However, if that device is encrypted and the vendor has no way of decrypting it, it's up to you, the accused to provide the decryption key. By "forgetting" the key, you're placing yourself beyond the law.
Yeah, just like how you're "placing yourself beyond the law" if they get a warrant to search your 100-acre farm and you refuse to tell them where the bodies are buried.
Not to mention, they're called search warrants for a reason: it gives them the right to look for the information, but doesn't require that you actively help them find it. If you were required to tell them where to dig for the bodies -- or what your encryption key is -- then they'd call them "find" warrants instead!
Provided "a friend's house" or a room that you can afford to sub-let is near work. I've read anecdotal evidence on Slashdot that not all workplaces are in such a location.
If you can't afford to live near work, then that job is unsustainable. If you're that desperate, beg on a street corner until you can afford to take a cheap bus to North Dakota and work in the oil fields.
How is this practical in a thunderstorm or on snow-covered roads?
People at the earlyretirementextreme.com and mrmoneymustache.com forums manage it.
Besides, we're talking about a desperate situation here. "Practical" is not the issue. It's "possible," and that's enough.
Except that some percentage of that increased value is going to pay for the devices being installed, and their management.
That's not as big a cost as you think. You see, these kinds of car dealers that specialize in bad-credit buyers expect to repossess the cars eventually. They don't make their money from buying a car and selling it once at a higher price; they make their money from selling, repossessing, and re-selling the same car over and over again, while collecting usurious interest payments in the intervals between sale and repossession. All these devices do is make the cycle more efficient (and thus more profitable) by shortening the time between the first non-payment and the repossession.
It probably is an 8 year old car. The monthly payment is so high because A) the buyer paid a hugely inflated price, B) it's probably got an incredibly high interest rate, and C) it might even have leftover debt from the previous car (that probably also got repossessed*) rolled in.
Remember, places that prey^W specialize on bad-credit buyers are not really car dealers; they're loan sharks that incidentally let you borrow a car. Here's their business model:
"Sell" car to bad-credit buyer at an inflated price (because such buyers have no bargaining power), financed with a huge interest rate.
Collect mostly-interest payments (and remember, interest on a balance inflated thousands of dollars higher than what the car should have cost) for however long the buyer can scrounge up the money.
When the buyer defaults, repossess.
"Sell" the same car again to the next sucker, rinse, and repeat.
(* Is it possible to still owe money on a car after it's been repossessed? I don't know, but it's certainly possible to claim to a bad-credit car buyer that they do.)
So, blame your politicians and your corporations for this mess. The rest of us have been for decades now.
Haven't you been blaming your own politicians and your own politicians for going along with it? I'll assume you have.
Clearly, however, complaining to your own politicians and corporations hasn't done you any good. And now you know how the American public feels, since complaining to our politicians and corporations hasn't done us any good either!
That's a good idea. Another idea would be that the ACLU (or similar organization) could create a "whistleblower stipend fund" so that whistleblowers could be taken care of whether they could find a job or not.
Exactly! Why should I give up my nice house in Atlanta (not to mention my friends and family) for the "privilege" of living in some overpriced hovel in California? After adjusting for cost-of-living, I'm paid better than I would be at a comparable job there.
This whole globalization thing was [the American political and corporate elite's] idea, and has been championed as economic policy for a very long time now -- so that corporations can maximize profits.
I find it terribly amusing that suddenly [the American general public] are going "Yarg! But what about our jobs?".
Once you clarify what you're talking about, I don't see anything funny about it.
I would say the world is going more lefty, with governments consolidating their power bases and censoring/silencing criticism.
The world is going neither "right" nor "left", it's going more authoritarian on an orthogonal axis.
It's the left that wants to grow the size of government and have it spy on/manipulate as much of peoples' lives as it can. It does this under the guise of benevolence, of 'caring' about the plight of some group, real or imagined, varying by context. The right wants smaller government and more liberty for the individual.
No, the authoritarian left (e.g. US Democratic Party) wants to manipulate people through government. The authoritarian right (e.g. US Republican Party) wants to manipulate people through privatized industry. Neither is interested in leaving people alone.
There are those, on both the left and right, who actually do want smaller government and more liberty for the individual, but they are not in power in either major US political party.
If you are the sort who stalwartly votes party lines, I would strongly suggest you reevaluate your loyalties, democrat or republican. At this point, this is the only way to fight the orwellian lunatics in power now.
Indeed; the only hope is to vote independent, libertarian or green.
In fact the whole world is going more right wing, so we can only expect worse.
See, this is why the whole "right wing"/"left wing" rhetoric is a dangerous false dichotomy. Authoritarianism can come equally easily from either side of the aisle; when it comes from the so-called "right" we label it fascism or NAZI-ism; when it comes from the so-called "left" we name it "socialism" or "communism."
However, the "left" and "right" don't have to be authoritarian! Anti-authoritarians on the "right" are called "libertarians" and anti-authoritarians on the "left" are called "greens" or even "hippies."
TL;DR; if you've been duped into complaining about the "right wing" (or the "left wing," for that matter) when you're actually trying to complain about authoritarianism, you are part of the problem!
Not to mention, how would totalitarian Internet surveillance help that situation even slightly (let alone help so Goddamned incredibly well to even begin to come close to "justifying" the loss of liberty!)?
An organization *dedicated* to representing females [in the military] and lobbying for equal treatment of females in the military
FTFY. That organization clearly represents a subset of feminists, namely, those who chose serve in the military. I see no reason to believe that their view is representational of non-military feminists. In other words, I reject the notion that I committed the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and instead posit that you committed an assortment of inductive fallacies, such as fallacy of composition or cherry picking.
Besides, I already clarified that I'm trying to claim that most feminists don't argue for it.
Most feminists are not in the military; therefore, a group representing only people in the military cannot possibly represent most feminists. Moreover, of course people who volunteered to serve in the military would be willing to serve in the military!
To prove your case, you need to find some feminists saying something to the effect of "I don't want to be in the military (you can tell because I didn't volunteer), but I believe, in the name of equality, that I should be required to register for the draft anyway."
Not to mention there are purely biological and existential reasons for keeping women out of the line of fire: for reproduction, women are more crucial to the production of future generations of soldiers. One man can have 100 children by 100 women in 9 months. One woman can only have 1 child by 1 man in 9 months.
There are "purely biological and existential reasons" for a lot of things, but such arguments don't seem to count if they're contrary to the feminist agenda.
Right, but the problem is that most feminists -- other than the ones who want to join the military anyway -- appear to be okay with it. Otherwise, whenever they make a list of grievances, "women should be allowed to fight on the front lines" would appear as a line item right alongside "women should be required to register for the draft" (or alternatively, "men should not be required to register for the draft, since women are not" -- either way works). I assert that the latter item is very often omitted, and that said omission is due to (conscious or unconscious) hypocrisy.
Let's be honest: 4chan is where people go to rant because it's among the least-censored places on the 'net, after they've worn out their welcome at the more-censored ones. Anybody with a less-extremist argument to make would (almost tautologically) be able to find a more mainstream venue to make it in.
Those are two different issues: you're conflating the issue of females who want to fight being allowed to do so with the issue of females who don't want to fight being allowed to refrain from doing so -- a right they have that males do not. What reason, other than hypocrisy, could feminists have for consistently leaving that latter particular aspect of equal rights out?
"We want to be equal except where being unequal suits us" is not an argument that would advance the cause.
(Note: I'm in favor of women having equal rights... in all cases.)
On the contrary, if you try to bend a sword along the flat side of its blade (the weak axis) it'll flex easily. As an example, the fancy sword in the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon visibly vibrated just from being swung around in the air.
Now, if you apply force to it on edge -- such as by using it to cut something -- then it will be very stiff, but that's because it's also very thick along that axis.
Indeed -- Apple would get better bang for their buck (or rather, stiffness for their thickness) by increasing the thickness of the material forming the sides of the case rather than the back... but it would still be less effective than increasing the overall depth of the device while leaving the case thickness the same.
It's (mostly) not the material, it's the geometry. The bending modulus of any material depends on the cube of its thickness. Making something both thin and rigid is disproportionately hard, no matter what material you make it out of.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, "throwback" is better than regular, so it would have to be gigabit ethernet.
Yeah, just like how you're "placing yourself beyond the law" if they get a warrant to search your 100-acre farm and you refuse to tell them where the bodies are buried.
Oh wait, that's not how it works at all!
Not to mention, they're called search warrants for a reason: it gives them the right to look for the information, but doesn't require that you actively help them find it. If you were required to tell them where to dig for the bodies -- or what your encryption key is -- then they'd call them "find" warrants instead!
If you can't afford to live near work, then that job is unsustainable. If you're that desperate, beg on a street corner until you can afford to take a cheap bus to North Dakota and work in the oil fields.
People at the earlyretirementextreme.com and mrmoneymustache.com forums manage it.
Besides, we're talking about a desperate situation here. "Practical" is not the issue. It's "possible," and that's enough.
You crash at a friend's house, or sub-let a room.
You live near work and walk (or ride a bike).
That's not as big a cost as you think. You see, these kinds of car dealers that specialize in bad-credit buyers expect to repossess the cars eventually. They don't make their money from buying a car and selling it once at a higher price; they make their money from selling, repossessing, and re-selling the same car over and over again, while collecting usurious interest payments in the intervals between sale and repossession. All these devices do is make the cycle more efficient (and thus more profitable) by shortening the time between the first non-payment and the repossession.
It probably is an 8 year old car. The monthly payment is so high because A) the buyer paid a hugely inflated price, B) it's probably got an incredibly high interest rate, and C) it might even have leftover debt from the previous car (that probably also got repossessed*) rolled in.
Remember, places that prey^W specialize on bad-credit buyers are not really car dealers; they're loan sharks that incidentally let you borrow a car. Here's their business model:
(* Is it possible to still owe money on a car after it's been repossessed? I don't know, but it's certainly possible to claim to a bad-credit car buyer that they do.)
Haven't you been blaming your own politicians and your own politicians for going along with it? I'll assume you have.
Clearly, however, complaining to your own politicians and corporations hasn't done you any good. And now you know how the American public feels, since complaining to our politicians and corporations hasn't done us any good either!
That's a good idea. Another idea would be that the ACLU (or similar organization) could create a "whistleblower stipend fund" so that whistleblowers could be taken care of whether they could find a job or not.
Exactly! Why should I give up my nice house in Atlanta (not to mention my friends and family) for the "privilege" of living in some overpriced hovel in California? After adjusting for cost-of-living, I'm paid better than I would be at a comparable job there.
Once you clarify what you're talking about, I don't see anything funny about it.
The world is going neither "right" nor "left", it's going more authoritarian on an orthogonal axis.
No, the authoritarian left (e.g. US Democratic Party) wants to manipulate people through government. The authoritarian right (e.g. US Republican Party) wants to manipulate people through privatized industry. Neither is interested in leaving people alone.
There are those, on both the left and right, who actually do want smaller government and more liberty for the individual, but they are not in power in either major US political party.
Indeed; the only hope is to vote independent, libertarian or green.
See, this is why the whole "right wing"/"left wing" rhetoric is a dangerous false dichotomy. Authoritarianism can come equally easily from either side of the aisle; when it comes from the so-called "right" we label it fascism or NAZI-ism; when it comes from the so-called "left" we name it "socialism" or "communism."
However, the "left" and "right" don't have to be authoritarian! Anti-authoritarians on the "right" are called "libertarians" and anti-authoritarians on the "left" are called "greens" or even "hippies."
TL;DR; if you've been duped into complaining about the "right wing" (or the "left wing," for that matter) when you're actually trying to complain about authoritarianism, you are part of the problem!
Not to mention, how would totalitarian Internet surveillance help that situation even slightly (let alone help so Goddamned incredibly well to even begin to come close to "justifying" the loss of liberty!)?
FTFY. That organization clearly represents a subset of feminists, namely, those who chose serve in the military. I see no reason to believe that their view is representational of non-military feminists. In other words, I reject the notion that I committed the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and instead posit that you committed an assortment of inductive fallacies, such as fallacy of composition or cherry picking.
Besides, I already clarified that I'm trying to claim that most feminists don't argue for it.
I'd like to ask the same thing to the folks who designed my Nexus 5.
Most feminists are not in the military; therefore, a group representing only people in the military cannot possibly represent most feminists. Moreover, of course people who volunteered to serve in the military would be willing to serve in the military!
To prove your case, you need to find some feminists saying something to the effect of "I don't want to be in the military (you can tell because I didn't volunteer), but I believe, in the name of equality, that I should be required to register for the draft anyway."
There are "purely biological and existential reasons" for a lot of things, but such arguments don't seem to count if they're contrary to the feminist agenda.
Right, but the problem is that most feminists -- other than the ones who want to join the military anyway -- appear to be okay with it. Otherwise, whenever they make a list of grievances, "women should be allowed to fight on the front lines" would appear as a line item right alongside "women should be required to register for the draft" (or alternatively, "men should not be required to register for the draft, since women are not" -- either way works). I assert that the latter item is very often omitted, and that said omission is due to (conscious or unconscious) hypocrisy.
Let's be honest: 4chan is where people go to rant because it's among the least-censored places on the 'net, after they've worn out their welcome at the more-censored ones. Anybody with a less-extremist argument to make would (almost tautologically) be able to find a more mainstream venue to make it in.
Those are two different issues: you're conflating the issue of females who want to fight being allowed to do so with the issue of females who don't want to fight being allowed to refrain from doing so -- a right they have that males do not. What reason, other than hypocrisy, could feminists have for consistently leaving that latter particular aspect of equal rights out?
"We want to be equal except where being unequal suits us" is not an argument that would advance the cause.
(Note: I'm in favor of women having equal rights... in all cases.)
On the contrary, if you try to bend a sword along the flat side of its blade (the weak axis) it'll flex easily. As an example, the fancy sword in the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon visibly vibrated just from being swung around in the air.
Now, if you apply force to it on edge -- such as by using it to cut something -- then it will be very stiff, but that's because it's also very thick along that axis.
Indeed -- Apple would get better bang for their buck (or rather, stiffness for their thickness) by increasing the thickness of the material forming the sides of the case rather than the back... but it would still be less effective than increasing the overall depth of the device while leaving the case thickness the same.
It's (mostly) not the material, it's the geometry. The bending modulus of any material depends on the cube of its thickness. Making something both thin and rigid is disproportionately hard, no matter what material you make it out of.
Indeed, that is what would happen if we don't develop sustainable infrastructure!
I assume that a pistol would be much easier to smuggle than a nuclear bomb.