So? Those points are almost entirely unrelated to the case in point. The government isn't trying to hire a software developer or get one of their own developers to do something, they are trying to compel Apple (and thus Apple's employees) to do something they don't want to do. Welcome to the land of the free, where you're completely free to do exactly what the government tells you to.
If he really cared about the GOP he would drop out if only to spare his party the agonizing international humiliation of the GOP personified by Donald Trump.
Maybe this is exactly what the GOP needs to happen. If an 'establishment' candidate scrapes through and loses, you may well have the same people voting Trump now pushing even harder for a candidate like him next time (under the belief that he would have won if they hadn't been robbed by the 'establishment'). If Trump does win the nomination and then gets thrashed in the election leading to a Democrat landslide a few of them might reconsider. Consider it as the difference between a painful field amputation and a slow painful death due to the spreading infection.
If Cruz or Trump wins and Hillary is the nominee. You will see Republican-leaning voters and blue dog democrats coming out of the wood work to support the Republican over Hillary... Sanders is the only electable candidate they have unless it's a Kasich-Bush ticket.
Based on what? If you're so confident on that you could make a fortune betting with your claimed convictions (strange that so many people don't). Bookies are basically assuming Clinton is going to win the nomination and have a 60%+ chance of winning. The only other possibility they give anything approaching a decent chance to is Trump who they think is half as likely to be President as she is.
I think Sanders is great, you clearly do, but that's no reason to be delusional. People who stand to lose a lot of money by getting this wrong and have a good track record are literally betting billions that you're wrong.
Look, one of the main selling points of being in a creative community is being away from uncreative cretins.
Bullshit. If you find a 'creative community' that doesn't need or want services provided by low paid labour then feel free to give it as an example, but if the best you can manage is SF then you're talking about a bunch of very highly paid people who are absolutely fine being surrounded by people paid a fraction of their income to do things for them. There's a difference between choosing to associate with people like yourself and being sufficiently selfish that you feel entitled to 1%er income while getting dirt cheap services from people who can't afford healthcare or a decent place to live.
And why do you think any of those things are feasible? The device is encrypted, you can't just load the new software over the old software in memory and you can't get to the update options without getting past the PIN entry screen. If Apple has designed this well then it should be extremely infeasible to do any of the three things you suggest (I'd expect some equivalent of the last to be possible however).
Even assuming they can help decrypt it, I expect there concern is more about being seen to help override the security of devices they sell to customers and the precedent of having to do the government's job for it whenever a TLA wants.
Given that the colonisation of America and much of its rise came from doing exactly the same thing to the old world it seems more than a little hypocritical to complain about it; even if it was true that this process of globalisation was actually doing more harm than good.
Was going to respond with most of the points made in this post, but will now just emphasise that 2FA exists in a number of formats that don't require you to give a mobile phone number. Personally I use Google Authenticator (an app on my phone), backed up by mobile phone SMS (optional), further backed up by a print out of 10 one use codes (I've used two, and keep half in my wallet and half at home).
The claim in Christianity is that infants that die before baptism, and people who die having never even heard of Christ, go to hell and suffer for eternity... That's all you need to know about Christianity.
I don't think their position is naive. People who block ads might be more savvy than the general population, but those people have also gone out of their way specifically to block ads.
You entirely missed the point, which is that the people who haven't blocked ads don't necessarily want to view ads either but most don't even know blocking exists. If 100% of browsers came with ad blocking on by default then I doubt more than a couple of percent of users would turn it off.
There's some merit to that argument but it does seem that given how chemical and biological weapon remains very low in no small part due to the measures in place to restrict and punish it that there's some evidence that this process works.
Robots don't feel those emotions, and have committed no massacres on that scale. I trust robots more than I trust humans.
Pretty shit logical reasoning given that robots have never been in a position where they are capable of committing a massacre on that scale. Kim Jong Un has never ordered the use of nuclear weapons so maybe we should give him control of US nukes.
The biggest issue with robot soldiers isn't that they'll make "evil decisions" it's that when a country can engage in warfare without risking its civilians lives it's likely to get involved in more conflicts. That isn't to say that there are no valid concerns about how robots will be programmed, and ordered, to behave in the field as well.
There's a difference between authority and authoritarian. I'm all for challenging authority, but we're not going to rapidly move from where we are now to a situation where professors don't have a considerable amount of influence over the success of researchers and students; by all means push for it to be changed, but it doesn't mean we have to tolerate abuse of position in the meanwhile.
You can hold whatever position on dress code you like, and that one seems reasonable to me, but it has no relevance to whether the clothes someone chooses to wear justify them being sexually assaulted. Apparently saying people should be safe from senior staff groping them regardless of what they wear is "flamebait" on/. which is a pretty depressing insight into some posters mentalities.
It's also a pretty naive position. As things stand the difference between people with ad blockers and without isn't how much they hate advertising, it's how tech savvy they are. If IE came with ad blocking by default then (assuming it worked) it's not like its users would be rushing to turn it off, and it's not like those users suddenly went from loving ads to hating them.
If you're the kind of person who will be psychologically traumatized by having your professor acknowledge your sexual attractiveness, I would think that you would be better off wearing something more professional than a halter top and miniskirt to the lab at night.
If you're the kind of person who can't control yourself well enough to avoid touching and/or making sexual remarks about students then perhaps you shouldn't be in a position with authority around students? I thought we'd gotten beyond "slut shaming" / victim blaming women for wearing something more attractive than a hazmat suit but it seems that was naively optimistic.
Ladies, and lads, if the prof tries to grab your giggly bits just kick him in the balls and walk away... , as well as symbolise who really is the Alpha.
If only that solution was available to deal with immature trolls channelling the kind of douche who uses 'Alpha' non-ironically.
Doesn't that rather depend on whether 1/ they tell you they are going to track it and 2/ how they track it. If you use a shared computer then they are making the details of one user available to other users and this strikes me as something that they should be expected to make clear to users.
I already understand it unlike you so I don't feel the need to read it again. You'd note if you could get a few braincells together that all my figures were based on total road fatalities. If you'd like to provide some evidence that speed limits in the UK are lower in residential areas than the US feel free, it'd certainly be more useful than your first post here; however, given that 20mph limits are still the exception in the UK, that pedestrian fatalities have been consistently lower in the UK, and that the US also has reduced speed limits in certain key zones you've added nothing so far.
And if you think speeding in the UK is restricted to motorways then you're completely uninformed or delusional.
You should have checked more thoroughly then. As much as it would please me to get rid of the last remaining vestiges of imperial measurement I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Personally, I'd be all in favour of people campaigning to raise speed limits - nobody EVER does. But to expect, allow, or ignore people breaking a limit is just stupid and a bad precedent to set. And yet everyone thinks that's fine.
No, it's stupid but entirely predictable. There is a large demographic who think speed limits are fine or even too small. There's a large demographic who want to see them decreased. The status quo is political because you can't increase the limit due to one group and can't enforce the current limit due to another group.
It's a bit like drugs like weed. There have been informal policies not to police possession of small quantities for years in some places, but the law can't be changed to make possession illegal because no politician wants to piss off anti-drug voters.
Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.
So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.
In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.
All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.
This is the important point. I'm not sure I like making 'react' a trademark here even though it would only apply to web video, because it seems overly broad and I don't think there's a risk of confusion requiring such a generic trademark; however the real issue is that DMCA take-down requests can, and invariably are, used to take down a huge number of things that the person sending them has no right to restrict.
I'd love to find someone who did some form of reaction video before these guys, and fund DMCA takedown requests for all of Fine Brothers crap to make a point, however given how cozy they are with YouTube I doubt they'd be inconvenienced much.
I have yet to see a piece of equipment that can stand up to repeated freeze/thaw cycles from a New England winter.
Thank god you've thought of snow, I bet everyone involved in these products had completely forgotten that water existed and wasn't even aware that it could freeze!/sarcasm
Just out of interest where in France is New England, because I have to assume you are that self-centric that you have to bring up areas relevant with you even when they have fuck all to do with the area being discussed?
Also, there can't be any traffic on the road because vehicles will block the sunlight, greatly reducing the amount of electricity generated.
Although/. comments are without doubt the most valuable thing on here sometimes I have to wonder when ignorant half though out criticism like this is what we end up with. It takes a very very modest intellect to appreciate that outside of very busy highways the % of time when there is a car over any particular bit of road is a tiny fraction. Even if a road was virtually constantly busy at 50mph you'd have around 60-90% of the road uncovered due to gaps between cars. Take a road that has say 50 cars an hour, not even that quiet for a non-primary road and the road would be uncovered for 99.995% of the time.
I'm sure there are lots intelligent questions about this that it would be interesting to know the answers to, ones about cars blocking light are not one some of them.
Slashdot Mirror
So? Those points are almost entirely unrelated to the case in point. The government isn't trying to hire a software developer or get one of their own developers to do something, they are trying to compel Apple (and thus Apple's employees) to do something they don't want to do. Welcome to the land of the free, where you're completely free to do exactly what the government tells you to.
Maybe this is exactly what the GOP needs to happen. If an 'establishment' candidate scrapes through and loses, you may well have the same people voting Trump now pushing even harder for a candidate like him next time (under the belief that he would have won if they hadn't been robbed by the 'establishment'). If Trump does win the nomination and then gets thrashed in the election leading to a Democrat landslide a few of them might reconsider. Consider it as the difference between a painful field amputation and a slow painful death due to the spreading infection.
Based on what? If you're so confident on that you could make a fortune betting with your claimed convictions (strange that so many people don't). Bookies are basically assuming Clinton is going to win the nomination and have a 60%+ chance of winning. The only other possibility they give anything approaching a decent chance to is Trump who they think is half as likely to be President as she is.
I think Sanders is great, you clearly do, but that's no reason to be delusional. People who stand to lose a lot of money by getting this wrong and have a good track record are literally betting billions that you're wrong.
Bullshit. If you find a 'creative community' that doesn't need or want services provided by low paid labour then feel free to give it as an example, but if the best you can manage is SF then you're talking about a bunch of very highly paid people who are absolutely fine being surrounded by people paid a fraction of their income to do things for them. There's a difference between choosing to associate with people like yourself and being sufficiently selfish that you feel entitled to 1%er income while getting dirt cheap services from people who can't afford healthcare or a decent place to live.
And why do you think any of those things are feasible? The device is encrypted, you can't just load the new software over the old software in memory and you can't get to the update options without getting past the PIN entry screen. If Apple has designed this well then it should be extremely infeasible to do any of the three things you suggest (I'd expect some equivalent of the last to be possible however).
Even assuming they can help decrypt it, I expect there concern is more about being seen to help override the security of devices they sell to customers and the precedent of having to do the government's job for it whenever a TLA wants.
Given that the colonisation of America and much of its rise came from doing exactly the same thing to the old world it seems more than a little hypocritical to complain about it; even if it was true that this process of globalisation was actually doing more harm than good.
Was going to respond with most of the points made in this post, but will now just emphasise that 2FA exists in a number of formats that don't require you to give a mobile phone number. Personally I use Google Authenticator (an app on my phone), backed up by mobile phone SMS (optional), further backed up by a print out of 10 one use codes (I've used two, and keep half in my wallet and half at home).
The claim in Christianity is that infants that die before baptism, and people who die having never even heard of Christ, go to hell and suffer for eternity... That's all you need to know about Christianity.
You entirely missed the point, which is that the people who haven't blocked ads don't necessarily want to view ads either but most don't even know blocking exists. If 100% of browsers came with ad blocking on by default then I doubt more than a couple of percent of users would turn it off.
There's some merit to that argument but it does seem that given how chemical and biological weapon remains very low in no small part due to the measures in place to restrict and punish it that there's some evidence that this process works.
Pretty shit logical reasoning given that robots have never been in a position where they are capable of committing a massacre on that scale. Kim Jong Un has never ordered the use of nuclear weapons so maybe we should give him control of US nukes.
The biggest issue with robot soldiers isn't that they'll make "evil decisions" it's that when a country can engage in warfare without risking its civilians lives it's likely to get involved in more conflicts. That isn't to say that there are no valid concerns about how robots will be programmed, and ordered, to behave in the field as well.
There's a difference between authority and authoritarian. I'm all for challenging authority, but we're not going to rapidly move from where we are now to a situation where professors don't have a considerable amount of influence over the success of researchers and students; by all means push for it to be changed, but it doesn't mean we have to tolerate abuse of position in the meanwhile.
/. which is a pretty depressing insight into some posters mentalities.
You can hold whatever position on dress code you like, and that one seems reasonable to me, but it has no relevance to whether the clothes someone chooses to wear justify them being sexually assaulted. Apparently saying people should be safe from senior staff groping them regardless of what they wear is "flamebait" on
It's also a pretty naive position. As things stand the difference between people with ad blockers and without isn't how much they hate advertising, it's how tech savvy they are. If IE came with ad blocking by default then (assuming it worked) it's not like its users would be rushing to turn it off, and it's not like those users suddenly went from loving ads to hating them.
If you're the kind of person who can't control yourself well enough to avoid touching and/or making sexual remarks about students then perhaps you shouldn't be in a position with authority around students? I thought we'd gotten beyond "slut shaming" / victim blaming women for wearing something more attractive than a hazmat suit but it seems that was naively optimistic.
If only that solution was available to deal with immature trolls channelling the kind of douche who uses 'Alpha' non-ironically.
Doesn't that rather depend on whether 1/ they tell you they are going to track it and 2/ how they track it. If you use a shared computer then they are making the details of one user available to other users and this strikes me as something that they should be expected to make clear to users.
I already understand it unlike you so I don't feel the need to read it again. You'd note if you could get a few braincells together that all my figures were based on total road fatalities. If you'd like to provide some evidence that speed limits in the UK are lower in residential areas than the US feel free, it'd certainly be more useful than your first post here; however, given that 20mph limits are still the exception in the UK, that pedestrian fatalities have been consistently lower in the UK, and that the US also has reduced speed limits in certain key zones you've added nothing so far.
And if you think speeding in the UK is restricted to motorways then you're completely uninformed or delusional.
You should have checked more thoroughly then. As much as it would please me to get rid of the last remaining vestiges of imperial measurement I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
No, it's stupid but entirely predictable. There is a large demographic who think speed limits are fine or even too small. There's a large demographic who want to see them decreased. The status quo is political because you can't increase the limit due to one group and can't enforce the current limit due to another group.
It's a bit like drugs like weed. There have been informal policies not to police possession of small quantities for years in some places, but the law can't be changed to make possession illegal because no politician wants to piss off anti-drug voters.
So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.
In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.
All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.
This is the important point. I'm not sure I like making 'react' a trademark here even though it would only apply to web video, because it seems overly broad and I don't think there's a risk of confusion requiring such a generic trademark; however the real issue is that DMCA take-down requests can, and invariably are, used to take down a huge number of things that the person sending them has no right to restrict.
I'd love to find someone who did some form of reaction video before these guys, and fund DMCA takedown requests for all of Fine Brothers crap to make a point, however given how cozy they are with YouTube I doubt they'd be inconvenienced much.
Thank god you've thought of snow, I bet everyone involved in these products had completely forgotten that water existed and wasn't even aware that it could freeze! /sarcasm
Just out of interest where in France is New England, because I have to assume you are that self-centric that you have to bring up areas relevant with you even when they have fuck all to do with the area being discussed?
The fact you can come up with such an obvious question should be a pretty easy hint that smarter people who've been involved in this already had...
Although /. comments are without doubt the most valuable thing on here sometimes I have to wonder when ignorant half though out criticism like this is what we end up with. It takes a very very modest intellect to appreciate that outside of very busy highways the % of time when there is a car over any particular bit of road is a tiny fraction. Even if a road was virtually constantly busy at 50mph you'd have around 60-90% of the road uncovered due to gaps between cars. Take a road that has say 50 cars an hour, not even that quiet for a non-primary road and the road would be uncovered for 99.995% of the time.
I'm sure there are lots intelligent questions about this that it would be interesting to know the answers to, ones about cars blocking light are not one some of them.