I have no desire to switch out of one app and into another while watching TV. Either put them together into one universal interface or expect monopolization.
People who care can use the mail in or go to a polling place.
The problem is that state government are responsible for voting. That means they will each be attempting to put their own voting systems into place, potentially all different designs. Feds can't regulate voting much because it's voting and has to be done by states.
Russian hackers seem very interested in our election and so far they've seem to only attack Democrats. I don't trust non tested opensource voting platforms. I want online voting, but I want it to be highly tested. I don't see how this is tested enough to go live. Government IT departments are notoriously bad. This solution should be tested and shared among the states for the sake of costs and security.
The last time we rapidly switched to electronic voting we wound up with Bush.
Most business are hacked by hackers, not the government. They want to mitigate the risk they have, not a risk you made up to suite your own parnaioa.
Until business see damages from Intelligence Agencies, it's not a point compared to hackers.
Elon Musk is not protecting his networks primarily from the FBI. He is protecting it from prolific armies of Chinese hackers. China is not like the US, it's prioritizing science, technology and efficiency. To some degree their population forces those kinds of smarter solutions. The point is they have and will continue to have more coders. Asian has a lot of coders that we effectively need be American's are too lazy to get educations. Our high education rate is horrible.
It's just a couple DNC staffers talking shit.. it's a complete BS story.
The GOP is going to want to lose the election to Hillary anyway. You may as well just give up. Trump would be 10 times worse the GOP and ENSURE a wave of progressive liberal election victories. The GOP can and knows how to fight Hillary. They have no plan on standing up to Trump or not letting him entirely re-write the weak minded voters they've bred over the years.
Even Trump doesn't want Trump to win, wise up and stop wasting your time.
Yes, but sometimes the progressive party is also the majority.. like on health care, LGBT rights, drug reform, prison reform. Liberals win on all the major platform points.. so it's accurate to call them progressives in the sense they are pushing the majority will of the people of american AND the majority will of liberals in America.
Sometimes the people who think they are right.. actually are and you can crunch the number and often find patterns to let you know if this is true.
In the case of American it does seem true because all out allies have more liberal programs which we refer to a progressive. It's a pretty solid bet that we too will be going the direction of the rest of the world and not against it, even if we are last to adopt, we are still going to adopt mainstream global principles.
The US is no longer the island of do whatever it wants. It's one of many big players in the global market and without us the market would go on. We don't make 95% of the worlds electronics or have the significant leverages in major technology. It's likely we will get a major edge back as the world moves away from foreign labor to automated labor.
It's still a net loss for jobs, because that's the future of the global economy no matter how you cut it. Jobs will not scale up against automation and rising population. They just won't. We always knew that would happen anyway.
A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy. You're grasping for straws. There is no conspiracy just like there was no secret clandestine emails about Hillary's evil plans to eat your young. There was nothing but boring emails and a few mishandled emails.. entirely standard stuff you'd find if you audited most congress like you did Hillary.
There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership.
If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there. Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south. Those are big demographics to just ignore.
Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had. The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win, so that impacts the polls and keeps his lead up while putting the focus and attacks on Hillary. The GOP never really thought Sander would win and you could see that they had no major attacks in the works like they did with Hillary.
So.. Dems and the GOP both did not think Sander would do as well as he did, instead of making up lies about Hillary. Just be glad Sander did that good. If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform.
Go listen to Obama in 2008.. he said the same shit.. healthcare for all, higher wages and cheap/free education. You got all excited.. elected him and then I guess assumed you did you're job and could go back to playing video games and soaking random things in alcohol to place inside your body.
If you want to hold government accountable, first hold yourselves accountable.
What's the bigger error here. The FCC misspeaking or the media and the people making grand exaggeration and interpretation well outside of anything close to their expertise.
People and organizations overlook details, it happens. It's the reaction from the media and people that really has no reasonable excuse. Your sensationalized knee jerk reactions literally make everything worse and beside the monetization of fear, anger and violence in general by the media. I see no excuse for that. At the very least individuals have no excuse to buy into obviously sensationalized claims. Media SHOULD, in my opinion, have reasonable limits on hyping things up and stirring up so much trouble. Since there is a profit motive for media, we basically have a sociological problem here.
How do you allow entirely free speech and not wind up propagating a clickbait mentality in the search for more profits? News, at the very least, is a form of adult education and there is a real danger in not enforcing some reasonable level of integrity in our learning materials. If we allow it to be nothing more than ratings based, yet we continue to treat it as a viable means of learning. I think we have a major problem.
You're armchair expertice times millions of people is actually damaging more often than helpful I believe. Experts are experts because they put the hard work and time in to understand the issues. Not properly weighing the years of hard work and expertise other have put in before you is not how you get anywhere fast in life. Assuming without the patience and research it takes to make proper decision is not actually useful. It's just entertainment AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.
Since when is a phone private? Looking back at their invention, they were never private. This is the most private they've been with the advent of some level of call blocking... and even that is clearly being stonewalled by the big telecom powers, because it would trivial to implement.
If debt collectors can't call you, that's billions of dollars in lost debt bundling and reselling scams.
Like 95% of people were in the phone book just a few years ago, many still are. It was never a private infrasturcture. There was the concept of a 'private line', but that just means one that you don't give the number away in order to try to not get calls. It's not like anybody promised you that you'd never get calls.
You were in no way guaranteed or sold privacy as you suggest it. All numbers are basically open to be called. That's how the technology works. You can wish you phone was private. You can refer to it as your 'private line', but that doesn't mean it's not a giant public routing network with no real permissions.. because that's what it is.
It's not about you having some right to a private phone line. You don't. You don't own any of the phone network, you have to sacrifice at least some level of privacy there. It's also not really a secure network and that's how it's sold. There is no block all calls but the ones I want option that I have ever seen a phone company offer.
Only now with smartphones have we been given that option and it's often hidden away or underdeveloped because the result is lost revenue for banks.
I don't like your anti-competitive potential, but I have no real examples of said behavior.. it's just a feeling. Funny, I've felt the same way about Steam. It's not actually Microsoft's fault that Steam's Linux box is a decade away. It's not MS's fault they are the only ones making easy to integrate high end IDE's. It's not MS's fault that no other company has invested anywhere near as much into code development and likely the PC platform in general.. you know the productive one that has made the real difference in our lives, not the silly fisher price smartphone version.
The problem with PC gaming is that people spend money on inferior mobile games because mobile is all the rage right now. Mobile has plenty of potential, but people are realizing it's limits a bit more and moving back to more practical positions where they want smartphones to be PDAs and desktops and laptops to be integrated into their mobile platform.
MS didn't make smartphone sales drop off. That's consumers. MS didn't make PC gaming sales drop off. Consumers like the cheaper more reliable consoles. At least now your PC has something similar to a factory reset button. Once that process is perfected maybe we'll see PC gaming improve as the cost of PCs are lower and Windows 10 provides lower administrative costs for home and SOHO consumers. I probably slightly increases costs for medium sized businesses with real domains and group policy, but any OS upgrade does that, especially since most users are way back on 7. Win10 may not offer much for corporate customers, but it's awesome for everyone else and MS is currently extremely active in it's development. This is about as exciting as Windows has been since Windows 95.
I don't know why Google doesn't think integrating into the desktop is important. I think they are betting it all on mobile dominance which the numbers don't exactly support. The problem is that leaves a solid opening for MS to eventually offer a superior mobile platform. Google's desktop offerings are all very weak for the sake of a unified experience 1.0. Google needs Unified Experience 2.0 because Win10 and Outlook.com just look better.
Win10 on an Atom tablet with Chrome just destroys Chrome on an ARM. Win10 appears to multitask much better, no idea if that is an OS problem or a Chrome problem. Atom probably uses more battery, but not so much it matters on a tablet. On a phone it would matter, at least for now.
Sooo since all apps are not magically going to get optimized for ARM overnight. Intel is clearly pointed it's R&D machine at mobile computing and exciting stuff will happen if only because of the combined money of Intel and MS. There isn't anything in computing that is realistically going to stop those two. Intel HAS to get into mobile and MS has easily the best core platform. MS just needs a tad bit more usability, their on-screen keyboard is probably the single weakest link and it appears they've fixed that on the Phone platform.
Sadly without tons of revenue pouring in like the inferior Android personal data mining tablets have brought, MS hasn't focused as much as they should. Things like the RCA Cambio are just awesome buys. It's a 2 gig ram 32 gig full Win10 platform all in one touchscreen with a good battery life and great performance and it's like 100 bucks right now. Even just on hardware it blows away any deal you get with Android.
RISC is awesome, but apps just aren't honestly optimized for it well. Intel will eventually eat up anything ARM has produced as battery technology makes the need for RISC once again vanish. Sorry efficiency lovers, I feel your pain, but the market will go that way.
Google has not created a desktop environment capable of competing with MS. Desktop environments are still the most productive and most necessary. MS will continue to leverage Google's lack of a productive OS and true productivity apps basically because Google refuses to take computing seriously and instead things big colorful minimalistic interfaces are awesome.
They are for simplistic devices, but it's just not workin
The internet made it possible for more peopel to dream of doing things. Still though, only the most motivated tend to rise up to challenges like that. The fact of the matter is most people aren't greedy enough to want much more than they consume unless inspired by peer pressure/social pressure. We can lay out all the opportunity in the world, and many may come for it, but the same relative percentage of the population will remain capable of pulling off a self employed side business or side hustle as the author has so sensationalistic ally phrased it.
The internet has been here for 20 years as a library in every home. Not much has changed. Video tutorials are nice, but they are only good for the more physical tasks imo and they are more often than not made for the sake of the high monetization value.
The point here is that mileniuals have only a marginal advantage because of the internet when it comes to training and raising their general productivity or economic viability. The same old rules apply. You need real like job experience to really get good at anything. The internet is great to learn, to share information, to communicate, but it doesn't replace real practice. Side gigs are hard to scale up and hard to actually get good at for most people.
The distraction of a main career, family and social life, with the need to gain expertise for your side gig and then OMG you forget you also have to become a small business expert. Now you're learning two new fields AND doing all your normal life. More often than not people fail with it comes to monetizing their hobbies.
I think behavioral benefits are what we are primarily looking at. Learning more trades often does not make us more money, but it helps makes us feel like more complete people and it helps build a more well rounded intellect. The problem is you still get old and die and the years you spent not focusing on a primary expertise is all lost fiscal years that you cannot get back. You can attempt to compensate for them, but they are gone.
It makes more sense to focus on expertise while lowering your need for money as much as possible. This gives you the most time to live your life and make the income you need to meet your bills and have some spending money. You can also change gears and focus yet more if you wind up needing more money down the road.
Corporations are people.. if they can keep terabytes and beyond of data encrypted and just have their IT guy plead the 5th. Why would they not all do that?
I expect password refusal once ordered by court to not fall under the 5th eventually. Encryption is most likely to be used by criminals for protecting themselves from court review than citizens looking at porn.
What happens when corporations say.. well.. we are people too and our entire IT structure pleads the 5th?
The moral is that testimony is not actually the same as giving a fingerprint, even though it's yours and you own it. It's unlikely the Supreme Court will be able to rule that the 5th Amendment protects us from any information release all the time.
I think they will be forced to differentiate between testimony on court and general society requirements, like being able to identify yourself.
If a password is protected by the 5th amendment under such simplistic reasons as we currently use, then fingerprints should be to. We are not going to give up fingerprints use after all these years.
It's a difficult position for the government and for citizens that want a functional justice system, which ultimately means most. Many people might say the government cannot compel you to answer questions, but that's just not a practical model.
Our interpretation of the Constitution as a document of procedural justice and essentially how to live cannot be so idealistic that it can only exist inside out own minds. The laws have to be realistically enforceable within the bounds of natural law aka reality and the end result has to be we are all better off together under these rules, otherwise the civil mangement experiment that is US democracy is failing. If we stand too arrogantly behind a rigid interpretation of our Constitution, it will harm society because many of the provisions which bypass the general interpretation of the 5th Amendment are required to manage the millions of people we have in society today.
That all being said, I see no legal reason why anyone can be compelled to give up identifying information of any kind. however, that is not a realistic stance I can take as citizen with practical management requirements of keeping relative order of 330+ million free will biological automatons. We can't have people refusing to produce a driver's license because they are protected by the 5th amendment. Identifying people is how we determine their integrity. If people can too easily refuse that it will cost us a lot more money in managing those millions of people.
From a bureaucratic viewpoint, the 5th amendment is dangerously ambiguous. If it were interpreted wrong it could easily undermine governments ability to enforce the law. I don't think this is all that big of a problem. If police really want the cell phone, they will grab people while they are on calls before they can lock them or they will wiretap enough that they don't need them.
What isn't going to happen is we aren't going to spend millions of dollars investigating real violent organized criminals and then letting them go because we couldn't get into their stupid cell phones. Somewhere, something will give before that becomes the new normal.
People who want digital security need to come to this realization. You don't fight this battle out in the public. You cannot expect to sustain a strategy of using technology to supercede government. The suggests to me you have not taken the time to consider what government really is. You can't escape it. It can effectively change the reality you live in.
Government is like your bios or OS. You can't outsmart it because you are actually operating within it. Any gains you make are short term and unsustainable because the OS adjusts to your actions and in 30 years if your actions change the OS adjusts to those actions too. Government is a dynamic management OS for humans and it can actually change rapidly if enough of those bits get together with a unified goal.
On the other hand it's self healing and resists change. It will tend to gravitate back to a center no matter how hard you manage to exploit it.. this is because it generally represents the majority well enough. The problem most of you have is that your personal opinions are not ALL the majority and it's actually democracy and other people's conflicting opinions you hate. That is represented in government, but it's not the system that creates racism or a police state.
It's the people.
So, the stance that we cannot legally compel people to give us this information is just n
Data points don't decide and election, a simple vote does. You sound like an idiot. This isn't a video game, you are likely far out of your depth.
You obviously don't know Putin's motivations. You're an idiot if you thin Putin controls 'russian' hackers in general. You're an idiot if you think Putin would not benefit from Trump devaluing the US and making it look like a joke. Multiple countries have already asserted that voting Trump is the US giving a clear signal that it no longer wants to play the role of economic leader of the world, because the world is simply not going to let a country who votes for Trump be the economic hub of the world.
These days there is no compelling reason to stick with the American market like there was 30 years ago. The US market is just one of many, and one of the least rapidly growing. It's not a minor market, but it and the US economic influence shrink a little each year.
Russia has major corruption problems and deep corporate reach into the government. Between the two candidates Trump is easily more of the corrupt businessmen type. Trump also has major business ties in Russia and we have plenty of records of this investment partners, not as many as we'd like, but you can easily dig up a hell of a lot more dirt on Trump in a 10 year period than everything on Hillary over her entire lifetime.
Hillary is nothing more than career politician, she has never made big money in her entire life, she has made successful politician money, but nothing out of line and certainly far less than many MANY Republicans holding office with no complains from conservatives.
There are no real criminal charges against Hillary, Trump has VASTLY more fraud charges and unethical practice charges than Hillary. The man has been bankrupt 4 times for billions in losses and has steadily ripped people off all his life, leaving behind a trail of litigation where ever he goes. These are not problems that normally successful billionaires usually have to the degree Trump has. Going bankrupt on big investments multiple times is usually a sign you suck at business.
Trump has ties to Russia, certainly more than Hillary. Is he aligned with Russia somehow? Probably not, but either way Trump is a fool and so is anyone who even entertains voting for him or has ALLOWED themselves to be convinced that Hillary is even a fraction as corrupt as Trump. Hillary has no long record of major failures.
Hillary has a few minor failures which have been blown vastlky out of proportion by the GOP attacks that have hounded her and her husband since the 90s.
If Bill or Hillary had said or done half the things Trump has done, conservative would be crying how these are all disqualificying factoers. When they can't produce a better candidate than Trump.. they childishly try to turn the blame and attention to Hillary to hide the the disgusting mass failure that is the republicans part.
Where was the conservative outrage when Cheney and Bush wiped their ass on the Constitution and tortured people to death in our name? Conservative spent more money investigating Hillary 50+ times just to find a handful of emails sent to the wrong place AND that her private server was actually far more secure than the government servers you are all whining that she didn use.
Did any of you non reading slackers hear me? Hillary's private 'secret' server using her SUPER SECRET domain hillaryemail.com with the Super spy code HRC22... obviously some kind of liberal code....
How stupiud can you people really be? Are you this easily fooled? Do you just believe any dramatic sounding bullshit put in front of you? Can you not be bothered to look something up for a second?
Even Sander's supporters, supports the same Democratic platforms we've always wanted and acting like they thought of it (greedy little bastards really). Like Sander's had one original thought in that platform or has actually been a key member in anyway. No he hasn't. Nobody knew the guy until a few months ago. If Sander was a driving force behind the Democrats... then why do you f
Slashdot Mirror
I have no desire to switch out of one app and into another while watching TV. Either put them together into one universal interface or expect monopolization.
People who care can use the mail in or go to a polling place. The problem is that state government are responsible for voting. That means they will each be attempting to put their own voting systems into place, potentially all different designs. Feds can't regulate voting much because it's voting and has to be done by states. Russian hackers seem very interested in our election and so far they've seem to only attack Democrats. I don't trust non tested opensource voting platforms. I want online voting, but I want it to be highly tested. I don't see how this is tested enough to go live. Government IT departments are notoriously bad. This solution should be tested and shared among the states for the sake of costs and security. The last time we rapidly switched to electronic voting we wound up with Bush.
Most business are hacked by hackers, not the government. They want to mitigate the risk they have, not a risk you made up to suite your own parnaioa. Until business see damages from Intelligence Agencies, it's not a point compared to hackers. Elon Musk is not protecting his networks primarily from the FBI. He is protecting it from prolific armies of Chinese hackers. China is not like the US, it's prioritizing science, technology and efficiency. To some degree their population forces those kinds of smarter solutions. The point is they have and will continue to have more coders. Asian has a lot of coders that we effectively need be American's are too lazy to get educations. Our high education rate is horrible.
Major players COULD do this, as in it's technically possible. There is no reason to think it's going to happen. This is for profit fear.
It's just a couple DNC staffers talking shit.. it's a complete BS story. The GOP is going to want to lose the election to Hillary anyway. You may as well just give up. Trump would be 10 times worse the GOP and ENSURE a wave of progressive liberal election victories. The GOP can and knows how to fight Hillary. They have no plan on standing up to Trump or not letting him entirely re-write the weak minded voters they've bred over the years. Even Trump doesn't want Trump to win, wise up and stop wasting your time.
Yes, but sometimes the progressive party is also the majority.. like on health care, LGBT rights, drug reform, prison reform. Liberals win on all the major platform points.. so it's accurate to call them progressives in the sense they are pushing the majority will of the people of american AND the majority will of liberals in America. Sometimes the people who think they are right.. actually are and you can crunch the number and often find patterns to let you know if this is true. In the case of American it does seem true because all out allies have more liberal programs which we refer to a progressive. It's a pretty solid bet that we too will be going the direction of the rest of the world and not against it, even if we are last to adopt, we are still going to adopt mainstream global principles. The US is no longer the island of do whatever it wants. It's one of many big players in the global market and without us the market would go on. We don't make 95% of the worlds electronics or have the significant leverages in major technology. It's likely we will get a major edge back as the world moves away from foreign labor to automated labor. It's still a net loss for jobs, because that's the future of the global economy no matter how you cut it. Jobs will not scale up against automation and rising population. They just won't. We always knew that would happen anyway.
A few tasteless emails does not in any way support the idea of a conspiracy. You're grasping for straws. There is no conspiracy just like there was no secret clandestine emails about Hillary's evil plans to eat your young. There was nothing but boring emails and a few mishandled emails.. entirely standard stuff you'd find if you audited most congress like you did Hillary. There is zero chance Bernie would have won with different DNC leadership. If fact, he would have done worse because we will be getting rid of caucuses as we modernize. They are a horrible idea that force people to not want to vote in the primary, It's not wonder the high energized Sanders fans did well there. Sanders also did significantly worse among blacks and hispanics and much of the south. Those are big demographics to just ignore. Hillary had the same 15-20 point lead on Trump that Sanders had. The difference is nobody thought Sander's would win, so that impacts the polls and keeps his lead up while putting the focus and attacks on Hillary. The GOP never really thought Sander would win and you could see that they had no major attacks in the works like they did with Hillary. So.. Dems and the GOP both did not think Sander would do as well as he did, instead of making up lies about Hillary. Just be glad Sander did that good. If you don't then you will just destroy any chance of Sander's platform not being forgotten and replaced with another name.. since it's just the generic Democratic platform. Go listen to Obama in 2008.. he said the same shit.. healthcare for all, higher wages and cheap/free education. You got all excited.. elected him and then I guess assumed you did you're job and could go back to playing video games and soaking random things in alcohol to place inside your body.
If you want to hold government accountable, first hold yourselves accountable. What's the bigger error here. The FCC misspeaking or the media and the people making grand exaggeration and interpretation well outside of anything close to their expertise. People and organizations overlook details, it happens. It's the reaction from the media and people that really has no reasonable excuse. Your sensationalized knee jerk reactions literally make everything worse and beside the monetization of fear, anger and violence in general by the media. I see no excuse for that. At the very least individuals have no excuse to buy into obviously sensationalized claims. Media SHOULD, in my opinion, have reasonable limits on hyping things up and stirring up so much trouble. Since there is a profit motive for media, we basically have a sociological problem here. How do you allow entirely free speech and not wind up propagating a clickbait mentality in the search for more profits? News, at the very least, is a form of adult education and there is a real danger in not enforcing some reasonable level of integrity in our learning materials. If we allow it to be nothing more than ratings based, yet we continue to treat it as a viable means of learning. I think we have a major problem. You're armchair expertice times millions of people is actually damaging more often than helpful I believe. Experts are experts because they put the hard work and time in to understand the issues. Not properly weighing the years of hard work and expertise other have put in before you is not how you get anywhere fast in life. Assuming without the patience and research it takes to make proper decision is not actually useful. It's just entertainment AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.
Since when is a phone private? Looking back at their invention, they were never private. This is the most private they've been with the advent of some level of call blocking... and even that is clearly being stonewalled by the big telecom powers, because it would trivial to implement. If debt collectors can't call you, that's billions of dollars in lost debt bundling and reselling scams. Like 95% of people were in the phone book just a few years ago, many still are. It was never a private infrasturcture. There was the concept of a 'private line', but that just means one that you don't give the number away in order to try to not get calls. It's not like anybody promised you that you'd never get calls. You were in no way guaranteed or sold privacy as you suggest it. All numbers are basically open to be called. That's how the technology works. You can wish you phone was private. You can refer to it as your 'private line', but that doesn't mean it's not a giant public routing network with no real permissions.. because that's what it is. It's not about you having some right to a private phone line. You don't. You don't own any of the phone network, you have to sacrifice at least some level of privacy there. It's also not really a secure network and that's how it's sold. There is no block all calls but the ones I want option that I have ever seen a phone company offer. Only now with smartphones have we been given that option and it's often hidden away or underdeveloped because the result is lost revenue for banks.
YEE HAW! Lets see how long that lasts.
I don't like your anti-competitive potential, but I have no real examples of said behavior.. it's just a feeling. Funny, I've felt the same way about Steam. It's not actually Microsoft's fault that Steam's Linux box is a decade away. It's not MS's fault they are the only ones making easy to integrate high end IDE's. It's not MS's fault that no other company has invested anywhere near as much into code development and likely the PC platform in general.. you know the productive one that has made the real difference in our lives, not the silly fisher price smartphone version. The problem with PC gaming is that people spend money on inferior mobile games because mobile is all the rage right now. Mobile has plenty of potential, but people are realizing it's limits a bit more and moving back to more practical positions where they want smartphones to be PDAs and desktops and laptops to be integrated into their mobile platform. MS didn't make smartphone sales drop off. That's consumers. MS didn't make PC gaming sales drop off. Consumers like the cheaper more reliable consoles. At least now your PC has something similar to a factory reset button. Once that process is perfected maybe we'll see PC gaming improve as the cost of PCs are lower and Windows 10 provides lower administrative costs for home and SOHO consumers. I probably slightly increases costs for medium sized businesses with real domains and group policy, but any OS upgrade does that, especially since most users are way back on 7. Win10 may not offer much for corporate customers, but it's awesome for everyone else and MS is currently extremely active in it's development. This is about as exciting as Windows has been since Windows 95. I don't know why Google doesn't think integrating into the desktop is important. I think they are betting it all on mobile dominance which the numbers don't exactly support. The problem is that leaves a solid opening for MS to eventually offer a superior mobile platform. Google's desktop offerings are all very weak for the sake of a unified experience 1.0. Google needs Unified Experience 2.0 because Win10 and Outlook.com just look better. Win10 on an Atom tablet with Chrome just destroys Chrome on an ARM. Win10 appears to multitask much better, no idea if that is an OS problem or a Chrome problem. Atom probably uses more battery, but not so much it matters on a tablet. On a phone it would matter, at least for now. Sooo since all apps are not magically going to get optimized for ARM overnight. Intel is clearly pointed it's R&D machine at mobile computing and exciting stuff will happen if only because of the combined money of Intel and MS. There isn't anything in computing that is realistically going to stop those two. Intel HAS to get into mobile and MS has easily the best core platform. MS just needs a tad bit more usability, their on-screen keyboard is probably the single weakest link and it appears they've fixed that on the Phone platform. Sadly without tons of revenue pouring in like the inferior Android personal data mining tablets have brought, MS hasn't focused as much as they should. Things like the RCA Cambio are just awesome buys. It's a 2 gig ram 32 gig full Win10 platform all in one touchscreen with a good battery life and great performance and it's like 100 bucks right now. Even just on hardware it blows away any deal you get with Android. RISC is awesome, but apps just aren't honestly optimized for it well. Intel will eventually eat up anything ARM has produced as battery technology makes the need for RISC once again vanish. Sorry efficiency lovers, I feel your pain, but the market will go that way. Google has not created a desktop environment capable of competing with MS. Desktop environments are still the most productive and most necessary. MS will continue to leverage Google's lack of a productive OS and true productivity apps basically because Google refuses to take computing seriously and instead things big colorful minimalistic interfaces are awesome. They are for simplistic devices, but it's just not workin
The internet made it possible for more peopel to dream of doing things. Still though, only the most motivated tend to rise up to challenges like that. The fact of the matter is most people aren't greedy enough to want much more than they consume unless inspired by peer pressure/social pressure. We can lay out all the opportunity in the world, and many may come for it, but the same relative percentage of the population will remain capable of pulling off a self employed side business or side hustle as the author has so sensationalistic ally phrased it. The internet has been here for 20 years as a library in every home. Not much has changed. Video tutorials are nice, but they are only good for the more physical tasks imo and they are more often than not made for the sake of the high monetization value. The point here is that mileniuals have only a marginal advantage because of the internet when it comes to training and raising their general productivity or economic viability. The same old rules apply. You need real like job experience to really get good at anything. The internet is great to learn, to share information, to communicate, but it doesn't replace real practice. Side gigs are hard to scale up and hard to actually get good at for most people. The distraction of a main career, family and social life, with the need to gain expertise for your side gig and then OMG you forget you also have to become a small business expert. Now you're learning two new fields AND doing all your normal life. More often than not people fail with it comes to monetizing their hobbies. I think behavioral benefits are what we are primarily looking at. Learning more trades often does not make us more money, but it helps makes us feel like more complete people and it helps build a more well rounded intellect. The problem is you still get old and die and the years you spent not focusing on a primary expertise is all lost fiscal years that you cannot get back. You can attempt to compensate for them, but they are gone. It makes more sense to focus on expertise while lowering your need for money as much as possible. This gives you the most time to live your life and make the income you need to meet your bills and have some spending money. You can also change gears and focus yet more if you wind up needing more money down the road.
Are we suggesting millennials invented the second job now?
Corporations are people.. if they can keep terabytes and beyond of data encrypted and just have their IT guy plead the 5th. Why would they not all do that?
I expect password refusal once ordered by court to not fall under the 5th eventually. Encryption is most likely to be used by criminals for protecting themselves from court review than citizens looking at porn. What happens when corporations say.. well.. we are people too and our entire IT structure pleads the 5th?
The moral is that testimony is not actually the same as giving a fingerprint, even though it's yours and you own it. It's unlikely the Supreme Court will be able to rule that the 5th Amendment protects us from any information release all the time. I think they will be forced to differentiate between testimony on court and general society requirements, like being able to identify yourself. If a password is protected by the 5th amendment under such simplistic reasons as we currently use, then fingerprints should be to. We are not going to give up fingerprints use after all these years. It's a difficult position for the government and for citizens that want a functional justice system, which ultimately means most. Many people might say the government cannot compel you to answer questions, but that's just not a practical model. Our interpretation of the Constitution as a document of procedural justice and essentially how to live cannot be so idealistic that it can only exist inside out own minds. The laws have to be realistically enforceable within the bounds of natural law aka reality and the end result has to be we are all better off together under these rules, otherwise the civil mangement experiment that is US democracy is failing. If we stand too arrogantly behind a rigid interpretation of our Constitution, it will harm society because many of the provisions which bypass the general interpretation of the 5th Amendment are required to manage the millions of people we have in society today. That all being said, I see no legal reason why anyone can be compelled to give up identifying information of any kind. however, that is not a realistic stance I can take as citizen with practical management requirements of keeping relative order of 330+ million free will biological automatons. We can't have people refusing to produce a driver's license because they are protected by the 5th amendment. Identifying people is how we determine their integrity. If people can too easily refuse that it will cost us a lot more money in managing those millions of people. From a bureaucratic viewpoint, the 5th amendment is dangerously ambiguous. If it were interpreted wrong it could easily undermine governments ability to enforce the law. I don't think this is all that big of a problem. If police really want the cell phone, they will grab people while they are on calls before they can lock them or they will wiretap enough that they don't need them. What isn't going to happen is we aren't going to spend millions of dollars investigating real violent organized criminals and then letting them go because we couldn't get into their stupid cell phones. Somewhere, something will give before that becomes the new normal. People who want digital security need to come to this realization. You don't fight this battle out in the public. You cannot expect to sustain a strategy of using technology to supercede government. The suggests to me you have not taken the time to consider what government really is. You can't escape it. It can effectively change the reality you live in. Government is like your bios or OS. You can't outsmart it because you are actually operating within it. Any gains you make are short term and unsustainable because the OS adjusts to your actions and in 30 years if your actions change the OS adjusts to those actions too. Government is a dynamic management OS for humans and it can actually change rapidly if enough of those bits get together with a unified goal. On the other hand it's self healing and resists change. It will tend to gravitate back to a center no matter how hard you manage to exploit it.. this is because it generally represents the majority well enough. The problem most of you have is that your personal opinions are not ALL the majority and it's actually democracy and other people's conflicting opinions you hate. That is represented in government, but it's not the system that creates racism or a police state. It's the people. So, the stance that we cannot legally compel people to give us this information is just n
Data points don't decide and election, a simple vote does. You sound like an idiot. This isn't a video game, you are likely far out of your depth. You obviously don't know Putin's motivations. You're an idiot if you thin Putin controls 'russian' hackers in general. You're an idiot if you think Putin would not benefit from Trump devaluing the US and making it look like a joke. Multiple countries have already asserted that voting Trump is the US giving a clear signal that it no longer wants to play the role of economic leader of the world, because the world is simply not going to let a country who votes for Trump be the economic hub of the world. These days there is no compelling reason to stick with the American market like there was 30 years ago. The US market is just one of many, and one of the least rapidly growing. It's not a minor market, but it and the US economic influence shrink a little each year. Russia has major corruption problems and deep corporate reach into the government. Between the two candidates Trump is easily more of the corrupt businessmen type. Trump also has major business ties in Russia and we have plenty of records of this investment partners, not as many as we'd like, but you can easily dig up a hell of a lot more dirt on Trump in a 10 year period than everything on Hillary over her entire lifetime. Hillary is nothing more than career politician, she has never made big money in her entire life, she has made successful politician money, but nothing out of line and certainly far less than many MANY Republicans holding office with no complains from conservatives. There are no real criminal charges against Hillary, Trump has VASTLY more fraud charges and unethical practice charges than Hillary. The man has been bankrupt 4 times for billions in losses and has steadily ripped people off all his life, leaving behind a trail of litigation where ever he goes. These are not problems that normally successful billionaires usually have to the degree Trump has. Going bankrupt on big investments multiple times is usually a sign you suck at business. Trump has ties to Russia, certainly more than Hillary. Is he aligned with Russia somehow? Probably not, but either way Trump is a fool and so is anyone who even entertains voting for him or has ALLOWED themselves to be convinced that Hillary is even a fraction as corrupt as Trump. Hillary has no long record of major failures. Hillary has a few minor failures which have been blown vastlky out of proportion by the GOP attacks that have hounded her and her husband since the 90s. If Bill or Hillary had said or done half the things Trump has done, conservative would be crying how these are all disqualificying factoers. When they can't produce a better candidate than Trump.. they childishly try to turn the blame and attention to Hillary to hide the the disgusting mass failure that is the republicans part. Where was the conservative outrage when Cheney and Bush wiped their ass on the Constitution and tortured people to death in our name? Conservative spent more money investigating Hillary 50+ times just to find a handful of emails sent to the wrong place AND that her private server was actually far more secure than the government servers you are all whining that she didn use. Did any of you non reading slackers hear me? Hillary's private 'secret' server using her SUPER SECRET domain hillaryemail.com with the Super spy code HRC22... obviously some kind of liberal code.... How stupiud can you people really be? Are you this easily fooled? Do you just believe any dramatic sounding bullshit put in front of you? Can you not be bothered to look something up for a second? Even Sander's supporters, supports the same Democratic platforms we've always wanted and acting like they thought of it (greedy little bastards really). Like Sander's had one original thought in that platform or has actually been a key member in anyway. No he hasn't. Nobody knew the guy until a few months ago. If Sander was a driving force behind the Democrats ... then why do you f