In the US, if you die without a will, your estate will be parceled out according to certain rules. If I were to die intestate, my wife (if alive) would get everything. If she were dead, my son would. If they were both dead, there's a lot more rules but I really don't care who besides my wife or son gets my stuff when I die.
It makes sense to arrange things to avoid probate, which has to be done with or without a will. For financial assets, look at joint ownership and transfer-on-death.
Civil war: there was active tapping of telegraph wires and cryptanalysis of messages. At that point, the Viginere cipher was considered extremely hard to break. There was also the case of Confederate battle plans wrapped around a couple of cigars, lost by the messenger, and found by a Union soldier.
WWI: The light cruiser Magdeburg ran aground in the Baltic, and the Russians were able to recover the naval codes and give them to the British. That's one example.
WWII: Enigma is the obvious example, but decryption of Japanese naval codes was also important. The Japanese carriers at Midway were where the plans had said. There's also a US military observer in North Africa who was sending back very good reports on British capabilities and intentions, in a code the Germans had managed to steal a copy of. It may be a coincidence, but Rommel's luck turned seriously against him when the observer left North Africa (and his signals intelligence people were lost in an encounter with a British supply column).
Look, guy, I don't want to have to consult the government and Apple every time I unlock my iPhone, and that's what you're proposing. If I'm going to use the device, I need a key that actually works. At that point, the government and Apple partial keys are completely irrelevant. They're neither necessary nor sufficient for decryption.
Also, having more than one partial key isn't going to tell you anything about the real key, assuming any reasonable setup. Cryptographers have worked with partial keys for a long time.
Suppose that LEOs find a phone at a crime scene, and it's probably evidence. They link it to me somehow. They ask me to unlock it.
At that point, if I unlock it, I've definitely tied myself to the phone at the scene of the crime. I've incriminated myself. It's unconstitutional to make me do that.
Suppose I don't use a device for a while and legitimately forget the password. Should I just go to the police station and turn myself in?
Prosecution should involve evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I do know the password of a device that I haven't used in some time? How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that nobody else has changed the password since I last used it? Except in obvious cases, the prosecution is going to have to have sufficient evidence to convict that they can probably convict me for the original crime.
The FISA court is composed of real judges. Its warrants will be backed by police, and if you defy one (as opposed to contest it in court, and you probably won't win) you will be prosecuted.
The Constitution implicitly says that there can be departments in the executive branch, since the President is Constitutionally able to get written answers from the heads of the departments. Most of the President's power is derived from laws Congress passes, and Congress established a Department of Justice to help enforce the law, all according to the Constitution.
Consider the Miami night club shooter. The police knew he was a serious danger, and all the crypto in the world isn't going to show you anything more useful than that. The problem was that the police couldn't do anything about it. They don't have the power to arbitrarily imprison people indefinitely, and I (at least) consider that a Good Thing. They couldn't assign a couple of officers to follow him around at all times. They couldn't find significant laws he'd broken.
How about encryption that is almost certainly unbreakable except by brute force, which will take more resources than the Solar System has in toto? There are only two ways to defeat a 256-bit key: find a crack for the cipher or get a Kardashev Type III civilization to help out.
Elder Things didn't seem to make much sound, but Shoggoths went "Tekeli-li!" (from a book of Poe's). Thing is, the Elder Things lost control to the Shoggoths, who pretty much run things there now.
That idiot in the White House can't be controlled. He's an equal-opportunity loose 16"/50 cannon, except for his hate for Obama and those who don't worship him. Other people have made that mistake. It's similar to what the German right wing thought about Hitler in 1933, except that Hitler had ideas and was generally quite competent (unfortunately).
And this is relevant - how? According to the Dutch plan, the last gasoline vehicles will be sold in 2029, and by the time they get to be ten years old (you aren't buying anything newer for $500 as a general rule) it will be 2039, and there will be plenty of older electric vehicles.
You seem to not realize that there is more than one company making electric cars even now.
Approximately nobody's going to buy a car that will have to be scrapped after five years, not when they can go down the street to the place that sells cars made by intelligent manufacturers. Car magazines will note how difficult it is to swap batteries. (One of the recharging ideas going around is to quick-swap batteries.)
There is no planned obsolescence in modern gasoline cars, because they have to be something large numbers of people with alternatives will buy. There will be none in electric cars.
What's so expensive about self-driving cars? There's the sensors, the control circuitry, and the software. The sensors wouldn't add all that much onto the cost of a car (my Forester came with what they call Eyesight technology, which along with the power lift gate cost about three thousand), the control circuitry except for the processors is already there, and the software costs can be amortized over hundreds of thousands or millions of installations a year.
The reason we don't have them now is that we don't know how quite how to do it well enough.
Alternatively, it's a prisoner's dilemma type of situation. If I were to change my entire lifestyle to cause zero CO2 emissions (dying would work), it would make absolutely no measurable difference to atmospheric CO2 content or global warming or anything like that. One part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 8 billion tons, which could be created by burning something over 2 billion tons of fossil carbon. In a back-of-the-envelope calculation, driving 20,000 miles a year with a 20mpg vehicle takes a thousand gallons, which amounts to about twenty thousand additional pounds of CO2, or ten tons.
So, if my family and I drive gas guzzlers, we're not directly hurting ourselves in the slightest measurable way. If we like them better than electric vehicles, we're better off with the gas guzzlers no matter what other people do.
Prisoner's dilemmas like this are normally dealt with by changing the payoff (in this case, raising the price of gasoline a lot), or legally requiring a certain choice.
Sure. Suppose you live in the Netherlands, and like buying cars new and selling them after a year. In that case, you'll be forced to consider electric in thirteen or fourteen years. By then, there's going to be a lot of electric infrastructure, and presumably a lot of stations where you can get a fast partial charge that will last you long enough.
There's a name for governments that dictate what people can and cannot buy, that's a dictatorship.
Just to make this clear, you do think it should be legal to buy weapons-grade U-235 and nuclear waste and weaponized anthrax, right? Otherwise, the government would be a dictatorship.
(Have you ever priced depleted uranium on eBay? Pricey stuff. I suspect that weapons-grade U-235 would be more expensive.)
Yup. I'm not sure they hate freedom, but they certainly place a low priority on it. There are counterparts on the right wing, particularly the ones who want to strip civil rights away in order to convict other people accused of crimes.
I don't think any of them have much of a clue that they could wind up on the wrong end of the loss of freedom, because of their undying belief that they're the good guys and everybody will have to agree with them and not arrest them or in any way step on a freedom or right they care about.
Aside from these fringe idiots, nobody's talking about banning cars. There's people who want to make them much less necessary, but that's offering alternatives rather than reducing freedom. What they're talking about is restricting car emissions, and that's been done for decades. There will be cars. Whether there is large-scale car ownership, such as in the current US, seems to me a market issue. If there are good alternatives to owning one's own car, some people simply won't own one and save money.
The complaint is that the "greenies" demand immediate adoption of the next big thing.
Then, if you read the summary, you can see that it's a plan to prevent the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars thirteen years from now. This is a definition of "immediate" that I have not previously encountered.
The law also says "emission-free", not "has to use electricity carried in batteries". If someone has a better solution by 2030, they can keep selling it.
The obvious solution to Slashdot stupidity is to RTFS, but alas.
She has a Facebook account under her own name for social activities and having a life. She has an alternate identity with different email address, phone, and name, that doesn't have a Facebook account. This doesn't stop Facebook from linking her customers to her private account.
There are no other technologies that do what Facebook does. Period. A Facebook clone with the exact same tech couldn't do what Facebook does. It's the network effect.
Now, I know you're the sort of turkey who thinks "sheeple" means something, but you need to get out and meet actual physical people sometime, rather than just feeling superior.
When your family and/or social circle uses Facebook, you are definitely missing out if you don't have an account. People communicate on it. People make announcements on it. You're likely to miss things that were announced on Facebook and not mentioned elsewhere. There can be real advantages in having a Facebook account.
What "both accounts"? She doesn't have an account for her professional life. That was made clear in TFS. What's happening is that Facebook is suggesting some of her customers as friends for her private account.
An actual social life involves dealing with actual people. If you know more than a few actual people outside your family, you probably know at least one Facebook user, not necessarily a particularly active one. You may find that lots of the actual people you know are on Facebook, and it works for them, and if you complain about being left out you will be told to just get a Facebook account by your friend or acquaintance. The selfies and cat videos are not actually required by Facebook's ToS, and many people post things of substance.
One thing Facebook is good at is reviving old connections. Those of you with friends that are real and human can find themselves drifting out of touch with someone, and Facebook is more likely to find your friend again than anything else I know that doesn't involve hiring a private investigator.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US, if you die without a will, your estate will be parceled out according to certain rules. If I were to die intestate, my wife (if alive) would get everything. If she were dead, my son would. If they were both dead, there's a lot more rules but I really don't care who besides my wife or son gets my stuff when I die.
It makes sense to arrange things to avoid probate, which has to be done with or without a will. For financial assets, look at joint ownership and transfer-on-death.
Civil war: there was active tapping of telegraph wires and cryptanalysis of messages. At that point, the Viginere cipher was considered extremely hard to break. There was also the case of Confederate battle plans wrapped around a couple of cigars, lost by the messenger, and found by a Union soldier.
WWI: The light cruiser Magdeburg ran aground in the Baltic, and the Russians were able to recover the naval codes and give them to the British. That's one example.
WWII: Enigma is the obvious example, but decryption of Japanese naval codes was also important. The Japanese carriers at Midway were where the plans had said. There's also a US military observer in North Africa who was sending back very good reports on British capabilities and intentions, in a code the Germans had managed to steal a copy of. It may be a coincidence, but Rommel's luck turned seriously against him when the observer left North Africa (and his signals intelligence people were lost in an encounter with a British supply column).
Look, guy, I don't want to have to consult the government and Apple every time I unlock my iPhone, and that's what you're proposing. If I'm going to use the device, I need a key that actually works. At that point, the government and Apple partial keys are completely irrelevant. They're neither necessary nor sufficient for decryption.
Also, having more than one partial key isn't going to tell you anything about the real key, assuming any reasonable setup. Cryptographers have worked with partial keys for a long time.
Suppose that LEOs find a phone at a crime scene, and it's probably evidence. They link it to me somehow. They ask me to unlock it.
At that point, if I unlock it, I've definitely tied myself to the phone at the scene of the crime. I've incriminated myself. It's unconstitutional to make me do that.
Suppose I don't use a device for a while and legitimately forget the password. Should I just go to the police station and turn myself in?
Prosecution should involve evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. How do you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I do know the password of a device that I haven't used in some time? How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that nobody else has changed the password since I last used it? Except in obvious cases, the prosecution is going to have to have sufficient evidence to convict that they can probably convict me for the original crime.
The FISA court is composed of real judges. Its warrants will be backed by police, and if you defy one (as opposed to contest it in court, and you probably won't win) you will be prosecuted.
The Constitution implicitly says that there can be departments in the executive branch, since the President is Constitutionally able to get written answers from the heads of the departments. Most of the President's power is derived from laws Congress passes, and Congress established a Department of Justice to help enforce the law, all according to the Constitution.
Consider the Miami night club shooter. The police knew he was a serious danger, and all the crypto in the world isn't going to show you anything more useful than that. The problem was that the police couldn't do anything about it. They don't have the power to arbitrarily imprison people indefinitely, and I (at least) consider that a Good Thing. They couldn't assign a couple of officers to follow him around at all times. They couldn't find significant laws he'd broken.
How about encryption that is almost certainly unbreakable except by brute force, which will take more resources than the Solar System has in toto? There are only two ways to defeat a 256-bit key: find a crack for the cipher or get a Kardashev Type III civilization to help out.
What's not fair is that the votes in small states count more than votes in larger states. Everyone's vote should be equal.
And still no free cars.
Elder Things didn't seem to make much sound, but Shoggoths went "Tekeli-li!" (from a book of Poe's). Thing is, the Elder Things lost control to the Shoggoths, who pretty much run things there now.
That idiot in the White House can't be controlled. He's an equal-opportunity loose 16"/50 cannon, except for his hate for Obama and those who don't worship him. Other people have made that mistake. It's similar to what the German right wing thought about Hitler in 1933, except that Hitler had ideas and was generally quite competent (unfortunately).
And this is relevant - how? According to the Dutch plan, the last gasoline vehicles will be sold in 2029, and by the time they get to be ten years old (you aren't buying anything newer for $500 as a general rule) it will be 2039, and there will be plenty of older electric vehicles.
You seem to not realize that there is more than one company making electric cars even now.
Approximately nobody's going to buy a car that will have to be scrapped after five years, not when they can go down the street to the place that sells cars made by intelligent manufacturers. Car magazines will note how difficult it is to swap batteries. (One of the recharging ideas going around is to quick-swap batteries.)
There is no planned obsolescence in modern gasoline cars, because they have to be something large numbers of people with alternatives will buy. There will be none in electric cars.
What's so expensive about self-driving cars? There's the sensors, the control circuitry, and the software. The sensors wouldn't add all that much onto the cost of a car (my Forester came with what they call Eyesight technology, which along with the power lift gate cost about three thousand), the control circuitry except for the processors is already there, and the software costs can be amortized over hundreds of thousands or millions of installations a year.
The reason we don't have them now is that we don't know how quite how to do it well enough.
Alternatively, it's a prisoner's dilemma type of situation. If I were to change my entire lifestyle to cause zero CO2 emissions (dying would work), it would make absolutely no measurable difference to atmospheric CO2 content or global warming or anything like that. One part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 8 billion tons, which could be created by burning something over 2 billion tons of fossil carbon. In a back-of-the-envelope calculation, driving 20,000 miles a year with a 20mpg vehicle takes a thousand gallons, which amounts to about twenty thousand additional pounds of CO2, or ten tons.
So, if my family and I drive gas guzzlers, we're not directly hurting ourselves in the slightest measurable way. If we like them better than electric vehicles, we're better off with the gas guzzlers no matter what other people do.
Prisoner's dilemmas like this are normally dealt with by changing the payoff (in this case, raising the price of gasoline a lot), or legally requiring a certain choice.
Sure. Suppose you live in the Netherlands, and like buying cars new and selling them after a year. In that case, you'll be forced to consider electric in thirteen or fourteen years. By then, there's going to be a lot of electric infrastructure, and presumably a lot of stations where you can get a fast partial charge that will last you long enough.
Just to make this clear, you do think it should be legal to buy weapons-grade U-235 and nuclear waste and weaponized anthrax, right? Otherwise, the government would be a dictatorship.
(Have you ever priced depleted uranium on eBay? Pricey stuff. I suspect that weapons-grade U-235 would be more expensive.)
Yup. I'm not sure they hate freedom, but they certainly place a low priority on it. There are counterparts on the right wing, particularly the ones who want to strip civil rights away in order to convict other people accused of crimes.
I don't think any of them have much of a clue that they could wind up on the wrong end of the loss of freedom, because of their undying belief that they're the good guys and everybody will have to agree with them and not arrest them or in any way step on a freedom or right they care about.
Aside from these fringe idiots, nobody's talking about banning cars. There's people who want to make them much less necessary, but that's offering alternatives rather than reducing freedom. What they're talking about is restricting car emissions, and that's been done for decades. There will be cars. Whether there is large-scale car ownership, such as in the current US, seems to me a market issue. If there are good alternatives to owning one's own car, some people simply won't own one and save money.
Then, if you read the summary, you can see that it's a plan to prevent the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars thirteen years from now. This is a definition of "immediate" that I have not previously encountered.
The law also says "emission-free", not "has to use electricity carried in batteries". If someone has a better solution by 2030, they can keep selling it.
The obvious solution to Slashdot stupidity is to RTFS, but alas.
She has a Facebook account under her own name for social activities and having a life. She has an alternate identity with different email address, phone, and name, that doesn't have a Facebook account. This doesn't stop Facebook from linking her customers to her private account.
Aliases don't work on a social network. People on FB who interact with me need to know that the account is mine, and that's going to get linked to me.
The woman in question used an alias for her professional work, and that didn't work.
There are no other technologies that do what Facebook does. Period. A Facebook clone with the exact same tech couldn't do what Facebook does. It's the network effect.
Now, I know you're the sort of turkey who thinks "sheeple" means something, but you need to get out and meet actual physical people sometime, rather than just feeling superior.
When your family and/or social circle uses Facebook, you are definitely missing out if you don't have an account. People communicate on it. People make announcements on it. You're likely to miss things that were announced on Facebook and not mentioned elsewhere. There can be real advantages in having a Facebook account.
It used to be a point of honor here not to RTFA, but making it a point not to RTFS is, I believe, taking it too far.
There is one Facebook account, not two. Facebook is connecting her private account with her professional life, which she keeps as separate as she can.
What "both accounts"? She doesn't have an account for her professional life. That was made clear in TFS. What's happening is that Facebook is suggesting some of her customers as friends for her private account.
An actual social life involves dealing with actual people. If you know more than a few actual people outside your family, you probably know at least one Facebook user, not necessarily a particularly active one. You may find that lots of the actual people you know are on Facebook, and it works for them, and if you complain about being left out you will be told to just get a Facebook account by your friend or acquaintance. The selfies and cat videos are not actually required by Facebook's ToS, and many people post things of substance.
One thing Facebook is good at is reviving old connections. Those of you with friends that are real and human can find themselves drifting out of touch with someone, and Facebook is more likely to find your friend again than anything else I know that doesn't involve hiring a private investigator.