You read the article about how she takes an hour before she makes her coffee at 3:16am, how she doesn't rush to catch the next bus on her 3 segment journey, and see her leisurely walking out of the BART station, and is it any wonder that she works for the government?
I'm guessing she isn't exactly super quick and efficient at her job functions either....
At some point, you would think an employer might have the latitude to make a judgement call about an employee who's exhausted at work all the time from having to commute 6 hours per day.
To be a serious player in the consumer phone market, with the functionality and support that you need to do a good job with security, features, apps, etc. you need a big team. And a big team is only supportable by selling millions and millions of phones. Anything less and they'll start to cheap out on these things.
As much as you may hate Google, Apple, Samsung, etc, they have the people they need to do the necessary jobs. A small player like this -- what odds do you put on that being true? Do you want to be the early adopter for them who is their beta tester?
That is the stupidest, least coherent article I've read in a long time. Does Space.com even have any editors or is it a direct channel from company press releases to puke onto the internet? (and do the content masters here on/. even read the articles?)
From what I can gather, the story is that they plan to use a relay box to send data from their rover to Earth (if they ever get there) rather than having a higher powered transmitted on the rover.
Aside from the "we think LTE means a cellphone on the moon" part, is this at all interesting?
This discussion is a little bit stupid / misdirected. The point is not that Loran is inherently more secure or unjammable than GPS. If someone wanted to jam it in the vicinity of a receiver it could be done.
The point is that GPS is jammed because it helps localize within centimeters, which unlocks a lot of capabilities that an enemy is interested in disabling.
If Loran did that too, they would go after *that*. Loran doesn't matter to most anyone today aside from ships, because its level of accuracy is hundreds of meters.
Make something shitty enough, and no one will care if you can jam it or not.
The connection is obvious, but the announcement was pathetically weak. See here for the actual page from the district attorney: http://sfdistrictattorney.org/...
To show a kindergarten bar chart from 2015 to 2016 as the data behind that claim is pretty pathetic. I mean, cmon, the main claim is that crime decreased from 2013 when these tools became available, and they show only 2015 and 2016 data, which by the way, shows crime increasing or at best, variable during this period?
What summer intern put together this press release?
All I would trust this data to say is that no one wants LG, HTC, and Motorola phones...
...said the minister as he dictated the memorandum to a shorthand stenographer, who then typed it up on a typewriter, and sent it out by a Dehli messenger boy to be posted to the evening Internet by telegram... Oh wait, I guess all those technologies that took away those jobs were ok to happen, just not this one!
I think Apple could make a pretty easy argument that as the non-original owner of a phone that has no verifiable record of its usage history or maintenance history, they are far from liable for any damage that could've been caused, had it even been related to the iPhone itself and not something else in the person's house.
I think it's clear that the nearly-organized crime groups running these journals don't even speak or read English, such that anything makes its way in that looks like the format / graphical appearance of a paper.
When physical documents, hard evidence, etc. go out the window in our all-digital future world, where will forensic proof like this still exist? Sometimes, the data is not just "the data"....
You have to charge people for using the roads, that's all. (as if it's so simple) And it can take on variants like having fast toll lanes, dedicated bus lanes, pay per use/congestion zones, etc. But you have to make people feel the pain in $ for driving.
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure Indian policy makers don't have the appetite or means to put in those kinds of measures against the tidal wave of protest that would erupt. They can't even keep cows off the road, how are they going to do anything that requires even more discipline?
Good for Amazon. If Whole Foods had their way, the deal probably would've had to be signed on artisinal gluten-free organic paper, and management would have to have mustaches and commit to a new wholesome fruit-based lifestyle. I for one, welcome our new ruthless corporate overlords.
I'm not as concerned about voter privacy (which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on) as the likelihood that whoever in this administration tasked to do it is some part time Republican committee-connected programmer bro (maybe not even that lowly skilled) who hacks together some shitty piece of analysis code that comes to wrong conclusions, is misused for political purposes, and is vulnerable to hacking.
This is the flavor of the week for the administration. It's one thing they are putting out there to see if it flies, and that's about how long their interest and dedication to doing the job right will last. There are people (secretaries of state, registrars, data scientists) whose entire lives are dedicated to maintaining and verifying and analyzig voter rolls. Who do you trust to handle and come to conclusions about this kind of data conscientiously?
As the Republicans say, when the Federal Government comes knocking with the line "I'm here to help" you should be scared. They're right in this case.
Incorrect. Blackmail is the demanding of money or property from a person under the threat of revealing something about the person that they do not want revealed. CNN is not demanding money or property. They are threatening to reveal the identity of someone who put something into the public domain, which they could have done lawfully to begin with. They're just not doing it, pending the maintenance of a private agreement / promise between them and the person in question. So tell me the crime / offense?
So, I assume you're happy to accept the unintended consequences of such well-intentioned regulation? Like, larger and less attractive phones because you're forcing manufacturers to make them user-repairable? A slower / less frequent update of hardware features you like, because designers are limited to making things that last for 10 years?
Europeans seem to want all the good things about innovation / fast changes, without any of the possible downsides (which often they don't even realize what they're asking for).
I don't know whether replying to you will do any good, but here goes.
I didn't write any linkable thoughts on the Obama administration's immigration order, so I can't give you what you want. However, while I thought that action by the administration did fall into the prosecutorial discretion allowance, I thought that was a politically motivated / overly sympathetic gesture that undermined our immigration laws very publicly.
There are two issues that we're talking about now. Interpretation and regulatory rulemaking, which gives a department the ability to fill in the blanks where an act of Congress doesn't get into the details sufficiently. Of course that has to go through a public process. As for the Obama immigration issue, that fell under the (reasonable) right of a department to decide where to spend its resources, which generally is hard to legally appeal. Prosecutorial discretion, as I'm sure you know,
fills the gap of what a department can do (possibly many things), and what they have been given the resources to do (a few things). Also covers when an administration believes that arguing in favor of a ridiculous law would get them so embarrassed in court that they choose not to prosecute it and it would be a waste of resources to continue to do so.
If Congress felt so strongly about it (and had not been stupidly gridlocked), they should've given more $ to the DoJ to prosecute illegal immigrants and circumvent this decision. But under the circumstances, I thought that the DoJ discretion did fall within the executive branch's authority because it was a prosecutorial discretion issue, much as I disagree with it. It was just the wrong decision, that's all.
I do get frustrated with the liberal stance toward immigration laws. Immigration law is one area where no one gets thanked for enforcing the law. It's always going to hurt someone and "feel bad" to prevent someone from coming to the US in pursuit of a better standard of living. But we have to draw the line somewhere. And what is the point of immigration law if you get yelled at for being insensitive every time it's enforced? We need a better way of doing this than what we've got now. Or at least an administration willing to not be swayed by well-meaning, but incorrect, public opinion.
All the commenters here saying, "I don't get why the EPA can be stopped from deciding its own regulations, etc. etc." don't really understand how regulation works, I think.
When a department of the government issues a regulation, it has to do so with public comment, input, and published reasoning. That, by the way, is an admirable aspect of our country, and why we're not some third world banana republic. People would be thankful for this, I'd think.
When some new administration comes in, they can't just overturn something willy nilly because they feel like it. They have to go through the same process of showing why the rule should be overturned, delayed, stayed, etc.
Scott Pruitt of the EPA basically got marching orders from Trump to do anything possible to revoke this rulemaking, and the arguments in court showed how flimsy that was. In order to delay implementation of a regulation (which is tantamount to retracting it, for the amount of time it is delayed), there must be good reason like evidence was ignored, people were not allowed to comment timely, etc.
None of these was found to be the case, and as a result, the EPA cannot just revoke an order it lawfully issued under the proper process. It can change its mind, but it has to go through the same process.
We should be thanking the rule of law for saving us from the administration's madness.
So, no more refusing to give your fingerprint to consent to having your phone unlocked after it's been seized or taken by someone unauthorized, I suppose? They just point it at your face and voila, all your info is theirs to read.
I suppose you could make distorted faces at them to prevent it from happening... until you get tired.
Last I remember, Facebook and oh, wait, every other online activity is a voluntary participation. And I would hope that the German regulator realizes that the definition of extortion is: the demanding payment of money, property or services, while threatening to commit an illegal act if that is not fulfilled.
I would hope that a regulator would be a bit more conservative about extending its domain where it doesn't have the right to.
I know that we would like to view every country on Earth as occupants of this cooperative spaceship that has to sustain humanity, and therefore in a sense it doesn't matter all that much that we get set back by one country slowing its science progress for a few years...
But in reality...
It's still a race for competitive advantage between countries, and seriously, the Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans, etc.etc are going to start eating our lunch, guys (even more than they are) -- and every move we make gets us forward or back a step in the race against them.
I think a lot of people don't want to admit this winner-takes-all reality... especially if they grow up in a highly liberal California environment where everyone is supposed to be nice to each other...
Agreed -- the WSJ benefits from actually having journalistic integrity in their newsroom, willingness to report issues that don't generate ad clicks, and an audience wiling to pay for well written news. And yes, this applies to only their news reporting, their opinions are totally ridiculous.
Well, first of all, Google and the EU better be clear about which part of Google faces any potential fine, because they won't have too much success trying to fine the Google parent for the alleged acts of its subsidiary. That is a much smaller part of Google. I wish reporters would get this point right in their stories.
Well, you know the problem with Google's "first click free", was that if you repeatedly used incognito mode to Google search any WSJ article headline and open the link, every click turned out to be free... So the WSJ may have gotten wise to that and realized that completely cutting off people would finally get them to pony up the money.
Same for a lot of paywalls where they want to get you in the door but aren't measuring the unintended effects (cannibalizing their own subscription rate) very well....
Slashdot Mirror
You read the article about how she takes an hour before she makes her coffee at 3:16am, how she doesn't rush to catch the next bus on her 3 segment journey, and see her leisurely walking out of the BART station, and is it any wonder that she works for the government?
I'm guessing she isn't exactly super quick and efficient at her job functions either....
At some point, you would think an employer might have the latitude to make a judgement call about an employee who's exhausted at work all the time from having to commute 6 hours per day.
To be a serious player in the consumer phone market, with the functionality and support that you need to do a good job with security, features, apps, etc. you need a big team. And a big team is only supportable by selling millions and millions of phones. Anything less and they'll start to cheap out on these things.
As much as you may hate Google, Apple, Samsung, etc, they have the people they need to do the necessary jobs. A small player like this -- what odds do you put on that being true? Do you want to be the early adopter for them who is their beta tester?
That is the stupidest, least coherent article I've read in a long time. Does Space.com even have any editors or is it a direct channel from company press releases to puke onto the internet? (and do the content masters here on /. even read the articles?)
From what I can gather, the story is that they plan to use a relay box to send data from their rover to Earth (if they ever get there) rather than having a higher powered transmitted on the rover.
Aside from the "we think LTE means a cellphone on the moon" part, is this at all interesting?
This discussion is a little bit stupid / misdirected. The point is not that Loran is inherently more secure or unjammable than GPS. If someone wanted to jam it in the vicinity of a receiver it could be done.
The point is that GPS is jammed because it helps localize within centimeters, which unlocks a lot of capabilities that an enemy is interested in disabling.
If Loran did that too, they would go after *that*. Loran doesn't matter to most anyone today aside from ships, because its level of accuracy is hundreds of meters.
Make something shitty enough, and no one will care if you can jam it or not.
The connection is obvious, but the announcement was pathetically weak. See here for the actual page from the district attorney: http://sfdistrictattorney.org/...
To show a kindergarten bar chart from 2015 to 2016 as the data behind that claim is pretty pathetic. I mean, cmon, the main claim is that crime decreased from 2013 when these tools became available, and they show only 2015 and 2016 data, which by the way, shows crime increasing or at best, variable during this period?
What summer intern put together this press release?
All I would trust this data to say is that no one wants LG, HTC, and Motorola phones...
...said the minister as he dictated the memorandum to a shorthand stenographer, who then typed it up on a typewriter, and sent it out by a Dehli messenger boy to be posted to the evening Internet by telegram... Oh wait, I guess all those technologies that took away those jobs were ok to happen, just not this one!
I think Apple could make a pretty easy argument that as the non-original owner of a phone that has no verifiable record of its usage history or maintenance history, they are far from liable for any damage that could've been caused, had it even been related to the iPhone itself and not something else in the person's house.
I think it's clear that the nearly-organized crime groups running these journals don't even speak or read English, such that anything makes its way in that looks like the format / graphical appearance of a paper.
When physical documents, hard evidence, etc. go out the window in our all-digital future world, where will forensic proof like this still exist? Sometimes, the data is not just "the data"....
You have to charge people for using the roads, that's all. (as if it's so simple) And it can take on variants like having fast toll lanes, dedicated bus lanes, pay per use/congestion zones, etc. But you have to make people feel the pain in $ for driving.
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure Indian policy makers don't have the appetite or means to put in those kinds of measures against the tidal wave of protest that would erupt. They can't even keep cows off the road, how are they going to do anything that requires even more discipline?
And what would've happened if the police came, overreacted, and shot / killed the guy? Would they be suing Google for consequential damages?
Good for Amazon. If Whole Foods had their way, the deal probably would've had to be signed on artisinal gluten-free organic paper, and management would have to have mustaches and commit to a new wholesome fruit-based lifestyle. I for one, welcome our new ruthless corporate overlords.
I'm not as concerned about voter privacy (which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on) as the likelihood that whoever in this administration tasked to do it is some part time Republican committee-connected programmer bro (maybe not even that lowly skilled) who hacks together some shitty piece of analysis code that comes to wrong conclusions, is misused for political purposes, and is vulnerable to hacking.
This is the flavor of the week for the administration. It's one thing they are putting out there to see if it flies, and that's about how long their interest and dedication to doing the job right will last. There are people (secretaries of state, registrars, data scientists) whose entire lives are dedicated to maintaining and verifying and analyzig voter rolls. Who do you trust to handle and come to conclusions about this kind of data conscientiously?
As the Republicans say, when the Federal Government comes knocking with the line "I'm here to help" you should be scared. They're right in this case.
Incorrect. Blackmail is the demanding of money or property from a person under the threat of revealing something about the person that they do not want revealed. CNN is not demanding money or property. They are threatening to reveal the identity of someone who put something into the public domain, which they could have done lawfully to begin with. They're just not doing it, pending the maintenance of a private agreement / promise between them and the person in question. So tell me the crime / offense?
So, I assume you're happy to accept the unintended consequences of such well-intentioned regulation? Like, larger and less attractive phones because you're forcing manufacturers to make them user-repairable? A slower / less frequent update of hardware features you like, because designers are limited to making things that last for 10 years?
Europeans seem to want all the good things about innovation / fast changes, without any of the possible downsides (which often they don't even realize what they're asking for).
I don't know whether replying to you will do any good, but here goes.
I didn't write any linkable thoughts on the Obama administration's immigration order, so I can't give you what you want. However, while I thought that action by the administration did fall into the prosecutorial discretion allowance, I thought that was a politically motivated / overly sympathetic gesture that undermined our immigration laws very publicly.
There are two issues that we're talking about now. Interpretation and regulatory rulemaking, which gives a department the ability to fill in the blanks where an act of Congress doesn't get into the details sufficiently. Of course that has to go through a public process. As for the Obama immigration issue, that fell under the (reasonable) right of a department to decide where to spend its resources, which generally is hard to legally appeal. Prosecutorial discretion, as I'm sure you know, fills the gap of what a department can do (possibly many things), and what they have been given the resources to do (a few things). Also covers when an administration believes that arguing in favor of a ridiculous law would get them so embarrassed in court that they choose not to prosecute it and it would be a waste of resources to continue to do so.
If Congress felt so strongly about it (and had not been stupidly gridlocked), they should've given more $ to the DoJ to prosecute illegal immigrants and circumvent this decision. But under the circumstances, I thought that the DoJ discretion did fall within the executive branch's authority because it was a prosecutorial discretion issue, much as I disagree with it. It was just the wrong decision, that's all.
I do get frustrated with the liberal stance toward immigration laws. Immigration law is one area where no one gets thanked for enforcing the law. It's always going to hurt someone and "feel bad" to prevent someone from coming to the US in pursuit of a better standard of living. But we have to draw the line somewhere. And what is the point of immigration law if you get yelled at for being insensitive every time it's enforced? We need a better way of doing this than what we've got now. Or at least an administration willing to not be swayed by well-meaning, but incorrect, public opinion.
All the commenters here saying, "I don't get why the EPA can be stopped from deciding its own regulations, etc. etc." don't really understand how regulation works, I think.
When a department of the government issues a regulation, it has to do so with public comment, input, and published reasoning. That, by the way, is an admirable aspect of our country, and why we're not some third world banana republic. People would be thankful for this, I'd think.
When some new administration comes in, they can't just overturn something willy nilly because they feel like it. They have to go through the same process of showing why the rule should be overturned, delayed, stayed, etc.
Scott Pruitt of the EPA basically got marching orders from Trump to do anything possible to revoke this rulemaking, and the arguments in court showed how flimsy that was. In order to delay implementation of a regulation (which is tantamount to retracting it, for the amount of time it is delayed), there must be good reason like evidence was ignored, people were not allowed to comment timely, etc.
None of these was found to be the case, and as a result, the EPA cannot just revoke an order it lawfully issued under the proper process. It can change its mind, but it has to go through the same process.
We should be thanking the rule of law for saving us from the administration's madness.
So, no more refusing to give your fingerprint to consent to having your phone unlocked after it's been seized or taken by someone unauthorized, I suppose? They just point it at your face and voila, all your info is theirs to read.
I suppose you could make distorted faces at them to prevent it from happening... until you get tired.
This seems like *less* control over your device.
Last I remember, Facebook and oh, wait, every other online activity is a voluntary participation. And I would hope that the German regulator realizes that the definition of extortion is: the demanding payment of money, property or services, while threatening to commit an illegal act if that is not fulfilled.
I would hope that a regulator would be a bit more conservative about extending its domain where it doesn't have the right to.
I know that we would like to view every country on Earth as occupants of this cooperative spaceship that has to sustain humanity, and therefore in a sense it doesn't matter all that much that we get set back by one country slowing its science progress for a few years...
But in reality...
It's still a race for competitive advantage between countries, and seriously, the Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans, etc.etc are going to start eating our lunch, guys (even more than they are) -- and every move we make gets us forward or back a step in the race against them.
I think a lot of people don't want to admit this winner-takes-all reality... especially if they grow up in a highly liberal California environment where everyone is supposed to be nice to each other...
Agreed -- the WSJ benefits from actually having journalistic integrity in their newsroom, willingness to report issues that don't generate ad clicks, and an audience wiling to pay for well written news. And yes, this applies to only their news reporting, their opinions are totally ridiculous.
Just like a married couple who think that going on a vacation is going to solve their problems... Or having a kid will solve their problems...
Doesn't work.
Well, first of all, Google and the EU better be clear about which part of Google faces any potential fine, because they won't have too much success trying to fine the Google parent for the alleged acts of its subsidiary. That is a much smaller part of Google. I wish reporters would get this point right in their stories.
Well, you know the problem with Google's "first click free", was that if you repeatedly used incognito mode to Google search any WSJ article headline and open the link, every click turned out to be free... So the WSJ may have gotten wise to that and realized that completely cutting off people would finally get them to pony up the money.
Same for a lot of paywalls where they want to get you in the door but aren't measuring the unintended effects (cannibalizing their own subscription rate) very well....