You are changing topics so rapidly, it is hard to keep up. Last time I checked, pay is cash is an option for both citizens and illegal immigrants - you claiming that illegals pay with cash is a red herring. Illegals also ride a bus, lets ban buses.
Paying with cash is quite far from illegal activity, it is actually quite the opposite - it is explicitly legal as it is mandatory to accept all legal tender.
You are also now claiming that there is consensus on banning cash, and that it is somehow immoral to pay with cash. What are you smoking and did you pay cash for it?
Listening to music while driving is fine and has been for years. You can't just quietly stare at the road on long highway drives, you will zone out. So you listen to music, watch the scenery or speed to keep your attention from drifting.
If I pair the phone and blast music to max, I am OK. If I use headphones because my car is too old to pair reliably - I am breaking the law. Doesn't make any sense.
Sure, throw a book at someone texting, but what they are doing is criminalizing normal behavior, in effect normalizing undesirable behavior. That is, if listening to music with headphone is distracted driving, then it isn't a big deal.
This is not about low-income, rather about keeping alternative to payment processors widely accepted and available.
Just consider the power VISA would have if there was no ready alternatives to paying with VISA. Without alternatives they would have an effective power to implement VAT-like tax on everyone worldwide. At least for now, ability to pay with cash keep them in check - if they get too greedy merchants would stop accepting plastic.
I don't trust Google with this, as it is clear that the end goal is making having Android device mandatory to authenticate online. This is not unlike Microsoft and its early efforts with Office software -in the end they succeeded with MS Office becoming defacto standard.
While it would feel good to agree with you, I would like first to see some proof that banning weirdos increases the risk of a mass killings. To me, such statement is too hyperbolic and black & white to likely be anywhere near true.
While it is tempting to agree with the conclusion that FB is "morally bankrupt liars", the rationale offered is extremely faulty.
Of all people, privacy commissioner should understand that a system that could proactively prevent "live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders" would be extremely hostile to concepts of both privacy and all forms of freedom of expression.
If you want to strike fear into any seasoned developer's heart, specify "RFC-conforming implementation" as a hard requirement.
While RFCs offer much-needed push toward standardization, modern RFCs tend to be overly complex and often contradictory. Even standard implementations do not achieve 100% conformance. For example, OpenSSL and its widely-used TLS implementation does not 100% implement all SHALLs of RFC 5246 (TLS v1.2). Conformance to RFC 5280 (PKI) is especially abysmal, I know of no solution that comes even close to meeting all of it.
Instead, I think automakers should focus on producing cars that won't allow you to drive slower than traffic in the fast lane. This is much more prevalent problem.
My guess that it was attempt to cut costs on MS part. If nearly everyone is on the same version you no longer need to devote massive resources to test every possible combination prior to releasing.
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
It's religion that has a serious deficit of intellectual honesty, and logic... and those deficits are inherent. Religion turns well-meaning people into evil people by giving them a sense of justness which they do not deserve. It teaches people to make decisions on specious bases, and to feel smug about them, which is why it's inherently harmful.
Are we still talking about Bible or is this now about Social Justice issues. I seriously cannot tell.
Are they going to comply with specific government requirements for content censorship? That is, if someone in China going to get satellite internet, are Amazon going to roll over and censor it?
So far track record for big tech on this is abysmal, even "Do no evil" Google working on censored search engine for China. I don't see Amazon behaving any differently.
TSA repeatedly failed to detect 95% of threats in independent tests performed by Red Teams. TSA is next to useless as a security measure and is nothing but a make-work project.
In India almost everyone with a good job has a hired help/servant - nannies, cooks, cleaner. This isn't yet happening in the West (or more accurately - no longer the case) as someone with only a good job cannot afford to pay someone else a service salary.
Teaching everyone to code is not going to work, as basic hierarchy of competence still applies. There is still finite amount of coding that has to be done, and there still automation of coding tasks that will take place - so with this approach we will be trading unemployed factory workers for unemployed coders.
The future is bleak unless we can re-invent how society works. There isn't a job for most people. Maybe we can re-invent society, but it appears to me that future for masses will be joblessness.
Your attempt at justification makes no sense. Just because absurd extreme of something is unlikely to exist or even be desirable doesn't mean that censorious thugs you cheer on are in any way benign or excusable. Do you by any chance think they stop at censoring only Nazis or are you cynically consider yourself too far down the list to be affected?
"I believe we have more to lose than gain by attempting to be funny on this one day," says Capossela.
Spot on. In today's victimhood culture any attempt at humor is extremely dangerous.
I recently went to a local stand up show and almost all performances were extremely bland (or about Trump), because joking about anything controversial is just too dangerous with SJW Stasi everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
You are changing topics so rapidly, it is hard to keep up. Last time I checked, pay is cash is an option for both citizens and illegal immigrants - you claiming that illegals pay with cash is a red herring. Illegals also ride a bus, lets ban buses.
Paying with cash is quite far from illegal activity, it is actually quite the opposite - it is explicitly legal as it is mandatory to accept all legal tender.
You are also now claiming that there is consensus on banning cash, and that it is somehow immoral to pay with cash. What are you smoking and did you pay cash for it?
Listening to music while driving is fine and has been for years. You can't just quietly stare at the road on long highway drives, you will zone out. So you listen to music, watch the scenery or speed to keep your attention from drifting.
If I pair the phone and blast music to max, I am OK. If I use headphones because my car is too old to pair reliably - I am breaking the law. Doesn't make any sense.
Sure, throw a book at someone texting, but what they are doing is criminalizing normal behavior, in effect normalizing undesirable behavior. That is, if listening to music with headphone is distracted driving, then it isn't a big deal.
Do you understand why "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is flawed? Well, your "Paid under every proverbial table." is exactly the same.
This is not about low-income, rather about keeping alternative to payment processors widely accepted and available.
Just consider the power VISA would have if there was no ready alternatives to paying with VISA. Without alternatives they would have an effective power to implement VAT-like tax on everyone worldwide. At least for now, ability to pay with cash keep them in check - if they get too greedy merchants would stop accepting plastic.
I don't trust Google with this, as it is clear that the end goal is making having Android device mandatory to authenticate online. This is not unlike Microsoft and its early efforts with Office software -in the end they succeeded with MS Office becoming defacto standard.
"in many countries the victims of crimes like that had a right to a certain amount of privacy and dignity even in death."
Is this the case in NZ? Or are you again stating what you want to be the case as a fact?
A much simpler and more plausible explanation is simple stupidity.
While it would feel good to agree with you, I would like first to see some proof that banning weirdos increases the risk of a mass killings. To me, such statement is too hyperbolic and black & white to likely be anywhere near true.
Think? SJWs like this privacy commissioner are lower forms of intelligence that are only capable of reflective knee-jerking, not thinking.
While it is tempting to agree with the conclusion that FB is "morally bankrupt liars", the rationale offered is extremely faulty.
Of all people, privacy commissioner should understand that a system that could proactively prevent "live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders" would be extremely hostile to concepts of both privacy and all forms of freedom of expression.
If you want to strike fear into any seasoned developer's heart, specify "RFC-conforming implementation" as a hard requirement.
While RFCs offer much-needed push toward standardization, modern RFCs tend to be overly complex and often contradictory. Even standard implementations do not achieve 100% conformance. For example, OpenSSL and its widely-used TLS implementation does not 100% implement all SHALLs of RFC 5246 (TLS v1.2). Conformance to RFC 5280 (PKI) is especially abysmal, I know of no solution that comes even close to meeting all of it.
Instead, I think automakers should focus on producing cars that won't allow you to drive slower than traffic in the fast lane. This is much more prevalent problem.
My 12 cats periodically check if I am steel breathing. I suspect they are just waiting to eat my carcass.
'Unsuitable.'
We need to explore that point further.
I thought Ami was perfectly clear, in this context 'Unsuitable' means do not fully align with his SJW values and/or not sufficiently woke.
How about they change and allow the user FULL control over what updates they do or do not want?
Who do you think you are to demand this? Do you think you own your personal computer and software on it or something?
My guess that it was attempt to cut costs on MS part. If nearly everyone is on the same version you no longer need to devote massive resources to test every possible combination prior to releasing.
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
It's religion that has a serious deficit of intellectual honesty, and logic... and those deficits are inherent. Religion turns well-meaning people into evil people by giving them a sense of justness which they do not deserve. It teaches people to make decisions on specious bases, and to feel smug about them, which is why it's inherently harmful.
Are we still talking about Bible or is this now about Social Justice issues. I seriously cannot tell.
It isn't dead until Netcraft confirms it.
Are they going to comply with specific government requirements for content censorship? That is, if someone in China going to get satellite internet, are Amazon going to roll over and censor it?
So far track record for big tech on this is abysmal, even "Do no evil" Google working on censored search engine for China. I don't see Amazon behaving any differently.
TSA repeatedly failed to detect 95% of threats in independent tests performed by Red Teams. TSA is next to useless as a security measure and is nothing but a make-work project.
In India almost everyone with a good job has a hired help/servant - nannies, cooks, cleaner. This isn't yet happening in the West (or more accurately - no longer the case) as someone with only a good job cannot afford to pay someone else a service salary.
Teaching everyone to code is not going to work, as basic hierarchy of competence still applies. There is still finite amount of coding that has to be done, and there still automation of coding tasks that will take place - so with this approach we will be trading unemployed factory workers for unemployed coders.
The future is bleak unless we can re-invent how society works. There isn't a job for most people. Maybe we can re-invent society, but it appears to me that future for masses will be joblessness.
Your attempt at justification makes no sense. Just because absurd extreme of something is unlikely to exist or even be desirable doesn't mean that censorious thugs you cheer on are in any way benign or excusable. Do you by any chance think they stop at censoring only Nazis or are you cynically consider yourself too far down the list to be affected?
It's only Facebook.
Where do you draw your "only X" line? Does it even exist or are you unreservedly for censorship?
Spot on. In today's victimhood culture any attempt at humor is extremely dangerous.
I recently went to a local stand up show and almost all performances were extremely bland (or about Trump), because joking about anything controversial is just too dangerous with SJW Stasi everywhere.