99% of people would never consider those two options except at the point of a gun, or out of poverty
All I can say is that I must have spent the last decade working with a very atypical group of people.
My last workplace (Dell, in Round Rock) had about 4 cycle commuters in a 30-person department; my current one (in North Austin) is 3/10; my workplace 3 removed was another startup, and had one fellow who moved into the apartments next door specifically to be able to walk to work, and two cycle commuters with longer distances. My current bike is a custom folder; my officemate across the desk has a full stable -- a few high-dollar racing recumbents, a converted tandem recumbent with the second seat replaced with a cargo platform, a crank-forward comfort bike... now, he is an outlier if I've ever seen one; the new salesguy who builds fixies as his hobby is by contrast downright normal. We have staff visiting from the Seattle main office? The funky folding bike sitting in the corner is one of the first things they ask about -- not non-cyclist questions, but technical ones about the choice of components (and, yah, a demo of the fold).
More to the point, though -- Portland is at about 6% cycle commuters. Austin is at 1.04% overall, but a substantial multiple of that (upwards of 3%, if memory serves) if only the downtown area is considered. All of these are small peanuts compared to Amsterdam's 36% traffic share, of course -- but writing off cycling as a viable means of transportation discards how well it works under even moderately conducive conditions.
And yes -- it works well. I'm not stressed out from sitting in traffic. I no longer beat myself up about not going to the gym. I save money taking showers at work rather than at home (Dell even had company-provided shampoo and conditioner -- included as part of a paid membership at the corporate gym, but free to cycle commuters!).
"Less than 1%"? Of the 36% in Amsterdam, the 6% in Portland and the 3% in downtown Austin, I simply couldn't believe that the overwhelming majority (as you would assert) are motivated either at gunpoint or by poverty. Rather, it's a matter of having infrastructure and conditions that make cycling efficient, convenient and safe. Cycling infrastructure is vastly cheaper than what it costs to support the same number of folks in single-occupancy vehicles, busses, or trains -- so for a city like Austin, promoting transportation cycling is the obvious way to enable high-density growth without the nearly impossible task of widening major thoroughfares.
"Graffiti artist" -- is that a fancy yankee term for "criminal who damages private property causing diminution of value"?
Nope.
Some of the folks in the first column are also folks in the second column.
The really good members of the first column tend to be commissioned to create murals by property owners, and paid for their work, and thus tend not to be in the second column.
...and then you've got the folks putting up gang signs, for which "artist" is too good a word, falling into the second column only.
Speaking with my Texan hat on, I'm perfectly happy with our laws being structured as they are, inclusive of their impact on potential members of set-B (presuming, as I do, that the number of actual members is thereby diminished).
Anyway, a lot of writers and artists have been functioning alcoholics, and a have been few drug addicts, that doesn't mean it's a great lifestyle choice for most people.
I didn't say it was a great lifestyle choice. I said I no longer jump to immediate conclusions about people.
That is to say -- I recognize the positions on the subject I was indoctrinated with as a child for what they are -- some kernels of truth packaged up in an overabundance of FUD.
Won't it be nice when we can free up all those dirty over paid truck drivers to work in banks and fill the understaffed IT positions.
The set of truck drivers I know is fairly small, to be sure -- but they're smart, hard-working folks who don't mind working long (and odd) hours. I have no doubts they'll be able to find other employment -- maybe for the same manufacturing and construction companies for which they presently provide transportation services.
Moreover, much of what I hear about being the hard part of the job isn't the driving itself, but the loading and unloading (particularly when dealing with materials that can get clogged / need to be cleaned off the insides / etc). That's not going anywhere.
He probably hasn't considered that those unemployed people will have to do something to support themselves.
No, I think people are resourceful enough to find other legitimate employment... especially in a hypothetical world where business is booming due to cheap transportation costs.
I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving.
It'll improve the economy by removing a large "tax" on everything that requires transportation (that is, almost everything) and freeing up the labor pool for more productive uses? By your argument we should be making self-service gas stations illegal as a job creation program. And maybe outlawing wireless meter reading systems -- those cost jobs too!
Wait, wait, hold up - you're saying you watched your friends consume marijuana, and that watching them actually improved your view on the drug? That observing it dispelled any negative thoughts on the subject?
I can't speak for the parent, but my experience was not dissimilar -- realizing that one of the smartest and most productive people I knew was a recreational pot smoker certainly changed my viewpoint on the drug. It's not something I engage in myself, but I no longer jump to immediate conclusions about people on learning that they make light/recreational use.
If your idea of "intellectual honesty" is deciding to misinterpret statements in the same way you do, then I don't think we have grounds for an effective discussion -- because frankly, no, I don't think that I "knew what [the parent] meant" in the same way that you did.
A: I just went to our neighbor C's house, and it was horrid -- the place smelled of cat piss everywhere! B: You know, if you care about having a house smell nice, we really should tear up that carpet in the basement that smells like cigarette smoke. A: How DARE you say that cigarettes smell as bad as cat piss!
The fact that C's house smells of cat piss doesn't absolve A and B from the need to get that carpet replaced, and the counterargument ("well, C is worse!") is simply a non-sequitur. (B's observation also isn't saying that C's house smells nice, but rather than A and B have their own work to do)
How you would like it if some external organization, say the EU, imposed its values on the US and required nudity, and swearing, and legalized toplessness, and alcohol legal at age 18, and so on?
You might want to choose an example of totalitarianism which sounds less awesome.:P
After all -- is sacrificing national self-determination to enhance individual self-determination really so unambiguously contrary to the cause of individual liberties?
the idea that the problems with religion and state in the muslim world are the same as the problems with religion and state in the christian world.
and
Christianists are indeed trying to make the US military into a Christian organization...
become the same thing?
Personally, I think both positions espoused here are incorrect, at least in soundbite form -- but you really are trying to read something that simply isn't there into the parent's viewpoint.
I agree with your general point in that associating social conservatism with Sharia only when the other guys do it is ridiculous -- but just as an FYI, it's quite easy to buy sex toys in Texas; it's realistic dildos which can't be sold or possessed in more than a small quantity, and "realistic" is an easy quality to avoid -- color it bright blue and you're legal in Texas without so much as creating a new mold.
I doubt the USA would allow Intel to export TPM, unless they already had the keys to the back-door.
Sure, but how often is your opponent the NSA? Mere state or local law enforcement isn't necessarily going to have that access, much less your opponent in a civil suit or some folks engaging in corporate espionage.
Unless you're in the really, really big leagues, what the full force and power of the US government can or can't do is irrelevant... and using TPM to provide hard-to-duplicate, easy-to-wipe private key storage, while not a sure thing in and of itself, can do a pretty good job of complicating an attacker's life.
Not necessarily true. My wife has her twitter feed set to private, with whitelisted-only access -- anyone who goes there who isn't on the whitelist gets "This person has protected their tweets".
A person with that setting enabled has (or should be able to have) a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I use a solution along the same lines -- mountain biking shorts. No heckling, no chafing -- they're not so aerodynamic, but I'm not going for speed anyhow.
Most people aren't geeks and aren't going to have multiple devices.
Not multiple dedicated e-readers, sure -- but a PC client and a smartphone client is entirely typical.
I want to keep everything I buy. You're happy to rent.
Indeed. I moved out of a house into an urban loft in large part because the things I owned were owning me -- and not even the "big things" with real, persistent, strategic value; I was drowning in clutter, maintenance and repair tasks, insurance policies and claims and items in my possession as representations of work undone. My prize possession (a top-of-the-line hand-built ebike) would have a mechanical failure and it would ruin my whole day; it would get a few scratches, and I'd be spending hours stressing about the resale value while trying to find someone who could patch a chip in clear-coated powder coat.
Frankly, I'm done with that -- today, I own the place I live in, its furnishings, the tools I use to do my job, a fairly small set of portable electronics (cell phone and Kindle -- no laptop, happier without one) and a good [but no longer small-car-priced] bicycle (and another for my wife). We're happier and healthier, and far less stressed, now that our lives aren't so oriented around care and keeping of "stuff".
Trouble is its not being sold as that. It is being sold as a real alternative to physical books and this article is comparing book sales on that basis.
Yup, that's a problem, and I'd like to see it reformed. If I'm coming off as "DRM-encumbered ebooks GOOD!", then I'm not being clear enough about the nuances of my position.:)
No, it is not. You painted a world in which a single mishap with a single device meant immediate loss of use; that's not presently the case, though it certainly will be far enough in the future (or would be, if I couldn't crack the DRM).
What are the odds your books will be on available on Amazon in 25 years?
The only books I've bought in Amazon's Kindle store are things I probably won't care about next month, much less 25 years from now -- think "sitting in an airport, out of reading material". Anything I care about? Unencrypted or paper (preferably in the former -- living in a downtown condo makes the cost of cube footage an active concern).
Someone can be aware of what they're trading on, and still decide that "purchasing" DRM-encumbered media is an appropriate short-term tactical choice.
It isn't reasonable that if I lose or damage my reader, my entire library is wiped out.
I can't speak for all vendors, but Amazon doesn't do it that way -- the library remains on their server, available for redownload. Same for the audiobooks I listen to on my commute.
Granted, that's at their mercy -- if they took that option away today all I'd have would be local backups of files tied to my physical device -- but it's not as bad as you make out. (Also, I don't buy most of my eBooks from Amazon; I buy my technical books mostly from Manning Publications, as unencrypted PDF).
This measures assume that the process of "verifying the machines' programming" provides meaningful security. I want to see that process analyzed against the numerous attacks against these machines (chip-switching and otherwise).
Until I've seen an undisputed analysis to the effect that the procedural measures in place are in fact effective against all known attacks, I have no faith in the machines in place.
That's the point -- unless he did something for which criminal charges are appropriate, let's not be jumping to conclusions.
He's been fired, and -- now that this is public -- will have trouble getting a job in which he'd have access to similarly abusable privileges. That's enough.
Slashdot Mirror
All I can say is that I must have spent the last decade working with a very atypical group of people.
My last workplace (Dell, in Round Rock) had about 4 cycle commuters in a 30-person department; my current one (in North Austin) is 3/10; my workplace 3 removed was another startup, and had one fellow who moved into the apartments next door specifically to be able to walk to work, and two cycle commuters with longer distances. My current bike is a custom folder; my officemate across the desk has a full stable -- a few high-dollar racing recumbents, a converted tandem recumbent with the second seat replaced with a cargo platform, a crank-forward comfort bike... now, he is an outlier if I've ever seen one; the new salesguy who builds fixies as his hobby is by contrast downright normal. We have staff visiting from the Seattle main office? The funky folding bike sitting in the corner is one of the first things they ask about -- not non-cyclist questions, but technical ones about the choice of components (and, yah, a demo of the fold).
More to the point, though -- Portland is at about 6% cycle commuters. Austin is at 1.04% overall, but a substantial multiple of that (upwards of 3%, if memory serves) if only the downtown area is considered. All of these are small peanuts compared to Amsterdam's 36% traffic share, of course -- but writing off cycling as a viable means of transportation discards how well it works under even moderately conducive conditions.
And yes -- it works well. I'm not stressed out from sitting in traffic. I no longer beat myself up about not going to the gym. I save money taking showers at work rather than at home (Dell even had company-provided shampoo and conditioner -- included as part of a paid membership at the corporate gym, but free to cycle commuters!).
"Less than 1%"? Of the 36% in Amsterdam, the 6% in Portland and the 3% in downtown Austin, I simply couldn't believe that the overwhelming majority (as you would assert) are motivated either at gunpoint or by poverty. Rather, it's a matter of having infrastructure and conditions that make cycling efficient, convenient and safe. Cycling infrastructure is vastly cheaper than what it costs to support the same number of folks in single-occupancy vehicles, busses, or trains -- so for a city like Austin, promoting transportation cycling is the obvious way to enable high-density growth without the nearly impossible task of widening major thoroughfares.
Nope.
Some of the folks in the first column are also folks in the second column.
The really good members of the first column tend to be commissioned to create murals by property owners, and paid for their work, and thus tend not to be in the second column.
...and then you've got the folks putting up gang signs, for which "artist" is too good a word, falling into the second column only.
Speaking with my Texan hat on, I'm perfectly happy with our laws being structured as they are, inclusive of their impact on potential members of set-B (presuming, as I do, that the number of actual members is thereby diminished).
I didn't say it was a great lifestyle choice. I said I no longer jump to immediate conclusions about people.
That is to say -- I recognize the positions on the subject I was indoctrinated with as a child for what they are -- some kernels of truth packaged up in an overabundance of FUD.
If the call is proxied through the victim's poorly-configured VoIP server, no, their provider doesn't know where it actually came from.
I'm perfectly aware; I included the example as a poke in the eye at those who support such wasteful legislation.
The set of truck drivers I know is fairly small, to be sure -- but they're smart, hard-working folks who don't mind working long (and odd) hours. I have no doubts they'll be able to find other employment -- maybe for the same manufacturing and construction companies for which they presently provide transportation services.
Moreover, much of what I hear about being the hard part of the job isn't the driving itself, but the loading and unloading (particularly when dealing with materials that can get clogged / need to be cleaned off the insides / etc). That's not going anywhere.
No, I think people are resourceful enough to find other legitimate employment... especially in a hypothetical world where business is booming due to cheap transportation costs.
It'll improve the economy by removing a large "tax" on everything that requires transportation (that is, almost everything) and freeing up the labor pool for more productive uses? By your argument we should be making self-service gas stations illegal as a job creation program. And maybe outlawing wireless meter reading systems -- those cost jobs too!
I suppose I should be glad when my opposition finds their own positions so indefensible that they have to resort to ad hominem.
Happens on both sides; here in Texas, the Republicans (specifically, folks from the governor's office) funded the Green party for the same reasons.
I can't speak for the parent, but my experience was not dissimilar -- realizing that one of the smartest and most productive people I knew was a recreational pot smoker certainly changed my viewpoint on the drug. It's not something I engage in myself, but I no longer jump to immediate conclusions about people on learning that they make light/recreational use.
Anything I've used lately has that default out-of-the-box only for root.
If your idea of "intellectual honesty" is deciding to misinterpret statements in the same way you do, then I don't think we have grounds for an effective discussion -- because frankly, no, I don't think that I "knew what [the parent] meant" in the same way that you did.
A: I just went to our neighbor C's house, and it was horrid -- the place smelled of cat piss everywhere!
B: You know, if you care about having a house smell nice, we really should tear up that carpet in the basement that smells like cigarette smoke.
A: How DARE you say that cigarettes smell as bad as cat piss!
The fact that C's house smells of cat piss doesn't absolve A and B from the need to get that carpet replaced, and the counterargument ("well, C is worse!") is simply a non-sequitur. (B's observation also isn't saying that C's house smells nice, but rather than A and B have their own work to do)
You might want to choose an example of totalitarianism which sounds less awesome. :P
After all -- is sacrificing national self-determination to enhance individual self-determination really so unambiguously contrary to the cause of individual liberties?
When exactly did
and
become the same thing?
Personally, I think both positions espoused here are incorrect, at least in soundbite form -- but you really are trying to read something that simply isn't there into the parent's viewpoint.
I agree with your general point in that associating social conservatism with Sharia only when the other guys do it is ridiculous -- but just as an FYI, it's quite easy to buy sex toys in Texas; it's realistic dildos which can't be sold or possessed in more than a small quantity, and "realistic" is an easy quality to avoid -- color it bright blue and you're legal in Texas without so much as creating a new mold.
Sure, but how often is your opponent the NSA? Mere state or local law enforcement isn't necessarily going to have that access, much less your opponent in a civil suit or some folks engaging in corporate espionage.
Unless you're in the really, really big leagues, what the full force and power of the US government can or can't do is irrelevant... and using TPM to provide hard-to-duplicate, easy-to-wipe private key storage, while not a sure thing in and of itself, can do a pretty good job of complicating an attacker's life.
Not necessarily true. My wife has her twitter feed set to private, with whitelisted-only access -- anyone who goes there who isn't on the whitelist gets "This person has protected their tweets".
A person with that setting enabled has (or should be able to have) a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I use a solution along the same lines -- mountain biking shorts. No heckling, no chafing -- they're not so aerodynamic, but I'm not going for speed anyhow.
Not multiple dedicated e-readers, sure -- but a PC client and a smartphone client is entirely typical.
Indeed. I moved out of a house into an urban loft in large part because the things I owned were owning me -- and not even the "big things" with real, persistent, strategic value; I was drowning in clutter, maintenance and repair tasks, insurance policies and claims and items in my possession as representations of work undone. My prize possession (a top-of-the-line hand-built ebike) would have a mechanical failure and it would ruin my whole day; it would get a few scratches, and I'd be spending hours stressing about the resale value while trying to find someone who could patch a chip in clear-coated powder coat.
Frankly, I'm done with that -- today, I own the place I live in, its furnishings, the tools I use to do my job, a fairly small set of portable electronics (cell phone and Kindle -- no laptop, happier without one) and a good [but no longer small-car-priced] bicycle (and another for my wife). We're happier and healthier, and far less stressed, now that our lives aren't so oriented around care and keeping of "stuff".
Yup, that's a problem, and I'd like to see it reformed. If I'm coming off as "DRM-encumbered ebooks GOOD!", then I'm not being clear enough about the nuances of my position. :)
No, it is not. You painted a world in which a single mishap with a single device meant immediate loss of use; that's not presently the case, though it certainly will be far enough in the future (or would be, if I couldn't crack the DRM).
The only books I've bought in Amazon's Kindle store are things I probably won't care about next month, much less 25 years from now -- think "sitting in an airport, out of reading material". Anything I care about? Unencrypted or paper (preferably in the former -- living in a downtown condo makes the cost of cube footage an active concern).
Someone can be aware of what they're trading on, and still decide that "purchasing" DRM-encumbered media is an appropriate short-term tactical choice.
I can't speak for all vendors, but Amazon doesn't do it that way -- the library remains on their server, available for redownload. Same for the audiobooks I listen to on my commute.
Granted, that's at their mercy -- if they took that option away today all I'd have would be local backups of files tied to my physical device -- but it's not as bad as you make out. (Also, I don't buy most of my eBooks from Amazon; I buy my technical books mostly from Manning Publications, as unencrypted PDF).
This measures assume that the process of "verifying the machines' programming" provides meaningful security. I want to see that process analyzed against the numerous attacks against these machines (chip-switching and otherwise).
Until I've seen an undisputed analysis to the effect that the procedural measures in place are in fact effective against all known attacks, I have no faith in the machines in place.
That's the point -- unless he did something for which criminal charges are appropriate, let's not be jumping to conclusions.
He's been fired, and -- now that this is public -- will have trouble getting a job in which he'd have access to similarly abusable privileges. That's enough.