You may know how to "program a computer" but apparently you don't actually know what a computer science education is, especially at a high school CS 101 level. Programming is a tool used to teach CS, not the goal. Many people have no idea how computers function, not on a hardware level, but on a logic level and since everything is a computer now and that will only get worse with time it seems like a useful skill. Or how about reasoning, critical thinking and logic? These aren't taught specifically in school with the trend towards modern testing they aren't taught in other subject very well either. You can get by without high school english, too. Or without anything beyond basic algebra. And you certainly don't need PE, sports, biology, chemistry, physics, or foreign languages. NONE of those are necessary to survive in the world but are required by most school districts. I could go on, but why don't you instead try to make the argument that it *isn't*.
Because you're the one trying to effect a change, so you should be able to articulate why you want the change. You have failed to do so.
If they're teaching actual "computer science" rather than "introduction to programming" (and I would be *very* surprised if this were the case) then what take what I said before and multiply by 10. Or more.
They'd be better off making sure their students had a grasp of fundamental skills than adding additional CS requirements to graduation.
How is CS not a fundamental skill?
It's not. Why don't you instead try to make the argument that it *is*.
Most of the people that I know have no idea how to program a computer and, frankly, it wouldn't make their life any better if they did. And, bluntly, most of them couldn't do it, anyway.
I came to make the same point as the grandparent - they'd be far better off spending the money keeping kids in school and teaching them the basics rather than driving even more kids out of school.
I mean, those guys with hearts as pure as driven snow really just want to make sure we've explored those scary terrorists' phones and everything to the extent possible. It can't possibly be that they want to set a precedent that they'll use repeatedly to go after low-level drug users instead.
Look here and you can see that those "sneak & peak warrants" that they got to fight terrorism have actually been used a couple of times to fight terrorism:
See, in 2013 they only used sneak & peaks against terrorists 51 times. Think about that. And forget about the 11,078 times they were used against druggies. Just think about those 51!
IANAL, but my understanding of criminal trials is that the accused - not the law - is on trial. My understanding is that the jury needs to decide whether or not the state presented a solid argument for the accused having committed the offense(s) they are accused of. I am not aware of a situation where the jury is tasked with evaluating the validity of the law under which the accused is charged.
I'm not saying that the acts of the NSA were justified or constitutional, I'm just saying that the criminal case against Snowden is not the place where that is to be evaluated.
The jury can vote any way they want, and they literally rule in the court room. The judge is basically a referee. (In most jurisdictions in the US) The jury might judge based on the law or they might judge based on the fact that they think the law is wrong. I recently read about one case where a guy was being prosecuted for having an extremely small amount of marijuana and they let him off because they thought it was a monumental waste of time and money to prosecute a guy for having a roach.
They can literally do *anything they want*.
If they decide to simply throw out the law it's called "jury nullification". In other words, "yeah, we think he broke the law but we don't like the law so he gets off". It pisses off prosecutors - and often judges - but they don't rule the court room.
Now, many judges are trying to keep people on juries from finding out about this, that's why the "fully informed jury association" exists. Read up on it, it's pretty interesting.
Driving is one of the most heavily subsidized personal actions in the world.
Parking fees and fines are a very very small tip of the balance back toward something remotely resembling a level playing field. Just pay for your parking and if you screw up, pay the fine and move on. You're still tens of thousands of dollars ahead of whe you would be if you actually have to pay for all that infrastructure, hit to mention the war and the pollution.
Let me guess: you didn't build that? Amiright?
Sigh. Look, every time you buy something it was shipped over these heavily subsidized roads. You are very seriously ahead of where you would be if you had to "pay for all that infrastructure" every time you buy something.
There are some things that benefit everybody in society - like roads - so it makes sense that we pay for those collectively.
Apple doesn't want to admit that they can flash new firmware to the locked device even though everyone knows they can.
According to one legal analyst, the FBI and NSA already have this capability. What the government is looking for in this court case is a legal precedent to force companies to do this for them and make the data recovery admissible in court.
I came to this conclusion yesterday. Some clueless folks elsewhere were arguing that there might be a zero day exploit that Apple could use (um, paradox, anyone?) that would get the trick done. My point was that if such were available chances are the FBI, NSA, whomever would already know about it or be in a position to find out about it, and that would be an easier and cheaper route to take.
It's obvious that they want to force Apple to do this as a precedent, particularly now that iPhone 6 + cannot be "hacked" in this manner.
The problem with that is the tool thats been created can then open every phone of a generation and is been seen as been in gov hands via an open court.
Which will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Literally.
Apple has the secure enclave on newer models and if they do come up with this hack it won't be relevant for any newer phones. I almost feel like the cruel thing is to give them what they want, then taunt them with the fact that it'll be utterly useless in a couple of years with no recourse.
Put another way, the money could be used to buy food which will help for a little while OR it could be used to do something that will grow the economy, which helps everybody for a long while.
I'm generally against government subsidies but if this is done correctly I believe it will have a large impact on the economy by giving folks access to information and connectivity that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. It's hard to say what all will come of it but it seems like a worthwhile experiment.
This is why you pay a team of lawyers to show what extravagant actions were done in order to comply with the court order, and convince the judge.
You act like a Federal Judge is a fucking moron or something. They may not understand technology, but they aren't stupid by any means.
She's not stupid, but she also doesn't know her limitations. Sometimes, that's worse than plain old "stupid" as it causes someone who's highly qualified in one area to fancy themselves equally qualified in other areas where they absolutely are not qualified.
If Apple comes in and says "we can't help you here" - and there is a chorus of people like us repeating "they can't help you here" - then she needs to step back and say "maybe I don't understand all of this as well as I think I do, so I'll choose to believe these people who probably do understand it". That's the delineation between "smart" and "wise".
I read plenty of court cases and I've sent plenty of emails to judges along the lines of "As a judge, you have really poor judgement".
What they really need to do is buy off the regulators (they have more money than taxi companies do now) and make the regulations require *taxi* drivers to have an app available like Uber and Lyft where customers can give real feedback from a smart phone. That is a regulation that makes sense, and actually has a chance at protecting passengers better.
I say play the regulation game, but force taxis to change. There's no legitimate excuse for taxi companies to not have "apps" at this point, and no legitimate excuse for them to not make rating drivers easy.
And, yes, I know, "small companies". But it would be easy for someone to come up with an app that could be shared by smaller companies.
I keep seeing this in the news, so I'm assuming that the feds are setting the groundwork to introduce legislation to "fix" this problem (because laws are magical and can stop bad guys from doing bad things). I actually don't know *why* they want to stifle research in this area - I mean the actual, real reason, not the scary bullshit - but someone apparently wants a monopoly on it or something.
to add to my above, those who are in charge of firefox no longer interested making its core product better and secure. it is interested market and marketing, bowing to establishment ideology and legalese, etc etc
And making sure that it's not run by some guy who holds the same beliefs on gay marriage as Hillary and Obama did a couple of years ago.
And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills, and christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people (fortunately, after the paperwork was filed, a judge ruled the attempt unconstitutional).
Did you even read that article? "After the paperwork was filed"? What does that even mean? He filed it with the "justice department" (all lowercase) according to the article.
So, in order to make something into law all I have to do is write it up and submit it to "the justice department", right?
Do you understand how utterly fucking stupid that whole thing sounds? Do you know how a state legislature even works?
Slashdot Mirror
If racism was a problem, he would not have been elected to begin with.
Did you happen to hear a loud "whoosh" as you posted? Just curious.
You may know how to "program a computer" but apparently you don't actually know what a computer science education is, especially at a high school CS 101 level. Programming is a tool used to teach CS, not the goal. Many people have no idea how computers function, not on a hardware level, but on a logic level and since everything is a computer now and that will only get worse with time it seems like a useful skill. Or how about reasoning, critical thinking and logic? These aren't taught specifically in school with the trend towards modern testing they aren't taught in other subject very well either. You can get by without high school english, too. Or without anything beyond basic algebra. And you certainly don't need PE, sports, biology, chemistry, physics, or foreign languages. NONE of those are necessary to survive in the world but are required by most school districts. I could go on, but why don't you instead try to make the argument that it *isn't*.
Because you're the one trying to effect a change, so you should be able to articulate why you want the change. You have failed to do so.
If they're teaching actual "computer science" rather than "introduction to programming" (and I would be *very* surprised if this were the case) then what take what I said before and multiply by 10. Or more.
They'd be better off making sure their students had a grasp of fundamental skills than adding additional CS requirements to graduation.
How is CS not a fundamental skill?
It's not. Why don't you instead try to make the argument that it *is*.
Most of the people that I know have no idea how to program a computer and, frankly, it wouldn't make their life any better if they did. And, bluntly, most of them couldn't do it, anyway.
I came to make the same point as the grandparent - they'd be far better off spending the money keeping kids in school and teaching them the basics rather than driving even more kids out of school.
The top 1% will become the top 0.1%
Let me guess - not a math major?
No, you don't appear to be.
It's funny - you really exemplify the stereotype of the Bernie voter - an asshole who doesn't understand basic math.
I'll explain it to you. Slowly.
For the top 1% to become the top .1% the population would have to grow by a factor of 10, with the increase all taking place below the top 1%.
What you're probably trying to say is that the top 1% would capture an even larger share of the wealth - but they'd still be the top 1%.
I actually mostly agree with what you've written, ironically.
I mean, those guys with hearts as pure as driven snow really just want to make sure we've explored those scary terrorists' phones and everything to the extent possible. It can't possibly be that they want to set a precedent that they'll use repeatedly to go after low-level drug users instead.
Look here and you can see that those "sneak & peak warrants" that they got to fight terrorism have actually been used a couple of times to fight terrorism:
http://www.motherjones.com/kev...
See, in 2013 they only used sneak & peaks against terrorists 51 times. Think about that. And forget about the 11,078 times they were used against druggies. Just think about those 51!
The top 1% will become the top 0.1%
Let me guess - not a math major?
There is a nasty cancer which is decimating the population of Tasmanian Devils.
Not just decimating - probably wiping them out in the wild.
IANAL, but my understanding of criminal trials is that the accused - not the law - is on trial. My understanding is that the jury needs to decide whether or not the state presented a solid argument for the accused having committed the offense(s) they are accused of. I am not aware of a situation where the jury is tasked with evaluating the validity of the law under which the accused is charged.
I'm not saying that the acts of the NSA were justified or constitutional, I'm just saying that the criminal case against Snowden is not the place where that is to be evaluated.
The jury can vote any way they want, and they literally rule in the court room. The judge is basically a referee. (In most jurisdictions in the US) The jury might judge based on the law or they might judge based on the fact that they think the law is wrong. I recently read about one case where a guy was being prosecuted for having an extremely small amount of marijuana and they let him off because they thought it was a monumental waste of time and money to prosecute a guy for having a roach.
They can literally do *anything they want*.
If they decide to simply throw out the law it's called "jury nullification". In other words, "yeah, we think he broke the law but we don't like the law so he gets off". It pisses off prosecutors - and often judges - but they don't rule the court room.
Now, many judges are trying to keep people on juries from finding out about this, that's why the "fully informed jury association" exists. Read up on it, it's pretty interesting.
Parking tickets are not a "trough"
Driving is one of the most heavily subsidized personal actions in the world.
Parking fees and fines are a very very small tip of the balance back toward something remotely resembling a level playing field. Just pay for your parking and if you screw up, pay the fine and move on. You're still tens of thousands of dollars ahead of whe you would be if you actually have to pay for all that infrastructure, hit to mention the war and the pollution.
Let me guess: you didn't build that? Amiright?
Sigh. Look, every time you buy something it was shipped over these heavily subsidized roads. You are very seriously ahead of where you would be if you had to "pay for all that infrastructure" every time you buy something.
There are some things that benefit everybody in society - like roads - so it makes sense that we pay for those collectively.
More FBI nodes to more easily de-anonymize the network.
My first thought. That's half as many added in a few days - something's fishy.
Apple doesn't want to admit that they can flash new firmware to the locked device even though everyone knows they can.
According to one legal analyst, the FBI and NSA already have this capability. What the government is looking for in this court case is a legal precedent to force companies to do this for them and make the data recovery admissible in court.
I came to this conclusion yesterday. Some clueless folks elsewhere were arguing that there might be a zero day exploit that Apple could use (um, paradox, anyone?) that would get the trick done. My point was that if such were available chances are the FBI, NSA, whomever would already know about it or be in a position to find out about it, and that would be an easier and cheaper route to take.
It's obvious that they want to force Apple to do this as a precedent, particularly now that iPhone 6 + cannot be "hacked" in this manner.
Mohammed Atta et al weren't using encrypted communications, just AOL and flip phones. Yet the TLA's totally screwed the pooch on 9/11.
A .125 batter can't keep blaming the bat forever.
Not in industry, no. But in government? Hell, .125 is a pretty damned good average for government work.
After all, what are you going to do, shop at a different government?
If it can be read, couldn't they create a clone with a new chip? Pardon my ignorance on this.
It can't be read. The chip has a few commands, and "read the encryption key" isn't among them.
The problem with that is the tool thats been created can then open every phone of a generation and is been seen as been in gov hands via an open court.
Which will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Literally.
Apple has the secure enclave on newer models and if they do come up with this hack it won't be relevant for any newer phones. I almost feel like the cruel thing is to give them what they want, then taunt them with the fact that it'll be utterly useless in a couple of years with no recourse.
Put another way, the money could be used to buy food which will help for a little while OR it could be used to do something that will grow the economy, which helps everybody for a long while.
I'm generally against government subsidies but if this is done correctly I believe it will have a large impact on the economy by giving folks access to information and connectivity that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. It's hard to say what all will come of it but it seems like a worthwhile experiment.
This is why you pay a team of lawyers to show what extravagant actions were done in order to comply with the court order, and convince the judge.
You act like a Federal Judge is a fucking moron or something. They may not understand technology, but they aren't stupid by any means.
She's not stupid, but she also doesn't know her limitations. Sometimes, that's worse than plain old "stupid" as it causes someone who's highly qualified in one area to fancy themselves equally qualified in other areas where they absolutely are not qualified.
If Apple comes in and says "we can't help you here" - and there is a chorus of people like us repeating "they can't help you here" - then she needs to step back and say "maybe I don't understand all of this as well as I think I do, so I'll choose to believe these people who probably do understand it". That's the delineation between "smart" and "wise".
I read plenty of court cases and I've sent plenty of emails to judges along the lines of "As a judge, you have really poor judgement".
Thank you everyone who braved that tripe so later ./ers could avoid losing brain cells.
Carmack the Magnificent:
"The reason /.ers don't RTFM."
What they really need to do is buy off the regulators (they have more money than taxi companies do now) and make the regulations require *taxi* drivers to have an app available like Uber and Lyft where customers can give real feedback from a smart phone. That is a regulation that makes sense, and actually has a chance at protecting passengers better.
I say play the regulation game, but force taxis to change. There's no legitimate excuse for taxi companies to not have "apps" at this point, and no legitimate excuse for them to not make rating drivers easy.
And, yes, I know, "small companies". But it would be easy for someone to come up with an app that could be shared by smaller companies.
Like, when I'm at Costco looking at TVs, and don't buy a "smart" one.
I keep seeing this in the news, so I'm assuming that the feds are setting the groundwork to introduce legislation to "fix" this problem (because laws are magical and can stop bad guys from doing bad things). I actually don't know *why* they want to stifle research in this area - I mean the actual, real reason, not the scary bullshit - but someone apparently wants a monopoly on it or something.
You said "bill", now you're saying "ballot proposal". Two different things.
The frothing loon who wrote the linked article doesn't understand any more than you do, apparently.
There's a reason you're part of the "looney left"....
to add to my above, those who are in charge of firefox no longer interested making its core product better and secure. it is interested market and marketing, bowing to establishment ideology and legalese, etc etc
And making sure that it's not run by some guy who holds the same beliefs on gay marriage as Hillary and Obama did a couple of years ago.
And Americans are awfully quiet when christian politicians harass transsexuals with bathroom bills, and christians try to introduce bills that would authorize the killing of LGBTti people (fortunately, after the paperwork was filed, a judge ruled the attempt unconstitutional).
Did you even read that article? "After the paperwork was filed"? What does that even mean? He filed it with the "justice department" (all lowercase) according to the article.
So, in order to make something into law all I have to do is write it up and submit it to "the justice department", right?
Do you understand how utterly fucking stupid that whole thing sounds? Do you know how a state legislature even works?
To put it into perspective, it's nearly 10 square miles. Pretty big, but in context it's a tiny part of the country.
This is apparently it, although it looks like this is older photography from before construction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
Do you understand we just bought the site last week?
I hate to break it to you but he probably didn't RTFA, either.