These problems are of these cities' own making. And continued by their inaction.
They need to stop with bullshit around the edges like rent control, legislating where people go to lunch, living wage, etc, and attack the core of the problem which is that people want to live there and the housing stock needs to double.
All these city councils are so preoccupied with "oh, the people living here can't be forced out" or "oh, we don't want to change the neighborhood", etc. Sorry, but you don't get to control everything and act as if you can have some kind of imaginary paradise with high housing prices, affordable costs, good wages, and low density. When you have people coming for the jobs, you have to give somewhere (unless you restrict people moving here which we don't in this country).
I for one side with the people who don't get to vote on these policies, who are trying to start their lives in a new place, and are the future to be invested in. Not the people who are retired, rich, and complacent in the houses they bought 30 years ago because they got lucky on the draw.
I think that for most people, the combination of relative usability and risk leads to the choice of using TOTP on your phone, not the extent of a hardware dongle / key.
For some service where you have no other way to prove yourself, losing the hardware is just too risky. For me at least.
It was this article that finally made me switch from SMS verification codes for my personal email (gmail): Wired article
And I went to Google Authenticator only after I figured out how to put the same code on multiple devices and assure myself that I had enough backup hard copies of keys that I would not likely get locked out permanently should I ever lose my phone, etc.
The U2F works great for corporate, etc. where you have a support team who can help you in case you lose it or forget anything. They can make you come in person and prove that you are you.
The problem with implementing this (without enough backups) for personal is that if you ever lose all of your key info or code generator, you are absolutely fucked because there is no way to prove who you are to Google and have them reset your password / security. So you've got to have multiple backups in different places should your house ever burn down, etc.
Look, stop with the pixel count arms race. We all know that that's what the vast majority of consumers can understand, but for anyone caring about the details, it's relatively meaningless as a comparator.
If you blow up your photos to the pixel level, you'll find that it's not the pixel count that's making them look bad, it's the pixel-to-pixel noise and compression and color fringing, for example.
We don't need 48 MP taking up space on our phones and hard drives. For camera phone lenses, compressions, 24 MP is already enough. Anything more than that (if photography is your livelihood for example) and you should be relying on a DSLR.
It really doesn't matter if the alerts are forced to be pushed to people, if what people does afterwards is completely untrained or unplanned.
Look at a country like Japan where they voluntarily all prepare with annual earthquake drills, evacuation drills, tsunami drills, etc.You think anyone in the US would tolerate being told to do that stuff?
Sure, send the alert, require by law that everyone get it. It'll be chaos all the same, without the fundamental responses ingrained into people to follow the instructions. If the instructions were even coherent, which I doubt.
I'm not willing to trade off our rights until this is a real-time in-vehicle tagging system with 4k video upload over cellular and police cars flying by to catch the asshole I've tagged.
Why even continue with the interview when 3 minutes into it, it's apparent there's going to be no substantive information exchanged? Listening to the 10 clips there was painful. Hard to listen to someone who's supposed to be a COO making up shit / having to cover for lack of any product. At that point you would just save your dignity and end the interview huh?
Well, you can debate this automation controversy from every angle and every perspective. But what it dances around is the fundamental unavoidable fact that (a la Rumsfeld) "demography is destiny".
When the cost of labor gets too high, people will find a way to replace it. You're not going to find these ipads in places where it costs only $1 an hour to have a waiter.
With higher standards of living and wages (and people's unwillingness to work for less) comes the pressure to replace the people. Countries get old and rich, and want higher pay. Technology provides a way to get around that. It happens. Whether you have the iPad or not, they're going to find a way to reduce the number of waiters needed. The iPad is just a messenger.
Apologies if this comes off as shitting on a project's announcement of something that could've been really interesting -- but for the amount of drama conveyed in that intro video, the 2 fonts they offer for sharing are... pretty lame.
Agreed. Facetime, iMessage, and things like Find My Friends, are the few things that keep me absolutely tied to Apple. They would be wise not to do anything to change that, much as it would help me have more choice.
We can barely manage to fine/punish/even detetc the traditional non-tech companies who push the limits of regulation, screw over customers, manipulate our amateur politicians. What are the chances we're going to be able to outsmart and tax tech companies correctly?
So, if Microsoft is ambiguous about how it intends to handle people's confidential projects / personal code repos, and someone "deleted" all their content and wants to leave, will that actually be deleted or available to Microsoft? Hm.
Well, I have to agree that you are free to tinker with the phone that you purchased as much as you like. And there is no law preventing you from doing that.
But the phone manufacturer is equally free to design it as much as it likes to prevent tampering / loading of foreign or unsigned code.
If you don't like that, by all means choose a different computer / phone. No law exists to say that you have a right to compel the manufacturer to enable you to do what you want.
To figure out whether an issue really is an "outrage", "must be regulated", and "people don't understand how serious this is", sometimes I just look at the demographic.
Everyone with very strong opinions on this issue, raise your hands.
Hmm, all teenage or 20 something guys who have more time than money and aren't in positions of responsibility to others?
It's a pretty safe bet that this isn't the constitutional issue that it's made out to be in comments above.
In the SIM case, consumers had a common and reasonable belief that they should be able to switch carriers pending the end of their contracts, and their phones were clearly capable of doing so.
In the case of operating systems, for example, or let's take iOS on Apple iPhones, there is not really the expectation of being able to put Android on it.
Phones don't generally switch operating systems, and consumers don't have a reasonable expectation to do so. And, for that matter, the number of people calling for this is pretty much 0.
This is not a place to codify such a tiny, miniscule issue. And it is not an issue that falls in the realm of anti-competitive or customer expectations calling for such regulations.
This pretty much embodies how vocal and yet myopic someone can be when their particular issue displeases them. Time to open a constitutional court case! Time for regulation! In this issue which I care about, but nothing else that's important! It's amazing the specialization of outrage today, huh?
Did you ever see the Steve Jobs talk where a guy in the audience starts to trash him about the Mac not supporting x,y,z (I don't recall exact technology in question)?
For that one person, this might be the biggest thing in the world. But for the phone maker, it probably is not only about securing their hardware from tampering, and preventing network "experimentation", but also that if anything goes wrong with their phones (malware, hacking) they are the ones to get blamed.
So, who is the manufacturer to listen to? The bulk of the users who don't speak up except when something goes wrong because they tried fiddling with the bootloader and messed up? Or the few users who want it? (and at that, don't really *need* it, but like having it for a personal hobby reason)
Well, what I think you'll find here is that when money comes into the equation, neither / both sides share fault in what's going on, and you're being marketed to using "principles" while it's just a hidden contract dispute. So don't buy the "it's Apple trying to maintain a closed ecosystem" hype, etc. It's a little bit of that, but more about just the payment terms.
Take as an analogy the periodic squabbles, for example, between MLB, or NFL or whatever league and the cables companies not broadcasting their games. The sports leagues say that it's because the cable/TV companies are trying to stop their access to the public and being anticompetitive. The TV networks will say that the league is against "the American pasttime tradition" and being unfair about how to show the games. They make it sound like a principled stand about access or monopoly (or closed ecosystem?), yada yada yada. Those are all marketing words being traded.
But it all comes down to money and the price of the deal. One side doesn't want to pay the other so much. Get it?
Same here in all likelihood. Apple wants to have game companies pay for it's ecosystem administration (which by the way is pretty much free if you don't charge any money for an app, and free to develop software for -- can you think of some other examples of software where you have to pay just to join / get the development environment?) . The game company doesn't want to pay so much.
Steam could easily agree to pay / charge their micropayments through Apple's method. Apple could lower its rates.
Who's at fault then? Say all you want. It's as much the buyer's + seller's fault that you choose to assign when you want to buy a house and it costs too much, and both sides accuse each other of not working to close the deal.
Say what you will about Apple and their high prices, closed ecosystem, etc. More and more these days, I find that they are looking out for the end user -- not taking their data off the phone, protecting against malware / abusive apps (the ones that mine our data, suck up your bandwidth, etc), pushing back against law enforcement overreach, and actually have teams whose responsibility it is to keep tabs on all this.
You may get some cheap Android phone that works, but what do you give up? You don't even know till it's too late.
Ok, I know there is somehow a fundamental difference between a computer system with unlimited memory and processing power, versus a person who has really good memory.
But entertain me on this thought experiment. Why is having a police force use such a system so different from if they had on their payroll someone who was really really good at remembering faces? Or someone who knew everyone in town?
At what point is an automated / faster system an unreasonable infringement of your rights compared to what each of us can do to some degree? Is it the natural size (200-300 people?) of our memory and human facial recognition that sets the limit on what is an invasion of privacy or not? Where is the line? What is different about using this system compared to a police officer asking everyone he/she can find whether they know person X?
I find the definition of reasonable privacy difficult to nail down.
One problem I have about political use of the term "bias" versus the scientific use is that when policymakers (under public pressure) find that otherwise unbiased selectors or factors that produce groups or divisions of the population that are "biased", they feel that the algorithms are "wrong" or need to be fixed.
I happen to also be quite skeptical of the legitimacy of disparate impact policy, which states that even if a policy is facially neutral (not imposing rules or criteria associated with protected classes attributes), if it affects one group more than another it may be considered discriminatory or "biased".
While good in theory, I have real trouble about how "unbiased" principles are applied in practice.
Every day there are private airplanes flying around in our US airspace, who interact with air traffic control (of course), and who can ask that afterwards the records of their tail numbers not get published -- by the government. It could be that a person or company doesn't want people to know where they're going, who they belong to.
Now there are also people who make it their hobby to record the airplanes they see taking off + landing, and share this info with others. There are probably companies who do this too.
Is that illegal? How are you to pass a law against someone getting access to information that could completely legitimately be obtained by someone observing it in person? Does public information fall under the domain of privacy?
That is the problem with privacy -- I don't know that the definition of it is something that can cover purely public information. Not talking about Social Security numbers or personal health data or credit card info.
Is someone's observation of your activities in public, private information?
Slashdot Mirror
These problems are of these cities' own making. And continued by their inaction.
They need to stop with bullshit around the edges like rent control, legislating where people go to lunch, living wage, etc, and attack the core of the problem which is that people want to live there and the housing stock needs to double.
All these city councils are so preoccupied with "oh, the people living here can't be forced out" or "oh, we don't want to change the neighborhood", etc. Sorry, but you don't get to control everything and act as if you can have some kind of imaginary paradise with high housing prices, affordable costs, good wages, and low density. When you have people coming for the jobs, you have to give somewhere (unless you restrict people moving here which we don't in this country).
I for one side with the people who don't get to vote on these policies, who are trying to start their lives in a new place, and are the future to be invested in. Not the people who are retired, rich, and complacent in the houses they bought 30 years ago because they got lucky on the draw.
I'm interested -- where is the money going?
How about provide a link that people can actually listen to instead of an Amazon must-pay-to-listen?
The original series
Or for fans of TNG: Youtube ST TNG background sounds
I agree.
I think that for most people, the combination of relative usability and risk leads to the choice of using TOTP on your phone, not the extent of a hardware dongle / key.
For some service where you have no other way to prove yourself, losing the hardware is just too risky. For me at least.
It was this article that finally made me switch from SMS verification codes for my personal email (gmail): Wired article
And I went to Google Authenticator only after I figured out how to put the same code on multiple devices and assure myself that I had enough backup hard copies of keys that I would not likely get locked out permanently should I ever lose my phone, etc.
The U2F works great for corporate, etc. where you have a support team who can help you in case you lose it or forget anything. They can make you come in person and prove that you are you.
The problem with implementing this (without enough backups) for personal is that if you ever lose all of your key info or code generator, you are absolutely fucked because there is no way to prove who you are to Google and have them reset your password / security. So you've got to have multiple backups in different places should your house ever burn down, etc.
Look, stop with the pixel count arms race. We all know that that's what the vast majority of consumers can understand, but for anyone caring about the details, it's relatively meaningless as a comparator.
If you blow up your photos to the pixel level, you'll find that it's not the pixel count that's making them look bad, it's the pixel-to-pixel noise and compression and color fringing, for example.
We don't need 48 MP taking up space on our phones and hard drives. For camera phone lenses, compressions, 24 MP is already enough. Anything more than that (if photography is your livelihood for example) and you should be relying on a DSLR.
It really doesn't matter if the alerts are forced to be pushed to people, if what people does afterwards is completely untrained or unplanned.
Look at a country like Japan where they voluntarily all prepare with annual earthquake drills, evacuation drills, tsunami drills, etc.You think anyone in the US would tolerate being told to do that stuff?
Sure, send the alert, require by law that everyone get it. It'll be chaos all the same, without the fundamental responses ingrained into people to follow the instructions. If the instructions were even coherent, which I doubt.
This is really stupid.
I'm not willing to trade off our rights until this is a real-time in-vehicle tagging system with 4k video upload over cellular and police cars flying by to catch the asshole I've tagged.
Why even continue with the interview when 3 minutes into it, it's apparent there's going to be no substantive information exchanged? Listening to the 10 clips there was painful. Hard to listen to someone who's supposed to be a COO making up shit / having to cover for lack of any product. At that point you would just save your dignity and end the interview huh?
Well, you can debate this automation controversy from every angle and every perspective. But what it dances around is the fundamental unavoidable fact that (a la Rumsfeld) "demography is destiny".
When the cost of labor gets too high, people will find a way to replace it. You're not going to find these ipads in places where it costs only $1 an hour to have a waiter.
With higher standards of living and wages (and people's unwillingness to work for less) comes the pressure to replace the people. Countries get old and rich, and want higher pay. Technology provides a way to get around that. It happens. Whether you have the iPad or not, they're going to find a way to reduce the number of waiters needed. The iPad is just a messenger.
Apologies if this comes off as shitting on a project's announcement of something that could've been really interesting -- but for the amount of drama conveyed in that intro video, the 2 fonts they offer for sharing are... pretty lame.
Agreed. Facetime, iMessage, and things like Find My Friends, are the few things that keep me absolutely tied to Apple. They would be wise not to do anything to change that, much as it would help me have more choice.
We can barely manage to fine/punish/even detetc the traditional non-tech companies who push the limits of regulation, screw over customers, manipulate our amateur politicians. What are the chances we're going to be able to outsmart and tax tech companies correctly?
So, if Microsoft is ambiguous about how it intends to handle people's confidential projects / personal code repos, and someone "deleted" all their content and wants to leave, will that actually be deleted or available to Microsoft? Hm.
Well, I have to agree that you are free to tinker with the phone that you purchased as much as you like. And there is no law preventing you from doing that.
But the phone manufacturer is equally free to design it as much as it likes to prevent tampering / loading of foreign or unsigned code.
If you don't like that, by all means choose a different computer / phone. No law exists to say that you have a right to compel the manufacturer to enable you to do what you want.
To figure out whether an issue really is an "outrage", "must be regulated", and "people don't understand how serious this is", sometimes I just look at the demographic.
Everyone with very strong opinions on this issue, raise your hands.
Hmm, all teenage or 20 something guys who have more time than money and aren't in positions of responsibility to others?
It's a pretty safe bet that this isn't the constitutional issue that it's made out to be in comments above.
But this is not the same question.
In the SIM case, consumers had a common and reasonable belief that they should be able to switch carriers pending the end of their contracts, and their phones were clearly capable of doing so.
In the case of operating systems, for example, or let's take iOS on Apple iPhones, there is not really the expectation of being able to put Android on it.
Phones don't generally switch operating systems, and consumers don't have a reasonable expectation to do so. And, for that matter, the number of people calling for this is pretty much 0.
This is not a place to codify such a tiny, miniscule issue. And it is not an issue that falls in the realm of anti-competitive or customer expectations calling for such regulations.
This pretty much embodies how vocal and yet myopic someone can be when their particular issue displeases them. Time to open a constitutional court case! Time for regulation! In this issue which I care about, but nothing else that's important! It's amazing the specialization of outrage today, huh?
Did you ever see the Steve Jobs talk where a guy in the audience starts to trash him about the Mac not supporting x,y,z (I don't recall exact technology in question)?
For that one person, this might be the biggest thing in the world. But for the phone maker, it probably is not only about securing their hardware from tampering, and preventing network "experimentation", but also that if anything goes wrong with their phones (malware, hacking) they are the ones to get blamed.
So, who is the manufacturer to listen to? The bulk of the users who don't speak up except when something goes wrong because they tried fiddling with the bootloader and messed up? Or the few users who want it? (and at that, don't really *need* it, but like having it for a personal hobby reason)
Hm?
Well, what I think you'll find here is that when money comes into the equation, neither / both sides share fault in what's going on, and you're being marketed to using "principles" while it's just a hidden contract dispute. So don't buy the "it's Apple trying to maintain a closed ecosystem" hype, etc. It's a little bit of that, but more about just the payment terms.
Take as an analogy the periodic squabbles, for example, between MLB, or NFL or whatever league and the cables companies not broadcasting their games. The sports leagues say that it's because the cable/TV companies are trying to stop their access to the public and being anticompetitive. The TV networks will say that the league is against "the American pasttime tradition" and being unfair about how to show the games. They make it sound like a principled stand about access or monopoly (or closed ecosystem?), yada yada yada. Those are all marketing words being traded.
But it all comes down to money and the price of the deal. One side doesn't want to pay the other so much. Get it?
Same here in all likelihood. Apple wants to have game companies pay for it's ecosystem administration (which by the way is pretty much free if you don't charge any money for an app, and free to develop software for -- can you think of some other examples of software where you have to pay just to join / get the development environment?) . The game company doesn't want to pay so much.
Steam could easily agree to pay / charge their micropayments through Apple's method. Apple could lower its rates.
Who's at fault then? Say all you want. It's as much the buyer's + seller's fault that you choose to assign when you want to buy a house and it costs too much, and both sides accuse each other of not working to close the deal.
Say what you will about Apple and their high prices, closed ecosystem, etc. More and more these days, I find that they are looking out for the end user -- not taking their data off the phone, protecting against malware / abusive apps (the ones that mine our data, suck up your bandwidth, etc), pushing back against law enforcement overreach, and actually have teams whose responsibility it is to keep tabs on all this.
You may get some cheap Android phone that works, but what do you give up? You don't even know till it's too late.
Ok, I know there is somehow a fundamental difference between a computer system with unlimited memory and processing power, versus a person who has really good memory.
But entertain me on this thought experiment. Why is having a police force use such a system so different from if they had on their payroll someone who was really really good at remembering faces? Or someone who knew everyone in town?
At what point is an automated / faster system an unreasonable infringement of your rights compared to what each of us can do to some degree? Is it the natural size (200-300 people?) of our memory and human facial recognition that sets the limit on what is an invasion of privacy or not? Where is the line? What is different about using this system compared to a police officer asking everyone he/she can find whether they know person X?
I find the definition of reasonable privacy difficult to nail down.
I mean, I'm all in favor of government being more proactive, responsive, etc, but this is ridiculous.
And, by the way, didn't the other story today just say that quantum computing is about to break encryption in 5 years?
One problem I have about political use of the term "bias" versus the scientific use is that when policymakers (under public pressure) find that otherwise unbiased selectors or factors that produce groups or divisions of the population that are "biased", they feel that the algorithms are "wrong" or need to be fixed.
I happen to also be quite skeptical of the legitimacy of disparate impact policy, which states that even if a policy is facially neutral (not imposing rules or criteria associated with protected classes attributes), if it affects one group more than another it may be considered discriminatory or "biased".
While good in theory, I have real trouble about how "unbiased" principles are applied in practice.
Let me ask about a different situation.
Every day there are private airplanes flying around in our US airspace, who interact with air traffic control (of course), and who can ask that afterwards the records of their tail numbers not get published -- by the government. It could be that a person or company doesn't want people to know where they're going, who they belong to.
Now there are also people who make it their hobby to record the airplanes they see taking off + landing, and share this info with others. There are probably companies who do this too.
Is that illegal? How are you to pass a law against someone getting access to information that could completely legitimately be obtained by someone observing it in person? Does public information fall under the domain of privacy?
That is the problem with privacy -- I don't know that the definition of it is something that can cover purely public information. Not talking about Social Security numbers or personal health data or credit card info.
Is someone's observation of your activities in public, private information?
I keep saying, the following penalty scheme imposed on companies will clean up data breaches right quick:
$1 per name, email, physical address
$2 per phone number
$3 per credit card number
$4 per SSN
And multiply for combinations thereof. You'll see how fast companies move to secure their data.