Reading this essay http://www.uclalawreview.org/t... seems to echo what you're saying. It really does come down to whether it is a "key" or a "combination". A key is a physical object, and courts can certainly compel defendants to produce a key, but it becomes more complex when a court wants to compel someone to produce a combination, which is strictly "in their head", and not a physical thing at all. The basic argument is that the Bill of Rights was never intended to give a criminal the capability of developing a sufficiently cunning safe that he could be the gatekeeper to his own incriminating evidence.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, since it is possible that one could have a crime where the only direct evidence is the body and an accused with an encrypted device. Unless the prosecution can actually provide a strong argument that they have an expectation that the accused kept some critical information on the encrypted device, I cannot imagine how a court could be justified in trying to compel the accused to cough up the password. That's probably a very hypothetical situation, as even arriving at the identity of the accused must mean at least some good circumstantial evidence, and perhaps the circumstantial evidence might be enough to convince the court that there is further evidence on the encrypted device.
Without doing a lengthy bit of research, it's clear to me that there is a helluva lot of pre-computer age jurisprudence at play here, and courts are reaching the point where they have to deal with a situation where the only thing you have is the physical evidence of a criminal act and a defendant, and the potentially incriminating evidence is sitting on an encrypted smartphone.
Indeed. When a company says "Hey, I'll be your middle man and handle all your payments for you, for ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!" one should run, not walk, from that company.
And how would the company's bank know anything? It's not like banks generally look at a depositor's balance sheet unless the company's looking for a loan.
It looks to me like some foolish and greedy people were taken in by a scam.
1. I use my phone as my communications center. I do a lot of correspondence on it, and the fact that I can get fast turnaround makes it pretty damned useful, if not outright critical, to my job. 2. It's convenient. I can read a book, watch a movie, mindlessly surf, without having to lug out a laptop. As a device to consume media, my smartphone can't be beat. 3. There are a million ways to be surveilled nowadays. Why not criticize people for using debit or credit cards, or going into buildings with CCTV? 4. I have purchased three smartphones, period, and they've lasted me about a 2.5 years a piece. I just bought a new one last October and don't contemplate I'll need to replace it for at least two years.
The world is quite different than 1998. Back then, Microsoft owned the operating system that dominated the consumer and enterprise world. It had the leverage to destroy just about any competing software, simply because those competitors had to run their software in a Microsoft ecosystem (remember how it destroyed Lotus 1-2-3).
Now, while MS still dominates the desktop, the desktop itself is become more marginalized as smartphones become if not primary computing devices, then heavily used computing devices. At the low end Chromebooks do seem to be nailing Microsoft pretty hard as well.
So how exactly is Microsoft going to crush Chrome? Sure, this Windows variant is going to make things a bit more difficult, but it's not really all that clear that it's going to be a big seller, and even if it is, it's still just going to be going up against a vast array of iOS and Android smartdevices.
Twenty years ago Microsoft was the king. It won the battle, it retained desktop champion status. Well bully for that.
iPhones and high end Android phones were "solid and convenient" as well, and they actually had a useful number of apps in the app store.
And then we can talk about Microsoft's long history of developing and then abandoning mobile platforms which, if rumors are true, is about to happen again.
I can't figure out why anybody would buy a Windows phone. And apparently they didn't. Microsoft has been in a race to the bottom with Blackberry for the last two or three years.
If you're an advocate for this, why not advocate for competing telcos to block each others' calls? If common carrier status is wrong, it's all wrong, and the free market should reign, right?
But the Obama Administration DID create the apparatus for net neutrality, so clearly they're not identical on this matter. Not that Obama didn't do a dozen unfriendly tech things, but on this particular file, he did the right thing, and the Republicans are going to unravel it. The only explanation being the incumbent cable companies and telcos can afford a lot more hookers and blow.
That is until Netflix doesn't pay the extortion that the ISP they're with requires, and suddenly they find themselves having to do a whole lot of waiting while video loads.
I don't even think Cruz is legitimately religious. He knows what buttons to push to get his voters riled up and to the polls. Most of these kinds of politicians don't have a genuine bone in their bodies. For them, religion is always the big show. They're the ones at the front of the church singing the loudest, proclaiming their faith in God the loudest, and believing it all the least. He's a con man.
Hypocrisy doesn't abrogate the need for taxes. The Founding Fathers' intent was not a libertarian paradise of no taxes, the intent was "no taxation without representation."
The article is rubbish. OOP programming, informally at least, has been around since the 1960s. Procedural programming has been around as long. Yes, the very first generation of languages were pretty bereft of "modern" features, but by the 1970s we had most of the paradigms of modern programming in place.
I should add that I do remember some class had a Radio Shack Model I (or maybe it was a Model II or III, they were hard to tell the difference), but I never used it. I do remember watching someone play Trek on it.
IQ tests are problematic, and are at best general indicators. And seeing as socio-economic conditions can and do influence IQ scores (see the Flynn Effect), trying to use IQ averages in populations to justify claims "whites are smarter thank blacks" makes IQ tests even more problematic.
Probably the best way to up general IQ scores in a population is to assure children get proper nutrition in infancy and childhood. So the real observation here is that IQ scores are probably measuring other phenomenon other than intelligence, making claims that some ethnic or racial groups are smarter than others pretty iffy at best.
Whatever the factuality of the Bell Curve, the Flynn Effect seems to counter it. Intelligence certainly has a genetic component, but it's probable that you won't really determine just how genetics influences intelligence so long as you have large segments of any given population who lack both academic avenues and basic requirements for academic and cognitive performance like decent food.
But hey, I get it, it's the age of the alt-right, where saying "Blacks are dumber than whites" is now apparently some sort of unassailable dogma, and where a previous generation's debunked or at least heavily questioned claims are brought back and again asserted to be absolute truth.
The first computer I remember using in school was an Apple II, I think it was in fifth grade. I remember playing Lemonade Stand and Oregon Trail. When I got into high school, they had computer labs that were made up of Apple IIs, Apple IIEs and some Apple II clones. Didn't see an PCs until a few years later when I took data processing (basically dBase III) and "office procedures" classes.
My actual first introduction to computers was my uncle, who had a Commodore 64, and between playing with that and in Apple BASIC at school, I pretty much begged and pleaded with anyone would listen to get me a computer.
The way it was explained to me is that printing, particularly in an age of "just in time printing" is not the most significant cost in publishing. Whether you distribute a book in physical form or electronic, the process is much the same, in that you have to take a manuscript, edit it, and put it into a publishable form. Now while an epub file (which is just a glorified bunch of HTML, image and meta files zipped together) doesn't require the kind of typesetting that a print book does, it still has to work off of the final copy produced.
Now that doesn't explain all of an ebook's costs, and I do think there's some gouging going on, but it's not as high as we think.
Because public schools are run by morons who are still stuck in 1950s in regards to assessing students. As it is, even with standardized IQ tests, the numbers have been rising in many populations, including African-Americans for decades, suggesting that what IQ measures isn't really raw cognitive capacity at all (ie. the Flynn Effect).
One of the biggest reasons for lower cognitive ability isn't genetic at all, but poor nutrition during the developmental years, and that's one of the reasons that socio-economic status has been viewed as a significant player in general and specific cognitive abilities. There's no doubt there's a genetic component, but like anything, genetics sets general parameters, and it is environment that takes over after conception. Considering that many ethno-racial groups in the Americas have not been equal beneficiaries of over all socio-economic improvements, that would strike me as a good reason for why we see phenomena like the Flynn Effect. But that's a rather dull explanation, and not one that allows some Neo-nazi to declare he's superior to African-Americans.
I agree there's not really any cost savings, but I read ebooks largely for convenience. As to DRM, the only place it really fucks me up is graphic novels, which I have yet to figure out how to unlock, but for anything I buy off of Google Play, thus far a combination of Adobe Digital Editions 4 and ePUBee seems to do the trick. I appreciate that at some point that won't work any more, and then I may have to reconsider how I consume books (at the moment I buy a book, immediately rip out the DRM and then archive the epub).
I like them for convenience. I've got an ereader on my tablet that syncs with the one on my phone. When I'm at home I'll read on the tablet, which has a much bigger display, but when I'm out, I can read the book on my phone. I find it convenient, and don't really read any fiction in real book form anymore.
You still have to police the videos, because it's not like the automated systems can tell with any reliability if you've put a Neo-nazi video in the Cute Fwuffy Bunny Video channel.
Oh fuck off you blithering moron. Advertisers have been pushing around their weight for fucking ever. Jesus fucking Christ, you couldn't even show an interracial kiss on TV in the 1960s without most of a network's southern affiliates refusing to broadcast the fucking episode, because their advertisers would freak out and pull their ads.
It's like people like you have lived in some weird bubble where you know absolutely fuck all about how the actual world fucking works. In an advertiser-supported platform, the advertisers are God, and if they decide that a topic is going to harm their brand, then they, as God, have the power to yank the advertising. Sometimes they do it for evil, such as trying to keep interracial kisses off the air half a century ago, and sometimes for good, as when they don't want their products associated with ISIS beheading videos or Neo-nazi fruitcakes. But they have the absolute authority to it, for better and for worse, and if you don't like it, start up your own video sharing service.
I fail to see how that proves Neanderthals were smarter than H. sapiens sapiens, and in fact the very article you quote makes no such claim. You just made up the conclusion.
So we have this measure which is iffy at best, and in most cases hopelessly biased towards certain socioeconomic groups, but hey, it's a great meme "Blacks are dumber than whites, and it's not racist because this groovy Intelligence Quotient test says so!"
In general, psychology and neurological sciences have long past moved away from IQ, simply because it's absurd to imagine that something as complex as human cognition can be fit into one number, considering cognition itself seems to be the product of multiple processing and memory systems in the brain.
So promoting "whites have higher IQs than blacks" *MAY* be true for some kinds of intelligence tests, that kind of testing is so flawed that it's hard to see how proponents of the claim aren't just racists once again using the cloak of pseudoscience to try to bolster their hatred.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading this essay http://www.uclalawreview.org/t... seems to echo what you're saying. It really does come down to whether it is a "key" or a "combination". A key is a physical object, and courts can certainly compel defendants to produce a key, but it becomes more complex when a court wants to compel someone to produce a combination, which is strictly "in their head", and not a physical thing at all. The basic argument is that the Bill of Rights was never intended to give a criminal the capability of developing a sufficiently cunning safe that he could be the gatekeeper to his own incriminating evidence.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, since it is possible that one could have a crime where the only direct evidence is the body and an accused with an encrypted device. Unless the prosecution can actually provide a strong argument that they have an expectation that the accused kept some critical information on the encrypted device, I cannot imagine how a court could be justified in trying to compel the accused to cough up the password. That's probably a very hypothetical situation, as even arriving at the identity of the accused must mean at least some good circumstantial evidence, and perhaps the circumstantial evidence might be enough to convince the court that there is further evidence on the encrypted device.
Without doing a lengthy bit of research, it's clear to me that there is a helluva lot of pre-computer age jurisprudence at play here, and courts are reaching the point where they have to deal with a situation where the only thing you have is the physical evidence of a criminal act and a defendant, and the potentially incriminating evidence is sitting on an encrypted smartphone.
Indeed. When a company says "Hey, I'll be your middle man and handle all your payments for you, for ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!" one should run, not walk, from that company.
And how would the company's bank know anything? It's not like banks generally look at a depositor's balance sheet unless the company's looking for a loan.
It looks to me like some foolish and greedy people were taken in by a scam.
1. I use my phone as my communications center. I do a lot of correspondence on it, and the fact that I can get fast turnaround makes it pretty damned useful, if not outright critical, to my job.
2. It's convenient. I can read a book, watch a movie, mindlessly surf, without having to lug out a laptop. As a device to consume media, my smartphone can't be beat.
3. There are a million ways to be surveilled nowadays. Why not criticize people for using debit or credit cards, or going into buildings with CCTV?
4. I have purchased three smartphones, period, and they've lasted me about a 2.5 years a piece. I just bought a new one last October and don't contemplate I'll need to replace it for at least two years.
The world is quite different than 1998. Back then, Microsoft owned the operating system that dominated the consumer and enterprise world. It had the leverage to destroy just about any competing software, simply because those competitors had to run their software in a Microsoft ecosystem (remember how it destroyed Lotus 1-2-3).
Now, while MS still dominates the desktop, the desktop itself is become more marginalized as smartphones become if not primary computing devices, then heavily used computing devices. At the low end Chromebooks do seem to be nailing Microsoft pretty hard as well.
So how exactly is Microsoft going to crush Chrome? Sure, this Windows variant is going to make things a bit more difficult, but it's not really all that clear that it's going to be a big seller, and even if it is, it's still just going to be going up against a vast array of iOS and Android smartdevices.
Twenty years ago Microsoft was the king. It won the battle, it retained desktop champion status. Well bully for that.
iPhones and high end Android phones were "solid and convenient" as well, and they actually had a useful number of apps in the app store.
And then we can talk about Microsoft's long history of developing and then abandoning mobile platforms which, if rumors are true, is about to happen again.
I can't figure out why anybody would buy a Windows phone. And apparently they didn't. Microsoft has been in a race to the bottom with Blackberry for the last two or three years.
If you're an advocate for this, why not advocate for competing telcos to block each others' calls? If common carrier status is wrong, it's all wrong, and the free market should reign, right?
But the Obama Administration DID create the apparatus for net neutrality, so clearly they're not identical on this matter. Not that Obama didn't do a dozen unfriendly tech things, but on this particular file, he did the right thing, and the Republicans are going to unravel it. The only explanation being the incumbent cable companies and telcos can afford a lot more hookers and blow.
That is until Netflix doesn't pay the extortion that the ISP they're with requires, and suddenly they find themselves having to do a whole lot of waiting while video loads.
I don't even think Cruz is legitimately religious. He knows what buttons to push to get his voters riled up and to the polls. Most of these kinds of politicians don't have a genuine bone in their bodies. For them, religion is always the big show. They're the ones at the front of the church singing the loudest, proclaiming their faith in God the loudest, and believing it all the least. He's a con man.
Hypocrisy doesn't abrogate the need for taxes. The Founding Fathers' intent was not a libertarian paradise of no taxes, the intent was "no taxation without representation."
Taxation has been necessary since the invention of civilization. If you want real theft, go to a libertarian paradise like Somalia.
The article is rubbish. OOP programming, informally at least, has been around since the 1960s. Procedural programming has been around as long. Yes, the very first generation of languages were pretty bereft of "modern" features, but by the 1970s we had most of the paradigms of modern programming in place.
I should add that I do remember some class had a Radio Shack Model I (or maybe it was a Model II or III, they were hard to tell the difference), but I never used it. I do remember watching someone play Trek on it.
PDFs are fine on larger tablets, but reflowable text is a must if you're reading on a small device like a phone.
IQ tests are problematic, and are at best general indicators. And seeing as socio-economic conditions can and do influence IQ scores (see the Flynn Effect), trying to use IQ averages in populations to justify claims "whites are smarter thank blacks" makes IQ tests even more problematic.
Probably the best way to up general IQ scores in a population is to assure children get proper nutrition in infancy and childhood. So the real observation here is that IQ scores are probably measuring other phenomenon other than intelligence, making claims that some ethnic or racial groups are smarter than others pretty iffy at best.
Whatever the factuality of the Bell Curve, the Flynn Effect seems to counter it. Intelligence certainly has a genetic component, but it's probable that you won't really determine just how genetics influences intelligence so long as you have large segments of any given population who lack both academic avenues and basic requirements for academic and cognitive performance like decent food.
But hey, I get it, it's the age of the alt-right, where saying "Blacks are dumber than whites" is now apparently some sort of unassailable dogma, and where a previous generation's debunked or at least heavily questioned claims are brought back and again asserted to be absolute truth.
The first computer I remember using in school was an Apple II, I think it was in fifth grade. I remember playing Lemonade Stand and Oregon Trail. When I got into high school, they had computer labs that were made up of Apple IIs, Apple IIEs and some Apple II clones. Didn't see an PCs until a few years later when I took data processing (basically dBase III) and "office procedures" classes.
My actual first introduction to computers was my uncle, who had a Commodore 64, and between playing with that and in Apple BASIC at school, I pretty much begged and pleaded with anyone would listen to get me a computer.
The way it was explained to me is that printing, particularly in an age of "just in time printing" is not the most significant cost in publishing. Whether you distribute a book in physical form or electronic, the process is much the same, in that you have to take a manuscript, edit it, and put it into a publishable form. Now while an epub file (which is just a glorified bunch of HTML, image and meta files zipped together) doesn't require the kind of typesetting that a print book does, it still has to work off of the final copy produced.
Now that doesn't explain all of an ebook's costs, and I do think there's some gouging going on, but it's not as high as we think.
Because public schools are run by morons who are still stuck in 1950s in regards to assessing students. As it is, even with standardized IQ tests, the numbers have been rising in many populations, including African-Americans for decades, suggesting that what IQ measures isn't really raw cognitive capacity at all (ie. the Flynn Effect).
One of the biggest reasons for lower cognitive ability isn't genetic at all, but poor nutrition during the developmental years, and that's one of the reasons that socio-economic status has been viewed as a significant player in general and specific cognitive abilities. There's no doubt there's a genetic component, but like anything, genetics sets general parameters, and it is environment that takes over after conception. Considering that many ethno-racial groups in the Americas have not been equal beneficiaries of over all socio-economic improvements, that would strike me as a good reason for why we see phenomena like the Flynn Effect. But that's a rather dull explanation, and not one that allows some Neo-nazi to declare he's superior to African-Americans.
I agree there's not really any cost savings, but I read ebooks largely for convenience. As to DRM, the only place it really fucks me up is graphic novels, which I have yet to figure out how to unlock, but for anything I buy off of Google Play, thus far a combination of Adobe Digital Editions 4 and ePUBee seems to do the trick. I appreciate that at some point that won't work any more, and then I may have to reconsider how I consume books (at the moment I buy a book, immediately rip out the DRM and then archive the epub).
I like them for convenience. I've got an ereader on my tablet that syncs with the one on my phone. When I'm at home I'll read on the tablet, which has a much bigger display, but when I'm out, I can read the book on my phone. I find it convenient, and don't really read any fiction in real book form anymore.
You still have to police the videos, because it's not like the automated systems can tell with any reliability if you've put a Neo-nazi video in the Cute Fwuffy Bunny Video channel.
Oh fuck off you blithering moron. Advertisers have been pushing around their weight for fucking ever. Jesus fucking Christ, you couldn't even show an interracial kiss on TV in the 1960s without most of a network's southern affiliates refusing to broadcast the fucking episode, because their advertisers would freak out and pull their ads.
It's like people like you have lived in some weird bubble where you know absolutely fuck all about how the actual world fucking works. In an advertiser-supported platform, the advertisers are God, and if they decide that a topic is going to harm their brand, then they, as God, have the power to yank the advertising. Sometimes they do it for evil, such as trying to keep interracial kisses off the air half a century ago, and sometimes for good, as when they don't want their products associated with ISIS beheading videos or Neo-nazi fruitcakes. But they have the absolute authority to it, for better and for worse, and if you don't like it, start up your own video sharing service.
So you think someone who is promoting the killing of homosexuals isn't hate speech?
I fail to see how that proves Neanderthals were smarter than H. sapiens sapiens, and in fact the very article you quote makes no such claim. You just made up the conclusion.
So we have this measure which is iffy at best, and in most cases hopelessly biased towards certain socioeconomic groups, but hey, it's a great meme "Blacks are dumber than whites, and it's not racist because this groovy Intelligence Quotient test says so!"
In general, psychology and neurological sciences have long past moved away from IQ, simply because it's absurd to imagine that something as complex as human cognition can be fit into one number, considering cognition itself seems to be the product of multiple processing and memory systems in the brain.
So promoting "whites have higher IQs than blacks" *MAY* be true for some kinds of intelligence tests, that kind of testing is so flawed that it's hard to see how proponents of the claim aren't just racists once again using the cloak of pseudoscience to try to bolster their hatred.