As I understand this, it is the responsibility of the seller to terminate the service before selling the car, but if the seller fails to to this, the seller has access to the car's information, including its location, after the sale. This sounds like it would impact the privacy of the new owner, not the seller. In other words party A is responsible for taking steps to protect the privacy of party B. This doesn't sound like a good system. Is there anything a new car owner can do to ensure that no private information (such as location) is leaked to the previous owner?
Welcome to the rest of the developed world where we have pay-as-you-earn (PAYE). It's utterly stupid to make people do their own taxes if they're on wages/salary - It's one of the first things commercial computers were designed to do for us - payroll.
And computers do do that. That's why taxes are withheld from your paycheck. But your employer can't possibly know about all your deductions or other income so the withholdings are sort of a guess. That's why you have to file taxes: so the exact amount of taxes can be calculated, and you either receive a refund or pay depending on whether your employer's computers over or underestimated your taxes. Think about it: how can your employer know about your earnings on investments or part-time work or about your real estate depreciation deductions, etc., etc. Would you even want your employer to know all that stuff? That's why people are responsible for doing their own taxes.
From the article, it's when a cell phone is not in range of service but someone calling it still hears a ring tone as though it's ringing on the other end of the line, rather than a "that device is not available currently. Please try back later" message.
But my understanding is you're not charged for the call unless it is answered. We're they charging people for these calls? Otherwise, why the $40 million dollar penalty?
10.8 feet is one second away at 7 mph. Too damn close -- company deserves a ticket.
Nonsense. If a pedestrian is walking down a sidewalk and I'm driving down the road in the lane closest to the sidewalk, I'll pass the pedestrian at a distance of closest approach of less than 10.8 feet.
This law, as I understand it, allows the U.S. government to enter into agreements with foreign governments to allow the U.S. to request the foreign governments to compel U.S. companies to hand over data to U.S. law enforcement when they have a warrant. But what is to stop privacy minded companies from setting up their data centers in countries which do NOT enter into such agreements?
So if I post vacation photos of my trip to Hawaii, Facebook will contact the various airlines to confirm that I indeed flew there at that time and they'll call the hotel to verify that I was indeed staying there, etc. Sounds like a lot of work.
Maybe the fact that China's Internet is surrounded by the Great Firewall is a reason people aren't eager to get on the Internet. If the Internet is nothing but a big Chinese shopping mall and government news distribution site, it isn't really all that enticing for someone to buy the hardware and learn the necessary skills to get online.
Exactly! Saying only the U.S. and China will benefit from AI would have been like saying that only the UK would benefit from the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th Century. Countries all over the world use machine-based factories and benefit from their invention even though it basically started in the UK.
It would be nice if these devices automatically unlocked after some time limit, like 1 year. At least we could get into a device after someone died or after the police confiscated a device long enough, without having to hand over some backdoor keys that compromises the security of all our devices.
The problem with that is that if someone wants to get your super-secret data, all they have to do is steal your phone, lock it in a safe for a year, and take it out and poof, it's unlocked. That doesn't sound very secure to me.
Yes, but that's not what I was claiming. Of course, once something is copied, different things might happen to the "original" and the "copy" and their identities will diverge. But my point is there is no difference owing to the fact that one is the "original" and the other is the "copy". To go back to your orange analogy, it would make no difference if the original was put in the fridge and the copy in the microwave or the copy was put in the fridge and the original in the microwave. Of course, either of the two oranges, or MP3 files, or whatever might subsequently change. So, although there's no difference between the original orange and the copy orange, there is a difference between one orange and two oranges.
If you make a perfect copy of an orange, all the way down to the subatomic level, then that copy is still not the original orange. It's the copy.
I disagree. Once you can make a copy perfect right down the subatomic level, then the distinction between copy and original becomes meaningless. A good analogy is computer files. If I have a file on my computer, say an MP3 of a hit song of my favorite band, and I copy it to another computer or device, I don't think of it as an original and copy cause they're both identical. Similarly, if you replace your aging hard drive with a new fast SSD drive by first backing up your entire filesystem, then restoring it on the new drive, then technically, you're not working with your files anymore, but rather with copies of your files. But you don't really notice or care. Functionally, they're the same.
A properly designed secure messaging app would make this impossible. The protocols to implement this are not difficult.
If that is true, why does not one exist? Or, if one or more do, can you provide a link?
They do exist. OTR is an example, but it is a plug-in for desktop computer based messaging systems. I'm not as familiar with what is available in the mobile world. It should, in theory, not be difficult to implement.
This is why perfect forward secrecy is needed in secure messaging apps. There's no reason the service provider should be able to hand over keys that can be used to decrypt users' messages. A properly designed secure messaging app would make this impossible. The protocols to implement this are not difficult.
The employees of the University are not government employees either
That depends on whether or not we are talking about a public or private university. They are indeed government employees if they are teaching at a public university (which isn't the same thing as a publicly-funded university) such as a state college. Their employer might be the "University of Statesota" but they are working for the government. On the other hand, I don't think salaries of professors at private universities (even if they receive government funding) are required to publicly disclose their salaries.
The province where I work has mandated that all university employees paid over a certain amount must have their salaries publicly disclosed because they are, at least partly, publicly funded. While I don't have a problem with this per se I think it is unfair to single out those of us working at universities. This rule should also apply to all companies who accept government contracts too since, by extension, their salaries are also being paid for, at least in part, by government money.
In the case of contracts, the amount of the contract should be made public, but how the contractor pays its employees is really their own business. All the public needs to know is the amount of the contract, and possibly, competing bids to ensure the public is getting a good value for its money. The employees of the contractor are not government employees.
What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.
But what exactly is the difference between you waking up in the future or an exact copy of you waking up in the future? The copy would have your memories and so the copy would believe itself to be you. How is that any different from the "real" you waking up?
And the biggest problem with a worldwide time zone is that in many time zones the day/date will change in the middle of the day. We label days and dates to correspond with the period of time we are generally awake (Okay, I frequently stay up past midnight, but I'm generally not doing business.) So with one world time zone, your kids might go to school on Monday morning and come home Tuesday afternoon. How would holidays work? Do you go by what day it is when the school/work day starts or ends? What if the day changes, say, half an hour after the school day starts? When do you get off for Thanksgiving? The school day that starts on the Wednesday and then half an hour into the day changes to Thursday, or the day that starts Thursday and and changes to Friday half an hour in? (Yes, I know many schools get Wednesday off too, but the same logic applies.) This, I think, is the biggest obstacle to a single worldwide time zone.
And note, that in situations where time zone changes would create a bigger headache, UTC can be used. Airline pilots and control towers use UTC for all their communications, for instance, so UTC is always there for those who need a worldwide time.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand this, it is the responsibility of the seller to terminate the service before selling the car, but if the seller fails to to this, the seller has access to the car's information, including its location, after the sale. This sounds like it would impact the privacy of the new owner, not the seller. In other words party A is responsible for taking steps to protect the privacy of party B. This doesn't sound like a good system. Is there anything a new car owner can do to ensure that no private information (such as location) is leaked to the previous owner?
If a computer can do your job then you are not doing a useful service. You need to value add and offer something a computer cannot do.
I don't disagree with you, but by this logic, in 20 or 30 years, no human will be doing a useful service. Not sure how the economy will work then.
Welcome to the rest of the developed world where we have pay-as-you-earn (PAYE). It's utterly stupid to make people do their own taxes if they're on wages/salary - It's one of the first things commercial computers were designed to do for us - payroll.
And computers do do that. That's why taxes are withheld from your paycheck. But your employer can't possibly know about all your deductions or other income so the withholdings are sort of a guess. That's why you have to file taxes: so the exact amount of taxes can be calculated, and you either receive a refund or pay depending on whether your employer's computers over or underestimated your taxes. Think about it: how can your employer know about your earnings on investments or part-time work or about your real estate depreciation deductions, etc., etc. Would you even want your employer to know all that stuff? That's why people are responsible for doing their own taxes.
From the article, it's when a cell phone is not in range of service but someone calling it still hears a ring tone as though it's ringing on the other end of the line, rather than a "that device is not available currently. Please try back later" message.
But my understanding is you're not charged for the call unless it is answered. We're they charging people for these calls? Otherwise, why the $40 million dollar penalty?
I agree. Corporations should not pay income tax!
10.8 feet is one second away at 7 mph. Too damn close -- company deserves a ticket.
Nonsense. If a pedestrian is walking down a sidewalk and I'm driving down the road in the lane closest to the sidewalk, I'll pass the pedestrian at a distance of closest approach of less than 10.8 feet.
This law, as I understand it, allows the U.S. government to enter into agreements with foreign governments to allow the U.S. to request the foreign governments to compel U.S. companies to hand over data to U.S. law enforcement when they have a warrant. But what is to stop privacy minded companies from setting up their data centers in countries which do NOT enter into such agreements?
Its extremely trivial to factory reset a phone and then restore all your accounts when you land.
The way that cloud services work today, it takes minutes to restore.
Is factory resetting guaranteed to actually ERASE everything? Note that deleting isn't the same as erasing.
So if I post vacation photos of my trip to Hawaii, Facebook will contact the various airlines to confirm that I indeed flew there at that time and they'll call the hotel to verify that I was indeed staying there, etc. Sounds like a lot of work.
What's the value of a worthless request like this? If someone simply says they have no such account, how is the government going to refute him/her?
Well, suppose you say you have no such account. Then you show up at the border and they decide to search your phone. Then you're screwed.
Maybe the fact that China's Internet is surrounded by the Great Firewall is a reason people aren't eager to get on the Internet. If the Internet is nothing but a big Chinese shopping mall and government news distribution site, it isn't really all that enticing for someone to buy the hardware and learn the necessary skills to get online.
Exactly! Saying only the U.S. and China will benefit from AI would have been like saying that only the UK would benefit from the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th Century. Countries all over the world use machine-based factories and benefit from their invention even though it basically started in the UK.
It would be nice if these devices automatically unlocked after some time limit, like 1 year. At least we could get into a device after someone died or after the police confiscated a device long enough, without having to hand over some backdoor keys that compromises the security of all our devices.
The problem with that is that if someone wants to get your super-secret data, all they have to do is steal your phone, lock it in a safe for a year, and take it out and poof, it's unlocked. That doesn't sound very secure to me.
Why aren't you naming this bank?
It's probably against the bank's TOS to do so.
Yes, but that's not what I was claiming. Of course, once something is copied, different things might happen to the "original" and the "copy" and their identities will diverge. But my point is there is no difference owing to the fact that one is the "original" and the other is the "copy". To go back to your orange analogy, it would make no difference if the original was put in the fridge and the copy in the microwave or the copy was put in the fridge and the original in the microwave. Of course, either of the two oranges, or MP3 files, or whatever might subsequently change. So, although there's no difference between the original orange and the copy orange, there is a difference between one orange and two oranges.
Your computer files are not self aware and your analogy is a bad one.
Define self awareness.
If you make a perfect copy of an orange, all the way down to the subatomic level, then that copy is still not the original orange. It's the copy.
I disagree. Once you can make a copy perfect right down the subatomic level, then the distinction between copy and original becomes meaningless. A good analogy is computer files. If I have a file on my computer, say an MP3 of a hit song of my favorite band, and I copy it to another computer or device, I don't think of it as an original and copy cause they're both identical. Similarly, if you replace your aging hard drive with a new fast SSD drive by first backing up your entire filesystem, then restoring it on the new drive, then technically, you're not working with your files anymore, but rather with copies of your files. But you don't really notice or care. Functionally, they're the same.
A properly designed secure messaging app would make this impossible. The protocols to implement this are not difficult.
If that is true, why does not one exist? Or, if one or more do, can you provide a link?
They do exist. OTR is an example, but it is a plug-in for desktop computer based messaging systems. I'm not as familiar with what is available in the mobile world. It should, in theory, not be difficult to implement.
This is why perfect forward secrecy is needed in secure messaging apps. There's no reason the service provider should be able to hand over keys that can be used to decrypt users' messages. A properly designed secure messaging app would make this impossible. The protocols to implement this are not difficult.
The employees of the University are not government employees either
That depends on whether or not we are talking about a public or private university. They are indeed government employees if they are teaching at a public university (which isn't the same thing as a publicly-funded university) such as a state college. Their employer might be the "University of Statesota" but they are working for the government. On the other hand, I don't think salaries of professors at private universities (even if they receive government funding) are required to publicly disclose their salaries.
The province where I work has mandated that all university employees paid over a certain amount must have their salaries publicly disclosed because they are, at least partly, publicly funded. While I don't have a problem with this per se I think it is unfair to single out those of us working at universities. This rule should also apply to all companies who accept government contracts too since, by extension, their salaries are also being paid for, at least in part, by government money.
In the case of contracts, the amount of the contract should be made public, but how the contractor pays its employees is really their own business. All the public needs to know is the amount of the contract, and possibly, competing bids to ensure the public is getting a good value for its money. The employees of the contractor are not government employees.
Homemade guns and gunpowder are totally legal in the US. Manufacturing explosives in an apartment building is not.
Well, technically gunpowder is an explosive. That's kind of how it works.
What's the point? You (the person being "backed up") is still dead. There might someday be a copy of you, but you, the you alive right now, the one reading this, is dead. You won't wake up in the future. You won't come back. You will be dead.
But what exactly is the difference between you waking up in the future or an exact copy of you waking up in the future? The copy would have your memories and so the copy would believe itself to be you. How is that any different from the "real" you waking up?
And the biggest problem with a worldwide time zone is that in many time zones the day/date will change in the middle of the day. We label days and dates to correspond with the period of time we are generally awake (Okay, I frequently stay up past midnight, but I'm generally not doing business.) So with one world time zone, your kids might go to school on Monday morning and come home Tuesday afternoon. How would holidays work? Do you go by what day it is when the school/work day starts or ends? What if the day changes, say, half an hour after the school day starts? When do you get off for Thanksgiving? The school day that starts on the Wednesday and then half an hour into the day changes to Thursday, or the day that starts Thursday and and changes to Friday half an hour in? (Yes, I know many schools get Wednesday off too, but the same logic applies.) This, I think, is the biggest obstacle to a single worldwide time zone.
And note, that in situations where time zone changes would create a bigger headache, UTC can be used. Airline pilots and control towers use UTC for all their communications, for instance, so UTC is always there for those who need a worldwide time.
The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space.