It's a much more reasonable analogy to treat information on digital media in the same way you would treat information written on paper, recorded on video- or audiotape, etc. Your memory (with current technology) is not objective physical evidence, wheras these others most certainly are.
#3 is pure paranoia. There are plenty of commercial and open-source encryption products out there, including full-disk hardware and software encryption. They don't have law enforcement backdoors.
Sometimes hardware encryption implementations are absurdly broken (e.g., encrypting using single-key XOR), but if this is an intentional law enforcement backdoor, LE agencies are being awfully inefficient by reverse-engineering the devices to find ways to bypass the encryption (or paying commercial researchers to).
"Killing an embryo" is an acceptable phrase. "Killing" has a very general meaning, and "embryo" indicates exactly what's going on. "Murder" and "abortion" have clear meanings that don't encompass this.
Indeed, I already knew what Wikipedia said before you copied and pasted it.
In the embryonic stage, it's not referred to as abortion. Further, as it requires "removal or expulsion of the fetus", even if it did somehow apply to the embryonic stage, IVF embryos that are never implanted cannot be removed or expelled, and so they cannot be aborted.
The same is true of miscarriage. Do you also call this abortion? Address both embryonic and fetal miscarriage.
What of the IVF embryos that are not used in an IVF procedure? These are either used for stem cells or discarded. Do you also call the latter abortion?
You're sort of conflating a somewhat reasonable funding ban (whichI disagree with) with the stupidity of playing bureaucratic games with Federal funding. Having two of everything to technically qualify for funding is bureaucratic stupidity.
Its awkward and sometimes not possible to elevate an explorer window or the control panel (so you would only need to elevate once for multiple operations)
This one *is* really annoying. If you could elevate an Explorer window, it would probably solve a lot of stupid file-operation bugs I've run into with UAC.
You need to elevate an installer even if you only want to install a program for yourself, not computer wide.
Most Linux distros get this equally wrong -- you can only access the systemwide installation manager if you're an administrator. Otherwise, you need to just dump code in your own personal directory. (A common Linux operation, and at one point a fairly common Windows operation, but superseded by "running the installer is the only way".)
being so arrogant that they think UAC is just "for noobs"
This is just silly. People completely unfamiliar with security might want to turn UAC off, since they're unlikely to differentiate intentional, benign actions from hostile ones. People familiar with security should be annoyed by its quirks and bugs, but understand its usefulness as a guard.
Actually, what it has is essentially like sudo but with a graphical authentication system. (The authentication controls allow a fairly large amount of flexibility, but one of its major purposes is a gateway to setuid.)
If you've ever written these sorts of programs, it's not "mind-boggling" at all. The Terminal will let you sudo-run any command you want; of course you can do it through the Terminal. They haven't covered in the Finder every possible situation you might need privilege escalation -- they have to call the authentication and escalation themselves.
It depends on if you do static or dynamic wear-leveling.
Some wear-leveling restricts block-trading to rather small bands, too -- there are multiple ways of doing wear-leveling that, with the wrong kind of usage patterns, can result in your lifetime estimates being way off.
I even get MORE upset when someone flies a private jet to give a speech telling me that I have to cut back on my carbon usage.
That's hypocrisy; it's normal to be upset.
I tend to get a bit upset when someone who can't afford a car tells me I have to ride the bus.
I'm not sure where you live where they force you to ride the bus, but if someone says that making you ride the bus is to stop global warming, then they're unable to apply the proper sense of scale to their problem-solving.
I was immediately suspicious when you mentioned limiting your rights because of global warming because nearly all carbon-restriction measures that aren't ridiculous affect you only indirectly. (You "lose the right" to buy a lower-efficiency car, or lose the right to pay less for gasoline.)
Neither he nor you have attempted to answer the question quantitatively. Look at how big a block is, a bit about their write-leveling strategy, how large your source files are, the quantity of data you overwrite and how frequently, and what the lifetime of SSD blocks is, and figure out how long the SSD should last. Even an order-of-magnitude calculation would be better than nothing.
You both are approaching the problem qualitatively: SSDs have limited rewrite lifetimes, and I'm doing a lot of rewriting -- isn't that bad? You don't know! Figure it out!
Humans, like all other animals, are unabashedly species-ist. Different standards apply for animals and humans regarding right to life.
As far as your comments on "earliest memory", you've clearly treaded into the realm of Making Shit Up. Parent clearly indicated "consciousness", and you indicated "intellectual capacity", yet make a point based on "earliest memory". They're different things, and it's well known that memory formation only starts later in life -- much later than both consciousness and intellectual capacity. (You didn't learn any language before you were three? I mean, really. You clearly didn't think this through at all.)
To your credit, your fix isn't too biased. My point, though, is that even your seemingly-simple comment belies the fact that you place a lot of weight on whether or not you've seen the consequences of that risk in the past. (Past terrorism is not a risk, and future terrorism is still a possible risk, not guaranteed.) This is no far cry from fearing a terrorist attack over a car accident.
Yes -- it can transmit large volumes of data without trusting (and suffering the latency and costs of) hand-couriered secure encryption keys delivered on drives.
It doesn't really require knowing how file sharing works to oppose it. The end result -- people who didn't purchase your CDs ending up with what is, in effect, a copy of the CD -- is fairly clear, and it certainly violates current copyright law.
Being familiar with how the file sharing is actually done is only really necessary if you want to incorporate it into your business model or you want to effectively sue file sharers. (In the latter case, if you're competent and pursuing a civil case, you say to yourself, "Oh. This is going to be tough to prove in court.")
Yes, the distinction between actually impossible and negligible probability is still maintained. When translating into layman's terms, though, the two really should be collapsed into "impossible".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a much more reasonable analogy to treat information on digital media in the same way you would treat information written on paper, recorded on video- or audiotape, etc. Your memory (with current technology) is not objective physical evidence, wheras these others most certainly are.
#3 is pure paranoia. There are plenty of commercial and open-source encryption products out there, including full-disk hardware and software encryption. They don't have law enforcement backdoors.
Sometimes hardware encryption implementations are absurdly broken (e.g., encrypting using single-key XOR), but if this is an intentional law enforcement backdoor, LE agencies are being awfully inefficient by reverse-engineering the devices to find ways to bypass the encryption (or paying commercial researchers to).
"Killing an embryo" is an acceptable phrase. "Killing" has a very general meaning, and "embryo" indicates exactly what's going on. "Murder" and "abortion" have clear meanings that don't encompass this.
Good call!
Indeed, I already knew what Wikipedia said before you copied and pasted it.
In the embryonic stage, it's not referred to as abortion. Further, as it requires "removal or expulsion of the fetus", even if it did somehow apply to the embryonic stage, IVF embryos that are never implanted cannot be removed or expelled, and so they cannot be aborted.
The same is true of miscarriage. Do you also call this abortion? Address both embryonic and fetal miscarriage.
What of the IVF embryos that are not used in an IVF procedure? These are either used for stem cells or discarded. Do you also call the latter abortion?
You're sort of conflating a somewhat reasonable funding ban (whichI disagree with) with the stupidity of playing bureaucratic games with Federal funding. Having two of everything to technically qualify for funding is bureaucratic stupidity.
Real Christians (I am not one) don't rationalize like this. They help the poor and the ill, and are for the most part very nice people.
Unfortunately, there are very few of them, particularly in politics.
The term "abortion" already has a meaning, actually, and this is an attempt to confuse what is actually happening with that meaning.
You should pick a different term, though it's quite clear why you choose not to.
Its awkward and sometimes not possible to elevate an explorer window or the control panel (so you would only need to elevate once for multiple operations)
This one *is* really annoying. If you could elevate an Explorer window, it would probably solve a lot of stupid file-operation bugs I've run into with UAC.
You need to elevate an installer even if you only want to install a program for yourself, not computer wide.
Most Linux distros get this equally wrong -- you can only access the systemwide installation manager if you're an administrator. Otherwise, you need to just dump code in your own personal directory. (A common Linux operation, and at one point a fairly common Windows operation, but superseded by "running the installer is the only way".)
being so arrogant that they think UAC is just "for noobs"
This is just silly. People completely unfamiliar with security might want to turn UAC off, since they're unlikely to differentiate intentional, benign actions from hostile ones. People familiar with security should be annoyed by its quirks and bugs, but understand its usefulness as a guard.
As the halting problem is unsolvable, there's nothing more difficult.
Actually, what it has is essentially like sudo but with a graphical authentication system. (The authentication controls allow a fairly large amount of flexibility, but one of its major purposes is a gateway to setuid.)
If you've ever written these sorts of programs, it's not "mind-boggling" at all. The Terminal will let you sudo-run any command you want; of course you can do it through the Terminal. They haven't covered in the Finder every possible situation you might need privilege escalation -- they have to call the authentication and escalation themselves.
It depends on if you do static or dynamic wear-leveling.
Some wear-leveling restricts block-trading to rather small bands, too -- there are multiple ways of doing wear-leveling that, with the wrong kind of usage patterns, can result in your lifetime estimates being way off.
I even get MORE upset when someone flies a private jet to give a speech telling me that I have to cut back on my carbon usage.
That's hypocrisy; it's normal to be upset.
I tend to get a bit upset when someone who can't afford a car tells me I have to ride the bus.
I'm not sure where you live where they force you to ride the bus, but if someone says that making you ride the bus is to stop global warming, then they're unable to apply the proper sense of scale to their problem-solving.
I was immediately suspicious when you mentioned limiting your rights because of global warming because nearly all carbon-restriction measures that aren't ridiculous affect you only indirectly. (You "lose the right" to buy a lower-efficiency car, or lose the right to pay less for gasoline.)
Neither he nor you have attempted to answer the question quantitatively. Look at how big a block is, a bit about their write-leveling strategy, how large your source files are, the quantity of data you overwrite and how frequently, and what the lifetime of SSD blocks is, and figure out how long the SSD should last. Even an order-of-magnitude calculation would be better than nothing.
You both are approaching the problem qualitatively: SSDs have limited rewrite lifetimes, and I'm doing a lot of rewriting -- isn't that bad? You don't know! Figure it out!
Fine censor him then....there's no pleasing you people.
That's insufficient. I demand nothing less than a public crucifixion.
Wait...
Humans, like all other animals, are unabashedly species-ist. Different standards apply for animals and humans regarding right to life.
As far as your comments on "earliest memory", you've clearly treaded into the realm of Making Shit Up. Parent clearly indicated "consciousness", and you indicated "intellectual capacity", yet make a point based on "earliest memory". They're different things, and it's well known that memory formation only starts later in life -- much later than both consciousness and intellectual capacity. (You didn't learn any language before you were three? I mean, really. You clearly didn't think this through at all.)
He's saying that they are either unintelligent, unscientific, or nonthinkers.
To your credit, your fix isn't too biased. My point, though, is that even your seemingly-simple comment belies the fact that you place a lot of weight on whether or not you've seen the consequences of that risk in the past. (Past terrorism is not a risk, and future terrorism is still a possible risk, not guaranteed.) This is no far cry from fearing a terrorist attack over a car accident.
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming.
Yes, we know people are terrible at risk assessment and balancing immediate risk against long-term risk. You don't have to show it off.
Yes -- it can transmit large volumes of data without trusting (and suffering the latency and costs of) hand-couriered secure encryption keys delivered on drives.
It doesn't really require knowing how file sharing works to oppose it. The end result -- people who didn't purchase your CDs ending up with what is, in effect, a copy of the CD -- is fairly clear, and it certainly violates current copyright law.
Being familiar with how the file sharing is actually done is only really necessary if you want to incorporate it into your business model or you want to effectively sue file sharers. (In the latter case, if you're competent and pursuing a civil case, you say to yourself, "Oh. This is going to be tough to prove in court.")
And in the common, non-BitTorrent P2P protocols, downloading a file does not imply also uploading the file.
I'm glad you've caught up now.
It only means he was uploading it if he was using BitTorrent. Article doesn't specify.
Yes, the distinction between actually impossible and negligible probability is still maintained. When translating into layman's terms, though, the two really should be collapsed into "impossible".