The problem with multi-person assurance games is that they require everyone to cooperate to maximize the payoff. Think of it like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where "civil disobedience" is the "cooperation" case, and "keeping quiet" is the "defection" case. From Wikipedia: The dilemma then is that mutual cooperation yields a better outcome than mutual defection but it is not the rational outcome because the choice to cooperate, at the individual level, is not rational from a self-interested point of view.
I think that's what the parent was implying. Until CipherShed is totally re-written it will still have portions encumbered by TrueCrypt licensing; a progressive refactoring would have the rapid time to market of a fork but without the predecessor's license (eventually).
Netflix can't do as you suggest, because they want to continue operating in the US. Positive verification of the billing zip code is required; Netflix didn't implement that on a whim, they do it because the rights-holders require such checks. The TV and film industries like to control the availability of their properties at a national level, and since all the most desirably content comes from a small few corporations Netflix has to be careful not to offend.
I completely agree with your sentiment that it's really dumb to take the pictures in the first place if you aren't prepared for the risk, but that doesn't detract from the wrongness of actively stealing someone's photos. An Internet "leak" of photos isn't like a leaky pipe, they don't just appear on their own -- someone took them and shared them without the victim's permission. Negligence on the part of the victim doesn't diminish the culpability of the perpetrator; the victim may have contributory negligence in the civil courts, but stealing someone's photos, no matter how easy they made it, is still theft. Kinda like how a sexual assault victim's choice of clothing in no way mitigates the vile criminality of what was done to them.
I used to work for Apple as a Genius, and Deep Freeze was on every demo computer in the store (probably still is). It's a great way to provide instantly-clean systems, and to guarantee that users can try just about anything they want without causing any real damage.
You're right that most user data doesn't *need* to be encrypted, strictly speaking. As for nude selfies and whatnot -- if you don't like them, don't take them; just because you don't like them doesn't mean that people who WANT to take them deserve any less privacy, though. It might be dumb to have them on a device/account that can be so easily cracked, especially if you're a public figure, but that doesn't absolve the hacker of any wrongdoing.. they've still intentionally victimized someone.
Set the computer up with all the software they'll need, disable any admin access by them, install something akin to Deep Freeze. Every time they reboot things will revert automagically. You can create a small partition for the email app's data folders to serve as a persistant store, or you could just migrate them to simple webmail. GMail can check pop3/imap accounts for you.
When you say "multiplayer games" are you referring to all types, or just first-person shooters? From your description I would think the latter; many other games, such as RPGs and strategy games like Civilization, don't fit that description whatsoever. Many of them don't even have multiplayer combat -- it's co-op gameplay.
It's interesting that Aspirin was used as an example since, as you point out, it didn't become a "generic" term via the traditional routes; it's an incorrect example.
You aren't stuck on Lion because of 32-bit EFI; you're stuck because Apple decided to block installs onto Macs that predate 64-bit EFI. It has the same result for you, but the decision to stop providing "fat EFI" binaries WAS a decision -- one made to guarantee minimum performance, and not because of a technical requirement.
64bit builds run fine on 10.6 as long as you're using a 64-bit CPU. Snow Leopard was the last OS X version to support the Intel Core Duo chips in the first-gen MacBooks, which were strictly 32-bit; those won't be able to run 64-bit Chrome. If you set the compiler target to 10.6 or lower you get a "Universal Binary", which effectively includes two versions of the same executable. Something similar used to result if you set the target for 10.4 or lower -- you'd get a package which included executables for PowerPC processors alongside Intel binaries.
You're right that the real point of this is that they're dropping 32bit support for OS X, though.
Oh, don't worry. I didn't find anything offensive, I was just pointing out that when you resort to name-calling it is because you've run out of intelligent thoughts to articulate.
As off-topic as your question was... fine: You are a citizen of a different country; so no, you do not get to vote in the US Presidential election. If you'd like to apply to emigrate to the United States you can. Then you can vote here. If you can't discuss something without pulling out insults.. then you should go hang out on 4chan. Disparaging remarks in political discussions aren't the same thing as jokes; they're just profanity, the fall-back of someone with nothing better to say.
The discussion was about the obligation of a society to care for citizens injured in its defense. Policy is set by the Commander-in-Chief, soldiers don't get a vote in which orders they obey. Penalizing of injured veterans, for loyalty, is nothing more than a straw-man argument to let you lash out at the policies of the government to which they swore allegiance; it's just intentional conflation.
Having multiple sockets will only profit you in SOME cases; the rest of the time it will hurt performance -- execution units on the same die can share cached data. Threads which don't rely on passing large amounts of data between themselves (but which move a lot of data individually) would potentially get a bump in throughput using 2 sockets, assuming the bus isn't the bottleneck.
There is actually precedent for protected communications like that. Conversations held via TTY are protected under Federal law. TTY operators (the folks acting as voices/ears for deaf people pre-TTS software) were barred from disclosing any of the communications which they relayed, and any records resulting from the operation of the TTY machines was likewise protected as privileged.
Frankly, we don't know anything about how these theoretical brain implants would operate; whether a machine component can take the place of an organic neuron and replicate ALL the functions isn't something we've been able to research yet. We'd do better to focus on tightening laws that have real value now, erring on the side of less-legislation for the future-unknowns.
You've hit the nail on the head, I think: when your memories can be extracted for objective review does the 5th Amendment still protect them? The question will be whether "memory copying" constitutes "interrogation"; if it does, then the 5th Amendment applies. If it doesn't, then police can apply for a warrant under the 4th Amendment, as they do for DNA samples.
Whether you are talking about a memory-reading device that works externally, or a device inserted surgically, the issue will be the same: does the police accessing your mind via that route violate the 5th Amendment. I'm not sure whether a precedent exists that would apply in that situation. Your memories of committing a crime may have constitutional protection, but a recording you make wouldn't (4th Amendment would only protect it up to the point a search warrant is issued), so it's a legal grey area. Any other device which records audio or video, inside your body or not, but which doesn't constitute part of your "mind", will only be protected by the 4th Amendment.
If you commit a crime, and videotape yourself doing it, the police can execute a search warrant to recover the recording and use it against you in court. Just because you choose to hide the recorder inside your own body -- whether it's surgically implanted or just up your arse -- doesn't change the legal argument. New legal ground will only be exposed when we have brain implants which directly interface with your mind; if the device records your thoughts as you think them THEN the 5th Amendment would potentially come into play.
Like I said, the ER doc gave me percocet when I was burned; went to see my GP a couple of days later for a follow-up and he switched me to Tylenol #3 (Tylenol+codeine, if you don't know). Codeine causes more itching than oxy/hydocodone -- a LOT more, in my experience. Too much for Benadryl to prevent, so it was maddening. When I did some googling and found out codeine is supposed to be avoided in burn patients because reasons I was seriously pissed.. that's the side-effect people don't mention. Opiates make you euphoric, and also sharpens your temper to a knife-edge.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with multi-person assurance games is that they require everyone to cooperate to maximize the payoff. Think of it like the Prisoner's Dilemma, where "civil disobedience" is the "cooperation" case, and "keeping quiet" is the "defection" case. From Wikipedia: The dilemma then is that mutual cooperation yields a better outcome than mutual defection but it is not the rational outcome because the choice to cooperate, at the individual level, is not rational from a self-interested point of view.
I think that's what the parent was implying. Until CipherShed is totally re-written it will still have portions encumbered by TrueCrypt licensing; a progressive refactoring would have the rapid time to market of a fork but without the predecessor's license (eventually).
Netflix can't do as you suggest, because they want to continue operating in the US. Positive verification of the billing zip code is required; Netflix didn't implement that on a whim, they do it because the rights-holders require such checks. The TV and film industries like to control the availability of their properties at a national level, and since all the most desirably content comes from a small few corporations Netflix has to be careful not to offend.
I completely agree with your sentiment that it's really dumb to take the pictures in the first place if you aren't prepared for the risk, but that doesn't detract from the wrongness of actively stealing someone's photos. An Internet "leak" of photos isn't like a leaky pipe, they don't just appear on their own -- someone took them and shared them without the victim's permission. Negligence on the part of the victim doesn't diminish the culpability of the perpetrator; the victim may have contributory negligence in the civil courts, but stealing someone's photos, no matter how easy they made it, is still theft. Kinda like how a sexual assault victim's choice of clothing in no way mitigates the vile criminality of what was done to them.
I used to work for Apple as a Genius, and Deep Freeze was on every demo computer in the store (probably still is). It's a great way to provide instantly-clean systems, and to guarantee that users can try just about anything they want without causing any real damage.
You're right that most user data doesn't *need* to be encrypted, strictly speaking. As for nude selfies and whatnot -- if you don't like them, don't take them; just because you don't like them doesn't mean that people who WANT to take them deserve any less privacy, though. It might be dumb to have them on a device/account that can be so easily cracked, especially if you're a public figure, but that doesn't absolve the hacker of any wrongdoing.. they've still intentionally victimized someone.
If there is no ability to change ISPs so this won't work; they specifically need to use dial-up to access the email account.
Set the computer up with all the software they'll need, disable any admin access by them, install something akin to Deep Freeze. Every time they reboot things will revert automagically. You can create a small partition for the email app's data folders to serve as a persistant store, or you could just migrate them to simple webmail. GMail can check pop3/imap accounts for you.
Before the first rockets were ever built they were featured in scifi adventure stories.
When you say "multiplayer games" are you referring to all types, or just first-person shooters? From your description I would think the latter; many other games, such as RPGs and strategy games like Civilization, don't fit that description whatsoever. Many of them don't even have multiplayer combat -- it's co-op gameplay.
It's interesting that Aspirin was used as an example since, as you point out, it didn't become a "generic" term via the traditional routes; it's an incorrect example.
You aren't stuck on Lion because of 32-bit EFI; you're stuck because Apple decided to block installs onto Macs that predate 64-bit EFI. It has the same result for you, but the decision to stop providing "fat EFI" binaries WAS a decision -- one made to guarantee minimum performance, and not because of a technical requirement.
64bit builds run fine on 10.6 as long as you're using a 64-bit CPU. Snow Leopard was the last OS X version to support the Intel Core Duo chips in the first-gen MacBooks, which were strictly 32-bit; those won't be able to run 64-bit Chrome. If you set the compiler target to 10.6 or lower you get a "Universal Binary", which effectively includes two versions of the same executable. Something similar used to result if you set the target for 10.4 or lower -- you'd get a package which included executables for PowerPC processors alongside Intel binaries. You're right that the real point of this is that they're dropping 32bit support for OS X, though.
Oh, don't worry. I didn't find anything offensive, I was just pointing out that when you resort to name-calling it is because you've run out of intelligent thoughts to articulate.
As off-topic as your question was... fine: You are a citizen of a different country; so no, you do not get to vote in the US Presidential election. If you'd like to apply to emigrate to the United States you can. Then you can vote here. If you can't discuss something without pulling out insults.. then you should go hang out on 4chan. Disparaging remarks in political discussions aren't the same thing as jokes; they're just profanity, the fall-back of someone with nothing better to say.
The discussion was about the obligation of a society to care for citizens injured in its defense. Policy is set by the Commander-in-Chief, soldiers don't get a vote in which orders they obey. Penalizing of injured veterans, for loyalty, is nothing more than a straw-man argument to let you lash out at the policies of the government to which they swore allegiance; it's just intentional conflation.
Having multiple sockets will only profit you in SOME cases; the rest of the time it will hurt performance -- execution units on the same die can share cached data. Threads which don't rely on passing large amounts of data between themselves (but which move a lot of data individually) would potentially get a bump in throughput using 2 sockets, assuming the bus isn't the bottleneck.
That should read "per processor", yes?
The soldiers do what their chain-of-command orders them to do. If you don't like it, then elect a Commander-in-Chief who will do something different.
There is actually precedent for protected communications like that. Conversations held via TTY are protected under Federal law. TTY operators (the folks acting as voices/ears for deaf people pre-TTS software) were barred from disclosing any of the communications which they relayed, and any records resulting from the operation of the TTY machines was likewise protected as privileged. Frankly, we don't know anything about how these theoretical brain implants would operate; whether a machine component can take the place of an organic neuron and replicate ALL the functions isn't something we've been able to research yet. We'd do better to focus on tightening laws that have real value now, erring on the side of less-legislation for the future-unknowns.
You've hit the nail on the head, I think: when your memories can be extracted for objective review does the 5th Amendment still protect them? The question will be whether "memory copying" constitutes "interrogation"; if it does, then the 5th Amendment applies. If it doesn't, then police can apply for a warrant under the 4th Amendment, as they do for DNA samples.
Whether you are talking about a memory-reading device that works externally, or a device inserted surgically, the issue will be the same: does the police accessing your mind via that route violate the 5th Amendment. I'm not sure whether a precedent exists that would apply in that situation. Your memories of committing a crime may have constitutional protection, but a recording you make wouldn't (4th Amendment would only protect it up to the point a search warrant is issued), so it's a legal grey area. Any other device which records audio or video, inside your body or not, but which doesn't constitute part of your "mind", will only be protected by the 4th Amendment.
If you commit a crime, and videotape yourself doing it, the police can execute a search warrant to recover the recording and use it against you in court. Just because you choose to hide the recorder inside your own body -- whether it's surgically implanted or just up your arse -- doesn't change the legal argument. New legal ground will only be exposed when we have brain implants which directly interface with your mind; if the device records your thoughts as you think them THEN the 5th Amendment would potentially come into play.
Like I said, the ER doc gave me percocet when I was burned; went to see my GP a couple of days later for a follow-up and he switched me to Tylenol #3 (Tylenol+codeine, if you don't know). Codeine causes more itching than oxy/hydocodone -- a LOT more, in my experience. Too much for Benadryl to prevent, so it was maddening. When I did some googling and found out codeine is supposed to be avoided in burn patients because reasons I was seriously pissed.. that's the side-effect people don't mention. Opiates make you euphoric, and also sharpens your temper to a knife-edge.
I'm picturing something akin to those Shuttle missions to repair flaws in the Hubble telescope's optics, except involving a NASA-engineered paperclip.