You don't even have to do that. There's a very simple solution to these kinds of problems: don't buy their product.
Don't buy products from crappy companies, don't buy products that limit your freedom.
Take this particular case for example.
These speakers are collecting data on me? That should be a show stopper right there.
These speakers require software updates and an internet connection to run? Another show stopper.
You, as the owner, do not have access to the software being run on these speakers? Don't you understand that puts you at the mercy of whoever does control the software?
Anyone buying these kinds of products (*ahem!* somethingsomethingmicrosoft) really have nobody to blame but themselves.
If you want this kind of behavior to stop then stop buying these kinds of products.
The data workloads start at multiple TBs and sometimes can't even be hosted on a single machine.
I moonlight as an admin for a contractor that does MRI and fMRI analysis. He does have multiple terabytes of data on the drives, but he's not churning through all of that for every subject. Still, I'm sure that several gigabytes are touched during an analysis run.
Surely something like id's megatexture or some other kind of streaming could be implemented?
You still don't understand. Trump is a warning shot, not a consequence.
This.
There are and will be a lot of people who get off their butts, stop talking, and actually start doing things thanks to Google, Antifa, BAMN (Felarca), and others.
If leftists get what they want it will end in disaster just like Venezuela or the Russian revolution.
If the backlash against google's type of bullying is too great it'll possibly end like 1930's Germany with leftists taking the place of Jews.
If the backlash isn't quite as great then leftists may very well still be shamed and voted out of office for decades.
If blacklisting is deemed acceptable then leftists should prepare to be blacklisted from ever holding a meaningful job for the rest of their lives as all those they bullied for decades go on their merry capitalist way and then refuse to ever hire a leftist.
Get ready leftists. This won't end well for you no matter what happens. We'll all be extremely lucky if this kind of division, provocation, and egregious bullying doesn't result in some truly awful violence.
Oh but never mind that, let's all get back to some delicious hyperbole, inflammatory rhetoric, and hysteria.
I was responding to the AC.
Shkreli is being punished for breaking the law: good.
But punishing him for being "and asshole", as the AC above wanted, is bad.
So who decides where to draw the line? The parents? Doctors? Politicians?
My gut tells me that it should be the parents who decide.
How far along the spectrum do you have to be before autism is considered "serious" enough to be edited?
I think that should be up to the parents.
Do you edit out all mutations, or just enough to slide to a higher functioning level on the scale?
The article I linked to (and other papers I've read on the subject) are indicating that there's some kind of link between high functioning autism and genius. But if we also recall the words of historical geniuses like Einstein, Edison, and Franklin they all seem to think that hard work is the most important trait; the stubborn pursuit of a thing until they get it. Autism frequently provides this obsession. So I think this all needs more study so that we can determine what exactly is the thing that we want and how do we get it without letting people suffer.
If the parents just don't want to take any chances chasing clouds and finagling "genius" into their kid while risking full blown autism then by all means let them just edit out a potentially devastating problem in their kid.
I'm just trying to say we shouldn't iron everyone into a "normal" because genius is, by definition, abnormal. We all want the good without the bad but in the case of genius it appears to be closely bound up and related to the bad of autism.
Furthermore, the very diversity of traits among a species is what allows that species to continue to survive and evolve. If we put all our traits into a single "normal" basket then we risk complete loss of our species if our situation/environment changes.
How do you control for the environmental factors?
I don't know. I don't think anyone does for sure.
While many people embrace their "genius", plenty of others fall into depression and would gladly trade a few points of IQ just for the ability to socialize and feel comfortable around people.
I know. There's is a lot of tragedy involved in living. But let's not let our loathing of tragedy drive us into compounding our problems. Let's think carefully and work diligently to come up with good solutions.
While Down's Syndrome could be "fixed" (for lack of a better term) relatively easy, autism is much more complicated.
Autism is related to genius. Long ago brilliant people were often noted to be "eccentric". Today we would consider such people to be on the autism spectrum-- high functioning, but still on the spectrum. Mozart, Newton, and many others are in this category.
Neither I nor RhettLivingston think that millions of children ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!") should suffer from debilitating autism. But RhettLivingston seems to be saying that we should be cautious of simply editing out anything that isn't "normal" lest we throw out the baby with the bath water.
WTF do "success traits in more nomadic societies" have to do with modern human life?
This is a facile argument.
The point is not that we need nomads in modern society. It's that such deviant personalities and traits allow humanity to adapt to new situations. You're not trying to say that human evolution is and should be at a complete halt are you?
Except your god seems to be some vague feeling that "nature knows best".
I want to agree with you, because regulation seems like such an obvious and straight forward solution... if it works.
But government regulation didn't actually make VW diesel cars comply with emissions regulations. Instead, VW sneaked around it for quite some time before being caught. Who knows how many other car manufacturers are doing the same thing?
Also, how do we keep the security regulations up to date? The arms race between security and malicious attackers is pretty fast paced. I have a hard time believing the government will keep security regulations up to date enough.
And even more importantly: how do we make sure that the government doesn't use "security regulations think of the children" as an excuse to infiltrate all IoT devices and snoop on everyone? They're already basically doing just that and we don't even have IoT widely deployed yet.
So I hesitate to say that we should just have the government regulate IoT security.
How about this: if my device that I bought and that I have control over is attacking other people's property (i.e. their servers) then I should pay a fine.
The key here is that it must be proved that I have control over my device i.e. I built the device myself and have full access to the works, or it's an open source project and I have the ability to configure it etc.
If I don't have control over the device (i.e. it's closed source or locked in some way so that I can't configure it) then the entity which has control of (i.e. the creator of the device) must be held responsible and must pay the fine.
This would motivate IoT developers to release well-made products instead of half-assed crap with security holes bigger than barn doors.
Yes, this might slow down the adoption of IoT, but wouldn't that be better than charging headlong into a terrible situation where there's millions of insecure little turds out there botnetting everything?
Also:
1. This would preserve the liberty of people to create, buy, and sell whatever they want and it wouldn't raise the barrier to entry arbitrarily like requiring some kind of inspection the standards of which would be kept about as up to date as anything else the government ever does (i.e. too little and too late)
2. It wouldn't really give the government power to misuse and abuse because they must prove that I have control over the device in order to fine me (they must prove that I caused damage through malice or negligence) rather than just mandating from on high and getting corp kick-backs to relax the rules at their capricious whim
3. It would allow open source solutions to compete because, if the project is done right, then it'll allow users to take control over their own devices if they want to without jeopardizing the project itself if something goes wrong-- just tweak the source code or a config file and you're all done (you may have to pay the fines first of course but that's what DIY is all about)
It would allow closed-source solutions to compete because maybe customers don't want to expose themselves to liability they'd rather let the corp take the hit if something goes wrong
4. Both open source projects and closed source products would have motivation to keep their loops closed and stay off the internet because nobody wants to expose themselves to liability-- this would be a huge win for privacy as a default side-effect of making IoT secure in this way.
5. Last, but most importantly, it would actually put some teeth into the idea that IoT should be secure. If nobody wants to go through the bother of securing their devices and IoT dies out then, ipso facto it wasn't such a great idea to begin with was it?
On that point, it isn't the legislators nor their legislation which will secure squat.
It's the hard working engineers and developers of the world who'll do it-- in spite of the legislators and their virtue signalling bills.
If people aren't willing to pay extra money for "secure" IoT devices then in what meaningful sense can you say that the people really need it?
I often hear of the notion that sometimes things aren't all black-and-white, sometimes there's a gradation. Well, that's what price is: a gradation of how valuable something is.
If people don't want to pay for it, or don't want to pay extra for it, then they literally don't find it that valuable.
Folks may find it much more important in the future, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it, eh? (That's partly why the market value of goods fluctuates, isn't it?)
Other browsers (i.e. Opera) feature built-in ad blockers just like this. Chrome must compete. They're doing pretty well, having captured the majority of the market, but one does not stay in the lead by standing still.
Also, by making this feature optional and culling the most obnoxious and egregious ads Google alleviates some of the friction from their users. Most slashdotters are probably already using an ad blocker and blocking all ads by default. I started using an ad blocker because of auto-playing video ads and other obnoxious time wasters that I kept running into.
Ad blocker usage seems to be increasing. Building this feature into Chrome allows them to help control ad blocking-- block the most obnoxious stuff and make it all totally optional in order to help dissuade users from blocking all ads. Better some ads, thinks Google, than none.
But let's say Google does block all ads. They still make their money because Chrome could just track everything the user does anyway and they could just sell that data instead of old fashioned "look look click click".
Indeed. The programming language shootout is showing Rust almost matches C-- yes, C-- for speed. Not that surprising really since Rust uses LLVM for its compiler back end.
anyone with a salary of that kind should pay a minimum of 60% in taxes and yeap, for that kind of taxes free health care, child support, free education for children, excellent roads on winter time and so on.
And someone from Africa or India might say that anyone making 50k a year should pay 90% of that in taxes-- after all, one can easily get by on a couple thousand a year in Africa, why would a Swede need any more than that? No, those greedy Swedes should pay their fair share.
Folks like you are always so strident, so sanctimonious, when calling for higher taxes on other people.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even have to do that. There's a very simple solution to these kinds of problems: don't buy their product.
Don't buy products from crappy companies, don't buy products that limit your freedom.
Take this particular case for example.
These speakers are collecting data on me? That should be a show stopper right there.
These speakers require software updates and an internet connection to run? Another show stopper.
You, as the owner, do not have access to the software being run on these speakers? Don't you understand that puts you at the mercy of whoever does control the software?
Anyone buying these kinds of products (*ahem!* somethingsomethingmicrosoft) really have nobody to blame but themselves.
If you want this kind of behavior to stop then stop buying these kinds of products.
[citation needed]
So... Canonical should be switching Ubuntu to Cinnamon not GNOME 3?
Who has a bigger stick than the US Federal Government?
The data workloads start at multiple TBs and sometimes can't even be hosted on a single machine.
I moonlight as an admin for a contractor that does MRI and fMRI analysis. He does have multiple terabytes of data on the drives, but he's not churning through all of that for every subject. Still, I'm sure that several gigabytes are touched during an analysis run.
Surely something like id's megatexture or some other kind of streaming could be implemented?
I am seriously going to look into switching back to Mozilla. I don't want to trust my browser binary to a company which has a clear political slant.
Then don't use Firefox. Try Vivaldi instead.
You still don't understand. Trump is a warning shot, not a consequence.
This.
There are and will be a lot of people who get off their butts, stop talking, and actually start doing things thanks to Google, Antifa, BAMN (Felarca), and others.
If leftists get what they want it will end in disaster just like Venezuela or the Russian revolution.
If the backlash against google's type of bullying is too great it'll possibly end like 1930's Germany with leftists taking the place of Jews.
If the backlash isn't quite as great then leftists may very well still be shamed and voted out of office for decades.
If blacklisting is deemed acceptable then leftists should prepare to be blacklisted from ever holding a meaningful job for the rest of their lives as all those they bullied for decades go on their merry capitalist way and then refuse to ever hire a leftist.
Get ready leftists. This won't end well for you no matter what happens. We'll all be extremely lucky if this kind of division, provocation, and egregious bullying doesn't result in some truly awful violence.
Oh but never mind that, let's all get back to some delicious hyperbole, inflammatory rhetoric, and hysteria.
Why can't this be done in a couple shaders on a GPU?
I was responding to the AC.
Shkreli is being punished for breaking the law: good.
But punishing him for being "and asshole", as the AC above wanted, is bad.
Justice == punish people I don't like because I don't like them?
Way to take the moral high ground.
...a "Libertarian" is basically a racist Republican who wants to smoke pot and bring suffering on poor people and the elderly while not paying taxes.
Demonizing.
So who decides where to draw the line? The parents? Doctors? Politicians?
My gut tells me that it should be the parents who decide.
How far along the spectrum do you have to be before autism is considered "serious" enough to be edited?
I think that should be up to the parents.
Do you edit out all mutations, or just enough to slide to a higher functioning level on the scale?
The article I linked to (and other papers I've read on the subject) are indicating that there's some kind of link between high functioning autism and genius. But if we also recall the words of historical geniuses like Einstein, Edison, and Franklin they all seem to think that hard work is the most important trait; the stubborn pursuit of a thing until they get it. Autism frequently provides this obsession. So I think this all needs more study so that we can determine what exactly is the thing that we want and how do we get it without letting people suffer.
If the parents just don't want to take any chances chasing clouds and finagling "genius" into their kid while risking full blown autism then by all means let them just edit out a potentially devastating problem in their kid.
I'm just trying to say we shouldn't iron everyone into a "normal" because genius is, by definition, abnormal. We all want the good without the bad but in the case of genius it appears to be closely bound up and related to the bad of autism.
Furthermore, the very diversity of traits among a species is what allows that species to continue to survive and evolve. If we put all our traits into a single "normal" basket then we risk complete loss of our species if our situation/environment changes.
How do you control for the environmental factors?
I don't know. I don't think anyone does for sure.
While many people embrace their "genius", plenty of others fall into depression and would gladly trade a few points of IQ just for the ability to socialize and feel comfortable around people.
I know. There's is a lot of tragedy involved in living. But let's not let our loathing of tragedy drive us into compounding our problems. Let's think carefully and work diligently to come up with good solutions.
While Down's Syndrome could be "fixed" (for lack of a better term) relatively easy, autism is much more complicated.
Agreed.
So... you vote libertarian, yes?
Neither I nor RhettLivingston think that millions of children ("THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!") should suffer from debilitating autism. But RhettLivingston seems to be saying that we should be cautious of simply editing out anything that isn't "normal" lest we throw out the baby with the bath water.
WTF do "success traits in more nomadic societies" have to do with modern human life?
This is a facile argument.
The point is not that we need nomads in modern society. It's that such deviant personalities and traits allow humanity to adapt to new situations. You're not trying to say that human evolution is and should be at a complete halt are you?
Except your god seems to be some vague feeling that "nature knows best".
Straw man. Try again.
I want to agree with you, because regulation seems like such an obvious and straight forward solution... if it works.
But government regulation didn't actually make VW diesel cars comply with emissions regulations. Instead, VW sneaked around it for quite some time before being caught. Who knows how many other car manufacturers are doing the same thing?
Also, how do we keep the security regulations up to date? The arms race between security and malicious attackers is pretty fast paced. I have a hard time believing the government will keep security regulations up to date enough.
And even more importantly: how do we make sure that the government doesn't use "security regulations think of the children" as an excuse to infiltrate all IoT devices and snoop on everyone? They're already basically doing just that and we don't even have IoT widely deployed yet.
So I hesitate to say that we should just have the government regulate IoT security.
How about this: if my device that I bought and that I have control over is attacking other people's property (i.e. their servers) then I should pay a fine.
The key here is that it must be proved that I have control over my device i.e. I built the device myself and have full access to the works, or it's an open source project and I have the ability to configure it etc.
If I don't have control over the device (i.e. it's closed source or locked in some way so that I can't configure it) then the entity which has control of (i.e. the creator of the device) must be held responsible and must pay the fine.
This would motivate IoT developers to release well-made products instead of half-assed crap with security holes bigger than barn doors.
Yes, this might slow down the adoption of IoT, but wouldn't that be better than charging headlong into a terrible situation where there's millions of insecure little turds out there botnetting everything?
Also:
1. This would preserve the liberty of people to create, buy, and sell whatever they want and it wouldn't raise the barrier to entry arbitrarily like requiring some kind of inspection the standards of which would be kept about as up to date as anything else the government ever does (i.e. too little and too late)
2. It wouldn't really give the government power to misuse and abuse because they must prove that I have control over the device in order to fine me (they must prove that I caused damage through malice or negligence) rather than just mandating from on high and getting corp kick-backs to relax the rules at their capricious whim
3. It would allow open source solutions to compete because, if the project is done right, then it'll allow users to take control over their own devices if they want to without jeopardizing the project itself if something goes wrong-- just tweak the source code or a config file and you're all done (you may have to pay the fines first of course but that's what DIY is all about)
It would allow closed-source solutions to compete because maybe customers don't want to expose themselves to liability they'd rather let the corp take the hit if something goes wrong
4. Both open source projects and closed source products would have motivation to keep their loops closed and stay off the internet because nobody wants to expose themselves to liability-- this would be a huge win for privacy as a default side-effect of making IoT secure in this way.
5. Last, but most importantly, it would actually put some teeth into the idea that IoT should be secure. If nobody wants to go through the bother of securing their devices and IoT dies out then, ipso facto it wasn't such a great idea to begin with was it?
So your solution is to mandate a label of some kind to indicate how secure a product is?
I believe this would improve awareness, but overall would be a weak solution. I would prefer a stronger one.
On that point, it isn't the legislators nor their legislation which will secure squat.
It's the hard working engineers and developers of the world who'll do it-- in spite of the legislators and their virtue signalling bills.
If people aren't willing to pay extra money for "secure" IoT devices then in what meaningful sense can you say that the people really need it?
I often hear of the notion that sometimes things aren't all black-and-white, sometimes there's a gradation. Well, that's what price is: a gradation of how valuable something is.
If people don't want to pay for it, or don't want to pay extra for it, then they literally don't find it that valuable.
Folks may find it much more important in the future, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it, eh? (That's partly why the market value of goods fluctuates, isn't it?)
What if I want to do some 3D work or run several 4k monitors or even (gasp!) play some games using an ultrabook?
...but superior in terms of privacy...
You read the source code?
Precisely.
Google just needs to limbo under the lazyness bar such that users aren't annoyed enough to block all ads.
Other browsers (i.e. Opera) feature built-in ad blockers just like this. Chrome must compete. They're doing pretty well, having captured the majority of the market, but one does not stay in the lead by standing still.
Also, by making this feature optional and culling the most obnoxious and egregious ads Google alleviates some of the friction from their users. Most slashdotters are probably already using an ad blocker and blocking all ads by default. I started using an ad blocker because of auto-playing video ads and other obnoxious time wasters that I kept running into.
Ad blocker usage seems to be increasing. Building this feature into Chrome allows them to help control ad blocking-- block the most obnoxious stuff and make it all totally optional in order to help dissuade users from blocking all ads. Better some ads, thinks Google, than none.
But let's say Google does block all ads. They still make their money because Chrome could just track everything the user does anyway and they could just sell that data instead of old fashioned "look look click click".
Indeed. The programming language shootout is showing Rust almost matches C-- yes, C-- for speed. Not that surprising really since Rust uses LLVM for its compiler back end.
anyone with a salary of that kind should pay a minimum of 60% in taxes and yeap, for that kind of taxes free health care, child support, free education for children, excellent roads on winter time and so on.
And someone from Africa or India might say that anyone making 50k a year should pay 90% of that in taxes-- after all, one can easily get by on a couple thousand a year in Africa, why would a Swede need any more than that? No, those greedy Swedes should pay their fair share.
Folks like you are always so strident, so sanctimonious, when calling for higher taxes on other people.