I'm all for some measure of prudence in what information people post online, but planning for after a right wing religious-authoritarian takeover is a pretty miserable example, if that is the state of the country, who cares if you are on the persecuted list or not?
I was going to reply explaining that there are people concerned that the government sending you a tax statement would lead people to cheating, but one of them already replied.
Of course, better reporting standards (where it would make sense) and simpler tax rules would also address people cheating, but who cares about sanity.
All demand means in economics is the number of people willing to purchase something or another, it cares not for their motivations (hilariously, this is often used as a criticism of such economics).
And authors are certainly still going to be considering the commercial viability of their works; just like today, there will be plenty of creations that are not at all commercially viable, but cheap distribution doesn't make those considerations go away. "Tip jar" books may indeed insert themselves between the commercially viable and the unheard of.
Yeah, sure. But the owner is going to have to replace both the ATM and the cash (or claim insurance on them, whatever), so they are going to factor the value of both into their security decisions.
Maybe. I expect the machines usually cost more than the money that they hold, so in that scenario, actual physical security would be a bigger concern than speeding up recovery (and indeed, the machines are often built into walls or inside of staffed buildings).
Not dispensing money isn't really that dire a failure mode. Sure, people will get irritated, but most people that visit an out of order ATM don't come back tomorrow, they go somewhere else right away.
I guess it still speaks to the mindset of the people designing the machine, but it doesn't seem that important.
They aren't going to tell Apple to pound sand, but do you think they are going to charge an in house customer asking for 1 million of some component (a great deal) more than they are charging Apple?
I don't think I follow. I think you might be saying that since there were monotheistic Abrahamic religions 2000 years ago that Islam has roots that far back, but that is quite something different than "war against the 'west'". Especially when you figure that 2000 years ago 'the west' meant Rome, a bunch of pagans that liked to persecute Christians.
And if you are going to conflate the founding of those religions, you might as well round up to 3000, it's a bigger number, and just as accurate as 2000.
And I suppose if you combine the above, Christianity has waged a much more successful war against the 'west' than either Judaism or Islam.
Islam was established in the 600s. So it is non-sensical to talk about anything centering on it more than about 1500 years ago.
And while I don't profess to have much understanding of what makes a typical Muslim, there do seem to be hundreds of millions of Muslims that have never killed anyone.
Which is what is stupid about the summary. Sure, lots of people pay $0.10 or $0.20 per text, but anybody sending 1 MB of texts is going to pay about $240 a year for huge buckets of texts, not $1,000.
At least, if they are in their right mind. I guess $240 is still probably hugely profitable for the carriers, but it is something like 75% less ridiculous than $1,000.
Right, taking orders from "some guy" is a lot smarter than taking orders from a carefully researched or deeply sourced algorithm.
I mean, are you really more comfortable with stupid humans mindlessly following 'bad' human direction than you are with stupid humans mindlessly following 'good' computer directions?
(I don't mean bad and good in a moral sense there, I mean in the sense that if the computer makes you more likely to win the game, the instructions it gives are better in at least one way)
I'm not arguing that anything is desirable or not, I'm pointing out that your reply is a bit of a non sequitor if you take a look at what the author of the article meant.
That doesn't mean you don't have a point, it just means that including the quotes from the article didn't add anything to you post, they are talking about something different.
This is a feature of software markets (i.e., they are curated and mistakes can be corrected). If it is possible to install software via other methods, it has none of the implications that you list.
The quality and extent of the curation will certainly vary.
He's talking about what it takes to sell software in the market, not about what devices it is available on.
So Google has an 'open' policy regarding what apps can put distributed in the market, even if they don't have an open policy regarding buyer access to the market.
Actually, I have every expectation that the contents of my bag are private, whether I am in public or not. The exterior of a car is certainly a more difficult situation to reason through, but just being outside of a private residence doesn't mean the government has carte blanche.
And the Patriot act doesn't prove the constitutionality (and thus the ultimate legality of such actions in the U.S.) of anything, it only provides a legal justification.
Most of the time when I tune into a few minutes of "Cops", I see them use their authority in ways that are within the status quo that you mention, but that I think are excessive.
I don't think they have anything resembling an easy job, but the second they start seeing their job as anything other than a responsibility, things have gone wrong.
Imagine if you downloaded an image with an encrypted blob appended to it. You wouldn't even know it was there and could still be prosecuted for not knowing the password.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the hick had a Timex.
I'm all for some measure of prudence in what information people post online, but planning for after a right wing religious-authoritarian takeover is a pretty miserable example, if that is the state of the country, who cares if you are on the persecuted list or not?
Pulling the battery is probably the cheapest way to increase your confidence in the phone not transmitting anything.
You could also stick it under a cheapo jury-rigged spectrum analyzer:
http://ossmann.blogspot.com/2010/03/16-pocket-spectrum-analyzer.html
I was going to reply explaining that there are people concerned that the government sending you a tax statement would lead people to cheating, but one of them already replied.
Of course, better reporting standards (where it would make sense) and simpler tax rules would also address people cheating, but who cares about sanity.
The safe thing to do is always use who.
Ticks off the people that care about 50 year old style guides but matches modern usage just fine.
All demand means in economics is the number of people willing to purchase something or another, it cares not for their motivations (hilariously, this is often used as a criticism of such economics).
And authors are certainly still going to be considering the commercial viability of their works; just like today, there will be plenty of creations that are not at all commercially viable, but cheap distribution doesn't make those considerations go away. "Tip jar" books may indeed insert themselves between the commercially viable and the unheard of.
Yeah, sure. But the owner is going to have to replace both the ATM and the cash (or claim insurance on them, whatever), so they are going to factor the value of both into their security decisions.
Oh, I see, the inherent rights of a corpse. Right.
Alternatively, the state is placing limitations on the actions that doctors are allowed to take.
No need to tell you what to do with your body when we can just tell the doctors what not to do.
Maybe. I expect the machines usually cost more than the money that they hold, so in that scenario, actual physical security would be a bigger concern than speeding up recovery (and indeed, the machines are often built into walls or inside of staffed buildings).
Not dispensing money isn't really that dire a failure mode. Sure, people will get irritated, but most people that visit an out of order ATM don't come back tomorrow, they go somewhere else right away.
I guess it still speaks to the mindset of the people designing the machine, but it doesn't seem that important.
They aren't going to tell Apple to pound sand, but do you think they are going to charge an in house customer asking for 1 million of some component (a great deal) more than they are charging Apple?
I don't think I follow. I think you might be saying that since there were monotheistic Abrahamic religions 2000 years ago that Islam has roots that far back, but that is quite something different than "war against the 'west'". Especially when you figure that 2000 years ago 'the west' meant Rome, a bunch of pagans that liked to persecute Christians.
And if you are going to conflate the founding of those religions, you might as well round up to 3000, it's a bigger number, and just as accurate as 2000.
And I suppose if you combine the above, Christianity has waged a much more successful war against the 'west' than either Judaism or Islam.
Islam was established in the 600s. So it is non-sensical to talk about anything centering on it more than about 1500 years ago.
And while I don't profess to have much understanding of what makes a typical Muslim, there do seem to be hundreds of millions of Muslims that have never killed anyone.
Which is what is stupid about the summary. Sure, lots of people pay $0.10 or $0.20 per text, but anybody sending 1 MB of texts is going to pay about $240 a year for huge buckets of texts, not $1,000.
At least, if they are in their right mind. I guess $240 is still probably hugely profitable for the carriers, but it is something like 75% less ridiculous than $1,000.
Right, taking orders from "some guy" is a lot smarter than taking orders from a carefully researched or deeply sourced algorithm.
I mean, are you really more comfortable with stupid humans mindlessly following 'bad' human direction than you are with stupid humans mindlessly following 'good' computer directions?
(I don't mean bad and good in a moral sense there, I mean in the sense that if the computer makes you more likely to win the game, the instructions it gives are better in at least one way)
I'm not arguing that anything is desirable or not, I'm pointing out that your reply is a bit of a non sequitor if you take a look at what the author of the article meant.
That doesn't mean you don't have a point, it just means that including the quotes from the article didn't add anything to you post, they are talking about something different.
This is a feature of software markets (i.e., they are curated and mistakes can be corrected). If it is possible to install software via other methods, it has none of the implications that you list.
The quality and extent of the curation will certainly vary.
He's talking about what it takes to sell software in the market, not about what devices it is available on.
So Google has an 'open' policy regarding what apps can put distributed in the market, even if they don't have an open policy regarding buyer access to the market.
So how do humans do it?
Or just be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.
I mean, working within the system hasn't exactly always been a meaningful option.
It isn't naive to talk about how things would be if men were better men, it's how things get better.
I mean, you are damn close to saying that since that's what they did last week, we shouldn't worry about what they are going to do next week.
Actually, I have every expectation that the contents of my bag are private, whether I am in public or not. The exterior of a car is certainly a more difficult situation to reason through, but just being outside of a private residence doesn't mean the government has carte blanche.
And the Patriot act doesn't prove the constitutionality (and thus the ultimate legality of such actions in the U.S.) of anything, it only provides a legal justification.
Most of the time when I tune into a few minutes of "Cops", I see them use their authority in ways that are within the status quo that you mention, but that I think are excessive.
I don't think they have anything resembling an easy job, but the second they start seeing their job as anything other than a responsibility, things have gone wrong.
Imagine if you downloaded an image with an encrypted blob appended to it. You wouldn't even know it was there and could still be prosecuted for not knowing the password.