That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.
Regular spying on opposition machines is not something you should be saying "just" about.
Mass manipulation of social media to change the political narrative at a given time is an incredibly powerful and insidious tool, and a window into what is going to happen with AI in elections a few decades away.
The one about Microsoft releasing Ubuntu for Windows this week was pretty funny. It had a lot of people fooled and trumps any lame Red Hat prank.
What makes you think that was a joke? They did a full session about it at build, complete with realtime demos and a discussion of the way the file system was implemented.
No, he wants support from everyone in his district who hates comcast customer service.
The bill has been referred to committee and will die there unless enough people from california who are constitutents of those committee members write in in support. So if you're in CA, see if your legislators sit on the committee responsible for utility regulation and write to them.
Seriously, *every* business by law should be required to be cancellable by one-click or similar. There are a number of them that want to spend an hour on the phone listening to the pretty music, hoping to wait you out.
One-click with two-factor authentication, maybe.
You don't want someone who gets the password for a business to be able to cancel the ISP service of a heavy-traffic ecommerce site with one click.
For the price of 45,000 FTE's and 30-90 minute lines to board every airport in the country, you could move the damn axe and install a steel door with a manual release from the cockpit. Now all a terrorist can do is blow the plane up, and he can blow up a bus--so the rest is just stupid theater.
Unfortunately, people care more about stupid theater than they do about having a pleasant flight or making their travel efficient or encouraging tourism.
I was thinking about that federal law about "Unauthorized Access to a computer" and/or the "circumventing security measures" law. Both the FBI and/or the supposed "hackers" are guilty of these felonies, period.
Be specific.
Laws often have exceptions for law enforcement, and even when they don't, prosecutors have a massive amount of discretion in who they prosecute.
It turns out the FBI is allowed to do a lot of things we would not want private citizens to do. Like running their own heavily armed hostage rescue team.
Realistically, this is a balancing question--needs of the state vs. privacy, for a relatively old phone that will be out of circulation in a few years anyway. So it's not terribly important whether the hack is shared either way. Whether the next hack is shared is more of an issue.
Was this industrial espionage or state espionage that leaked it? Or a disgruntled employee?
We've had a few seemingly random leaks of criminal conspiracies since NSA spying got big... information you couldn't use in court if it came directly from a government action.
The bottom line is if you are going to have a standard you have to have some way of keeping people from sticking your logo on it if they cannot meet the requirements. It's great this Google engineer took up the mantle of shaming bad products, but the problem is more widespread than mere cables.
The solution would be Trademark Law, perhaps combined with automated testing. The Trademark indicates the source of a product is licensed for use (without a fee or perhaps for a nominal fee that helps cover testing and enforcement) on cables that meet the standard, and if you use the mark on cables or advertising for cables that don't meet the standard you get sued by industry or your imports get held at customs. It would be cheaper than all the time even the industry experts waste dealing with bad cables.
In the meantime, people can sell something with a different name that means "doesn't quite meet the standard but good enough for printing."
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
And when the NSA pinpoints the ransomware operator, what are they supposed to do? A drone strike in a place we're not at war with is a bad idea. A formal criminal action will fail because they live in corrupt countries. And even if you tried, you would be revealing sources and methods you use to spy on terrorists.
Being good at spying is very distinct from being good at propaganda.
Hypothesis: noise pollution leads to bad sleeping habits in a pregnant mother which negatively impact the health of a baby.
It would be interesting to see a study mapping noise pollution (high-density fire and ambulance all night, nearby night clubs or bars, etc...) with health of the child.
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
Claiming a win? Sure, because you have people with careers having the biggest-profile case in their life who want to keep their jobs and careers from taking a black mark. Realistically it was sort of a draw and sort of a "let's back the hell off because we might lose this one right now..."
But not exactly on the order. The order wasn't illegal; it's just that it basically issued but Apple could challenge it legally. The briefing to the magistrate judge (which was basically the government vs. the entire tech industry, and was maybe the most extensively briefed issue at the magistrate level in history), would have been the place where it was decided in the first instance, with appeals from there to the district court judge, the court of appeals, and then a petition for (and likely grant of) a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, where we would have gotten an answer that would probably change when Congress changed the law.
In the old POTS system, there was a standard where calls in cities and business telephone services overcharged heavily in order to subsidize the much more expensive rural phone lines, so that everybody in the country had a MUCH better chance of being able to afford a phone line if they wanted to.
In theory that is probably the argument behind this--but in practice it is probably just that AT&T paid them a few million in donations and want a hundred million steered toward AT&T.
But AT&T probably has given at least ONE or two of those millions to the people they're asking for the hundred million. It's really just an investment. The DSL has nothing to do with it.
The account describes a ring with the initials "H.S." found in the tomb with Shakespeare. I wonder if it had something to do with his son, Hamnet Shakespeare.
You make a good point. However, the Supreme Court doesn't make the law. When SCOTUS makes a decision, not based on a new law passed by legislature, they are decreeing what the correct interpretation of the (old) law is. In other words, they ARE saying that any decisions to the contrary were wrong. There just wasn't a clear way to KNOW they were wrong until SCOTUS said so.
Actually, no--the Supreme Court does make law. It's called "case law." It interprets other laws to do that, and clarifies what those laws means--but the decisions of the court are still law.
Nuclear power remains a critical element to revising our industrial base in a way that can maintain existing demand and power the manufacturing of the equipment for renewable generation. For Solar and Wind to remain cheap requires that the components remain cheap - aluminum requires HUGE amounts of energy to refine from ore, mining itself is horrendously energy intensive even at the level of producing the large trucks and earth moving equipment required.
Nuclear is part of a comprehensive energy solution, but is not quite as good as it used to be because renewables are currently even cheaper. Still, it turns out most people are too uneducated to support nuclear and some of the remaining otherwise pro-nuclear people with find the difficulty in securing nuclear waste too problematic to overcome or have given up on educating everyone else.
This doesn't necessarily mean the original holding was wrong--remember that probably *most* software patents have become invalid in the last fifteen years. The Supreme Court has made software patents much harder to get, so old ones that issued are often shown invalid after review. That doesn't mean you can violate them without being subject to damages (because they are issued and therefore have a presumption of validity)--but it does mean that if you trigger a review or fight them, eventually many of them will be shown invalid.
Evolution has done a pretty good job at creating a risk reward model that keeps pushing us in the right direction.
Sure. And then you have World War 2, the Cold War, Donald Trump, ISIS, and Global Warming. Not to mention mass domestic violence, alcoholism, and substance abuse. Our technology and even human relationships already far exceed our collective wisdom.
The article said the house was waiting for repairs. It's very possible it had a building permit that looked like a demo permit and the workers didn't bother reading it.
When you are destroying a house, you should read the thing.
As it is, best case is they get sued for negligence and their insurance company will pay a few hundred thousand bucks to the homeowner's insurance company. Google will also probably take a hard look at their google maps TOS and make sure that there's are an ironclad consequential damages waiver and a solid indemnity provision in there.
The car photo in the story has dozens of bumper stickers plastered over the back; it's hardly a single political bumper sticker. The person wanted to get noticed and should not be surprised to have someone take a pic of his car--or, if the FBI is there, to have them grab a picture for file art. If you're out investigating and see something that sticks out that much, wouldn't you take a picture of it?
That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"
Armed attacks in Paris, Belgium, Indonesia, etc... already provide the casus belli to the extent NATO or the UN want to respond. You think a dirty bomb would really make a difference about whether invasion would be okay in the eyes of anyone on the world stage?
Being able to intelligently remodel the risk-reward path could be the biggest step forward for humanity since the development of antibiotics. We're not there yet, but this is a big step.
Also creepy, though. Tie it to an external trigger and you could use it to reward allegiance to a particular political party, or to the state, or to betraying the state, or to almost anything.
Although the summary is simply quotes from the article, the way they presented them makes it nonsensical. (The US Netflix library is shrinking because it's hard to secure international streaming rights?) The actual article at least has a couple real reasons -- competition from Hulu and getting rid of obscure titles.
Competition is a big one. Hulu's free offerings have gotten much worse (and mostly they flood it with intrusive or deceptive advertising about their subscription service, like claiming they have X eps when only X-150 are available unless you subscribe to their premium service), but they are paying for more content. Amazon Prime has its own big library. Even the cable companies have amazing on-demand content libraries now, just terrible interfaces. You would think it would drive prices down, but it's actually driving competition for content up and overall prices up if you want the same or greater coverage.
It turns out that lowering barriers to commerce increases competition.
This helps the guy who is buying the goods and services. Which mostly means whoever owns the company that uses or re-sells those services. It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.
It hurts the guy who is selling the goods and services, at least in the markets with strong demand. That's why American Industry and the remaining small farms mostly disappeared--you could buy the stuff cheaper elsewhere, so people did. On the other hand, you can probably buy cheaper random-thing-X, so long as there is still competition among foreigners after the American producer went out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.
Regular spying on opposition machines is not something you should be saying "just" about.
Mass manipulation of social media to change the political narrative at a given time is an incredibly powerful and insidious tool, and a window into what is going to happen with AI in elections a few decades away.
The one about Microsoft releasing Ubuntu for Windows this week was pretty funny. It had a lot of people fooled and trumps any lame Red Hat prank.
What makes you think that was a joke? They did a full session about it at build, complete with realtime demos and a discussion of the way the file system was implemented.
wants a donation from Comcast, et.al.
No, he wants support from everyone in his district who hates comcast customer service.
The bill has been referred to committee and will die there unless enough people from california who are constitutents of those committee members write in in support. So if you're in CA, see if your legislators sit on the committee responsible for utility regulation and write to them.
Seriously, *every* business by law should be required to be cancellable by one-click or similar. There are a number of them that want to spend an hour on the phone listening to the pretty music, hoping to wait you out.
One-click with two-factor authentication, maybe.
You don't want someone who gets the password for a business to be able to cancel the ISP service of a heavy-traffic ecommerce site with one click.
Depends on the model of plane.
For the price of 45,000 FTE's and 30-90 minute lines to board every airport in the country, you could move the damn axe and install a steel door with a manual release from the cockpit. Now all a terrorist can do is blow the plane up, and he can blow up a bus--so the rest is just stupid theater.
Unfortunately, people care more about stupid theater than they do about having a pleasant flight or making their travel efficient or encouraging tourism.
I was thinking about that federal law about "Unauthorized Access to a computer" and/or the "circumventing security measures" law. Both the FBI and/or the supposed "hackers" are guilty of these felonies, period.
Be specific.
Laws often have exceptions for law enforcement, and even when they don't, prosecutors have a massive amount of discretion in who they prosecute.
It turns out the FBI is allowed to do a lot of things we would not want private citizens to do. Like running their own heavily armed hostage rescue team.
Realistically, this is a balancing question--needs of the state vs. privacy, for a relatively old phone that will be out of circulation in a few years anyway. So it's not terribly important whether the hack is shared either way. Whether the next hack is shared is more of an issue.
Was this industrial espionage or state espionage that leaked it? Or a disgruntled employee?
We've had a few seemingly random leaks of criminal conspiracies since NSA spying got big... information you couldn't use in court if it came directly from a government action.
The bottom line is if you are going to have a standard you have to have some way of keeping people from sticking your logo on it if they cannot meet the requirements. It's great this Google engineer took up the mantle of shaming bad products, but the problem is more widespread than mere cables.
The solution would be Trademark Law, perhaps combined with automated testing. The Trademark indicates the source of a product is licensed for use (without a fee or perhaps for a nominal fee that helps cover testing and enforcement) on cables that meet the standard, and if you use the mark on cables or advertising for cables that don't meet the standard you get sued by industry or your imports get held at customs. It would be cheaper than all the time even the industry experts waste dealing with bad cables.
In the meantime, people can sell something with a different name that means "doesn't quite meet the standard but good enough for printing."
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
And when the NSA pinpoints the ransomware operator, what are they supposed to do? A drone strike in a place we're not at war with is a bad idea. A formal criminal action will fail because they live in corrupt countries. And even if you tried, you would be revealing sources and methods you use to spy on terrorists.
Being good at spying is very distinct from being good at propaganda.
Hypothesis: noise pollution leads to bad sleeping habits in a pregnant mother which negatively impact the health of a baby.
It would be interesting to see a study mapping noise pollution (high-density fire and ambulance all night, nearby night clubs or bars, etc...) with health of the child.
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
Claiming a win? Sure, because you have people with careers having the biggest-profile case in their life who want to keep their jobs and careers from taking a black mark. Realistically it was sort of a draw and sort of a "let's back the hell off because we might lose this one right now..."
But not exactly on the order. The order wasn't illegal; it's just that it basically issued but Apple could challenge it legally. The briefing to the magistrate judge (which was basically the government vs. the entire tech industry, and was maybe the most extensively briefed issue at the magistrate level in history), would have been the place where it was decided in the first instance, with appeals from there to the district court judge, the court of appeals, and then a petition for (and likely grant of) a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, where we would have gotten an answer that would probably change when Congress changed the law.
In the old POTS system, there was a standard where calls in cities and business telephone services overcharged heavily in order to subsidize the much more expensive rural phone lines, so that everybody in the country had a MUCH better chance of being able to afford a phone line if they wanted to.
In theory that is probably the argument behind this--but in practice it is probably just that AT&T paid them a few million in donations and want a hundred million steered toward AT&T.
But AT&T probably has given at least ONE or two of those millions to the people they're asking for the hundred million. It's really just an investment. The DSL has nothing to do with it.
The account describes a ring with the initials "H.S." found in the tomb with Shakespeare. I wonder if it had something to do with his son, Hamnet Shakespeare.
Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
You make a good point. However, the Supreme Court doesn't make the law. When SCOTUS makes a decision, not based on a new law passed by legislature, they are decreeing what the correct interpretation of the (old) law is. In other words, they ARE saying that any decisions to the contrary were wrong. There just wasn't a clear way to KNOW they were wrong until SCOTUS said so.
Actually, no--the Supreme Court does make law. It's called "case law." It interprets other laws to do that, and clarifies what those laws means--but the decisions of the court are still law.
Nuclear power remains a critical element to revising our industrial base in a way that can maintain existing demand and power the manufacturing of the equipment for renewable generation. For Solar and Wind to remain cheap requires that the components remain cheap - aluminum requires HUGE amounts of energy to refine from ore, mining itself is horrendously energy intensive even at the level of producing the large trucks and earth moving equipment required.
Nuclear is part of a comprehensive energy solution, but is not quite as good as it used to be because renewables are currently even cheaper. Still, it turns out most people are too uneducated to support nuclear and some of the remaining otherwise pro-nuclear people with find the difficulty in securing nuclear waste too problematic to overcome or have given up on educating everyone else.
This doesn't necessarily mean the original holding was wrong--remember that probably *most* software patents have become invalid in the last fifteen years. The Supreme Court has made software patents much harder to get, so old ones that issued are often shown invalid after review. That doesn't mean you can violate them without being subject to damages (because they are issued and therefore have a presumption of validity)--but it does mean that if you trigger a review or fight them, eventually many of them will be shown invalid.
Evolution has done a pretty good job at creating a risk reward model that keeps pushing us in the right direction.
Sure. And then you have World War 2, the Cold War, Donald Trump, ISIS, and Global Warming. Not to mention mass domestic violence, alcoholism, and substance abuse. Our technology and even human relationships already far exceed our collective wisdom.
The article said the house was waiting for repairs. It's very possible it had a building permit that looked like a demo permit and the workers didn't bother reading it.
When you are destroying a house, you should read the thing.
As it is, best case is they get sued for negligence and their insurance company will pay a few hundred thousand bucks to the homeowner's insurance company. Google will also probably take a hard look at their google maps TOS and make sure that there's are an ironclad consequential damages waiver and a solid indemnity provision in there.
The car photo in the story has dozens of bumper stickers plastered over the back; it's hardly a single political bumper sticker. The person wanted to get noticed and should not be surprised to have someone take a pic of his car--or, if the FBI is there, to have them grab a picture for file art. If you're out investigating and see something that sticks out that much, wouldn't you take a picture of it?
That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"
Armed attacks in Paris, Belgium, Indonesia, etc... already provide the casus belli to the extent NATO or the UN want to respond. You think a dirty bomb would really make a difference about whether invasion would be okay in the eyes of anyone on the world stage?
Being able to intelligently remodel the risk-reward path could be the biggest step forward for humanity since the development of antibiotics. We're not there yet, but this is a big step.
Also creepy, though. Tie it to an external trigger and you could use it to reward allegiance to a particular political party, or to the state, or to betraying the state, or to almost anything.
Although the summary is simply quotes from the article, the way they presented them makes it nonsensical. (The US Netflix library is shrinking because it's hard to secure international streaming rights?) The actual article at least has a couple real reasons -- competition from Hulu and getting rid of obscure titles.
Competition is a big one. Hulu's free offerings have gotten much worse (and mostly they flood it with intrusive or deceptive advertising about their subscription service, like claiming they have X eps when only X-150 are available unless you subscribe to their premium service), but they are paying for more content. Amazon Prime has its own big library. Even the cable companies have amazing on-demand content libraries now, just terrible interfaces. You would think it would drive prices down, but it's actually driving competition for content up and overall prices up if you want the same or greater coverage.
It turns out that lowering barriers to commerce increases competition.
This helps the guy who is buying the goods and services. Which mostly means whoever owns the company that uses or re-sells those services. It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.
It hurts the guy who is selling the goods and services, at least in the markets with strong demand. That's why American Industry and the remaining small farms mostly disappeared--you could buy the stuff cheaper elsewhere, so people did. On the other hand, you can probably buy cheaper random-thing-X, so long as there is still competition among foreigners after the American producer went out of business.