Probably they have ties with Russian intelligence agencies, but they also seem to have pissed off American intelligence agencies by detecting their spyware or not "collaborating" with them...
This rubbish has been invented by modern theologists when they ran out of arguments for converting people to their respective faith. It's a well-known fact that those values of Christianity that we consider positive nowadays come from enlightenment and the humanist ideas that started in the 18th and 19th Century. Before that, it was fine to have slavery, commit genocide, support feudalism and absolutism, burn witches, and so forth. The values preached by your particular cult, whatever it may be, are changing every century and you're deluding yourself if you believe that there is any correlation between our modern enligthenment values and religious prescriptions.
I don't know the exact demands of that Russian regulatory authority but judging from what I've read they seem to want access to the users' data. Unfortunately, anyone who makes software that directly processes such data can provide such access.
Not in every country such a demand is lawful, though. I believe it is currently not possible to make the same demand in the continental EU and in the US, not 100% sure about it. But I do know that laws have been proposed to change that and are being discussed again and again. It's not as if a software maker could reasonably claim that it's technically impossible to implement mandatory key escrow or other means of accessing user data.
Enforcing training requirements, "licensing", ever increasing levels of background checks, are all part of a slippery slope fallacy on a path towards removal of gun rights.
I'm a run-off-the-mill educated European left-wing liberal and nevertheless occasionally like watching US firearms videos like FPSRussia shooting bazookas at Zombie clown figures. Don't get me wrong, I am for fairly strict gun control and think many US states would fare better with stricter control and better background checks, but I don't quite see the point of that video restriction, to be honest. It does nothing for tighter gun control and I fail to see any beneficial effect of restricting hobby videos and (legal!) sales information. Makes no sense to me.
The best way to get a gestapo is by voting for a president who actively fights law enforcement and also seeks control over all intelligence agencies in his country.
There are plenty of politicians with high personal integrity on all political sides. Trump is not one of them - as most of the current US government. But who cares about the current US government anyway...
I often use Wikipedia as a quick start and afterwards look up more in-depth information elsewhere. Wikipedia is particularly good for 'light' mathematical topics in my opinion (like e.g. looking up Kolmogorov's axioms or what a preorder is).
There is one essential thing missing, though, that many lexica andsubject-matter compendiums have: a good further reading / curated bibliography section. The bibliography sections of Wikipedia are often abysmal, based on sometimes arbitray citations used to write the article, and, generally speaking, Wikipedia is not a good starting point to find seminal literature on a topic.
Your moral distinctions are non-actionable and largely irrevelant, because it is technically impossible to create encryption that is secure in the first three use cases but somehow magically cannot be used by common crooks.
Of course, you shouldn't knowlingly deal with the Sinaloa cartel, but that has nothing to do with what goes on in your brain while you "create encryption".
It's possible that they did ask the CEO and that he declined. In countries with legal systems that have this flaw (most of them, I guess), it seems to be very common for authorities to blackmail people and force them into complying with demands that could not enforced legally.
Trade tariffs are a loose-loose measure. They are basically subsidies for companies that are not competitive enough, and by benefitting from the artifical trade barriers these companies become even less competitive internationally. It takes a while for these obvious and logical mechanisms to kick in, but in the end everybody looses big time.
They underappreciate Apple's wealth. They're worth over $900 Billion, racing towards the trillion dollar line. That means they could give away iPhones, tablets and Macs for free and still go on for years and years to come.
However, don't worry, Apple will continue to put a premium price on tech they have bought and rebranded as their own. Just like in the 90s...
Java in the 90s (Java applets) by Sun was probably the last serious attempt to break the application barrier. It didn't work, because Apple and Microsoft put in artificial hurdles, little incompatibilites and a vast number of platform-specific code. Web browsers as a platform are somewhat of a half-hearted and technically even worse attempt to do the same. I'd say that closest to cross-platform is Qt. But you still need to compile binaries for each platform.
The only way to break the application barrier would maybe to create a very good, easy to use, multi-language cross-platform application framework and legally protect it very aggressively against the introduction of any incompatibilities and platform-specific libraries.That won't happen for many reasons. First, the GUI user experience would have to be unified to a smallest common denominator. Second, such a license would be incompatible with common free software licenses like the GPL and e.g. FSF has zero interest in this, they want free software, not integration with proprietary platforms. Third, companies with like Apple, Google, Microsoft would probably prohibit such a framework or applications created with it from running on their platforms, or find a way to make the user experience miserable (e.g. not allowing the developers of such a framework full access, slowing down programs, not allowing apps in their app stores, etc.).
Your school teacher kind of misinformed you. Any source of information that you actually use when writing an article needs to be cited. But if there is a primary source, then you go to the primary source, not the secondary source. That's why encyclopedias, handbooks, textbooks, etc. are not cited. You don't cite second-hand hearsay, highly editorialized summaries or quotations of quotations, you go to the actual research article.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably they have ties with Russian intelligence agencies, but they also seem to have pissed off American intelligence agencies by detecting their spyware or not "collaborating" with them...
That's the reason why there is so much crap and fad software on the net that dies within 3 years after its invention.
This rubbish has been invented by modern theologists when they ran out of arguments for converting people to their respective faith. It's a well-known fact that those values of Christianity that we consider positive nowadays come from enlightenment and the humanist ideas that started in the 18th and 19th Century. Before that, it was fine to have slavery, commit genocide, support feudalism and absolutism, burn witches, and so forth. The values preached by your particular cult, whatever it may be, are changing every century and you're deluding yourself if you believe that there is any correlation between our modern enligthenment values and religious prescriptions.
What's the advantage of manufacturing them in the US? Higher price?
I don't know the exact demands of that Russian regulatory authority but judging from what I've read they seem to want access to the users' data. Unfortunately, anyone who makes software that directly processes such data can provide such access. Not in every country such a demand is lawful, though. I believe it is currently not possible to make the same demand in the continental EU and in the US, not 100% sure about it. But I do know that laws have been proposed to change that and are being discussed again and again. It's not as if a software maker could reasonably claim that it's technically impossible to implement mandatory key escrow or other means of accessing user data.
Looks good so far. The Piratebay is not censored (but is usually in my country), for example.
A targeted ransom attack can certainly not be prevented by a copy-on-write filesystem - or mere backups, for what it's worth.
In this case it might have been about parody. In the future, it could mean that studios can use actors without hiring or paying them.
Definitely not.
No more people visiting your country. You're gonna be safe. Splendid idea.
It's called "nuclear energy", you fucking moron.
Nah, It's just the US cloud you shouldn't trust. Mega works fine, I use it daily, and any other non-US cloud service works fine, too, I suppose.
Enforcing training requirements, "licensing", ever increasing levels of background checks, are all part of a slippery slope fallacy on a path towards removal of gun rights.
There, FTFY.
I'm a run-off-the-mill educated European left-wing liberal and nevertheless occasionally like watching US firearms videos like FPSRussia shooting bazookas at Zombie clown figures. Don't get me wrong, I am for fairly strict gun control and think many US states would fare better with stricter control and better background checks, but I don't quite see the point of that video restriction, to be honest. It does nothing for tighter gun control and I fail to see any beneficial effect of restricting hobby videos and (legal!) sales information. Makes no sense to me.
The best way to get a gestapo is by voting for a president who actively fights law enforcement and also seeks control over all intelligence agencies in his country.
There are plenty of politicians with high personal integrity on all political sides. Trump is not one of them - as most of the current US government. But who cares about the current US government anyway...
I often use Wikipedia as a quick start and afterwards look up more in-depth information elsewhere. Wikipedia is particularly good for 'light' mathematical topics in my opinion (like e.g. looking up Kolmogorov's axioms or what a preorder is). There is one essential thing missing, though, that many lexica andsubject-matter compendiums have: a good further reading / curated bibliography section. The bibliography sections of Wikipedia are often abysmal, based on sometimes arbitray citations used to write the article, and, generally speaking, Wikipedia is not a good starting point to find seminal literature on a topic.
You can also combine the two problems.
Your moral distinctions are non-actionable and largely irrevelant, because it is technically impossible to create encryption that is secure in the first three use cases but somehow magically cannot be used by common crooks. Of course, you shouldn't knowlingly deal with the Sinaloa cartel, but that has nothing to do with what goes on in your brain while you "create encryption".
Murder is murder, whether committed by the state or not.
It's possible that they did ask the CEO and that he declined. In countries with legal systems that have this flaw (most of them, I guess), it seems to be very common for authorities to blackmail people and force them into complying with demands that could not enforced legally.
Trade tariffs are a loose-loose measure. They are basically subsidies for companies that are not competitive enough, and by benefitting from the artifical trade barriers these companies become even less competitive internationally. It takes a while for these obvious and logical mechanisms to kick in, but in the end everybody looses big time.
They underappreciate Apple's wealth. They're worth over $900 Billion, racing towards the trillion dollar line. That means they could give away iPhones, tablets and Macs for free and still go on for years and years to come. However, don't worry, Apple will continue to put a premium price on tech they have bought and rebranded as their own. Just like in the 90s...
Java in the 90s (Java applets) by Sun was probably the last serious attempt to break the application barrier. It didn't work, because Apple and Microsoft put in artificial hurdles, little incompatibilites and a vast number of platform-specific code. Web browsers as a platform are somewhat of a half-hearted and technically even worse attempt to do the same. I'd say that closest to cross-platform is Qt. But you still need to compile binaries for each platform.
The only way to break the application barrier would maybe to create a very good, easy to use, multi-language cross-platform application framework and legally protect it very aggressively against the introduction of any incompatibilities and platform-specific libraries.That won't happen for many reasons. First, the GUI user experience would have to be unified to a smallest common denominator. Second, such a license would be incompatible with common free software licenses like the GPL and e.g. FSF has zero interest in this, they want free software, not integration with proprietary platforms. Third, companies with like Apple, Google, Microsoft would probably prohibit such a framework or applications created with it from running on their platforms, or find a way to make the user experience miserable (e.g. not allowing the developers of such a framework full access, slowing down programs, not allowing apps in their app stores, etc.).
Your school teacher kind of misinformed you. Any source of information that you actually use when writing an article needs to be cited. But if there is a primary source, then you go to the primary source, not the secondary source. That's why encyclopedias, handbooks, textbooks, etc. are not cited. You don't cite second-hand hearsay, highly editorialized summaries or quotations of quotations, you go to the actual research article.