Android without a malicious telco is not outright bad. There's typically a bootloader and some minor parts that can't be reviewed, though -- and the phone really needs to be rooted and reloaded with some known-good build.
I'm not paranoid, but trusting people is good only if they have some incentive to be trustworthy. A closed app on the other hand gives them no benefits for being honest and plenty of opportunities to try to make additional dime at your cost.
I thought this was the way you were going. For servers, Debian is the only Linux I'll use. I've even installed it on a Palm TX with a modified input library so that I knew exactly what was going on underneath. I've personally reviewed a LOT of the core Debian code, and compiled it myself to ensure there were no shady linkers etc.
But when you get into the commodity market, this doesn't fly. Android has enough closed bits that you can't trust it -- and the hardware that Android runs on is inherently untrustable. You can always set it behind a firewall and do packet inspection for WiFi operation, to protect against data exfiltration -- but good luck firewalling the cellular signal for data analysis.
So, you need to figure out what's "good enough". What data are you OK with leaking? What data are you OK with not trusting?
Closed apps have incentive to be trustworthy, because they're a black box with I/O. If the I/O doesn't line up, the product's going to be dropped, and ALL the black boxes made by that company will be untrusted, unlike open source where if there's something slipped in, it will be fixed, but the rest of the code is still generally trusted. Because of this, it is in a closed source vendor's best interests not to slip things in that may be found out. This means that they'll likely slip in a few bugs, some stolen code, a hacky shortcut or two, but all it takes is one vendor in the space to pull one fast one and be found out, and nobody's going to do that anymore.
This falls down with things like, say, the Android Marketplace, where anyone can set up as many "companies" as they want. If one gets found out doing something dodgy, they close down the "company" and keep going with the others. It's the ultimate shell game for information.
This is why I like compiling code and using "jailbroken" devices. But this isn't going to work for anyone who can't do their own code review, therefore it's not a simple solution.
There's a simple solution: never install programs from an untrusted source, such as an app store. A source that's trustworthy has the sources you can download and read -- and if any such a logic bomb is found, it can be removed immediately -- not that code with such a bomb should be really allowed back without a thorough review. This possibility makes such sabotage virtually absent in free software.
This is a SIMPLE solution? You're going to get some bare hardware, pressure the manufacturers of the hardware components for the source and flashing tools for the firmware (so that you can personally code review the firmware prior to flashing). Of course, you also have to bootstrap your flashing tool to ensure it's not injecting something. Next, you have to do a full code review of the OS you dump onto the device, with only people you trust doing the review. When that's done, you start in on the apps themselves.
By the time you're done, it's 5 years later, and everything you're running is woefully obsolete and incompatible with what all the "good enough" users are using.
You have to trust people to some degree just to get things done. Openness of code is nice, but you still have to trust the reviewers and the review process (and that what got reviewed is actually what gets installed).
It also means that 99.2% of police officers are likely operating within their mandate
That doesn't follow from the 0.8%, because (as you mentioned) these are just from the ones that were lodged and every cop that "follows the rules" and covers for a bad cop, is also a bad cop. There are good cops out there, but the US police force is still rotten to the core.
While very plausible, there is no "US Police Force" -- which is probably why some forces appear to be rather sub-par. When you can have some guy and his brother being the judge and sheriff for a county with minimal outside oversight, even good-intentioned people can mess up.
Of course, NYC is often cited (along with LA) as the places with rotten cops -- and these are huge forces that should have processes in place to stop most of the malpractice.
There probably need to be stiffer penalties for covering up a known offense by a fellow officer though.
all of my family is in law enforcement, so i tend to agree with you. not saying there are not bad cops, i have just not met one.
What about all those cops captured on video abusing their authority, lying about the facts, committing crimes, etc.?
This comes under "Officers of the law, being from time to time exempt from statutes of the law, must be held to a higher standard than those who are under the law."
On the other side of the argument:
There are as of 2006, 683,396 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. There are approx. 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government adding up to a total number of 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S.
So, assuming that number is representative, we have approximately 0.8% of all police officers cited in misconduct cases per year. Note that this is *cited* meaning a complaint has been *lodged*. This means it includes unfounded complaints and misses unreported complaints. It also means that 99.2% of police officers are likely operating within their mandate, which means it's easily likely that someone who hangs out with a bunch of cops will never have met one of the "bad" ones.
That said, being held to a higher standard and actually *being* a higher standard of human being are not the same thing. Due to the stressful type of job policing is and the personality type that gravitates toward the job, there's likely a statistically significant level of abuse that would go unnoticed in most parts of society, but is highly visible and unacceptable here.
technology theoretically allows the kind of workforce amplification that would allow for a near utopia society. We could all have been working 20 hour work weeks and earn more than enough for an upper middle class lifestyle if it were not for the leaching plutocratic class.
You forgot something: as a society, we've traded in 20 hour work weeks for improved lifestyles -- someone 50 years ago spent time cleaning the house and doing maintenance on personal items -- now, we live in a disposable society, have things that last longer, are more efficient, and take care of more of the humdrum tasks -- and spend more time listening to music, talking on the phone, watching TV/Movies and playing games. But these things have associated costs, so we also spend that extra time working to pay off the fancier cars and all the entertainment products we consume.
Of course, this totally leaves out healthcare, which is significantly improved, but eats up a significant portion of our paystub as well.
I for one would not trade my 40 hour work week for a 20 hour work week in the conditions my grandparent's endured (of course, I'd be out of work if this was the case, as my job is supported by those improved conditions, and didn't exist 50 years ago).
Not really. 35%, on average, achieve the same income quintile as they were born into. Given that if it were determined purely by random chance, we'd still get a 20% repetition between generations, it's pretty clear that the "class you were born in is the class you die in" is...kind of an over generalization.
Ah; so you're saying those rich kids blowing all their money and ending life destitute are throwing off the averages?
Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians. A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.
The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational. If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.
It doesn't matter if a politician is rational -- he represents a group of people with diverse interests. Therefore, he must behave irrationally or be voted out in the next election. This is what we get by having career politicians. If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda. I'm not sure which system I'd prefer.
No snark intended... no sarcasm given. The terms describe things that are technical. If you want something more generic, I could go as far as "Database management architecture" and "database communication architecture" but that dumbs things down to the point where it ads nothing to the discussion. If you don't understand what a database is and how it works (and that we're talking about database management here), you're going to find this entire article over your head, not just the industry buzzwords.
Kind of like if we were discussing an article dealing with some new algorithm for sequencing DNA or some new tool being used by biochemists -- background reading is required to gain anything useful from the article -- explaining the buzzwords won't mean much.
We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average.
The main problem with the patent system today is not what can be patented, it's that it is *much* easier for some parties (like IBM) to file a huge volume of patents annually. As a result, even though patent examiners and the courts do not scale, due to the huge increase in patents applied for (and issued without full investigation), the load on the system is approaching unsustainable.
There were 1013094 utility patents issued up to 1912. There were 3015103 utility patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 2 million patents in 50 years. There were 8087094 utility patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 5.5 million patents in 50 years.
There were 42073 design patents issued up to 1912. There were 192004 design patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 150,000 patents in 50 years There were 651376 design patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 450,000 patents in 50 years
There were 0 plant patents issued up to 1912. There were 2117 plant patents issued up to 1962. There were 22428 plant patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 22,000 patents in 50 years.
There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1912. There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1962. There were over 2251 statutory inventions up to 2011.
The trend, while not horrendous, is significant. This doesn't even take into consideration patents that were reissued and so are still in the patent pool.
The applications are even worse: Utility Patent Applications (e) (inventions) 503,582 (2011) 490,226 456,106 456,321 456,154 425,967 390,733 356,943 342,441 334,445 326,508 295,926 270,187 243,062 215,257 195,187 (1996)
See any trends?
Something I'd be interested in is the number of distinct patent applicants per year -- I have a feeling that this number is stable or shrinking, but have nothing to back that up. A list of patent holders would also be interesting -- especially to see how it compares to the applicants.
Hadoop: massive data storage system framework... "Apache Hadoop is an open-source software framework that supports data-intensive distributed applications" MapReduce: a way of managing distributed clusters of data sets... "MapReduce is a programming model for processing large data sets, and the name of an implementation of the model by Google. MapReduce is typically used to do distributed computing on clusters of computers"
Scheduling framework: a framework for providing optimal scheduling of something such that events are handled in an optimal manner.
Agreed. And obviously it's actually having an impact at Apple, considering how had they've worked to avoid the spirit of the judgement. Apple is about image. If you want to set things straight, you don't fine them, you force them to publicly tarnish that image to set the record straight. Kind of hard to do the ol' "repeat it until everyone believes it" schtick when you're forced to refute it on your most visible message platform.
Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.
No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font. This may actually convince them not to do it again.
It's interesting... the first thought I had was that Microsoft was taking a page from the cable companies' playbook.
After all, people accept buying a service from them that: -sends you ads via snail mail -pays for content, but still shows ads inserted by the cable company -additionally shows entertainment you're subscribing to that contains its own ads -also includes product placement.
Microsoft/Apple et al still have a way to go to get to that level of audacity. Likely they'll get there though, calmly explaining that these added ads allow them to offer their products and services at a lower rate to us, the consumers.
perhaps this is some sort of spiritual test of my patience when people make these kinds of statements "elon musk will be the next steve jobs for recommending that the world's population use more of our planet's natural resources than its humans can actually get hold of", or am i missing something here?
You forgot about the walled garden "these cars will only run on approved Tesla roads or your warranty is void" bit. Of course, Tesla roads will go anywhere that anyone who is anyone would want to go, so it's not really an issue. That, and the hackers who keep finding places they can force an exit and run the car off along the large hobbyist road network.
Medical records are only kept for less than 5 years in Michigan?
That cannot be correct. Human medical histories have value a lot longer than that.
It's 5 years here too. If you want records kept longer than that, you have to do it yourself. Your *medical history* file is as long as you are with your current GP, and can include medical history from previous GPs if you have requested a transfer. But the records themselves? Ultrasound results? X-Rays? CT Scans? MRIs? Biopsy reports? Blood test details? Those get turfed after 5 years.
Andrew Brown, 49, requested a copy of a cardiac ultrasound he had in 2004 at the Worcestershire Royal Hospital.
2004 means nobody can reasonably claim that it's obsolete to the tune of £2000. Dude needs to sue the hospital and the government. This isn't a failing of single payer, it's corruption through and through.
2004 is 8 years ago -- I'm amazed that they still have the ultrasound on file and know where to find it!
Oh, and don't forget that the government tax load in Canada is more like 70% of your income. That is what it is going to take here as well, if not more. With the local taxes and state taxes added in you may find yourself getting 10% of your gross pay as take-home.
So worst case scenario (where you're making over $150,000/yr in Nova Scotia -- where you can live comfortably on $50,000/yr), you're paying around 36% total in income taxes and 10% sales tax. Most people are paying closer to 28% income tax and 12% sales tax.
Even if you had to pay sales tax on everything you earned/payed out and were the richest Canadian living in the worst possible location, you'd only be paying 60% of your money to the government -- and this implies you're making 4 figures or more (hint, you likely have enough money to have a team of accountants find you all sorts of tax dodges so you don't have to pay more than around 28%).
After deferred savings/donations/various rebates, I think 25% is a more average actual taxation level in Canada 1/4 of income, not 3/4 to 9/10.
And yet the medical system still functions. The only reason people think it's failing is that all the baby boomers are getting old and dying, so both the US and Canada are suddenly losing a significant portion of the population controlling the wealth of the nations year-over-year.
Hey... I have family members happily living healthy productive lives in their 90's thanks to Canadian Medicare, as well as relatives who are dealing with conditions that would have impoverished them had they lived in the US -- and they're still giving back to society through both taxes and increasing GDP.
So 1 person has some trouble getting some old files vs our current system where we let folks with cancer die.
Yeah, what a terrible tradeoff.
You know, after they died they certainly will not ask for old pictures. Problem solved.
Further than the "solution by death" system -- if the system is that old, why do they still have the records?
The problem I usually have is that all records older than about 5 years are destroyed, meaning that unless I specifically request the records and store them myself, all my long-term medical records vanish, leaving only a log of actions taken. Surely they can access records that are only 5 years old?
I'd love to live somewhere where this situation is even an issue.
So, the movie's interpretation is that we should be fighting hackers with our fists and they're calling that MORE realistic than previous Bond films? Yes, I'm sure the next time someone from China hacks the US, we can just send someone over to punch them. And that will not only stop them, but undo the virus, somehow. Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter was more realistic than this.
Well, which is more effective against an attacker controlling a botnet? Attempting to neutralize each bot and C&C system, or finding the guy(s) who pulls the strings and take him out? Sure, you still have the botnet in the second case, but nobody's telling it to actually do anything anymore. Plus, if you take out the botherder, you can always take his place....
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for reminding me... I need to update my .project file.
Debian is ------> that way. Go use it.
Android without a malicious telco is not outright bad. There's typically a bootloader and some minor parts that can't be reviewed, though -- and the phone really needs to be rooted and reloaded with some known-good build.
I'm not paranoid, but trusting people is good only if they have some incentive to be trustworthy. A closed app on the other hand gives them no benefits for being honest and plenty of opportunities to try to make additional dime at your cost.
I thought this was the way you were going.
For servers, Debian is the only Linux I'll use. I've even installed it on a Palm TX with a modified input library so that I knew exactly what was going on underneath. I've personally reviewed a LOT of the core Debian code, and compiled it myself to ensure there were no shady linkers etc.
But when you get into the commodity market, this doesn't fly. Android has enough closed bits that you can't trust it -- and the hardware that Android runs on is inherently untrustable. You can always set it behind a firewall and do packet inspection for WiFi operation, to protect against data exfiltration -- but good luck firewalling the cellular signal for data analysis.
So, you need to figure out what's "good enough". What data are you OK with leaking? What data are you OK with not trusting?
Closed apps have incentive to be trustworthy, because they're a black box with I/O. If the I/O doesn't line up, the product's going to be dropped, and ALL the black boxes made by that company will be untrusted, unlike open source where if there's something slipped in, it will be fixed, but the rest of the code is still generally trusted. Because of this, it is in a closed source vendor's best interests not to slip things in that may be found out. This means that they'll likely slip in a few bugs, some stolen code, a hacky shortcut or two, but all it takes is one vendor in the space to pull one fast one and be found out, and nobody's going to do that anymore.
This falls down with things like, say, the Android Marketplace, where anyone can set up as many "companies" as they want. If one gets found out doing something dodgy, they close down the "company" and keep going with the others. It's the ultimate shell game for information.
This is why I like compiling code and using "jailbroken" devices. But this isn't going to work for anyone who can't do their own code review, therefore it's not a simple solution.
There's a simple solution: never install programs from an untrusted source, such as an app store. A source that's trustworthy has the sources you can download and read -- and if any such a logic bomb is found, it can be removed immediately -- not that code with such a bomb should be really allowed back without a thorough review. This possibility makes such sabotage virtually absent in free software.
This is a SIMPLE solution? You're going to get some bare hardware, pressure the manufacturers of the hardware components for the source and flashing tools for the firmware (so that you can personally code review the firmware prior to flashing). Of course, you also have to bootstrap your flashing tool to ensure it's not injecting something. Next, you have to do a full code review of the OS you dump onto the device, with only people you trust doing the review. When that's done, you start in on the apps themselves.
By the time you're done, it's 5 years later, and everything you're running is woefully obsolete and incompatible with what all the "good enough" users are using.
You have to trust people to some degree just to get things done. Openness of code is nice, but you still have to trust the reviewers and the review process (and that what got reviewed is actually what gets installed).
If you don't use Twitter/Facebook, you're obviously hiding something.
...and that's a Good Thing.
It also means that 99.2% of police officers are likely operating within their mandate
That doesn't follow from the 0.8%, because (as you mentioned) these are just from the ones that were lodged and every cop that "follows the rules" and covers for a bad cop, is also a bad cop. There are good cops out there, but the US police force is still rotten to the core.
While very plausible, there is no "US Police Force" -- which is probably why some forces appear to be rather sub-par. When you can have some guy and his brother being the judge and sheriff for a county with minimal outside oversight, even good-intentioned people can mess up.
Of course, NYC is often cited (along with LA) as the places with rotten cops -- and these are huge forces that should have processes in place to stop most of the malpractice.
There probably need to be stiffer penalties for covering up a known offense by a fellow officer though.
all of my family is in law enforcement, so i tend to agree with you. not saying there are not bad cops, i have just not met one.
What about all those cops captured on video abusing their authority, lying about the facts, committing crimes, etc.?
This comes under "Officers of the law, being from time to time exempt from statutes of the law, must be held to a higher standard than those who are under the law."
On the other side of the argument:
There are as of 2006, 683,396 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. There are approx. 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government adding up to a total number of 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S.
--answers.com
How many cases of cops abusing their authority etc. have we seen?
http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-q2-npmsrp-national-police-misconduct-statistical-report/
3,240 Law enforcement officers cited in recorded police misconduct reports in first half of 2010.
So, assuming that number is representative, we have approximately 0.8% of all police officers cited in misconduct cases per year. Note that this is *cited* meaning a complaint has been *lodged*. This means it includes unfounded complaints and misses unreported complaints. It also means that 99.2% of police officers are likely operating within their mandate, which means it's easily likely that someone who hangs out with a bunch of cops will never have met one of the "bad" ones.
That said, being held to a higher standard and actually *being* a higher standard of human being are not the same thing. Due to the stressful type of job policing is and the personality type that gravitates toward the job, there's likely a statistically significant level of abuse that would go unnoticed in most parts of society, but is highly visible and unacceptable here.
technology theoretically allows the kind of workforce amplification that would allow for a near utopia society. We could all have been working 20 hour work weeks and earn more than enough for an upper middle class lifestyle if it were not for the leaching plutocratic class.
You forgot something: as a society, we've traded in 20 hour work weeks for improved lifestyles -- someone 50 years ago spent time cleaning the house and doing maintenance on personal items -- now, we live in a disposable society, have things that last longer, are more efficient, and take care of more of the humdrum tasks -- and spend more time listening to music, talking on the phone, watching TV/Movies and playing games. But these things have associated costs, so we also spend that extra time working to pay off the fancier cars and all the entertainment products we consume.
Of course, this totally leaves out healthcare, which is significantly improved, but eats up a significant portion of our paystub as well.
I for one would not trade my 40 hour work week for a 20 hour work week in the conditions my grandparent's endured (of course, I'd be out of work if this was the case, as my job is supported by those improved conditions, and didn't exist 50 years ago).
Not really. 35%, on average, achieve the same income quintile as they were born into. Given that if it were determined purely by random chance, we'd still get a 20% repetition between generations, it's pretty clear that the "class you were born in is the class you die in" is...kind of an over generalization.
Ah; so you're saying those rich kids blowing all their money and ending life destitute are throwing off the averages?
Informed and educated opinions leading to decisions do not work with without rational politicians.
A democracy cannot function without rational politicians and citizens.
The first thing I would want in a politician is that they are rational.
If they are corrupt then ok, we have to figure out what motivates them and we can work with it.
It doesn't matter if a politician is rational -- he represents a group of people with diverse interests. Therefore, he must behave irrationally or be voted out in the next election. This is what we get by having career politicians. If it was non-professional, we'd have people running for a single term, pissing the majority of their constituents off, but actually accomplishing at least part of their agenda. I'm not sure which system I'd prefer.
No snark intended... no sarcasm given. The terms describe things that are technical. If you want something more generic, I could go as far as "Database management architecture" and "database communication architecture" but that dumbs things down to the point where it ads nothing to the discussion. If you don't understand what a database is and how it works (and that we're talking about database management here), you're going to find this entire article over your head, not just the industry buzzwords.
Kind of like if we were discussing an article dealing with some new algorithm for sequencing DNA or some new tool being used by biochemists -- background reading is required to gain anything useful from the article -- explaining the buzzwords won't mean much.
Slashdot. Stuff that mutters.
Indeed...
We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average.
The main problem with the patent system today is not what can be patented, it's that it is *much* easier for some parties (like IBM) to file a huge volume of patents annually. As a result, even though patent examiners and the courts do not scale, due to the huge increase in patents applied for (and issued without full investigation), the load on the system is approaching unsustainable.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/issuyear.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm
There were 1013094 utility patents issued up to 1912.
There were 3015103 utility patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 2 million patents in 50 years.
There were 8087094 utility patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 5.5 million patents in 50 years.
There were 42073 design patents issued up to 1912.
There were 192004 design patents issued up to 1962 -- roughly 150,000 patents in 50 years
There were 651376 design patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 450,000 patents in 50 years
There were 0 plant patents issued up to 1912.
There were 2117 plant patents issued up to 1962.
There were 22428 plant patents issued up to 2012 -- roughly 22,000 patents in 50 years.
There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1912.
There were 0 statutory inventions up to 1962.
There were over 2251 statutory inventions up to 2011.
The trend, while not horrendous, is significant. This doesn't even take into consideration patents that were reissued and so are still in the patent pool.
The applications are even worse:
Utility Patent Applications (e) (inventions)
503,582 (2011)
490,226
456,106
456,321
456,154
425,967
390,733
356,943
342,441
334,445
326,508
295,926
270,187
243,062
215,257
195,187 (1996)
See any trends?
Something I'd be interested in is the number of distinct patent applicants per year -- I have a feeling that this number is stable or shrinking, but have nothing to back that up. A list of patent holders would also be interesting -- especially to see how it compares to the applicants.
Hadoop: massive data storage system framework... "Apache Hadoop is an open-source software framework that supports data-intensive distributed applications"
MapReduce: a way of managing distributed clusters of data sets... "MapReduce is a programming model for processing large data sets, and the name of an implementation of the model by Google. MapReduce is typically used to do distributed computing on clusters of computers"
Scheduling framework: a framework for providing optimal scheduling of something such that events are handled in an optimal manner.
Or, to put it another way:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hadoop
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mapreduce
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scheduling+framework
Cisco has unwisely been fighting a land war in Asia too.
That's LAN war....
Public shame is very effective in the schoolyard.
Agreed. And obviously it's actually having an impact at Apple, considering how had they've worked to avoid the spirit of the judgement. Apple is about image. If you want to set things straight, you don't fine them, you force them to publicly tarnish that image to set the record straight. Kind of hard to do the ol' "repeat it until everyone believes it" schtick when you're forced to refute it on your most visible message platform.
Time to make them print some posters and put them on the main entrance doors of every apple store in the UK. Nothing else on the poster, just the apology. In two-inch tall Helvetica. Make them keep it there for a month. Any attempts to obscure the text or make it difficult for the public to see result in contempt of court and 30-day jail time for the head of Apple.
No... to really hammer it home as part of a judgement, it should be in two-inch tall Arial Bold. Have Apple suffer having to display some competitor's ugly font. This may actually convince them not to do it again.
Apple apps don't have any ads, even bundled apps. Will they eventually go there? Well, they do have a patent for that...
Indeed, although the Apple weather app gets awfully close to having ads -- the details button takes you to a Yahoo page that contains ads.
Only a fool judges and disrespects other people's belief system(s).
Wait a minute... are you calling my belief system foolish?
It's interesting... the first thought I had was that Microsoft was taking a page from the cable companies' playbook.
After all, people accept buying a service from them that:
-sends you ads via snail mail
-pays for content, but still shows ads inserted by the cable company
-additionally shows entertainment you're subscribing to that contains its own ads
-also includes product placement.
Microsoft/Apple et al still have a way to go to get to that level of audacity. Likely they'll get there though, calmly explaining that these added ads allow them to offer their products and services at a lower rate to us, the consumers.
perhaps this is some sort of spiritual test of my patience when people make these kinds of statements "elon musk will be the next steve jobs for recommending that the world's population use more of our planet's natural resources than its humans can actually get hold of", or am i missing something here?
All you're missing is the tunnel vision.
You forgot about the walled garden "these cars will only run on approved Tesla roads or your warranty is void" bit. Of course, Tesla roads will go anywhere that anyone who is anyone would want to go, so it's not really an issue. That, and the hackers who keep finding places they can force an exit and run the car off along the large hobbyist road network.
Maybe we need a car analogy?
Medical records are only kept for less than 5 years in Michigan?
That cannot be correct. Human medical histories have value a lot longer than that.
It's 5 years here too. If you want records kept longer than that, you have to do it yourself.
Your *medical history* file is as long as you are with your current GP, and can include medical history from previous GPs if you have requested a transfer. But the records themselves? Ultrasound results? X-Rays? CT Scans? MRIs? Biopsy reports? Blood test details? Those get turfed after 5 years.
First paragraph of TFA (emphasis added):
Andrew Brown, 49, requested a copy of a cardiac ultrasound he had in 2004 at the Worcestershire Royal Hospital.
2004 means nobody can reasonably claim that it's obsolete to the tune of £2000. Dude needs to sue the hospital and the government. This isn't a failing of single payer, it's corruption through and through.
2004 is 8 years ago -- I'm amazed that they still have the ultrasound on file and know where to find it!
Oh, and don't forget that the government tax load in Canada is more like 70% of your income. That is what it is going to take here as well, if not more. With the local taxes and state taxes added in you may find yourself getting 10% of your gross pay as take-home.
I was with you up until here.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
So worst case scenario (where you're making over $150,000/yr in Nova Scotia -- where you can live comfortably on $50,000/yr), you're paying around 36% total in income taxes and 10% sales tax. Most people are paying closer to 28% income tax and 12% sales tax.
Even if you had to pay sales tax on everything you earned/payed out and were the richest Canadian living in the worst possible location, you'd only be paying 60% of your money to the government -- and this implies you're making 4 figures or more (hint, you likely have enough money to have a team of accountants find you all sorts of tax dodges so you don't have to pay more than around 28%).
After deferred savings/donations/various rebates, I think 25% is a more average actual taxation level in Canada 1/4 of income, not 3/4 to 9/10.
And yet the medical system still functions. The only reason people think it's failing is that all the baby boomers are getting old and dying, so both the US and Canada are suddenly losing a significant portion of the population controlling the wealth of the nations year-over-year.
Hey... I have family members happily living healthy productive lives in their 90's thanks to Canadian Medicare, as well as relatives who are dealing with conditions that would have impoverished them had they lived in the US -- and they're still giving back to society through both taxes and increasing GDP.
So 1 person has some trouble getting some old files vs our current system where we let folks with cancer die.
Yeah, what a terrible tradeoff.
You know, after they died they certainly will not ask for old pictures. Problem solved.
Further than the "solution by death" system -- if the system is that old, why do they still have the records?
The problem I usually have is that all records older than about 5 years are destroyed, meaning that unless I specifically request the records and store them myself, all my long-term medical records vanish, leaving only a log of actions taken. Surely they can access records that are only 5 years old?
I'd love to live somewhere where this situation is even an issue.
So, the movie's interpretation is that we should be fighting hackers with our fists and they're calling that MORE realistic than previous Bond films? Yes, I'm sure the next time someone from China hacks the US, we can just send someone over to punch them. And that will not only stop them, but undo the virus, somehow. Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter was more realistic than this.
Well, which is more effective against an attacker controlling a botnet? Attempting to neutralize each bot and C&C system, or finding the guy(s) who pulls the strings and take him out? Sure, you still have the botnet in the second case, but nobody's telling it to actually do anything anymore. Plus, if you take out the botherder, you can always take his place....