If Apple can retroactively create software to access encrypted software on the shooter's device without the password, then the device isn't secure, period. A secure device should remain secure even if its manufacturer or the network gets compromised.
they could be legitimatedly referred to as 'American Death Camps.'
The term "Polish death camps" is ambiguous; it could refer to the political entity or the geographic region. But since Poland didn't exist as a political entity at the time, it obviously has to refer to the geographic region. It's shorthand for "Polish death camps of the Nazi Regime" or "Nazi death camps in Poland". This is as much a tribute to the millions of Polish victims as it is a reminder to reflect on the relationship between Polish society and the death camps.
Since the Mariana Islands are not geographically part of America and were not under US rule while the death camps operated there, there is no sense in which they could be referred to as the "American death camps". What they could be referred to is the "Mariana Island death camps", which is short for "Mariana Island death camps of Imperial Japan".
The camps were and are objectively "Polish" camps, in the sense that anything ever was "Polish": they were in areas that belonged to Poland before annexation by Germany and were returned to Poland after the war. In different words, they were "Nazi Germany's Polish death camps". The term is a legitimate reference to their location, in contrast, to, "Nazi Germany's German death camps".
Now, if Poland had a long history of tolerance, liberalism, and pacifism, you might argue that the term "Polish" refers not just to a geographic region, but also to a culture for which the crimes committed at Auschwitz are atypical. But Poland did not have such a history, hence there is no need to treat the term "Polish" as anything other than a geographical term.
Having dealt with that issue, we can ask the question of: why are some groups in Poland trying to change language in this way? And the reason is plainly that they don't want to come to term with their own history of discrimination, intolerance, and violence. Observing that in no way draws an equivalence between the Nazi artrocities and Polish history. It just means pointing out that there are two wrongs, and one wrong shouldn't allow people to pretend the other didn't happen.
Therefore, people should continue to refer to Auschwitz as one of "Nazi Germany's Polish death camps", leaving out the political qualifier "Nazi Germany's" when it is obvious from context. And, quite separately, Poland should be admonished to come to terms with its past instead of playing linguistic games.
intended to catch and rewrite terms such as 'Polish death camps' and other phrases which associate the Polish people with the atrocities of the holocaust, rather than the occupying German forces which created and ran the death camps
The trouble is: the Polish people were actually associated with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Antisemitism and oppression were common in Poland both before and after WWII. The main reason Poles didn't cooperate more with the Nazis was that the Nazis viewed them as racially inferior as well. So, whatever you call the death camps, Poland's own despicable history must not be forgotten.
Does Windows still matter these days? Sure, a lot of people are running it, but most of the end-user app development now takes place on Android and iOS, and server and high performance computing is largely Linux.
The only thing Windows still has a lead in is as a gaming platform, and it's unlikely that ReactOS will be useful for addressing that.
Whether the person who agrees with evolution believes it with understanding and reason or just because it's what they were told is relevant to your point, but that's not really what we're talking about.
What we are talking about is trying to explain why Americans generally do a bit worse on science, in particular when the science is politically tinged.
My explanation is that these questions don't actually measure the understanding of science by the population; understanding science can't be measured by "Man is descended from animals. True/False?" type questions, because those questions measure scientific beliefs not scientific understanding, and are influenced by a large number of social and cultural factors (e.g., this).
I'm also pointing out that skepticism of received scientific beliefs is generally a good thing, even if that leads to higher rates of wrong answers on questions about scientific conclusions on average. And even if there were meaningful differences in actual scientific understanding (rather than belief), it is not evenclear why increasing that understanding would be beneficial to society.Some understanding of science and some knowledge about scientific results is useful, but a lot of scientific understanding and knowledge is simply irrelevant to anything.
Does it matter? The answer shows that people are ignorant or rejecting of science.
It matters a great deal whether people believe government scientific experts or not, namely when those experts are wrong. Scientific racism, for example, was the justification for segregation in the US and the genocide in Europe. A more recent example is erroneous and dangerous dietary advice from the government, probably contributing to the obesity epidemic.
It is better for people simply to say "I don't know" than to say "it is a scientific fact that..." and be wrong.
No, us space nutters simply don't care much either way. Overcoming the light speed limit isn't necessary for space exploration or colonizing the galaxy.
In any case, FTL travel is consistent with known physics; at this point, the question is merely whether it's practical.
SJW means person on the internet with whom I Disagree.
No, "SJW" means someone who has made social justice their cause. The term "social justice warrior" started out as a positive self-identification. It acquired its negative connotations because of the way social justice activists behaved while wearing that moniker.
Of course, the part that is really offensive about "social justice" and its activists is their misuse of the term "justice"; what they are advocating isn't "justice", it is oppression and totalitarian government, often driven by selfish motives.
Rather than debate the meaning and origin of the term "SJW", it's easier just to call these people "social justice activists" and then call out their hypocrisy and condemn them and their activism.
Cities rise and fall based on their usefulness at the time, not your nostalgic feelings about them.
It's not just their usefulness, but also their political power and ability to engage in rent seeking. That is, a large part of the wealth of cities is not due to their contributions to society and the economy, but their ability to impose costs on the rest of the country and create trade barriers and monopolies protecting their interests. That's also nothing new; Adam Smith already discusses these mechanisms in detail.
Don't worry, US progressives will soon pass laws to end this price gouging and exploitation of the Cuban proletariat by capitalist oppressors! A bit of common sense regulation will ensure that Cubans who sell their classic cars will receive a fair price and protect them from the evil corruption associated with the US dollar!
Most people, even "educated" people, know next to nothing about biology or evolution; when you ask them "do you believe in evolution", the question is really no more meaningful than "do you believe in God" or "do you believe that the Pope is secretly homosexual": the people to ask have no meaningful, rational basis on which to answer it, all they can do is say whether people they trust have told them that it's true. And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans. I consider that a good thing.
But we are really in new territory here - when I grew up, international law and -treaties were something remote that people on the ground didn't need to be aware of, whereas now, in step with the increased globalisation it is becoming an ever more pressing issue, even down to grassroots level.
You mean international treaties like the Treaty of Versailles were just something remote, with no consequences? You mean like 60 million dead, with half a million dead Americans doesn't count? Or the Berne Convention, something that radically changed the nature of copyright in the US and is the basis for much of the intellectual property claims in the US?
I'm not advocating one choice over another,
Well, technically that is correct, because "advocating one choicer over another" means having at least a remote idea of what you are talking about. Instead, you're just engaging in "think of the children" and "times have changed" kind of FUD.
Where is your evidence for that? Most research in the US and Western Europe is, in fact, privately financed.
Even for public research grants, the conditions everybody agrees on is that researchers and universities retain many rights; if the government wanted to retain all rights, it would have to pay more.
While I cannot blame Indian workers for the opportunities given to them, we are handing over high paying jobs to other countries.
"Given to them"? You talk like there is some global agency that decides what jobs what workers may do in the world. Nobody is "giving" these jobs to Indians, Indians take them whenever they can by trying to do those jobs better and cheaper than Americans. Those Indian workers aren't going to be impressed by your grumbling about not being able to maintain your cushy Silicon Valley lifestyle on your IT salary.
Sanders wants to raise the salaries of H1B workers. Which would lessen stories like these, and reduce them to situations in which you truly can only find the person you want overseas (and make sure they get paid a fair rate).
How would that help? Hertz is outsourcing the jobs to IBM India; the jobs are effectively already gone from the US. The fact that they are using H-1Bs during a transition is incidental. The fundamental problem is that labor costs in the US are too high, and Sanders is going to make that worse.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
So you equate socialist and communist.
I don't "equate" them; socialists have at times used the terms synonymously, and at other times made a distinction. All I did was observe that an entity that calls itself a "communist party" probably has veered too far from either socialism or communism to be referred to as such.
In Marxist theory, socialism is a historical stage characterized by shared ownership of the means of production that arises out of capitalism (private ownership of everything) and gradually transitions into communism (no private property at all).
And you think there can be such a thing as a socialist dictatorship.
Marx called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". What that means is that one class (the proletariat) overrides the will of the people in a representative form of government in order to compel people to adopt socialism. A "socialist dictatorship" isn't just possible, the notion of "dictatorship" is inherent in the idea of socialism; you cannot have socialism without it. Socialists generally excuse this form of dictatorship as being justified and the lesser of two evils, but there can be no question that it is a dictatorship of some form. In reality, of course, it's not a "dictatorship of the proletariat", it's a "dictatorship of nominal representatives of the proletariat". Guess who becomes that kind of representative? The same selfish, greedy, power-hungry people who now become politicians. Only, under socialism, they have more power and fewer restraints.
Furthermore, the idea that socialism is a transitional stage is not just theory, that's what you see in practice. Unfortunately, in practice, it doesn't transition into the classless, egalitarian, communist society that it promises, but either into poverty-stricken totalitarian regimes with a corrupt leadership, or simply civil war.
Note that capitalists and classical liberals want the same thing as socialists and communists: a society that is classless, egalitarian, and gives power to make decisions for society to the most qualified people. The disagreement is over how to best bring that about. Socialism/communism has a long track record of failure because you can't accomplish those goals by force, while free markets and individual liberties have done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system.
I disagree with your definitions.
Then you're disagreeing with mainstream definitions of socialism.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
In the US, welfare states are considered socialist.
Sure, if you're an uneducated hick who listens to Christian talk radio and believes that anybody who doesn't get down on his knees in front of a naked Jesus must be a bloody communist.
Since they are all wrong, name one you would accept.
Socialist country? The Wikipedia page is pretty reasonable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
except that China is arguably not communist anymore.
For a while, "social democratic parties" were doing fairly well in Europe, but they stopped being "socialist" long ago, while conservative parties have support the welfare state since Bismarck. Furthermore, the "social democratic parties" don't hold on to power for long, and much of Europe is governed by "liberal" (more like US libertarian or free market conservatives), center-right, or conservative parties.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
However that's not the point of my deeper point; the data should be held subject to a person reporting the country they are located in, and the restriction applied at that point. This would only require a country willing to allow this policy.
Copyright law is governed by international treaties, and most countries are signatories to those treaties. People self-reporting their location isn't going to cut it.
The few countries that are not subject to such treaties are so poor that they aren't going to waste money on hosting free copies of Anne Franke's diaries. And if they did, publishers would simply get them kicked off the Internet altogether.
It is the US tail wagging the world's dog - and we need to start rejecting this over-reach. In this case the Wikipedia foundation should be off shore from the US and its servers likewise.
What good would that do? Copyright laws in Europe are at least as draconian as in the US, if not more so, and a lot less clear.
The US at least allows the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid liability by complying with DMCA requests; in Europe, they may well be screwed altogether.
The Anne Frank foundation has been gold-digging in Europe as well:
http://www.theguardian.com/boo...
This is a world-wide problem, and European publishers, lobbyists, politicians, and authors are just as much to blame for this as Disney and their supporters in Congress, if not more so.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Ever heard the phrase "Divided by a Common Language?"
That phrase refers to different, acceptable usages in different English-speaking countries. Sanders' use of the term "socialism" to describe his program is not accepted usage anywhere in the world.
In this case when Bernie and his boys say "Socialist," they mean Nordic Welfare state.... while b) moving the country left a whole lot in economic terms
Yes, and that is a deliberate misrepresentation. It's also not a new thing. Go read the National Socialist Program and you will find a large overlap with Sanders' programs, promises, and rhetoric. Like Sanders, they misrepresented their progressive and anti-capitalist program as a form of socialism.
So, if Sanders wants to call himself a "national socialist", he should go ahead; a "socialist" he is not.
(Furthermore, Sanders does not actually advocate the Nordic model, which involves a massive financial sacrifices from the middle class and government interference that Americans would be in no way willing to accept. Sanders is peddling a fiction that has nothing to do with either socialism or the Nordic model.)
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple can retroactively create software to access encrypted software on the shooter's device without the password, then the device isn't secure, period. A secure device should remain secure even if its manufacturer or the network gets compromised.
The term "Polish death camps" is ambiguous; it could refer to the political entity or the geographic region. But since Poland didn't exist as a political entity at the time, it obviously has to refer to the geographic region. It's shorthand for "Polish death camps of the Nazi Regime" or "Nazi death camps in Poland". This is as much a tribute to the millions of Polish victims as it is a reminder to reflect on the relationship between Polish society and the death camps.
Since the Mariana Islands are not geographically part of America and were not under US rule while the death camps operated there, there is no sense in which they could be referred to as the "American death camps". What they could be referred to is the "Mariana Island death camps", which is short for "Mariana Island death camps of Imperial Japan".
Now, if Poland had a long history of tolerance, liberalism, and pacifism, you might argue that the term "Polish" refers not just to a geographic region, but also to a culture for which the crimes committed at Auschwitz are atypical. But Poland did not have such a history, hence there is no need to treat the term "Polish" as anything other than a geographical term.
Having dealt with that issue, we can ask the question of: why are some groups in Poland trying to change language in this way? And the reason is plainly that they don't want to come to term with their own history of discrimination, intolerance, and violence. Observing that in no way draws an equivalence between the Nazi artrocities and Polish history. It just means pointing out that there are two wrongs, and one wrong shouldn't allow people to pretend the other didn't happen.
Therefore, people should continue to refer to Auschwitz as one of "Nazi Germany's Polish death camps", leaving out the political qualifier "Nazi Germany's" when it is obvious from context. And, quite separately, Poland should be admonished to come to terms with its past instead of playing linguistic games.
The trouble is: the Polish people were actually associated with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Antisemitism and oppression were common in Poland both before and after WWII. The main reason Poles didn't cooperate more with the Nazis was that the Nazis viewed them as racially inferior as well. So, whatever you call the death camps, Poland's own despicable history must not be forgotten.
The only thing Windows still has a lead in is as a gaming platform, and it's unlikely that ReactOS will be useful for addressing that.
What we are talking about is trying to explain why Americans generally do a bit worse on science, in particular when the science is politically tinged.
My explanation is that these questions don't actually measure the understanding of science by the population; understanding science can't be measured by "Man is descended from animals. True/False?" type questions, because those questions measure scientific beliefs not scientific understanding, and are influenced by a large number of social and cultural factors (e.g., this).
I'm also pointing out that skepticism of received scientific beliefs is generally a good thing, even if that leads to higher rates of wrong answers on questions about scientific conclusions on average. And even if there were meaningful differences in actual scientific understanding (rather than belief), it is not evenclear why increasing that understanding would be beneficial to society.Some understanding of science and some knowledge about scientific results is useful, but a lot of scientific understanding and knowledge is simply irrelevant to anything.
It matters a great deal whether people believe government scientific experts or not, namely when those experts are wrong. Scientific racism, for example, was the justification for segregation in the US and the genocide in Europe. A more recent example is erroneous and dangerous dietary advice from the government, probably contributing to the obesity epidemic.
It is better for people simply to say "I don't know" than to say "it is a scientific fact that..." and be wrong.
Or, alternatively, you can simply run the Netflix app on a virtual machine in the target country and then stream the video from the virtual desktop.
In any case, FTL travel is consistent with known physics; at this point, the question is merely whether it's practical.
They didn't mean "countless" but "count less", as in "you don't have to count much".
No, "SJW" means someone who has made social justice their cause. The term "social justice warrior" started out as a positive self-identification. It acquired its negative connotations because of the way social justice activists behaved while wearing that moniker.
Of course, the part that is really offensive about "social justice" and its activists is their misuse of the term "justice"; what they are advocating isn't "justice", it is oppression and totalitarian government, often driven by selfish motives.
Rather than debate the meaning and origin of the term "SJW", it's easier just to call these people "social justice activists" and then call out their hypocrisy and condemn them and their activism.
It's not just their usefulness, but also their political power and ability to engage in rent seeking. That is, a large part of the wealth of cities is not due to their contributions to society and the economy, but their ability to impose costs on the rest of the country and create trade barriers and monopolies protecting their interests. That's also nothing new; Adam Smith already discusses these mechanisms in detail.
Don't worry, US progressives will soon pass laws to end this price gouging and exploitation of the Cuban proletariat by capitalist oppressors! A bit of common sense regulation will ensure that Cubans who sell their classic cars will receive a fair price and protect them from the evil corruption associated with the US dollar!
Most people, even "educated" people, know next to nothing about biology or evolution; when you ask them "do you believe in evolution", the question is really no more meaningful than "do you believe in God" or "do you believe that the Pope is secretly homosexual": the people to ask have no meaningful, rational basis on which to answer it, all they can do is say whether people they trust have told them that it's true. And for various reasons, Americans trust government experts less than Europeans. I consider that a good thing.
You mean international treaties like the Treaty of Versailles were just something remote, with no consequences? You mean like 60 million dead, with half a million dead Americans doesn't count? Or the Berne Convention, something that radically changed the nature of copyright in the US and is the basis for much of the intellectual property claims in the US?
Well, technically that is correct, because "advocating one choicer over another" means having at least a remote idea of what you are talking about. Instead, you're just engaging in "think of the children" and "times have changed" kind of FUD.
Even for public research grants, the conditions everybody agrees on is that researchers and universities retain many rights; if the government wanted to retain all rights, it would have to pay more.
"Given to them"? You talk like there is some global agency that decides what jobs what workers may do in the world. Nobody is "giving" these jobs to Indians, Indians take them whenever they can by trying to do those jobs better and cheaper than Americans. Those Indian workers aren't going to be impressed by your grumbling about not being able to maintain your cushy Silicon Valley lifestyle on your IT salary.
How would that help? Hertz is outsourcing the jobs to IBM India; the jobs are effectively already gone from the US. The fact that they are using H-1Bs during a transition is incidental. The fundamental problem is that labor costs in the US are too high, and Sanders is going to make that worse.
I don't "equate" them; socialists have at times used the terms synonymously, and at other times made a distinction. All I did was observe that an entity that calls itself a "communist party" probably has veered too far from either socialism or communism to be referred to as such.
In Marxist theory, socialism is a historical stage characterized by shared ownership of the means of production that arises out of capitalism (private ownership of everything) and gradually transitions into communism (no private property at all).
Marx called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". What that means is that one class (the proletariat) overrides the will of the people in a representative form of government in order to compel people to adopt socialism. A "socialist dictatorship" isn't just possible, the notion of "dictatorship" is inherent in the idea of socialism; you cannot have socialism without it. Socialists generally excuse this form of dictatorship as being justified and the lesser of two evils, but there can be no question that it is a dictatorship of some form. In reality, of course, it's not a "dictatorship of the proletariat", it's a "dictatorship of nominal representatives of the proletariat". Guess who becomes that kind of representative? The same selfish, greedy, power-hungry people who now become politicians. Only, under socialism, they have more power and fewer restraints.
Furthermore, the idea that socialism is a transitional stage is not just theory, that's what you see in practice. Unfortunately, in practice, it doesn't transition into the classless, egalitarian, communist society that it promises, but either into poverty-stricken totalitarian regimes with a corrupt leadership, or simply civil war.
Note that capitalists and classical liberals want the same thing as socialists and communists: a society that is classless, egalitarian, and gives power to make decisions for society to the most qualified people. The disagreement is over how to best bring that about. Socialism/communism has a long track record of failure because you can't accomplish those goals by force, while free markets and individual liberties have done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system.
Then you're disagreeing with mainstream definitions of socialism.
Sure, if you're an uneducated hick who listens to Christian talk radio and believes that anybody who doesn't get down on his knees in front of a naked Jesus must be a bloody communist.
Socialist country? The Wikipedia page is pretty reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... except that China is arguably not communist anymore.
For a while, "social democratic parties" were doing fairly well in Europe, but they stopped being "socialist" long ago, while conservative parties have support the welfare state since Bismarck. Furthermore, the "social democratic parties" don't hold on to power for long, and much of Europe is governed by "liberal" (more like US libertarian or free market conservatives), center-right, or conservative parties. http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Copyright law is governed by international treaties, and most countries are signatories to those treaties. People self-reporting their location isn't going to cut it.
The few countries that are not subject to such treaties are so poor that they aren't going to waste money on hosting free copies of Anne Franke's diaries. And if they did, publishers would simply get them kicked off the Internet altogether.
What good would that do? Copyright laws in Europe are at least as draconian as in the US, if not more so, and a lot less clear.
The US at least allows the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid liability by complying with DMCA requests; in Europe, they may well be screwed altogether.
The Anne Frank foundation has been gold-digging in Europe as well: http://www.theguardian.com/boo... This is a world-wide problem, and European publishers, lobbyists, politicians, and authors are just as much to blame for this as Disney and their supporters in Congress, if not more so.
That phrase refers to different, acceptable usages in different English-speaking countries. Sanders' use of the term "socialism" to describe his program is not accepted usage anywhere in the world.
Yes, and that is a deliberate misrepresentation. It's also not a new thing. Go read the National Socialist Program and you will find a large overlap with Sanders' programs, promises, and rhetoric. Like Sanders, they misrepresented their progressive and anti-capitalist program as a form of socialism.
So, if Sanders wants to call himself a "national socialist", he should go ahead; a "socialist" he is not.
(Furthermore, Sanders does not actually advocate the Nordic model, which involves a massive financial sacrifices from the middle class and government interference that Americans would be in no way willing to accept. Sanders is peddling a fiction that has nothing to do with either socialism or the Nordic model.)
A bending unit that ... must kill all humans, perhaps?