Why do people believe your rights come from a document?
Your rights come from some group of people, somewhere, some time, maybe even you, right now, standing up and saying no. If a lot of us believe random other people (state actors or not) should not go pawing through our lives without just cause, then that's how society should work because we ARE society.
And absolutely no, I do not believe Best Buy has any business going through their customers' property in any way beyond that needed to perform the services they've been contracted for.
My taxes, bank statements, identifying documents, jewelry, checkbooks, etc...
The principle of least privilege applies here. The plumber shouldn't have access to everything in your house either because he's trustworthy or "because you have nothing to hitde". The plumber should have access to you plumbing and as little else is as practicable because he/she doesn't require access to anything else.
The point is he's focussed on bringing jobs back. That's all I need to know.
You should reconsider that. I might be focused on being a great basketball player, but you shouldn't sign me to your NBA team unless I'm actually good at it. Results actually do matter.
I agree with this, and say pretty much every single election that $NEW_GUY is going to take credit or get blamed for whatever happens in the next 4 years.
Yeah, we should really quit doing that. Trump has nothing to do with those 10,000 jobs, Incidentally, jobs fluctuate by over 100,000/month, so gaining 10,000 in the almost 2 months since he's been elected is literally in the statistical noise.
But most of all I question whether the path to more advanced AI ends with something that resembles us at all. I suspect we will eventually succeed in developing AIs that are superior to us in most intellectual respects, but may end up having very little in common with us.
That's a very important point. I don't know if we'll ever create AI that's equivalent to humans in intelligence, self-determination (illusory or not), and legal rights, but if we do it's a very, very short path to AI that are more intelligent than humans are. I'd say it's therefore a rather dangerous thing to do.
This is one of those monumentally nutty arguments of the form:
A: Hey, let's do thing! B: Well, there's MAJOR_PROBLEM with doing thing. A: Assume we can solve MAJOR_PROBLEM. Any other reasons? B: No....
Then you go off, try to do thing, run smack into MAJOR_PROBLEM that you assumed you could solve, but never actually did, and your project fails.
Maybe someday there will be a point where solar cells are actually price competitive to roadway surface (which is pretty darned cheap, really), but it's not now. When that day comes is when it will make sense to consider putting solar cells on/in roads. Right now it's just a bad idea.
I from the US, so I might be biased, but it sounds more like China is pretending they own the street in front of their house and grabbed our RC car as we drove it down the street. If we drove into their yard, yeah, they'd be justified, but pretty much the everybody but China agrees that the street doesn't belong to them.
The South China Sea is not all China's territorial waters. Even they don't even claim all of it. Some of the parts they DO claim are closer to other countries than they are China, making those claims pretty ludicrous, IMO.
Not necessarily. Some of the people who have posted fake news that I've seen accepted that it was fake and retracted it when it was pointed out to them. Actually, most of the people I've done that to have.
I think the key point is that people spreading fake news (stories claiming to be true that aren't, not opinion pieces) don't actually intend to be spreading stories that are really not true. They've just been duped into thinking they are true.
The problem with 1984 is that the Ministry of Truth was propaganda, not objective truth. We actually do rely on society, and even government, to tell us what things are actually, really true. That's the entire education system, for example. No, it doesn't always get it right.
I guess it depends on the company. Around here you don't get put on an "improvement plan" unless you're doing badly enough that firing you is really the only option left. You'd already have had your manager talk to you on multiple occasions about what you needed to fix, and have failed to do that. The improvement plan is just your formal, documented, and last chance to fix it.
In a word, yes. If Hillary so much as coughed, there were news stories about it.
So yeah, when it dawns on someone that the guy who has become known for sending bursts of 3am messages is going to have the ability to send texts to everybody in the country, it gets talked about. In a country where there's probably just as much news coverage of what the Kardashians had for dinner yesterday, that's not really a surprise.
Well, that would probably be people who didn't like being fired capriciously. Personally, I'd rather my company tell me exactly why they weren't happy with me and what I could do to rectify it.
My understanding of the US system is that the Electoral College votes for the president, and they actually ignored the popular vote and selected Trump in this case.
No, that is completely false. Electoral votes are decided state-by-state. The electors haven't even cast their ballots yet, so the totals you're seeing are how many Trump and Clinton will get if the electors all vote the way the popular vote tells them to. The detail you're missing is that it's the popular vote in each state that matters, not the national popular vote.
For a simplified example of how this works, imagine 3 states with 10 people in them. Each state gets 1 electoral vote.
State A: All 10 people vote for Clinton. She gets one electoral vote. State B: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote. State C: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote.
Trump wins the election 2 electoral votes to 1, even though 18 people voted for Clinton and only 12 for Trump.
The technology we would need to survive on any other planet besides Earth would also make surviving any catastrophe that could b fall Earth -- including catastrophic climate change, nuclear winter, or a giant meteor -- trivially easy in comparison.
Think of it like RAID. You can improve reliability only so much. Eventually, you have to accept there will be a nonzero failure rate, or a nonzero planet-go-boom rate. The only way to improve the survival of the species beyond that is to be on more than one planet.
I really like Schneier's work in general, but if there's one answer that has to be nearly always wrong it's "We need a new government agency."
It's also patently false that because a thing isn't manufactured here, we can't regulate it. We can (and do) regulate the import of things that aren't manufactured here. If he's talking about regulating things that are manufactured, sold, and used elsewhere but also happen to be on the internet, then we just shouldn't be doing that at all anyway.
I don't WANT candidates to come to my state. All that gets me is a traffic nightmare. We have television and the internet. I don't need to physically see a candidate to hear what they stand for and what they've done in the past.
But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.
This was set up in a time when traveling to another state was often a multi-day journey and doesn't reflect present day reality anymore.
I live in one of the battleground states, and lemme tell ya, it was damn weird this cycle realizing how many millions of people's votes didn't matter because of the electoral college. If you're voting for Trump in California or Clinton in Wyoming, you may as well not bother.
See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape [youtube.com]. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor [youtube.com]?
I've listened to the tape. As someone who doesn't like Clinton at all, it sounded to me like a rueful "can you believe how crazy the system is" laugh.
Personally, I've found Snopes to be pretty reliable and it's nothing short of a terrible irony (cue rueful laugh) that people are finding a measure of success in casting a web site that debunks nonsense on the internet as a purveyor of falsehoods.
Snopes remains a damned reliable method of checking on the validity of the junk the average facebook user posts. If you're the suspicious type, by all means check Snopes and other sites AND check the "facts" they present to see if they're consistent.
Actually, it's pretty obvious a large number of people, well into the millions of people, in fact, do care about the emails. You're just not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people believe your rights come from a document?
Your rights come from some group of people, somewhere, some time, maybe even you, right now, standing up and saying no. If a lot of us believe random other people (state actors or not) should not go pawing through our lives without just cause, then that's how society should work because we ARE society.
And absolutely no, I do not believe Best Buy has any business going through their customers' property in any way beyond that needed to perform the services they've been contracted for.
My taxes, bank statements, identifying documents, jewelry, checkbooks, etc...
The principle of least privilege applies here. The plumber shouldn't have access to everything in your house either because he's trustworthy or "because you have nothing to hitde". The plumber should have access to you plumbing and as little else is as practicable because he/she doesn't require access to anything else.
You have it backwards. The bay area is absurdly expensive. Around here, $550,000 gets you a 5 bedroom house with 4,000 sf on a multi-acre lot.
You should reconsider that. I might be focused on being a great basketball player, but you shouldn't sign me to your NBA team unless I'm actually good at it. Results actually do matter.
I agree with this, and say pretty much every single election that $NEW_GUY is going to take credit or get blamed for whatever happens in the next 4 years.
Yeah, we should really quit doing that. Trump has nothing to do with those 10,000 jobs, Incidentally, jobs fluctuate by over 100,000/month, so gaining 10,000 in the almost 2 months since he's been elected is literally in the statistical noise.
That's a very important point. I don't know if we'll ever create AI that's equivalent to humans in intelligence, self-determination (illusory or not), and legal rights, but if we do it's a very, very short path to AI that are more intelligent than humans are. I'd say it's therefore a rather dangerous thing to do.
This is one of those monumentally nutty arguments of the form:
A: Hey, let's do thing!
B: Well, there's MAJOR_PROBLEM with doing thing.
A: Assume we can solve MAJOR_PROBLEM. Any other reasons?
B: No....
Then you go off, try to do thing, run smack into MAJOR_PROBLEM that you assumed you could solve, but never actually did, and your project fails.
Maybe someday there will be a point where solar cells are actually price competitive to roadway surface (which is pretty darned cheap, really), but it's not now. When that day comes is when it will make sense to consider putting solar cells on/in roads. Right now it's just a bad idea.
I from the US, so I might be biased, but it sounds more like China is pretending they own the street in front of their house and grabbed our RC car as we drove it down the street. If we drove into their yard, yeah, they'd be justified, but pretty much the everybody but China agrees that the street doesn't belong to them.
The South China Sea is not all China's territorial waters. Even they don't even claim all of it. Some of the parts they DO claim are closer to other countries than they are China, making those claims pretty ludicrous, IMO.
Not necessarily. Some of the people who have posted fake news that I've seen accepted that it was fake and retracted it when it was pointed out to them. Actually, most of the people I've done that to have.
I think the key point is that people spreading fake news (stories claiming to be true that aren't, not opinion pieces) don't actually intend to be spreading stories that are really not true. They've just been duped into thinking they are true.
Huh. Well, ok, then. I stand corrected.
Citation needed. I'm pretty sure this is not true.
He's not cracking down on anything. He's not in office yet.
The problem with 1984 is that the Ministry of Truth was propaganda, not objective truth. We actually do rely on society, and even government, to tell us what things are actually, really true. That's the entire education system, for example. No, it doesn't always get it right.
I guess it depends on the company. Around here you don't get put on an "improvement plan" unless you're doing badly enough that firing you is really the only option left. You'd already have had your manager talk to you on multiple occasions about what you needed to fix, and have failed to do that. The improvement plan is just your formal, documented, and last chance to fix it.
That's how it's used here, anyway.
In a word, yes. If Hillary so much as coughed, there were news stories about it.
So yeah, when it dawns on someone that the guy who has become known for sending bursts of 3am messages is going to have the ability to send texts to everybody in the country, it gets talked about. In a country where there's probably just as much news coverage of what the Kardashians had for dinner yesterday, that's not really a surprise.
Well, he's not the president yet, so he doesn't have the ability to do it.
It's not news, but it's also not fake. It's basically an opinion piece, which is hardly new to /.
Well, that would probably be people who didn't like being fired capriciously. Personally, I'd rather my company tell me exactly why they weren't happy with me and what I could do to rectify it.
No, that is completely false. Electoral votes are decided state-by-state. The electors haven't even cast their ballots yet, so the totals you're seeing are how many Trump and Clinton will get if the electors all vote the way the popular vote tells them to. The detail you're missing is that it's the popular vote in each state that matters, not the national popular vote.
For a simplified example of how this works, imagine 3 states with 10 people in them. Each state gets 1 electoral vote.
State A: All 10 people vote for Clinton. She gets one electoral vote.
State B: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote.
State C: 6 people vote for Trump, 4 for Clinton. He gets one electoral vote.
Trump wins the election 2 electoral votes to 1, even though 18 people voted for Clinton and only 12 for Trump.
Think of it like RAID. You can improve reliability only so much. Eventually, you have to accept there will be a nonzero failure rate, or a nonzero planet-go-boom rate. The only way to improve the survival of the species beyond that is to be on more than one planet.
I really like Schneier's work in general, but if there's one answer that has to be nearly always wrong it's "We need a new government agency."
It's also patently false that because a thing isn't manufactured here, we can't regulate it. We can (and do) regulate the import of things that aren't manufactured here. If he's talking about regulating things that are manufactured, sold, and used elsewhere but also happen to be on the internet, then we just shouldn't be doing that at all anyway.
I don't WANT candidates to come to my state. All that gets me is a traffic nightmare. We have television and the internet. I don't need to physically see a candidate to hear what they stand for and what they've done in the past.
This was set up in a time when traveling to another state was often a multi-day journey and doesn't reflect present day reality anymore.
I live in one of the battleground states, and lemme tell ya, it was damn weird this cycle realizing how many millions of people's votes didn't matter because of the electoral college. If you're voting for Trump in California or Clinton in Wyoming, you may as well not bother.
I've listened to the tape. As someone who doesn't like Clinton at all, it sounded to me like a rueful "can you believe how crazy the system is" laugh.
Personally, I've found Snopes to be pretty reliable and it's nothing short of a terrible irony (cue rueful laugh) that people are finding a measure of success in casting a web site that debunks nonsense on the internet as a purveyor of falsehoods.
Snopes remains a damned reliable method of checking on the validity of the junk the average facebook user posts. If you're the suspicious type, by all means check Snopes and other sites AND check the "facts" they present to see if they're consistent.
Actually, it's pretty obvious a large number of people, well into the millions of people, in fact, do care about the emails. You're just not one of them.