Putting in a general notice such as "limits may exist in your part of the world, look them up before flying this thing", and maybe even spending a few hours online to get links to rule making bodies in their major export markets, shouldn't be too much to ask.
No, they've said that such collisions could result in a loss of life.
This drone apparently hit the plane's nose. If it were an engine intake at a critical moment, the story could be quite different. It happens occasionally with bird strikes, and it can happen with drones, that an incident will cause significant damage.
One key difference between birds and drones, though, is that birds tend to avoid aircraft. Stupid humans, on the other hand, tend to do ever-dumber things without realizing the risks they're causing. Current drones are usually small, lightweight, plastic little things... but there are plenty of larger kits out there, and improving battery technology is making it cheaper and easier to pose a real threat. The age of rare aviation is over, and now everyone can put an obstacle into the flight path if they want to, without even realizing that there's a danger to others.
It's a careful balance to be struck... Little Bobby's 6-ounce toy isn't a risk, but if Bobby starts flying a drone at age 10 without any limits, he won't be expecting limits when he flies a 20-pound drone at age 20. Trying to record the neighbor girl sunbathing might be rude, but trying to record the takeoff of an approaching single-engine airplane might be deadly.
That's the concern for lawmakers and airlines. Current technology and incidents present only annoyances for pilots, but now is the time to start thinking about regulation, and hopefully lay out reasonable limits. Don't wait until after the first deadly drone strike, when all the politicians bring their knee-jerk reactions.
The solution, of course, is to ban the name Bobby.
That this episode of the FBI vs Apple has come to public attention proves that the FBI is grossly incompetent. When the public (and therefor terrorists) no longer believes that phone information is absolutely safe, other means of communication will be used: government loses a powerful tool against its enemies. This is a hideous strategic blunder.
You are assuming that this attack on cryptologist actually has something to do with terrorism.
Yeah, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry, etc should all come out publicly and say "We will produce secure encryption for the rest of the world, however the US government has mandated that US citizens are only entitled to 2nd best, now here is a list of YOUR representatives who voted for the bill"
If the representative were Named, Shamed and Blamed they might just loose their cushy jobs.
The problem being that most Americans won't understand and/or won't mind as 'they have nothing to hide'.
The root cause of the problem is civilian complacence and I don't see that changing any time soon.
His title is Commander, US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), which is a unified sub-command of the US Military. Calling him "Cyber Commander" is a stupid journalistic oversimplification, it's not his actual title.
Of course, you can always tell government drones when they refer to "cyber" anything, but that is just the way it goes.
Why would a transgendered man want to use the women's restroom? That is the complete opposite of what they want, and that is what this new law is mandating, contrary to their wishes.
Oh wait, I see, you just don't know how to use the phrase "transgendered man" correctly. Hint: a transgendered man is someone who was born female and now identifies as a man.
Although to be fair, many women would probably be uncomfortable with such a person in the women's room, but not because they're transgendered; because they're a man. Which is why such a person should be free to use the men's room instead, where he will fit in, which this law prohibits.
That's wonderfully confusing logic but sorry but no sausage and beans, not a man. This is not a question of identification of self but of biological reality.
As well, using your definitions, a transgendered woman (in biological reality a man) would not be welcome in the women's bathroom by women who identify with being women.
"So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman."
How is that any different or worse than same sex perversion of the same type?
If you accept that that old male principle goes into the bathroom to check out that young penis then what the hell do you care that the old woman would do it?
If you care that the old woman would do it then you must care that the old man would do it with the logical conclusion that there should be individual toilets for everyone.
Or we can all admit that Americans are kind of fucked up about nudity taboos and move on to something more important to discuss.
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of the largest research parks in the world, but its been largely a pearl in an otherwise very salty oyster. Its home to Cisco, Redhat, Microsoft, and NetApp among others.
You are assuming that these companies will follow PayPal in leaving the state but that's not a sure thing.
PayPal wasn't yet moved in, but for those who are already there If the cost of moving outweighs the cost of lost business / reputation then they'll stay right where they are.
I don't trust corporate conscience when it puts 'shareholder value' at risk.
The problem I have with this news is that there is no mention of any particular content of this App that the ban is reasoned with. If Google was imposing consistent rules to ban religious fundamentalism - fine with me. Start banning the historic scriptures of basically every large religion, all of which are clearly calling for violence against non-believers of their faith. Yet, there are dozens of Apps which convey, for example, hate messages like: "[W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord . . . (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)." or “[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
Perhaps because the taliban has sanctions against it and the bible thumpers do not?
Two days of a bad app being available doesn't seem like the end of the world to me. They caught it, removed it, all done. If that's the price for not having a walled garden I think it's worth paying.
If it were two days of a banking trojan that during that time stole your credentials...would you feel the same?
Am I the only one that's bothered by the fact that Microsoft's breakdown adds up to not-quite-100% and Apple's breakdown actually adds up to more than 100%? Who's doing this math anyway?
Do you have the possibility of going to India for awhile?
In no way am I comparing the US to other countries and their current state of opportunity or fairness... mature places like Europe have incredibly entrenched wealth/ownership much moreso than the US, emerging markets like India/China still have crushing poverty for the majority of the population like the US hasn't seen for 100+ years. This is more a statement of where we are vs where we could (should) be going.
Still, emerging markets like India also offer incredible opportunity for building wealth - if you have enough to invest/risk, you can be making 4x the gains there that you might for equivalent investments in the US today.
I'm not talking about building wealth. I'm talking about gaining perspective and adjusting one's attitude to fit the realities of life as opposed to the sense of entitlement that we westerners are born with.
That person of the family of four who wants to go to night school but 'cannot' should go live in India for a year and then we'll see if they still think that they 'cannot' do night school back wherever they come from even given the inconveniences that they face.
Of course you can "hindsight" every choice every person ever made and point out places where their life _might_ have gone easier or better had they done the other thing.
What I dislike most about life in the USA is the extreme element of risk-reward that goes into so many life choices. Starting from an impoverished background and pursuing a medical doctor degree is a very high risk undertaking in the US, even if you have all the aptitudes for it. PreMed programs are arbitrarily difficult, they flunk out huge percentages of capable candidates just because the numbers allowed to progress up the ladder are strictly limited. Many "respected" schools are very expensive, so now they offer you loans: take out a huge debt on the chance that you get a good paying job later to pay it off. Most business has always been a matter of luck + connections - without the connections you need to be very lucky to succeed, with them you have a better chance but still can fail even if you make all the best choices (given the information available when you start.) The safer businesses (franchises, etc.) require you to be quite wealthy, and put that wealth at risk, just to start.
There is plenty of chaos in the US economy, enough that some poor people become rich and some rich people become poor, often with little connection to the "wiseness" of the choices that they have made.
Do you have the possibility of going to India for awhile?
But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.
Maybe the shocking news here is that more world leaders aren't on the list.
The thing about NSLs is that USGovernment is the least interested in having them challenged in an -actual- court (not FISA). NSLs are made to sound super scary, and they actually work that way. It will be interesting when someone stands up to them clearly and unequivocally (FBI v Apple started to ring a bell, but FBI backed out).
So it's very doubtful that the gov't will try to go after someone for erasing a canary, since that will take them in a road that they very much want to avoid.
I see this "choices you made in the past put you where you are now" attitude a lot, especially in political debate. This is, of course, true - and it is also true that choices (or circumstances) of your parents, their parents, etc. also influence your starting point and therefore your chances of "a good life."
What I think is lacking in today's "American Dream," is the ability for anyone - regardless of present circumstance - to pick themselves up and realistically turn their life around to achieve "middle class" or better status within the next 10 years. Too many people are too held down by poverty to realistically do anything about it before they die, and this can happen to them before they even reach the age of high school graduation.
If you have to work 40+ hours a week to keep a safe roof over your head with decent clothing and food to eat, there's no realistic capacity to also pay for a valuable education that opens doors to a better job. I'm not saying that a higher education should be a requirement for a decent paying middle class job, high school or equivalent should be enough, but it mostly isn't. Throw in a couple of children, part time jobs that require travel expenses to/from work and have dynamic/unpredictable schedules, medical expenses and the other realities of living poor and the idea of night school becomes less and less realistic.
I'm not saying that it's impossible, people hit the lottery every week, and get other fortunate breaks much more often, but it's not something that people can just "put their mind to" and make happen on any kind of realistic/regular basis.
People can certainly pick themselves up and turn their lives around - if they haven't made too much of a mess of it already (which is generally based on the choices that they have made that put them wherever they are now).
My experience has been that the vast majority people "held down by poverty" in the US are actually held down by the limitations they set on themselves. There are social services throughout the country that just don't exist in third world countries. Education is free through high school. Free food. Free housing. Free medical care. None of this is available to the poor in third world countries.
Now if you take an Indian (the kind from India), generally speaking, and you put them in the US and you give them the advantages that an American gets just by being born in the US - they'll take those advantages and run with them and while they'll start with nothing they will generally succeed at building a life for themselves. It's a question of attitude and knowing what life is like when social services aren't available. They'll scrimp and they'll save and they won't spend 100 dollars on sneakers or spend their evenings watching serials or sports. They'll work that 40+ hours a week and then on top of that they'll go to school or open a small side business of their own. When that fails they'll do it again and again until it works.
Even in the situation you describe the overall situation you are describing is a major success story for most of the world. Those two kids that you 'threw in' were choices - either the choice of not using protection (again something that is freely available in the US that is often not available at all in other parts of the world) or the choice made to have those children. Choices again.
My father in law is from a third world country. His village still has no electricity even now and running water only in the sense that there are streams (no plumbing). He and his older brother were living alone in a town away from the family from when they were 11 and 13, respectively. They shared an apartment and leaved on what their parents could spare after paying for their not free education and the costs of feeding a family of nine. Today my father in law is a licensed doctor here in France - a country he didn't even speak the language of when he came here. His older brother is a genetic researcher and professor fi
Its cute that using a warrant canary makes people think that it gets them out of legal obligations, but it really doesn't.
When you pre-emotively tell people 'if we delete this, it means we got something we can't tell you about', when you delete it... its effectively telling them right, we all know thats what it means, right?
Try to argue in court against a judge that you didn't tell people about the secret order, go ahead, lets see how that works out for you.
It blows me away that people think something like a warrant canary is clever enough to get around the people enforcing the requirement not to tell anyone.
Do you think the school yard bully gives a shit when you tell him you didn't do anything and didn't make fun of him while all the kids are laughing at hime cause you made fun of him? You guys are really out of touch with reality of you think this 'warrant canary' thing is to be trusted. Honestly, its not naive, its all the way to stupid.
Wouldn't it depend on the order's wording? "You must not tell anyone" vs "You must not communicate by any means" could make the difference here.
Granted this technical 'out' would probably only work once, if it worked at all.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of "common sense" things, especially in US manuals, such as don't iron clothes on your body or while taking a bath.
Obviously companies need legal coverage for when stupid people do stupid things
FTFY :-)
Putting in a general notice such as "limits may exist in your part of the world, look them up before flying this thing", and maybe even spending a few hours online to get links to rule making bodies in their major export markets, shouldn't be too much to ask.
Because people always RTFM?
No, they've said that such collisions could result in a loss of life.
This drone apparently hit the plane's nose. If it were an engine intake at a critical moment, the story could be quite different. It happens occasionally with bird strikes, and it can happen with drones, that an incident will cause significant damage.
One key difference between birds and drones, though, is that birds tend to avoid aircraft. Stupid humans, on the other hand, tend to do ever-dumber things without realizing the risks they're causing. Current drones are usually small, lightweight, plastic little things... but there are plenty of larger kits out there, and improving battery technology is making it cheaper and easier to pose a real threat. The age of rare aviation is over, and now everyone can put an obstacle into the flight path if they want to, without even realizing that there's a danger to others.
It's a careful balance to be struck... Little Bobby's 6-ounce toy isn't a risk, but if Bobby starts flying a drone at age 10 without any limits, he won't be expecting limits when he flies a 20-pound drone at age 20. Trying to record the neighbor girl sunbathing might be rude, but trying to record the takeoff of an approaching single-engine airplane might be deadly.
That's the concern for lawmakers and airlines. Current technology and incidents present only annoyances for pilots, but now is the time to start thinking about regulation, and hopefully lay out reasonable limits. Don't wait until after the first deadly drone strike, when all the politicians bring their knee-jerk reactions.
The solution, of course, is to ban the name Bobby.
Maybe they should just build a big wall.
And make the mosquitos pay for it.
But why would an American go to Panama if they can just go to Delaware?
The people that use services in Panama do that because their local jurisdiction is on the ball w.r.t. tax evasion...
Because Delaware information is visible to the IRS and Panama information is not.
On the flip side, Delaware information is probably not visible in Panama so you'd probably find Panamanian politicians with accounts there.
That this episode of the FBI vs Apple has come to public attention proves that the FBI is grossly incompetent. When the public (and therefor terrorists) no longer believes that phone information is absolutely safe, other means of communication will be used: government loses a powerful tool against its enemies. This is a hideous strategic blunder.
You are assuming that this attack on cryptologist actually has something to do with terrorism.
It doesn't.
Yeah, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Blackberry, etc should all come out publicly and say
"We will produce secure encryption for the rest of the world, however the US government has mandated that US citizens are only entitled to 2nd best, now here is a list of YOUR representatives who voted for the bill"
If the representative were Named, Shamed and Blamed they might just loose their cushy jobs.
The problem being that most Americans won't understand and/or won't mind as 'they have nothing to hide'.
The root cause of the problem is civilian complacence and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.
If that becomes true, then phones sold in the US will have to conform or they will be considered contraband.
Sounds like the perfect time for them to relocate.
His title is Commander, US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), which is a unified sub-command of the US Military. Calling him "Cyber Commander" is a stupid journalistic oversimplification, it's not his actual title.
Of course, you can always tell government drones when they refer to "cyber" anything, but that is just the way it goes.
Nonsense - his complete profile is right here and his title is definitely Cyber Commander: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/C...
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH.
Ever heard of 'born again'? Hallelujah! Praise the lewd!
FTFY
Why would a transgendered man want to use the women's restroom? That is the complete opposite of what they want, and that is what this new law is mandating, contrary to their wishes.
Oh wait, I see, you just don't know how to use the phrase "transgendered man" correctly. Hint: a transgendered man is someone who was born female and now identifies as a man.
Although to be fair, many women would probably be uncomfortable with such a person in the women's room, but not because they're transgendered; because they're a man. Which is why such a person should be free to use the men's room instead, where he will fit in, which this law prohibits.
That's wonderfully confusing logic but sorry but no sausage and beans, not a man. This is not a question of identification of self but of biological reality.
As well, using your definitions, a transgendered woman (in biological reality a man) would not be welcome in the women's bathroom by women who identify with being women.
"So you are a parent, do you mind if the older principle goes into the boys bathroom to check out the young penis? Prove it's not because she wants to be a man. If you are a parent, do you mind the janitor going into the girls bathroom to check out the young ladies? Prove it's not because he wants to be a woman."
How is that any different or worse than same sex perversion of the same type?
If you accept that that old male principle goes into the bathroom to check out that young penis then what the hell do you care that the old woman would do it?
If you care that the old woman would do it then you must care that the old man would do it with the logical conclusion that there should be individual toilets for everyone.
Or we can all admit that Americans are kind of fucked up about nudity taboos and move on to something more important to discuss.
The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of the largest research parks in the world, but its been largely a pearl in an otherwise very salty oyster. Its home to Cisco, Redhat, Microsoft, and NetApp among others.
You are assuming that these companies will follow PayPal in leaving the state but that's not a sure thing.
PayPal wasn't yet moved in, but for those who are already there If the cost of moving outweighs the cost of lost business / reputation then they'll stay right where they are.
I don't trust corporate conscience when it puts 'shareholder value' at risk.
The problem I have with this news is that there is no mention of any particular content of this App that the ban is reasoned with. If Google was imposing consistent rules to ban religious fundamentalism - fine with me. Start banning the historic scriptures of basically every large religion, all of which are clearly calling for violence against non-believers of their faith. Yet, there are dozens of Apps which convey, for example, hate messages like: "[W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord . . . (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)." or “[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
Perhaps because the taliban has sanctions against it and the bible thumpers do not?
Two days of a bad app being available doesn't seem like the end of the world to me. They caught it, removed it, all done. If that's the price for not having a walled garden I think it's worth paying.
If it were two days of a banking trojan that during that time stole your credentials...would you feel the same?
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/612/
Am I the only one that's bothered by the fact that Microsoft's breakdown adds up to not-quite-100% and Apple's breakdown actually adds up to more than 100%? Who's doing this math anyway?
It's been outsourced.
Amazon's actual numbers here: https://images-na.ssl-images-a...
"PROFESSIONALS" = 74.5% male
"TECHNICIANS" = 88.8% male
"LABORERS & HELPERS" = 54.6% male
Technicians are not professionals?
Do you have the possibility of going to India for awhile?
In no way am I comparing the US to other countries and their current state of opportunity or fairness... mature places like Europe have incredibly entrenched wealth/ownership much moreso than the US, emerging markets like India/China still have crushing poverty for the majority of the population like the US hasn't seen for 100+ years. This is more a statement of where we are vs where we could (should) be going.
Still, emerging markets like India also offer incredible opportunity for building wealth - if you have enough to invest/risk, you can be making 4x the gains there that you might for equivalent investments in the US today.
I'm not talking about building wealth. I'm talking about gaining perspective and adjusting one's attitude to fit the realities of life as opposed to the sense of entitlement that we westerners are born with.
That person of the family of four who wants to go to night school but 'cannot' should go live in India for a year and then we'll see if they still think that they 'cannot' do night school back wherever they come from even given the inconveniences that they face.
Of course you can "hindsight" every choice every person ever made and point out places where their life _might_ have gone easier or better had they done the other thing.
What I dislike most about life in the USA is the extreme element of risk-reward that goes into so many life choices. Starting from an impoverished background and pursuing a medical doctor degree is a very high risk undertaking in the US, even if you have all the aptitudes for it. PreMed programs are arbitrarily difficult, they flunk out huge percentages of capable candidates just because the numbers allowed to progress up the ladder are strictly limited. Many "respected" schools are very expensive, so now they offer you loans: take out a huge debt on the chance that you get a good paying job later to pay it off. Most business has always been a matter of luck + connections - without the connections you need to be very lucky to succeed, with them you have a better chance but still can fail even if you make all the best choices (given the information available when you start.) The safer businesses (franchises, etc.) require you to be quite wealthy, and put that wealth at risk, just to start.
There is plenty of chaos in the US economy, enough that some poor people become rich and some rich people become poor, often with little connection to the "wiseness" of the choices that they have made.
Do you have the possibility of going to India for awhile?
But again it's not that surprising, even in well developed western democracies there's corruption, the question is how many and who. It isn't even evidence that the rich are corrupt, middle class folks steal and cheat as well, there's no reason to think that getting a boatload of money magically makes people honest.
Maybe the shocking news here is that more world leaders aren't on the list.
The thing about NSLs is that USGovernment is the least interested in having them challenged in an -actual- court (not FISA). NSLs are made to sound super scary, and they actually work that way. It will be interesting when someone stands up to them clearly and unequivocally (FBI v Apple started to ring a bell, but FBI backed out).
So it's very doubtful that the gov't will try to go after someone for erasing a canary, since that will take them in a road that they very much want to avoid.
You should read more history.
I see this "choices you made in the past put you where you are now" attitude a lot, especially in political debate. This is, of course, true - and it is also true that choices (or circumstances) of your parents, their parents, etc. also influence your starting point and therefore your chances of "a good life."
What I think is lacking in today's "American Dream," is the ability for anyone - regardless of present circumstance - to pick themselves up and realistically turn their life around to achieve "middle class" or better status within the next 10 years. Too many people are too held down by poverty to realistically do anything about it before they die, and this can happen to them before they even reach the age of high school graduation.
If you have to work 40+ hours a week to keep a safe roof over your head with decent clothing and food to eat, there's no realistic capacity to also pay for a valuable education that opens doors to a better job. I'm not saying that a higher education should be a requirement for a decent paying middle class job, high school or equivalent should be enough, but it mostly isn't. Throw in a couple of children, part time jobs that require travel expenses to/from work and have dynamic/unpredictable schedules, medical expenses and the other realities of living poor and the idea of night school becomes less and less realistic.
I'm not saying that it's impossible, people hit the lottery every week, and get other fortunate breaks much more often, but it's not something that people can just "put their mind to" and make happen on any kind of realistic/regular basis.
People can certainly pick themselves up and turn their lives around - if they haven't made too much of a mess of it already (which is generally based on the choices that they have made that put them wherever they are now).
My experience has been that the vast majority people "held down by poverty" in the US are actually held down by the limitations they set on themselves. There are social services throughout the country that just don't exist in third world countries. Education is free through high school. Free food. Free housing. Free medical care. None of this is available to the poor in third world countries.
Now if you take an Indian (the kind from India), generally speaking, and you put them in the US and you give them the advantages that an American gets just by being born in the US - they'll take those advantages and run with them and while they'll start with nothing they will generally succeed at building a life for themselves. It's a question of attitude and knowing what life is like when social services aren't available. They'll scrimp and they'll save and they won't spend 100 dollars on sneakers or spend their evenings watching serials or sports. They'll work that 40+ hours a week and then on top of that they'll go to school or open a small side business of their own. When that fails they'll do it again and again until it works.
Even in the situation you describe the overall situation you are describing is a major success story for most of the world. Those two kids that you 'threw in' were choices - either the choice of not using protection (again something that is freely available in the US that is often not available at all in other parts of the world) or the choice made to have those children. Choices again.
My father in law is from a third world country. His village still has no electricity even now and running water only in the sense that there are streams (no plumbing). He and his older brother were living alone in a town away from the family from when they were 11 and 13, respectively. They shared an apartment and leaved on what their parents could spare after paying for their not free education and the costs of feeding a family of nine. Today my father in law is a licensed doctor here in France - a country he didn't even speak the language of when he came here. His older brother is a genetic researcher and professor fi
Its cute that using a warrant canary makes people think that it gets them out of legal obligations, but it really doesn't.
When you pre-emotively tell people 'if we delete this, it means we got something we can't tell you about', when you delete it ... its effectively telling them right, we all know thats what it means, right?
Try to argue in court against a judge that you didn't tell people about the secret order, go ahead, lets see how that works out for you.
It blows me away that people think something like a warrant canary is clever enough to get around the people enforcing the requirement not to tell anyone.
Do you think the school yard bully gives a shit when you tell him you didn't do anything and didn't make fun of him while all the kids are laughing at hime cause you made fun of him? You guys are really out of touch with reality of you think this 'warrant canary' thing is to be trusted. Honestly, its not naive, its all the way to stupid.
Wouldn't it depend on the order's wording? "You must not tell anyone" vs "You must not communicate by any means" could make the difference here.
Granted this technical 'out' would probably only work once, if it worked at all.