Automate fast food; I'm so tired of my orders getting fucked up
Back when I ordered pizza now and then, I liked green olives on my pizza, and absolutely hated green peppers. When I ordered pizzas over the phone, no matter how hard I emphasized olives they could screw it up and make my pizza inedible. When a local pizza chain started a web order system, they always got it right.
Ford also used the assembly line, which means that each worker has a limited function that he performs over and over again. He had to have some more or less skilled people, but most people can learn to tighten a row of screws pretty well, and do not thereby become skilled.
Until the rich and their paid lawmakers are up against the wall when the revolution comes, either through voting the lawmakers out and demanding high taxes on the rich, or more primitive means. Revolutions usually suck for all concerned, particularly for the losers, but people will be pushed only so far.
In other words, you're a couple of cheap bastards, refusing to tip the standard amount. You're also assholes, hoping that any thing that inconveniences you turns out to damage the economy.
Encouraging education? Have you noticed what tuition has done relative to minimum wage? Approximately nobody's working their way through college anymore.
I knew a woman who was getting a business going, and worked maybe 16 hours/day. She ate all her meals at restaurants. (Then she was bought out, and we ate at her place a couple of times before she moved away, and she turned out to be a pretty good cook.)
One is replacement value - if I let this guy go, or he quits, what do I have to pay to replace him? For a minimum wage, the answer is minimum wage.
Another is actual value - if I let this guy go, and don't replace him, how much money don't I get?
Raise the minimum wage, and management will go along as long as the minimum wage is less than actual value, and the worker will get paid more. The net effect empirically seems to be that most workers keep their jobs and have more money, and the increased economic activity provides enough additional jobs to make up for the ones lost.
Remember the Boston marathon bombing? The Russians warned us about the Tsarnaevs, telling us to watch them carefully. The Miami nightclub mass shooting? The shooter was known to law enforcement to be dangerous. However, since the shooter hadn't actually violated the law up until then, there were no grounds to hold him.
I'd like to see examples of serious crimes that were thwarted before I start believing that more electronic intelligence will prevent crimes.
There have been rulings both ways (here's the Wikipedia entry). Some courts have held that divulging a key is not testimonial, as long as the government already knows what's encrypted. One US circuit court (the 11th) has ruled that forcing the divulging of a key is against the Fifth. I've seen case law quoted that seems to imply that forced divulging of a safe combination is against the Fifth, and a crypto key is similar.
One thing is clear: if a device can be connected to a crime but not necessarily to you, admitting that you know the key is testifying against yourself, so you may not be forced to divulge it.
Actually, there were Japanese spies in the US in WWII, and at least one of them was quite effective in keeping track of Pearl Harbor. The FBI knew who these spies were, or at least could pick out a fairly small group that would contain the spies. The internment was specifically racist.
whether or not the government can search your data, should not depend on the means you employ to protect it.
That isn't self-evident at all. Why shouldn't it? Suppose I protect my data by making cryptic notes that need context. Should I be required to supply context? That would be at least a potential violation of my Fifth Amendment rights. Why can't the government just have unlimited physical access?
Lots of countries have restrictions on gun ownership, and have dramatically less firearms crime than we do. It works, but it has to be applied in a reasonably restricted system. A city banning handguns, for example, isn't going to do more than inconvenience the bad guys, who can get guns outside the city.
Do you realize what banning strong encryption does to commerce? How about banning entire classes of phones? iPhones have AES-256 encryption, and from the 5S on have special silicon to make it secure. It's not going to happen.
Finding a flaw in an implementation of an algorithm is fairly different from finding a flaw in the algorithm itself
In which case, you should take one algorithm and study the heck out of the implementation or use somebody else's evaluation (I'm not really qualified to audit cryptosystem implementations). That one may as well be something strong like AES-256. Using AES-256 when DES would do is a lot better than using DES when you need something strong.
A drug by definition is meant to "mess you up". It should be pretty obvious that anything that can have a useful effect on your body will also likely disturb it as well.
Probably, but the body also has self-healing capability, and if the amount of damage the drug causes is well below the healing ability it's likely to be safe.
They're advertised for thinness, in many cases. That suggests to me that people who actually do market research for a living and aren't pseudonymous Slashdot posters have observed that lots and lots of people want thin. The fact that it's not just Apple suggests to me that different people have come up with the same conclusion, and so it's likely no total rubbish.
Sounds like your girlfriend would have a warranty claim if she lived in the EU (you don't say whether or not she does). Stuff does fail within warranty periods, and nobody seems to complain about it if the device is actually fixed or replaced. I don't see the connection with the Apple soft slowdown to avoid crashes, though.
Actually, about $80 (USD) to change the battery, considerably less if the phone is a 6 or newer. You can buy a kit from iFixit for $25 if you prefer. Either choice is a small fraction of the cost of a replacement phone.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE IF WE CANNOT HAVE NUCLEAR POWER!!
Global warming can be observed. People watch it very carefully. It's happening.
This has nothing to do with actions of politicians. Political actions don't change the laws of science. So, if politicians disagree with you, global warming is a lie? Do you have a conclusion about how Wikipedia articles affect the speed of light, which would make about as much sense?
While I watch as about a foot of global warming slowly melts after the second longest deep freeze on record slowly lifts
Damn, you've got a big back yard. Mine doesn't cover any significant area of North America, let alone Asia, so, when I wonder about anything global, I've got to look at other countries too.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is self-regulating. If there's not enough, more evaporation will happen. If there's too much, it'll rain. The concentration of water vapor hasn't gone up 30-40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Back when I ordered pizza now and then, I liked green olives on my pizza, and absolutely hated green peppers. When I ordered pizzas over the phone, no matter how hard I emphasized olives they could screw it up and make my pizza inedible. When a local pizza chain started a web order system, they always got it right.
Ford also used the assembly line, which means that each worker has a limited function that he performs over and over again. He had to have some more or less skilled people, but most people can learn to tighten a row of screws pretty well, and do not thereby become skilled.
Until the rich and their paid lawmakers are up against the wall when the revolution comes, either through voting the lawmakers out and demanding high taxes on the rich, or more primitive means. Revolutions usually suck for all concerned, particularly for the losers, but people will be pushed only so far.
In other words, you're a couple of cheap bastards, refusing to tip the standard amount. You're also assholes, hoping that any thing that inconveniences you turns out to damage the economy.
Encouraging education? Have you noticed what tuition has done relative to minimum wage? Approximately nobody's working their way through college anymore.
I knew a woman who was getting a business going, and worked maybe 16 hours/day. She ate all her meals at restaurants. (Then she was bought out, and we ate at her place a couple of times before she moved away, and she turned out to be a pretty good cook.)
There's two types of value for a particular job.
One is replacement value - if I let this guy go, or he quits, what do I have to pay to replace him? For a minimum wage, the answer is minimum wage.
Another is actual value - if I let this guy go, and don't replace him, how much money don't I get?
Raise the minimum wage, and management will go along as long as the minimum wage is less than actual value, and the worker will get paid more. The net effect empirically seems to be that most workers keep their jobs and have more money, and the increased economic activity provides enough additional jobs to make up for the ones lost.
Preventing crimes is difficult anyway.
Remember the Boston marathon bombing? The Russians warned us about the Tsarnaevs, telling us to watch them carefully. The Miami nightclub mass shooting? The shooter was known to law enforcement to be dangerous. However, since the shooter hadn't actually violated the law up until then, there were no grounds to hold him.
I'd like to see examples of serious crimes that were thwarted before I start believing that more electronic intelligence will prevent crimes.
There have been rulings both ways (here's the Wikipedia entry). Some courts have held that divulging a key is not testimonial, as long as the government already knows what's encrypted. One US circuit court (the 11th) has ruled that forcing the divulging of a key is against the Fifth. I've seen case law quoted that seems to imply that forced divulging of a safe combination is against the Fifth, and a crypto key is similar.
One thing is clear: if a device can be connected to a crime but not necessarily to you, admitting that you know the key is testifying against yourself, so you may not be forced to divulge it.
Actually, there were Japanese spies in the US in WWII, and at least one of them was quite effective in keeping track of Pearl Harbor. The FBI knew who these spies were, or at least could pick out a fairly small group that would contain the spies. The internment was specifically racist.
Right now, you don't trust US products not to have back doors. Wouldn't it be worse if you knew US products were legally required to have back doors?
That isn't self-evident at all. Why shouldn't it? Suppose I protect my data by making cryptic notes that need context. Should I be required to supply context? That would be at least a potential violation of my Fifth Amendment rights. Why can't the government just have unlimited physical access?
Lots of countries have restrictions on gun ownership, and have dramatically less firearms crime than we do. It works, but it has to be applied in a reasonably restricted system. A city banning handguns, for example, isn't going to do more than inconvenience the bad guys, who can get guns outside the city.
Do you realize what banning strong encryption does to commerce? How about banning entire classes of phones? iPhones have AES-256 encryption, and from the 5S on have special silicon to make it secure. It's not going to happen.
In which case, you should take one algorithm and study the heck out of the implementation or use somebody else's evaluation (I'm not really qualified to audit cryptosystem implementations). That one may as well be something strong like AES-256. Using AES-256 when DES would do is a lot better than using DES when you need something strong.
Why? Why not just use AES-256 everywhere rather than deliberately weakening your encryption?
Probably, but the body also has self-healing capability, and if the amount of damage the drug causes is well below the healing ability it's likely to be safe.
And ED drugs are contraindicated for at least one fairly common health issue (heart attacks).
They're advertised for thinness, in many cases. That suggests to me that people who actually do market research for a living and aren't pseudonymous Slashdot posters have observed that lots and lots of people want thin. The fact that it's not just Apple suggests to me that different people have come up with the same conclusion, and so it's likely no total rubbish.
Sounds like your girlfriend would have a warranty claim if she lived in the EU (you don't say whether or not she does). Stuff does fail within warranty periods, and nobody seems to complain about it if the device is actually fixed or replaced. I don't see the connection with the Apple soft slowdown to avoid crashes, though.
Actually, about $80 (USD) to change the battery, considerably less if the phone is a 6 or newer. You can buy a kit from iFixit for $25 if you prefer. Either choice is a small fraction of the cost of a replacement phone.
They implemented an automatic low power mode. Not implementing it would cause random crashes.
Global warming can be observed. People watch it very carefully. It's happening.
This has nothing to do with actions of politicians. Political actions don't change the laws of science. So, if politicians disagree with you, global warming is a lie? Do you have a conclusion about how Wikipedia articles affect the speed of light, which would make about as much sense?
Ah yes, someone who derives his physical science by observing the actions of politicians.
Damn, you've got a big back yard. Mine doesn't cover any significant area of North America, let alone Asia, so, when I wonder about anything global, I've got to look at other countries too.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is self-regulating. If there's not enough, more evaporation will happen. If there's too much, it'll rain. The concentration of water vapor hasn't gone up 30-40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution.