Yes. America should certainly ban one of the most important new industries of the 21st century. That will allow the rest of the world to make billions from the technology instead.
You're wrong, i can disable pre-installed crap. Is it Andriod's fault that Samsung modifies the system?
Uh, I'm right. Just because you can disable preinstalled crap on your magic not-Google-but-not-locked-down Android phone, doesn't mean that most Android users can.
Again, I was pointing out that, if you buy an iPhone, the only preinstalled crap comes from Apple, and they can quickly ship a fix. If you buy Android, the preinstalled crap comes from Xonaxzuing Enterprises, Inc, and... you'll never get a fix.
Really?, i can disable preinstalled crap on my Android phone, i can choose what to run and what not to, can you or are you limited to what your phone's manufacturer allows you to?
Pretty much any non-Google Android phone has crapware you can't get rid of, and it's been the source of many of the horrible security problems of recent months. Samsung's keyboard app, for example, which downloads unsigned files to anywhere on the device.
Hint: when your cellphone sends message on the same bus that controls the brakes, a hacker anywhere in the world can send a text message that turns off your brakes and crashes your car. When they have to reprogram the ECU because you no longer send trivial, non-essential messages on a critical bus, they have to physically access the car to do so.
Corrupt big corporations exist primarily because government keeps their competitors out of the market, and funnels money to them in government contracts.
Back in the EVIL UNREGULATED CAPITALISM era, Standard Oil tried to monopolize oil. The end result was a massive reduction in the price of oil, and many people becoming rich as EVIL Standard Oil had to keep buying them out to reduce competition.
Now they just buy the government instead, and pass regulations that make competition illegal.
Yeah, and? They could stick a bomb on the car, so why worry about what firmware they might flash?
The problem is precisely the one the earlier poster mentioned. Some retard put completely non-critical traffic on the same bus as critical traffic, and didn't separate it in a secure manner. So now you can send a text message that disables the brakes.
And yet the NRA thinks that the "average person" with a firearm is the solution to the problem.
The average person with a gun knows how to use it.
I'm guessing that, if there hadn't been soldiers on the train ready to risk their lives to save others, you'd be telling us how much better it was for a few dozen people to be shot dead than for them to carry a gun to defend themselves.
With the court's logic, since high speed printing presses/TV/radio/cable/Internet are all new fangled inventions, free speech shouldn't apply to those.
To be fair, they've already basically said that, since the Internet didn't exist in the 18th century, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to it. So it wouldn't be inconsistent.
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place.
Because drug dealers aren't going to swap an AK47 for a taser? At least, not unless they've just done a driveby and need to get rid of it before the cops trace it back to them.
And you just proved you have no reading comprehension or historical knowledge.
The Constitution implicitly assumes the existence of private warships that Congress can issue letters of marque and reprisal to. The founders wouldn't have given two mosquito farts about people owning stun guns.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
The last time the US government tried this was the Clipper Chip, back in the 90s. That was started by the EVIL REPUBLICAN Bush Sr, and continued by the LOVELY, FLUFFY DEMOCRAT Clinton.
Fortunately, thanks to the fight against the Clipper Chip, the very idea of restricting encryption is now so insane that only idiots like Bush think it's actually possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. America should certainly ban one of the most important new industries of the 21st century. That will allow the rest of the world to make billions from the technology instead.
You're wrong, i can disable pre-installed crap. Is it Andriod's fault that Samsung modifies the system?
Uh, I'm right. Just because you can disable preinstalled crap on your magic not-Google-but-not-locked-down Android phone, doesn't mean that most Android users can.
Again, I was pointing out that, if you buy an iPhone, the only preinstalled crap comes from Apple, and they can quickly ship a fix. If you buy Android, the preinstalled crap comes from Xonaxzuing Enterprises, Inc, and... you'll never get a fix.
Fortunately, Windows 10 detects this attempt at copyright infringement, prevents the app from running, and sends your name and address to the cops.
Really?, i can disable preinstalled crap on my Android phone, i can choose what to run and what not to, can you or are you limited to what your phone's manufacturer allows you to?
Pretty much any non-Google Android phone has crapware you can't get rid of, and it's been the source of many of the horrible security problems of recent months. Samsung's keyboard app, for example, which downloads unsigned files to anywhere on the device.
H, that won't stop third parties accessing your data.
But, if it comes with buggy crapware preinstalled by the manufacturer, you at least have some chance of getting a fix.
What is the fix?
Buy an iPhone?
Yes! Yes! EVIL CORPORATIONS use the MAGIC 'FLUENCE to force people to BUY THEIR STUFF!
My cat told me, and he would know.
Can you give an example of that happening?
Music DRM, for an obvious example.
I think you are living in the wrong century
Yes.
Oh look, I'm at work. I'm going to stop the car and get out.
Oops. "Your car is installing 33 updates. Do not stop the engine. The car will shut down when the updates are complete."
Hint: when your cellphone sends message on the same bus that controls the brakes, a hacker anywhere in the world can send a text message that turns off your brakes and crashes your car. When they have to reprogram the ECU because you no longer send trivial, non-essential messages on a critical bus, they have to physically access the car to do so.
And you call that 'security theatre'?
Do you work for an auto manufacturer?
Probably because it's bullshit.
Corrupt big corporations exist primarily because government keeps their competitors out of the market, and funnels money to them in government contracts.
Back in the EVIL UNREGULATED CAPITALISM era, Standard Oil tried to monopolize oil. The end result was a massive reduction in the price of oil, and many people becoming rich as EVIL Standard Oil had to keep buying them out to reduce competition.
Now they just buy the government instead, and pass regulations that make competition illegal.
Yeah, and? They could stick a bomb on the car, so why worry about what firmware they might flash?
The problem is precisely the one the earlier poster mentioned. Some retard put completely non-critical traffic on the same bus as critical traffic, and didn't separate it in a secure manner. So now you can send a text message that disables the brakes.
It is often said that our needs are "infinite", but I sort of disagree. Humans have their fundamental limitations when it comes to consumption.
I need the entire galaxy to turn into a massive supercomputer. Where do you plan to live?
Feminists and friends took over, men were kicked out.
SJWs destroy everything they touch.
Gary Kovacs (2010-2013) previously VP of Marketing at Macromedia, Adobe and Sybase.
2010? That's about when Firefox started going to shit, isn't it?
And yet the NRA thinks that the "average person" with a firearm is the solution to the problem.
The average person with a gun knows how to use it.
I'm guessing that, if there hadn't been soldiers on the train ready to risk their lives to save others, you'd be telling us how much better it was for a few dozen people to be shot dead than for them to carry a gun to defend themselves.
With the court's logic, since high speed printing presses/TV/radio/cable/Internet are all new fangled inventions, free speech shouldn't apply to those.
To be fair, they've already basically said that, since the Internet didn't exist in the 18th century, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to it. So it wouldn't be inconsistent.
Every time there's a local initiative to get people to turn in their guns, I wonder why they don't offer to give each person a stun gun in its place.
Because drug dealers aren't going to swap an AK47 for a taser? At least, not unless they've just done a driveby and need to get rid of it before the cops trace it back to them.
It also says "regulated".
And you just proved you have no reading comprehension or historical knowledge.
The Constitution implicitly assumes the existence of private warships that Congress can issue letters of marque and reprisal to. The founders wouldn't have given two mosquito farts about people owning stun guns.
how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Clinton was in the White House the last time the US government tried to eliminate encryption.
Besides, the left love government surveillance, so long as they're in charge. Look at... any communist society in the 20th century.
You are not seriously comparing Trump to Obama, are you?
Indeed. Obama was just another puppet of Big Business. Trump is Big Business.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
Dimwit.
The last time the US government tried this was the Clipper Chip, back in the 90s. That was started by the EVIL REPUBLICAN Bush Sr, and continued by the LOVELY, FLUFFY DEMOCRAT Clinton.
Fortunately, thanks to the fight against the Clipper Chip, the very idea of restricting encryption is now so insane that only idiots like Bush think it's actually possible.
because hitting the windows key and typing out what you want to do is just so cumbersome.
Hint: there's a reason it's called a GRAPHICAL User Interface. If I wanted to have to type commands, I'd use a real shell.
Microsoft added that crap when Search was the New Shiny, and everything had to have Search to compete with Google.
Then they added a tablet interface when the iPad was the New Shiny, and everything had to support touchscreens to compete with Apple.
Maybe they should just try building a good desktop OS with a GRAPHICAL User Interface.
Not as ridiculous as switching an entire government entity to a hobbyist OS that is so difficult to use its market share is a mere rounding error.
Yeah, they should have given them Window 8. They'd have been totally used to using that, and wouldn't have had any problems.
Ha-ha-ha.