Considering his company is at the heart of various data and democracy interference scandals that are under active criminal investigation in the UK, he might want to defend it. By not doing so he risks the outcome being worse for Facebook, as Parliament will correctly assume that it's unaccountable to them and an existential threat.
Fair comment. They don't have stats for Pie (9) yet. In any case, where did you get your number from? I'm really interested to know since there are no official stats.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
What an extraordinary claim. Let's see if it's true, starting with your own link because I've found that skeptics who posts links often debunk themselves. They quote her as saying:
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
And then go on to claim that because they think capitalism is the only successful development model she must mean to destroy it. In their world "transform" means "destroy" apparently. If you read a bit more of what she actually said it's actually very clear that she is talking about something else entirely:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
The economic model of "industrialize as fast as possible, literally burn up all your resources and emit massive amounts of CO2". The world is already making this transition towards cleaner technologies. Capitalism is actually driving it, as flaws in the market that allowed costs to be externalized are fixed.
Quick round-up of your other quotes:
"Clinton-Gore administration" "green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon" "National Audubon Society" "a founder of the Sierra Club" "Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R." "a climate justice campaigner coordinator" "atmospheric scientist" "Researcher"
Ah, all powerful and influential people that definitely have the power to destroy capitalism. Citing Gorbachev as evidence of environmentalism being a "Leftist" conspiracy looks particularly desperate.
It's not like your Nexus 5X is going to brick itself now. It will carry on working, carry on getting security and app updates via the Play Store, continue getting service updates like improvements to Google Assistant and Photos.
You just aren't going to get the next version of the OS or further OS feature updates.
The problem with iOS updates is that they can't easily be reversed. There is a small window where they allow it (or used to, do they still do that?) and then you are stuck. So if it sucks you can't downgrade. Most Android devices can be downgraded easily if you don't like the new OS.
Also worth remembering that these devices are still getting security updates via the usual Play Store mechanism. With Oreo most of the OS can be patched by Play now, so while they won't get feature updates they will remain secure for many years to come.
Or maybe they are doing the standard thing that every company does when setting up a new factory, i.e. send in some existing employees to transfer the knowledge and set everything up.
Hiring a bunch of new people locally and expecting them to immediately come together as a team, follow established company procedures and standards and produce a good outcome is unwise to say the least. When you are investing billions in a new facility you don't take insane risks like that, you send in people you know you can rely on to do a good job and find the new talent you need over time.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
That's a very elitist attitude. Just because someone votes for reasons that seem trivial to you doesn't mean that their vote is less worthy than yours.
The other reason it's important to get the vote out is that if you don't only angry people vote, and it's better for everyone if there are a range of views represented rather than just anger.
You could argue that in order to have the technology to travel to another star they would have to have achieved a certain level of civilisation and understanding of the risks, if not the moral implications.
On the other hand they may decide that the safest thing is to hurl a big rock our way.
I've done a fair bit of real world testing with VeraCrypt. On an SSD the performance hit is measurable but for most purposes manageable. The main hit is to latency of course, so it depends if your application is heavily dependent on that.
That's using AES-NI, mind. And there are other issues, like Veracrypt doesn't properly pass through TRIM commands it seems. It claims to support it but my drives get un-TRIMmed anyway.
And how far down the chain does this go? For example if the card payment processor didn't want to handle billing for the host because of Gab? Or if your office manager decided to block it at work?
And what if Gab decided they couldn't be bothered to police illegal images on their site, would they still have to be hosted? Is the cut off just illegal material, and if so under what jurisdiction, or can other forms of abuse be banned too? Gab has banned spammers and trolls in the past, for example.
I don't mean to bombard you with questions, what I'm looking for is a more complete description of the rules and how it would work in practice, for the purpose of debate. I think we can do better than we do now, but there needs to be a complete proposal.
You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?
As for calling people Nazi's... I notice Lywood Rooster is just the latest Slashdot conservative to start calling liberals Nazis. His current signature associates liberal/socialist policies with Nazism in a most disingenuous way.
This is the hard right playbook. Accuse you of doing what they are doing themselves. They have no shame, they aren't bothered if you call them out. They know that you care, that you want to take the moral high ground by not doing it, which means you weak. Well, fuck that.
The worry is that governments are collecting vast amounts of information and storing it. If they get a quantum computer one day and we all switch to quantum resistant crypto (a big ask, considering how long it's taken to deprecate broken stuff in the past, and given than updates for a lot of old systems will never come) they still have a lot of historical data to work with.
You could backdoor the implementation of AES, e.g. storing the key in some hidden registers that can only be read with a special op-code. That would allow malware to steal keys from other processes using the AES-NI instructions.
Some understanding of CPUs required to participate in this discussion...
Do we have to fix people, or just limit the damage they can do?
To take a real world example we can discourage behaviour like violence by creating consequences for it. We can limit the damage someone is able to do by verifying identity before allowing money to be withdrawn from a bank account.
I'm not saying we should do exactly the same online, but for example many services offer tools to block/mute abusive users and phishing scams, including controversial shadow bans. It's worth having a conversation about those tools.
If you don't trust the CPU (you think the AES-NI instructions are backdoored) then how will VeraCrypt help? It runs on the CPU you are certain is backdoored, and this thus compromised.
Unless you make your own RISC-V CPU out of sand you are going to have to trust some back-box proprietary hardware. Rather than worry about that, it's more productive to look at what the capabilities of your opponents are. Is anyone offering tools to unlock VeraCrypt containers with strong passwords? It seems not (dictionary/brute force attacks only) and the same goes for these SSDs, so anyone below state level probably can't get in.
I'd start with defining the limits of free speech, e.g. spammers can't hide behind it to avoid getting blocked, asshats can't use it to set mobs on people.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Windows is now the easiest way to run popular distros systemd free :-)
Even worse, the people putting the most effort into replacing systemd are Microsoft.
Next you are going to tell me they just released GNU\Windows and Lynx is the default browser.
Considering his company is at the heart of various data and democracy interference scandals that are under active criminal investigation in the UK, he might want to defend it. By not doing so he risks the outcome being worse for Facebook, as Parliament will correctly assume that it's unaccountable to them and an existential threat.
Did Microsoft just release a Linux distro without systemd?
Up is down and black is white, the world has gone mad.
Fair comment. They don't have stats for Pie (9) yet. In any case, where did you get your number from? I'm really interested to know since there are no official stats.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
What an extraordinary claim. Let's see if it's true, starting with your own link because I've found that skeptics who posts links often debunk themselves. They quote her as saying:
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
And then go on to claim that because they think capitalism is the only successful development model she must mean to destroy it. In their world "transform" means "destroy" apparently. If you read a bit more of what she actually said it's actually very clear that she is talking about something else entirely:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
The economic model of "industrialize as fast as possible, literally burn up all your resources and emit massive amounts of CO2". The world is already making this transition towards cleaner technologies. Capitalism is actually driving it, as flaws in the market that allowed costs to be externalized are fixed.
Quick round-up of your other quotes:
"Clinton-Gore administration"
"green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon"
"National Audubon Society"
"a founder of the Sierra Club"
"Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R."
"a climate justice campaigner coordinator"
"atmospheric scientist"
"Researcher"
Ah, all powerful and influential people that definitely have the power to destroy capitalism. Citing Gorbachev as evidence of environmentalism being a "Leftist" conspiracy looks particularly desperate.
It's not like your Nexus 5X is going to brick itself now. It will carry on working, carry on getting security and app updates via the Play Store, continue getting service updates like improvements to Google Assistant and Photos.
You just aren't going to get the next version of the OS or further OS feature updates.
Android 9 market share of 0.1%
According to Google 21.5% of Android devices are on Oreo.
https://developer.android.com/...
50% are on Oreo or Nougat, the two latest versions. Where did you get your number from?
The problem with iOS updates is that they can't easily be reversed. There is a small window where they allow it (or used to, do they still do that?) and then you are stuck. So if it sucks you can't downgrade. Most Android devices can be downgraded easily if you don't like the new OS.
Also worth remembering that these devices are still getting security updates via the usual Play Store mechanism. With Oreo most of the OS can be patched by Play now, so while they won't get feature updates they will remain secure for many years to come.
Or maybe they are doing the standard thing that every company does when setting up a new factory, i.e. send in some existing employees to transfer the knowledge and set everything up.
Hiring a bunch of new people locally and expecting them to immediately come together as a team, follow established company procedures and standards and produce a good outcome is unwise to say the least. When you are investing billions in a new facility you don't take insane risks like that, you send in people you know you can rely on to do a good job and find the new talent you need over time.
If I said that one of the usual suspects would immediately claim that by "informed" I meant "the right views".
How do you even use a flip phone these days? 2G networks are becoming a rare thing. How bad is your coverage?
Interesting graph on the BBC today, illustrating the amount raised from individual donations by the Rs and Ds: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/...
The Democrats got about twice as much from individuals this year. Normally it's quite close.
Unfortunately they don't show overall campaign donations. I wonder if corporate donations bring the Republicans up to the same level.
I'm going to quote your signature to you:
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
That's a very elitist attitude. Just because someone votes for reasons that seem trivial to you doesn't mean that their vote is less worthy than yours.
The other reason it's important to get the vote out is that if you don't only angry people vote, and it's better for everyone if there are a range of views represented rather than just anger.
There is a lot of effort to stop people voting, so encouraging them to overcome the barriers is a good thing.
Even if they are less than ideally informed now, participating is a good step towards more engagement and learning.
Recent elections and referendums have made people realize that their votes do count.
You could argue that in order to have the technology to travel to another star they would have to have achieved a certain level of civilisation and understanding of the risks, if not the moral implications.
On the other hand they may decide that the safest thing is to hurl a big rock our way.
I've done a fair bit of real world testing with VeraCrypt. On an SSD the performance hit is measurable but for most purposes manageable. The main hit is to latency of course, so it depends if your application is heavily dependent on that.
That's using AES-NI, mind. And there are other issues, like Veracrypt doesn't properly pass through TRIM commands it seems. It claims to support it but my drives get un-TRIMmed anyway.
And how far down the chain does this go? For example if the card payment processor didn't want to handle billing for the host because of Gab? Or if your office manager decided to block it at work?
And what if Gab decided they couldn't be bothered to police illegal images on their site, would they still have to be hosted? Is the cut off just illegal material, and if so under what jurisdiction, or can other forms of abuse be banned too? Gab has banned spammers and trolls in the past, for example.
I don't mean to bombard you with questions, what I'm looking for is a more complete description of the rules and how it would work in practice, for the purpose of debate. I think we can do better than we do now, but there needs to be a complete proposal.
It's almost like I don't approve of mobbing?!?!? Strange huh.
You mean Gab? It's back up. Once again, I'll ask you a simple question: Would you force people to host Gab and supply it with services?
As for calling people Nazi's... I notice Lywood Rooster is just the latest Slashdot conservative to start calling liberals Nazis. His current signature associates liberal/socialist policies with Nazism in a most disingenuous way.
This is the hard right playbook. Accuse you of doing what they are doing themselves. They have no shame, they aren't bothered if you call them out. They know that you care, that you want to take the moral high ground by not doing it, which means you weak. Well, fuck that.
The worry is that governments are collecting vast amounts of information and storing it. If they get a quantum computer one day and we all switch to quantum resistant crypto (a big ask, considering how long it's taken to deprecate broken stuff in the past, and given than updates for a lot of old systems will never come) they still have a lot of historical data to work with.
You could backdoor the implementation of AES, e.g. storing the key in some hidden registers that can only be read with a special op-code. That would allow malware to steal keys from other processes using the AES-NI instructions.
Some understanding of CPUs required to participate in this discussion...
Do we have to fix people, or just limit the damage they can do?
To take a real world example we can discourage behaviour like violence by creating consequences for it. We can limit the damage someone is able to do by verifying identity before allowing money to be withdrawn from a bank account.
I'm not saying we should do exactly the same online, but for example many services offer tools to block/mute abusive users and phishing scams, including controversial shadow bans. It's worth having a conversation about those tools.
If you don't trust the CPU (you think the AES-NI instructions are backdoored) then how will VeraCrypt help? It runs on the CPU you are certain is backdoored, and this thus compromised.
Unless you make your own RISC-V CPU out of sand you are going to have to trust some back-box proprietary hardware. Rather than worry about that, it's more productive to look at what the capabilities of your opponents are. Is anyone offering tools to unlock VeraCrypt containers with strong passwords? It seems not (dictionary/brute force attacks only) and the same goes for these SSDs, so anyone below state level probably can't get in.
What would your bill of rights include?
I'd start with defining the limits of free speech, e.g. spammers can't hide behind it to avoid getting blocked, asshats can't use it to set mobs on people.