I'd say, the real winners are designers. The people, who — after engineers have made things practical — make them both beautiful and convenient.
The value of their work has been reaffirmed... Remember those stories about young people struggling to choose some mundane career vs. following their passion? Told by their elders to be practical? Well, this is the day of vindication for those, who chose to study the intangible beauty and the fickle convenience against such advice.
It is also a day for us, engineers by nature, who've encountered those fallen would-rather-be-an-artist types among colleagues — for we now have hope, there will be fewer of them to encounter in the future.
The topic is, whether a policeman can kill a citizen on the latter's property based on nothing but personal perception of "threat".
You've asserted that the police are wholly-autonomous
I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs — unlike, perhaps, that of a hypothetical robocop, who is fully controlled by his programming.
You seem to imply, cops are mere weapons, using their brain only to aim better and avoid falling into open manholes. Given your stated political ambitions, I'm convinced, this opinion of yours is meant to appeal to individual officers, whose votes and endorsement you want, while targeting the current officials, whom you'd like to replace with your self.
you don't want cops on the street worrying whether this guy is threatening enough
Actually, I do want that.
criticizing anything in how the cops are equipped and trained or the specifics of this police action would probably look like an admission of guilt
The guilt seems obvious and the government should've considered admitting it — such as by trying the cop in question. Then, if the jury clears him — fine, he walks...
'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability
Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.
Because, whether a prediction comes to pass or not, "could" is still true — not falsifiable. The "will", on the other hand, would be wrong — and is therefor falsifiable. Not necessarily true — for it may still end up falsified, but falsifiable.
or scientificness
Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.
their "could" is justified with research
Research does not make a statement falsifiable.
I've exhausted both my means and my willingness to fill the gaping voids in your education. Please, consult the Wikipedia link above and search for other resources yourself. I'm embarrassed to have replied to you even once...
In other words: it's less the cops's fault as it is the legislature's, mayor's, and governor's.
Imagine, for a second, some bright minds develop a robotic policeman — and it shoots someone in similar circumstances? Not even out of fear for its own "life", but simply because an opportunity to end a hostage-crisis presents itself...
Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences, or will you organize and lead a march demanding immediate removal of such robots from the field and reinstating human policemen — because they can be trusted and expected to make human judgements?
Especially, when you need police union's endorsement to have any chance of winning your Democratic primary?
Whatever program you are using, neckbeard, talking to whatever computer, if you want to tweak a device without moving your dimply behind into very close physical proximity of the device in question, you must allow remote access of some sort — that is, as you put it, expose something to the "wild wild web". That's a given and unavoidable risk inherent in the requirement.
The entire conversation is about mitigating this risk — such as by using a more secure protocol or a more reliable device.
My preference is ssh-ing into a FreeBSD computer behind the router — because I trust ssh and FreeBSD more than I trust router-makers. Most people, yourself included by all appearances, use Windows at home, and I struggle trying to understand, why you'd prefer trusting Windows over the router firmware...
Whatever your personal preference, the use-case I described remains valid.
I'd simply remote in to one of their computers and proceed
So, you are fine exposing "one of their computers" to the "wild wild web", but not the router itself?.. Because routers are somehow uniquely exploitable?
Tweaking the router remotely for your elderly parents or other friends is a valid use-case... Yes, you can — and I do — achieve that by ssh-ing into a Unix computer behind the router, and then use a tunnel to talk to the router's LAN interface. But that may be too complex for most people, wouldn't you agree?
Except when it is in a closed source app, so such fixes cannot be put in until the company decides to do the fix
The same problem exists in open-source world too. Tons of packages bundle other packages inside. This is such a pervasive problem, FreeBSD, for example, has a special page instructing porters to fight it — and many still don't...
OpenOffice used to be the worst offender, bundling just about everything (python, libxml, boost, xmlsec — you name it). Firefox and Thunderbird continue to bundle their own jpeg, nspr and nss, vpx, vorbis and ogg, zlib and bz2, ICU an graphite2, harfbuz — something, a building system needs to patiently overwrite with --with-system-foo for every "foo".
There is nothing to lose from mixing open- and closed-source. The more of the former, the better. Moreover, the sole reason the latter even exists is to protect proprietary secrets from competitors. Including, as so often happens, the secret of how bad it is...
The closed source model relies on the fact that problems are harder to find
Yeah, this is known as the infamous "security through obscurity". It may be harder to find for a script-kiddie — who would not find it in an open-source package either — but not for dedicated professionals, who research exploits for a living and sell them to the highest-bidders.
You may think you have time to fix your code and ship an update, but you really don't. And, if you are a customer, you are completely at the vendor's mercy — without the source code, you can't fix it yourself.
The number of open source components in the codebase of proprietary applications keeps rising and with it the risk of those apps being compromised by attackers leveraging vulnerabilities in them
This has been the argument against open source for over 25 years — and it has been debunked for about that long... Are we really reading this again in 2018? Why is this FUD even on Slashdot's front page?
As long as the arbitration alternative exists at all, the voluntary agreement by both parties to use it must be binding.
That said, I do not understand, why it was created in the first place... Lawmakers have realized, the judicial system is too unusable and, instead of reforming it, created a new, parallel one...
This applies to the system of "small courts" too, BTW.
People declare others to be their "enemies" for all sorts of idiotic and irrational reasons
I said "legitimate enemies". Are you disputing the legitimacy? Moreover, who — in a 300+ mln country — is to decide the legitimacy? The answer is right there in the Constitution...
There is nothing "noble" about harming anyone. [...] Sometimes it is necessary and occasionally it is just. But noble? No.
I would think, harming a criminal in defense of the weak — when there is no threat to yourself — is noble... But, maybe, we grew up on different books.
For the sake of argument, let's stick to the "just". If harming legitimate enemies is just, then so is the work of making such harming more effective — and, incidentally, less dangerous to the innocent.
The validity of the rest of my argument immediately follows.
Ah, my apologies. In that rant you weren't arguing for "Municipal WiFi", but rather for "Municipal Fiber". Not that I think, that would make much difference to the argument, but technically I was incorrect.
And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi" — which would've combined the nonsense I describe with other niceties (like blocking anything unwholesome, and any ToS violation becoming a civil infraction).
It was never "Do no harm". It is "Don't be evil". Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.
Indeed, refusing to help America's military to do so would be evil — especially for an entity, which is itself enjoying the considerable freedoms and safety thanks to that same military.
From TFA:
nearly 4,000 Google employees have voiced their opposition to Project Maven in an internal petition that asks Google to immediately cancel the contract and institute a policy against taking on future military work.
This is the continuation of sabotage which began in the 60ies. These "protesters" targeting the effort to make American weapons more effective, ought to be publicly named and shamed until they relent and apologize. And whoever hires them — boycotted.
One of those resigning is quoted:
“I realized if I can’t recommend people join here, then why am I still here?”
Though by "here" he was referring to Google, the very same question ought to be asked of him about the US.
Why are you still here, mister? Millions of people world-wide dream of becoming Americans. Go back to whence your ancestors came from and free up the room for people, who give this country its due appreciation.
temporarily stop sending and especially reading PGP-encrypted email
Sounds like just what the spies would like you to do to gain temporary access to most communications that used to be encrypted, while disabling some of them...
The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works. From Amtrak, to college-provided networks, to supermarkets, to dental offices, all seem intent on following the same awful example, which is, apparently, suggested by every lazy lawyer out there.
Worse, the processing of these consent-pages takes up valuable time and bandwidth — instead of using the brief WiFi availability to check my e-mail, the phone wastes time (and bandwidth) downloading the fancy "Sign In" pages with multiple pictures, CSS', redirects (and even the entire jquery.js in some of them).
Though it is not by itself a technology problem, I think, any WiFi-related "initiative", that does not address it, is a waste of time...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say, the real winners are designers. The people, who — after engineers have made things practical — make them both beautiful and convenient.
The value of their work has been reaffirmed... Remember those stories about young people struggling to choose some mundane career vs. following their passion? Told by their elders to be practical? Well, this is the day of vindication for those, who chose to study the intangible beauty and the fickle convenience against such advice.
It is also a day for us, engineers by nature, who've encountered those fallen would-rather-be-an-artist types among colleagues — for we now have hope, there will be fewer of them to encounter in the future.
The topic is, whether a policeman can kill a citizen on the latter's property based on nothing but personal perception of "threat".
I made no such assertions — my point was, we expect policemen to follow their own human judgement. That judgement may be influenced by their training and policies, but at the end it is still theirs — unlike, perhaps, that of a hypothetical robocop, who is fully controlled by his programming.
You seem to imply, cops are mere weapons, using their brain only to aim better and avoid falling into open manholes. Given your stated political ambitions, I'm convinced, this opinion of yours is meant to appeal to individual officers, whose votes and endorsement you want, while targeting the current officials, whom you'd like to replace with your self.
Actually, I do want that.
The guilt seems obvious and the government should've considered admitting it — such as by trying the cop in question. Then, if the jury clears him — fine, he walks...
Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.
Because, whether a prediction comes to pass or not, "could" is still true — not falsifiable. The "will", on the other hand, would be wrong — and is therefor falsifiable. Not necessarily true — for it may still end up falsified, but falsifiable.
Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.
Research does not make a statement falsifiable.
I've exhausted both my means and my willingness to fill the gaping voids in your education. Please, consult the Wikipedia link above and search for other resources yourself. I'm embarrassed to have replied to you even once...
Then they should've said "Will". Saying "could" makes the statement just what I said, unfalsifiable. And that in turn makes in unscientific.
I read the title, which is unscientific. Thank you.
Not all the findings I dislike are unscientific. But this one is.
"Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
So, you've dodged the question and switched topic. Why, you are ready to win your Democratic primary, congratulations!
Imagine, for a second, some bright minds develop a robotic policeman — and it shoots someone in similar circumstances? Not even out of fear for its own "life", but simply because an opportunity to end a hostage-crisis presents itself...
Would you be out seeking excuses for the robot and its designers faced with vague and self-contradictory laws and public preferences, or will you organize and lead a march demanding immediate removal of such robots from the field and reinstating human policemen — because they can be trusted and expected to make human judgements?
Especially, when you need police union's endorsement to have any chance of winning your Democratic primary?
Citations, please?
Whatever program you are using, neckbeard, talking to whatever computer, if you want to tweak a device without moving your dimply behind into very close physical proximity of the device in question, you must allow remote access of some sort — that is, as you put it, expose something to the "wild wild web". That's a given and unavoidable risk inherent in the requirement.
The entire conversation is about mitigating this risk — such as by using a more secure protocol or a more reliable device.
My preference is ssh-ing into a FreeBSD computer behind the router — because I trust ssh and FreeBSD more than I trust router-makers. Most people, yourself included by all appearances, use Windows at home, and I struggle trying to understand, why you'd prefer trusting Windows over the router firmware...
Whatever your personal preference, the use-case I described remains valid.
Their official account will not be fine, and will now have to remain open to not only noisy activists, but bots and spam as well.
BTW, for all we know, Trump may have a private account (or several) already.
The ruling would apply to all government officials, including judges...
And not only to their Twitter-accounts, but to their offices — and courtrooms too.
So, you are fine exposing "one of their computers" to the "wild wild web", but not the router itself?.. Because routers are somehow uniquely exploitable?
Tweaking the router remotely for your elderly parents or other friends is a valid use-case... Yes, you can — and I do — achieve that by ssh-ing into a Unix computer behind the router, and then use a tunnel to talk to the router's LAN interface. But that may be too complex for most people, wouldn't you agree?
The same problem exists in open-source world too. Tons of packages bundle other packages inside. This is such a pervasive problem, FreeBSD, for example, has a special page instructing porters to fight it — and many still don't...
OpenOffice used to be the worst offender, bundling just about everything (python, libxml, boost, xmlsec — you name it). Firefox and Thunderbird continue to bundle their own jpeg, nspr and nss, vpx, vorbis and ogg, zlib and bz2, ICU an graphite2, harfbuz — something, a building system needs to patiently overwrite with --with-system-foo for every "foo".
There is nothing to lose from mixing open- and closed-source. The more of the former, the better. Moreover, the sole reason the latter even exists is to protect proprietary secrets from competitors. Including, as so often happens, the secret of how bad it is...
Yeah, this is known as the infamous "security through obscurity". It may be harder to find for a script-kiddie — who would not find it in an open-source package either — but not for dedicated professionals, who research exploits for a living and sell them to the highest-bidders.
You may think you have time to fix your code and ship an update, but you really don't. And, if you are a customer, you are completely at the vendor's mercy — without the source code, you can't fix it yourself.
This has been the argument against open source for over 25 years — and it has been debunked for about that long... Are we really reading this again in 2018? Why is this FUD even on Slashdot's front page?
As long as the arbitration alternative exists at all, the voluntary agreement by both parties to use it must be binding.
That said, I do not understand, why it was created in the first place... Lawmakers have realized, the judicial system is too unusable and, instead of reforming it, created a new, parallel one...
This applies to the system of "small courts" too, BTW.
Why would the care about emissions more than the rest of us? The most obvious and the least conspiratorial answer is, they have a personal motif.
So, the guys, who:
seek to outlaw other kinds of energy-storage and usage.
Who, me self-serving?!
I said "legitimate enemies". Are you disputing the legitimacy? Moreover, who — in a 300+ mln country — is to decide the legitimacy? The answer is right there in the Constitution...
I would think, harming a criminal in defense of the weak — when there is no threat to yourself — is noble... But, maybe, we grew up on different books.
For the sake of argument, let's stick to the "just". If harming legitimate enemies is just, then so is the work of making such harming more effective — and, incidentally, less dangerous to the innocent.
The validity of the rest of my argument immediately follows.
Ah, my apologies. In that rant you weren't arguing for "Municipal WiFi", but rather for "Municipal Fiber". Not that I think, that would make much difference to the argument, but technically I was incorrect.
And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi" — which would've combined the nonsense I describe with other niceties (like blocking anything unwholesome, and any ToS violation becoming a civil infraction).
Good to see sanity prevailing...
It was never "Do no harm". It is "Don't be evil". Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.
Indeed, refusing to help America's military to do so would be evil — especially for an entity, which is itself enjoying the considerable freedoms and safety thanks to that same military.
From TFA:
This is the continuation of sabotage which began in the 60ies. These "protesters" targeting the effort to make American weapons more effective, ought to be publicly named and shamed until they relent and apologize. And whoever hires them — boycotted.
One of those resigning is quoted:
Though by "here" he was referring to Google, the very same question ought to be asked of him about the US.
Why are you still here, mister? Millions of people world-wide dream of becoming Americans. Go back to whence your ancestors came from and free up the room for people, who give this country its due appreciation.
Sounds like just what the spies would like you to do to gain temporary access to most communications that used to be encrypted, while disabling some of them...
The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works. From Amtrak, to college-provided networks, to supermarkets, to dental offices, all seem intent on following the same awful example, which is, apparently, suggested by every lazy lawyer out there.
Worse, the processing of these consent-pages takes up valuable time and bandwidth — instead of using the brief WiFi availability to check my e-mail, the phone wastes time (and bandwidth) downloading the fancy "Sign In" pages with multiple pictures, CSS', redirects (and even the entire jquery.js in some of them).
Though it is not by itself a technology problem, I think, any WiFi-related "initiative", that does not address it, is a waste of time...