If a country wants there to be no encryption, then it should declare encryption to be illegal, block any service that allows it, and that should be the end of it.
But letting them continue their business and try to press charges against them for violating the law is just STUPID.
Machines are not and can not "surpass us in cognitive ability". Because cognitive ability is not one skill, it is many skills.
Machines have (long ago) surpassed us in mathematical ability.
WE - not the machines - learned how to transform many tasks that were not originally mathematically based into math. As such, WE have redesigned machines to do many jobs that humans used to do.
But there are a lot of 'cognitive' jobs that can not be reduced to mere math and those jobs will remain with us until machines develop sufficient sentience to demand shorter hours and better pay. When they do that, they will be our allies, fighting against the bosses, rather than the bosses' servants putting us out of work.
We tend to over-estimate how much damage so called extinction level events do - and underestimate how effective intelligence is in countering it.
My favorite example of this irrational fear is the grey goo of "nanite level von neumann machines taking over the world". Besides the fact that we already have a green goo (organic life) that did that and is far more advanced than the grey goo - the main limitation is POWER. The Green Goo did it mainly on solar power, transmitted to the more powerful green goo monsters via 'eating plants'. Nanites would be very unlikely to be able to compete with the green goo.
Basically, we are the most fearsome monster on this planet and nothing we have ever dreamed of comes close to being anywhere near as terrifying as ourselves.
Real total extinction requires astronomical level of death so it most likely means an astronomical cause. Asteroid/comet impact, gamma ray burster, etc. Those are all far less than 0.1% - more like 0.00000000001% per year.
You are not looking at God's manual for existence, to check a score, like some kind of video game.
It's just the results from a test - helpful, but not perfect. Luck, design for the test, and many other factors may affect it.
If all you do is look at the benchmark, you deserve to be screwed over. Doing so is like looking at new lawyers grades in law school and making the highest score a partner right off the back.
This is not unreasonable. The government should not be required to get 51 warrants, simply because they don't know which state or federal territory a criminal is in. Merely getting one warrant is appropriate.
This is about principle, not merely handcuffing the government.
The Great Leader does not fall short - not when in comes to missiles, height, hair size, stomache size, or any other kind of size. His hands are big too.
Ignore the lies, Great Leader will make North Korea the WINNIGEST country every. They will win so much, you will ask him to stop winning that much. His missiles will fly furthest, his walles will be the biggest.
Wait - am I still making fun of Kim, or Donald? I forget which.
Forget digging a trench, that takes too long, is expensive, and easy to detect in rural areas (makes detectable noise and you put sonic detectors on the lasers as well. A portable bridge makes much more sense. But...
Half the point of the laser wall system is that you can't tell WHERE it is. You can't dig a tunnel for miles, let alone the bridge.
I hate and despises "magic word tests" put into law. He has a right to not incriminate himself - including a right not to be forced to make a specific statement.
It's pretty obvious that most jobs will no longer be in manufacturing, just as most jobs are no longer in agriculture.
This does not in any way affect total jobs available, nor does it affect total good jobs available.
In a post agricultural world, we moved into manufacturing. In a post manufacturing world, we move into services. This is obvious, as it has already begun.
Services include poor jobs - cleaning, blue collar jobs - installing, good blue collar jobs - repair, and white collar jobs - inventing.
We are saying that the power to compel to produce requires proof that the evidence exists.
Say you are a prosecutor. You have a picture of the defendant holding a bloody knife. You ask for and get a court order requiring the defendant to produce that knife.
Should that defendant be jailed for producing a slab of melted steel that they claim is the knife?
Of course not. He produced what he could. They demanded he produce the hard drive. He did. He can't be required to produce the password, as he can easily claim that he has forgotten it.
The only way the judge can charge or hold him if the judge can prove that he has not forgotten the password. Not "thinks he hasn't forgotten it', prove he hasn't forgotten it. Yes, that's impossible to do. Which is why the Judge should not be able to give this order.
One of the basic principles of a free market is that there is COMPETITION.
Yes, you are allowed to charge whatever you want for something you own - but that requires people to have valid, reasonable other options available to purchase something similar.
When you collaborate with other people to ensure that there is NO other option for people to buy anything similar to what you own, that is called an illegal trade monopoly.
Yes, you are legally allowed to get the protections of copyrights, but as part and parcel of a capitalistic system, the government is required to spend just as much time and effort preventing you from engaging in anti-competitive trade agreements as they are in enforcing your copyright.
W\hen you violate the rules of capitalism, creating anti-competitive trade agreements with the other content produces that are supposed to be your competitors, you have no right to complain that the government doesn't spend enough effort going after the 'pirates' because they also are not going after you for your illegal Trade Agreements.
One of the reasons people reject capitalism is that the GOP has twisted it away from it's true meaning.
For example - did you know that in true capitalism there are NO patents. Patents are a remnant of Mercantalism. (Google Queen Elizabeth and patents on COAL) Real capitalism has a competitive free market as a core principle, which leaves zero room for patents. They were pushed into the US version to encourage innovation.
A purer capitalism would either use a bounty system (think Darpa's challenges) or have a set royalty assigned inventors. Either of those would preserve the free market, unlike patents.
Walls are not perfect. People can climb over them. That does not negate their value.
Similarly, tests are not perfect, people can target the tests rather than the subject. That does not mean they are worthless. A well designed test makes this very hard to do, becoming not worth the effort.
The mere existence of badly designed tests does not mean that all tests are badly designed.
If we avoid lab conditions, you bring in random factors. So some heavy polluting car could just get lucky and have no sharp stops and quick speed ups, which is where it happens to heavily pollute, so it passes.
We need lab conditions to ensure a fair comparison between different cars.
It is assumed that all cars vary from real life to lab conditions in roughly the same manner. That is, that a car that does best in the lab conditions will also do best in real world conditions, even if the real use pollutes far more heavily.
In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.
If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab. (Yes, it is often designed by politics, not scientists.)
The number of investigations is irrelevant - the number of CONVICTIONS is relevant.
Any cop can decide to investigate for zero reason. J.E. Hoover routinely investigated people like the Beatles and MLK Jr. Investigations means the cop is not being lazy, it doesn't mean the source is worthwhile.
You want to demonstrate the validity of the source, you need convictions, not investigations.
They know that often advertisements are skipped. By front loading, they are hoping to attract your attention so that you don't click the "skip ahead 30 second" button - either the figurative one in your head, or the real one in your hand.
"Paid into". You mean they paid Social Security Tax?
Guess what it's a lie you've been fed. The average person gets far more than they paid in taxes. Mostly it's a form of insurance where the people that die pay for the people that live.
And the people that get the Basic Income would still pay taxes - sales tax, state tax, etc. Oh, you want apportion of it 'labeled' basic income tax so that you can pretend that they are paying into it for themselves as well?
The only difference between a Basic Income and the other forms of Disabled support we already use is how we frame it. You have been tricked by liars to think it's different, by using false terminology such as "wealth redistribution". That's a propaganda term that applies just as much to purchases and sales as it does to government support programs.
Let's clear up a bit of garbage that some idiots don't understand
1) Basic = to what we give them in prison, minus the security. Food, housing, cheap clothing. In fact, it's CHEAPER to give people a Basic Income than it is to put them in prison (guards are not cheap)
2) No one, and I mean NO ONE, that's willing to live at that level of crap (and it is crap) is ever going to amount to much of anything. If you are stupid enough to live like this, you were never smart enough to significantly contribute to society. People that know how to write, dance, invent, discover, repair, etc. should and will continue to work and earn more.
3) The main areas where we would (and currently do) give more money is not for the people on Basic Income, but instead is for their children, which would need education etc. so that they don't get stuck at the Basic Income.
4) We already do this for many people already. It's called Social Security and Disability. Not to mention Prison and Institionalized - though those last two are a lot more expensive, they basically do the same thing.
5) The people we currently provide a basic income for (old, disabled, criminals and insane) are not considered free loading, lazy shmucks because we recognize that for various reasons, they can't meaningfully contribute.
6) All we are really talking about is adding "below average intelligence" to the category of disabled.
There is minimal, if any benefit to the USER of networking your blog/web page with your email, games, music, online comments, and other social activities etc.
But the network itself gets huge advertisement based financial rewards for doing so.
This means that social networks by definition are an exchange of minor convenience (single login) for a major privacy invasion. As such, they are not and never have been what you make them.
Slashdot Mirror
If a country wants there to be no encryption, then it should declare encryption to be illegal, block any service that allows it, and that should be the end of it.
But letting them continue their business and try to press charges against them for violating the law is just STUPID.
Machines are not and can not "surpass us in cognitive ability". Because cognitive ability is not one skill, it is many skills.
Machines have (long ago) surpassed us in mathematical ability.
WE - not the machines - learned how to transform many tasks that were not originally mathematically based into math. As such, WE have redesigned machines to do many jobs that humans used to do.
But there are a lot of 'cognitive' jobs that can not be reduced to mere math and those jobs will remain with us until machines develop sufficient sentience to demand shorter hours and better pay. When they do that, they will be our allies, fighting against the bosses, rather than the bosses' servants putting us out of work.
We tend to over-estimate how much damage so called extinction level events do - and underestimate how effective intelligence is in countering it.
My favorite example of this irrational fear is the grey goo of "nanite level von neumann machines taking over the world". Besides the fact that we already have a green goo (organic life) that did that and is far more advanced than the grey goo - the main limitation is POWER. The Green Goo did it mainly on solar power, transmitted to the more powerful green goo monsters via 'eating plants'. Nanites would be very unlikely to be able to compete with the green goo.
Basically, we are the most fearsome monster on this planet and nothing we have ever dreamed of comes close to being anywhere near as terrifying as ourselves.
Real total extinction requires astronomical level of death so it most likely means an astronomical cause. Asteroid/comet impact, gamma ray burster, etc. Those are all far less than 0.1% - more like 0.00000000001% per year.
You are not looking at God's manual for existence, to check a score, like some kind of video game.
It's just the results from a test - helpful, but not perfect. Luck, design for the test, and many other factors may affect it.
If all you do is look at the benchmark, you deserve to be screwed over. Doing so is like looking at new lawyers grades in law school and making the highest score a partner right off the back.
There are several examples that resulted in living animals that were paralyzed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
This is not unreasonable. The government should not be required to get 51 warrants, simply because they don't know which state or federal territory a criminal is in. Merely getting one warrant is appropriate.
This is about principle, not merely handcuffing the government.
The Great Leader does not fall short - not when in comes to missiles, height, hair size, stomache size, or any other kind of size. His hands are big too.
Ignore the lies, Great Leader will make North Korea the WINNIGEST country every. They will win so much, you will ask him to stop winning that much. His missiles will fly furthest, his walles will be the biggest.
Wait - am I still making fun of Kim, or Donald? I forget which.
Forget digging a trench, that takes too long, is expensive, and easy to detect in rural areas (makes detectable noise and you put sonic detectors on the lasers as well. A portable bridge makes much more sense. But...
Half the point of the laser wall system is that you can't tell WHERE it is. You can't dig a tunnel for miles, let alone the bridge.
I hate and despises "magic word tests" put into law. He has a right to not incriminate himself - including a right not to be forced to make a specific statement.
It's pretty obvious that most jobs will no longer be in manufacturing, just as most jobs are no longer in agriculture.
This does not in any way affect total jobs available, nor does it affect total good jobs available.
In a post agricultural world, we moved into manufacturing. In a post manufacturing world, we move into services. This is obvious, as it has already begun.
Services include poor jobs - cleaning, blue collar jobs - installing, good blue collar jobs - repair, and white collar jobs - inventing.
We are saying that the power to compel to produce requires proof that the evidence exists.
Say you are a prosecutor. You have a picture of the defendant holding a bloody knife. You ask for and get a court order requiring the defendant to produce that knife.
Should that defendant be jailed for producing a slab of melted steel that they claim is the knife?
Of course not. He produced what he could. They demanded he produce the hard drive. He did. He can't be required to produce the password, as he can easily claim that he has forgotten it.
The only way the judge can charge or hold him if the judge can prove that he has not forgotten the password. Not "thinks he hasn't forgotten it', prove he hasn't forgotten it. Yes, that's impossible to do. Which is why the Judge should not be able to give this order.
One of the basic principles of a free market is that there is COMPETITION.
Yes, you are allowed to charge whatever you want for something you own - but that requires people to have valid, reasonable other options available to purchase something similar.
When you collaborate with other people to ensure that there is NO other option for people to buy anything similar to what you own, that is called an illegal trade monopoly.
Yes, you are legally allowed to get the protections of copyrights, but as part and parcel of a capitalistic system, the government is required to spend just as much time and effort preventing you from engaging in anti-competitive trade agreements as they are in enforcing your copyright.
W\hen you violate the rules of capitalism, creating anti-competitive trade agreements with the other content produces that are supposed to be your competitors, you have no right to complain that the government doesn't spend enough effort going after the 'pirates' because they also are not going after you for your illegal Trade Agreements.
One of the reasons people reject capitalism is that the GOP has twisted it away from it's true meaning.
For example - did you know that in true capitalism there are NO patents. Patents are a remnant of Mercantalism. (Google Queen Elizabeth and patents on COAL) Real capitalism has a competitive free market as a core principle, which leaves zero room for patents. They were pushed into the US version to encourage innovation.
A purer capitalism would either use a bounty system (think Darpa's challenges) or have a set royalty assigned inventors. Either of those would preserve the free market, unlike patents.
They figured out you don't have to actually do the crime, just threaten to do it convincingly.
Bomb is an inapropriate word for this kind of attack.
Yeah, I know, we have come to think of bombing as something the US does and it tends to reflect a larger attack, but it still seems wrong.
If you don't like cyberattack, as not sufficiently grand, than call it a Cyberinvasion.
Or how about "cyberplague". That sounds more like what we are doing - initiating a cyberplague on the Isis.
You have mistaken limitation as a reward.
Walls are not perfect. People can climb over them. That does not negate their value.
Similarly, tests are not perfect, people can target the tests rather than the subject. That does not mean they are worthless. A well designed test makes this very hard to do, becoming not worth the effort.
The mere existence of badly designed tests does not mean that all tests are badly designed.
They want one that they know has not already been cracked opened and p@wned by China and Russia.
If we avoid lab conditions, you bring in random factors. So some heavy polluting car could just get lucky and have no sharp stops and quick speed ups, which is where it happens to heavily pollute, so it passes.
We need lab conditions to ensure a fair comparison between different cars.
It is assumed that all cars vary from real life to lab conditions in roughly the same manner. That is, that a car that does best in the lab conditions will also do best in real world conditions, even if the real use pollutes far more heavily.
In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.
If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab. (Yes, it is often designed by politics, not scientists.)
The number of investigations is irrelevant - the number of CONVICTIONS is relevant.
Any cop can decide to investigate for zero reason. J.E. Hoover routinely investigated people like the Beatles and MLK Jr. Investigations means the cop is not being lazy, it doesn't mean the source is worthwhile.
You want to demonstrate the validity of the source, you need convictions, not investigations.
They know that often advertisements are skipped. By front loading, they are hoping to attract your attention so that you don't click the "skip ahead 30 second" button - either the figurative one in your head, or the real one in your hand.
"Paid into". You mean they paid Social Security Tax?
Guess what it's a lie you've been fed. The average person gets far more than they paid in taxes. Mostly it's a form of insurance where the people that die pay for the people that live.
And the people that get the Basic Income would still pay taxes - sales tax, state tax, etc. Oh, you want apportion of it 'labeled' basic income tax so that you can pretend that they are paying into it for themselves as well?
The only difference between a Basic Income and the other forms of Disabled support we already use is how we frame it. You have been tricked by liars to think it's different, by using false terminology such as "wealth redistribution". That's a propaganda term that applies just as much to purchases and sales as it does to government support programs.
Glad to know that my ex-girlfriend can't pay someone to do it on her salary.
But it sounds a lot cheaper than the legal case would have been if they had tried to go through the courts.
Morons should have started with that option, not used it only after Apple complained.
Let's clear up a bit of garbage that some idiots don't understand
1) Basic = to what we give them in prison, minus the security. Food, housing, cheap clothing. In fact, it's CHEAPER to give people a Basic Income than it is to put them in prison (guards are not cheap)
2) No one, and I mean NO ONE, that's willing to live at that level of crap (and it is crap) is ever going to amount to much of anything. If you are stupid enough to live like this, you were never smart enough to significantly contribute to society. People that know how to write, dance, invent, discover, repair, etc. should and will continue to work and earn more.
3) The main areas where we would (and currently do) give more money is not for the people on Basic Income, but instead is for their children, which would need education etc. so that they don't get stuck at the Basic Income.
4) We already do this for many people already. It's called Social Security and Disability. Not to mention Prison and Institionalized - though those last two are a lot more expensive, they basically do the same thing.
5) The people we currently provide a basic income for (old, disabled, criminals and insane) are not considered free loading, lazy shmucks because we recognize that for various reasons, they can't meaningfully contribute.
6) All we are really talking about is adding "below average intelligence" to the category of disabled.
And I hope it lights a fire under President Hillary Clinton (odds are 1/3 in her favor) to start Space Race 2: Mars or Bust!
I would argue that you are incorrect.
It's not the social part, but the NETWORK part.
There is minimal, if any benefit to the USER of networking your blog/web page with your email, games, music, online comments, and other social activities etc.
But the network itself gets huge advertisement based financial rewards for doing so.
This means that social networks by definition are an exchange of minor convenience (single login) for a major privacy invasion. As such, they are not and never have been what you make them.
They are and always will be a privacy surrender.