, I have no personal objection if a Muslim refuses to create cakes for Christian celebrations. With sexual preference, the labels are far more fluid. In that particular class, the only way a person can be part of that protected class is to choose to participate in an activity they could abstain from.
The law, in some states, requires businesses to provide service to a protected class which is solely based on the choice made by members of that protected class to choose to be in that class.
Bluntly put, I can choose to abstain from sex but I can't choose to abstain from being black. I feel the law should protect me from people who would discriminate against me based on my skin color, but the fact that I'm a virgin with no intention of ever having sex shouldn't keep me from being given rights people who make a different choice are given.
Said like a true better-than-though left wing social justice warrior... or a right-wing-religious nut. Whichever offends you more!
Wait, you said "over there" like you're not from round dees parts. Whar ya from stranger? Ya sound like a gol durned foreigner an we don't take kindly to gol durned foreigners telling us how to live our lives!
(On a more serious note, I'm amazed at how much people got twisted over this election. If there was ever a time to freely admit that you could understand why someone would oppose your own candidate, this was it!)
The original colonies and states along with the writers of the Constitution probably intended that states would be so independent that there would be no point in succeeding. The problem is now, and always has been that we not only freedom to do what we want, but we also want to be able to force other people to act the way we think they should.
The original intent of the Declaration of Independence was to create a group of essentially independent nations with their own local self governments. The "united" part was intended to ensure that the small governments would have a framework to work together under an agreed set of minimum rights all the local governments would have to offer their citizens. The constitution even clearly sets out to state that the federal government is to have limits on it's own authority so that it can't give itself any additional power. That all ended when the united states went to war with itself.
Slavery was evil, I hope we all agree, but saying "no slaves in the US" doesn't work unless you also have the "and the southern states have to stay part of the US" clause. It's not even about equality. Lincoln was fighting to end slavery in all the US, and was willing to concede pretty much everything else to achieve that goal.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. - Abraham Lincoln
When Lincoln won a war to prevent states from having the right to separate from the union, the inescapable conclusion is that the federal government has taken, by immortal "might makes right," more authority than was intended by the writers of the formulative documents that created the united states. A lot of things changed at that point, but perhaps most relevant is that the US changed from being a group of nations bound together in mutual support to being one nation with all final authority bound into a single central government.
Much that is good has come from that change, and I think most of the citizens of the US have benefited from it. However, make no mistake, this is not the nation created by the Declaration of Independence and by the Constitution. This is a different thing. While those documents are of historical and interpretative import, they are not what make the United States what it is now as a nation.
Perhaps we need a new pledge. "We the people of the nation of America ('cause mentioning states is like mentioning city councils now and Mexico and Canada already have other names) have decided that we are one nation, no matter how divided in desires and opinions, independent of the authority of other countries, except the UN, for now, but completely at the mercy of one single federal government so that we can ensure our neighbors thousands of miles away have to do what we say, until such time as they can win an important election and then we'll throw tantrums and rise up to assert our independence. At least until the military style police organization we created to enforce our will on others comes to squash our own attempts at independence."
That seems a bit too long and complicated. How about something shorter that means the same thing. "The United States died a long time ago, and while fondly remembered, shall not be confused with our current nation. Long live 'Murica!"
The people of this nation are mostly good people. The government is mostly good. Being able to change our leadership without a war is good. I'm just having a tiny bit more difficulty stamping down my internal cynic this morning than usual.
You know, I think maybe our proxy at work caches website data. I know my browser on my computer does. If a computer is temporarily storing data in order to make responses faster, exactly where is the delineation that makes the cached data something illegal?
I know that my local browser cache isn't sharing publicly, and I know my proxy at work isn't sharing files with the rest of the world. I know it's different. Is that the line? Is that the demarcation? Does Cloudflare review the contents of what they are sharing by hand or do they automate the process of caching? If they're reviewing content by hand, well in my mind, that makes them complicit. On the other hand, if they treat everyone the same, using an automated process, well that's different. I know the law may not see it differently, but reality makes a person responsible for their choices. If you write an algorithm that treats all customers the same, well regardless of the law, that's morally different than actually deciding to help someone do something illegal.
Our court system is built on the idea that people make the decisions of what is morally right or wrong in application of the law. That's what I'm really getting at here. Not how the laws are written, but what is right and wrong.
I really don't know the answer to what is the legal demarcation. I don't know what Cloudflare does. I admit ignorance. Educate me. Please.
Uber has shown they're wiling to play rough. I wonder if they've considered giving all (not just MA) drivers a sticker that says "If you think our costs have gone up, you should know that MA Governer Charlie Baker created a law to increase the cost of every ride by $0.20 which we cannot add to your bill. Learn more at www.CharliePaysOffCabbies.com"
If they haven't thought of it, somebody should suggest it to them.
With so many people upset about the pressure from MS to upgrade, it's nice to see somebody talk about the business side of it. I don't hate Windows 10, actually I kinda like it and I've been using it at work since beta days. People are upset about all the phone home stuff, but what I've seen from experts about the data it's actually sending home doesn't include anything that would concern me. That may not be the case for everybody, so I just suggest you should do your research before jumping to conclusions.
There are some things that I really like about the year of free Windows 10 updates. The first thing that appeals to me is the benefit to Microsoft, by reducing the number of non-current OS systems, they cut their operation costs pretty dramatically. I don't particularly love Microsoft, but that's just a smart business decision that I can respect. The second thing that I like is the side effects. The first side effect of consumers getting a free upgrade is an appeal to a lot of people, but the second side effect that really appeals to me is the benefit to everyone. By having less unpatched systems spreading viruses and malware in the wild we all have a little less crap coming in from the internet to deal with. Finally the thing that appeals most to me is the pressure it has put on vendors to get their software compatible with the current version of Windows. That's a big deal for enterprise where vendors often don't update their software for years and years. Suddenly they are dealing with all their customers expecting them to get current at the same time or face the possibility of losing business.
The nightmare I've personally dealt with where we have several business critical applications which aren't compatible with the same operating systems. If Windows 10 upgrade pressure gets our vendors all on the same OS then my life gets easier and I can forgive MS a multiple of sins.
(I use Linux at home due to my personal preferences. At work there are too many business critical Windows only programs to make it an option or I might have a different outlook. Sure, I'd love to find a way to migrate to Linux at work, but it's not happening anytime soon.)
I often vote third party, but not because I expect it to make any difference in that election. My intent is to demonstrate that there are voters like myself who are willing to show up to the polls but with values and goals which aren't well represented by the two primary parties. My hope is that the policy and next election cycle might be a little more inclined to try to capture my vote.
My first reaction is to think "what an idiot!" My second reaction is to think "Wait, this got somebody (I didn't care to hear from in the first place) into the news... is he mimicking Trump's approach?!"
Listen up United States! This is what happens when you award crackpots and morons with press. You end up with those willing to say anything getting elected. You get the government you deserve and heaven help those of us who just haven't yet built up the necessary disillusionment to emigrate.
I didn't grow up* the same way as you I guess. My parents and my friends had little love for the government, though they had and continue to have a love for the country.
Thus it doesn't surprise me much to see the government acting the way it is or other governments for that matter. However, I wouldn't say they're acting out of fear, rather I'd say they're capitalizing on the fear of the people to attempt to acquire power and control... pretty much as I've always expected.*
*Most people would call me a grown up, but I'm not done yet.
*Despite the current atmosphere, posting under my own name because I believe people should be willing to be accountable, and my real name, address and phone number aren't that hidden if you're determined to use my nick here to find them.
Slashdot Mirror
Me. I am neither paid nor ignorant. What Google Photos does for me is a trade I am happy to make.
I can export all the data Google has on me. That's important to me because I care about getting out what I put in. That's why the behavior of Google toward its services doesn't worry me. They sell the opportunity to market to me in ways advertisers think might appeal to me. Fair enough, I want advertisements that are tailor made to show me what I might want. Sure, I see crap that doesn't appeal, but less of that than I would with advertisements randomly sent to the general world. Admittedly, I get those too sometimes. I'm fine with that. Nothing forces me to spend money, but if I do choose to, then I spend my money on those things that most appeal to my personality. Nothing is evil about that. If they could influence me to do things I would regret, then I'd reject their influence. I don't believe advertising has that degree of power over me. I'm nearly always happy with the choices I make on spending my money.
Mostly, people upset by the trade they make with "free" services are those without the the strength of character to resist the lure of advertisements going against their own benefit.
I like this answer. The words "practical" and "standard" are underrepresented in these comments, but that's the most practical standard I think I've seen suggested.
When I saw this article pop up, I thought perhaps there would be a discussion about competing standards and how practical each was. I understand the philosophical question that isn't fully resolvable, but I was thinking of ways that you could get consistent answers and was disappointed not to see more posts along that line.
Perhaps you draw a straight line from one extreme point on the coastline to greatest distance opposite point, then expand that by putting points at a determined distance nearest the intersection of water and land at GMT. You'd still be able to alter the answer by varying the distance between points, but it'd give reasonably consistent answers. You could then say the western border of the US coastline of X km at a resolution of 1km. You could get a completely different number by switching to a resolution of 1m or 1cm, but the usefulness of the number for comparisons would be similar to how we weigh things. Sure, it's impossible to know how much a 1cm^2 of water weighs exactly due to quantum and gravity fluctuation, but you can get consistent answers if you define the environment and measurement scale.
Saying "nobody knows exactly" may be technically accurate for all measurements, but that's philosophy when what most people need is a practical answer for the purpose of doing work. I suspect I'm more inclined to an engineering perspective than a philosophical one, but that's what you need if you're estimating how much concrete you'll need for a coastline road.
I started to post this as AC to avoid getting dinged for expressing the unpopular opinion. I only decided to bother because somebody ought to say some things that I haven't seen said already. After previewing it, I decided I should put my name on it, even if it's unpopular.
" we can only hope the company doesn't ignore it."
Wrong. What you can do is take control of your hardware with an OS that permits it.
Or take control of your hardware and software to ensure it does exactly what you want, the way you want. Not that I disagree with using an OS that facilitates making sure your computer does what you want. I've used open source for my primary home OSs for nearly two decades for exactly that reason. Periodically, I use a closed source OS for a while, mostly to ensure I deeply understand how it works.
I own my computer. That means I can choose to control it. At the moment, it is running Windows 10 and it does what I want. In any instance where it doesn't do it, or doesn't do it the way I want, there are two possibilities: Either I fix it, or admit that I am too lazy to fix it. I'm rarely too lazy, but if I am, I acknowledge that's on me, not some company I buy hardware or software from.
This perspective has led me to rather enjoy working with Windows 10. Certainly Microsoft has made a multitude of decisions that I disagree with, but that's nothing new. If MS needs to push more people into using Edge in order to gather the necessary data for building better systems, it won't force me to do anything, but it might be a benefit to their ecosystem. In the long run, I think that benefits me too.
I ain't even mad.
the US average is a little over 10 cents per kilowatt-hour...
Plattsburgh... industrial operations, which include cryptocurrency operations, paid even less at 2 cents per kWh for electricity. Plattsburgh obtains its electricity from a hydroelectric power dam... The city's moratorium isn't designed to remove cryptocurrency mining from Plattsburgh.
The city was able to make a deal to give a very attractive benefit to it's residents and businesses, a benefit which stopped making sense when they started exceeding their capacity. Now they're having to respond to an emergency situation and doing it thoughtfully. It's only making a big news splash because it has the right buzzwords for clickbait. If this were a city with cheap water responding to a sudden surge in bottled water companies, it'd be the same basic situation, but zero clickbait interest.
With Apple more than almost any other company, and with phones more than almost any other product, "you put yourself into the manufacturer's hands." Apple has been clear from the start that they don't really care what customers want, so long as they can get more iPhone sales.
Customers wanted physical keyboards, to be able to add Apps from anywhere, free ring tones and the ability to record your own, standard chargers, and being able to plug in audio devices with a universal jack. Guess what? Apple does their best to make those things either impossible or very, very difficult. They don't seem to think it would sell more phones to do what customers want. Their profits tend to make me think they're right.
How is it even a little surprising that Apple would behave in this manner?! This is completely predictable and typical of the company. The reason they apologized was obviously to prevent it from becoming a big enough news story that the average iPhone buyer might notice.
And guess what? Most people who get frustrated with their slowing phone won't get the battery fixed because they won't know it's even an option. They'll buy another iPhone and Apple knows that. The few who actually know about it and take advantage of the offer will think Apple's doing something really good for them.
What should Apple have done? Exactly what they did. It's the best way to get money and that's exactly what they're accomplishing.
Maybe your brain was clouded by alcohol or THC or whatever and this reply finds you a little more sober. If so, please put a post-it note on your computer that you must never, ever, support the fourth amendment online unless sober. If you weren't intoxicated, then you should go back and read the links I provided in the first post. You obviously missed the point of my comments. You're arguing on the same side I am, but doing it so badly that you're hurting our cause.
Seriously, it's like every time I try to work on the arguments to protect the fourth amendment's purpose; the idiots unite to make it look bad. Practically every reply is a comment supposedly in favor of protecting strong cryptography, but actually helping the case of people who want to break it or outlaw it. I can't help but wonder if all the idiots with stupid arguments are actually secretly fighting to weaken encryption.
It's like being an advocate of first amendment lately. It's hard to get anyone to care about protecting freedom because all the Nazis are screaming that they're on our side.
How does that work exactly? Which business would halt all activities in the US rather than submit to the hypothetical law? And don't kid yourself that it'd move their taxes out of reach either, because with that kind of political atmosphere, seizing local assets is a no brainer. Look at what the EU is doing with Ireland right now and you can assume based on our recent history that the US will be even more aggressive.
I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt; assuming you're considering the hypothetical argument, rather than being stupid enough to think you're arguing against someone desirous of the situation I described. Your response could have made that clearer.
Okay, this is an argument I haven't considered. I think what most people mean by "won't work" is that with the existing tools and suggested methods, there would be nothing stopping someone who wished to use cryptographically secure tools on top of, or beyond the consumer level system. (See http://www.phantomcode.com/com...)
What you suggest is that we would mandate all encryption without government access illegal. Banks and large corporations would get a registration for their crypto/certificates and then just add software to their servers to log/transmit the unencrypted data at government requirement. Other encryption, like iPhone system level encryption, could still be legal (see http://www.phantomcode.com/com...) with access available to government requirement and, otherwise, with no discernible change to the security to the average voter.
Then the government could snoop on streams of data and servers and have just cause to arrest anyone using encryption that isn't authorized and accessible. The result would be that most data streams would be monitored by programs essentially looking for data streams that aren't authorized. It'd be tricky to kill off all the non-US certificates, but a MITM with certs issued by someone like Symantec or Google could do effectively the same thing.
I think this is the ultimate goal of the great firewall of China. They haven't been successful. Yet. I'm not confident they won't be mostly successful in the long run though. I'm not confident the US won't get to the same place eventually.
The government is for the people, by the people and of the people, so this must be a thing the people want. I propose we mandate that anyone selling a mobile phone in the US must have the option to toggle on an opt-in option for "make my data available to the government if they want it."
There. Now law abiding citizens with nothing to hide and who don't care about privacy can have what they want and the rest of us can quit hearing ignorant law enforcement officials whine about it.
I'm kind of with you. For most of my working life, I've needed to use Windows there. Almost all that time, I've used some Unix variant (usually Linux) at home.
I've loved and hated both Windows and Linux depending on what nuisance "feature" I was having to work around. I've had problems with both, and also with the BSD variants, AIX, SCO, and even Xenix. All that I ask of an OS really is that it does the basics without too much trouble and that it gets out of my way.
Windows 10 gets in my way a bit, but most of the time it's fine, better than its predecessors and not much worse than Ubuntu. It's not as good for that as many of the *nix variants, but it goes a long way toward the "just works" principle most of the time.
Can I run the software I want? Yes. Does it support the programming languages I use? Yes. Does it support my preferred shell? No, at least not well. Not until recently. I like bash. I'm good with DOS, functionally literate with PowerShell (not great,) but I missed bash when working with Windows and the dozens of tools like sed, nl, wc, awk and similar whenever I was in Windows. There are so many little things that I want to do from time to time which were just a pain to do in Windows, so much so that usually I have to put time into importing some poor substitute versions of the tools I missed. Finally, Windows gives me the tools that make daily work easier in a way that is actually supported. I can't help but be ecstatic about that.
I see the holy war of Unix/Linux/BSD vs Apple/Microsoft still makes tolerance of the "enemy" a crime. Be that as it may, I'm happy that the OS that I'm forced to use on a daily basis finally has the tools that make my life easier.
Having not seen the blog, it's hard for me to make a guess about how well it would be considered parody. TFA quotes "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
The only thing that sounds questionable to me is the parody angle. Why would you choose to defend your work as parody unless you were deliberately imitating a copyrighted work? That's the thing that just doesn't quite mesh with what I would expect in this kind of situation.
Of course the real issue is the company with expensive lawyers can quash the person who can't afford a legal battle. I sincerely hope somebody with the resources to do so will take this up as a cause to make it clear that simply having lawyers doesn't give you the ability to squash the little guy with impunity.
Agreed.
I've read the books. Maybe all of them, though probably not, considering how many he wrote. I don't know if your original post about the three laws was intended to be a joke, but if it was, it managed to be both rich and subtle. Be not offended by the angry nerds, our misguided fury is itself funny to those with the self awareness to recognize when we've been ... well you know https://youtu.be/xLzHj3aFCaE?t...
The three laws sound rational and his stories make the programming seem reliable, but then he proceeds to point out all the ways they can go wrong. Many of the books are essentially boiled down to the idea that sounding good isn't enough to ensure a plan will work. Imagine you believe AI is inevitable so you spend years studying the idea and getting cautionary tales into the public eye in a manner that not-for-nothing, makes you a living.
If I were writing science fiction, I'd make Asimov a time traveler.
In other news today, the sole surviving music label has managed to wrestle the last penny from the last old granny in her hovel.
The music label lawyer was quoted as saying "I can't believe we aren't able to make any more money now, it's just criminal, and we're looking into ways to forcibly take body parts in the future."
Side note: the cake maker was happy to provide the service until told the cake was for a lesbian couple.
Finding something offensive and refusing to participate in something offensive is your right only so far as the law recognizes that right. As an individual, having to pay taxes may be offensive, but the individual is required to pay taxes regardless of beliefs. As a business, refusing to offer a service the individual may find offensive is illegal if the service is refused based on the customer's protected class.
A cake maker may refuse to create a cake for anyone based on any personal preference, unless that preference is contrary to the law. In some states, it is illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual preference.
Personally, I find the compulsion to offer a service you believe is immoral to be objectionable, but I do understand the need lawmakers feel to protect certain classes from discrimination. With race and sex, the individual has no choice, and so discrimination against women, men, blacks or whites seems like something that the law should consider. However, with religion and sexual preference, the only way that someone can be a part of a protected class is by making a decision. One could argue that you are a part of a religion even by abstaining from participating any religious activity since "atheist" and "agnostic" are labels used to describe those belief systems. Even so, I have no personal objection if a Muslim refuses to create cakes for Christian celebrations. With sexual preference, the labels are far more fluid. In that particular class, the only way a person can be part of that protected class is to choose to participate in an activity they could abstain from.
The law, in some states, requires businesses to provide service to a protected class which is solely based on the choice made by members of that protected class to choose to be in that class.
Bluntly put, I can choose to abstain from sex but I can't choose to abstain from being black. I feel the law should protect me from people who would discriminate against me based on my skin color, but the fact that I'm a virgin with no intention of ever having sex shouldn't keep me from being given rights people who make a different choice are given.
Said like a true better-than-though left wing social justice warrior... or a right-wing-religious nut. Whichever offends you more!
Wait, you said "over there" like you're not from round dees parts. Whar ya from stranger? Ya sound like a gol durned foreigner an we don't take kindly to gol durned foreigners telling us how to live our lives!
(On a more serious note, I'm amazed at how much people got twisted over this election. If there was ever a time to freely admit that you could understand why someone would oppose your own candidate, this was it!)
The original colonies and states along with the writers of the Constitution probably intended that states would be so independent that there would be no point in succeeding. The problem is now, and always has been that we not only freedom to do what we want, but we also want to be able to force other people to act the way we think they should.
The original intent of the Declaration of Independence was to create a group of essentially independent nations with their own local self governments. The "united" part was intended to ensure that the small governments would have a framework to work together under an agreed set of minimum rights all the local governments would have to offer their citizens. The constitution even clearly sets out to state that the federal government is to have limits on it's own authority so that it can't give itself any additional power. That all ended when the united states went to war with itself.
Slavery was evil, I hope we all agree, but saying "no slaves in the US" doesn't work unless you also have the "and the southern states have to stay part of the US" clause. It's not even about equality. Lincoln was fighting to end slavery in all the US, and was willing to concede pretty much everything else to achieve that goal.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. - Abraham Lincoln
When Lincoln won a war to prevent states from having the right to separate from the union, the inescapable conclusion is that the federal government has taken, by immortal "might makes right," more authority than was intended by the writers of the formulative documents that created the united states. A lot of things changed at that point, but perhaps most relevant is that the US changed from being a group of nations bound together in mutual support to being one nation with all final authority bound into a single central government.
Much that is good has come from that change, and I think most of the citizens of the US have benefited from it. However, make no mistake, this is not the nation created by the Declaration of Independence and by the Constitution. This is a different thing. While those documents are of historical and interpretative import, they are not what make the United States what it is now as a nation.
Perhaps we need a new pledge. "We the people of the nation of America ('cause mentioning states is like mentioning city councils now and Mexico and Canada already have other names) have decided that we are one nation, no matter how divided in desires and opinions, independent of the authority of other countries, except the UN, for now, but completely at the mercy of one single federal government so that we can ensure our neighbors thousands of miles away have to do what we say, until such time as they can win an important election and then we'll throw tantrums and rise up to assert our independence. At least until the military style police organization we created to enforce our will on others comes to squash our own attempts at independence."
That seems a bit too long and complicated. How about something shorter that means the same thing. "The United States died a long time ago, and while fondly remembered, shall not be confused with our current nation. Long live 'Murica!"
The people of this nation are mostly good people. The government is mostly good. Being able to change our leadership without a war is good. I'm just having a tiny bit more difficulty stamping down my internal cynic this morning than usual.
You know, I think maybe our proxy at work caches website data. I know my browser on my computer does. If a computer is temporarily storing data in order to make responses faster, exactly where is the delineation that makes the cached data something illegal?
I know that my local browser cache isn't sharing publicly, and I know my proxy at work isn't sharing files with the rest of the world. I know it's different. Is that the line? Is that the demarcation? Does Cloudflare review the contents of what they are sharing by hand or do they automate the process of caching? If they're reviewing content by hand, well in my mind, that makes them complicit. On the other hand, if they treat everyone the same, using an automated process, well that's different. I know the law may not see it differently, but reality makes a person responsible for their choices. If you write an algorithm that treats all customers the same, well regardless of the law, that's morally different than actually deciding to help someone do something illegal.
Our court system is built on the idea that people make the decisions of what is morally right or wrong in application of the law. That's what I'm really getting at here. Not how the laws are written, but what is right and wrong.
I really don't know the answer to what is the legal demarcation. I don't know what Cloudflare does. I admit ignorance. Educate me. Please.
Uber has shown they're wiling to play rough. I wonder if they've considered giving all (not just MA) drivers a sticker that says "If you think our costs have gone up, you should know that MA Governer Charlie Baker created a law to increase the cost of every ride by $0.20 which we cannot add to your bill. Learn more at www.CharliePaysOffCabbies.com"
If they haven't thought of it, somebody should suggest it to them.
With so many people upset about the pressure from MS to upgrade, it's nice to see somebody talk about the business side of it. I don't hate Windows 10, actually I kinda like it and I've been using it at work since beta days. People are upset about all the phone home stuff, but what I've seen from experts about the data it's actually sending home doesn't include anything that would concern me. That may not be the case for everybody, so I just suggest you should do your research before jumping to conclusions.
There are some things that I really like about the year of free Windows 10 updates. The first thing that appeals to me is the benefit to Microsoft, by reducing the number of non-current OS systems, they cut their operation costs pretty dramatically. I don't particularly love Microsoft, but that's just a smart business decision that I can respect. The second thing that I like is the side effects. The first side effect of consumers getting a free upgrade is an appeal to a lot of people, but the second side effect that really appeals to me is the benefit to everyone. By having less unpatched systems spreading viruses and malware in the wild we all have a little less crap coming in from the internet to deal with. Finally the thing that appeals most to me is the pressure it has put on vendors to get their software compatible with the current version of Windows. That's a big deal for enterprise where vendors often don't update their software for years and years. Suddenly they are dealing with all their customers expecting them to get current at the same time or face the possibility of losing business.
The nightmare I've personally dealt with where we have several business critical applications which aren't compatible with the same operating systems. If Windows 10 upgrade pressure gets our vendors all on the same OS then my life gets easier and I can forgive MS a multiple of sins.
(I use Linux at home due to my personal preferences. At work there are too many business critical Windows only programs to make it an option or I might have a different outlook. Sure, I'd love to find a way to migrate to Linux at work, but it's not happening anytime soon.)
I often vote third party, but not because I expect it to make any difference in that election. My intent is to demonstrate that there are voters like myself who are willing to show up to the polls but with values and goals which aren't well represented by the two primary parties. My hope is that the policy and next election cycle might be a little more inclined to try to capture my vote.
Which just goes to show kiddos, encrypt with something like Gpg4win even if you're keeping the message somewhere you think is "secret."
c:\messages\>gpg --encrypt --recipient "Other Person" TextDocumentExample.txt
c:\messages\>gpg --decrypt TextDocumentExample.txt.gpg > Decrypted.TextDocumentExample.txt
My first reaction is to think "what an idiot!" My second reaction is to think "Wait, this got somebody (I didn't care to hear from in the first place) into the news... is he mimicking Trump's approach?!"
Listen up United States! This is what happens when you award crackpots and morons with press. You end up with those willing to say anything getting elected. You get the government you deserve and heaven help those of us who just haven't yet built up the necessary disillusionment to emigrate.
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting that you would post it, and as AC. Makes me wonder what motivates such a post.
Both Uber and Lyft provide up to $1 million in liability protection and other insurance benefits while carrying passengers.
I didn't grow up* the same way as you I guess. My parents and my friends had little love for the government, though they had and continue to have a love for the country.
Thus it doesn't surprise me much to see the government acting the way it is or other governments for that matter. However, I wouldn't say they're acting out of fear, rather I'd say they're capitalizing on the fear of the people to attempt to acquire power and control... pretty much as I've always expected.*
*Most people would call me a grown up, but I'm not done yet.
*Despite the current atmosphere, posting under my own name because I believe people should be willing to be accountable, and my real name, address and phone number aren't that hidden if you're determined to use my nick here to find them.