Apple did decrypt the data it could, and the only reason it wasn't everything was that the FBI screwed up big-time. Apple cooperated fully in the investigation.
What Apple was not going to do was what the FBI wanted them to do, which was overly specific, required a fair amount of work, and was likely to hurt Apple's business. It was a power grab on the part of the FBI, and the FBI caved once Apple appealed against the order, showing that the FBI thought Apple had a good case.
The librarians decided to keep absolute minimum records so the FBI couldn't harvest them. The FBI can learn that I've got a biography of Garibaldi checked out, but they won't be able to find information on the audiobook I returned last week.
This isn't really applicable to ISPs, since they keep information on me for my own convenience. My email provider stores my email so I can easily access it from multiple machines, for example. I'd like to see this legally kept private, but very few of the Founding Fathers knew anything about email servers, so it is not well covered in the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth says that I am to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects. If the FBI wants to search me (other than something like a weapons frisk on arrest), my house, or go through my stuff, they need a warrant. It doesn't say you're secure in my papers and effects. I can be legally compelled, without a warrant, to provide information on you if I have it, without violating the Bill of Rights.
How about when your race doesn't have access to the cleric class? In the original D&D rules, player character elves couldn't be clerics, and I'm not sure about hobbits (halflings in the slightly less original rules).
Define "too fucking fast". If I'm going to want to take a speed bump at no more than 5mph, and the road will reasonably support 20mph (speed limit is 30, but some roads look like I should go slower), I'm going to be ticked off. If this is just a diversion, I can avoid it, but I frequently want to drive into a neighborhood for a specific reason.
Anything that will likely damage my car, or mess with my control, at 15-20mph should just go away.
Someone in the business said several years ago that, given a planned obstruction with an official detour, about a third of the drivers would use the official detour, about a third would take other alternative routes, and about a third of the traffic would just disappear. He had no idea where it went.
Nowadays, I'd expect more people to be on the other alternative routes, given the availability of GPS units and route planning software.
The official detour is not always the right thing to do. Quite a few years ago, two high-capacity routes that were fairly close to each other, one interstate and one county highway, and each was under construction and gave the other as the official detour. I didn't follow up what actually resulted, since I very rarely went that way.
Changing jobs always carries a certain amount of risk, and that has to be balanced against what someone would get by changing jobs. Some people are more risk-averse than others. Some people are more rational than others.
If I'm a valuable employee, and part of my value consists in knowledge and experience with the company, so I couldn't be easily replaced, why would the company want my purchasing power to decline, forcing me to take another job if I want to maintain my standard of living? TFA is about something an employer is talking about doing, not about what employees should do.
That depends on where you are. Where I live, trying to hail taxis generally doesn't work. The standard practice used to be to call a dispatcher to get a cab, and cabs typically have their dispatch phone numbers painted on them. Since then, the cab companies have also introduced apps.
Oh, there are many government interventions that end inequality; again, I know that first hand. Unfortunately, they also end justice, liberty, meritocracy, economic opportunity, and economic growth.
There's a sweeping statement based on ideology. While I do advocate using government to help the less fortunate (no scare quotes - there's a lot of people less fortunate than I am), I'm not going to make statements like that. Some government interventions help things, some hurt things. My experience is that there are a lot of people whose attitude towards government programs intended to help the poor amounts to either "yes" or "no", while I'd like a more evidence-based approach. I'm not in favor of affirmative action, for example, although I could be persuaded to change my mind with enough evidence.
I really don't care about meritocracy. If you do, you really should look at what forms in society would promote it. I assure you that it isn't straight unregulated capitalism, as that leads to rule by the wealthy, not the competent. While the wealthy tend to be competent, the competent don't tend to be wealthy.
Currently, there's a lot of people who really don't have significant economic opportunity, and I'd like them to have it. I don't really care if people fail because they try something and screw up, but I do if they never have a chance to try something. True, some people will thrive and prosper coming from almost any sort of background, but I'm more interested in justice and opportunity for the many. I also think that giving these people a shot at making something of themselves will spur economic growth. For example, the South Dakota Indian reservations (something I have a little knowledge of) are not helping the economy in the slightest.
What I primarily want to do is establish a lower bound for living conditions and opportunity. People will succeed and fail from there, and that's up to them.
Nothing's invulnerable. If I need a rifle, I want it to be in top condition, but I have to consider that things do happen, and if I'm relying on a rifle I have to know what to do if something happens to it. Alternatively, consider it to be a perfectly good AK-47, and my point stands.
So, why do you think it's about male-on-male sex specifically? I'd consider that sin to be gang rape, personally. If they'd gang-raped Lot's virgin daughters, would that be less of a sin?
It's been a while since I read that part of the Bible, but Sodom was also notorious for being uncharitable and hostile to foreigners, and that struck me as being the big sin.
Sure, but that's a symptom. We want to break that up to raise the lower bound. Income inequality causes problems, but it's going to happen, and some of the problems may be better dealt with separately.
I don't care how rich people get, as long as certain problems are dealt with. It may be that the most practical way to solve them is to make it a lot harder to become rich, but in that case limiting wealth is a means, not an end.
The property sector does add to the economy. You're referring to various forms of real estate speculation, which don't have any obvious benefit. However, we do need people to construct and maintain and rent out and sell housing, and they're going to want money to do it. We just don't want them to wreck the economy by making net loss deals and trying to make up for that with volume, or making artificial financial instruments that total to incredibly larger than the real wealth they're based on.
Giving someone unused to handling money a one-time windfall, and that person is likely to screw it up. Give someone a halfway decent income over a lifetime and that person is likely to learn to handle it. Giving people enough money does, by definition, get them out of poverty. Given access to education, modern medicine, old-age security, and television, birth rates will go down sharply.
I was primarily reacting to "The fucking world revolves around you apparently.", which is really, really unhelpful. I'm not arguing about facts, but I don't think your attitude towards what others do is good.
Yes, it will have Windows on it. Ubuntu installation requires a few steps. I've done it several times, and I know what I'm doing. I download the distro, burn it to a DVD-ROM, boot from it, and select install. I then answer a few questions about partitions and the like. After all, I do more or less know what I want for disk partitions, and my SSDs and hard disks are large enough that it won't matter if I make minor mistakes. (It's been a couple of years since I installed it, so I'm fuzzy on the details.) It's easier than installing Windows, according to my very limited experience.
We're outside the comfort zone of the average user. Assuming the average user knows to get Ubuntu (or Mint, or some other generally friendly distro), downloading it isn't difficult. Burning and booting from the DVD-ROM is unusual. The technical stuff is going to be intimidating. This is a barrier. If I were to recommend Ubuntu to a non-technical person (and Linux will work best for the seriously technical and the thoroughly non-technical), I'd install it myself and run the person through a few things.
If I go out to a computer store, buy a computer, and take it home, will it be easier for me to run Windows or Ubuntu on it? Windows installation might be difficult (it's been a long time since I did it), but it's already done, while it would be necessary to spend a little effort to install Ubuntu.
Excuse me? GP's software setup does revolve around him. Neither you nor I are qualified to tell him what he should do about it. You want him to move off Windows to put pressure on Microsoft. He wants to get work done without additional hassle and expense. The best you can offer him is that, if he goes to a lot of additional work and expense, he might be able to put some small influence on MS that might pay off someday. You don't even seem to have a plan other than "move off MS Windows and see what happens".
Currently, wealthier societies are not even at replacement population levels, while poorer ones show high population growth. If we take more people out of poverty, we're likely to reduce the birth rate.
Part of the plan is for people to be able to sit around doing nothing. If there isn't a job for someone* that will be productive enough to pay for that person's basic needs, we're going to have to cover it anyway, and just giving them the money saves a lot of administrative costs. Moreover, if a person has the ability to sit around doing nothing, they aren't going to be pressured into taking a job just because they need to survive, and this will give them bargaining power with employers. It would make things like minimum wage unnecessary.
*The below average will always be with us. On any more or less continuous scale you care to name, about half the population is below the median.
Obviously, any increase in corporate tax is going to have results for some people. Increases in consumer prices would result in a loss of purchasing power overall, while reductions in profits would be less money for shareholders. This doesn't mean that corporate taxes are a bad idea.
A flat tax and a sales tax are not the same thing. People with more income don't buy proportionately the same amount of stuff. Sales taxes are therefore somewhat regressive, unlike flat taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple did decrypt the data it could, and the only reason it wasn't everything was that the FBI screwed up big-time. Apple cooperated fully in the investigation.
What Apple was not going to do was what the FBI wanted them to do, which was overly specific, required a fair amount of work, and was likely to hurt Apple's business. It was a power grab on the part of the FBI, and the FBI caved once Apple appealed against the order, showing that the FBI thought Apple had a good case.
The librarians decided to keep absolute minimum records so the FBI couldn't harvest them. The FBI can learn that I've got a biography of Garibaldi checked out, but they won't be able to find information on the audiobook I returned last week.
This isn't really applicable to ISPs, since they keep information on me for my own convenience. My email provider stores my email so I can easily access it from multiple machines, for example. I'd like to see this legally kept private, but very few of the Founding Fathers knew anything about email servers, so it is not well covered in the Bill of Rights.
The Fourth says that I am to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects. If the FBI wants to search me (other than something like a weapons frisk on arrest), my house, or go through my stuff, they need a warrant. It doesn't say you're secure in my papers and effects. I can be legally compelled, without a warrant, to provide information on you if I have it, without violating the Bill of Rights.
How about when your race doesn't have access to the cleric class? In the original D&D rules, player character elves couldn't be clerics, and I'm not sure about hobbits (halflings in the slightly less original rules).
Until 1988, anyway, when it became illegal to buy a new infantry rifle. So much for getting the neighbors together and forming some sort of militia.
Alternatively, order an office chair on ebay.
Define "too fucking fast". If I'm going to want to take a speed bump at no more than 5mph, and the road will reasonably support 20mph (speed limit is 30, but some roads look like I should go slower), I'm going to be ticked off. If this is just a diversion, I can avoid it, but I frequently want to drive into a neighborhood for a specific reason.
Anything that will likely damage my car, or mess with my control, at 15-20mph should just go away.
Someone in the business said several years ago that, given a planned obstruction with an official detour, about a third of the drivers would use the official detour, about a third would take other alternative routes, and about a third of the traffic would just disappear. He had no idea where it went.
Nowadays, I'd expect more people to be on the other alternative routes, given the availability of GPS units and route planning software.
The official detour is not always the right thing to do. Quite a few years ago, two high-capacity routes that were fairly close to each other, one interstate and one county highway, and each was under construction and gave the other as the official detour. I didn't follow up what actually resulted, since I very rarely went that way.
Make that "volatile unsigned char *" or the compiler will optimize the operations out.
Changing jobs always carries a certain amount of risk, and that has to be balanced against what someone would get by changing jobs. Some people are more risk-averse than others. Some people are more rational than others.
If I'm a valuable employee, and part of my value consists in knowledge and experience with the company, so I couldn't be easily replaced, why would the company want my purchasing power to decline, forcing me to take another job if I want to maintain my standard of living? TFA is about something an employer is talking about doing, not about what employees should do.
That depends on where you are. Where I live, trying to hail taxis generally doesn't work. The standard practice used to be to call a dispatcher to get a cab, and cabs typically have their dispatch phone numbers painted on them. Since then, the cab companies have also introduced apps.
There's a sweeping statement based on ideology. While I do advocate using government to help the less fortunate (no scare quotes - there's a lot of people less fortunate than I am), I'm not going to make statements like that. Some government interventions help things, some hurt things. My experience is that there are a lot of people whose attitude towards government programs intended to help the poor amounts to either "yes" or "no", while I'd like a more evidence-based approach. I'm not in favor of affirmative action, for example, although I could be persuaded to change my mind with enough evidence.
I really don't care about meritocracy. If you do, you really should look at what forms in society would promote it. I assure you that it isn't straight unregulated capitalism, as that leads to rule by the wealthy, not the competent. While the wealthy tend to be competent, the competent don't tend to be wealthy.
Currently, there's a lot of people who really don't have significant economic opportunity, and I'd like them to have it. I don't really care if people fail because they try something and screw up, but I do if they never have a chance to try something. True, some people will thrive and prosper coming from almost any sort of background, but I'm more interested in justice and opportunity for the many. I also think that giving these people a shot at making something of themselves will spur economic growth. For example, the South Dakota Indian reservations (something I have a little knowledge of) are not helping the economy in the slightest.
What I primarily want to do is establish a lower bound for living conditions and opportunity. People will succeed and fail from there, and that's up to them.
Nothing's invulnerable. If I need a rifle, I want it to be in top condition, but I have to consider that things do happen, and if I'm relying on a rifle I have to know what to do if something happens to it. Alternatively, consider it to be a perfectly good AK-47, and my point stands.
So, why do you think it's about male-on-male sex specifically? I'd consider that sin to be gang rape, personally. If they'd gang-raped Lot's virgin daughters, would that be less of a sin?
It's been a while since I read that part of the Bible, but Sodom was also notorious for being uncharitable and hostile to foreigners, and that struck me as being the big sin.
Sure, but that's a symptom. We want to break that up to raise the lower bound. Income inequality causes problems, but it's going to happen, and some of the problems may be better dealt with separately.
I don't care how rich people get, as long as certain problems are dealt with. It may be that the most practical way to solve them is to make it a lot harder to become rich, but in that case limiting wealth is a means, not an end.
The property sector does add to the economy. You're referring to various forms of real estate speculation, which don't have any obvious benefit. However, we do need people to construct and maintain and rent out and sell housing, and they're going to want money to do it. We just don't want them to wreck the economy by making net loss deals and trying to make up for that with volume, or making artificial financial instruments that total to incredibly larger than the real wealth they're based on.
Giving someone unused to handling money a one-time windfall, and that person is likely to screw it up. Give someone a halfway decent income over a lifetime and that person is likely to learn to handle it. Giving people enough money does, by definition, get them out of poverty. Given access to education, modern medicine, old-age security, and television, birth rates will go down sharply.
I was primarily reacting to "The fucking world revolves around you apparently.", which is really, really unhelpful. I'm not arguing about facts, but I don't think your attitude towards what others do is good.
Yes, it will have Windows on it. Ubuntu installation requires a few steps. I've done it several times, and I know what I'm doing. I download the distro, burn it to a DVD-ROM, boot from it, and select install. I then answer a few questions about partitions and the like. After all, I do more or less know what I want for disk partitions, and my SSDs and hard disks are large enough that it won't matter if I make minor mistakes. (It's been a couple of years since I installed it, so I'm fuzzy on the details.) It's easier than installing Windows, according to my very limited experience.
We're outside the comfort zone of the average user. Assuming the average user knows to get Ubuntu (or Mint, or some other generally friendly distro), downloading it isn't difficult. Burning and booting from the DVD-ROM is unusual. The technical stuff is going to be intimidating. This is a barrier. If I were to recommend Ubuntu to a non-technical person (and Linux will work best for the seriously technical and the thoroughly non-technical), I'd install it myself and run the person through a few things.
If I go out to a computer store, buy a computer, and take it home, will it be easier for me to run Windows or Ubuntu on it? Windows installation might be difficult (it's been a long time since I did it), but it's already done, while it would be necessary to spend a little effort to install Ubuntu.
Excuse me? GP's software setup does revolve around him. Neither you nor I are qualified to tell him what he should do about it. You want him to move off Windows to put pressure on Microsoft. He wants to get work done without additional hassle and expense. The best you can offer him is that, if he goes to a lot of additional work and expense, he might be able to put some small influence on MS that might pay off someday. You don't even seem to have a plan other than "move off MS Windows and see what happens".
Currently, wealthier societies are not even at replacement population levels, while poorer ones show high population growth. If we take more people out of poverty, we're likely to reduce the birth rate.
Part of the plan is for people to be able to sit around doing nothing. If there isn't a job for someone* that will be productive enough to pay for that person's basic needs, we're going to have to cover it anyway, and just giving them the money saves a lot of administrative costs. Moreover, if a person has the ability to sit around doing nothing, they aren't going to be pressured into taking a job just because they need to survive, and this will give them bargaining power with employers. It would make things like minimum wage unnecessary.
*The below average will always be with us. On any more or less continuous scale you care to name, about half the population is below the median.
Obviously, any increase in corporate tax is going to have results for some people. Increases in consumer prices would result in a loss of purchasing power overall, while reductions in profits would be less money for shareholders. This doesn't mean that corporate taxes are a bad idea.
A flat tax and a sales tax are not the same thing. People with more income don't buy proportionately the same amount of stuff. Sales taxes are therefore somewhat regressive, unlike flat taxes.