Hold on. The headline is very misleading. He did NOT say they would attempt to crack if the government ASKED. He said they would do it ONLY for a court order, which is not ASKING, it is demanding.
Put a satellite in LEO? NASA did that more than 50 years ago.
Have a rocket catch on fire? NASA did that many times in the 1950s, and again in 1967.
Land a rocket on a barge? They never did that, because NASA's attempt at reusable rockets was based on tech from the 1970s. NASA could do it with modern tech, but why should they, when they can buy launch services from the private sector?
Can someone please explain to me how "people of color" are more likely to have the same name and birthdate as people in other states?
Blacks have less variety in their last names. When slavery ended in 1865, most freedmen took the name of the plantation owner where they worked. At the time, the states of the ex-Confederacy were mostly of English or Scottish ancestry. So blacks have names like Smith and Jones, but very rarely Kowalski or Schmidt.
Asians and Hispanics are also much more likely than whites to have name collisions.
From the Wikipedia page: "white voters are underrepresented by 8 percent, African Americans are overrepresented by 45 percent; Hispanic voters are overrepresented by 24 percent; and Asian voters are overrepresented by 31 percent"
People lower on the economic ladder are also likely to have fewer resources to appeal and rectify their removal.
Also, how is "same name and birthdate" considered to be "vague criteria"? It seems perfectly clear to me.
It is vague in the sense of being inaccurate, out-of-date, and maintained by people with partisan motives.
... no, you should NOT look away and censor it yourself! You should look right at it
You would still be missing the smell. The pungent odor of sweaty clothes that haven't been washed in weeks, burnt cordite, smoke and diesel fumes from burning vehicles, and the smell of your hole-mate's entrails: feces from his ruptured colon, the smell of vomit from his stomach, and piss from severed nerves to his urethral sphincter.
Anyone that thinks war is glorious has never smelled a battlefield.
He answered the question. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his answer a "cop out". What were you expecting? Red Hat created Systemd. It is their baby. They are not going to abandon it. If it is so important to you, then install Slackware, and you will not only be able to tweak your init system, but you can tweak anything else you want, and experience pure raw Linux.
Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not?
Yes, no new wealth is created, only redistributed. But in a class action, a far greater share goes to the lawyers.
A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole.
The problem is that with Equifax, the "injured party" is pretty much everybody. So where is the money going to come from? From the shareholders, which means the mutual funds in everyone's 401k, and from customers in the form of higher prices in the future. So everyone pays, the lawyers skim off the lion's share, and then everyone gets back a small fraction of what they paid.
How much money do you think these "obviously" better off working people are going to get? Equifax's profit last years was about $480M, which is less than $3 per injured individual. Simply mailing the checks will eat up a major portion of any conceivable settlement.
Taking a deliberately simple analogy literally is what is absurd.
Well then, I apologize for thinking you meant what you said.
My implication is that someone making 60K in SF may be worse off than someone making 15K in a developing nation.
If you think "$10 per month" comes out to $15k annually, then you need a new calculator. Your "implication" was off by a factor of more than a hundred.
You are addressing the wrong problem. Storing the data is not the problem. Scanning it is. Loading thousands or millions of pages into a scanner is a mostly manual process. Who is going to pay for that? Not me.
If scanning a page takes a second, and you are paying $10/hr, then scanning a million pages would cost $2800.
If each page is a megabyte, then a million pages would be a terabyte, which costs less than $20.
Scanning is a hundred times as expensive as storing.
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
How is this "obvious"? In a class action lawsuit, no net wealth is created, and all the legal fees and a large portion of the award goes to lawyers. So it is obvious that it make all the non-lawyers collectively worse off.
You example is absurd. There is no where in the world where a "luxury apartment" rents for $2, and no where that $4500 will get you only a "hole in the wall".
You implication that someone making $60k in America is worse off than impoverished Africans making 30 cents a day is idiotic.
Here in this country there are people who can't afford rent and food on a full time job.
Over the last 20 years, food prices in America have gone DOWN. Per square foot, housing prices are unchanged. Houses are more expensive mostly because they are bigger. Housing prices have soared in some coastal cities (which also tend to have high incomes), but in most of America, food and housing are more affordable than ever before.
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people? Your elitist "know-it-all" attitude is part of the problem. If you really want to know why working class people are abandoning the Democratic Party, perhaps you should talk to some of them, and spend less time lecturing and more time listening.
I would argue that in some regards people are better off, even the poor
People are WAY better off, ESPECIALLY the poor.
Don't mistake what is happening in America (and Europe) for what is happening worldwide. Over the last 20 years, nearly everyone is doing better, with the biggest gains going to the poorest people earning between $0 and $3 per day. The only "losers" have been unskilled poor people in rich countries, which is only about 5% of the global population. By worldwide standards, the American poverty line puts you at about the 85% level of global income: They are "rich" by global standards.
Raising money is only one reason to Kickstart. The other reason is to measure interest, and decide if a project is worthwhile. I worked on a project that had been Kickstarted. ~50 people chipped in to pre-buy. When the project was complete, ~5000 units were sold. I don't know if that 100-factor multiplier is typical, but it seems reasonable. So if you need to sell 10000 units to cover NRE, and you are unable to get 100 people to pre-buy, then perhaps you should cancel the project.
So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.
No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.
Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.
It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.
Bullcrap. Chrome has about half the market. Firefox is at about 6%, about half of Safari's share.
I only use Firefox for Selenium scripts, and even for that I have to use an old version since the latest releases of FF no longer work with Selenium. Web automation was the only area where Firefox was superior... so they broke it.
I'm pretty sure Robin Hood never caused any bluescreen which made people lose hours of work.
Indeed. Bill is not "evil" because he took everyone's money. He is evil because he used unethical business practices to push shoddy products that held back progress.
Ah, it looks like the financial sector are going to explore the limitations of automated p-hacking.
This is a common and known problem with machine learning, where it is known as "overfitting". There are many remedies, the most important is to separate your data into "training data" and "testing (or validation) data".
And they play off the general rise in the stock market as their ability to make people money.
That is one way, but another trick is to launch dozens of funds, and shutdown those that lose money. So if you start 32 funds, and purely by chance half beat the market after a year, so you shutdown the other 16. After two year, you have eight left, after three years, you have four,... and finally after 5 years, you have a fund that beat the market five years in a row, which you can then promote as obvious proof that you are smart at picking stocks.
Slashdot Mirror
Brute forcing the encryption is impossible in a practical sense, but that is not the only, or even the best way to crack a phone.
Backdoors?
Bugs?
Soak the phone in liquid N2, then remove the RAM and scan the VM.
Check the keyboard/screen for abnormal wearing or body oil.
he is implying he will not contest anything or even look too hard.
You are stretching his words far beyond anything he actually said. He doesn't say he would challenge a court order, he doesn't say he wouldn't.
Hold on. The headline is very misleading. He did NOT say they would attempt to crack if the government ASKED. He said they would do it ONLY for a court order, which is not ASKING, it is demanding.
All companies are required to obey court orders.
So why couldn't NASA do this?
Do what?
Put a satellite in LEO? NASA did that more than 50 years ago.
Have a rocket catch on fire? NASA did that many times in the 1950s, and again in 1967.
Land a rocket on a barge? They never did that, because NASA's attempt at reusable rockets was based on tech from the 1970s. NASA could do it with modern tech, but why should they, when they can buy launch services from the private sector?
Can someone please explain to me how "people of color" are more likely to have the same name and birthdate as people in other states?
Blacks have less variety in their last names. When slavery ended in 1865, most freedmen took the name of the plantation owner where they worked. At the time, the states of the ex-Confederacy were mostly of English or Scottish ancestry. So blacks have names like Smith and Jones, but very rarely Kowalski or Schmidt.
Asians and Hispanics are also much more likely than whites to have name collisions.
From the Wikipedia page: "white voters are underrepresented by 8 percent, African Americans are overrepresented by 45 percent; Hispanic voters are overrepresented by 24 percent; and Asian voters are overrepresented by 31 percent"
People lower on the economic ladder are also likely to have fewer resources to appeal and rectify their removal.
Also, how is "same name and birthdate" considered to be "vague criteria"? It seems perfectly clear to me.
It is vague in the sense of being inaccurate, out-of-date, and maintained by people with partisan motives.
... no, you should NOT look away and censor it yourself! You should look right at it
You would still be missing the smell. The pungent odor of sweaty clothes that haven't been washed in weeks, burnt cordite, smoke and diesel fumes from burning vehicles, and the smell of your hole-mate's entrails: feces from his ruptured colon, the smell of vomit from his stomach, and piss from severed nerves to his urethral sphincter.
Anyone that thinks war is glorious has never smelled a battlefield.
A CEO of a multi-billion corporation who actually tries to keep up with his technology down to the nitty gritty details.
You are assuming he wrote all his own replies with no help from any of his 10,700 employees.
A complete cop-out over systemd
He answered the question. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make his answer a "cop out". What were you expecting? Red Hat created Systemd. It is their baby. They are not going to abandon it. If it is so important to you, then install Slackware, and you will not only be able to tweak your init system, but you can tweak anything else you want, and experience pure raw Linux.
If the Army starts flying fixed wing aircraft, the Air Force has no reason to exist.
The Air Force would still have strategic bombers, ICBMs, and air superiority fighters. The Army would only take over close air support.
The Marines have their own fixed wing close air support, but the Navy still has their own aviation for fleet defense, etc.
That $10/month number was an exaggeration to make a point
$10 per month puts a household in the bottom 1% level of global income. $15k means a household earns more than 85% of the world.
Yes, $60k in SF might make you only better off than 85% of the world. But saying it puts you in the bottom 1% is completely idiotic.
Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not?
Yes, no new wealth is created, only redistributed. But in a class action, a far greater share goes to the lawyers.
A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole.
The problem is that with Equifax, the "injured party" is pretty much everybody. So where is the money going to come from? From the shareholders, which means the mutual funds in everyone's 401k, and from customers in the form of higher prices in the future. So everyone pays, the lawyers skim off the lion's share, and then everyone gets back a small fraction of what they paid.
How much money do you think these "obviously" better off working people are going to get? Equifax's profit last years was about $480M, which is less than $3 per injured individual. Simply mailing the checks will eat up a major portion of any conceivable settlement.
Taking a deliberately simple analogy literally is what is absurd.
Well then, I apologize for thinking you meant what you said.
My implication is that someone making 60K in SF may be worse off than someone making 15K in a developing nation.
If you think "$10 per month" comes out to $15k annually, then you need a new calculator. Your "implication" was off by a factor of more than a hundred.
You are addressing the wrong problem. Storing the data is not the problem. Scanning it is. Loading thousands or millions of pages into a scanner is a mostly manual process. Who is going to pay for that? Not me.
If scanning a page takes a second, and you are paying $10/hr, then scanning a million pages would cost $2800.
If each page is a megabyte, then a million pages would be a terabyte, which costs less than $20.
Scanning is a hundred times as expensive as storing.
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
How is this "obvious"? In a class action lawsuit, no net wealth is created, and all the legal fees and a large portion of the award goes to lawyers. So it is obvious that it make all the non-lawyers collectively worse off.
You example is absurd. There is no where in the world where a "luxury apartment" rents for $2, and no where that $4500 will get you only a "hole in the wall".
You implication that someone making $60k in America is worse off than impoverished Africans making 30 cents a day is idiotic.
Here in this country there are people who can't afford rent and food on a full time job.
Over the last 20 years, food prices in America have gone DOWN. Per square foot, housing prices are unchanged. Houses are more expensive mostly because they are bigger. Housing prices have soared in some coastal cities (which also tend to have high incomes), but in most of America, food and housing are more affordable than ever before.
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people? Your elitist "know-it-all" attitude is part of the problem. If you really want to know why working class people are abandoning the Democratic Party, perhaps you should talk to some of them, and spend less time lecturing and more time listening.
I would argue that in some regards people are better off, even the poor
People are WAY better off, ESPECIALLY the poor.
Don't mistake what is happening in America (and Europe) for what is happening worldwide. Over the last 20 years, nearly everyone is doing better, with the biggest gains going to the poorest people earning between $0 and $3 per day. The only "losers" have been unskilled poor people in rich countries, which is only about 5% of the global population. By worldwide standards, the American poverty line puts you at about the 85% level of global income: They are "rich" by global standards.
Raising money is only one reason to Kickstart. The other reason is to measure interest, and decide if a project is worthwhile. I worked on a project that had been Kickstarted. ~50 people chipped in to pre-buy. When the project was complete, ~5000 units were sold. I don't know if that 100-factor multiplier is typical, but it seems reasonable. So if you need to sell 10000 units to cover NRE, and you are unable to get 100 people to pre-buy, then perhaps you should cancel the project.
So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.
No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.
Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.
It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.
Firefox remains the dominant browser
Bullcrap. Chrome has about half the market. Firefox is at about 6%, about half of Safari's share.
I only use Firefox for Selenium scripts, and even for that I have to use an old version since the latest releases of FF no longer work with Selenium. Web automation was the only area where Firefox was superior ... so they broke it.
The bigger picture is they know it's impractical, but falls into the "that's interesting" category.
They are trying to show that obsolete cell phones are useful, but the flagship application is something stupid and pointless.
Is there any application where it actually makes sense to use old cellphones as compute engines? I doubt it.
I'm pretty sure Robin Hood never caused any bluescreen which made people lose hours of work.
Indeed. Bill is not "evil" because he took everyone's money. He is evil because he used unethical business practices to push shoddy products that held back progress.
Ah, it looks like the financial sector are going to explore the limitations of automated p-hacking.
This is a common and known problem with machine learning, where it is known as "overfitting". There are many remedies, the most important is to separate your data into "training data" and "testing (or validation) data".
And they play off the general rise in the stock market as their ability to make people money.
That is one way, but another trick is to launch dozens of funds, and shutdown those that lose money. So if you start 32 funds, and purely by chance half beat the market after a year, so you shutdown the other 16. After two year, you have eight left, after three years, you have four, ... and finally after 5 years, you have a fund that beat the market five years in a row, which you can then promote as obvious proof that you are smart at picking stocks.