Let's chat about this after ad revenue has dropped far enough for the advertising networks to fully understand how much our satisfaction is a factor in their success.
I'm sick of my ISDN line at home. Fifteen years ago when I lived in Rock Hill, SC, just south of Charlotte, NC mentioned by the GP, I had a connection over a hundred times faster than I now have in Seattle, WA. This is supposed to be a tech city, but everyone I know outside of work hates the Internet and wants to limit access to it. The city is very anti-Internet. They won't allow CenturyLink to upgrade to fiber in my area, and they won't allow Comcast, despite their government-granted monopoly for the area, to dig up the street to bury cable.
I apologize in advance but I don't get many opportunities to do this... but...
I have Time Warner, bitch!! Envy me!! AHAHAHAHA!
Okay, sorry about that. It's one of those bucket-list things I never thought I'd ever get to check off.
[which it doesn't, since firmware needs to be loaded onto it for it to get brute forced]
They have to do the work to do open the first one. After that there will be no convincing the gov't that Apple can say anything but "Yes we can do that." This is software for a mass-produced and popular product, there is no 'doing it once'.
Additionally, Apple was going to be compensated for their efforts.
They were going to be compensated for compromising their entire product line? Heh. K.
Although that's indeed very funny, it's irrelevant.
As I said before, this is about trusting the gov't. Yes, it's very relevant. In fact, we wouldn't even be seeing this challenge go down if not for this sort of incompetence. You're being bought with theater.
I'm all for the slippery slope argument, but people are getting way ahead of themselves here and hand-waving away challenges.
People are showing an interest in the proper functioning of Checks and Balances. The whole purpose of a system like that is to prevent over-reach. The government's argument is unconvincing and the damage it would cause to the citizens of the USA has not been sufficiently justified. It reeks of opportunism.
That sound great, it just doesn't have anything to do with the points I brought up. The gov't isn't kicking down the door, they're asking the manufacturer of the house to spend their own resources to compromise the security of all the houses they've built for this one case, and this is after they threw the keys they HAD legally obtained away.
There are a few. First is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to make all of their phones vulnerable. Second is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to actually do the work to make that possible, as opposed to just providing a simple service. Third is that they're trying to compel Apple to do this because the gov't didn't handle their evidence properly, leaving this overreach as their next resort to get at that data.
The reason to accept this happening is trust in the gov't. If the idea of handing them the keys to your house is unsettling, what they're trying to do with Apple is as well.
You were complaining about a particular comment by a particular individual, so yes....
Uh, no, I wasn't. I was teasing everybody who does that.. and there are quite a few around here that regularly do... by using an individual as an example.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Would you be willing to give a copy of your house keys to the local police department? Afterall, if everybody did that, then lives could be saved by letting the police enter suspects' homes on a whim. In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
I think that's a perfectly reasonable question, btw. I don't have the answer, either. I think it's addressed in many places, more than I can even count. There's minimum wage, there's benefits, there's rent control, etc, and plenty more I am unaware of. The one constant, though, is that these businesses aren't introducing part of the solution even though they require these people be successful to thrive. The only ones that have stepped up have done so for PR reasons.
And I think the rest of your post is a fair point. But the reason I've been asking you these questions is I don't understand why you feel that scenario is preferable. Why place the whole burden on the workforce (and indirectly yourself personally)? Why are they expected to bleed yet not expect responsible behavior from these businesses?
I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm just having trouble making it all line up in my head.
I don't have an answer to that question, mainly because I've never proposed it. I can attempt to answer your question by saying I do believe a fair minimum wage needs to be set, but it doesn't work when taken to an extreme like you've described.
As for my 'stretching', the question I've asked is not an extreme, it's really happening. So, in reeling you back to earth here, I want to ask: Were you aware that the step between unemployable and homeless is gov't assistance?
Slashdot Mirror
So, either someone who works in the online advertising industry or who earns money thanks to online advertising, most likely.
If it's the latter then I'd really love to have a chat with that individual. Not hearing what I have to say is dangerous to his livelihood.
Erm... Wasn't expecting to get modded down, curious as to why?
Let's chat about this after ad revenue has dropped far enough for the advertising networks to fully understand how much our satisfaction is a factor in their success.
Do you have a link handy? I wasn't aware of that.
Microsoft may be behind Apple, but Bill Gates isn't.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559...
Can't say I'm a fan of his rationale, he of all people should know better.
I had a friend we nicknamed 'Skids', he wasn't a script kiddie. Although he did spend a lot of time at his computer...
I'm sick of my ISDN line at home. Fifteen years ago when I lived in Rock Hill, SC, just south of Charlotte, NC mentioned by the GP, I had a connection over a hundred times faster than I now have in Seattle, WA. This is supposed to be a tech city, but everyone I know outside of work hates the Internet and wants to limit access to it. The city is very anti-Internet. They won't allow CenturyLink to upgrade to fiber in my area, and they won't allow Comcast, despite their government-granted monopoly for the area, to dig up the street to bury cable.
I apologize in advance but I don't get many opportunities to do this... but...
I have Time Warner, bitch!! Envy me!! AHAHAHAHA!
Okay, sorry about that. It's one of those bucket-list things I never thought I'd ever get to check off.
No, it doesn't, for the reasons I posted. Re-reading your post didn't make any remarks addressing the scale of the request appear.
[which it doesn't, since firmware needs to be loaded onto it for it to get brute forced]
They have to do the work to do open the first one. After that there will be no convincing the gov't that Apple can say anything but "Yes we can do that." This is software for a mass-produced and popular product, there is no 'doing it once'.
Additionally, Apple was going to be compensated for their efforts.
They were going to be compensated for compromising their entire product line? Heh. K.
Although that's indeed very funny, it's irrelevant.
As I said before, this is about trusting the gov't. Yes, it's very relevant. In fact, we wouldn't even be seeing this challenge go down if not for this sort of incompetence. You're being bought with theater.
I'm all for the slippery slope argument, but people are getting way ahead of themselves here and hand-waving away challenges.
People are showing an interest in the proper functioning of Checks and Balances. The whole purpose of a system like that is to prevent over-reach. The government's argument is unconvincing and the damage it would cause to the citizens of the USA has not been sufficiently justified. It reeks of opportunism.
That sound great, it just doesn't have anything to do with the points I brought up. The gov't isn't kicking down the door, they're asking the manufacturer of the house to spend their own resources to compromise the security of all the houses they've built for this one case, and this is after they threw the keys they HAD legally obtained away.
There are a few. First is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to make all of their phones vulnerable. Second is that the gov't is trying to compel Apple to actually do the work to make that possible, as opposed to just providing a simple service. Third is that they're trying to compel Apple to do this because the gov't didn't handle their evidence properly, leaving this overreach as their next resort to get at that data.
The reason to accept this happening is trust in the gov't. If the idea of handing them the keys to your house is unsettling, what they're trying to do with Apple is as well.
You were complaining about a particular comment by a particular individual, so yes....
Uh, no, I wasn't. I was teasing everybody who does that.. and there are quite a few around here that regularly do... by using an individual as an example.
That's a false analogy.
No, it isn't. It's a question of if you trust your government. Even your own reply is full of stipulations like having various forms of consent.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Would you be willing to give a copy of your house keys to the local police department? Afterall, if everybody did that, then lives could be saved by letting the police enter suspects' homes on a whim. In fact, you could even assume those that didn't volunteer their keys are suspect to begin with!
I shouldn't have to explain that well educated people don't have to work Mcjobs.
It happens, way more often than you'd realize. The term you're looking for is 'under-employed'.
Note the only reason you patent an invention is to *prevent* it being used (without your consent).
Nope. Another good reason to patent an invention is that others can license it, thus providing a return on your R&D investment.
It's digital, duh!
So let me get this straight, a one time nag on a forum...
One time...? Are you serious?!
Google and Yahoo have accused ad-blocking software Shine of "destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers...
No. Advertisers destroyed the relationship between themselves and consumers, ad-blocking software has just given us the means to share our voice.
Who decides whats 'fair'?
I think that's a perfectly reasonable question, btw. I don't have the answer, either. I think it's addressed in many places, more than I can even count. There's minimum wage, there's benefits, there's rent control, etc, and plenty more I am unaware of. The one constant, though, is that these businesses aren't introducing part of the solution even though they require these people be successful to thrive. The only ones that have stepped up have done so for PR reasons.
And I think the rest of your post is a fair point. But the reason I've been asking you these questions is I don't understand why you feel that scenario is preferable. Why place the whole burden on the workforce (and indirectly yourself personally)? Why are they expected to bleed yet not expect responsible behavior from these businesses?
I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm just having trouble making it all line up in my head.
"Windows 10 is bad because it nags you to switch to it! Now I'll obliviously nag you to switch to Linux!"
It would have been nice if they had paid attention in school, so they would be worth more.
McDonalds won't pay you more if you have a Computer Science degree.
BTW the government is subsidizing the low skilled workers, not Walmart.
More like the gov't is subsidizing Wal Mart. Heh. You're in the position where you're exploiting workers and paying for it!
I don't have an answer to that question, mainly because I've never proposed it. I can attempt to answer your question by saying I do believe a fair minimum wage needs to be set, but it doesn't work when taken to an extreme like you've described.
As for my 'stretching', the question I've asked is not an extreme, it's really happening. So, in reeling you back to earth here, I want to ask: Were you aware that the step between unemployable and homeless is gov't assistance?
Oh, there's no comparison!
So it's good that those that are, for example, working at Walmart and having to get gov't assistance... because they learned to live cheaper?