This won't pass anyway, but even if it did what's really going to change if we can't enforce existing laws against executives when they perpetuate fraud or break other laws?
If you really want to make companies care about security and data privacy, make it easier for consumers to sue companies in civil court for these kinds of breaches. Companies care far more about threats to their bottom line, and are going to respond far more quickly to things which threaten it.
Emails are rude to one person or a small group, and probably between people that know each other to some degree. Social media is broadcast worldwide. Linus even points out that email has some of the same problems for the same reasons.
I don't think Linus would disagree that he's often an utter prick either. In most cases I think he fully intends to be.
None of the things you point out are a bad thing, but you have to consider that the climate will change in places that aren't the Sahara, and not always for the better. People generally don't like big changes in life. It's not as bad for countries like the U.S. which due to industrialization and less rigid societal norms are undergoing rapid change on a continual basis, but for people who have been herders in a region for hundreds or even thousands of years, the changes are much more jarring. The world has shown how little ability it has to deal with migrants from Syria due to conflict. What do you think will happen when 200 million people need to move because climate change has suddenly left them unable to continue on as they have been doing for generations?
There are enough laws in the U.S. and sufficiently many strict liability laws that the second point you make is quite likely to be true. You've probably broken several laws of which you were completely unaware just today. This is why I'm of the opinion that every law should have an expiration date. If it's a good law, it can be passed again without issue, but it allows for bad laws to fall off the books over time and doesn't require expensive or lengthy legal challenges.
There's nothing preventing anyone from taking photographs in public and I'm more concerned with the dangers of outlawing that than finding other solutions to problems such as these. If it's a big enough concern for a person, someone could easily make a cover for license plates to put over it while parked or have a car that will automatically cover them while the vehicle isn't being operated.
If you extend that reasoning further, then absolutely nothing is secure, because even secure hardware will be used by humans who do not practice perfect security. 2048-bit RSA running on a dedicated and verified FPGA is now insecure as well because some idiot human is capable of giving out the key. If there are flaws or vulnerabilities in other layers, it says absolutely nothing about the security of the software. You could argue that perhaps their proof is incorrect, but unless they've made some obvious mistake, we'd have bigger problems were that the case.
But that's a security issue in the hardware itself. Would you claim that their program is insecure if you had a hardware system that allowed any program full access to the memory of any other program? Of course not, you'd point out that nothing could be considered secure when running on such a system so the question itself is flawed.
It's kind of hard to give India much of a reprimand over some of that, when we're not much better. Someone from San Francisco made a poop map where people could report all of the human shit on the streets. India at least has some people who seem to care about fixing those problems whereas we in the U.S. seem content with letting the problems we have get worse or fighting against people trying to help solve them.
I think this is good for everyone, everywhere. Someone has to be first, but once one person or one county does it, others will start to follow in kind.
These are probably the people who work in the cafeteria and such. An H1-B wouldn't take $15 per hour. That works out to only about $30,000 per year, which no one would take. Even interns are going to make more than $15/hour at most tech companies, even in smaller cities. Hell, even creimer wouldn't have worked for that little.
It's pointless. If it doesn't get written down, then it just gets incremented. I had a former co-worker who was up to $password43. Not exactly difficult to guess either.
If you can't trust the average user not to do something stupid like this or can't impress upon them the importance of security, then set up two-factor authentication of some sort or a security system that takes user apathy into account. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble.
Not when their competition by and large decides to cut hours and pass on the saved costs in the form of lower prices to consumers. You might be able to get one or two high-end luxury brands that don't need to do this, but they're going to be a tiny piece of the pie.
The worst part about it is that this hit the people who were worst off since almost everyone in a skilled position was already getting health care and working 40 hours per week. Nothing changed as far as they were concerned. Instead it was the people at gas stations, grocery stores, etc. that got hit with this. People who fail to consider the unintended consequences of their proposed economic interventions are forever doomed to make things worse for the very people they claim that they're trying to help.
Unwanted pregnancy is one part of it (and smaller for a lot of people due to the option of legal abortions), but the risk of sexually transmitted diseases or infections is another and that's something that's relevant for both men and women. For that a condom still remains your best source of protection.
The problem is that the ACA changed the rules so that you need to provide healthcare for anyone working more than 30 hours. Sounds good in theory, but the actual result was predictable. People who weren't working a job that could justify employer provided health care benefits had their hours slashed because the employer can't handle the extra cost.
Remove the requirement for employer healthcare for anyone over 30 hours and you'll see people quit the gig jobs when they can get more hours at a primary job. Sure there will still be some who want to work for extra money, but fewer people will feel as though they have to do it.
The other part of it is that there are people in prison with serious ties to criminal enterprise and the authorities want to be aware of anything that they're saying over the phone. It's a lot easier to spy on everything when it's done through the prison's phone system.
Running around faking something you are not, trying to impress someone you like, but might be interested in just the opposite you fake, plain stupid.
You assume that everyone using the service is looking for a long term relationship. I have a feeling most are just looking for a quick fuck. I that case, why would you look for anything other than some shallow, vapid person that is also looking for the same thing?
So all it takes to solve the problem is some wealthy philanthropist to have his or her machines make machines for the people who have none? Are you certain no one with a robot will think to form a commune of sorts?
If robots can do everything, it’s the previous definitions of wealth that become irrelevant.
It probably is a trait to some degree, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be cultivated and developed. Michael Jordan clearly had some traits that meant he would be a good athlete, but he still had to work hard in order to translate that into the level of skill he had. I’ll never be as skilled as Michael Jordan was at basketball, but I could be a whole hell of a lot better than I am right now if I worked at it. I think that’s where they’re coming from at least.
Even the bleeding heart liberals wouldn't care if a few kids died as collateral damage if a drone strike took out a telemarketer with them. This probably just isn't being met with a sufficient application of force. Why send a fine when you can send a cluster bomb?
It's not like paper ballots are really any better. There's no shortage of stories about them going missing. You can get a whole list of Google auto-complete suggestions for "box of ballots found" to help you narrow it down. If you want to ensure that an election isn't getting tampered with in some way, you need to make sure that as many opposed parties can participate in the process. Even if they're all independently crooked, they'll keep each other honest.
Slashdot Mirror
This won't pass anyway, but even if it did what's really going to change if we can't enforce existing laws against executives when they perpetuate fraud or break other laws?
If you really want to make companies care about security and data privacy, make it easier for consumers to sue companies in civil court for these kinds of breaches. Companies care far more about threats to their bottom line, and are going to respond far more quickly to things which threaten it.
Emails are rude to one person or a small group, and probably between people that know each other to some degree. Social media is broadcast worldwide. Linus even points out that email has some of the same problems for the same reasons.
I don't think Linus would disagree that he's often an utter prick either. In most cases I think he fully intends to be.
Did they actually interview Linus? He wasn't calling anyone stupid or ugly in his response, so I can't be sure that it was actually him.
This should be construed as sarcasm, in case you couldn't hear me being subtle.
None of the things you point out are a bad thing, but you have to consider that the climate will change in places that aren't the Sahara, and not always for the better. People generally don't like big changes in life. It's not as bad for countries like the U.S. which due to industrialization and less rigid societal norms are undergoing rapid change on a continual basis, but for people who have been herders in a region for hundreds or even thousands of years, the changes are much more jarring. The world has shown how little ability it has to deal with migrants from Syria due to conflict. What do you think will happen when 200 million people need to move because climate change has suddenly left them unable to continue on as they have been doing for generations?
There are enough laws in the U.S. and sufficiently many strict liability laws that the second point you make is quite likely to be true. You've probably broken several laws of which you were completely unaware just today. This is why I'm of the opinion that every law should have an expiration date. If it's a good law, it can be passed again without issue, but it allows for bad laws to fall off the books over time and doesn't require expensive or lengthy legal challenges.
There's nothing preventing anyone from taking photographs in public and I'm more concerned with the dangers of outlawing that than finding other solutions to problems such as these. If it's a big enough concern for a person, someone could easily make a cover for license plates to put over it while parked or have a car that will automatically cover them while the vehicle isn't being operated.
If you extend that reasoning further, then absolutely nothing is secure, because even secure hardware will be used by humans who do not practice perfect security. 2048-bit RSA running on a dedicated and verified FPGA is now insecure as well because some idiot human is capable of giving out the key. If there are flaws or vulnerabilities in other layers, it says absolutely nothing about the security of the software. You could argue that perhaps their proof is incorrect, but unless they've made some obvious mistake, we'd have bigger problems were that the case.
But that's a security issue in the hardware itself. Would you claim that their program is insecure if you had a hardware system that allowed any program full access to the memory of any other program? Of course not, you'd point out that nothing could be considered secure when running on such a system so the question itself is flawed.
It's kind of hard to give India much of a reprimand over some of that, when we're not much better. Someone from San Francisco made a poop map where people could report all of the human shit on the streets. India at least has some people who seem to care about fixing those problems whereas we in the U.S. seem content with letting the problems we have get worse or fighting against people trying to help solve them.
I think this is good for everyone, everywhere. Someone has to be first, but once one person or one county does it, others will start to follow in kind.
These are probably the people who work in the cafeteria and such. An H1-B wouldn't take $15 per hour. That works out to only about $30,000 per year, which no one would take. Even interns are going to make more than $15/hour at most tech companies, even in smaller cities. Hell, even creimer wouldn't have worked for that little.
It's pointless. If it doesn't get written down, then it just gets incremented. I had a former co-worker who was up to $password43. Not exactly difficult to guess either.
If you can't trust the average user not to do something stupid like this or can't impress upon them the importance of security, then set up two-factor authentication of some sort or a security system that takes user apathy into account. Otherwise you're just asking for trouble.
On the positive side of things this would indicate that there are some countries warming slower than (though not necessarily at half) the global rate.
We're already one of the world's largest arms dealers. What makes you think we'd want to cut ourselves out of the digital market as well?
Not when their competition by and large decides to cut hours and pass on the saved costs in the form of lower prices to consumers. You might be able to get one or two high-end luxury brands that don't need to do this, but they're going to be a tiny piece of the pie.
The worst part about it is that this hit the people who were worst off since almost everyone in a skilled position was already getting health care and working 40 hours per week. Nothing changed as far as they were concerned. Instead it was the people at gas stations, grocery stores, etc. that got hit with this. People who fail to consider the unintended consequences of their proposed economic interventions are forever doomed to make things worse for the very people they claim that they're trying to help.
Unwanted pregnancy is one part of it (and smaller for a lot of people due to the option of legal abortions), but the risk of sexually transmitted diseases or infections is another and that's something that's relevant for both men and women. For that a condom still remains your best source of protection.
The problem is that the ACA changed the rules so that you need to provide healthcare for anyone working more than 30 hours. Sounds good in theory, but the actual result was predictable. People who weren't working a job that could justify employer provided health care benefits had their hours slashed because the employer can't handle the extra cost.
Remove the requirement for employer healthcare for anyone over 30 hours and you'll see people quit the gig jobs when they can get more hours at a primary job. Sure there will still be some who want to work for extra money, but fewer people will feel as though they have to do it.
I really like the early April Fool's joke where Slashdot is pretending to be TMZ. Most excellent!
The other part of it is that there are people in prison with serious ties to criminal enterprise and the authorities want to be aware of anything that they're saying over the phone. It's a lot easier to spy on everything when it's done through the prison's phone system.
Running around faking something you are not, trying to impress someone you like, but might be interested in just the opposite you fake, plain stupid.
You assume that everyone using the service is looking for a long term relationship. I have a feeling most are just looking for a quick fuck. I that case, why would you look for anything other than some shallow, vapid person that is also looking for the same thing?
So all it takes to solve the problem is some wealthy philanthropist to have his or her machines make machines for the people who have none? Are you certain no one with a robot will think to form a commune of sorts?
If robots can do everything, it’s the previous definitions of wealth that become irrelevant.
It probably is a trait to some degree, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be cultivated and developed. Michael Jordan clearly had some traits that meant he would be a good athlete, but he still had to work hard in order to translate that into the level of skill he had. I’ll never be as skilled as Michael Jordan was at basketball, but I could be a whole hell of a lot better than I am right now if I worked at it. I think that’s where they’re coming from at least.
Can they vote?
Even the bleeding heart liberals wouldn't care if a few kids died as collateral damage if a drone strike took out a telemarketer with them. This probably just isn't being met with a sufficient application of force. Why send a fine when you can send a cluster bomb?
It's not like paper ballots are really any better. There's no shortage of stories about them going missing. You can get a whole list of Google auto-complete suggestions for "box of ballots found" to help you narrow it down. If you want to ensure that an election isn't getting tampered with in some way, you need to make sure that as many opposed parties can participate in the process. Even if they're all independently crooked, they'll keep each other honest.