There's reasons why I never told PayPal where my checking account is. PayPal already does pretty much what I need it to do without being attached to a bank account.
Apple's signing key is usable to install software on your iPhone. It has nothing to do with the encryption key, which is a random 256-bit number kept in special hardware, and which cannot be directly read. The FBI's proposed use of the signing key was to install a modified OS onto the phone that wouldn't enforce any lockout delay or have a wipe. That won't work the same for the 5S or any later iPhone, since the restrictions are on chip and are not in the OS. (I believe there are other ways to crack them, but they don't involve Apple's signing key.)
A four-digit PIN is pretty good security if the attacker can try only ten combinations before the key is wiped. Even if that option isn't enabled on an iPhone, the lockout delay will make it difficult to brute-force it in any reasonable time. (If I were actually using my iPhone for illicit purposes, I'd have a six-digit PIN and the wipe option enabled.)
Clarification: you cannot be compelled to admit you can decrypt a device, in cases where that would be significant. If the police have a device that might have been involved in something illegal, and they can't definitely tie it to you, then admitting you have access to the device is potentially incriminating, and decrypting it proves that you probably had access. That's against the Fifth.
No different from the police finding your fingerprints on the murder weapon. Your fingerprints tie you to the phone (if they can demonstrate you can unlock it with your fingerprint) and to the murder weapon. You can't be compelled to admit you know the PIN of a phone that's not definitely yours (and US court decisions have been divided in the case that the phone's definitely yours), since that would be self-incrimination.
Having read that twice, I'm not sure what you're asking.
The police can probably hang on to Tina's phone indefinitely, sure. They could physically compel Tina's fingerprint at the time of the raid, but I really doubt that could get Tina convicted. However, they can probably determine that it's Tina's phone, and I don't know what happens then. Even if you know the PIN, you can't be compelled to reveal or use it, since that could be self-incrimination. (Revealing the contents of the phone is not considered self-incrimination. Revealing that you can access it is potentially self-incrimination.)
So the police have an iPhone in the evidence room that they can't read. This can't be unusual.
They can ask you to unlock the phone, but in the case of a phone not obviously connected with you revealing that you can unlock it would be potentially incriminating yourself, and hence against the Fifth. The courts have been ruling that way.
This was on the "expansion interface" of my original TRS-80 (before they started calling it the Model 1). I didn't have the problem with later computers, although by the time I next added memory to a computer I didn't have those rows of sockets.
That belief is probably at the root of your misconceptions. In fact, in a purely capitalist society, future debt repayments are guaranteed, without government coercion, through a web of contracts, voluntary cooperation, reputation, and insurance.
Which requires government support to actually work. Contracts don't enforce themselves. Insurance is nothing more than contracts requiring future payments under certain conditions. Voluntary cooperation doesn't scale. Reputation is not government-based, but it doesn't scale either. When people are pretty much limited to dealing with the same three hundred people for their lifetimes, reputation works. When there's millions of people in a non-self-sufficient metropolitan area, it doesn't.
It appeared to me that Obama was trying to get the Republicans involved, and they refused. Once they got control of at least one house of Congress, their continued intransigence was predictable.
What do you think "evidence" means? There is a witness report that says I'm involved in the incident. In what linguistically useful way is that not evidence? Would it become evidence if I were convicted (although I wasn't there)? Would it be evidence only if true, and not an honest mistake? Would you not consider it evidence even if I had committed the hit-and-run I am alleged to, since it isn't conclusive proof?
By any meaning of the word I, as a native English speaker with a passing interest in etymology and linguistics, am aware of, the witness report is evidence.
Moreover, while you may think you shouldn't have to lift a finger to prove your innocence, that's not a practical thing to do in the real world.
In the real world, most companies are started privately. I don't now how many are corporations and how many are "doing business as" or partnerships, but a lot are the latter. In those cases, the proprietors or partners are liable for all the debt.
Bankruptcy and corporations are creations of the State, and are not present in pure capitalism. They're both very useful in running a capitalist economy, but they are government interference in the economy. They shield individuals from some forms of catastrophic loss. Lenders frequently issue loans that they don't know can be repaid, since they can't see the future, and this would not be possible without the ability to contract for future payments, which needs to be enforced by the government. Some loans are secured (a loan for 80% of a house's value is likely to be repaid one way or another), but some aren't (like business loans).
Without government interference, the only deals that would be possible would be straight exchanges of stuff, and that's not a good way to try to run a capitalist economy. A capitalist economy can't work well without the ability to require future loan payments, as a way to get capital, and once we have that there is no reason to let a debtor off by merely confiscating all of his or her assets. That's further government interference, and only a fundamental characteristic of capitalism in your imagination.
In short, you've got an ideological view of capitalism, and attribute to it things that you think improve it, without recognizing that these are government distortions of the market.
Allowing a child to use a locked-down device without direct supervision is reasonable. The problem comes when it isn't locked down as much as you think it is, which is where the deception comes in.
The additional RAM I added to my first computer kept slowly working itself out of the sockets, so I had to plug it back in periodically. That's not something I've had to do with any computer since.
"Black Lives Matter" is in contrast the the current "Black Lives Really Don't Matter", so I'm fine with that.
Brown really, really sucks as a poster child. Yes, Ferguson was a hell of racial oppression, but that doesn't make Brown anything other than a petty thug. There's lots and lots of black people who were killed just for being black, not for being aggressive. The movement should just stop talking about Brown and talk about kids shot down in cold blood because they had toy guns, blacks who were killed by mistreatment when in custody, that sort of thing.
The people who own the means of production are already producing everything they need, and can freely exchange with each other. There isn't that much practical difference, from their point of view, between human resources and robotic resources. By your reasoning, there is little incentive to take over other people's businesses, and that seems to be empirically false.
Given a thousand people, each of whom produces about 0.1% of what everyone needs. Now, get rid of the other people, the pure consumers. Suddenly, there's a thousand people who are producing far more than can actually be used, and so the businesses will be much less valuable, and so people will try to take over each other's business to get greater financial power.
People with income above the UBI will pay taxes. There will be plenty of them.
Every citizen or resident alien gets the UBI, including Bill Gates. That's one of the ways it's much better than welfare programs: all you have to do is determine the number of people in the household, and deposit the amount in their bank accounts. It simplifies things and reduces overhead dramatically.
We already have millions of unemployed, and we'll probably have less human work over time, so we'd have even more millions anyway. With the UBI, we don't have desperate unemployed people.
How did aristocrats come to terms with becoming, in effect, the "pets" of the larger servant class that cared for them? They seemed to cope.
The rules of robot warfare will be worked out by the same sort of international conventions that work out the rules of human warfare.
People will maintain policies on what robots can and can't do. Just because the economy changes a lot doesn't mean we will cease to have politics and governments.
I don't know how much decision making will be given over to algorithms and AI; that will be decided on a case-by-case basis. I will tell you that I'm no longer worried about the machine code my compiler generates, so I've given that over to algorithms. It didn't seem to hurt me.
People want more than a basic income. I'm not quitting my job the day a UBI is established, because I want more money than a UBI will give me. There will always be people willing to do anything that needs to be done; they'll just have to be paid accordingly. You want a clerk at a florist shop? Probably not too expensive, and the clerk will find uses for extra money. The only gotcha is that people will have to be paid decently for crap jobs.
A UBI doesn't mean people can't try to get into the 1%. It's a guarantee on the low end that has nothing to do with the high end. What the 1% and corporations are going to be annoyed at is that it makes low-end workers more independent. Got a crappy job? You'll have to pay accordingly, because nobody is going to take a low-wage icky job because it's that or starve.
I'm using it on a $700 W10 laptop. It's fine for what I use it for, although I do have to tell the update function not to install anything else periodically. Not that that's any worse than having to ensure I don't get the Yahoo browser bar or whatever every time I upgrade Java.
I'm not doing anything special. I don't know what your problem is.
There are no advantages to upgrading to Windows 10 to run software certified to run Windows 7 and nothing later. I've used Apple stuff (I've currently got an iPhone, and have owned Macs), and they were never as obnoxious about updating as Microsoft. I've refused iOS updates and gotten no further prods from Apple.
My mother-in-law's boyfriend misclicked something and was "upgraded" to Windows 10, which isn't really working as well on his computer as Windows 7 did.
Actually, no. Copyright duration is unlikely to be extended more than a few decades at a time, every time Steamboat Willie is approaching public domain. Therefore, it's not likely to be for many years after the Earth is no longer inhabitable. Cracking AES-256 by brute force is likely to take much longer.
IANAL, but AFAIK it is generally legal to have planned data destruction implemented. For example, many companies destroy all email older than a given duration, and that's fine. The court can order them to preserve evidence starting at a given time, but if you have a 90-day email retention policy, do something horrible, and the police show up 91 days later, you've destroyed the evidence perfectly legally.
Typically, the police will make a disk image and preserve it themselves, but in some cases (like a modern iPhone) they can't get the decryption key directly and so the disk image is useless.
Last I looked, case law on forcing the decryption of files was unsettled. It seemed to be pretty well accepted that the courts could require decryption of something they knew was there (which doesn't appear to be the case here), and not if the act of decryption would help incriminate (such as a hard disk in the house that was not necessarily tied to him).
Slashdot Mirror
There's reasons why I never told PayPal where my checking account is. PayPal already does pretty much what I need it to do without being attached to a bank account.
Apple's signing key is usable to install software on your iPhone. It has nothing to do with the encryption key, which is a random 256-bit number kept in special hardware, and which cannot be directly read. The FBI's proposed use of the signing key was to install a modified OS onto the phone that wouldn't enforce any lockout delay or have a wipe. That won't work the same for the 5S or any later iPhone, since the restrictions are on chip and are not in the OS. (I believe there are other ways to crack them, but they don't involve Apple's signing key.)
A four-digit PIN is pretty good security if the attacker can try only ten combinations before the key is wiped. Even if that option isn't enabled on an iPhone, the lockout delay will make it difficult to brute-force it in any reasonable time. (If I were actually using my iPhone for illicit purposes, I'd have a six-digit PIN and the wipe option enabled.)
Clarification: you cannot be compelled to admit you can decrypt a device, in cases where that would be significant. If the police have a device that might have been involved in something illegal, and they can't definitely tie it to you, then admitting you have access to the device is potentially incriminating, and decrypting it proves that you probably had access. That's against the Fifth.
No different from the police finding your fingerprints on the murder weapon. Your fingerprints tie you to the phone (if they can demonstrate you can unlock it with your fingerprint) and to the murder weapon. You can't be compelled to admit you know the PIN of a phone that's not definitely yours (and US court decisions have been divided in the case that the phone's definitely yours), since that would be self-incrimination.
Having read that twice, I'm not sure what you're asking.
The police can probably hang on to Tina's phone indefinitely, sure. They could physically compel Tina's fingerprint at the time of the raid, but I really doubt that could get Tina convicted. However, they can probably determine that it's Tina's phone, and I don't know what happens then. Even if you know the PIN, you can't be compelled to reveal or use it, since that could be self-incrimination. (Revealing the contents of the phone is not considered self-incrimination. Revealing that you can access it is potentially self-incrimination.)
So the police have an iPhone in the evidence room that they can't read. This can't be unusual.
They can ask you to unlock the phone, but in the case of a phone not obviously connected with you revealing that you can unlock it would be potentially incriminating yourself, and hence against the Fifth. The courts have been ruling that way.
This was on the "expansion interface" of my original TRS-80 (before they started calling it the Model 1). I didn't have the problem with later computers, although by the time I next added memory to a computer I didn't have those rows of sockets.
Which requires government support to actually work. Contracts don't enforce themselves. Insurance is nothing more than contracts requiring future payments under certain conditions. Voluntary cooperation doesn't scale. Reputation is not government-based, but it doesn't scale either. When people are pretty much limited to dealing with the same three hundred people for their lifetimes, reputation works. When there's millions of people in a non-self-sufficient metropolitan area, it doesn't.
It appeared to me that Obama was trying to get the Republicans involved, and they refused. Once they got control of at least one house of Congress, their continued intransigence was predictable.
What do you think "evidence" means? There is a witness report that says I'm involved in the incident. In what linguistically useful way is that not evidence? Would it become evidence if I were convicted (although I wasn't there)? Would it be evidence only if true, and not an honest mistake? Would you not consider it evidence even if I had committed the hit-and-run I am alleged to, since it isn't conclusive proof?
By any meaning of the word I, as a native English speaker with a passing interest in etymology and linguistics, am aware of, the witness report is evidence.
Moreover, while you may think you shouldn't have to lift a finger to prove your innocence, that's not a practical thing to do in the real world.
In the real world, most companies are started privately. I don't now how many are corporations and how many are "doing business as" or partnerships, but a lot are the latter. In those cases, the proprietors or partners are liable for all the debt.
Bankruptcy and corporations are creations of the State, and are not present in pure capitalism. They're both very useful in running a capitalist economy, but they are government interference in the economy. They shield individuals from some forms of catastrophic loss. Lenders frequently issue loans that they don't know can be repaid, since they can't see the future, and this would not be possible without the ability to contract for future payments, which needs to be enforced by the government. Some loans are secured (a loan for 80% of a house's value is likely to be repaid one way or another), but some aren't (like business loans).
Without government interference, the only deals that would be possible would be straight exchanges of stuff, and that's not a good way to try to run a capitalist economy. A capitalist economy can't work well without the ability to require future loan payments, as a way to get capital, and once we have that there is no reason to let a debtor off by merely confiscating all of his or her assets. That's further government interference, and only a fundamental characteristic of capitalism in your imagination.
In short, you've got an ideological view of capitalism, and attribute to it things that you think improve it, without recognizing that these are government distortions of the market.
Allowing a child to use a locked-down device without direct supervision is reasonable. The problem comes when it isn't locked down as much as you think it is, which is where the deception comes in.
The additional RAM I added to my first computer kept slowly working itself out of the sockets, so I had to plug it back in periodically. That's not something I've had to do with any computer since.
"Black Lives Matter" is in contrast the the current "Black Lives Really Don't Matter", so I'm fine with that.
Brown really, really sucks as a poster child. Yes, Ferguson was a hell of racial oppression, but that doesn't make Brown anything other than a petty thug. There's lots and lots of black people who were killed just for being black, not for being aggressive. The movement should just stop talking about Brown and talk about kids shot down in cold blood because they had toy guns, blacks who were killed by mistreatment when in custody, that sort of thing.
Establish a UBI first, then we don't need a minimum wage.
The people who own the means of production are already producing everything they need, and can freely exchange with each other. There isn't that much practical difference, from their point of view, between human resources and robotic resources. By your reasoning, there is little incentive to take over other people's businesses, and that seems to be empirically false.
Given a thousand people, each of whom produces about 0.1% of what everyone needs. Now, get rid of the other people, the pure consumers. Suddenly, there's a thousand people who are producing far more than can actually be used, and so the businesses will be much less valuable, and so people will try to take over each other's business to get greater financial power.
To answer your questions:
People with income above the UBI will pay taxes. There will be plenty of them.
Every citizen or resident alien gets the UBI, including Bill Gates. That's one of the ways it's much better than welfare programs: all you have to do is determine the number of people in the household, and deposit the amount in their bank accounts. It simplifies things and reduces overhead dramatically.
We already have millions of unemployed, and we'll probably have less human work over time, so we'd have even more millions anyway. With the UBI, we don't have desperate unemployed people.
How did aristocrats come to terms with becoming, in effect, the "pets" of the larger servant class that cared for them? They seemed to cope.
The rules of robot warfare will be worked out by the same sort of international conventions that work out the rules of human warfare.
People will maintain policies on what robots can and can't do. Just because the economy changes a lot doesn't mean we will cease to have politics and governments.
I don't know how much decision making will be given over to algorithms and AI; that will be decided on a case-by-case basis. I will tell you that I'm no longer worried about the machine code my compiler generates, so I've given that over to algorithms. It didn't seem to hurt me.
People want more than a basic income. I'm not quitting my job the day a UBI is established, because I want more money than a UBI will give me. There will always be people willing to do anything that needs to be done; they'll just have to be paid accordingly. You want a clerk at a florist shop? Probably not too expensive, and the clerk will find uses for extra money. The only gotcha is that people will have to be paid decently for crap jobs.
A UBI doesn't mean people can't try to get into the 1%. It's a guarantee on the low end that has nothing to do with the high end. What the 1% and corporations are going to be annoyed at is that it makes low-end workers more independent. Got a crappy job? You'll have to pay accordingly, because nobody is going to take a low-wage icky job because it's that or starve.
I'm using it on a $700 W10 laptop. It's fine for what I use it for, although I do have to tell the update function not to install anything else periodically. Not that that's any worse than having to ensure I don't get the Yahoo browser bar or whatever every time I upgrade Java.
I'm not doing anything special. I don't know what your problem is.
There are no advantages to upgrading to Windows 10 to run software certified to run Windows 7 and nothing later. I've used Apple stuff (I've currently got an iPhone, and have owned Macs), and they were never as obnoxious about updating as Microsoft. I've refused iOS updates and gotten no further prods from Apple.
My mother-in-law's boyfriend misclicked something and was "upgraded" to Windows 10, which isn't really working as well on his computer as Windows 7 did.
Actually, no. Copyright duration is unlikely to be extended more than a few decades at a time, every time Steamboat Willie is approaching public domain. Therefore, it's not likely to be for many years after the Earth is no longer inhabitable. Cracking AES-256 by brute force is likely to take much longer.
IANAL, but AFAIK it is generally legal to have planned data destruction implemented. For example, many companies destroy all email older than a given duration, and that's fine. The court can order them to preserve evidence starting at a given time, but if you have a 90-day email retention policy, do something horrible, and the police show up 91 days later, you've destroyed the evidence perfectly legally.
Typically, the police will make a disk image and preserve it themselves, but in some cases (like a modern iPhone) they can't get the decryption key directly and so the disk image is useless.
Last I looked, case law on forcing the decryption of files was unsettled. It seemed to be pretty well accepted that the courts could require decryption of something they knew was there (which doesn't appear to be the case here), and not if the act of decryption would help incriminate (such as a hard disk in the house that was not necessarily tied to him).