Let's take it as a given that Huawei does indeed have spyware/tracking hooks in their phones right down to the hardware level. Let's also take it as a given that the NSA, therefore, doesn't have hooks into those phones. What does that mean for us?
It means that not only does NSA have the ability to track you, you're giving the Chinese the ability to do that, along with letting them have access to the wireless infrastructure from thousands of different places.
The excuse that "A can do it, so why worry if B can do it, too?" is pretty silly.
I can't think of anyone I would rather have watching than a government that is antagonistic to the NSA.
Antagonistic to the USA. You're part of the target.
and therefore would only be in a position to regulate it, not manage it.
The claim was that there would be nobody to control it. Regulate is control. The US Congress will not go away if TVA is sold to local companies. The US Congress does not manage TVA today, so talking about a lack of management tomorrow is silly.
We're talking about condemning an entire race/religion of people based on nothing but irrational prejudice.
No, we are talking about no such thing. An autocomplete suggestion is just that. It is not condemning anything or anyone. Who's the moron who thinks that an autocomplete suggestion is a condemnation?
As for the moron who commented: "Not wanting Google to suggest your kids reads a web page titled "how to have sex with children" makes YOU the bad guy." First, an autocomplete is not suggesting they read a page. Second, the "vile autocomplete" has nothing to do with sex with children, unless you think that the reason Jews are evil has something to do with them having sex with children. That one's on you, pal.
Infrastructure is a government provided service for the common weal.
The definition of "infrastructure" does not include "government provided". Much of it is. Then again, a lot of people here would tell you that the cable TV, electrical, and telephone network systems are infrastructure, too. In my part of the world, none of that was done by the government.
Or are we now saying that things like Dulles Airport are unnecessary?
If you can't argue what was said, make it up. Who said anything like that, except you?
Been preaching this for 10+ years: Usability and security are allies, not enemies.
"Usability" is not "convenience". Convenience and security truly are enemies; usability and security are orthogonal concepts.
You can have a website with the best UX in the world, but if the access controls to get there are inconvenient, users will often opt for more convenience in place of security.
I could PGP sign every piece of email I send from my tablet. The UX is there. It's not convenient, so I don't. (Set up a key pair, publish the right half, teach all my corespondents how to decrypt it, etc. None of this is in the email client UX.) I could go for better security on my airline account, but I've chosen to reduce security so I don't have to write down all the answers to the multiple security questions they ask at the most inconvenient times. I could use a unique password for every account I have, but I choose to create passwords in a similar way, thus reducing security. And I choose convenience over security because I have my web browser remember both login and password for me, which is the only reason I have been able to recover my forgotten gmail password. (Google reduced the security of their own system by remembering that I HAD the account, telling me the login, which makes it more convenient for me.)
It applies to water, prisons, and soon will apply to airports.
I hate to point this out, but the vast majority of airports in the US are not owned by the US government.
Even those that aren't owned by the feds are reasonably well controlled by the limits put on the availability of federal funds. Things like "if you accept federal money, the airport must be open to all users." There are some anomalies, like Chicago Meigs, but O'hare (along with Atlanta Hartsfeld) seem to run just fine without federal ownership.
They gave you multiple ways to protect yourself from security getting in the way,
If you don't remember the password, asking for the password doesn't protect you from the security. Do you remember when you created every account you have? And why bother sending a "secret code" to another email address if you're just going to ignore it? Those are the three ways they give me.
Most of the "in the way" is the fact that the web page just hangs after you enter the code. So yes, that's their problem. Otherwise, I said "getting in the way", not whose fault it wasn't working was.
This is the result of a survey. They asked people. Only 4000 of them. And who knows what the question was?
The answers are meaningless -- actions speak louder than words. What these survey takers have done is found the right question to ask that 4000 people knew the "right" answer to, and they got the "right" answer even if it didn't match reality. It's called "push polling". The only true way to say that people prefer security over convenience is by counting the number of people who actually USE security that gets in the way of them doing what they want to do.
For example, I am right now trying to recall the password for a gmail account. I can't remember when I created the account, I don't remember the only password the account has ever had so I can't tell them what one of the old passwords was, and even though I enter the code they send me by email they refuse to believe I am me. Right now, security is getting in the way of getting something done.
Then step away from the computer and read a book. The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE. If the question "are jews evil?" makes you queasy, they you will not like the internet, and the rest of us do not want you to try to recast it in your limited vision of what is proper and correct.
I would suggest only reading books your mother picks out for you, since she will be able to filter those to prevent you seeing queasy-making things.
I fail to see how using a property for AirBnB is different than using a property for longer term rentals....what difference does the length of lease matter?
Ask any landlord. Transient populations differ from longer-term ones.
And if you want to get picky...if something is zoned residential, guess what....people ARE residing in the homes in question, just for different lengths of time.
No. Residential means people live there, not just visit for a day after paying someone. That makes it commercial.
In my area, quite a few of the neighborhoods have restrictions on how many unrelated people are allowed to be under one roof,
This is handled better by zoning, which applies city-wide, and you don't have to have special knowledge of what homes are under an HOA and what that agreement might say. And it won't be the HOA that has to enforce the rules, it will be the city.
This is why R1 and R2 zoning exists, like in Detroit. One and two family residential.
Even so, that's a problem that is best addressed through covenants and deed restrictions within the neighborhood, rather than legislation across a city or state.
It is very hard to solve a problem like that using deed restrictions and covenants. Once it starts happening, how do you get a deed restriction added to prevent it? Who enforces a deed restriction in most neighborhoods, anyway? There is nobody who can.
No, zoning at the city level is the only reasonable solution. Local people, and a local office to apply for zoning variances if you have a good case for a different zone applied to your property.
Let neighborhoods that care about that sort of thing sort it out amongst themselves.
Neighborhoods have no legal authority to sort any of that out. If they try, then they are creating special laws for themselves when they are still part of the city as a whole. We have that issue here where some neighborhoods are unhappy that their public on-street parking is being used by the public. "Oh my", they cry, "I can't park on-street instead of my own driveway because the public are parking in the on-street public parking! Something must be done!"
A property should be able to do most anything they want with their property, including deriving profit from it as much as possible, that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
So I'll buy the house next to yours and open a disco. I can do "most anything I want", right? During the day, it will be an auto-repair shop, with vehicles pending repair parked in all the on-street parking. If you are in the right state, I'll also operate a dispensary and grow operation.
Zoning laws exist for a reason. Residential is residential, not commercial, for a reason. If you own a house you might appreciate that differentiation.
that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
That's not the main reason most people own residential property, especially R1 or R2. They own it to live there. That's why it is single and two family zoned. And they want to be able to sell it for a reasonable price when they move away and not have to take a loss because the next door neighbor is operating a business next door.
and there are ALWAYS winners an losers in life.
Some of the "losses" is living in a residential zone and living by residential zoning rules. Although most people would consider it a win considering property values.
Sport is something that people should do to fulfill personal goals. That goal might be "have fun". That goal might be to lose weight and build muscle. That goal might also be "be the best at this in the world". To each his own.
Name one online resource where this cannot be the case.
When I cite an article from Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) I know it will not change. There are thousands of other such sources.
I'd already be happy if all the links I set still exist the next week.
"Citation" in a scholarly work is not just a URL to a website that may or may not exist tomorrow for any number of reasons. It is a reference to an article that may be found online, or in a paper version of the journal.
They are not hesitant to say that other teachers have told them not to use Wikipedia, "because anyone can change it."
Any good Wikipedia article has references. Those are what you use, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is writing by third parties about things, not the direct information. "Anyone can change it" is two-sided. That means it can change after you cite it, but it also means that ANYONE could be the person who wrote the material, and they might not a clue.
I talk to them about the accuracy and that errors are rapidly corrected;
You know when an error is corrected after you cite the wrong information... how? You look at it today and you know the information is right because... it can be rapidly corrected tomorrow?
I then talk to them about suing Wikipedia
Freudian slip?
as a really good table of contents that will summarize, and take them to, the sources.
That is the true, scholarly use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for general learning about stuff; it is NOT the right source when trying to do something in depth. I.e., you look up things you see on/. on Wikipedia. You write your chemistry paper using sources referenced by authors in Wikipedia.
So do you also protest your local liqueur store because alcohol dealers are going to get your kids hooked on it?
If a local liquor store sells to kids, then yes, I would, because it is illegal for them to do so. There are also well-known and well distributed warnings regarding alcohol.
Are you such a piss poor parent that you can't educate your kids about such things?
Who educates the parents? This is a "natural plant product". What's the danger?
It's been my experience that happy well adjusted educated kids don't go out looking for drug dealers.
You don't have to "go out looking" to find kratom dealers.
The route algorithms mostly obey speed laws and avoid neighborhoods and roads that aren't really meant for thru-traffic.
Algorithms don't obey speed laws. They may base their routing on them. There are increasing numbers of stories about neighborhoods that are being inundated by rush-hour traffic being routed off the throughways and through their residential areas because the routing algorithm sees that as a faster path.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take it as a given that Huawei does indeed have spyware/tracking hooks in their phones right down to the hardware level. Let's also take it as a given that the NSA, therefore, doesn't have hooks into those phones. What does that mean for us?
It means that not only does NSA have the ability to track you, you're giving the Chinese the ability to do that, along with letting them have access to the wireless infrastructure from thousands of different places.
The excuse that "A can do it, so why worry if B can do it, too?" is pretty silly.
I can't think of anyone I would rather have watching than a government that is antagonistic to the NSA.
Antagonistic to the USA. You're part of the target.
Exactly. If you're doing something the Chinese government would be interested in, sure, I can see avoiding their stuff.
Malware doesn't always have to be watching users and grabbing their data. They can also be getting hooks into the US wireless infrastructure.
But if it is ok that the Chinese do watch everything you do, that's ok with me.
it seems to me that using something one's own government hates is actually a good thing.
So when the FDA or EPA bans something you run right out and start downing massive quantities because anything the FDA hates must be a good thing?
and therefore would only be in a position to regulate it, not manage it.
The claim was that there would be nobody to control it. Regulate is control. The US Congress will not go away if TVA is sold to local companies. The US Congress does not manage TVA today, so talking about a lack of management tomorrow is silly.
We're talking about condemning an entire race/religion of people based on nothing but irrational prejudice.
No, we are talking about no such thing. An autocomplete suggestion is just that. It is not condemning anything or anyone. Who's the moron who thinks that an autocomplete suggestion is a condemnation?
As for the moron who commented: "Not wanting Google to suggest your kids reads a web page titled "how to have sex with children" makes YOU the bad guy." First, an autocomplete is not suggesting they read a page. Second, the "vile autocomplete" has nothing to do with sex with children, unless you think that the reason Jews are evil has something to do with them having sex with children. That one's on you, pal.
Wait, you think O'Hare runs "just fine"?
I go through ORD on a semi-regular basis. United sometimes screws up, but the airport itself is not bad.
Infrastructure is a government provided service for the common weal.
The definition of "infrastructure" does not include "government provided". Much of it is. Then again, a lot of people here would tell you that the cable TV, electrical, and telephone network systems are infrastructure, too. In my part of the world, none of that was done by the government.
Or are we now saying that things like Dulles Airport are unnecessary?
If you can't argue what was said, make it up. Who said anything like that, except you?
Been preaching this for 10+ years: Usability and security are allies, not enemies.
"Usability" is not "convenience". Convenience and security truly are enemies; usability and security are orthogonal concepts.
You can have a website with the best UX in the world, but if the access controls to get there are inconvenient, users will often opt for more convenience in place of security.
I could PGP sign every piece of email I send from my tablet. The UX is there. It's not convenient, so I don't. (Set up a key pair, publish the right half, teach all my corespondents how to decrypt it, etc. None of this is in the email client UX.) I could go for better security on my airline account, but I've chosen to reduce security so I don't have to write down all the answers to the multiple security questions they ask at the most inconvenient times. I could use a unique password for every account I have, but I choose to create passwords in a similar way, thus reducing security. And I choose convenience over security because I have my web browser remember both login and password for me, which is the only reason I have been able to recover my forgotten gmail password. (Google reduced the security of their own system by remembering that I HAD the account, telling me the login, which makes it more convenient for me.)
The problem is that you'd have no single legislative body that could control it,
So the US Congress would dissolve once they approve the sale?
It applies to water, prisons, and soon will apply to airports.
I hate to point this out, but the vast majority of airports in the US are not owned by the US government.
Even those that aren't owned by the feds are reasonably well controlled by the limits put on the availability of federal funds. Things like "if you accept federal money, the airport must be open to all users." There are some anomalies, like Chicago Meigs, but O'hare (along with Atlanta Hartsfeld) seem to run just fine without federal ownership.
They gave you multiple ways to protect yourself from security getting in the way,
If you don't remember the password, asking for the password doesn't protect you from the security. Do you remember when you created every account you have? And why bother sending a "secret code" to another email address if you're just going to ignore it? Those are the three ways they give me.
Most of the "in the way" is the fact that the web page just hangs after you enter the code. So yes, that's their problem. Otherwise, I said "getting in the way", not whose fault it wasn't working was.
The answers are meaningless -- actions speak louder than words. What these survey takers have done is found the right question to ask that 4000 people knew the "right" answer to, and they got the "right" answer even if it didn't match reality. It's called "push polling". The only true way to say that people prefer security over convenience is by counting the number of people who actually USE security that gets in the way of them doing what they want to do.
For example, I am right now trying to recall the password for a gmail account. I can't remember when I created the account, I don't remember the only password the account has ever had so I can't tell them what one of the old passwords was, and even though I enter the code they send me by email they refuse to believe I am me. Right now, security is getting in the way of getting something done.
I too felt a certain kind of queasiness
Then step away from the computer and read a book. The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE. If the question "are jews evil?" makes you queasy, they you will not like the internet, and the rest of us do not want you to try to recast it in your limited vision of what is proper and correct.
I would suggest only reading books your mother picks out for you, since she will be able to filter those to prevent you seeing queasy-making things.
There are gold dollars made today in the US, no need to go back in time 200 years
They're beautiful, but who is going to pay anything with them? This one costs $215 to buy from the mint. Face value: $10.
If you want to pay me in those coins, I'd love it.
I fail to see how using a property for AirBnB is different than using a property for longer term rentals....what difference does the length of lease matter?
Ask any landlord. Transient populations differ from longer-term ones.
And if you want to get picky...if something is zoned residential, guess what....people ARE residing in the homes in question, just for different lengths of time.
No. Residential means people live there, not just visit for a day after paying someone. That makes it commercial.
To make it worse, this is on a screen to the side of my desk because my main screen is hooked up to the classroom projector.
I was kidding you about it. But maybe you shouldn't be using /. while teaching class?
In my area, quite a few of the neighborhoods have restrictions on how many unrelated people are allowed to be under one roof,
This is handled better by zoning, which applies city-wide, and you don't have to have special knowledge of what homes are under an HOA and what that agreement might say. And it won't be the HOA that has to enforce the rules, it will be the city.
This is why R1 and R2 zoning exists, like in Detroit. One and two family residential.
Even so, that's a problem that is best addressed through covenants and deed restrictions within the neighborhood, rather than legislation across a city or state.
It is very hard to solve a problem like that using deed restrictions and covenants. Once it starts happening, how do you get a deed restriction added to prevent it? Who enforces a deed restriction in most neighborhoods, anyway? There is nobody who can.
No, zoning at the city level is the only reasonable solution. Local people, and a local office to apply for zoning variances if you have a good case for a different zone applied to your property.
Let neighborhoods that care about that sort of thing sort it out amongst themselves.
Neighborhoods have no legal authority to sort any of that out. If they try, then they are creating special laws for themselves when they are still part of the city as a whole. We have that issue here where some neighborhoods are unhappy that their public on-street parking is being used by the public. "Oh my", they cry, "I can't park on-street instead of my own driveway because the public are parking in the on-street public parking! Something must be done!"
A property should be able to do most anything they want with their property, including deriving profit from it as much as possible, that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
So I'll buy the house next to yours and open a disco. I can do "most anything I want", right? During the day, it will be an auto-repair shop, with vehicles pending repair parked in all the on-street parking. If you are in the right state, I'll also operate a dispensary and grow operation.
Zoning laws exist for a reason. Residential is residential, not commercial, for a reason. If you own a house you might appreciate that differentiation.
that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
That's not the main reason most people own residential property, especially R1 or R2. They own it to live there. That's why it is single and two family zoned. And they want to be able to sell it for a reasonable price when they move away and not have to take a loss because the next door neighbor is operating a business next door.
and there are ALWAYS winners an losers in life.
Some of the "losses" is living in a residential zone and living by residential zoning rules. Although most people would consider it a win considering property values.
Sport is something that people should do for fun.
Sport is something that people should do to fulfill personal goals. That goal might be "have fun". That goal might be to lose weight and build muscle. That goal might also be "be the best at this in the world". To each his own.
Name one online resource where this cannot be the case.
When I cite an article from Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) I know it will not change. There are thousands of other such sources.
I'd already be happy if all the links I set still exist the next week.
"Citation" in a scholarly work is not just a URL to a website that may or may not exist tomorrow for any number of reasons. It is a reference to an article that may be found online, or in a paper version of the journal.
They are not hesitant to say that other teachers have told them not to use Wikipedia, "because anyone can change it."
Any good Wikipedia article has references. Those are what you use, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is writing by third parties about things, not the direct information. "Anyone can change it" is two-sided. That means it can change after you cite it, but it also means that ANYONE could be the person who wrote the material, and they might not a clue.
I talk to them about the accuracy and that errors are rapidly corrected;
You know when an error is corrected after you cite the wrong information ... how? You look at it today and you know the information is right because ... it can be rapidly corrected tomorrow?
I then talk to them about suing Wikipedia
Freudian slip?
as a really good table of contents that will summarize, and take them to, the sources.
That is the true, scholarly use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for general learning about stuff; it is NOT the right source when trying to do something in depth. I.e., you look up things you see on /. on Wikipedia. You write your chemistry paper using sources referenced by authors in Wikipedia.
So do you also protest your local liqueur store because alcohol dealers are going to get your kids hooked on it?
If a local liquor store sells to kids, then yes, I would, because it is illegal for them to do so. There are also well-known and well distributed warnings regarding alcohol.
Are you such a piss poor parent that you can't educate your kids about such things?
Who educates the parents? This is a "natural plant product". What's the danger?
It's been my experience that happy well adjusted educated kids don't go out looking for drug dealers.
You don't have to "go out looking" to find kratom dealers.
And if an update removes a feature or makes it unusable for you, too bad. But then, that's the Windows 10 philosophy.
Being that GPS is used the the UK, using US infrastructure,
Glosnass, comrade. Much better. Is taking you same place, half the rubles, and you get a shot of vodka to go with it.
As they say, in Russia, Glosnass uses you!
The route algorithms mostly obey speed laws and avoid neighborhoods and roads that aren't really meant for thru-traffic.
Algorithms don't obey speed laws. They may base their routing on them. There are increasing numbers of stories about neighborhoods that are being inundated by rush-hour traffic being routed off the throughways and through their residential areas because the routing algorithm sees that as a faster path.