usually murderous rampages happen when people are hungry..
Just wait until the industry starts suing people who can't afford their shit for not buying their shit. Think they won't be hungry when the courts find against them to the tune of millions?
If you think it won't happen, you haven't seen it happening for over a decade. Thus far, they haven't been dumb enough to let more than a handful actually go to trial, but they're getting more desperate as time passes.
Nothing in the constitution says copyright is protected, either. It's something we, the people, give to content creators to incentivize them to enrich our culture by continuing to create works that will one day be released into the public domain, where future generations may benefit from them, by enabling content creators to profit from their work for a short while.
Content creators have fought tooth and nail to ensure that they can profit in perpetuity from work they do once, in violation of that social contract, by lobbying for longer and longer copyright terms in a day and age where it takes less and less time to profit from one's creative work. The powers that be seem to think they can protect this with laws like the TPP, but I'll remind them this is the culture of generations they're fucking with and societies have been known to go on murderous rampages over much, much less.
I never said it was the most labor intensove job, or even that it was particularly labor intensive to begin with, only that it is more labor intensive than programming, which is what I currently do for a living. Since it is what i currently do for a living, I don't need you to tell me what it's like, as I know first hand. If it's as bad for you as you describe, you're being abused, nobody I know in the field lives that life.
A1: "Well, they don't exist." Defendant is clearly innocent, goes free. (And now the witness has just committed perjury.)
A2: "I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any aliens." There remains reasonable doubt that the defendant actually leaked anything of value. Defendant goes free.
A3: "They exist exactly as described in the secret document that the defendant leaked." Defendant is guilty. (And now the witness must be immediately placed under arrest for leaking classified information.)
And that's how it should be. Our government exists to serve us (you know, the "for the people" part of "of the people, by the people, for the people"). Ensuring that they are actually doing so necessitates that they must be made to confirm secrets that are released by whistleblowers, or let them walk. If the secrets are confirmed in open court in order to secure a conviction, it is then up to the public to decide whether or not any such secrets (and the actions they describe) are kept in the public interest (and deal with those responsible for them if they are not), remembering who the government is supposed to be serving; if the secrets are denied, they must not have been important enough to warrant a conviction in the first place.
As for any agents of the government who may be put at risk by any such revelations, consider this: as an agent of a government for the people, do these men and women not have a duty to refuse any assignments not clearly in the public interest? Why, then, should they be afforded special protection when they shirk their duty to the people they're sworn to protect? They shouldn't, and if their participation in an illegal operation gets them shot in the head, well, death is a valid penalty for treason.
I never said it was difficult, not fun, or that there as much to learn. I said it was labor-intensive. I guess Dairy Queen isn't known for burgers, though, so I see how you might not have experienced that part of the job.
You missed the part where I no longer flip burgers and now write code for a living... I have for the past 13 years now. I know nobody living the fresh hell you describe; perhaps you should seek greener pastures.
It seems we're more in agreement here than either of us realized, likely as a result of how the conversation started.
You might be interested in this post, from a different discussion. Basically, a suggestion that some form of capitalistic communism might be the ideal, and a loose comparison with what we have today. I was hoping to get a discussion started with that comment, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. Maybe we can get that going here, instead.
Nobody's ever changed anyone's mind just because of a few pixels on the screen and most folks are not actually interested in holding their views up for scrutiny and changing them when new information comes to light. I think it's an ego thing but I'm not a head doctor...
Indeed and I hate that about people. Absolutely hate it. Personally, if someone wants to make an argument and back it up with research and facts that show me I'm wrong, I'm open to it because it means I get to become a better, more knowledgeable, and often more capable person for it, at no cost to myself. It doesn't even cost me pride; on the contrary, I'm proud to be one of the few who can actually do that. I've seen you do it, as well, so I know we're on the same page there.
Ahh.. actually, I think I see the problem here. You see, I am not the AC you initially replied to; and I believe that AC was actually being sarcastic in his reply.
A roof over their head means just that: any roof. Food on the table means enough food to sustain not only life, but health (so they can continue working and contributing to society in some meaningful way). You know, the necessities of life: water, food, shelter, and clothing. With shelter comes utilities, and with living in the US comes insurance, so we have to add those in, as they're really not optional (though insurance used to be).
Now, you can get government assistance for housing, food, and insurance, but wouldn't you much rather people worked for those things? Especially when it is quite possible (common, even) that working at all can disqualify you for one or more of those programs, while not supplying enough income to replace the assistance.
If you'd rather the government subsidize everyone who works to serve your needs, that's fine; I actually support that, since the government is taking a portion of my money anyway and giving the guy who flips my burgers a bit of that money means my burger can cost less. However, if what you're saying is that the guy who flips my burgers doesn't deserve the basic necessities, we're not going to reach a common ground here and we might as well just drop the subject.
At some point, there's an amount of labor, between none and little, where it's simply not enough energy spent to deserve payment
I can tell you, first hand, that flipping burgers is a lot more labor-intensive that writing code. I make a lot more doing the latter than I did doing the former.
at a level enough where someone could do just that job, nothing else, and have all the benefits of modern society
And we're (I though I made this clear) not talking about that; we're talking about the ability to do just that job and have a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food on your table, and government-mandated health insurance (even if you can't afford to use it because you don't make enough to afford the copay). Where I made that clear was when I said the following:
And it's not about living frugally vs having a nice apartment with all the trimmings; it's about being able to live frugally in the first place.
I, then, further clarified with the following tautology:
Not earning enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table isn't something you fix by living frugally
Please note where I said "enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table", then explain how that is anything remotely close to "all the benefits of modern society".
We've butted heads here a few times in the past, and we've agreed on things a number of times, as well. Usually, when we butt heads, it's because you ignore entire portions of my posts in order to counter a point I wasn't making. Can we put an end to that, please?
Should it be a living wage to work as a fry cook? Should it be a living wage to work in a convenience store?
Would you like to live in a world where nobody did those jobs and you, therefore, did not benefit from having people to do those things for you?
And it's not about living frugally vs having a nice apartment with all the trimmings; it's about being able to live frugally in the first place. Not earning enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table isn't something you fix by living frugally, it's something you fix by earning more money, and the people in these jobs can't do that without abandoning those jobs, which leads to the world described above.
You're right, it has nothing to do with *this* phone, and I never said it did. It has everything to do with who is asking. If the owner of the phone is asking for it, Apple would be fully within the realm of reasonability to do so; whether or not they would without a court order is irrelevant, though I don't think they would. Were this both the owner of the phone making the request and the FBI serving Apply a court order instructing them to comply with the phone owner's request, it would certainly be reasonable for them to comply; for the owner, not for the FBI. And, in this case, it just so happens that the owner of the phone does wish to aid the FBI and, if they could, would.
Or are you saying that the owner of a device shouldn't be allowed to ask someone to help them hack it, or that someone shouldn't be allowed to help hack a device should the owner request it?
Do you seriously believe that Apple doesn't already have builds of iOS without the failed login limit and login delay? You know as well as I do that these builds certainly do exist, if for no other reason than testing. That is to say, what is being asked of Apple here already exists; your fears have been reality for as long as iOS has incorporated these features.
They have a case to resolve? Really? The people that were shot are dead, the people that did the shooting are dead, sounds like it resolved itself to me and, it would seem, the families of the victims agree.
What is there to gain by accessing the work phone of one of the shooters? The personal phones, where any evidence would reside, were destroyed and, ignoring that, the people the FBI is seeking to punish are, I'll repeat myself, already dead. Pursuing this past that is a simple waste of resources, unless they're angling for something else.
Like, oh, hmm, I dunno... setting a precedent for forcing companies to disable security features of their products and making encryption backdoors a hell of a lot more attractive to the masses who don't know any better, just as an example.
After all, they wouldn't want the people to rise up by talking to each other in private, assembling, and so on in the digital realm
Well no, of course not! Talking, assembling, and rising up is how this country overthrew British control in the first place and we all know that computers make everything more efficient!
Until the true patriots act, that is. By whatever means necessary, though a Congress of true patriots striking the law from the books should suffice and, I'm certain, would be preferable to all of us over a civil uprising. The questions that remain, then, are: How much more of this will the people take before all hell breaks loose? And will our government take action to correct their own wrongdoing before that happens?
Personally, I don't want the military pointing their weapons at me because I'm not fighting to increase their power and control, so I hope the answer to the latter is "Yes."
Probably just his email, which they could likely get from his ISP or mail provider, assuming they know who that is. In all likelihood, it's Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft.
Nah, they still wouldn't have had the contents of the phone until after they confiscated it, after the shootings.
Tautology: Whether or not something you don't have is encrypted has no bearing on whether or not you can use the thing you don't have; therefore, the contents of the phone the FBI didn't have before the shootings would have been just as useless in preventing the shootings if there were stored in plaintext.
I think the ideal is some form of capitalistic communism. I'm not sure quite what that would look like; perhaps it would look much like what we have in the US today, but without all the outcry against welfare programs. I'd be interested to see the idea discussed, though.
Is this still Slashdot? Have I entered the wrong URL? Two reasonable posts in a row?
Is this whipslash's doing?
This is the Slashdot I remember (well, so is all the trolling, and that's still here... this positive discourse is what has been missing for some time) from a decade past. Thank you for that, guys, both of you.
I am asking this with the utmost of sincerity; do you have a blog or newsletter I can follow? Is there somewhere other than Slashdot where I can read your musings? And why have I not encountered you before tonight and, now, have seen and replied to two of your posts?
It seems we have very similar, but different enough to be interesting, views. I'd love to toss political and economic ideals back and forth with you, in a civilized manner, if you're up for it; you can find my email above.
For the record, I decided I was going to write this reply before I looked at the author line and saw that this was written by you; I swear I'm not stalking:P
Methinks wbr1 was, perhaps, simply using the terminology that was popular when Carole Adams was old enough to be forming her world view. That's a valid use of the slang, to color the context of the conversation with the likely viewpoint from which the person in the story made their comment.
Slashdot Mirror
usually murderous rampages happen when people are hungry..
Just wait until the industry starts suing people who can't afford their shit for not buying their shit. Think they won't be hungry when the courts find against them to the tune of millions?
If you think it won't happen, you haven't seen it happening for over a decade. Thus far, they haven't been dumb enough to let more than a handful actually go to trial, but they're getting more desperate as time passes.
Nothing in the constitution says copyright is protected, either. It's something we, the people, give to content creators to incentivize them to enrich our culture by continuing to create works that will one day be released into the public domain, where future generations may benefit from them, by enabling content creators to profit from their work for a short while.
Content creators have fought tooth and nail to ensure that they can profit in perpetuity from work they do once, in violation of that social contract, by lobbying for longer and longer copyright terms in a day and age where it takes less and less time to profit from one's creative work. The powers that be seem to think they can protect this with laws like the TPP, but I'll remind them this is the culture of generations they're fucking with and societies have been known to go on murderous rampages over much, much less.
I never said it was the most labor intensove job, or even that it was particularly labor intensive to begin with, only that it is more labor intensive than programming, which is what I currently do for a living. Since it is what i currently do for a living, I don't need you to tell me what it's like, as I know first hand. If it's as bad for you as you describe, you're being abused, nobody I know in the field lives that life.
How about you show us how it is not true, rather than making a blatantly false statement you can't back up?
Oh, sorry, answered my own question. carry on, then.
To be fair (and no, I'm not the AC you replied to), mobsters are after power by way of money and control. Have you looked at modern politics recently?
So wait... Slashdot is a news site again?
A1: "Well, they don't exist." Defendant is clearly innocent, goes free. (And now the witness has just committed perjury.)
A2: "I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any aliens." There remains reasonable doubt that the defendant actually leaked anything of value. Defendant goes free.
A3: "They exist exactly as described in the secret document that the defendant leaked." Defendant is guilty. (And now the witness must be immediately placed under arrest for leaking classified information.)
And that's how it should be. Our government exists to serve us (you know, the "for the people" part of "of the people, by the people, for the people"). Ensuring that they are actually doing so necessitates that they must be made to confirm secrets that are released by whistleblowers, or let them walk. If the secrets are confirmed in open court in order to secure a conviction, it is then up to the public to decide whether or not any such secrets (and the actions they describe) are kept in the public interest (and deal with those responsible for them if they are not), remembering who the government is supposed to be serving; if the secrets are denied, they must not have been important enough to warrant a conviction in the first place.
As for any agents of the government who may be put at risk by any such revelations, consider this: as an agent of a government for the people, do these men and women not have a duty to refuse any assignments not clearly in the public interest? Why, then, should they be afforded special protection when they shirk their duty to the people they're sworn to protect? They shouldn't, and if their participation in an illegal operation gets them shot in the head, well, death is a valid penalty for treason.
I never said it was difficult, not fun, or that there as much to learn. I said it was labor-intensive. I guess Dairy Queen isn't known for burgers, though, so I see how you might not have experienced that part of the job.
You missed the part where I no longer flip burgers and now write code for a living... I have for the past 13 years now. I know nobody living the fresh hell you describe; perhaps you should seek greener pastures.
You might be interested in this post, from a different discussion. Basically, a suggestion that some form of capitalistic communism might be the ideal, and a loose comparison with what we have today. I was hoping to get a discussion started with that comment, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. Maybe we can get that going here, instead.
Nobody's ever changed anyone's mind just because of a few pixels on the screen and most folks are not actually interested in holding their views up for scrutiny and changing them when new information comes to light. I think it's an ego thing but I'm not a head doctor...
Indeed and I hate that about people. Absolutely hate it. Personally, if someone wants to make an argument and back it up with research and facts that show me I'm wrong, I'm open to it because it means I get to become a better, more knowledgeable, and often more capable person for it, at no cost to myself. It doesn't even cost me pride; on the contrary, I'm proud to be one of the few who can actually do that. I've seen you do it, as well, so I know we're on the same page there.
Ahh.. actually, I think I see the problem here. You see, I am not the AC you initially replied to; and I believe that AC was actually being sarcastic in his reply.
A roof over their head means just that: any roof. Food on the table means enough food to sustain not only life, but health (so they can continue working and contributing to society in some meaningful way). You know, the necessities of life: water, food, shelter, and clothing. With shelter comes utilities, and with living in the US comes insurance, so we have to add those in, as they're really not optional (though insurance used to be).
Now, you can get government assistance for housing, food, and insurance, but wouldn't you much rather people worked for those things? Especially when it is quite possible (common, even) that working at all can disqualify you for one or more of those programs, while not supplying enough income to replace the assistance.
If you'd rather the government subsidize everyone who works to serve your needs, that's fine; I actually support that, since the government is taking a portion of my money anyway and giving the guy who flips my burgers a bit of that money means my burger can cost less. However, if what you're saying is that the guy who flips my burgers doesn't deserve the basic necessities, we're not going to reach a common ground here and we might as well just drop the subject.
At some point, there's an amount of labor, between none and little, where it's simply not enough energy spent to deserve payment
I can tell you, first hand, that flipping burgers is a lot more labor-intensive that writing code. I make a lot more doing the latter than I did doing the former.
at a level enough where someone could do just that job, nothing else, and have all the benefits of modern society
And we're (I though I made this clear) not talking about that; we're talking about the ability to do just that job and have a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food on your table, and government-mandated health insurance (even if you can't afford to use it because you don't make enough to afford the copay). Where I made that clear was when I said the following:
And it's not about living frugally vs having a nice apartment with all the trimmings; it's about being able to live frugally in the first place.
I, then, further clarified with the following tautology:
Not earning enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table isn't something you fix by living frugally
Please note where I said "enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table", then explain how that is anything remotely close to "all the benefits of modern society".
We've butted heads here a few times in the past, and we've agreed on things a number of times, as well. Usually, when we butt heads, it's because you ignore entire portions of my posts in order to counter a point I wasn't making. Can we put an end to that, please?
Should it be a living wage to work as a fry cook? Should it be a living wage to work in a convenience store?
Would you like to live in a world where nobody did those jobs and you, therefore, did not benefit from having people to do those things for you?
And it's not about living frugally vs having a nice apartment with all the trimmings; it's about being able to live frugally in the first place. Not earning enough to pay basic rent and utilities and keep food on the table isn't something you fix by living frugally, it's something you fix by earning more money, and the people in these jobs can't do that without abandoning those jobs, which leads to the world described above.
You're right, it has nothing to do with *this* phone, and I never said it did. It has everything to do with who is asking. If the owner of the phone is asking for it, Apple would be fully within the realm of reasonability to do so; whether or not they would without a court order is irrelevant, though I don't think they would. Were this both the owner of the phone making the request and the FBI serving Apply a court order instructing them to comply with the phone owner's request, it would certainly be reasonable for them to comply; for the owner, not for the FBI. And, in this case, it just so happens that the owner of the phone does wish to aid the FBI and, if they could, would.
Or are you saying that the owner of a device shouldn't be allowed to ask someone to help them hack it, or that someone shouldn't be allowed to help hack a device should the owner request it?
Do you seriously believe that Apple doesn't already have builds of iOS without the failed login limit and login delay? You know as well as I do that these builds certainly do exist, if for no other reason than testing. That is to say, what is being asked of Apple here already exists; your fears have been reality for as long as iOS has incorporated these features.
They have a case to resolve? Really? The people that were shot are dead, the people that did the shooting are dead, sounds like it resolved itself to me and, it would seem, the families of the victims agree.
What is there to gain by accessing the work phone of one of the shooters? The personal phones, where any evidence would reside, were destroyed and, ignoring that, the people the FBI is seeking to punish are, I'll repeat myself, already dead. Pursuing this past that is a simple waste of resources, unless they're angling for something else.
Like, oh, hmm, I dunno... setting a precedent for forcing companies to disable security features of their products and making encryption backdoors a hell of a lot more attractive to the masses who don't know any better, just as an example.
After all, they wouldn't want the people to rise up by talking to each other in private, assembling, and so on in the digital realm
Well no, of course not! Talking, assembling, and rising up is how this country overthrew British control in the first place and we all know that computers make everything more efficient!
Until the true patriots act, that is. By whatever means necessary, though a Congress of true patriots striking the law from the books should suffice and, I'm certain, would be preferable to all of us over a civil uprising. The questions that remain, then, are: How much more of this will the people take before all hell breaks loose? And will our government take action to correct their own wrongdoing before that happens?
Personally, I don't want the military pointing their weapons at me because I'm not fighting to increase their power and control, so I hope the answer to the latter is "Yes."
Probably just his email, which they could likely get from his ISP or mail provider, assuming they know who that is. In all likelihood, it's Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft.
Nah, they still wouldn't have had the contents of the phone until after they confiscated it, after the shootings.
Tautology: Whether or not something you don't have is encrypted has no bearing on whether or not you can use the thing you don't have; therefore, the contents of the phone the FBI didn't have before the shootings would have been just as useless in preventing the shootings if there were stored in plaintext.
I think the ideal is some form of capitalistic communism. I'm not sure quite what that would look like; perhaps it would look much like what we have in the US today, but without all the outcry against welfare programs. I'd be interested to see the idea discussed, though.
Is this still Slashdot? Have I entered the wrong URL? Two reasonable posts in a row?
Is this whipslash's doing?
This is the Slashdot I remember (well, so is all the trolling, and that's still here... this positive discourse is what has been missing for some time) from a decade past. Thank you for that, guys, both of you.
I am asking this with the utmost of sincerity; do you have a blog or newsletter I can follow? Is there somewhere other than Slashdot where I can read your musings? And why have I not encountered you before tonight and, now, have seen and replied to two of your posts?
:P
It seems we have very similar, but different enough to be interesting, views. I'd love to toss political and economic ideals back and forth with you, in a civilized manner, if you're up for it; you can find my email above.
For the record, I decided I was going to write this reply before I looked at the author line and saw that this was written by you; I swear I'm not stalking
Oh my god, you two... Just...
Keep doing what you're doing, i love it!
Methinks wbr1 was, perhaps, simply using the terminology that was popular when Carole Adams was old enough to be forming her world view. That's a valid use of the slang, to color the context of the conversation with the likely viewpoint from which the person in the story made their comment.