Yes of course. Which is why any mention of Ferguson is wiped from the internet the way any mention of Tiananmen square is.
And why in the US, politicans routinely vanish for weeks, and no one dares ask if they had a heart attack.
And why in the US, reporters refuse to accuse a Secretary of State of having committed crimes, out of fear they will be arrested and charged.
And why in the US, people that are not established, long standing, loyal members of a political party have zero chance of leading the country.
Oh wait, NONE OF THOSE ARE TRUE. Just as none of the wacko nightmares that haunt your paranoid mind are true.
There is a real difference between the US where people try to influence public opinion and sometimes pass convoluted laws to help out the state and a Tyranny where public opinion is locked in by state run media and all laws are directly made for the benefit of the state
Uhm, yes they do. They do it all the time. Go on a date and tell a girl that your favorite TV show is Batman Beyond. The article said it skewed heavy to men, and it is a great example.
The difference is that women do it openly and reject men as dating companions for it, while men do it secretly because we don't want to piss off the 'dating goddesses'.
This is not sabotage, it is a simple example of the failure of rating systems.
A single number is useless for most rating systems. A graph is what we need - one that would distantly show multiple peaks. Then you would know that while most dislike a show, those that like it really LOVE it.
And that's about it. If you need a head's up display, you need transparent displays. But if you are not displaying info directly on existing reality, there are few good reasons for a transparent monitor.
If they become cheap enough, I could see car windshields being replaced by transparent displays, particularly for driverless cars.
You can sue for anything. I can sue you for daring to use the username Locke2005, when I am clearly the one and only Locke2005.
This is the kind of thing that you need a class action lawsuit, because the money is so small that it can't be worth it.
If this were the US, a class action lawsuit of this type would most likely settle with the company paying legal fees, agreeing to stop doing it, and maybe give their customers a coupon of some kind for pennies off future services. Not worth it for the customers, well worth it for the lawyers.
It's not just your reputation, it's also CRIMINAL. Even if they can't make you sell your house, they can still make you go to prison.
So, yes, you are wrong in that it is not a legal way to steal money and still get to benefit from it. You are correct that, like most crimes, it is exceedingly difficult to make the criminal pay back what they stole.
But it is no different than if you embezzled 1 million from a bank, stole it at gun point from a jeweler, or electronically via Kickstarter.
The number of Jobs depends on work that needs to be done, not the current work that is being done. For that reason, more tech simply means we expand the work that needs to be done (1,000 years ago, we didn't think anyone had to offer mortgages, do title searches, etc. etc.)
Similarly, just as the definition of 'work that needs to be done' expands as we use technology to reduce the man hours to do the work, so does "government work that needs to be done".
Every time we automate/outsource away a government job, two new ones will be created.
These are not 'make work jobs', they were always important, we simply couldn't afford to do them previously. Now we can.
Here are a list of government jobs that I already know we need to do, but aren't really doing.
Regulation checking. Not creating new regulations, merely checking on polluters, child care facilities, senior citizens care facilities, prisons, etc. etc. to make sure they follow existing regulations. In almost all of those cases we pass regulations, then watch as half the people ignore the regulations (until they get caught). We could actually CHECK and enforce the existing regulations.
Innocence review. We KNOW (DNA testing) there are lots of innocent people in jail. Whether due to incompetence, malfeasance, or simply bad luck, there are innocent people that end up in jail. Most jurisdictions make no attempt to double check convictions (with a few notable exceptions, Texas and New York each have at least one county where they check.) This could change.
Anti-police corruption. Most cities have almost no effect means of investigating corrupt cops. Studies show that about 4% of cops are corrupt. In the US, during 2015, there were 12,000 people killed by the cops. Not a single cop was convicted. Not one. At 4%, even if those 12,000 cops were innocent of murder, at least 560 were guilty of SOMETHING (and I bet that the percent of bad cops that killed someone is a lot higher than the general number of 4%). We could have a prosecutor whose sole job is to prosecute criminal cops. No convictions = fired for failing to do your job, because there has to be at LEAST one dirty cop in the country.
What they do is not illegal. There is no requirement that Facebook or anyone else present a 'fair and balanced' story. Facebook certainly does a better job than Fox news does.
If I were them, I would simply state "You are asking about legal actions that Facebook considers to be proprietary corporate secrets. We will be happy to comply - after you first publicize Fox and MSNBC's own methodology for presenting stories."
1) Nuclear, coal, and oil are ALSO subsidized - often more so. Go look at the huge tax benefits oil companies get.
2) Saudi Arabia is the big leader in solar. They just put to open bid a power plant for ANY type and solar won. If you are think that the Oil kings of Saudia Arabia 'subsidized' the solar entry, your stupidity has exceeded the internet's capacity (and boy is it large), so we are forced to revoke your license to comment.
3) Even assuming your false narrative was correct, the subsidies would be worth it merely to counter the negative ramifications of oil - trade imbalance, military vulnerability to embargo, and pollution.
4) Finally and most importantly you ignore my original point which is that the heavy subsidies of the past have worked by encouraging real scientific progress. So you would simply be proving that the technique worked and needs just a bit more to finish the job.
We've been investing in solar and wind (to a lesser extent nuclear) for quite a while and it has PAID OFF.
Currently, wind and solar, in high useability areas, are cheaper than fossil fuels. That wasn't the case 50, or even 20 years ago.
Right now, the main thing holding us back is a combination of storage costs and the variability of the energy source.
Right now, the only thing holding back a purely electric car is the battery (storage) cost. And cellphone technology has caused us to invest in battery tech.
Give us another 20 years and natural gas will be used only as a secondary, back up fuel, for cloudy, windless days/areas. Gas engines will be built about as often as we build the proverbially buggy whip - and likely for the same market (racing and rich hobbyists.)
No contract allows someone to steal from you, no matter what their lawyer thinks.
Don't sue them, insist on legal charges of theft being placed against them, specifically naming the programmers, lawyers, and CEO of Apple as the responsible party.
Agree to settle if they cancel the terms of their contract.
Any well designed system with a delete function should have an undo function.
Any well designed software should have an EASY way to designate which parts of a network it will have access to and which it will have no access to.
Any well designed software should make it very clear what it is doing and get permission, not assume it is granted.
Failing to do all three of these things in the hallmark of incredibly bad software - not being able to undo deletions, requiring full access, and unclear permissions are the kind of thing you expect from a Virus, not Apple
The question was why, not whether you could do so legally. The legality was answered by the very ruling this article was discussing.
So, if you can get a ruling from the Nuclear regulatory committee saying that students can do it, AND then you get permission from your school, AND then get funding, yes, you could build a nuke.
I can think of about 10 different reasons off the top of my head:
1) You are studying aerodynamics and shaped the rotor/drone.
2) You are studying robotics and built the drone.
3) You are studying programming.
4) You are part of a drone flying league - think robot soccer.
5) You are an artist and it's part of a performance piece.
6) You are a business major and have developed an idea for a business that uses drones for security/delivery/annoyance.
7) You are studying human psychology and need a way to observe people without being seen, over a large area.
8) You are studying advertising and having the drone pull an advertisement.
9) You are studying military science/playing a military game and are using the drones to simulate air battles. (Far better than the N.Koreans using plastic toys).
10) You are using dangerous chemicals in doors and do not want to be close to them when you they react.
When you look up in a sky full of stars - all of which belong to the Milky Way Galaxy.... (at least 9,000), and about 4 other galaxies.
And know that with a common telescope we can detect both far more stars within our galaxy (over 100 billion) , AND a whole bunch of other galaxies...
And know that the galaxies form clusters - and cluster contains about 100+ galaxies (often 1000+)....
And know that there are thousands of clusters...
Basically, there are more stars than grains of sand on earth, than water molecules in a drop of water, than seconds in all of humanity's life span.
Yes there's other life out there. Now, whether it's intelligent, still alive, within a reasonable travel/speaking distance of us, that's another story.
After all, they probably just read on their cellphones that they were addicted, so they parroted it back;D
But to be honest, real addicts DENY that they are addicts. One of the core principles of the 12 steps is to admit your addiction. Same thing for most of the other non-12 step programs.
1) The laws already require you to pay sales taxes on EVERYTHING you buy. But the courts said that out of state sellers did not have to collect the sales tax - you were supposed to figure it out and send it to your state yourself.
2) The laws being proposed are not new "internet taxes", but instead simply attempts to force out of state sellers to collect the sales tax you owe for living in your state. If you live in Oregon, your state has zero sales tax (and no local taxes either), so this won't affect you at all.
This is about stopping people from failing to report taxes they owe on out of state purchases, not a new tax.
Look, lab grown cow is not worth it. Cow depends on fat and salt to taste good. If you the fat and salt, it doesn't sell well. With the fat and salt it is horrible for you.
But lab grown fish on the other hand... Fish is far healthier for you than beef - except for the mercury. It has none of the fat issues that beef has. Yes, we generally prefer it with salt, but some varieties can do without.
More importantly, fish tends to be much more expensive than beef - we can't 'grow' it where the people live, but have to ship it to coastal areas, then truck/train/fly it to the heartland.
So fish makes a far better choice than beef for lab grown.
Again, what you are saying is true, but IRRELEVANT. I totally agree that the government will misuse the master key. That is not something we disagree about.
What I claim is quite simple - that Snowden's claim that our economy, government, etc. can not work without FLAWED encryption is wrong.
Our economy works acceptably with FLAWED encryption. Is it a good idea? no. But his entire statement about 'encryption' being necessary misses the entire point of the argument.
It isn't YES/NO on encryption, it is Encryption/Flawed Encryption.
While I do agree that we need Encryption, Snowden's argument is a very very bad one. Only a moron claims that our economy needs good encryption. Lots of horrible police states, use bad encryption and manage to get along quite well.
I don't want a horrible police state, but I am not stupid enough to use Snowden's idiotic argument - he may be a hero, but he really screwed up on this argument.
No one (to my knowledge) really, truly objects to 'encryption'.
But a lot of governments object to encryption that they don't personally have a master key for.
The things he talks about can mostly be done even if the government has a master key.
The war is not between encryption and no encryption, it is between a government master key and no government master key.
Now, I totally hate the idea of a master key for most thing. (I can see it for special cases, mainly around money - I want the government to be able to undo thefts from large banks). Government has repeatedly proven that it CAN NOT be trusted with this kind of information. The minimal security risks caused by government not having master access to EVERYTHING is insane.
But claiming that the internet depends on the government not having a master key is silly
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline. That's how the gasoline stations get their gasoline. They usually need special tested equipment designed to carry hazardous liquids - and the license to drive said equipment.
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
Also this business is a STUPID idea. There is always a premium for delivery and for the premium for a delivery of a hazardous liquid should be so high as to make this a financially stupid idea. Gasoline stations are plentiful, on roads, normal people never run out of it and don't need the minor time savings of delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes of course. Which is why any mention of Ferguson is wiped from the internet the way any mention of Tiananmen square is.
And why in the US, politicans routinely vanish for weeks, and no one dares ask if they had a heart attack.
And why in the US, reporters refuse to accuse a Secretary of State of having committed crimes, out of fear they will be arrested and charged.
And why in the US, people that are not established, long standing, loyal members of a political party have zero chance of leading the country.
Oh wait, NONE OF THOSE ARE TRUE. Just as none of the wacko nightmares that haunt your paranoid mind are true.
There is a real difference between the US where people try to influence public opinion and sometimes pass convoluted laws to help out the state and a Tyranny where public opinion is locked in by state run media and all laws are directly made for the benefit of the state
Uhm, yes they do. They do it all the time. Go on a date and tell a girl that your favorite TV show is Batman Beyond. The article said it skewed heavy to men, and it is a great example.
The difference is that women do it openly and reject men as dating companions for it, while men do it secretly because we don't want to piss off the 'dating goddesses'.
This is not sabotage, it is a simple example of the failure of rating systems.
A single number is useless for most rating systems. A graph is what we need - one that would distantly show multiple peaks. Then you would know that while most dislike a show, those that like it really LOVE it.
And that's about it. If you need a head's up display, you need transparent displays. But if you are not displaying info directly on existing reality, there are few good reasons for a transparent monitor.
If they become cheap enough, I could see car windshields being replaced by transparent displays, particularly for driverless cars.
You can sue for anything. I can sue you for daring to use the username Locke2005, when I am clearly the one and only Locke2005.
This is the kind of thing that you need a class action lawsuit, because the money is so small that it can't be worth it.
If this were the US, a class action lawsuit of this type would most likely settle with the company paying legal fees, agreeing to stop doing it, and maybe give their customers a coupon of some kind for pennies off future services. Not worth it for the customers, well worth it for the lawyers.
They are being accused of .... acting like Fox News, not of murder.
They are a COMPANY, not a government service. Deal with it.
It's not just your reputation, it's also CRIMINAL. Even if they can't make you sell your house, they can still make you go to prison.
So, yes, you are wrong in that it is not a legal way to steal money and still get to benefit from it. You are correct that, like most crimes, it is exceedingly difficult to make the criminal pay back what they stole.
But it is no different than if you embezzled 1 million from a bank, stole it at gun point from a jeweler, or electronically via Kickstarter.
The number of Jobs depends on work that needs to be done, not the current work that is being done. For that reason, more tech simply means we expand the work that needs to be done (1,000 years ago, we didn't think anyone had to offer mortgages, do title searches, etc. etc.)
Similarly, just as the definition of 'work that needs to be done' expands as we use technology to reduce the man hours to do the work, so does "government work that needs to be done".
Every time we automate/outsource away a government job, two new ones will be created.
These are not 'make work jobs', they were always important, we simply couldn't afford to do them previously. Now we can.
Here are a list of government jobs that I already know we need to do, but aren't really doing.
Regulation checking. Not creating new regulations, merely checking on polluters, child care facilities, senior citizens care facilities, prisons, etc. etc. to make sure they follow existing regulations. In almost all of those cases we pass regulations, then watch as half the people ignore the regulations (until they get caught). We could actually CHECK and enforce the existing regulations.
Innocence review. We KNOW (DNA testing) there are lots of innocent people in jail. Whether due to incompetence, malfeasance, or simply bad luck, there are innocent people that end up in jail. Most jurisdictions make no attempt to double check convictions (with a few notable exceptions, Texas and New York each have at least one county where they check.) This could change.
Anti-police corruption. Most cities have almost no effect means of investigating corrupt cops. Studies show that about 4% of cops are corrupt. In the US, during 2015, there were 12,000 people killed by the cops. Not a single cop was convicted. Not one. At 4%, even if those 12,000 cops were innocent of murder, at least 560 were guilty of SOMETHING (and I bet that the percent of bad cops that killed someone is a lot higher than the general number of 4%). We could have a prosecutor whose sole job is to prosecute criminal cops. No convictions = fired for failing to do your job, because there has to be at LEAST one dirty cop in the country.
What they do is not illegal. There is no requirement that Facebook or anyone else present a 'fair and balanced' story. Facebook certainly does a better job than Fox news does.
If I were them, I would simply state "You are asking about legal actions that Facebook considers to be proprietary corporate secrets. We will be happy to comply - after you first publicize Fox and MSNBC's own methodology for presenting stories."
Let me educate you.
1) Nuclear, coal, and oil are ALSO subsidized - often more so. Go look at the huge tax benefits oil companies get.
2) Saudi Arabia is the big leader in solar. They just put to open bid a power plant for ANY type and solar won. If you are think that the Oil kings of Saudia Arabia 'subsidized' the solar entry, your stupidity has exceeded the internet's capacity (and boy is it large), so we are forced to revoke your license to comment.
3) Even assuming your false narrative was correct, the subsidies would be worth it merely to counter the negative ramifications of oil - trade imbalance, military vulnerability to embargo, and pollution.
4) Finally and most importantly you ignore my original point which is that the heavy subsidies of the past have worked by encouraging real scientific progress. So you would simply be proving that the technique worked and needs just a bit more to finish the job.
We've been investing in solar and wind (to a lesser extent nuclear) for quite a while and it has PAID OFF.
Currently, wind and solar, in high useability areas, are cheaper than fossil fuels. That wasn't the case 50, or even 20 years ago.
Right now, the main thing holding us back is a combination of storage costs and the variability of the energy source.
Right now, the only thing holding back a purely electric car is the battery (storage) cost. And cellphone technology has caused us to invest in battery tech.
Give us another 20 years and natural gas will be used only as a secondary, back up fuel, for cloudy, windless days/areas. Gas engines will be built about as often as we build the proverbially buggy whip - and likely for the same market (racing and rich hobbyists.)
That is the real crime. It either means:
1) The tech doesn't work.
2) They had the wrong phone number - which most likely means they hassled some innocent man.
3) A guy that stole $50 was smart enough to beat their technology.
Their business model involves outright stealing.
No contract allows someone to steal from you, no matter what their lawyer thinks.
Don't sue them, insist on legal charges of theft being placed against them, specifically naming the programmers, lawyers, and CEO of Apple as the responsible party.
Agree to settle if they cancel the terms of their contract.
Any well designed system with a delete function should have an undo function.
Any well designed software should have an EASY way to designate which parts of a network it will have access to and which it will have no access to.
Any well designed software should make it very clear what it is doing and get permission, not assume it is granted.
Failing to do all three of these things in the hallmark of incredibly bad software - not being able to undo deletions, requiring full access, and unclear permissions are the kind of thing you expect from a Virus, not Apple
The question was why, not whether you could do so legally. The legality was answered by the very ruling this article was discussing.
So, if you can get a ruling from the Nuclear regulatory committee saying that students can do it, AND then you get permission from your school, AND then get funding, yes, you could build a nuke.
I can think of about 10 different reasons off the top of my head:
1) You are studying aerodynamics and shaped the rotor/drone.
2) You are studying robotics and built the drone.
3) You are studying programming.
4) You are part of a drone flying league - think robot soccer.
5) You are an artist and it's part of a performance piece.
6) You are a business major and have developed an idea for a business that uses drones for security/delivery/annoyance.
7) You are studying human psychology and need a way to observe people without being seen, over a large area.
8) You are studying advertising and having the drone pull an advertisement.
9) You are studying military science/playing a military game and are using the drones to simulate air battles. (Far better than the N.Koreans using plastic toys).
10) You are using dangerous chemicals in doors and do not want to be close to them when you they react.
When you look up in a sky full of stars - all of which belong to the Milky Way Galaxy.... (at least 9,000), and about 4 other galaxies.
And know that with a common telescope we can detect both far more stars within our galaxy (over 100 billion) , AND a whole bunch of other galaxies...
And know that the galaxies form clusters - and cluster contains about 100+ galaxies (often 1000+)....
And know that there are thousands of clusters...
Basically, there are more stars than grains of sand on earth, than water molecules in a drop of water, than seconds in all of humanity's life span.
Yes there's other life out there. Now, whether it's intelligent, still alive, within a reasonable travel/speaking distance of us, that's another story.
After all, they probably just read on their cellphones that they were addicted, so they parroted it back ;D
But to be honest, real addicts DENY that they are addicts. One of the core principles of the 12 steps is to admit your addiction. Same thing for most of the other non-12 step programs.
Real addicts don't admit they have a problem.
of the article.
They were not testing free will, they were testing our ability to cheat faster than our mind was capable of realizing we were cheating.
Free will itself is a complex, philosophical-religious concept that is not easily subject to testing, any more than god is subject to testing.
Let's be clear about what is going on here.
1) The laws already require you to pay sales taxes on EVERYTHING you buy. But the courts said that out of state sellers did not have to collect the sales tax - you were supposed to figure it out and send it to your state yourself.
2) The laws being proposed are not new "internet taxes", but instead simply attempts to force out of state sellers to collect the sales tax you owe for living in your state. If you live in Oregon, your state has zero sales tax (and no local taxes either), so this won't affect you at all.
This is about stopping people from failing to report taxes they owe on out of state purchases, not a new tax.
So, here are our next 20 congressmen.
Look, lab grown cow is not worth it. Cow depends on fat and salt to taste good. If you the fat and salt, it doesn't sell well. With the fat and salt it is horrible for you.
But lab grown fish on the other hand... Fish is far healthier for you than beef - except for the mercury. It has none of the fat issues that beef has. Yes, we generally prefer it with salt, but some varieties can do without.
More importantly, fish tends to be much more expensive than beef - we can't 'grow' it where the people live, but have to ship it to coastal areas, then truck/train/fly it to the heartland.
So fish makes a far better choice than beef for lab grown.
Again, what you are saying is true, but IRRELEVANT. I totally agree that the government will misuse the master key. That is not something we disagree about.
What I claim is quite simple - that Snowden's claim that our economy, government, etc. can not work without FLAWED encryption is wrong.
Our economy works acceptably with FLAWED encryption. Is it a good idea? no. But his entire statement about 'encryption' being necessary misses the entire point of the argument.
It isn't YES/NO on encryption, it is Encryption/Flawed Encryption.
While I do agree that we need Encryption, Snowden's argument is a very very bad one. Only a moron claims that our economy needs good encryption. Lots of horrible police states, use bad encryption and manage to get along quite well.
I don't want a horrible police state, but I am not stupid enough to use Snowden's idiotic argument - he may be a hero, but he really screwed up on this argument.
No one (to my knowledge) really, truly objects to 'encryption'.
But a lot of governments object to encryption that they don't personally have a master key for.
The things he talks about can mostly be done even if the government has a master key.
The war is not between encryption and no encryption, it is between a government master key and no government master key.
Now, I totally hate the idea of a master key for most thing. (I can see it for special cases, mainly around money - I want the government to be able to undo thefts from large banks). Government has repeatedly proven that it CAN NOT be trusted with this kind of information. The minimal security risks caused by government not having master access to EVERYTHING is insane.
But claiming that the internet depends on the government not having a master key is silly
If you can't tell an objection to a bad idea from an objection to all ideas, then you your license to comment on the internet should be revoked.
Considering how much I paid for my license, I would be a bit more circumspect with yours! :D
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline. That's how the gasoline stations get their gasoline. They usually need special tested equipment designed to carry hazardous liquids - and the license to drive said equipment.
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
Also this business is a STUPID idea. There is always a premium for delivery and for the premium for a delivery of a hazardous liquid should be so high as to make this a financially stupid idea. Gasoline stations are plentiful, on roads, normal people never run out of it and don't need the minor time savings of delivery.