Yes, exactly. Even if Americans are OK with the American government having the ability to spy on all their encrypted communications, what happens when the Saudis and Russians want to spy on them, too? They have 'legitimate need', so why shouldn't they have access, too?
Actually, I think you'll find it's simpler than that. People who don't live in America don't want to buy American products which are crippled so the American government can spy on them.
If Goolag and Apple started shipping phones with crippled encryption, foreign buyers would go elsewhere.
"Throwing people in jail and doing nothing to address the root causes of crime doesn't solve anything."
It's hard to burgle someone if you're in jail.
The problem is that, since the 60s, criminals have no longer been kept in jail until they're no longer a threat to the law-abiding. And one reason for that is that so many new laws have been passed and so many new crimes created, that there's no space for them.
Crime in America is a huge business. And I don't mean for the criminals. I mean the cops, the courts, the prisons, the lawyers, the politicians, and all the others who make a living from crime. Obviously they want more of it.
Yes, it does. It comes from politicians and government employees..
The Clipper Chip, which would have been the only allowable encryption scheme because it was designed so the government could break it, began under Daddy Bush. It continued under Clinton, who, by your argument, should have immediately tossed it out.
All power-hungry politicos want to be able to spy on you.
The idea that a few bucks of Russian advertising could have lost Clinton the election when she blew the best part of a billion dollars is simply laughable.
"To the extent that the firing "serves as an example to others", it also creates a hostile work environment that encourages nearby employees who can get work elsewhere to do so."
Oh, what a load of crap. Sensible people know that letting their kids take videos of unreleased products and put them up on Youtube without permission is... not something you do. Ever.
Every company I've worked for would have considered that a sacking offence.
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. "
There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other.
But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
The odd part is that their demand to reduce fossil fuel usage is exactly the same thing they demanded back when they were telling politicians they had to save us from the new Ice Age that was about to happen.
Odd, that, isn't it? It's almost as though eliminating fossil fuels is the goal, and 'Muh Science!' is just the means to justify it. But surely that can't be true?
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
"Where the hell are the social liberals running these companies when they blindly obey orders from the Chinese government?"
'Social liberals' love the Chinese government, because they all dream of being dictators. Look at Turdeau, for example, talking about how he admires Chinese dictatorship.
"The whole industry considered reusability impossible."
To be fair, they didn't consider it impossible, they considered it to not make economic sense. Boeing, for example, proposed a reusable Saturn V first stage in the 60s, but it would have required at least sixty launches to repay the development costs.
Slashdot Mirror
"The hard push to transition into an IP-based economy was pretty stupid in retrospect, wasn't it?"
In retrospect? It was stupid at the time, as many of us pointed out.
But MBAs didn't care, because they'd make their millions and move on before it became a problem.
I gather that mass murder is a crime, too.
Yes, exactly. Even if Americans are OK with the American government having the ability to spy on all their encrypted communications, what happens when the Saudis and Russians want to spy on them, too? They have 'legitimate need', so why shouldn't they have access, too?
Jesus Christ, we fought this war in the 90s.
Encryption is either strong or it's not. There is no middle ground.
Actually, I think you'll find it's simpler than that. People who don't live in America don't want to buy American products which are crippled so the American government can spy on them.
If Goolag and Apple started shipping phones with crippled encryption, foreign buyers would go elsewhere.
"Throwing people in jail and doing nothing to address the root causes of crime doesn't solve anything."
It's hard to burgle someone if you're in jail.
The problem is that, since the 60s, criminals have no longer been kept in jail until they're no longer a threat to the law-abiding. And one reason for that is that so many new laws have been passed and so many new crimes created, that there's no space for them.
Crime in America is a huge business. And I don't mean for the criminals. I mean the cops, the courts, the prisons, the lawyers, the politicians, and all the others who make a living from crime. Obviously they want more of it.
"this stuff all comes from the same folks"
Yes, it does. It comes from politicians and government employees..
The Clipper Chip, which would have been the only allowable encryption scheme because it was designed so the government could break it, began under Daddy Bush. It continued under Clinton, who, by your argument, should have immediately tossed it out.
All power-hungry politicos want to be able to spy on you.
As usual, the SJW refuses to respond to the point, but attacks the poster.
I remember cinematographers saying they'd never shoot digital, and would continue to shoot film because 'I shoot silver, not rust'.
I believe most of those are greeters at Walmart these days.
DC-X was an SDIO project. They then gave it to NASA.
Who then crashed it.
Maybe Clinton should have paid the Russians to run her Facebook campaign, then she'd be in the White House.
But the three million voters were either dead or illegal.
Because, as history has proven, 99% of corpses vote Democrat.
Indeed. Who cares about this crap?
The idea that a few bucks of Russian advertising could have lost Clinton the election when she blew the best part of a billion dollars is simply laughable.
"To the extent that the firing "serves as an example to others", it also creates a hostile work environment that encourages nearby employees who can get work elsewhere to do so."
Oh, what a load of crap. Sensible people know that letting their kids take videos of unreleased products and put them up on Youtube without permission is... not something you do. Ever.
Every company I've worked for would have considered that a sacking offence.
"Your comments sound fascist and unduly harsh to me."
1. Doesn't know what fascism is.
2. Thinks sacking someone for breaking a contract is 'unduly harsh'.
Let me guess: you're a Millenial Snowflake?
Maybe the CIA could give some tanks to Afghan goat-herders, so there'd be a need for a plane that can shred them.
"China's particle emissions from their coal plants are reaching the arctic and causing faster melting"
That can't be right. In the 70s, the West's particle emissions were causing cooling that would lead to a New Ice Age if we DON'T BAN FOSSIL FUELS NOW!
Bingo. Anyone who uses the world 'Denier!' to refer to people who dispute a scientific point is no scientist.
Meanwhile, not one of the computer models matches reality.
This is a simple fact.
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. "
There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other.
But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
The odd part is that their demand to reduce fossil fuel usage is exactly the same thing they demanded back when they were telling politicians they had to save us from the new Ice Age that was about to happen.
Odd, that, isn't it? It's almost as though eliminating fossil fuels is the goal, and 'Muh Science!' is just the means to justify it. But surely that can't be true?
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
Which adblocker blocks Youtube ads?
Mostly I just try to avoid the site these days because the ads are so annoying.
"Where the hell are the social liberals running these companies when they blindly obey orders from the Chinese government?"
'Social liberals' love the Chinese government, because they all dream of being dictators. Look at Turdeau, for example, talking about how he admires Chinese dictatorship.
Indeed. Gotta love watching SJWs eat each other.
"The whole industry considered reusability impossible."
To be fair, they didn't consider it impossible, they considered it to not make economic sense. Boeing, for example, proposed a reusable Saturn V first stage in the 60s, but it would have required at least sixty launches to repay the development costs.