I don't particularly trust either group. I think the best approach is to enshrine certain guarantees of privacy into the constitution or law and let the men with gavels smack them around for non-compliance.
You actually think this would work? We already have a 1st and 2nd amendment that are routinely ignored. If you put "shall not be infringed" and it is routinely infringed, what makes you think that having privacy as a constitutional right or even just a common law would make any difference?
The electoral college is also "enshrined in the Constitution," but that hasn't stopped anybody from trying hard to work around it.
If there are balls out there, it's Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Twitter that're bribing, I mean lobbying, to keep net neutrality
But some of these are the same companies that try to censor certain viewpoints on their own platforms. So neutrality of data is fine, but neutrality of opinion isn't.
And before anybody says it, no, their censorship is not limited to "hate speech," unless you have a very broad definition of "hate" to include "anything that I disagree with."
Well, the one thing that Roku has going for them is that they are the "Switzerland" of the streaming world. They make the ONLY box that will support every streaming service that I can think of.
Fire TV? It won't let you watch anything from Google. Chromecast? Sorry, no Amazon movies on there.
Roku also supports some of the smaller channels that you will never see on a regular smart TV, like Curiosity Stream and BritBox.
"Hafrada" has nothing to do with the mainland nation itself. Nothing.
The "illegally held territories" are a result of an ILLEGAL INVASION where the neighbors wanted to WIPE OUT THE JEWS. Yeah, it is like that, but that does not matter to you. You think that Jewish lives are worthless. Don't want your land taken? Don't start a war! It really is that simple (to most people). But apparently staging an invasion shouldn't have any consequences. Remember what happened to Germany after WW1 and WW2? Why is that OK, but this isn't?
So, why don't you care about the Palestinians killing Jewish civilians? Because Jewish lives are worthless.
And you are complaining about the ONLY Jewish state in the entire world wanting to preserve Judaism. Muslims and Christians live peacefully in Israel. There is no "apartheid" in other Muslim countries because non-Muslims are simply killed, so that is better.
Let me list the horrible things that Israel does:
* They treat women and equals. They can even vote, drive cars, and fly fighter jets.
* They treat homosexuals as equals. They don't kill them
* They have all three major religions living together in peace.
* They are the only democracy in that part of the world.
What sealed the deal for me on this permanently was the asymmetry. In a single hour of military maneuvers Israelis managed to kill more people than the combined sum of deaths from ALL rocket attacks on Israel in modern history.
But you forgot one thing. Israel does not TRY to target civilians. They go after the headquarters of the people launching the rockets. Palestinians are just happy to kill any Jews. Civilians are perfectly fine targets.
If some other country say China was occupying my country and exerting colonial rule, stealing property and shit.. I would probably be building rockets too.
But if we tried to wipe out China, and they got our property in the ensuing war, we deserve what we get.
I am STILL waiting for any proof of an apartheid state in Israel. Over there, the different religious groups tend to get along quite well. The murder rate in Israel itself if lower than it is in the US. There is not the equivalent of "whites only" areas over there (except for some areas controlled by Muslims, but you can't blame the Jews for that).
You do know how Israel GOT that land, right? If you don't want your land taken over, then DON'T TRY TO INVADE YOUR NEIGHBOR! If America tried to invade Canada, and we got our butts kicked, I would not blame them for claiming a little of our border as a buffer zone.
And it is good to know that you justify random murdering of civilians. Killing Jews is OK, but killing Palestinians isn't. All the Palestinians want is just one more Holocaust -- and just a little one. Just kill 6.75 million Jews, and they would be happy and finally have peace at last. Wanting to wipe out Israel is what caused them to loose the contested lands in the first place.
And don't forget, your tax dollars are going to a country which has its own version of apartheid.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
The BDS movement was started by Omar Barghouti. Yeah, he is a victim of "apartheid" all right, since he went to "Tel Aviv University." I guess that they forgot about their apartheid when they admitted him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have a friend in Israel. He has Muslim friends, and tells me that one of his friends won't get an Israeli citizenship -- because if he does, he will not be allowed into many neighboring countries, like Syria. So, it is Israel's neighbors that are trying to discriminate against people.
Yes, the Palestinians have a rough time. But that is because they keep on trying to kill Jews. What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
So, the purpose of robots is to create goods for customers or provide services to customers. If all of the customers don't have jobs and can't afford to buy anything the cycle kind of breaks down.
Hey, computers are going to take away jobs. Maybe we should ban those too.
You seem to lack knowledge of history. Not long after Israel was created, there were armies massing on their borders ready to invade, and wipe them out.
If Canada had amassed thousands of tanks, and tens of thousands of armed troops right at the Canada/US border, getting ready to invade, wouldn't that make you a little nervous? If a war started, would be be wrong to grab a little of Canada as a "buffer zone" to help prevent a future invasion?
Yes, you are partially right. I agree that Israel should not really expand into those lands. But as to the rest of it, if Palestinians routinely try to kill Jews, should the Jews just let them?
Well, when these neighbors keep launching explosive rockets, hoping to kill as many civilians as possible, that changes the picture a bit. Do you know HOW they got control of those lands? Hint: their neighbors wanted to wipe them out.
The crime of being the only real democracy in that part of the world. The crime of treating women and homosexuals as equals. The crime of allowing Christians, Jews, and Muslims to happily coexist without persecutions of one or more of them. Those are all horrible things, according to some.
But democrats want to use ID to prevent black people from buying a gun, opening a bank account, boarding an airplane, getting a library card, or getting a fishing license.
All of those are uses of ID that are not considered racist. But requiring it to vote? Yup, racist. Explain the difference.
Not relevant. If you have somebody's public key, a large enough quantum computer can allow you to calculate the private key. This is bad. Yes, this machine won't be large enough, but they might get there in a few years.
There are numerous methods of encrypting data that are considered quantum safe.
How many of them are in common usage? Most everything uses AES for actual data, but the AES key exchange depends on RSA or ECC. The only method of making those quantum-safe involve just increasing the key size to be larger than that of the largest quantum computer -- that is going to be quite a race.
It takes MANY YEARS of study before people become convinced that an algorithm is actually sound. New "secure" algorithms are proposed, and somebody breaks it. A patch is applied, and repeat. Gaining trust takes years.
So, quantum computers suddenly come on the market and new algorithms are implemented. Those are found to be insecure, so the the standards have to change again. Lather, rinse, repeat. That will be a very bad time for the industry.
There are only two commonly-used trapdoor functions: factoring very large prime number, or calculating elliptic curves. Obviously, the strength of the crypto depends on the key sizes. Factoring an 8-bit number can be done with pencil and paper. Factoring a 4,096 bit number takes quite a bit longer. It is wrong to say that that "old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers." If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.
Modern ECC crypto is still considered VERY secure against conventional computers.
Well, if this thing can quickly factor a very large number, then RSA is essentially broken (if you can get your hands on one).
The real problem is that ALL asymmetric crypto uses a "trapdoor" function. This means that going from input to output is easy. Going from output back to input is very hard. If quantum computers can efficiently work backwards on the trapdoor functions, then public-key crypto is dead.
The problem is that I have not heard of any sort of replacement. There are studies of quantum cryptography, but that involves sending entangled particles -- not the sort of thing that your typical router can handle. I have not heard of any work on crypto algorithms that can survive a quantum computer.
So, if they get this computer that can break encryption, people will suddenly know that the encryption used on the Internet is completely broken, and suddenly not trust it. They are building the shovel that will dig their own grave.
But the purge of media has gone much further than veggie snacks and advertising. It is censoring opinions. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Too bad nobody in the tech industry agrees with me. If you can somehow tag it (even wrongly) as "hate" or "racist" then you can censor speech without anything bothering what is left of your conscience.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually think this would work? We already have a 1st and 2nd amendment that are routinely ignored. If you put "shall not be infringed" and it is routinely infringed, what makes you think that having privacy as a constitutional right or even just a common law would make any difference?
The electoral college is also "enshrined in the Constitution," but that hasn't stopped anybody from trying hard to work around it.
But some of these are the same companies that try to censor certain viewpoints on their own platforms. So neutrality of data is fine, but neutrality of opinion isn't.
And before anybody says it, no, their censorship is not limited to "hate speech," unless you have a very broad definition of "hate" to include "anything that I disagree with."
So you want random dictators for life...
The "official religion" of Communism is atheism. How many millions did they kill?
Well, the one thing that Roku has going for them is that they are the "Switzerland" of the streaming world. They make the ONLY box that will support every streaming service that I can think of.
Fire TV? It won't let you watch anything from Google.
Chromecast? Sorry, no Amazon movies on there.
Roku also supports some of the smaller channels that you will never see on a regular smart TV, like Curiosity Stream and BritBox.
"Hafrada" has nothing to do with the mainland nation itself. Nothing.
The "illegally held territories" are a result of an ILLEGAL INVASION where the neighbors wanted to WIPE OUT THE JEWS. Yeah, it is like that, but that does not matter to you. You think that Jewish lives are worthless. Don't want your land taken? Don't start a war! It really is that simple (to most people). But apparently staging an invasion shouldn't have any consequences. Remember what happened to Germany after WW1 and WW2? Why is that OK, but this isn't?
So, why don't you care about the Palestinians killing Jewish civilians? Because Jewish lives are worthless.
And you are complaining about the ONLY Jewish state in the entire world wanting to preserve Judaism. Muslims and Christians live peacefully in Israel. There is no "apartheid" in other Muslim countries because non-Muslims are simply killed, so that is better.
Let me list the horrible things that Israel does:
* They treat women and equals. They can even vote, drive cars, and fly fighter jets.
* They treat homosexuals as equals. They don't kill them
* They have all three major religions living together in peace.
* They are the only democracy in that part of the world.
Yes, for all of these reasons, Israel is EVIL.
Grow a clue.
But you forgot one thing. Israel does not TRY to target civilians. They go after the headquarters of the people launching the rockets. Palestinians are just happy to kill any Jews. Civilians are perfectly fine targets.
But if we tried to wipe out China, and they got our property in the ensuing war, we deserve what we get.
I am STILL waiting for any proof of an apartheid state in Israel. Over there, the different religious groups tend to get along quite well. The murder rate in Israel itself if lower than it is in the US. There is not the equivalent of "whites only" areas over there (except for some areas controlled by Muslims, but you can't blame the Jews for that).
So, proof, please. Any at all. I will wait.
You do know how Israel GOT that land, right? If you don't want your land taken over, then DON'T TRY TO INVADE YOUR NEIGHBOR! If America tried to invade Canada, and we got our butts kicked, I would not blame them for claiming a little of our border as a buffer zone.
And it is good to know that you justify random murdering of civilians. Killing Jews is OK, but killing Palestinians isn't. All the Palestinians want is just one more Holocaust -- and just a little one. Just kill 6.75 million Jews, and they would be happy and finally have peace at last. Wanting to wipe out Israel is what caused them to loose the contested lands in the first place.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
The BDS movement was started by Omar Barghouti. Yeah, he is a victim of "apartheid" all right, since he went to "Tel Aviv University." I guess that they forgot about their apartheid when they admitted him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have a friend in Israel. He has Muslim friends, and tells me that one of his friends won't get an Israeli citizenship -- because if he does, he will not be allowed into many neighboring countries, like Syria. So, it is Israel's neighbors that are trying to discriminate against people.
Yes, the Palestinians have a rough time. But that is because they keep on trying to kill Jews. What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25...
When you make absurd statements, please be prepared to be called out on them.
If Linus just dropped his pants, we could have gotten one more version out of 4.x.
So, the purpose of robots is to create goods for customers or provide services to customers. If all of the customers don't have jobs and can't afford to buy anything the cycle kind of breaks down.
Hey, computers are going to take away jobs. Maybe we should ban those too.
You seem to lack knowledge of history. Not long after Israel was created, there were armies massing on their borders ready to invade, and wipe them out.
If Canada had amassed thousands of tanks, and tens of thousands of armed troops right at the Canada/US border, getting ready to invade, wouldn't that make you a little nervous? If a war started, would be be wrong to grab a little of Canada as a "buffer zone" to help prevent a future invasion?
Yes, you are partially right. I agree that Israel should not really expand into those lands. But as to the rest of it, if Palestinians routinely try to kill Jews, should the Jews just let them?
Well, when these neighbors keep launching explosive rockets, hoping to kill as many civilians as possible, that changes the picture a bit. Do you know HOW they got control of those lands? Hint: their neighbors wanted to wipe them out.
The crime of being the only real democracy in that part of the world. The crime of treating women and homosexuals as equals. The crime of allowing Christians, Jews, and Muslims to happily coexist without persecutions of one or more of them. Those are all horrible things, according to some.
Well, it isn't "green." That is close enough to a sin these days.
But people COULD still vote for the other major party, or vote libertarian, or even independent. They keep voting for the corruption.
I know that the dead people in Chicago always vote for democrats, but I would like to think that the living outnumber the dead.
But people living in Chicago voted for the politicians that did this.
But democrats want to use ID to prevent black people from buying a gun, opening a bank account, boarding an airplane, getting a library card, or getting a fishing license.
All of those are uses of ID that are not considered racist. But requiring it to vote? Yup, racist. Explain the difference.
Not relevant. If you have somebody's public key, a large enough quantum computer can allow you to calculate the private key. This is bad. Yes, this machine won't be large enough, but they might get there in a few years.
How many of them are in common usage? Most everything uses AES for actual data, but the AES key exchange depends on RSA or ECC. The only method of making those quantum-safe involve just increasing the key size to be larger than that of the largest quantum computer -- that is going to be quite a race.
It takes MANY YEARS of study before people become convinced that an algorithm is actually sound. New "secure" algorithms are proposed, and somebody breaks it. A patch is applied, and repeat. Gaining trust takes years.
So, quantum computers suddenly come on the market and new algorithms are implemented. Those are found to be insecure, so the the standards have to change again. Lather, rinse, repeat. That will be a very bad time for the industry.
There are only two commonly-used trapdoor functions: factoring very large prime number, or calculating elliptic curves. Obviously, the strength of the crypto depends on the key sizes. Factoring an 8-bit number can be done with pencil and paper. Factoring a 4,096 bit number takes quite a bit longer. It is wrong to say that that "old algorithms that are already crackable with conventional computers." If a conventional computer would take 10,000 years to crack it, that is pretty good security. It implies that even if you had 10,000 computers, it would still take a year.
Modern ECC crypto is still considered VERY secure against conventional computers.
Well, if this thing can quickly factor a very large number, then RSA is essentially broken (if you can get your hands on one).
The real problem is that ALL asymmetric crypto uses a "trapdoor" function. This means that going from input to output is easy. Going from output back to input is very hard. If quantum computers can efficiently work backwards on the trapdoor functions, then public-key crypto is dead.
The problem is that I have not heard of any sort of replacement. There are studies of quantum cryptography, but that involves sending entangled particles -- not the sort of thing that your typical router can handle. I have not heard of any work on crypto algorithms that can survive a quantum computer.
So, if they get this computer that can break encryption, people will suddenly know that the encryption used on the Internet is completely broken, and suddenly not trust it. They are building the shovel that will dig their own grave.
But if a gun is used, it is the fault of the gun manufacturer. So if Smith & Wesson is responsible for shooting, then Google is responsible for this.
But the purge of media has gone much further than veggie snacks and advertising. It is censoring opinions. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Too bad nobody in the tech industry agrees with me. If you can somehow tag it (even wrongly) as "hate" or "racist" then you can censor speech without anything bothering what is left of your conscience.
Since "deceptive" has been defined as "anything that I disagree with."