While there are a few holes in that, that is arguably a good approach. However, that technology is not ready for prime time just yet, not the least of which is that such drone clouds would need to be in space. To remain over the target would be energy intensive. Assuming you don't launch prior to detecting a missile launch, you'd need to track against post-launch course changes. So each potential target has a percentage chance of being an actual target. Since ICBMs never go beyond low orbit altitude, geostationary isn't a valid option. In essence, they're not as obsolete as one might expect. There are countermeasures, but they are far from absolute.
I do see your point. However, we have a new problem that previous generations had not faced: Social media. The reason this is a problem is the formation of echo chambers.
Now, the nature of "hate speech" as opposed to standard discourse is a bit fuzzy. One can make opposing points all day, but targeting a group of people merely for being a part of said group is generally what I tend to define as "hate speech". Disputing a philosophy is not. Identifying points of concern is not. However, most of the time, if your issue with someone is based on a behavior or other aspect that does not cause harm to anyone else, then in spirit this is likely discriminatory.
Religion is arguably a key point here. I subscribe to the notion that if your religion forbids a behavior, then you shouldn't have to do it. This ends where my right to do the same thing begins, and I will combat to my dying breath the notion of having to comply with your diet (literally and figuratively). Now, to maintain a unified commercial structure, we need to define these points of intersection and how they are handled. The notion of incorporation is supposed to imply a level of insulation between personal and commercial interests. We degrade this insulation at our peril.
And before anyone argues this isn't the point, I would remind you that freedom of religion was used as an excuse for racism and sexism for centuries. I'm personally of the notion that removing religion from commerce is the safest route, but my view isn't the only one in operation. I do know this: We need to address this with caution, as the right to participate in commerce for all groups is essential to our society.
I love demonstrably false statements. Here's a tip: Before asserting an absolute negative statement, try to make it one that cannot be immediately disproven by a 6-word Google search and the ability to read the results.
Yeah, the stronger dollar is actually a problem for US domestic production. Exports rise and imports decline when the dollar weakens a bit. Everyone screams at how they want a strong dollar, but this is actually rather short sighted. Our national interest is best served by a weaker (within reason) dollar. It also makes it relatively cheaper to pay down our national debt, as most of it is valued in, wait for it: US dollars.
Our most valuable national asset, both strategically and economically, is the fact that the US Dollar continues to be the world's reserve currency. If this ever changes, we're in a lot of trouble.
Ballistic missiles are rarely purely ballistic, or they would be easy to both predict and shoot down. The hard part is relative velocity, in the 15-20,000 mph range. It really is rather like trying to shoot down a bullet with another bullet, except it's actually WAY harder. Now that bullet can split into multiple warheads, most of which have at least minimal course correction abilities. Add radar stealth coatings, decoy warheads, ECM technologies, etc., it rapidly becomes clear that the main reasons not to use them are strategic and (one hopes) humanitarian. They're not easy to shoot down, even with modern tech. Now, as laser weapons get better, that becomes more of an option this method gets worse, but there are a number of apparent development and philosophy errors in current anti-ballistic technologies.
No theory in science is ever "proven", only that experiment or observation is consistent with a theory, or not, with or without adjustment in theory. Events can be generally proven to have taken place, but any deeper meaning behind them is open to interpretation. For instance, while one can prove that our universe had a beginning, one cannot prove that it is "real", or that creating it wasn't a bad idea.
That very much depends on how you define security.
If you define security as aboslute safety and isolation, then you are correct. However, that is not the definition of security in the real world. In the real world, security is the achieved by incremental decreases in risk of harm to a system. What he proposes would have the potential to increase security by this measure. However, this only works if the following is true:
There is no buffer on the keyboard, nor any memory of any kind that could harbor malware for delivery
Likewise, the monitor
The two components would need to have separate NICs
The battery unit would likewise need to be isolated if the electronics inside are in any way programmable
That said, this would actually open up a potential new avenue of attack, and decrease security, unless the isolation is nigh total. If I recall correctly, even being in proximity, there have been proof-of-concept demonstrations that two air-gapped computers can still transmit data to each other under the right conditions.
You can go with free and no mining, you get free limited features
You can accept ads, you get premium features (or a subset)
You accept mining, you get premium features (or a subset)
You purchase the app or a subscription, you get the features purchased
As long as there is a specific opt-in, and it links to the affects on your device when in use, I don't see the problem, as long as we can get some rules of the road on the usage of these options. Once established, as long as the rules are followed I think this is pretty valid.
I don't happen to agree with Musk that the problem is presently this dire, but his proposal is absolutely worth considering seriously, and better sooner than never, even at some cost.
You are correct that it isn't that dire... technically. However, since we don't know what would wake an AI up, the risks for it happening by accident are inherently non-zero, and could happen in the next ten seconds, or not for the next thousand years. Further, even non-volitional AI could result in behavior based on an unexpected interaction which causes enormous problems.
Obviously we don't want to obstruct good research into serious problems, but Elon is right: Given the reach into our systems of resource distribution alone, this is already an existential threat, at least in principle. Waiting for evidence that we've designed the cause of our extinction will result in said extinction... Because some will accept no other evidence.
That presumes that the informant was not asked ahead to do the things. By all means, yes please report these guys. But the specific arrangement of acting as a government agent and gaining access to a computer without a warrant is the question. A private citizen finding and reporting in due course of their day is a different thing, as is an authorized investigation of an individual ahead of time. The rules get pretty dicey in this range, but any agent acting on behalf of the government is similarly limited (fine details likely do change the outcomes) in what they can and cannot do. While not a lawyer, I do seem to recall cases like this hitting the SCOTUS a few times. Splitting hairs is a thing on this level.
And a distribution model used for a lot of open source materials as well. Also, that doesn't really justify this as I am unaware of any technology that isn't a source of malware.
This sounds great! Another single database that once cracked makes it easier for bad actors to crack the security. Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, but it is a mathematical impossibility to have any means available of recovering a key, implementing a back door, or using any kind of key escrow, without an increase in the odds of breaking a security scheme. And while the argument of law enforcement is valid in principle, our financial transaction system absolutely relies on security and non-repudiation. The FBI isn't wrong to wish for a thing, but this guy is only a couple of steps away from not buying "2+2=4".
It is not consent to look through anything not required for the repair. Automated tools don't generally reveal media contents. Also, as a previous poster noted, chain of custody is really hard to prove here, and there's a financial incentive to "find" something, and as paid government agents (which in this case they were) specific consent to a legal search, or a warrant, is needed. It's a bad precedent to find any other way, even if the truth is probable guilt. That the FBI would get a warrant after the fact shows bad faith on the part of that office, too. Even if their desire to catch bad people was sincere, they played this quite poorly.
Capacitors and inductors don't directly modify voltage or current; Rather they store energy. The way in which they do is essentially reciprocal. An inductor stores the energy as a magnetic field, which then collapses when current falls off. This collapse puts energy back into the circuit. In essence, it effectively creates an effect analogous to storing momentum if this were applied to plumbing or hydraulics.
Capacitors store charge by blocking flow and accumulating charge up to their "capacity" with a voltage (analogous to pressure in plumbing).
Inductive impedance goes up with frequency, capacitive impedance goes down with frequency, but neither "switches" or otherwise makes decisions, hence "passive". However, oscillators are based on the ability of finding a sweet-spot where the effects cancel out to a large degree, allowing the construction of frequency filters. This is the essential technology behind analog graphic equalizers, analog radio, etc.; Basically any frequency filter (band pass or band reject, depending on circuit construction) ever built for analog used this technique. This is why capacitors and inductors can be used to clean up common AC current for rectification to DC in computer power supplies, as well as amplifiers looking to cancel 60Hz hum.
Everything you said. But also, the actual legal defense here is that, "Everyone is doing it, so you have to let it persist even if it harms consumers, even if it breaks right of first sale". Except, the entities doing it control vast sums of wealth and power, so yeah, they can do whatever they want.
Widespread, but only to specific demographics. Per capita productivity has never been higher, even in relation to inflation. If that money isn't in the hands of the lower and middle classes, where do you think it has gone?
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
Parents worry about all sorts of things. Everything is a threat. Which is technically accurate if assessed from the position of "zero risk". But just because a parent is worried about a thing doesn't make it an actual threat, though intuition suggests limiting screen time is a wise choice in general. Also, the inappropriate content issue is partially subjective as well. Define the term and try again, knowing that parents differ on what this means. So define the term and try again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And while Common Sense Media isn't precisely pro-censorship, they strike me as panicky and reactionary. Also, they have a vested interest in promoting concerns from parents and potential donors. I'm not saying they're in anyway being deceitful, but what I have seen of them suggests a cognitive bias toward provoking fearful response.
I don't think you're inherently wrong, but "I keep hearing" is a tired refrain. How about, "There are peer-reviewed, replicated study results"? Violence in media, last I checked, has not shown a strong correlation with violence in society. Gun availability has shown a weak-to-moderate correlation. The FBI not taking obvious tips and especially blatant threats seriously would seem likely to have a strong correlation. As much as I'd like to see reasonable adjustments to gun policy, it's hard to argue the laws need revision when they aren't enforced now.
Also, if you let your subscription lapse, and they sent it via mail, this would be postal fraud. You cannot be billed for an item you receive via the mail if you did not order it. It might not immediately help your credit score, but openly criminal behavior is not shielded so easily behind the corporate logo for the employee(s) responsible for the false report. This information is available on the FTC website.
At most, the memo could either claim or suggest it, barring actual evidence being provided by it. And as the memo in question was put together by someone who clearly has at least one horse in the race, it would need to be corroborated. Keep in mind, if a Democrat puts out a memo pointing the other way, it is subject to the same skepticism. Now an actual report, with appropriate legal citation, would carry more weight. At most, a memo points toward a path for investigation, so we shall see.
Frankly, I fully expect to find members of both parties to be involved in illicit activity. However, if an incumbent office holder is involved, or has been involved, with a hostile foreign power, that is an urgent concern to national security. It exceeds the importance of ordinary criminal activity, which can be prosecuted in the normal fashion. That said, if the Clintons had done even 1% of what they've been accused of, and successfully avoided prosecution (with massive interests looking to bring them down, no less), they are the greatest masterminds of the last 200 years. Frankly, I find that hard to believe, at best.
Am I the only person who sees this as a quick way to lock in all of the electronic surveillance by controlling the encryption directly? Because unless end-to-end encryption is locked in, this would be the full keys to the Kingdom.
Base plan: $20/month for unlimited talk and text. $10/GB used, prorated, not charged for what you don't use.
Add taxes and regulatory fees. So, if you use not tower data, you pay something like $23/month. Now add that you pay the prorated amount without overages... This is more like a flex plan. Soft cap, yes. Is the throttled speed low?
Yes. But with most unlimited plans you pay the full amount even if you use no data.
I'll stick to my previous position for anyone contemplating Fi that I've been saying from when I first switched:
If you're not a heavy data user, it's nearly perfect. This just made it better for moderate users.
Slashdot Mirror
While there are a few holes in that, that is arguably a good approach. However, that technology is not ready for prime time just yet, not the least of which is that such drone clouds would need to be in space. To remain over the target would be energy intensive. Assuming you don't launch prior to detecting a missile launch, you'd need to track against post-launch course changes. So each potential target has a percentage chance of being an actual target. Since ICBMs never go beyond low orbit altitude, geostationary isn't a valid option. In essence, they're not as obsolete as one might expect. There are countermeasures, but they are far from absolute.
I do see your point. However, we have a new problem that previous generations had not faced: Social media. The reason this is a problem is the formation of echo chambers.
Now, the nature of "hate speech" as opposed to standard discourse is a bit fuzzy. One can make opposing points all day, but targeting a group of people merely for being a part of said group is generally what I tend to define as "hate speech". Disputing a philosophy is not. Identifying points of concern is not. However, most of the time, if your issue with someone is based on a behavior or other aspect that does not cause harm to anyone else, then in spirit this is likely discriminatory.
Religion is arguably a key point here. I subscribe to the notion that if your religion forbids a behavior, then you shouldn't have to do it. This ends where my right to do the same thing begins, and I will combat to my dying breath the notion of having to comply with your diet (literally and figuratively). Now, to maintain a unified commercial structure, we need to define these points of intersection and how they are handled. The notion of incorporation is supposed to imply a level of insulation between personal and commercial interests. We degrade this insulation at our peril.
And before anyone argues this isn't the point, I would remind you that freedom of religion was used as an excuse for racism and sexism for centuries. I'm personally of the notion that removing religion from commerce is the safest route, but my view isn't the only one in operation. I do know this: We need to address this with caution, as the right to participate in commerce for all groups is essential to our society.
I love demonstrably false statements. Here's a tip: Before asserting an absolute negative statement, try to make it one that cannot be immediately disproven by a 6-word Google search and the ability to read the results.
Yeah, the stronger dollar is actually a problem for US domestic production. Exports rise and imports decline when the dollar weakens a bit. Everyone screams at how they want a strong dollar, but this is actually rather short sighted. Our national interest is best served by a weaker (within reason) dollar. It also makes it relatively cheaper to pay down our national debt, as most of it is valued in, wait for it: US dollars.
Our most valuable national asset, both strategically and economically, is the fact that the US Dollar continues to be the world's reserve currency. If this ever changes, we're in a lot of trouble.
I really hope you're joking.
Ballistic missiles are rarely purely ballistic, or they would be easy to both predict and shoot down. The hard part is relative velocity, in the 15-20,000 mph range. It really is rather like trying to shoot down a bullet with another bullet, except it's actually WAY harder. Now that bullet can split into multiple warheads, most of which have at least minimal course correction abilities. Add radar stealth coatings, decoy warheads, ECM technologies, etc., it rapidly becomes clear that the main reasons not to use them are strategic and (one hopes) humanitarian. They're not easy to shoot down, even with modern tech. Now, as laser weapons get better, that becomes more of an option this method gets worse, but there are a number of apparent development and philosophy errors in current anti-ballistic technologies.
No theory in science is ever "proven", only that experiment or observation is consistent with a theory, or not, with or without adjustment in theory. Events can be generally proven to have taken place, but any deeper meaning behind them is open to interpretation. For instance, while one can prove that our universe had a beginning, one cannot prove that it is "real", or that creating it wasn't a bad idea.
That very much depends on how you define security.
If you define security as aboslute safety and isolation, then you are correct. However, that is not the definition of security in the real world. In the real world, security is the achieved by incremental decreases in risk of harm to a system. What he proposes would have the potential to increase security by this measure. However, this only works if the following is true:
That said, this would actually open up a potential new avenue of attack, and decrease security, unless the isolation is nigh total. If I recall correctly, even being in proximity, there have been proof-of-concept demonstrations that two air-gapped computers can still transmit data to each other under the right conditions.
Good idea. That'll work great in areas with only one provider.
Let's evaluate:
As long as there is a specific opt-in, and it links to the affects on your device when in use, I don't see the problem, as long as we can get some rules of the road on the usage of these options. Once established, as long as the rules are followed I think this is pretty valid.
I don't happen to agree with Musk that the problem is presently this dire, but his proposal is absolutely worth considering seriously, and better sooner than never, even at some cost.
You are correct that it isn't that dire... technically. However, since we don't know what would wake an AI up, the risks for it happening by accident are inherently non-zero, and could happen in the next ten seconds, or not for the next thousand years. Further, even non-volitional AI could result in behavior based on an unexpected interaction which causes enormous problems.
Obviously we don't want to obstruct good research into serious problems, but Elon is right: Given the reach into our systems of resource distribution alone, this is already an existential threat, at least in principle. Waiting for evidence that we've designed the cause of our extinction will result in said extinction... Because some will accept no other evidence.
That presumes that the informant was not asked ahead to do the things. By all means, yes please report these guys. But the specific arrangement of acting as a government agent and gaining access to a computer without a warrant is the question. A private citizen finding and reporting in due course of their day is a different thing, as is an authorized investigation of an individual ahead of time. The rules get pretty dicey in this range, but any agent acting on behalf of the government is similarly limited (fine details likely do change the outcomes) in what they can and cannot do. While not a lawyer, I do seem to recall cases like this hitting the SCOTUS a few times. Splitting hairs is a thing on this level.
And a distribution model used for a lot of open source materials as well. Also, that doesn't really justify this as I am unaware of any technology that isn't a source of malware.
This sounds great! Another single database that once cracked makes it easier for bad actors to crack the security. Sorry, I don't mean to be snarky, but it is a mathematical impossibility to have any means available of recovering a key, implementing a back door, or using any kind of key escrow, without an increase in the odds of breaking a security scheme. And while the argument of law enforcement is valid in principle, our financial transaction system absolutely relies on security and non-repudiation. The FBI isn't wrong to wish for a thing, but this guy is only a couple of steps away from not buying "2+2=4".
It is not consent to look through anything not required for the repair. Automated tools don't generally reveal media contents. Also, as a previous poster noted, chain of custody is really hard to prove here, and there's a financial incentive to "find" something, and as paid government agents (which in this case they were) specific consent to a legal search, or a warrant, is needed. It's a bad precedent to find any other way, even if the truth is probable guilt. That the FBI would get a warrant after the fact shows bad faith on the part of that office, too. Even if their desire to catch bad people was sincere, they played this quite poorly.
Capacitors and inductors don't directly modify voltage or current; Rather they store energy. The way in which they do is essentially reciprocal. An inductor stores the energy as a magnetic field, which then collapses when current falls off. This collapse puts energy back into the circuit. In essence, it effectively creates an effect analogous to storing momentum if this were applied to plumbing or hydraulics.
Capacitors store charge by blocking flow and accumulating charge up to their "capacity" with a voltage (analogous to pressure in plumbing).
Inductive impedance goes up with frequency, capacitive impedance goes down with frequency, but neither "switches" or otherwise makes decisions, hence "passive". However, oscillators are based on the ability of finding a sweet-spot where the effects cancel out to a large degree, allowing the construction of frequency filters. This is the essential technology behind analog graphic equalizers, analog radio, etc.; Basically any frequency filter (band pass or band reject, depending on circuit construction) ever built for analog used this technique. This is why capacitors and inductors can be used to clean up common AC current for rectification to DC in computer power supplies, as well as amplifiers looking to cancel 60Hz hum.
Everything you said. But also, the actual legal defense here is that, "Everyone is doing it, so you have to let it persist even if it harms consumers, even if it breaks right of first sale". Except, the entities doing it control vast sums of wealth and power, so yeah, they can do whatever they want.
Widespread, but only to specific demographics. Per capita productivity has never been higher, even in relation to inflation. If that money isn't in the hands of the lower and middle classes, where do you think it has gone?
This was actually the worst ruling the private sector could get. Now it is explicit that a corporation cannot rely on its employees to in any way report errors or criminal activity by other employees to get in front of an SEC violation. Think that through for a moment. There is now a disincentive for internal reporting. If I was an owner or board member of any kind of financial institution, I would be pissed! Why it's bad for workers seems obvious.
Parents worry about all sorts of things. Everything is a threat. Which is technically accurate if assessed from the position of "zero risk". But just because a parent is worried about a thing doesn't make it an actual threat, though intuition suggests limiting screen time is a wise choice in general. Also, the inappropriate content issue is partially subjective as well. Define the term and try again, knowing that parents differ on what this means. So define the term and try again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
And while Common Sense Media isn't precisely pro-censorship, they strike me as panicky and reactionary. Also, they have a vested interest in promoting concerns from parents and potential donors. I'm not saying they're in anyway being deceitful, but what I have seen of them suggests a cognitive bias toward provoking fearful response.
I don't think you're inherently wrong, but "I keep hearing" is a tired refrain. How about, "There are peer-reviewed, replicated study results"? Violence in media, last I checked, has not shown a strong correlation with violence in society. Gun availability has shown a weak-to-moderate correlation. The FBI not taking obvious tips and especially blatant threats seriously would seem likely to have a strong correlation. As much as I'd like to see reasonable adjustments to gun policy, it's hard to argue the laws need revision when they aren't enforced now.
Also, if you let your subscription lapse, and they sent it via mail, this would be postal fraud. You cannot be billed for an item you receive via the mail if you did not order it. It might not immediately help your credit score, but openly criminal behavior is not shielded so easily behind the corporate logo for the employee(s) responsible for the false report. This information is available on the FTC website.
At most, the memo could either claim or suggest it, barring actual evidence being provided by it. And as the memo in question was put together by someone who clearly has at least one horse in the race, it would need to be corroborated. Keep in mind, if a Democrat puts out a memo pointing the other way, it is subject to the same skepticism. Now an actual report, with appropriate legal citation, would carry more weight. At most, a memo points toward a path for investigation, so we shall see.
Frankly, I fully expect to find members of both parties to be involved in illicit activity. However, if an incumbent office holder is involved, or has been involved, with a hostile foreign power, that is an urgent concern to national security. It exceeds the importance of ordinary criminal activity, which can be prosecuted in the normal fashion. That said, if the Clintons had done even 1% of what they've been accused of, and successfully avoided prosecution (with massive interests looking to bring them down, no less), they are the greatest masterminds of the last 200 years. Frankly, I find that hard to believe, at best.
Am I the only person who sees this as a quick way to lock in all of the electronic surveillance by controlling the encryption directly? Because unless end-to-end encryption is locked in, this would be the full keys to the Kingdom.
The US market is atrocious. The Canadian market, from what I gather (not researched) is even worse.
True, but that's not the full story...
Base plan: $20/month for unlimited talk and text. $10/GB used, prorated, not charged for what you don't use. Add taxes and regulatory fees. So, if you use not tower data, you pay something like $23/month. Now add that you pay the prorated amount without overages... This is more like a flex plan. Soft cap, yes. Is the throttled speed low? Yes. But with most unlimited plans you pay the full amount even if you use no data.
I'll stick to my previous position for anyone contemplating Fi that I've been saying from when I first switched: If you're not a heavy data user, it's nearly perfect. This just made it better for moderate users.