That's a bit extreem don't you think? Jack booted thugs? Seriously, Hitler? C'mon, no one buys that. Also, Donald Trump is running on the republican ticket, but he is far from an establishment republican like Jeb Bush is. Hilary is literally a 30 year career politician at various levels of government. She is the embodiment of Claire Underwood, with less sex appeal, and more political savvy, if thats even possible.
Also, I didn't say Donald Trump is a good guy, or a good leader. I only said that he found a nerve in American society today, which suffers at the hands on the special interests, locked in a dance with American politics.
But about that business of his. No doubt, he owns some of the most fantastic addresses in the world. The real-estate under his towers in Manhattan are worth quite literally billions. You don't get your company to that size "with an iron fist, and no help or good ideas from anyone else", or by "blaming everyone but himself as he never accepts responsibility".
Donald's organization The Trump Organization has tens of thousands of employees, activities spanning the globe, and is a model for modern business, leveraging its brand and assets. America could use some of that kind of thinking. Stop fixating on the "politically incorrect" in what he says. Before judging someone on their rants, ask yourself "what is the most important part of his job". I don't care if my dentist is a muslim-hating womanizer, as long as he does my dental work well. Likewise, I don't care if Donald trump disparaged women in a Larry King episode, or suggested "stop and frisk". We aren't electing a president of the National Organization of Women, or a chief of the NYPD. We are electing a president. I want him to curb our addition to international intervention, and improve our economy by moving it more towards a "laissez faire" economic model. Something he might be familiar with having an education in economics from one of the worlds best schools for that stuff.
Still, he right about one thing: She and the rest of Washington DC have done nothing but worsen the situation over so many years. Now, even Russia is involved, when they weren't before. Whatever you can say about Donald Trump, at least he isn't a politician. At this point, it seems smart to "let someone else have a crack at it" than the same Political insiders who have amassed so much money and power and have shown very little in return over the years. This game of "insider politics" is rotting America to its core.
Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after, win or lose.
Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction of him. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff when it all came to light. Just imagine what else they could be hiding, in the knowledge still under wraps. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth, is "I'm not them". And thats a really important message.
When you have the sort of money that Donald Trump or Putin have (I've read Putin may have about $70 billion), then you generally make deals with each other. Billionaires generally come from two backgrounds, founding extremely successful companies that are one-offs. (Zara, Microsoft, Google, Apple), or by making a large number of deals that add to your holdings over time, increasing its value (Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, Waleed Bin-Talal, Mark Cuban).
These guys have dealings with so many ventures it's realistically impossible to not find a connection between all of them to each other in some way. That's how they got to be so big in the first place.
Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after.
Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about his mouth, is "I'm not them".
What? What sort of ridiculous argument is this? You still have an apartment at the end of the lease, does that mean you shouldn't charge for rent? Fucking ridiculous. Just cause you can make a string of words sound like a good point doesn't mean you have one.
You transmit data over a network, the time it spend transmitting, the network could have been transmitting someone else's data. Thats opportunity cost.
The network costs a fortune so that it can transfer data. Thats capital costs.
The network consumes land, power, leased lines, leased fiber that the power company put up, equipment maintenance, etc etc. Thats operating cost.
Double stuffed Oreo cookies should cost more than Oreo cookies, and faster, better networks should cost more than shitty ones.
Wikipedia is not an "entertainment database". This law is ridiculous and I hope IMBD, et al sue California in federal court for violating its 1st amendment rights. How can you enact a silencing law that only silences certain people? Isn't that discrimination? There are age-related anti-discrimination laws already on the books, and they should be plenty sufficient for protecting actors as well as all other kinds of labor.
Excuse me, would you kindly tell me where the land of free is?
Whats is wrong with "A" technology? It is a technology if it solves a problem. Technology is not singular (i.e. space technology, video technology), and it is not plural.
I actually agree with what this solution does. No one will care that their netflix packets are prioritized lower than their voice packets, since netflix streams and voice needs to be near real-time. Same thing for SSH sessions, page loads, or IM applications. They need faster response times than your Carbonite subscription or drop-box sync.
The rules should be really thought out. No application bandwidth limiting, just prioritization. Don't allow stupidity by allowing application developers to set their own preferences (sorry advertisers).
Large companies do this all the time to ensure the quality of their hosted VOIP phones and critical applications. It's called QOS (quality-of-service) or COS (class-of-service) tags. The packets themselves are tagged by some network-level equipment by policy sets. These are then respected by the edge routers so that the packets are either prioritized extremely urgent, or somewhat urgent, or not quite urgent, and then for everything else, its a catch-all "best-effort" solution.
Doing it this way (but making it adjustable to the home user by doing something like... right-click on the application and set its "priority" on a scale or something) could be really useful, especially in bandwidth-limited deployments when your backup starts and kills your phone conversation.
To the home user, especially with AT&T and T-Mobile now doing "Wifi calling", this would make that option much, much more palpable.
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure . This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.
First and foremost: I completely agree.
Now devils advocate:
How about unreasonable search and seizure?
Your choice to broadcast your signal gives implicit rights for them to read the signal, much like your choice to place your garbage into the county provided can on the curb.
No. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy. What about the privacy of the company who has licensed or purchased the spectrum? The signal is in their possession, and the government just trampled it like a heard of bison running over a bunny. Fuck no. Thats what warrants are for.
How about due process?
See above, there is not a due process violation if all they are doing is processing through the signal you sent.
Again, no. In court, if I can't inspect the device that grabbed what they *THOUGHT* was my signal, how could I defend myself? These law enforcement toys are secret, beyond discovery from defense attorneys. So how can you question the charges, or face your accuser, which you are allowed to do. Imagine for a moment that there is a bug in the logging software, and it reports your phone as the one trying to hook up with the 13 year old middle schooler. Just, fuck no. Again. Due Process.
How about manufactured evidence?
There is a chain of custody to be followed, manufactured evidence would require breaking a seal on the device, much like a radar gun.
Not what I was saying. What about "we can't let them know about how we learned about this, so lets say he logged into a bogus website, and generate some logs.
Is using the spectrum like this even legal? Aren't they violating the licensing laws of the spectrum?
One would hope they got a licence from the FCC. *snort* (sorry, couldn't keep a straight face on that one)
Seriously though, the same argument that has been set forth about using open WiFi APs and even breaking WEP/WPA to use APs that are broadcasting past a property line apply here with your phone and any cleartext that is sent / cyphertext that is broken.
I'm happily in a state where a warrant is required to use one of these... not that I think they are used anyway, but at least if there is no warrant the evidence is inadmissible and via poisoned fruit any evidence looked for because of one of these also becomes inadmissible (i think).
-nb
This is not that. In those scenarios, your listening. These devices talk and impersonate cell towers. They are broadcasting in that spectrum which a company has purchased outright. They do so against those licenses. Now wipe that smirk off your face, and get off my lawn!
Thats the wrong question. The better question is: How much harm has the apparatus done to our freedoms and economy? Europe will no longer trust its data in our hands, and much of the world becomes more adversarial. Is nothing sacred anymore? I shutter to think of the day our thoughts can be digitized, stored, analyzed, and archived.
As for the "intelligence apparatus" and its usefulness... Please. To do what? Protect human life? Congress could save more human beings THIS WEEK in the US by banning tobacco and classifying nicotine a narcotic.
Deaths due to terrorism since 1995 in the US: 3,264 (source) Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)
I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms. But so does government surveillance, and I would ban that. Its too expensive, doesn't protect all that much life, and tramples on our ideology.
If you go about it like that, then you are in effect encouraging companies to remain quiet about defects and cause confusion. Its terrible when a product causes injury, and I would agree that people who were hurt before such a recall have a claim and should be compensated.
However for a company to come out and openly admit that there are faults in its product, opens it up to all sorts of claims. You don't want the government to have to sue each company into a recall, you want them to do it voluntarily. Offering them a liability limitation encourages them to issue the recall in the first place.
No. We are way past calling this a slippery slope. Look up, theres the cliff we fell off.
How about unreasonable search and seizure? How about due process? How about manufactured evidence? Is using the spectrum like this even legal? Aren't they violating the licensing laws of the spectrum?
If they went to get a warrant, and asked the cell companies to give them the data, that would be legal. We can't allow them to trample on our freedoms and liberties because its inconvenient for them to go through the process the american people have approved. There is no consent of the governed here.
Even if they didn't know, they should be responsible. The news has been ADAMANT about reporting on this recall, and making a lot of hoopla about it. Samsung issued a recall. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let them not win a lawsuit against Samsung.
If they sue, Samsung is in trouble cause it admitted a fault and issued a recall. Shouldn't we encourage companies to recall products when there are safety hazards and they are willing to take the financial hit and do the responsible thing? They will never admit fault if it exposes them to liability in court.
Time will tell. If the company falls apart at the seams then this short stint of outsourcing will be over soon as the companies who participated fall apart. If not, then they will be more competitive for doing so, and it will have been a good choice.
It doesn't matter how much it costs. So long as the savings are passed on to new graduates, and the service levels don't degrade, please make education cheaper. If you have to go to foreign suppliers because domestic suppliers are too expensive, go foreign. Domestic suppliers will quickly realize they are uncompetitive and either change their pricing or change their product to deliver a competitive value proposition.
Seriously, since when does being an American mean we are uncompetitive and in favor of protectionism?
Of course you did, it says so right here in the massive surveillance server farm that tracked your actions to do so. Seriously though, this is why encryption is so important. All throughout history, you can find examples of excessive government overreach and oppression. How can we in this world not value a right to be private amongst ourselves without massive public backlash? How has it come to the point where it just ends up being brushed off as "oh right, more tin-foil hat jokes, we knew the whole time how bad we have it"?
I believe in the 4th amendment, in principle and in practice, I think it is absolutely necessary in this age of information overload. The government should be spending those dollars on trying to catch the pricks who mean to do it harm, and not drag netting all over our inherent rights. Things have clearly gotten out of hand.
The reason your doom and gloom is wrong is specifically that the economy doesn't shrink. It grows. Yes, automation reduces positions in the economy for work by people, but every person not working is his or her salary in terms of cost not invited to produce goods and services. So the price falls, so the affordability rises. The rising affordability means that everyone will have more. The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior. And no, not just the 1%, the ordinary individual. It makes no sense in being able to make a million cars automatically if only 500 people can afford them. The more for less economy only works if more people can have more stuff for less. High unemployment is not a natural state, people will always find work, and be able to afford more with it. The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order, and they have to have people buying their shit or they will no longer be in the 1%. Maybe most individuals will eventually own stock in the infradtructure.
This story is false, you can print yourself a house. Concrete is most definitely solid, and weighs more than 1,650 lbs. Airplanes will be next once the solution to print using metal powder comes to meaningful cost/quality. Well, the body of the airplane at least.
I was agreeing with what you said, and expanding on what we risk by not following the assumption that while there is bullshit out there, it has to be managed so we don't close off ourselves to truly useful expansion of science. How many times have we discovered something that someone thought was true, but was disregarded as a quack or worse!
I'm not saying we have in fact found a new principle but if we have, if the measurements hold and we are able to produce some thrust, then research needs to be used to better understand it. What if we aren't using the optimal frequencies, the right shape of chamber, the right amount of X or Y or whatever. Are you suggesting there is no way to improve something by orders of magnitude? What era do you live in?
What if this device is the vacuum tube equivalent and research is needed to build the transistor? Are you saying that in your infinite wisdom, you have conducted all the necessary research and the power/thrust ratio will never be enough to do any practical work? Wow. I would have expected such a comment from an anonymous coward, but not from a six digit member like yourself!
Of course there is bullshit out there. The so called "perpetual motion machines" and "1MW generators in a shipping container", etc.. etc.. are all bullshit.
But, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here is a machine, that exhibits a thrust in a closed system with no fuel or mass leaving the closed system. The engineers wrote a paper on how to build another unit. Other units were built, and the measurements done by independent observations confirm the measurements of the first team.
These observations conflict with *understood* laws of physics and nature. There is obviously one of two things happening:
1. We have an experimentation error. OK. No problem. The more teams we have working on it, the more likely we will find the flaws in the method if this is the case.
2. We have an issue with the law of physics that are being contradicted. Let is revise the law and move the question back to the theorists to write a better law.
If we have in fact discovered a violation of one of the laws, then thats a really really big deal. It will change the game in terms of transportation technologies with regards to space travel. It would vastly change the useful life of satellites that require fuel to maintain orbits. It would open up vast amounts of resources to research and develop our ability to apply the new principle. It would be as big a deal as when we learned how to use sails to move against the wind.
But to just write it off as horseshit just because we don't like how it violates what we think we understand? No. A question has been asked. Science must answer. And if we have found a new principle, to quote John Hammond:
"How can we stand in the light of discovery, and not act?"
Why not? If this technology works, it changes the game in space travel. It seems there is a large requirement (today) for thrust vs energy, but with experimentation, theory, and improvements in understanding this may become viable for flying car type energy/thrust requirements. It really surprises me whenever I read a story about the EmDrive. It makes hypocrites of all the "scientists" and our general application of science, in general.
Skeptics claim: "It violates Newton's law" It is a bunch of tomfoolery Its a measuring error
Horseshit. Any real scientist knows: Nullis in verba, or question everything. We thought the world was flat, we thought the world was at the center, then the sun, now... there is no center. We experiment, we learn, we work out what we think is right is right, or what we thought was right is wrong. The universe is mysterious, and full of wonder. Offer no ridicule until you have proven someone wrong, conclusively! Otherwise, your no better than a religious zealot. Science itself deserve better.
Why do you need a union? As long as there isn't work coercion, if you don't like the pay rate, or the quality of the workplace, leave.
This is what happens when there are more people looking for work, than there is work by people to be done. You get workers willing to give more and get less. That's simple market theory, and has nothing to do with Apple. Apple should be negotiating the best rates it's from its suppliers. In fact, being publicly traded, it would be unethical not to. They aren't allowed to just burn through cash because "who cares about shareholders". The management team at Apple have a fiduciary duty to do so. Oh and some shareholders... Yeah hey don't make my heart bless (Carl Icahn, Warren Buffett), but some do (pensions, 401Ks, etc...).
Soon, the Chinese and even the rest of us will miss these good old days when people WERE ACTUALLY NEEDED. These positions and pay rates are better than not being employed. If they weren't, the workers wouldn't turn up, unless they are being coerced, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because one is educated doesn't mean one speaks eloquently. It really is a skill that takes practice.
That's a bit extreem don't you think? Jack booted thugs? Seriously, Hitler? C'mon, no one buys that. Also, Donald Trump is running on the republican ticket, but he is far from an establishment republican like Jeb Bush is. Hilary is literally a 30 year career politician at various levels of government. She is the embodiment of Claire Underwood, with less sex appeal, and more political savvy, if thats even possible.
Also, I didn't say Donald Trump is a good guy, or a good leader. I only said that he found a nerve in American society today, which suffers at the hands on the special interests, locked in a dance with American politics.
But about that business of his. No doubt, he owns some of the most fantastic addresses in the world. The real-estate under his towers in Manhattan are worth quite literally billions. You don't get your company to that size "with an iron fist, and no help or good ideas from anyone else", or by "blaming everyone but himself as he never accepts responsibility".
Donald's organization The Trump Organization has tens of thousands of employees, activities spanning the globe, and is a model for modern business, leveraging its brand and assets. America could use some of that kind of thinking. Stop fixating on the "politically incorrect" in what he says. Before judging someone on their rants, ask yourself "what is the most important part of his job". I don't care if my dentist is a muslim-hating womanizer, as long as he does my dental work well. Likewise, I don't care if Donald trump disparaged women in a Larry King episode, or suggested "stop and frisk". We aren't electing a president of the National Organization of Women, or a chief of the NYPD. We are electing a president. I want him to curb our addition to international intervention, and improve our economy by moving it more towards a "laissez faire" economic model. Something he might be familiar with having an education in economics from one of the worlds best schools for that stuff.
Still, he right about one thing: She and the rest of Washington DC have done nothing but worsen the situation over so many years. Now, even Russia is involved, when they weren't before. Whatever you can say about Donald Trump, at least he isn't a politician. At this point, it seems smart to "let someone else have a crack at it" than the same Political insiders who have amassed so much money and power and have shown very little in return over the years. This game of "insider politics" is rotting America to its core.
Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after, win or lose.
Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction of him. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff when it all came to light. Just imagine what else they could be hiding, in the knowledge still under wraps. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about the stupid shit that comes out of his mouth, is "I'm not them". And thats a really important message.
When you have the sort of money that Donald Trump or Putin have (I've read Putin may have about $70 billion), then you generally make deals with each other. Billionaires generally come from two backgrounds, founding extremely successful companies that are one-offs. (Zara, Microsoft, Google, Apple), or by making a large number of deals that add to your holdings over time, increasing its value (Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, Waleed Bin-Talal, Mark Cuban).
These guys have dealings with so many ventures it's realistically impossible to not find a connection between all of them to each other in some way. That's how they got to be so big in the first place.
Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the american people. It's sad that he was the one to figure out how, but he did. That nerve is the sensitivity to the overtly corrupt political structure now at the helm of this country "for the people". He promised he could not be influenced because he has more than enough capital to fund his run, and live happily ever after.
Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't do any better, by swinging their ball completely in the 100% opposite direction. Hillary Clinton seems to be as politically astute as Donald Trump is politically ignorant. She successfully derailed Bernie Sander's campaign with insider dealings so corrupt, they forced the DNC chairman(woman) to resign, along with other DNC senior staff. She has been making insider plays, taken money from just about anyone who would give it to her, no matter what the cost to the American people, or the favor required; and wiggled her way to the Democratic presumptive nominee this election year, seemingly through those backroom deals. Her entire campaign doesn't really promise anything ground-breaking, really its just more of the same overly corrupt Washington insiders. Instead, her campaign is really "I'm not him". His campaign, if he could ever get the media to stop talking about his mouth, is "I'm not them".
What? What sort of ridiculous argument is this? You still have an apartment at the end of the lease, does that mean you shouldn't charge for rent? Fucking ridiculous. Just cause you can make a string of words sound like a good point doesn't mean you have one.
You transmit data over a network, the time it spend transmitting, the network could have been transmitting someone else's data. Thats opportunity cost.
The network costs a fortune so that it can transfer data. Thats capital costs.
The network consumes land, power, leased lines, leased fiber that the power company put up, equipment maintenance, etc etc. Thats operating cost.
Double stuffed Oreo cookies should cost more than Oreo cookies, and faster, better networks should cost more than shitty ones.
Wikipedia is not an "entertainment database". This law is ridiculous and I hope IMBD, et al sue California in federal court for violating its 1st amendment rights. How can you enact a silencing law that only silences certain people? Isn't that discrimination? There are age-related anti-discrimination laws already on the books, and they should be plenty sufficient for protecting actors as well as all other kinds of labor.
Excuse me, would you kindly tell me where the land of free is?
Whats is wrong with "A" technology? It is a technology if it solves a problem. Technology is not singular (i.e. space technology, video technology), and it is not plural.
I actually agree with what this solution does. No one will care that their netflix packets are prioritized lower than their voice packets, since netflix streams and voice needs to be near real-time. Same thing for SSH sessions, page loads, or IM applications. They need faster response times than your Carbonite subscription or drop-box sync.
The rules should be really thought out. No application bandwidth limiting, just prioritization. Don't allow stupidity by allowing application developers to set their own preferences (sorry advertisers).
Large companies do this all the time to ensure the quality of their hosted VOIP phones and critical applications. It's called QOS (quality-of-service) or COS (class-of-service) tags. The packets themselves are tagged by some network-level equipment by policy sets. These are then respected by the edge routers so that the packets are either prioritized extremely urgent, or somewhat urgent, or not quite urgent, and then for everything else, its a catch-all "best-effort" solution.
Doing it this way (but making it adjustable to the home user by doing something like... right-click on the application and set its "priority" on a scale or something) could be really useful, especially in bandwidth-limited deployments when your backup starts and kills your phone conversation.
To the home user, especially with AT&T and T-Mobile now doing "Wifi calling", this would make that option much, much more palpable.
You are right! My math skills must be slipping. I stand corrected. It doesn't invalidate my point though.
From the site:
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure . This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.
First and foremost: I completely agree. Now devils advocate:
How about unreasonable search and seizure?
Your choice to broadcast your signal gives implicit rights for them to read the signal, much like your choice to place your garbage into the county provided can on the curb.
No. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy. What about the privacy of the company who has licensed or purchased the spectrum? The signal is in their possession, and the government just trampled it like a heard of bison running over a bunny. Fuck no. Thats what warrants are for.
How about due process?
See above, there is not a due process violation if all they are doing is processing through the signal you sent.
Again, no. In court, if I can't inspect the device that grabbed what they *THOUGHT* was my signal, how could I defend myself? These law enforcement toys are secret, beyond discovery from defense attorneys. So how can you question the charges, or face your accuser, which you are allowed to do. Imagine for a moment that there is a bug in the logging software, and it reports your phone as the one trying to hook up with the 13 year old middle schooler. Just, fuck no. Again. Due Process.
How about manufactured evidence?
There is a chain of custody to be followed, manufactured evidence would require breaking a seal on the device, much like a radar gun.
Not what I was saying. What about "we can't let them know about how we learned about this, so lets say he logged into a bogus website, and generate some logs.
Is using the spectrum like this even legal? Aren't they violating the licensing laws of the spectrum?
One would hope they got a licence from the FCC. *snort* (sorry, couldn't keep a straight face on that one)
Seriously though, the same argument that has been set forth about using open WiFi APs and even breaking WEP/WPA to use APs that are broadcasting past a property line apply here with your phone and any cleartext that is sent / cyphertext that is broken.
I'm happily in a state where a warrant is required to use one of these... not that I think they are used anyway, but at least if there is no warrant the evidence is inadmissible and via poisoned fruit any evidence looked for because of one of these also becomes inadmissible (i think).
-nb
This is not that. In those scenarios, your listening. These devices talk and impersonate cell towers. They are broadcasting in that spectrum which a company has purchased outright. They do so against those licenses. Now wipe that smirk off your face, and get off my lawn!
Thats the wrong question. The better question is: How much harm has the apparatus done to our freedoms and economy? Europe will no longer trust its data in our hands, and much of the world becomes more adversarial. Is nothing sacred anymore? I shutter to think of the day our thoughts can be digitized, stored, analyzed, and archived.
As for the "intelligence apparatus" and its usefulness... Please. To do what? Protect human life? Congress could save more human beings THIS WEEK in the US by banning tobacco and classifying nicotine a narcotic.
Deaths due to terrorism since 1995 in the US: 3,264 (source)
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)
I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms. But so does government surveillance, and I would ban that. Its too expensive, doesn't protect all that much life, and tramples on our ideology.
If you go about it like that, then you are in effect encouraging companies to remain quiet about defects and cause confusion. Its terrible when a product causes injury, and I would agree that people who were hurt before such a recall have a claim and should be compensated.
However for a company to come out and openly admit that there are faults in its product, opens it up to all sorts of claims. You don't want the government to have to sue each company into a recall, you want them to do it voluntarily. Offering them a liability limitation encourages them to issue the recall in the first place.
No. We are way past calling this a slippery slope. Look up, theres the cliff we fell off.
How about unreasonable search and seizure? How about due process? How about manufactured evidence? Is using the spectrum like this even legal? Aren't they violating the licensing laws of the spectrum?
If they went to get a warrant, and asked the cell companies to give them the data, that would be legal. We can't allow them to trample on our freedoms and liberties because its inconvenient for them to go through the process the american people have approved. There is no consent of the governed here.
Even if they didn't know, they should be responsible. The news has been ADAMANT about reporting on this recall, and making a lot of hoopla about it. Samsung issued a recall. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let them not win a lawsuit against Samsung.
If they sue, Samsung is in trouble cause it admitted a fault and issued a recall. Shouldn't we encourage companies to recall products when there are safety hazards and they are willing to take the financial hit and do the responsible thing? They will never admit fault if it exposes them to liability in court.
Time will tell. If the company falls apart at the seams then this short stint of outsourcing will be over soon as the companies who participated fall apart. If not, then they will be more competitive for doing so, and it will have been a good choice.
It doesn't matter how much it costs. So long as the savings are passed on to new graduates, and the service levels don't degrade, please make education cheaper. If you have to go to foreign suppliers because domestic suppliers are too expensive, go foreign. Domestic suppliers will quickly realize they are uncompetitive and either change their pricing or change their product to deliver a competitive value proposition.
Seriously, since when does being an American mean we are uncompetitive and in favor of protectionism?
Of course you did, it says so right here in the massive surveillance server farm that tracked your actions to do so. Seriously though, this is why encryption is so important. All throughout history, you can find examples of excessive government overreach and oppression. How can we in this world not value a right to be private amongst ourselves without massive public backlash? How has it come to the point where it just ends up being brushed off as "oh right, more tin-foil hat jokes, we knew the whole time how bad we have it"?
I believe in the 4th amendment, in principle and in practice, I think it is absolutely necessary in this age of information overload. The government should be spending those dollars on trying to catch the pricks who mean to do it harm, and not drag netting all over our inherent rights. Things have clearly gotten out of hand.
The reason your doom and gloom is wrong is specifically that the economy doesn't shrink. It grows. Yes, automation reduces positions in the economy for work by people, but every person not working is his or her salary in terms of cost not invited to produce goods and services. So the price falls, so the affordability rises. The rising affordability means that everyone will have more. The reason the economy rises is that the AVERAGE person has more ability to consume than prior. And no, not just the 1%, the ordinary individual. It makes no sense in being able to make a million cars automatically if only 500 people can afford them. The more for less economy only works if more people can have more stuff for less. High unemployment is not a natural state, people will always find work, and be able to afford more with it. The 1% will make sure that people have propensity to consume. It's the natural order, and they have to have people buying their shit or they will no longer be in the 1%. Maybe most individuals will eventually own stock in the infradtructure.
Well played iggymanz, well played.
This story is false, you can print yourself a house. Concrete is most definitely solid, and weighs more than 1,650 lbs. Airplanes will be next once the solution to print using metal powder comes to meaningful cost/quality. Well, the body of the airplane at least.
I was agreeing with what you said, and expanding on what we risk by not following the assumption that while there is bullshit out there, it has to be managed so we don't close off ourselves to truly useful expansion of science. How many times have we discovered something that someone thought was true, but was disregarded as a quack or worse!
I'm not saying we have in fact found a new principle but if we have, if the measurements hold and we are able to produce some thrust, then research needs to be used to better understand it. What if we aren't using the optimal frequencies, the right shape of chamber, the right amount of X or Y or whatever. Are you suggesting there is no way to improve something by orders of magnitude? What era do you live in?
Hard Drives
Moore's law on microprocessor power
Computer Networks
What if this device is the vacuum tube equivalent and research is needed to build the transistor? Are you saying that in your infinite wisdom, you have conducted all the necessary research and the power/thrust ratio will never be enough to do any practical work? Wow. I would have expected such a comment from an anonymous coward, but not from a six digit member like yourself!
Of course there is bullshit out there. The so called "perpetual motion machines" and "1MW generators in a shipping container", etc.. etc.. are all bullshit.
But, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here is a machine, that exhibits a thrust in a closed system with no fuel or mass leaving the closed system. The engineers wrote a paper on how to build another unit. Other units were built, and the measurements done by independent observations confirm the measurements of the first team.
These observations conflict with *understood* laws of physics and nature. There is obviously one of two things happening:
1. We have an experimentation error. OK. No problem. The more teams we have working on it, the more likely we will find the flaws in the method if this is the case.
2. We have an issue with the law of physics that are being contradicted. Let is revise the law and move the question back to the theorists to write a better law.
If we have in fact discovered a violation of one of the laws, then thats a really really big deal. It will change the game in terms of transportation technologies with regards to space travel. It would vastly change the useful life of satellites that require fuel to maintain orbits. It would open up vast amounts of resources to research and develop our ability to apply the new principle. It would be as big a deal as when we learned how to use sails to move against the wind.
But to just write it off as horseshit just because we don't like how it violates what we think we understand? No. A question has been asked. Science must answer. And if we have found a new principle, to quote John Hammond:
"How can we stand in the light of discovery, and not act?"
Why not? If this technology works, it changes the game in space travel. It seems there is a large requirement (today) for thrust vs energy, but with experimentation, theory, and improvements in understanding this may become viable for flying car type energy/thrust requirements. It really surprises me whenever I read a story about the EmDrive. It makes hypocrites of all the "scientists" and our general application of science, in general.
Skeptics claim:
"It violates Newton's law"
It is a bunch of tomfoolery
Its a measuring error
Horseshit. Any real scientist knows: Nullis in verba, or question everything. We thought the world was flat, we thought the world was at the center, then the sun, now... there is no center. We experiment, we learn, we work out what we think is right is right, or what we thought was right is wrong. The universe is mysterious, and full of wonder. Offer no ridicule until you have proven someone wrong, conclusively! Otherwise, your no better than a religious zealot. Science itself deserve better.
Why do you need a union? As long as there isn't work coercion, if you don't like the pay rate, or the quality of the workplace, leave.
This is what happens when there are more people looking for work, than there is work by people to be done. You get workers willing to give more and get less. That's simple market theory, and has nothing to do with Apple. Apple should be negotiating the best rates it's from its suppliers. In fact, being publicly traded, it would be unethical not to. They aren't allowed to just burn through cash because "who cares about shareholders". The management team at Apple have a fiduciary duty to do so. Oh and some shareholders... Yeah hey don't make my heart bless (Carl Icahn, Warren Buffett), but some do (pensions, 401Ks, etc...).
Soon, the Chinese and even the rest of us will miss these good old days when people WERE ACTUALLY NEEDED. These positions and pay rates are better than not being employed. If they weren't, the workers wouldn't turn up, unless they are being coerced, of course.