With Spotify looking to launch a smart speaker in the not-too-distant-future, the decision to purchase a smart speaker has become all the more difficult.
The decision is as easy as it always was: Don't!
Seriously, after talking about the dangers of eavesdropping and the big brother, having the computer's camera covered, who would possibly pay money to have a permanently-connected microphone installed in their dwelling?
You may think, you can turn it off, but you can not be certain. If the criminals and intelligence agencies manage to break into your computer, why would they not break into your "smart speaker"? Police too may find it much easier to gain the cooperation of the device's manufacturer to listen on you, than to get a warrant and then wire your house without you noticing.
Just say no and control your music the old-fashioned way — as we all did only a few years ago.
Are we really going to have a front-page entry for every little change or feature in every web-browser out there?.. Seriously?
But, if we are, Google's own tracking of your usage of their search results is pretty invasive too. Will Chrome remove that tracking too, the way some Firefox-extensions do?
Is there a difference between a license and certification?
There is and there is not. Per se, there is nothing wrong with certification — whereby someone else attests, that you know and/or are skilled at some field.
Licensing is the government turning a right, which only the Judicial branch can revoke upon successful prosecution by the Executive for violating Legislature-issued laws, into a mere privilege, which the Executive can deny or withdraw on a whim.
The concepts often work together and so are easily confused:
When the government bans anyone without a certification to work in a field.
When the only certification acceptable under the above ban are those issued by the government or the government-approved bodies.
Such requirements deprive us of rights. According to TFA, they also make us less efficient, but I don't think that ought to matter — because the rights are more important, even if the efficiency actually improved.
Libertarian candidate as a "Plague on both your parties" vote
Until we grow in numbers, Libertarians should align with the Republican party. Because "it is the economy, stupid". If, Heaven forfend, some ultra-conservative Republican manages to outlaw abortions, for example, I'll still be able to pay for my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.
But, if the likes of Obama keep running the country, we'd all be so poor, that having a free 24/7 abortion clinic next door will be no consolation.
I hate to break it to you, but at least 4 Americans have been indicted as part of the special counsel investigation: George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Mike Flynn.
Yes, yes. Wire fraud and bank fraud — these are easy to understand, but require neither the powers of the Special Prosecutor nor the top-notch legal team.
But our entire thread here is about alleged "tampering", is not it? So, where is this "tampering" and what did it consist of other than trolls posting memes under false identities? Which we knew Russians have been doing for years... It was perfectly well known, but no one even thought to prosecute it. Because Freedom of Speech.
So, page 30 is "COUNT TWO" — the entire "COUNT ONE" is something nebulous: "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States". WTF? Pretending to be someone else online is now tantamount to felony fraud? If you and ACLU had a shred of integrity left, they would've been outraged by this suggestion...
Nope, but it's irrelevant; she didn't win the election.
She ran in it, and came very near to winning. She was also a US Senator and a Secretary of State, while her "charity" kept receiving millions of dollars from foreigners — and all of this happened long before Trump ran for an office. So, discussing her is relevant. And, if she does not deserve punishment for doing it in your opinion, then Trump should not be punished for anything similar either — in your opinion. There we come to that quirky integrity thing again.
"B-b-but Clinton" is only a very sad distraction at this point.
Except it was not "B-b-but Clinton" — it was "B-b-but Trump" from you (and a whole bunch of moderators).
They explain exactly what they believe happened and why it's illegal, including citing applicable statues.
Yes, but it is not a text — the linked-to PDF is a giant bitmap, which makes it unsearchable. Yet, you speak with the authority of someone, who has studied it in detail. Would you, kindly, refer me to the relevant paragraphs?..
You better be careful trying to play that card
So, you admit, that Hillary Clinton has received numerous and multi-million dollar "donations" to her "charity" — and your only defense of the ethics and legality of such actions are that Trump is doing it too?
Trump continues to operate his "charities"
None of Trump's operations pretend to be charities, however. And if there was anything illegal about them, the Special Prosecutor would've been all over it, instead of chasing some foreign nationals. Because such chasing requires no Special Prosecutor privileges and can be done by the regular FBI.
- Paying for political advertisements - Paying others to troll social media for you
Could you cite the actual statutes, please? The summary I read cites nothing of the kind — the individuals are indicted for fraud and identity theft. These are very real and nasty crimes, whether or not they are related to elections and regardless of whether perpetrators are Americans or foreigners.
- Making campaign contributions
Unless the donation is to a "charity", owned and run by a candidate, right?
And yet, you still have to call him "President" — and I smile every time I realize this. Imagining the expressions on the faces of your kind is why I for one started rooting for Trump, back when Jeb! was the favorite among Republicans.
For that to happen, there must be proof — beyond reasonable doubt — of high crimes and misdemeanors having been committed by him. Seems rather unlikely, because — after 9 months of a Special Prosecutor busily prosecuting, you not only can't substantiate it, you can't even state a coherent accusation.
"Clueless", "narcissistic", "son of a bitch" (nice insult against his mother, BTW, congratulations) — these aren't evidence of a misdemeanor, much less of a crime. TFA does not help your goals of sabotaging the President in the slightest.
TRY to do better next time, or at least don't bother voting.
How interesting... So, you openly admit, you wish to disenfranchise all those, who vote differently from you... I wonder, what possible beef you can have with Russia...
You can be butthurt all you want
You certainly seem to be much more butthurt, than I can possibly wish you to be. Thank you for this post, it delighted me on a rainy afternoon. Have a great President's Day weekend.
"Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
How is that criminal? It is certainly dishonest, but not criminal...
only know how to use a hammer because they once used a screwdriver and got hurt
The difference between Microsoft's offerings and just about any other OS out there is not at all like that between different tools.
It is more like that between different toolkits. Microsoft offers toolkits with tools for a variety of tasks. And all of these tools are inferior to the alternatives or outright horrible. To use your analogy, MS Hammer falls off MS Handle (be grateful, when it misses your foot). MS Screwdriver breaks apart — but not before destroying the slot of the MS Screw, and so on. Yes, I'm willing to believe, there are exceptions — but I am not willing to search for them, and endanger myself in the process.
I've used Windows since [...]
Sorry, not interested in your attempts to justify your own poor choices. You know, it was a mistake — you just can't admit it (even to yourself), and that's what causes you to rant and lash out at those, who've avoided it.
Don't tell me I shouldn't use Windows
No one should voluntarily use it, and you are in no position to prohibit me to tell you this. But, of course, this is a free country, and you have the right to hurt yourself — despite the multitude of strangers like myself trying to keep you from doing it.
BTW -- the OP is an idiot. My Windows computer doesn't do any of that
Well, seems like you agree with me, that the OP is not, in fact, a "geek". Let's leave it at that.
found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind.
Oh, wow, science... Meanwhile, the supposed dangers of Genetically Modified foods remain unsubstantiated FUD.
Unfortunately, one seeking to buy foods without the actually dangerous contaminants must also pay for them being non-GMO. Because, at least in the US, "non-GMO" is a prerequisite for "USDA Organic" certification.
This is not true. Like Stalin, Lenin, and Marx — all of them dead for much longer — he remains a symbol of the most murderous school of though known to humanity so far. Any attempts to glorify him in particular or the Communism in general are deeply offensive, disturbing, and patently hateful. If we were to ban hate speech some day, we should start with that. But we will not...
He's essentially the political equivalent of a cat video.
This is neither true nor false — it makes no sense at all.
You should see what they show on xwhateveritscalled
Yeah, I'm sure some sort of "post boy" can be found to justify the censorship... And then apply it to whatever else the censors find disagreeable.
The First Amendment makes it illegal for the government to do it, but most of the arguments behind the Amendment apply to private entities just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! Down with the antiquated notions of information seeking to be free, and let us all welcome the concept of security through obscurity.
Right! And let's reimpose limits on exporting strong encryption, while we are it.
The decision is as easy as it always was: Don't!
Seriously, after talking about the dangers of eavesdropping and the big brother, having the computer's camera covered, who would possibly pay money to have a permanently-connected microphone installed in their dwelling?
You may think, you can turn it off, but you can not be certain. If the criminals and intelligence agencies manage to break into your computer, why would they not break into your "smart speaker"? Police too may find it much easier to gain the cooperation of the device's manufacturer to listen on you, than to get a warrant and then wire your house without you noticing.
Just say no and control your music the old-fashioned way — as we all did only a few years ago.
Because this — policing spectrum — is their job. Note, they didn't tell him, he must spend equal amounts of electricity mining all cryptocurrencies...
Are we really going to have a front-page entry for every little change or feature in every web-browser out there?.. Seriously?
But, if we are, Google's own tracking of your usage of their search results is pretty invasive too. Will Chrome remove that tracking too, the way some Firefox-extensions do?
There is and there is not. Per se, there is nothing wrong with certification — whereby someone else attests, that you know and/or are skilled at some field.
Licensing is the government turning a right, which only the Judicial branch can revoke upon successful prosecution by the Executive for violating Legislature-issued laws, into a mere privilege, which the Executive can deny or withdraw on a whim.
The concepts often work together and so are easily confused:
Such requirements deprive us of rights. According to TFA, they also make us less efficient, but I don't think that ought to matter — because the rights are more important, even if the efficiency actually improved.
Whether or not licensing helps or injures some sort of Greater Good[TM] — and how to calculate it — is irrelevant.
What matters is that the licensing requirements deprive us all — the would be buyers and sellers of services — of freedom.
What used to be a right, free to exercise, became a privilege available only with government's permission. And that's wrong and outrageous on its own.
Until we grow in numbers, Libertarians should align with the Republican party. Because "it is the economy, stupid". If, Heaven forfend, some ultra-conservative Republican manages to outlaw abortions, for example, I'll still be able to pay for my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.
But, if the likes of Obama keep running the country, we'd all be so poor, that having a free 24/7 abortion clinic next door will be no consolation.
Irrelevant to TFA and the thread.
TL;DR.
Yes, yes. Wire fraud and bank fraud — these are easy to understand, but require neither the powers of the Special Prosecutor nor the top-notch legal team.
But our entire thread here is about alleged "tampering", is not it? So, where is this "tampering" and what did it consist of other than trolls posting memes under false identities? Which we knew Russians have been doing for years... It was perfectly well known, but no one even thought to prosecute it. Because Freedom of Speech.
So, page 30 is "COUNT TWO" — the entire "COUNT ONE" is something nebulous: "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States". WTF? Pretending to be someone else online is now tantamount to felony fraud? If you and ACLU had a shred of integrity left, they would've been outraged by this suggestion...
She ran in it, and came very near to winning. She was also a US Senator and a Secretary of State, while her "charity" kept receiving millions of dollars from foreigners — and all of this happened long before Trump ran for an office. So, discussing her is relevant. And, if she does not deserve punishment for doing it in your opinion, then Trump should not be punished for anything similar either — in your opinion. There we come to that quirky integrity thing again.
Except it was not "B-b-but Clinton" — it was "B-b-but Trump" from you (and a whole bunch of moderators).
Four hours later, still no citations... Figures.
Yes, but it is not a text — the linked-to PDF is a giant bitmap, which makes it unsearchable. Yet, you speak with the authority of someone, who has studied it in detail. Would you, kindly, refer me to the relevant paragraphs?..
So, you admit, that Hillary Clinton has received numerous and multi-million dollar "donations" to her "charity" — and your only defense of the ethics and legality of such actions are that Trump is doing it too?
None of Trump's operations pretend to be charities, however. And if there was anything illegal about them, the Special Prosecutor would've been all over it, instead of chasing some foreign nationals. Because such chasing requires no Special Prosecutor privileges and can be done by the regular FBI.
Could you cite the actual statutes, please? The summary I read cites nothing of the kind — the individuals are indicted for fraud and identity theft. These are very real and nasty crimes, whether or not they are related to elections and regardless of whether perpetrators are Americans or foreigners.
Unless the donation is to a "charity", owned and run by a candidate, right?
And yet, you still have to call him "President" — and I smile every time I realize this. Imagining the expressions on the faces of your kind is why I for one started rooting for Trump, back when Jeb! was the favorite among Republicans.
But, of course, your spectacular hysterics, the exposure of your hypocrisy (such as the sudden love for the FBI and the NSA) are mere gravy on top of the economic boom, the actual energy independence), destruction of ISIS, and the bloodying of Russia's nose.
For that to happen, there must be proof — beyond reasonable doubt — of high crimes and misdemeanors having been committed by him. Seems rather unlikely, because — after 9 months of a Special Prosecutor busily prosecuting, you not only can't substantiate it, you can't even state a coherent accusation.
"Clueless", "narcissistic", "son of a bitch" (nice insult against his mother, BTW, congratulations) — these aren't evidence of a misdemeanor, much less of a crime. TFA does not help your goals of sabotaging the President in the slightest.
How interesting... So, you openly admit, you wish to disenfranchise all those, who vote differently from you... I wonder, what possible beef you can have with Russia...
You certainly seem to be much more butthurt, than I can possibly wish you to be. Thank you for this post, it delighted me on a rainy afternoon. Have a great President's Day weekend.
Please, join PopeRatzo in holding your breath.
Except not a single American is indicted — much less anyone from the Executive Branch.
Please, hold your breath until it gets interesting. Please, please, please. With sugar on top...
How is that criminal? It is certainly dishonest, but not criminal...
The difference between Microsoft's offerings and just about any other OS out there is not at all like that between different tools.
It is more like that between different toolkits. Microsoft offers toolkits with tools for a variety of tasks. And all of these tools are inferior to the alternatives or outright horrible. To use your analogy, MS Hammer falls off MS Handle (be grateful, when it misses your foot). MS Screwdriver breaks apart — but not before destroying the slot of the MS Screw, and so on. Yes, I'm willing to believe, there are exceptions — but I am not willing to search for them, and endanger myself in the process.
Sorry, not interested in your attempts to justify your own poor choices. You know, it was a mistake — you just can't admit it (even to yourself), and that's what causes you to rant and lash out at those, who've avoided it.
No one should voluntarily use it, and you are in no position to prohibit me to tell you this. But, of course, this is a free country, and you have the right to hurt yourself — despite the multitude of strangers like myself trying to keep you from doing it.
Well, seems like you agree with me, that the OP is not, in fact, a "geek". Let's leave it at that.
Citations?
What sort of "geek" is it, that installs Windows in the first place?
And, after they do, "blogs" about it?
And what sort of a "news for nerds" web-site publicizes such nonsense?
Oh, wow, science... Meanwhile, the supposed dangers of Genetically Modified foods remain unsubstantiated FUD.
Unfortunately, one seeking to buy foods without the actually dangerous contaminants must also pay for them being non-GMO. Because, at least in the US, "non-GMO" is a prerequisite for "USDA Organic" certification.
Seems like a gross overestimation. May as well try to sell stories chiseled on clay tablets.
Government controlling businesses is Fascism. Just saying... "Pursuit of happiness" my tail.
That's true.
This is not true. Like Stalin, Lenin, and Marx — all of them dead for much longer — he remains a symbol of the most murderous school of though known to humanity so far. Any attempts to glorify him in particular or the Communism in general are deeply offensive, disturbing, and patently hateful. If we were to ban hate speech some day, we should start with that. But we will not...
This is neither true nor false — it makes no sense at all.
Revolutionaries constantly need funds — they did and do rob and kill to gain them. For the Greater Good, of course.
And he'd certainly send to a firing squad — or personally executed — anyone, who'd try to suppress his speech...
Not quite...
Yeah, I'm sure some sort of "post boy" can be found to justify the censorship ... And then apply it to whatever else the censors find disagreeable.
The First Amendment makes it illegal for the government to do it, but most of the arguments behind the Amendment apply to private entities just as well.