You can crack encryption the same way, except instead of taking a few hours with cutting torches, it takes hundreds of billions of years of computer computing clusters working well after the human race is extinct. Neither solution gives the inventor of the security mechanism much more of an advantage.
Or apple could simply have implemented proper encryption in which they actually can't help. Given that the government is not their primary customer, I don't think they care that much about helping them. If anything, the government probably wants a phone that can't be hacked by Apple (or anyone with Apple's secrets) for themselves, even if they don't want others to have that.
If cracking encryption was that easy, encryption would be nearly useless. That's not to say that this particular device will be hard to break into. It is very possible there is a weak password or screen pattern that will be easy to bypass, but if that's not the case, there is good reason to believe that the security mechanisms, if implemented properly by Apple, will be more than adequate at preventing anyone (including Apple) who doesn't know the password from getting in.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
My vote for a democrat this year is contingent upon Sanders winning the nomination. I have never in my life voted for the lesser of 2 evils, and I'm not about to start now. Voting for the more practical of 2 goods is something I can be on board with (i.e. voting for Sanders as opposed to 3rd party or independent candidate who might represent my views on issues better).
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
1. You believe in science
One can believe in science w/o necessarily believing that the word on AGW is final
I didn't say anything about AGW or it's finality. But if you want to find nearly all the people who are sure global warming is a fraud, you look in the Republican party. This also goes for people who think the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie, etc.
2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)
Only if 'believe' implies interpreting the constitution, as opposed to making up things that it doesn't say.
There are numerous examples of republicans failing to uphold the constitution. The *only* part of the constitution that republicans consistently uphold is the 2nd amendment. You can find lots of republicans who want censorship of what they consider obscenity, warrantless searches and lack of due process (for terrorists), different laws for gay people, preferential treatment of christianity over other religions, etc
3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians
Plenty of Republicans don't hate any of these groups. Neither do I. I do have an exception - Muslims, and that's b'cos of a combination of what Islam teaches - intolerance and hatred of non-Muslims - combined w/ an actual practice of those beliefs by an indeterminable number of Muslims worldwide
Sure plenty of repunlicans don;t hate any of these people. But if you do happen to hate those people, then the Republican party is where you will find the most like-minded friends.
4. You are willing to pay some taxes
Nobody is opposed to ALL taxes. But given the current levels of taxation on all income groups, as well as the excessively complicated tax code, there is widespread support for any combination of simplified and flat taxes.
I agree. But if you are a person who is infuriated at the notion of paying *any* taxes, you will fit right into the Republican party.
5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months
If one is willing to keep funding everything that President Obama wants - from Syrian refugees to Planned Parenthood, one should definitely avoid voting Republican, and stick to the Dems. We don't want you polluting our party
I'm talking about a person who doesn't necessarily want to spend as much as the democrats, but just somebody who thinks that not paying our bills (i.e. refusing to raise the debt ceiling), and somebody who is not willing to use shutting the whole government down as a political tool.
6. You don't want to attack other countries
...that are Muslim, and when there are no US interests involved. It is however okay, if one is a Democrat, to attack countries like Serbia and carve out large parts of their territory - like Bosnia or Kosovo - and recognize their separatist government, particularly if Muslim. It's particularly okay since it does squat to benefit the US. Just don't attack any MUSLIM countries, or any countries when US interests are involved.
Show me where I said it was ok for democrats to start wars. And show me where I said people should join the democrat party if they don't want to start wars. I would say overall both major parties are parties of war. The Republicans used to be conservatives who opposed foreign intervention, and that changed with the neocons. If you are a person who advocates peace, the Republican party is probably currently the most ill-fitting party for you, with the democrats being a close 2nd.
7. You actually want smaller government
As Rand Paul proved, that's actually welcome
If Ron Paul proved anything, he proved exactly how much of an outsider he is in the Republican party. A few days ago when asked who his supporters should support in the 2016 presidential election he said "Nobody in t
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Other ways in which the Republican party may not be for you include:
1. You believe in science
2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)
3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians
4. You are willing to pay some taxes
5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months
6. You don't want to attack other countries
7. You actually want smaller government
8. You don't want corrupt politicians representing you
9. You are a William F Buckley conservative
10. You are a Ronald Reagan conservative
I didn't start 2015 wanting to vote for a socialist, but I would vote for just about anyone who can convince me they are not a crook, and in this election only a socialist succeeded, so I guess I'm voting for a socialist.
As an independent I'd love for their to be a sane conservative voice to oppose the other candidate that isn't full of shit, but unfortunately we don't really get one this election cycle. That's cool, I'm happy we at least have one. It makes my decision making process pretty easy.
This was certainly my reaction as well, but to be fair, I have no idea how many scientists they had to begin with. There is probably some optimal number of scientists, and I would guess we are probably under that number, but I honestly don't know what that number is.
The best way to protect ideas is to copy them as much as possible. Protecting the "owner" of an idea is a different story. This involves restricting use of an idea only to people that have paid for the rights to the idea.
Do we need intellectual property laws? Probably, but what current intellectual property laws do is more like protecting young girls by ensuring they can only marry who pays their father the most money.
It *could* be a sign of weakness. Or it could be a brilliant business decision. In any case I wouldn't consider this open letter to be *useful* feedback. It doesn't take a PR mastermind to figure out that people don't like having their time wasted. People like to feel important, and wasting their time works against this.
By the same token revoking this guy's order makes everyone else who is still getting their Model X feel more important because they are getting this thing that is privilege that could have been revoked.
And the high demand is not causing the price to go up because of price controls. So it's quite possible to get the car at below cost, especially if you are an early adopter. The Playstation 3 was sold at a loss for several years, because Sony was assuming that they would eventually be able to produce them more cheaply, and they wanted the benefit of price stability.
Market value, cost, and price are not always in sync.
It's not like there can be only one asshole. Furthermore, it depends why he was late. IF he was late because he just doesn't give a fuck about making people wait, then he's an asshole. Why was he late? I have no idea. People are late for all kinds of reasons good and bad. Writing a shitty open letter also makes you an asshole. What are the circumstances that cause someone to write a shitty letter other than being an asshole? Death in the family? Brain tumor? No clue, but I'm willing to bet it's just that he's an asshole with a false sense of entitlement.
Some people will view Tesla negatively because of it, some will view Tesla positively because of it. There is no law of business that says that the net PR cost must be negative.
Yes, it is. You are just allowed to refuse service *because* they are black. CEOs can be racist. Customers can be black *and* offensive. If the racist CEO refuses service to an offensive (beyond their blackness) black person, that's fine.
There is a specific law against refusing service to protected classes of people. Assholes are not one of those protected classes. You can be black, but if you are also an asshole, then the asshole part of you can be denied service, and this part ruins it for the black part of you which would have otherwise been protected.
Actually they do have the right to treat you like shit. And you have the right to treat them like shit. It is just common courtesy not to exercise this right all the time.
Corporations frequently try to repair relationships with disgruntled customers (even the ones who are wrong), because it usually makes better business sense to do so. This doesn't mean are required to. If making the customer happy is not profitable even in the long term (e.g. the customer won't be happy unless the company does something very costly), then you shouldn't be surprised if they decide no to repair the relationship.
In fact I think the calculation made was that holding a position on the Model X pre-order line is considered a privilege, and revoking this privilege reinforces that. It makes everyone else who gets one feel like what they bought from Tesla is valuable.
I think it was a brilliant business move that a lot of other corporations are not nimble enough to make.
Tesla the company (an abstract concept) literally can't be offended. Elon is the head of Tesla and used his position right a wrong from his point of view. Was it vindictive? Probably, but there is also an element of "Why should this ungrateful prick get one of my cars, when someone else more appreciative would love to have it."
He no doubt estimated the cost in negative publicity (it might even be positive publicity), and decided that cancelling this guy's order was worth it.
It's not like Elon slashed Stewart's tires. All he did was decide not to sell him a car.
I think people can take "The customer is always right" a little too literally, and lose sight of what they are actually entitled to.
There is a difference between a legitimate sense of entitlement and a false sense of entitlement, and the adjective "entitled" is used for both. I would argue that Stewart has a false sense of entitlement for the things he feels he was denied, and Elon has a legitimate sense of entitlement to run his company the way he sees fit.
If you google "violence" in google, it lists 3 definitions. Under the one labelled "law" it says: "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.".
If you don't want to consider pointing a gun at someone's head violence, then that's fine. That's a semantic debate that I don't want to get into. But when you say "I don't think the group that took over the wildlife refuge is violent", then you should also provide a disclaimer that you don't consider threats of violence (e.g. an armed bank robbery where no one is injured) to be violence, so people know what you are really talking about. As long as people know what your particular definition of violence it is, I don't think you will get any disagreement.
Yes, I agree by your definition, this group has not committed any violent acts yet. Some of them got in a shootout with the cops, but since none of the cops were injured (were actually hit with any bullets), they weren't being violent even in that incident either.
Slashdot Mirror
You can crack encryption the same way, except instead of taking a few hours with cutting torches, it takes hundreds of billions of years of computer computing clusters working well after the human race is extinct. Neither solution gives the inventor of the security mechanism much more of an advantage.
Apple has nothing to gain (and everything to lose) by actually having a back door. Apple doesn't make money by spying on people.
Or apple could simply have implemented proper encryption in which they actually can't help. Given that the government is not their primary customer, I don't think they care that much about helping them. If anything, the government probably wants a phone that can't be hacked by Apple (or anyone with Apple's secrets) for themselves, even if they don't want others to have that.
If cracking encryption was that easy, encryption would be nearly useless. That's not to say that this particular device will be hard to break into. It is very possible there is a weak password or screen pattern that will be easy to bypass, but if that's not the case, there is good reason to believe that the security mechanisms, if implemented properly by Apple, will be more than adequate at preventing anyone (including Apple) who doesn't know the password from getting in.
My vote for a democrat this year is contingent upon Sanders winning the nomination. I have never in my life voted for the lesser of 2 evils, and I'm not about to start now. Voting for the more practical of 2 goods is something I can be on board with (i.e. voting for Sanders as opposed to 3rd party or independent candidate who might represent my views on issues better).
1. You believe in science
One can believe in science w/o necessarily believing that the word on AGW is final
I didn't say anything about AGW or it's finality. But if you want to find nearly all the people who are sure global warming is a fraud, you look in the Republican party. This also goes for people who think the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie, etc.
2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)
Only if 'believe' implies interpreting the constitution, as opposed to making up things that it doesn't say.
There are numerous examples of republicans failing to uphold the constitution. The *only* part of the constitution that republicans consistently uphold is the 2nd amendment. You can find lots of republicans who want censorship of what they consider obscenity, warrantless searches and lack of due process (for terrorists), different laws for gay people, preferential treatment of christianity over other religions, etc
3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians
Plenty of Republicans don't hate any of these groups. Neither do I. I do have an exception - Muslims, and that's b'cos of a combination of what Islam teaches - intolerance and hatred of non-Muslims - combined w/ an actual practice of those beliefs by an indeterminable number of Muslims worldwide
Sure plenty of repunlicans don;t hate any of these people. But if you do happen to hate those people, then the Republican party is where you will find the most like-minded friends.
4. You are willing to pay some taxes
Nobody is opposed to ALL taxes. But given the current levels of taxation on all income groups, as well as the excessively complicated tax code, there is widespread support for any combination of simplified and flat taxes.
I agree. But if you are a person who is infuriated at the notion of paying *any* taxes, you will fit right into the Republican party.
5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months
If one is willing to keep funding everything that President Obama wants - from Syrian refugees to Planned Parenthood, one should definitely avoid voting Republican, and stick to the Dems. We don't want you polluting our party
I'm talking about a person who doesn't necessarily want to spend as much as the democrats, but just somebody who thinks that not paying our bills (i.e. refusing to raise the debt ceiling), and somebody who is not willing to use shutting the whole government down as a political tool.
6. You don't want to attack other countries
...that are Muslim, and when there are no US interests involved. It is however okay, if one is a Democrat, to attack countries like Serbia and carve out large parts of their territory - like Bosnia or Kosovo - and recognize their separatist government, particularly if Muslim. It's particularly okay since it does squat to benefit the US. Just don't attack any MUSLIM countries, or any countries when US interests are involved.
Show me where I said it was ok for democrats to start wars. And show me where I said people should join the democrat party if they don't want to start wars. I would say overall both major parties are parties of war. The Republicans used to be conservatives who opposed foreign intervention, and that changed with the neocons. If you are a person who advocates peace, the Republican party is probably currently the most ill-fitting party for you, with the democrats being a close 2nd.
7. You actually want smaller government
As Rand Paul proved, that's actually welcome
If Ron Paul proved anything, he proved exactly how much of an outsider he is in the Republican party. A few days ago when asked who his supporters should support in the 2016 presidential election he said "Nobody in t
1. You believe in science
2. You believe in the whole constitution (not just the 2nd amendment)
3. You don't hate minorities, women, gay people, nor non-Christians
4. You are willing to pay some taxes
5. You don't want to shut down the government every 3 months
6. You don't want to attack other countries
7. You actually want smaller government
8. You don't want corrupt politicians representing you
9. You are a William F Buckley conservative
10. You are a Ronald Reagan conservative
I didn't start 2015 wanting to vote for a socialist, but I would vote for just about anyone who can convince me they are not a crook, and in this election only a socialist succeeded, so I guess I'm voting for a socialist.
As an independent I'd love for their to be a sane conservative voice to oppose the other candidate that isn't full of shit, but unfortunately we don't really get one this election cycle. That's cool, I'm happy we at least have one. It makes my decision making process pretty easy.
This was certainly my reaction as well, but to be fair, I have no idea how many scientists they had to begin with. There is probably some optimal number of scientists, and I would guess we are probably under that number, but I honestly don't know what that number is.
The best way to protect ideas is to copy them as much as possible. Protecting the "owner" of an idea is a different story. This involves restricting use of an idea only to people that have paid for the rights to the idea.
Do we need intellectual property laws? Probably, but what current intellectual property laws do is more like protecting young girls by ensuring they can only marry who pays their father the most money.
I think it's more that they feel that Elon Musk has in some sense earned the right to be a jerk, and this blogger hasn't. I tend to agree.
It *could* be a sign of weakness. Or it could be a brilliant business decision. In any case I wouldn't consider this open letter to be *useful* feedback. It doesn't take a PR mastermind to figure out that people don't like having their time wasted. People like to feel important, and wasting their time works against this.
By the same token revoking this guy's order makes everyone else who is still getting their Model X feel more important because they are getting this thing that is privilege that could have been revoked.
And the high demand is not causing the price to go up because of price controls. So it's quite possible to get the car at below cost, especially if you are an early adopter. The Playstation 3 was sold at a loss for several years, because Sony was assuming that they would eventually be able to produce them more cheaply, and they wanted the benefit of price stability.
Market value, cost, and price are not always in sync.
It's not like there can be only one asshole. Furthermore, it depends why he was late. IF he was late because he just doesn't give a fuck about making people wait, then he's an asshole. Why was he late? I have no idea. People are late for all kinds of reasons good and bad. Writing a shitty open letter also makes you an asshole. What are the circumstances that cause someone to write a shitty letter other than being an asshole? Death in the family? Brain tumor? No clue, but I'm willing to bet it's just that he's an asshole with a false sense of entitlement.
Some people will view Tesla negatively because of it, some will view Tesla positively because of it. There is no law of business that says that the net PR cost must be negative.
Yes, it is. You are just allowed to refuse service *because* they are black. CEOs can be racist. Customers can be black *and* offensive. If the racist CEO refuses service to an offensive (beyond their blackness) black person, that's fine.
There is a specific law against refusing service to protected classes of people. Assholes are not one of those protected classes. You can be black, but if you are also an asshole, then the asshole part of you can be denied service, and this part ruins it for the black part of you which would have otherwise been protected.
You should make your own car.
Actually they do have the right to treat you like shit. And you have the right to treat them like shit. It is just common courtesy not to exercise this right all the time.
Corporations frequently try to repair relationships with disgruntled customers (even the ones who are wrong), because it usually makes better business sense to do so. This doesn't mean are required to. If making the customer happy is not profitable even in the long term (e.g. the customer won't be happy unless the company does something very costly), then you shouldn't be surprised if they decide no to repair the relationship.
In fact I think the calculation made was that holding a position on the Model X pre-order line is considered a privilege, and revoking this privilege reinforces that. It makes everyone else who gets one feel like what they bought from Tesla is valuable.
I think it was a brilliant business move that a lot of other corporations are not nimble enough to make.
Tesla the company (an abstract concept) literally can't be offended. Elon is the head of Tesla and used his position right a wrong from his point of view. Was it vindictive? Probably, but there is also an element of "Why should this ungrateful prick get one of my cars, when someone else more appreciative would love to have it."
He no doubt estimated the cost in negative publicity (it might even be positive publicity), and decided that cancelling this guy's order was worth it.
It's not like Elon slashed Stewart's tires. All he did was decide not to sell him a car.
I think people can take "The customer is always right" a little too literally, and lose sight of what they are actually entitled to.
There is a difference between a legitimate sense of entitlement and a false sense of entitlement, and the adjective "entitled" is used for both. I would argue that Stewart has a false sense of entitlement for the things he feels he was denied, and Elon has a legitimate sense of entitlement to run his company the way he sees fit.
That's like asking if "Has anyone ever gotten an A in a class?"
But I've already trademarked "fine" and "brother"...
If you google "violence" in google, it lists 3 definitions. Under the one labelled "law" it says: "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.".
How many Occupy protesters threatened to use deadly force if law enforcement attempted to remove them?
All the more reason for anti-government types to buy them I guess.
If you don't want to consider pointing a gun at someone's head violence, then that's fine. That's a semantic debate that I don't want to get into. But when you say "I don't think the group that took over the wildlife refuge is violent", then you should also provide a disclaimer that you don't consider threats of violence (e.g. an armed bank robbery where no one is injured) to be violence, so people know what you are really talking about. As long as people know what your particular definition of violence it is, I don't think you will get any disagreement.
Yes, I agree by your definition, this group has not committed any violent acts yet. Some of them got in a shootout with the cops, but since none of the cops were injured (were actually hit with any bullets), they weren't being violent even in that incident either.