My MacBook has a Core i7-5730k (3.2GHz 4MB cache), 32 GB DDR3 RAM, a 512GB SSD plus a 1 TB HD, an NVidia 880M and Intel 3000HD. It also was only $1600 sans the SSD I purchased afterwards.
You buy it hot? Because you sure didn't buy it from apple with those specs at that price. I'm skeptical Apple has even sold an i7 equipped macbook for less than $2000.
"...and you get only $300 worth of quality and performance. If you buy a low-end econobox car, you'll get the same quality and performance as a low-end econobox car."
No dispute.
But if all you can afford or need is an econobox; then on the PC world you can either buy a 3 year old "good laptop", or a brand new "econobox".
There are advantages to both... but the new econobox has a new battery, and a warranty and benefited from moores law so it might well be as fast as the older one, and it comes with the latest OS, and has a USB3 port, and the power supply is brand new...
So there's not much reason to buy a used one, unless its either really cheap, or you specifically need something obsolete. Thus used PC laptop prices are pushed very low.
On a Mac if all you can afford is an econobox... then you buy a unit old enough that you can afford it.. Because there is no new econobox competing for your purchase. That's served (along with the other reasons I gave) to prop the price up.
Yes. But due to the limited sku count and rabid fanbase there are iFixit guides for pretty much ALL apple ones, and they're very well organized and easy to use. From identifying your unit exactly to links to parts that will be compatible.
Take a new dell precision M4800. And head over to ifixit. Ok... PC laptop... Dell... Precision... yikes.
There are ifixit guides for an M20 and an M65. The M65 is around 7 years old. The M20 is even older by the looks of the screenshot. The M20 has a single lower disassembly guide. The M65 just has a couple questions about unlocking a locked bios, no disassemble guide at all.
So basically nothing at all for the M4800 specifically, and almost nothing for the entire precision line of laptops. A single lower teardown guide for a laptop made probably 8+ years ago... I doubt that's going to be helpful.
Contrast to a recent Macbook Pro... 25+ guides each for every model, every screen size, every year, tailored to almost every replaceable part; complete with links to tools, supplies, and replacement parts...
Finding even just a just a complete tear down for your PC laptop is a crap shoot.
you tend to get "accidental" cross-vendor compatibility for LCD panels
Agreed. But finding out what you have exactly, and what is compatible from what else exactly tends to be a lot more leg work and a bit of a crap shoot.
1) Apple don't make an inexpensive model. They start at around $1000 and go up. People who can't afford a mac but want mac will buy a used mac.
You can buy a new PC for $300.
2) Apple only has few SKUs. This makes it pretty easy to know what you are buying. It's overwhemling buying a new PC... but a used one... much harder to find out whether that Sony SGH-5512-T(C)-A2 is any good or not, or what it even has. Buying a macbook on craigslist... "early 2012 macbook pro, 2.4GHz 4GB RAM"... there's pretty much all you need to know.
3) And the low SKU count means there is a fairly healthy cottage industry and DIY info for repairs.
Buy a 5 year old HP or Toshiba or Lenovo or Dell, there's not an ifixit guide with links to instructions and parts for it.
This amounts to informal long term support not available from other vendors and props up the value.
4) Viruses and malware and the relative complexity of reinstalling Windows software if it doesn't come with a restore CD or the recovery partition is blown. This is less of a problem on Mac's, and if you can get a current OSX image you can install it. No licensing greif or keys or drivers.
5) Free OS upgrades. Nobody wants a Vista laptop.
I agree with you that there is some really good PC hardware out there now. Dell XPS ultrabooks are nice. Asus has some nice stuff too. the HP Envy series you mentioned is nice kit too.
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?
Who said it does? Nobody says it has to be your norm. You don't have to get married, lots of people don't. You certainly don't have to stay married, again lost of people don't.
There is nothing particularly immoral about having multiple partners over your life. The immorality is the deception and betrayal of trust. If your going to bang strangers from the internet fine... tell your partner(s) that's what your going to be doing. If they're cool with that great. If they're not, you can leave each other and find a partner(s) that will accept it.
But sneaking around behind their back(s), lying to them, and violating their trust? What's your "moral" argument for doing that?
This behaviour of Edge is now causing an issue for me - I was sent to one of these trojan pages which blocks the PC. The infection was successfully prevented, but Edge was blocked from leaving this site or switching back to another Tab. I could kill it with taskmanager. But now it opens exactly this malware link ervery time I start Edge and is blocked.
How can I get rid of this last session and start Edge with a new one ?
Solved. I could open a new tab through the settings menu. Then I killed Edge with the new tab in front. Restarting Edge loaded all sites, including the malware one, but obviously did not run the code on this site which blocked leaving the page or closing the browser. Now I could "close other tabs" and close Edge normally.
But still I would very much prefer to have the option to select if the old session should be restored or not when starting Edge after an abnormal tremination.
if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs...
It worked for a few hundred years.
If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud [...] how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?
Well, for starters, when you showed up to vote, there would be a record saying that you already voted.
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning
Correct. But you know and record that an incident of fraud has occurred. So we're using all this direct evidence of fraud to make the case that we need photo id right? Where is that evidence? We're passing a law, and creating bureaucracy to manage a problem we actually have right?
What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all?
Go do some follow up spot checking; Hi... it says here you voted at 7am at polling station X; can you confirm this? Or put someone on going through the list at a few close polling stations for a bunch of deceased voters. Again... demonstrate some evidence of fraud.
it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud
All we need now is some actual evidence that it's actually happening.
Not asking for photo id is like turning off the password requirement on a server after disabling anything but the most basic logging mechanisms (ie "Joe Smith logged in at DD/MM/YYYY") and then assuming no one is going to hack you... and if they do, you'll be able to figure out who did it and go after them.
I don't assume I'll be able to figure out who did it. I assume though that I'll be able to show clear evidence that wrongdoing is actually taking place (and in the case of voting the rudimentary logging and auditing trails that should be present should suffice to show this); before I justify making it harder for people to use the server.
---------------
is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs?
Except your not actually making any effort to get these people such IDs. You aren't making it easier for them. You aren't providing them any assistance.
And you underestimate how difficult it is to reconstruct an identity. If you have a drivers license its pretty easy. But if you don't? Pulling birth certificate records for a senior citizen immigrant born in a town destroyed in the 2nd world war, whose misplaced his immigration paperwork 40 years ago. But since he'd already opened a bank account, and didn't drive or fly.... just let it go. And hasn't needed photo id for 40 years. But which you think you are doing him a "favor" by pushing him to get one...
Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.
That's just nonsense. Nobody anywhere is saying "thank goodness for voter id laws! I was stuck here on the ground using moneytree because I didn't have a bank account... but voterid laws motivated me to get an id and now I have a bank account, and drink beer on a jet!"
If the lack of and need for a bank account wasn't enough to motivate someone to get an id, then telling them they can't vote every few years... you think that's the carrot they needed?
Take a look at what is required to get a photoid if you don't already have one:
Here's Georgia:
1) "Documentation showing your identity, residential address, full social security number, and U.S. citizens
The OBDII port should be read only unless a physical switch is moved. Write commands should be blocked.
An insurance by the mile dongle should only require read access.
Plugging in anything there is like plugging something to the PCI bus of a computer.
Which is why Firewire and Thunderbolt and the now legacy PMCIA and Expressport are pretty big gaping security holes.
The PCI sockets internally at least have some physical security preventing access. But the thunderbolt port on the side of my laptop... is just begging to be abused.
You wouldn't cry for more security when doing so either.
I absolutely am "crying for more security" on them.
Explicit user authorization of the device should be taking place before the attached device gets to completely pwn your computer.
If secure access for some untrustworthy tools is needed, this requires a different port.
His was just an anecdotal scenario made to illustrate his point.
But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.
The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:
a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem
b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now than democrats; so it places a larger burden on democrats.
Even if we assume everybody has equal access to government offices, and time off to visit them, it STILL means that more voting democrats are going to be too busy or too lazy to actually get their documentation together. Yes, some busy, lazy republicans will be excluded as well. But less of them overall.
The upshot is indisputable. voter id laws are biased for republicans while really having no other effect. Since the type of voter fraud it prevents is statistically irrelevant anyway.
Hey, AC, why is there no cheese on this cheese burger?
We just don't have the time for it when there is work to be done.
Your fired.
After all, one would think putting cheese on a cheeseburger is a non optional part of the "work to be done" before moving to the next task. Apparently not.
Ridiculous right?
Now substitute "details" for "cheese", and "closed bug report" for "cheese burger". It's still a ridiculous argument.
Most of the previous hacks require physically connecting to the OBD2 port in the car. As was stated in related posting, just as with computers, if the bad guy can break into your car and install a dongle, you're pretty much screwed anyway.
The dongle used in the corvette hack was the one an insurance company provided to customers, so that they could pay insurance by the mile and monitor things via a smartphone app.
This is important because it is a scenario where the "physically connecting a dongle" part of the attack is voluntarily performed by the victim.
So your "if the bad guy breaks into your car...your screwed anyway" premise is not applicable. He doesn't have to break into the car. He just has to locate cars insured by that insurance company, or any other insurance company that uses the same dongles...
True... kind of... but only because he would have entered the public domain if Disney didn't keep lobbying Congress for more copyright extension laws
Right, but each extension stretches the credibility of the rationale ever thinner and distorts the copyright "benefit to society" argument. I think sooner or later it breaks down...
In contrast to copyrights, trademarks don't expire. The Ford car company exists for a very long time, but as long as they exist and the brand is used, no-one else can make Ford-branded cars.
And that's fine. I don[t object to the Ford car company owning a trademark on its logo and brand for as long as it makes cars... even if its thousands of years.
But take a look at Harry PotterTM, with its MugglesTM, and HermioneTM and QuidditchTM, etc... every character, every place, every THING in that entire fictional universe is trademarked.
That's not what trademarks were for. They do not exist to do an end run around copyright. This is what they are doing with it.
I believe trademarks are where corporations should be able to protect characters of a franchise that is still being actively monetized.
I hear where you are coming from, but then mickey mouse never enters the public domain.
And if Bill S, had incorporated and transferred his copyrights and trademarks to the coproration than the characters of Romeo and Julliette, Hamlet, Shylock, and all the rest would still be protected... from ever being used or referenced.
WHY is that ok? Culturally these characters should eventually be public domain. Can you imagine how much art and culture of today involves the use classical heroes and villains.
From Hercules to Dorian Gray, from Hades to Dr. Frankenstein. Would you prefer that all these characters belong to corporations forever trademarked?
One day another 50 or 100 years from now... why shouldn't the chracters of Mickey Mouse and Superman be equally available to screen writers and authors to incorporate, remix, and re-imagine?
From the countless Shakespeare reimaginings to TV series like Penny Dreadful that mix the Dracula tale with Dorian Gray and other "period' heroes and villains to the constant mining of greek mythology for new stories... culminating in stuff like Percy Jackson... this is a good thing.
Why exactly do you think today's "trademarked" characters SHOULD forever belong to corporations?
Oh, yes. Because I saved money rather than spent it, I'm 'fortunate'.
Fortunate on 2 counts actually.
First You made more than you needed to live. Many people at or below the poverty line don't have extra money to set aside.
Second, Evidently, nothing substantially unpleasant ever actually happened. When you had your six months or whatever living expenses saved away, you weren't laid off, and then fell off your front porch, wiping out your savings one hospital trip, and then some, and THEN finding yourself unable to work for several months... because no matter how much you set aside, there's always the chance that something bigger will hit you. You were fortunate that nothing bigger than you saved for ever hit you.
I too have your savings attitude, and I think its extremely prudent. It lets you absorb life's little hits without it being a big deal. But I don't pretend for a second that I haven't been fortunate that life hasn't thrown a bigger hit than I can absorb.
I agree with everything you said. However, there is the other side of it too:
'chaotic architecture' could just as easily be the state where users are given control and IT has to support whatever nonsense users want. We've all seen it. Company goes "BYOD" and "chaotic architecture" follows... every piece of crap random consumer grade device gets brought in... half of it doesn't run the business critical apps properly, centrally managed A/V isn't possible, virus infections run rampant and IT finds itself working on some twits $300 Sony Vaio with 1GB RAM and Vista Home Basic... torrent software consumes all bandwidth. Some nimrod installs an inkjet color printer that's only compatible with XP, then buys a Windows 8 laptop and wants IT to make it work...
IT needs to facilitate users getting the tools they need, WITHOUT letting it get TOO chaotic.:)
It sucks, it drains battery, it's a vector for ads, its an attack surface,its a vector for malware, is uses bandwidth, and it constantly wants to update which is annoying. (And given that its a big vector for malware... it needs to be updated.)
Does the flash updater try to install crapware too unless you opt out every single time? I just can't be bothered with it.
I do still have flash on one of computers, but not most of them. I find I don't miss that much that I actually want to see.
Most people talking about the "sharing economy" do. So now you've set your self apart from them too. You've backed yourself into a corner where the only person who uses the phrase sharing economy in precisely the way you do is YOU.
as opposed to a more traditional job where you agree to share a specific period of time with a company who in turn releases you form obligations from time to time to take vacation.
When the only person who thinks the most appropriate word to use in that sentence is "share" the issue is at your end. Nobody else talks like that. You are abusing the terminology.
That you can legitimately stretch the 'definition of share' to cover the situation is beside the point. Its basically doublespeak: "working a job" --> "sharing your time".
What mystifies be is your objection to the term sharing, when that's exactly what is happening - those people are deciding when they share resources
Ok, you said traditional jobs are also *sharing* their time but they just have agreed to give up some control over which hours they "share". And further you said that the ONLY difference is this loss of flexibility.
So the so-called "sharing of time" element is constant, and the difference is "flexibility of scheduling".
Why then do you argue so vigorously that the appropriate term is "sharing" rather than "flextime" or something else that actually makes reference to the scheduling flexibility.
Although that's sort of true, the difference is that the Uber driver comes and goes as he pleases, while Fry Guy has a fixed schedule he must meet or be fired.
That's a superficial difference. Lots of people have casual or flexible work hours. They still call them jobs. A self employed person comes and goes as he pleases, business owners, board members, day traders, etc ad nauseum. That's not novel or special.
where the Uber driver says "I have some free time now, I'm willing to share my car and drive now".
And everybody else just says "I feel like working now. So I'm going to work." They don't wander about saying "I feel like working now, so I'm going to share my skills, tools, time and be part of a new sharing economy".
Do you think sharing is not the right term for Air BnB hosts either? If not, why not?
Its no more "sharing" than a regular BnB business.
think about it from the standpoint of a technology metaphor
Why? Does using an 'uber app' to book a ride instead of a 'phone app' to book a ride change something?
Lots of things in programming and computer hardware are "shared", otten with carefully controlled limits. It's ok for those uses of "sharing" to be used in other real world activities.
Not following what that has to do with anything? So a network printer is a shared resource. No different than the receptionist my in my office, or the people staffing the help desk. They are shared resources used by many people. That doesn't make them part of some "new sharing economy". They have regular jobs. Being able to abstractly apply the term 'sharing' to some aspect of what they do isn't particularly interesting or novel.
I think any time you can arbitrarily offer up assets to other people whenever you feel like it, that is part of the "sharing economy" rather than something that is offered by a company according to the company schedule and needs.
That is a long list of well established jobs and careers. Pretty much anything that works 'gigs' or short term contracts qualifies. And most of this stuff isn't new:
painter (paintings) wedding photographer wedding DJ band (music) comedian motivational speaker escort prostitute masseuse caterer birthday clown song writer independent columnist cartoonist author (books) indie game/app developer consultant (pretty much all) stripper contractor (all kinds) self-employed plumber self-employed locksmith self-employed (lots of other stuff) ebay store operator amazon seller etsy seller professional blogger flea market vendor... and on and on and on.
When even 'the oldest profession' is on the list of jobs that meet your criteria, we definitely do not have a 'new sharing economy'.
Instead we have 'yet another instance of something we've had lots of instances of going back as far back as one cares to go.'
So what if we use a more plausible scenario - a teenage boy is walking by, and decides to gawk over the fence at the teenage girls.
Sorry, No. Just no.
That's NOT a suitable comparison. A teenager gawking over the fence can be confronted in a large variety of non-violent ways... starting with "Hey! You! Beat it!"
because who knows when he's going to decide that a kid jumping the fence to retrieve a ball is a Deadly Terrorist Intruder?
Because he can't tell the difference between an 7 year old child and a toy robot helicopter? Or you can't?
They aren't remotely the same thing. You are making a strawman argument trying to argue that if he shoots at one he'll shoot at the other. He didn't shoot at a person. He shot at a toy.
Further he elected to shoot at it because the usual obvious things one would do to a person or object in ones yard were not options. He could not ask it to leave. He could not ask the owner to desist. He could not simply grab it, drop into a bag, and take it to the police. It was out of reach and could not be confronted in a way that child climbing over a fence could be.
This situation needs to be considered on its own merits rather than comparing it to a child climbing the fence.
Slashdot Mirror
My MacBook has a Core i7-5730k (3.2GHz 4MB cache), 32 GB DDR3 RAM, a 512GB SSD plus a 1 TB HD, an NVidia 880M and Intel 3000HD.
It also was only $1600 sans the SSD I purchased afterwards.
You buy it hot? Because you sure didn't buy it from apple with those specs at that price. I'm skeptical Apple has even sold an i7 equipped macbook for less than $2000.
"...and you get only $300 worth of quality and performance. If you buy a low-end econobox car, you'll get the same quality and performance as a low-end econobox car."
No dispute.
But if all you can afford or need is an econobox; then on the PC world you can either buy a 3 year old "good laptop", or a brand new "econobox".
There are advantages to both... but the new econobox has a new battery, and a warranty and benefited from moores law so it might well be as fast as the older one, and it comes with the latest OS, and has a USB3 port, and the power supply is brand new...
So there's not much reason to buy a used one, unless its either really cheap, or you specifically need something obsolete. Thus used PC laptop prices are pushed very low.
On a Mac if all you can afford is an econobox... then you buy a unit old enough that you can afford it.. Because there is no new econobox competing for your purchase. That's served (along with the other reasons I gave) to prop the price up.
There are iFixit guides for random laptops,
Yes. But due to the limited sku count and rabid fanbase there are iFixit guides for pretty much ALL apple ones, and they're very well organized and easy to use. From identifying your unit exactly to links to parts that will be compatible.
Take a new dell precision M4800. And head over to ifixit. Ok... PC laptop... Dell... Precision... yikes.
There are ifixit guides for an M20 and an M65. The M65 is around 7 years old. The M20 is even older by the looks of the screenshot. The M20 has a single lower disassembly guide. The M65 just has a couple questions about unlocking a locked bios, no disassemble guide at all.
So basically nothing at all for the M4800 specifically, and almost nothing for the entire precision line of laptops. A single lower teardown guide for a laptop made probably 8+ years ago... I doubt that's going to be helpful.
Contrast to a recent Macbook Pro ... 25+ guides each for every model, every screen size, every year, tailored to almost every replaceable part; complete with links to tools, supplies, and replacement parts...
Finding even just a just a complete tear down for your PC laptop is a crap shoot.
you tend to get "accidental" cross-vendor compatibility for LCD panels
Agreed. But finding out what you have exactly, and what is compatible from what else exactly tends to be a lot more leg work and a bit of a crap shoot.
Three major reasons:
1) Apple don't make an inexpensive model. They start at around $1000 and go up. People who can't afford a mac but want mac will buy a used mac.
You can buy a new PC for $300.
2) Apple only has few SKUs. This makes it pretty easy to know what you are buying. It's overwhemling buying a new PC ... but a used one ... much harder to find out whether that Sony SGH-5512-T(C)-A2 is any good or not, or what it even has. Buying a macbook on craigslist... "early 2012 macbook pro, 2.4GHz 4GB RAM" ... there's pretty much all you need to know.
3)
And the low SKU count means there is a fairly healthy cottage industry and DIY info for repairs.
Buy a 5 year old HP or Toshiba or Lenovo or Dell, there's not an ifixit guide with links to instructions and parts for it.
This amounts to informal long term support not available from other vendors and props up the value.
4) Viruses and malware and the relative complexity of reinstalling Windows software if it doesn't come with a restore CD or the recovery partition is blown. This is less of a problem on Mac's, and if you can get a current OSX image you can install it. No licensing greif or keys or drivers.
5) Free OS upgrades. Nobody wants a Vista laptop.
I agree with you that there is some really good PC hardware out there now. Dell XPS ultrabooks are nice. Asus has some nice stuff too. the HP Envy series you mentioned is nice kit too.
That doesn't appear to be a "secret ballot" if one can retrieve the actual ballot you cast if they know your name.
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?
Who said it does? Nobody says it has to be your norm. You don't have to get married, lots of people don't. You certainly don't have to stay married, again lost of people don't.
There is nothing particularly immoral about having multiple partners over your life. The immorality is the deception and betrayal of trust. If your going to bang strangers from the internet fine... tell your partner(s) that's what your going to be doing. If they're cool with that great. If they're not, you can leave each other and find a partner(s) that will accept it.
But sneaking around behind their back(s), lying to them, and violating their trust? What's your "moral" argument for doing that?
the Edge "settings" referred to is just the hamburger menu i think? Or what about ctrl-T ? or whatever the new tab command is?
It seems like the key to the workaround method is to get a different tab into the foreground before you kill the browser task.
The whole edge browser is still too new and rough around the edges, in my opinion.
-cheers
CPUs, especially on modern machines that typically have around four cores, are very rarely at 100% utilization in real-world scenarios.
On a laptop/tablet/phone the battery usage is going to be the larger consideration than straight CPU utilization.
from a random google search:
This behaviour of Edge is now causing an issue for me - I was sent to one of these trojan pages which blocks the PC. The infection was successfully prevented, but Edge was blocked from leaving this site or switching back to another Tab. I could kill it with taskmanager.
But now it opens exactly this malware link ervery time I start Edge and is blocked.
How can I get rid of this last session and start Edge with a new one ?
Solved. I could open a new tab through the settings menu. Then I killed Edge with the new tab in front. Restarting Edge loaded all sites, including the malware one, but obviously did not run the code on this site which blocked leaving the page or closing the browser. Now I could "close other tabs" and close Edge normally.
But still I would very much prefer to have the option to select if the old session should be restored or not when starting Edge after an abnormal tremination.
if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs...
It worked for a few hundred years.
If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud [...] how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?
Well, for starters, when you showed up to vote, there would be a record saying that you already voted.
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning
Correct. But you know and record that an incident of fraud has occurred. So we're using all this direct evidence of fraud to make the case that we need photo id right? Where is that evidence? We're passing a law, and creating bureaucracy to manage a problem we actually have right?
What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all?
Go do some follow up spot checking; Hi... it says here you voted at 7am at polling station X; can you confirm this? Or put someone on going through the list at a few close polling stations for a bunch of deceased voters. Again... demonstrate some evidence of fraud.
it's almost certain that we are in the margin of fraud
All we need now is some actual evidence that it's actually happening.
Not asking for photo id is like turning off the password requirement on a server after disabling anything but the most basic logging mechanisms (ie "Joe Smith logged in at DD/MM/YYYY") and then assuming no one is going to hack you... and if they do, you'll be able to figure out who did it and go after them.
I don't assume I'll be able to figure out who did it. I assume though that I'll be able to show clear evidence that wrongdoing is actually taking place (and in the case of voting the rudimentary logging and auditing trails that should be present should suffice to show this); before I justify making it harder for people to use the server.
---------------
is the solution to simply not require such IDs... or to make an effort to make sure as many as people have such IDs?
Except your not actually making any effort to get these people such IDs. You aren't making it easier for them. You aren't providing them any assistance.
And you underestimate how difficult it is to reconstruct an identity. If you have a drivers license its pretty easy. But if you don't? Pulling birth certificate records for a senior citizen immigrant born in a town destroyed in the 2nd world war, whose misplaced his immigration paperwork 40 years ago. But since he'd already opened a bank account, and didn't drive or fly.... just let it go. And hasn't needed photo id for 40 years. But which you think you are doing him a "favor" by pushing him to get one...
Things which are more often than not required in plenty of other facets in life be it flying, driving, opening a bank account or just buying a six-pack of beer.
That's just nonsense. Nobody anywhere is saying "thank goodness for voter id laws! I was stuck here on the ground using moneytree because I didn't have a bank account... but voterid laws motivated me to get an id and now I have a bank account, and drink beer on a jet!"
If the lack of and need for a bank account wasn't enough to motivate someone to get an id, then telling them they can't vote every few years... you think that's the carrot they needed?
Take a look at what is required to get a photoid if you don't already have one:
Here's Georgia:
1) "Documentation showing your identity, residential address, full social security number, and U.S. citizens
Then how is this the cars fault?
The OBDII port should be read only unless a physical switch is moved. Write commands should be blocked.
An insurance by the mile dongle should only require read access.
Plugging in anything there is like plugging something to the PCI bus of a computer.
Which is why Firewire and Thunderbolt and the now legacy PMCIA and Expressport are pretty big gaping security holes.
The PCI sockets internally at least have some physical security preventing access. But the thunderbolt port on the side of my laptop... is just begging to be abused.
You wouldn't cry for more security when doing so either.
I absolutely am "crying for more security" on them.
Explicit user authorization of the device should be taking place before the attached device gets to completely pwn your computer.
If secure access for some untrustworthy tools is needed, this requires a different port.
That's a good option too.
His was just an anecdotal scenario made to illustrate his point.
But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.
The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:
a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem
b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now than democrats; so it places a larger burden on democrats.
Even if we assume everybody has equal access to government offices, and time off to visit them, it STILL means that more voting democrats are going to be too busy or too lazy to actually get their documentation together. Yes, some busy, lazy republicans will be excluded as well. But less of them overall.
The upshot is indisputable. voter id laws are biased for republicans while really having no other effect. Since the type of voter fraud it prevents is statistically irrelevant anyway.
Hey, AC, why is there no cheese on this cheese burger?
We just don't have the time for it when there is work to be done.
Your fired.
After all, one would think putting cheese on a cheeseburger is a non optional part of the "work to be done" before moving to the next task. Apparently not.
Ridiculous right?
Now substitute "details" for "cheese", and "closed bug report" for "cheese burger". It's still a ridiculous argument.
Most of the previous hacks require physically connecting to the OBD2 port in the car. As was stated in related posting, just as with computers, if the bad guy can break into your car and install a dongle, you're pretty much screwed anyway.
The dongle used in the corvette hack was the one an insurance company provided to customers, so that they could pay insurance by the mile and monitor things via a smartphone app.
This is important because it is a scenario where the "physically connecting a dongle" part of the attack is voluntarily performed by the victim.
So your "if the bad guy breaks into your car...your screwed anyway" premise is not applicable. He doesn't have to break into the car. He just has to locate cars insured by that insurance company, or any other insurance company that uses the same dongles...
True... kind of... but only because he would have entered the public domain if Disney didn't keep lobbying Congress for more copyright extension laws
Right, but each extension stretches the credibility of the rationale ever thinner and distorts the copyright "benefit to society" argument. I think sooner or later it breaks down...
In contrast to copyrights, trademarks don't expire. The Ford car company exists for a very long time, but as long as they exist and the brand is used, no-one else can make Ford-branded cars.
And that's fine. I don[t object to the Ford car company owning a trademark on its logo and brand for as long as it makes cars... even if its thousands of years.
But take a look at Harry PotterTM, with its MugglesTM, and HermioneTM and QuidditchTM, etc... every character, every place, every THING in that entire fictional universe is trademarked.
That's not what trademarks were for. They do not exist to do an end run around copyright. This is what they are doing with it.
I believe trademarks are where corporations should be able to protect characters of a franchise that is still being actively monetized.
I hear where you are coming from, but then mickey mouse never enters the public domain.
And if Bill S, had incorporated and transferred his copyrights and trademarks to the coproration than the characters of Romeo and Julliette, Hamlet, Shylock, and all the rest would still be protected... from ever being used or referenced.
WHY is that ok? Culturally these characters should eventually be public domain. Can you imagine how much art and culture of today involves the use classical heroes and villains.
From Hercules to Dorian Gray, from Hades to Dr. Frankenstein. Would you prefer that all these characters belong to corporations forever trademarked?
One day another 50 or 100 years from now... why shouldn't the chracters of Mickey Mouse and Superman be equally available to screen writers and authors to incorporate, remix, and re-imagine?
From the countless Shakespeare reimaginings to TV series like Penny Dreadful that mix the Dracula tale with Dorian Gray and other "period' heroes and villains to the constant mining of greek mythology for new stories... culminating in stuff like Percy Jackson... this is a good thing.
Why exactly do you think today's "trademarked" characters SHOULD forever belong to corporations?
Oh, yes. Because I saved money rather than spent it, I'm 'fortunate'.
Fortunate on 2 counts actually.
First You made more than you needed to live. Many people at or below the poverty line don't have extra money to set aside.
Second, Evidently, nothing substantially unpleasant ever actually happened. When you had your six months or whatever living expenses saved away, you weren't laid off, and then fell off your front porch, wiping out your savings one hospital trip, and then some, and THEN finding yourself unable to work for several months... because no matter how much you set aside, there's always the chance that something bigger will hit you. You were fortunate that nothing bigger than you saved for ever hit you.
I too have your savings attitude, and I think its extremely prudent. It lets you absorb life's little hits without it being a big deal. But I don't pretend for a second that I haven't been fortunate that life hasn't thrown a bigger hit than I can absorb.
I agree with everything you said. However, there is the other side of it too:
'chaotic architecture' could just as easily be the state where users are given control and IT has to support whatever nonsense users want. We've all seen it. Company goes "BYOD" and "chaotic architecture" follows... every piece of crap random consumer grade device gets brought in... half of it doesn't run the business critical apps properly, centrally managed A/V isn't possible, virus infections run rampant and IT finds itself working on some twits $300 Sony Vaio with 1GB RAM and Vista Home Basic... torrent software consumes all bandwidth. Some nimrod installs an inkjet color printer that's only compatible with XP, then buys a Windows 8 laptop and wants IT to make it work...
IT needs to facilitate users getting the tools they need, WITHOUT letting it get TOO chaotic. :)
It sucks, it drains battery, it's a vector for ads, its an attack surface,its a vector for malware, is uses bandwidth, and it constantly wants to update which is annoying. (And given that its a big vector for malware... it needs to be updated.)
Does the flash updater try to install crapware too unless you opt out every single time? I just can't be bothered with it.
I do still have flash on one of computers, but not most of them. I find I don't miss that much that I actually want to see.
I never said it was new,
Most people talking about the "sharing economy" do. So now you've set your self apart from them too. You've backed yourself into a corner where the only person who uses the phrase sharing economy in precisely the way you do is YOU.
as opposed to a more traditional job where you agree to share a specific period of time with a company who in turn releases you form obligations from time to time to take vacation.
When the only person who thinks the most appropriate word to use in that sentence is "share" the issue is at your end. Nobody else talks like that. You are abusing the terminology.
That you can legitimately stretch the 'definition of share' to cover the situation is beside the point. Its basically doublespeak: "working a job" --> "sharing your time".
What mystifies be is your objection to the term sharing, when that's exactly what is happening - those people are deciding when they share resources
Ok, you said traditional jobs are also *sharing* their time but they just have agreed to give up some control over which hours they "share". And further you said that the ONLY difference is this loss of flexibility.
So the so-called "sharing of time" element is constant, and the difference is "flexibility of scheduling".
Why then do you argue so vigorously that the appropriate term is "sharing" rather than "flextime" or something else that actually makes reference to the scheduling flexibility.
Lol, well played.
"Smaller, but still pretty big"
Down from 5m and 2m. That's substantial progress.
Although that's sort of true, the difference is that the Uber driver comes and goes as he pleases, while Fry Guy has a fixed schedule he must meet or be fired.
That's a superficial difference. Lots of people have casual or flexible work hours. They still call them jobs. A self employed person comes and goes as he pleases, business owners, board members, day traders, etc ad nauseum. That's not novel or special.
where the Uber driver says "I have some free time now, I'm willing to share my car and drive now".
And everybody else just says "I feel like working now. So I'm going to work." They don't wander about saying "I feel like working now, so I'm going to share my skills, tools, time and be part of a new sharing economy".
Do you think sharing is not the right term for Air BnB hosts either? If not, why not?
Its no more "sharing" than a regular BnB business.
think about it from the standpoint of a technology metaphor
Why? Does using an 'uber app' to book a ride instead of a 'phone app' to book a ride change something?
Lots of things in programming and computer hardware are "shared", otten with carefully controlled limits. It's ok for those uses of "sharing" to be used in other real world activities.
Not following what that has to do with anything? So a network printer is a shared resource. No different than the receptionist my in my office, or the people staffing the help desk. They are shared resources used by many people. That doesn't make them part of some "new sharing economy". They have regular jobs. Being able to abstractly apply the term 'sharing' to some aspect of what they do isn't particularly interesting or novel.
I think any time you can arbitrarily offer up assets to other people whenever you feel like it, that is part of the "sharing economy" rather than something that is offered by a company according to the company schedule and needs.
That is a long list of well established jobs and careers. Pretty much anything that works 'gigs' or short term contracts qualifies. And most of this stuff isn't new:
painter (paintings) ...
wedding photographer
wedding DJ
band (music)
comedian
motivational speaker
escort
prostitute
masseuse
caterer
birthday clown
song writer
independent columnist
cartoonist
author (books)
indie game/app developer
consultant (pretty much all)
stripper
contractor (all kinds)
self-employed plumber
self-employed locksmith
self-employed (lots of other stuff)
ebay store operator
amazon seller
etsy seller
professional blogger
flea market vendor
and on and on and on.
When even 'the oldest profession' is on the list of jobs that meet your criteria, we definitely do not have a 'new sharing economy'.
Instead we have 'yet another instance of something we've had lots of instances of going back as far back as one cares to go.'
So what if we use a more plausible scenario - a teenage boy is walking by, and decides to gawk over the fence at the teenage girls.
Sorry, No. Just no.
That's NOT a suitable comparison. A teenager gawking over the fence can be confronted in a large variety of non-violent ways... starting with "Hey! You! Beat it!"
because who knows when he's going to decide that a kid jumping the fence to retrieve a ball is a Deadly Terrorist Intruder?
Because he can't tell the difference between an 7 year old child and a toy robot helicopter? Or you can't?
They aren't remotely the same thing. You are making a strawman argument trying to argue that if he shoots at one he'll shoot at the other. He didn't shoot at a person. He shot at a toy.
Further he elected to shoot at it because the usual obvious things one would do to a person or object in ones yard were not options. He could not ask it to leave. He could not ask the owner to desist. He could not simply grab it, drop into a bag, and take it to the police. It was out of reach and could not be confronted in a way that child climbing over a fence could be.
This situation needs to be considered on its own merits rather than comparing it to a child climbing the fence.