Even if the data sent from the phone to the Chinese is encrypted, the phone has to have the key, so it's trivial for just anybody to intercept and read your messages
Apparently you never heard of asymmetric encryption. So, no the phone doesn't need to have the key required to decrypt the data.
The original intent was for the several States to be the primary provider of governance, with the Federal Government severely limited in power, and the ability to counts individual votes in a nationwide election was unimaginable in the early US.
"original intent", that's great, but it's history. What was reasonable and fair a couple of hundred years ago, may no longer be fair and reasonable.
So... the top 8 or 10 states should have ultimate control over the other 50?
No, that would only happen if the votes in the electoral college were distributed purely according to population.
What we have today is a situation where a vote cast by someone in the smaller states has an outsize impact on the presidential election. Moving to a popular vote system would give the people in the smaller states a vote that was equivalent to a vote in a larger state.
Why should the state in which you live affect how much your vote affects the outcome?
Those claiming it's somehow unfair for the winner of the popular vote to not be the winner in the Electoral College are either ignorant, or ignoring that the system is working exactly as intended
Or, they are correctly noting that the Electoral College system is unfair. Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair.
That's an interesting metric, but two things need to be taken into account: 1. Cost of living differential. GDP is almost meaningless if your intent is to measure amount of carbon produced to support a lifestyle. 2. As a prior poster pointed out, how much of those carbon emissions are directly related to producing products for the western world? Lots of manufacturing that requires large energy inputs in comparison to the value of goods produced has moved to China and other countries. In other words, the USA has outsourced its CO2 production.
The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. It's significant on a global scale.
National Honor Society may have been the first link, but when I tried to Google "NHS", the rest of the page contained links relating to the UK's National Health Service, including links to this email issue.
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations [wordpress.com] and not the industrialized ones.
How about a graph that shows CO2 emission per person, instead of one that ignored the fact that there are about 4x the number of people in China than the USA?
Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA,..., money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found
There is no credible source for those claims. Mexico has said that it is willing to "discuss" NAFTA, but the idea that they are willing to renegotiate it in a way that would impose the tariff barriers that Trump proposed is laughable:
What about the "inventor of email"? Do you really think that Gawker should have had to pay Shiva Ayyadurai $750,000 because Gawker debunked his claim to have invented email?
That's Peter Thiel using his money to bankrupt someone he did not like and allow a falsehood to continue to be promoted.
The term "pro-life" angers me greatly. The vocal pro-lifers are nothing of the sort. I believe there is a very strong overlap between being "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty.
Also, most of those "pro-life" people don't care about life after birth. If the child dies in poverty, they don't care. That's not pro-life.
"Pro-life" means "Control". It's about control, not just of birth but of the sex lives of young people.
I'll note that I've lived near a coal plant for about five years. But it was in the developed world with actual pollution controls.
There are pollution controls because of what? Regulation. Now what does Donald Trump want to slash? Regulation. Why are you so comfortable about your health?
Someone here on/. made it clear that he worked for a coal-powered power plant. Is that you?
What you don't understand: weather forecasts and how costs reduce over time. We can forecast the wind, allowing wind power to be used effectively alongside other technologies. What's the real cost of extracting that coal, when all the effects on the landscape and the environment are taken into account?
Can wind power replace coal today? No. But how much electricity is generated by natural gas today? Wind power is potentially cheaper than natural gas today.
The issue is not what should be used today, but where should our investments be? You can invest in technologies that will make life much more difficult and expensive in the future, or technologies that will reduce global climate change and reduce global tensions.
It's more than power through supply disruptions. It's about money and military power.
It's in the US's interest to have Russia run out of money so that Russia has to stop spending on its military. Russia gets a lot of its money from fossil fuel sales.
Russia has a sovereign wealth fund, built up when oil was expensive, but it has been spending down the fund now that oil prices are cheap. Only a year or two to go and Russia will be out of money and Putin will become unpopular. Obama's policy has been excellent in this respect.
You can't compare the price of coal in Europe to the price of coal in the US.
That's true, but the latest bids for European offshore wind power are at rates that are comparable to US prices for electricity from coal (less than.05 euro per kWh). Prices for solar and wind power are dropping very quickly, whether residential or utility-scale projects.
The US needs energy independence. Renewables are now providing some of the cheapest electricity (recent bids for offshore wind power in Europe are at levels below electricity from coal). Renewables employs more people than fossil fuels in the USA. Renewables don't rely on a politically unstable region of the world, where the US has had to spend huge resources to ensure continued supplies.
We need oil today, but our investment should be in renewables. Focusing on fossil fuels is not an economically sound decision, even if you discount global climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you never heard of asymmetric encryption. So, no the phone doesn't need to have the key required to decrypt the data.
"original intent", that's great, but it's history. What was reasonable and fair a couple of hundred years ago, may no longer be fair and reasonable.
Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.
No, that would only happen if the votes in the electoral college were distributed purely according to population.
What we have today is a situation where a vote cast by someone in the smaller states has an outsize impact on the presidential election. Moving to a popular vote system would give the people in the smaller states a vote that was equivalent to a vote in a larger state.
Why should the state in which you live affect how much your vote affects the outcome?
Or, they are correctly noting that the Electoral College system is unfair. Just because something is "working exactly as intended" doesn't make it fair.
That's an interesting metric, but two things need to be taken into account:
1. Cost of living differential. GDP is almost meaningless if your intent is to measure amount of carbon produced to support a lifestyle.
2. As a prior poster pointed out, how much of those carbon emissions are directly related to producing products for the western world? Lots of manufacturing that requires large energy inputs in comparison to the value of goods produced has moved to China and other countries. In other words, the USA has outsourced its CO2 production.
The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. It's significant on a global scale.
National Honor Society may have been the first link, but when I tried to Google "NHS", the rest of the page contained links relating to the UK's National Health Service, including links to this email issue.
The atmosphere doesn't "care" about arbitrary divisions of land.
Don't forget that a successful impeachment results in President Pence, who, might actually be worse than Trump.
How about a graph that shows CO2 emission per person, instead of one that ignored the fact that there are about 4x the number of people in China than the USA?
Also, how about acknowledging that China is already ahead of the USA in investment in renewable energy sources?
So, no the problem isn't actually developing nations, it's the USA. The USA is being left behind and the economy is likely to suffer long term.
"Consortia" is plural. So Consortia agrees with "want", not "wants".
Even worse, the original submission was correct, so you went out of your way to make it incorrect. That takes dedication to bad English.
I think that a presidential pardon for Clinton is much more likely.
There is no credible source for those claims. Mexico has said that it is willing to "discuss" NAFTA, but the idea that they are willing to renegotiate it in a way that would impose the tariff barriers that Trump proposed is laughable:
"Meanwhile Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said they were willing to discuss the importance of the agreement with Mr Trump."
What about the "inventor of email"? Do you really think that Gawker should have had to pay Shiva Ayyadurai $750,000 because Gawker debunked his claim to have invented email?
That's Peter Thiel using his money to bankrupt someone he did not like and allow a falsehood to continue to be promoted.
The term "pro-life" angers me greatly. The vocal pro-lifers are nothing of the sort. I believe there is a very strong overlap between being "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty.
Also, most of those "pro-life" people don't care about life after birth. If the child dies in poverty, they don't care. That's not pro-life.
"Pro-life" means "Control". It's about control, not just of birth but of the sex lives of young people.
There are pollution controls because of what? Regulation. Now what does Donald Trump want to slash? Regulation. Why are you so comfortable about your health?
Someone here on /. made it clear that he worked for a coal-powered power plant. Is that you?
What you don't understand: weather forecasts and how costs reduce over time. We can forecast the wind, allowing wind power to be used effectively alongside other technologies. What's the real cost of extracting that coal, when all the effects on the landscape and the environment are taken into account?
Can wind power replace coal today? No. But how much electricity is generated by natural gas today? Wind power is potentially cheaper than natural gas today.
The issue is not what should be used today, but where should our investments be? You can invest in technologies that will make life much more difficult and expensive in the future, or technologies that will reduce global climate change and reduce global tensions.
It's more than power through supply disruptions. It's about money and military power.
It's in the US's interest to have Russia run out of money so that Russia has to stop spending on its military. Russia gets a lot of its money from fossil fuel sales.
Russia has a sovereign wealth fund, built up when oil was expensive, but it has been spending down the fund now that oil prices are cheap. Only a year or two to go and Russia will be out of money and Putin will become unpopular. Obama's policy has been excellent in this respect.
That's true, but the latest bids for European offshore wind power are at rates that are comparable to US prices for electricity from coal (less than .05 euro per kWh). Prices for solar and wind power are dropping very quickly, whether residential or utility-scale projects.
The US needs energy independence. Renewables are now providing some of the cheapest electricity (recent bids for offshore wind power in Europe are at levels below electricity from coal). Renewables employs more people than fossil fuels in the USA. Renewables don't rely on a politically unstable region of the world, where the US has had to spend huge resources to ensure continued supplies.
We need oil today, but our investment should be in renewables. Focusing on fossil fuels is not an economically sound decision, even if you discount global climate change.
It's only 9 or 10% bigger than a typical full moon.
Clinton did not know how to use a desktop computer
Get out of here with your "facts" and "whole story". We don't want that kind of thing here. We just want to rage against the world right now.
Actually, no. The majority voted for Clinton, however, the vagaries of the Electoral College put Trump into the Whitehouse.
There is a lot of hate in the UK for Margaret Thatcher over that issue and the coal mines.