I wish I made as much money as you. I won't spend more than $2 on a movie, and here you are saying $25 isn't outrageous.
A significant portion of the world lives on $1-2/day. $25 may be an outrageous amount to spend, since you could spend it in a thousand charitable causes--but it's not an outrageous amount to charge if it gives you the highest ROI, and provided there are other, less expensive distribution channels available to others so that eventually, everyone can see it.
If anyone (*anyone*!) other than yourself has access for any amount of time to your unencrypted data, your storage provider is doing it wrong.
There needs to be a backup way to retrieve data. Otherwise you get cases like the system that needs seven people to do certain critical things, and one day one of them walks in front of a bus.
There are plenty of people to whom $50 is not problematic at all for an hour or two of entertainment. Think what dinner at a nice restaurant costs even in a medium-sized city. They could charge more and still have many thousands of customers, but are obviously searching for the sweet spot between cost and number of customers that optimizes their return.
Most academic papers are published with financial support from federal funding agencies. Too bad publishing academic papers is a private industry with a profit motive to keep you from accessing them. Swartz died over this.
Most? Almost every one in the country. Schools are funded by tuition and tuition is primary sponsored by MASSIVE government loans that basically allow schools to set tuition for students at any price, on government credit. Part of the school budget should be used to fund journals.
because the Army does not take people that cannot be trusted.
That's really one of the most ridiculous absolutes I've ever heard.
The army takes lots of people who can't be trusted to do a bunch of things and trains them to do a bunch of other things and to work together. At the end of the day they can usually be trusted to do those things.
The US armed forces provide some of the most effective humanitarian relief in the world. If they expose themselves to dangers from their service--whether gunshot or a cancer--then the cost of their healthcare for that danger is part of the actual cost of having an armed forces, and should be paid for. To do otherwise is to make them as individuals pay for it rather than spreading it out over the people of the country or even over the branch of service, and is forcing them to take the risk. Nobody should be left on the side of a road after a battle because you don't want to pay to carry them.
"ATT argued that the customers could not only have their complaints heard individually in arbitration, and Judge Edward Chen of US District Court in Northern California has sided with the cellular company."
Er... sure, sometimes bad law enforcement is terrorism--using terror to accomplish political objectives.
Good law enforcement wrestles with the questions of when it is best to punish people and when it is best to warn them for violating the law, wrestles with questions about when you need to prosecute someone to discourage bad behavior in the community, wrestles with questions like where the boundary should be between the needs of law enforcement to legitimately deter and detect crime and the individual sphere of privacy that defends individuals against government intrusion.
That is truly informative. I would really appreciate my local LEO's if they were to struggle with these complicated issues. However I can state that *NOWHERE* in this country does such a struggle take place. If you truly believe it does then you a just another dumb running around deaf, dumb and blind.
It doesn't happen with every case, but it certainly happens.
1. Punish v. Warn: this one happens all the time, on the beat. Cops decide to write a ticket for violating a city's open container law or to ignore it; they decide whether to give you a warning for going over the speed limit or to write you a ticket; they decide whether to give you a ticket or to arrest you and tow your car; they decide whether to make twenty-year-old throw out his beer or whether to arrest him for it.
2. When you need to prosecute: this one happens all the time, with cops and more with prosecutors. Should they throw the book at you or should they make a deal that seems reasonable? How reasonable of a deal can they make? If a kid dies because a gun was unsecured, can they let a family grieve or do they think charging them for leaving the gun unsecured will get news and save other kids? Yes, they deal with this.
3. Law enforcement needs vs. privacy rights: this one happens in a massive number of court cases every year, and those court decisions alter police behavior. This also happens in policy debates when you get to people establishing department policy. They don't always make the right decision (see, e.g., license plate scanners) because they have a very strong bias from their experience dealing with criminals, but they certainly think about it. There's a reason they don't release the home addresses of victims of domestic violence, for example.
I'm not saying they're perfect--far from it. Most of the time they're just trying to do their job. Sometimes they irrationally defend dirty cops or infringe on the rights of citizens and some of them even beat or kill innocent people. And there are reasons why there is such a distrust of police officers--legitimate ones, like the fact that most investigations involve lying to suspects during interrogation, so all of the millions of people who are arrested in America and all of their families know about how the police lied to and took advantage of so-and-so's ignorance to destroy their lives, and the fact that arrest records effectively eliminate people from eligibility for a large number of jobs.
But most of them, most of the time, are trying to be professionals, help their community, and do the job they've been trained to do. And these questions really do get asked.
Law enforcement IS terrorism. Yes, I live in Yakima, WA.
Er... sure, sometimes bad law enforcement is terrorism--using terror to accomplish political objectives.
Good law enforcement wrestles with the questions of when it is best to punish people and when it is best to warn them for violating the law, wrestles with questions about when you need to prosecute someone to discourage bad behavior in the community, wrestles with questions like where the boundary should be between the needs of law enforcement to legitimately deter and detect crime and the individual sphere of privacy that defends individuals against government intrusion.
This is happening not just in support of Apple, but because the US has announced they will be using their surveillance infrastructure for law enforcement, not just antiterrorism.
+4 Insightful? Look, government's position on backdoors is fundamentally wrong, as almost everyone who works in tech knows and almost nobody who works outside of tech understands or cares about. But that debate has nothing to do with open source.
The United States Government is the biggest purchaser on the planet, and we pay their bills. If they want to recycle code across their organization to save us money, great. If they want to open-source their unclassified software, great.
There is no problem with 32bit signed integers, there is a problem with programmers who provide computations that are useful at greater resolution than 32bits, but use code that assumes properties of 32bit signed integers.... TL;DR: If you are asking about transitioning away from a prior standard, then you are probably not qualified to make decisions based on the best answer to said question.
If you worry about this to begin with, I imagine you are at least a fairly bright guy, but I also happen to think you're at least a bit off on this one.
First, because the promise of computing is fundamentally one of making things easier for people, including programmers. If things are easier and the mechanisms to make them easier are designed well, it becomes harder to mess things up and we become more efficient in the vast majority of our dealings. This premise isn't only one that applies to end-users, but also to programmers who are using the tools created by other programmers to create programs. There is a reason why so many programmers don't do serious memory management in their coding today, and it's because they don't have to--not because they couldn't learn it. Javascript, of all things, is actually a popular language. Javascript! It is true that a lot of programmers are not necessarily going to realize when they have a code segment that unnecessarily relies on properties of 32-bit signed integers. But the answer to that is not just to say "Programmers should realize this." The answer is making it really *easy* for a programmer to realize it, and really easy for a programmer to do the same thing without relying on the properties of 32-bit signed integers, and eventually to make it be something that requires turning off a warning or the like.
And second, because IRL people frequently have to make decisions about things they are not professionally qualified to make decisions about, and that is why they ask experts questions. They are qualified by virtue of the fact that they want something done, and they need to decide who they trust to explain the issues to them and to answer their questions. Just like you are qualified to decide if you want a contractor to open up a dividing wall in your house. You may get help from a structural engineer to make the decision, but it's your house.
"hid" in the sense of "some information transfer is happening in a way they don't realize" or "they are not actually transmitting information," not in the sense of "information transfer by a hidden variable determining something that appears to be but is not a probability distribution"
If they have figured out data transmission at FTL speeds (which is hard to tell just from the summary and without the right Ph.D.) then yes, that suggests a violation of causality, or at least a need to redefine it.
However, it is much more likely (based on... the observed universe up to now...) that either something about the system predetermines the output at both locations, or that the output at one point is known to be distinct or the same as the other but that there is no way to influence what the outcome from point B will be from point A. In other words, they probably hid the causality and maybe they haven't quite figured out where they hid it yet.
Fortunately, this is slashdot, so hopefully a pseudo-expert will actually follow the links and then translate for the rest of us.
Showed up for work last Monday and saw one box had switched over even after telling the nag screens NO. I had to do the uninstall because we have software that does not work properly under 10. I can't recommend GWX Control Panel enough. It removes all signs of 10 and even the 4Gb of files it downloads without telling you.
If that is true, unfortunately it starts to sounds like an antitrust violation. While it's all based on the same kernel so arguably updates, they consider big enough updates to be separate products and should not be using their auto-update ability to force you to change operating systems when you explicitly deny permission.
I have no problem with an auto-update for home users after asking permission and explaining the security issues, though.
In a few years you will be able to steal someone's self driving car and reprogram it. He should of said 'weapon delivery system'. It really doesn't need to be fast or do any of the other things you mention.
Sure, but they'll also change airport layout--nobody is going to let a self-driving car bomb drive up to the front door of a terminal.
... as opposed to definitely spending billions to write verifiable software that will be out of date by the time they release it.
Having their tech be out of date is usually preferable to have it being unreliable, provided that bug patches, etc..., are backported as necessary.
Spending billions to get the software right on the F-35 would make sense. We are going to make thousands of the things and use them for generations. The software is also likely to be stolen at some point, so it is better for us to take the time and make it as perfect as possible so that even if stolen, other nations do not have an easy time finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. You have to assume they will spend a billion dollars or more trying to crack it.
He was charged with unlawful interference with a public utility, a felony, which is insane.
We already have a law for unlawful interference with radio communication, from back when the Titanic went down and unlicensed radio stations made it harder for them to get distress signals out. Let's use that.
It is news since normally MS doesn't sue people, but this is a case of many thousands of activation's from 1 IP so.
Agreed. It is quite reasonable to track down a source from which thousands of copies were made. If it's a big IT shop that is doing unlicensed installs as part of a repair process without thinking it's a big deal maybe you let them settle for lawyer's fees, a big slap on the wrist, and a promise not to do it again--but if it's someone who made thousands of bootleg copies and sold them, more serious action is warranted.
If Apple can write code and copy it up to the phone, then the capabilities for doing so already exist. So why doesn't the FBI do the work themselves? I'm sure Apple would be willing to help with the electronic part - that's just specs. I think there is more at play here than whether Apple can or can't....
You need to unlock the phone to make it accept unsigned updates. You need a signed update to unlock it. So only someone with the key can unlock it.
The FBI either doesn't have a copy of the key or doesn't want to admit they do. The keys for this kind of thing are guarded by men with guns and used only on airgapped machines, at least in any competent org, and it is highly unlikely that apple would knowingly give a copy of the FBI without word of it leaking out. Another branch of government may have obtained a copy clandestinely, however, either directly from Apple or from a foreign intelligence service.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I made as much money as you. I won't spend more than $2 on a movie, and here you are saying $25 isn't outrageous.
A significant portion of the world lives on $1-2/day. $25 may be an outrageous amount to spend, since you could spend it in a thousand charitable causes--but it's not an outrageous amount to charge if it gives you the highest ROI, and provided there are other, less expensive distribution channels available to others so that eventually, everyone can see it.
Well, first they had to provide tech support to one customer and put 22 million calls on hold.
If anyone (*anyone*!) other than yourself has access for any amount of time to your unencrypted data, your storage provider is doing it wrong.
There needs to be a backup way to retrieve data. Otherwise you get cases like the system that needs seven people to do certain critical things, and one day one of them walks in front of a bus.
There are plenty of people to whom $50 is not problematic at all for an hour or two of entertainment. Think what dinner at a nice restaurant costs even in a medium-sized city. They could charge more and still have many thousands of customers, but are obviously searching for the sweet spot between cost and number of customers that optimizes their return.
Most academic papers are published with financial support from federal funding agencies. Too bad publishing academic papers is a private industry with a profit motive to keep you from accessing them. Swartz died over this.
Most? Almost every one in the country. Schools are funded by tuition and tuition is primary sponsored by MASSIVE government loans that basically allow schools to set tuition for students at any price, on government credit. Part of the school budget should be used to fund journals.
because the Army does not take people that cannot be trusted.
That's really one of the most ridiculous absolutes I've ever heard.
The army takes lots of people who can't be trusted to do a bunch of things and trains them to do a bunch of other things and to work together. At the end of the day they can usually be trusted to do those things.
The US armed forces provide some of the most effective humanitarian relief in the world. If they expose themselves to dangers from their service--whether gunshot or a cancer--then the cost of their healthcare for that danger is part of the actual cost of having an armed forces, and should be paid for. To do otherwise is to make them as individuals pay for it rather than spreading it out over the people of the country or even over the branch of service, and is forcing them to take the risk. Nobody should be left on the side of a road after a battle because you don't want to pay to carry them.
"ATT argued that the customers could not only have their complaints heard individually in arbitration, and Judge Edward Chen of US District Court in Northern California has sided with the cellular company."
Sentence good-having the summary is not.
Er... sure, sometimes bad law enforcement is terrorism--using terror to accomplish political objectives.
Good law enforcement wrestles with the questions of when it is best to punish people and when it is best to warn them for violating the law, wrestles with questions about when you need to prosecute someone to discourage bad behavior in the community, wrestles with questions like where the boundary should be between the needs of law enforcement to legitimately deter and detect crime and the individual sphere of privacy that defends individuals against government intrusion.
That is truly informative.
I would really appreciate my local LEO's if they were to struggle with these complicated issues.
However I can state that *NOWHERE* in this country does such a struggle take place.
If you truly believe it does then you a just another dumb running around deaf, dumb and blind.
It doesn't happen with every case, but it certainly happens.
1. Punish v. Warn: this one happens all the time, on the beat. Cops decide to write a ticket for violating a city's open container law or to ignore it; they decide whether to give you a warning for going over the speed limit or to write you a ticket; they decide whether to give you a ticket or to arrest you and tow your car; they decide whether to make twenty-year-old throw out his beer or whether to arrest him for it.
2. When you need to prosecute: this one happens all the time, with cops and more with prosecutors. Should they throw the book at you or should they make a deal that seems reasonable? How reasonable of a deal can they make? If a kid dies because a gun was unsecured, can they let a family grieve or do they think charging them for leaving the gun unsecured will get news and save other kids? Yes, they deal with this.
3. Law enforcement needs vs. privacy rights: this one happens in a massive number of court cases every year, and those court decisions alter police behavior. This also happens in policy debates when you get to people establishing department policy. They don't always make the right decision (see, e.g., license plate scanners) because they have a very strong bias from their experience dealing with criminals, but they certainly think about it. There's a reason they don't release the home addresses of victims of domestic violence, for example.
I'm not saying they're perfect--far from it. Most of the time they're just trying to do their job. Sometimes they irrationally defend dirty cops or infringe on the rights of citizens and some of them even beat or kill innocent people. And there are reasons why there is such a distrust of police officers--legitimate ones, like the fact that most investigations involve lying to suspects during interrogation, so all of the millions of people who are arrested in America and all of their families know about how the police lied to and took advantage of so-and-so's ignorance to destroy their lives, and the fact that arrest records effectively eliminate people from eligibility for a large number of jobs.
But most of them, most of the time, are trying to be professionals, help their community, and do the job they've been trained to do. And these questions really do get asked.
Law enforcement IS terrorism. Yes, I live in Yakima, WA.
Er... sure, sometimes bad law enforcement is terrorism--using terror to accomplish political objectives.
Good law enforcement wrestles with the questions of when it is best to punish people and when it is best to warn them for violating the law, wrestles with questions about when you need to prosecute someone to discourage bad behavior in the community, wrestles with questions like where the boundary should be between the needs of law enforcement to legitimately deter and detect crime and the individual sphere of privacy that defends individuals against government intrusion.
This is happening not just in support of Apple, but because the US has announced they will be using their surveillance infrastructure for law enforcement, not just antiterrorism.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an Eiffel Tower and three statutes of liberty.
... which means that, by definition, it cannot support open source software.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
+4 Insightful? Look, government's position on backdoors is fundamentally wrong, as almost everyone who works in tech knows and almost nobody who works outside of tech understands or cares about. But that debate has nothing to do with open source.
The United States Government is the biggest purchaser on the planet, and we pay their bills. If they want to recycle code across their organization to save us money, great. If they want to open-source their unclassified software, great.
There is no problem with 32bit signed integers, there is a problem with programmers who provide computations that are useful at greater resolution than 32bits, but use code that assumes properties of 32bit signed integers. ... TL;DR: If you are asking about transitioning away from a prior standard, then you are probably not qualified to make decisions based on the best answer to said question.
If you worry about this to begin with, I imagine you are at least a fairly bright guy, but I also happen to think you're at least a bit off on this one.
First, because the promise of computing is fundamentally one of making things easier for people, including programmers. If things are easier and the mechanisms to make them easier are designed well, it becomes harder to mess things up and we become more efficient in the vast majority of our dealings. This premise isn't only one that applies to end-users, but also to programmers who are using the tools created by other programmers to create programs. There is a reason why so many programmers don't do serious memory management in their coding today, and it's because they don't have to--not because they couldn't learn it. Javascript, of all things, is actually a popular language. Javascript! It is true that a lot of programmers are not necessarily going to realize when they have a code segment that unnecessarily relies on properties of 32-bit signed integers. But the answer to that is not just to say "Programmers should realize this." The answer is making it really *easy* for a programmer to realize it, and really easy for a programmer to do the same thing without relying on the properties of 32-bit signed integers, and eventually to make it be something that requires turning off a warning or the like.
And second, because IRL people frequently have to make decisions about things they are not professionally qualified to make decisions about, and that is why they ask experts questions. They are qualified by virtue of the fact that they want something done, and they need to decide who they trust to explain the issues to them and to answer their questions. Just like you are qualified to decide if you want a contractor to open up a dividing wall in your house. You may get help from a structural engineer to make the decision, but it's your house.
"hid" in the sense of "some information transfer is happening in a way they don't realize" or "they are not actually transmitting information," not in the sense of "information transfer by a hidden variable determining something that appears to be but is not a probability distribution"
If they have figured out data transmission at FTL speeds (which is hard to tell just from the summary and without the right Ph.D.) then yes, that suggests a violation of causality, or at least a need to redefine it.
However, it is much more likely (based on... the observed universe up to now...) that either something about the system predetermines the output at both locations, or that the output at one point is known to be distinct or the same as the other but that there is no way to influence what the outcome from point B will be from point A. In other words, they probably hid the causality and maybe they haven't quite figured out where they hid it yet.
Fortunately, this is slashdot, so hopefully a pseudo-expert will actually follow the links and then translate for the rest of us.
I expect they are under orders to scuttle the ship rather than let it be captured.
Showed up for work last Monday and saw one box had switched over even after telling the nag screens NO. I had to do the uninstall because we have software that does not work properly under 10. I can't recommend GWX Control Panel enough. It removes all signs of 10 and even the 4Gb of files it downloads without telling you.
If that is true, unfortunately it starts to sounds like an antitrust violation. While it's all based on the same kernel so arguably updates, they consider big enough updates to be separate products and should not be using their auto-update ability to force you to change operating systems when you explicitly deny permission.
I have no problem with an auto-update for home users after asking permission and explaining the security issues, though.
The government shouldn't be able to have a camera in every home.
Phones have cameras and are in every home.
Q.E.D.
In a few years you will be able to steal someone's self driving car and reprogram it. He should of said 'weapon delivery system'. It really doesn't need to be fast or do any of the other things you mention.
Sure, but they'll also change airport layout--nobody is going to let a self-driving car bomb drive up to the front door of a terminal.
... as opposed to definitely spending billions to write verifiable software that will be out of date by the time they release it.
Having their tech be out of date is usually preferable to have it being unreliable, provided that bug patches, etc..., are backported as necessary.
Spending billions to get the software right on the F-35 would make sense. We are going to make thousands of the things and use them for generations. The software is also likely to be stolen at some point, so it is better for us to take the time and make it as perfect as possible so that even if stolen, other nations do not have an easy time finding and exploiting vulnerabilities. You have to assume they will spend a billion dollars or more trying to crack it.
He was charged with unlawful interference with a public utility, a felony, which is insane.
We already have a law for unlawful interference with radio communication, from back when the Titanic went down and unlicensed radio stations made it harder for them to get distress signals out. Let's use that.
I thought it wasn't theft unless something physical was stolen. Did you mean to say copyright infringement?
Captcha: wrongly
It's always impressive when the trolls master object permanence.
https://www.google.com/search?...
It is news since normally MS doesn't sue people, but this is a case of many thousands of activation's from 1 IP so.
Agreed. It is quite reasonable to track down a source from which thousands of copies were made. If it's a big IT shop that is doing unlicensed installs as part of a repair process without thinking it's a big deal maybe you let them settle for lawyer's fees, a big slap on the wrist, and a promise not to do it again--but if it's someone who made thousands of bootleg copies and sold them, more serious action is warranted.
If Apple can write code and copy it up to the phone, then the capabilities for doing so already exist. So why doesn't the FBI do the work themselves? I'm sure Apple would be willing to help with the electronic part - that's just specs. I think there is more at play here than whether Apple can or can't....
You need to unlock the phone to make it accept unsigned updates. You need a signed update to unlock it. So only someone with the key can unlock it.
The FBI either doesn't have a copy of the key or doesn't want to admit they do. The keys for this kind of thing are guarded by men with guns and used only on airgapped machines, at least in any competent org, and it is highly unlikely that apple would knowingly give a copy of the FBI without word of it leaking out. Another branch of government may have obtained a copy clandestinely, however, either directly from Apple or from a foreign intelligence service.
The NSA may already have the information on the cellphone, from when it was sniffed as it passed over the interwebs.