Put a hardware access method on the phone that lets the phone be decrypted at the cost of destroying the phone
Putting a self destruct device next to the backdoor still leaves you with no security, and a backdoor that can be remotely accessed based on bugs in your destruct device.
It is just magical thinking phrased as science fiction. But it lacks reality either way. Decryption must be based on math, a promise to self destruct is not math.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for... the Laws of Nature and... a decent respect... requires that they should... impel them to the separation.
Oh, and if you want to know what History did decide, you can start by adding SCOTUSblog to your daily reading. Then come back in 10 years, and we can talk about it.
Math doesn't work that way. If a force is evil and powerful enough maybe they can get people to stop doing math, but they're not going to manage to change how it works.
The real question is how much money they're being paid
That is the question for sure! But it doesn't really matter how much. What matters is that they are in fact being paid by the open infringers. So they get this smackdown and have to play nice now, under supervision.
The lesson is: Plausible deniability has to be plausible. Without it, you get an injunction.
The problem with leaning on "belief" is that you would have to prove what your belief actually is, you can't just assert anything and insist on it. The other side will have experts that dig into the details of it and try to prove, based on your other words or actions, that you probably believed something else. And they'll do that by talking not about you, but about what a mythical Reasonable Person would believe.
If this was two companies, that might matter. But it doesn't matter if this company had some measly low-level rights violated, because the Constitution gives the Executive branch of government wide discretion over national security and foreign policy. Even if you don't believe the Government about their reasons for the action, that doesn't matter; the reasons given are clearly reasonable, and clearly within Executive discretion. The Executive can slander or libel any foreign entity they want, and even if it harms their Rights that will be OK because their Rights have to be balanced against the Executive responsibility for national security and foreign policy. The Government always wins that fight against a foreign entity, by definition!
Nothing about defamation would even come up; you can only sue the US Government where there is a federal law that permits you to do it. And that mostly means, when your Rights have been violated. So you don't sue the Government for defamation, and you don't even get to use that word in Court against them.
The question is not about "objective" anything, either, but about if the Government's reasons seem reasonable on their face. The Court doesn't have authority to second-guess the Executive's judgment, they're not going to go there. It will be like a Habeas hearing where they just look at what is alleged, and does the alleged conduct reasonably fit the charges filed? So here that would be, Did the government give a reason that seems to relate to national security? If everything the Government alleges were true, would the Government have the right to refuse to purchase a company's product? See, you don't even get to the real analysis, because Kaspersky won't be able to write a court filing that pushes a reasonable theory as to why they have a right to have their product purchased by the US government. That is not an enumerated right. But if it was, then it would be weighed against the Executive foreign policy prerogatives and the government would only have to prove that the government didn't trust Kaspersky. That's it, that's all they have to show; not even prove! They simply have to assert that yes, they promise they relied on some sort of information that involved national security or foreign policy.
Hell, I don't need a flame-resistant suit, burn it down for all I care!
Fanbois unite! Go and crowd around whatever is the popular flavor of the week. Oh, Debian again? LOL awesome! Black gets to be the new black this season!
I get no benefit at all from others making the same choice as me.
Linux is for experts. If you have a good reason to use linux, you probably know what it is. You can probably select the distro that best meets the needs of your use case. I prefer the business-y one that has been unpopular but somehow one of the most used ever since the 90s.
Thanks to Debian for being like a giant honeypot sucking in the newbs and keeping them out of the help forums that sysadmins use! 3 3 3
You apparently are unfamiliar with the programming.
You don't learn how to program a real self-driving car in a free online class called "how to program a self-driving car." What you learn is the high-level algorithms. What you program in the class is a computer simulation similar to a roomba. What students actually build on their own after taking the class is almost always a roomba-competitor, except when it does even less and just drives around chasing the cat.
Do they even know? If you ask a mathematician what his job is, and you ask his employer what his job is, are you going to get the same answer? Highly unlikely. Mathematicians generally refuse to believe that anything defined outside of math is even defined! Will they even agree that their job is narrowly defined, in words, words clearly written by their employer, or will they insist that "what their job is" is some sort of unanswerable philosophical question and that therefore, they can only charge ahead blindly using the proto-philosophy they learned in math class?
The thing is, that tells you nothing about anything. At least, nothing about the things you were purporting to talk about.
When a service worker is grousing to an engineer, the engineer responds with slapstick one-liners because that is what the service worker is going to understand, and in fact the complaints are rhetorical anyways. The goal isn't to give you information, but to respond in a friendly way that you'll understand.
The response you got is boiler-plate "simplest explanation of why all products are not built like the Space Shuttle," it was not any sort of insight gained from having access to the engineers.;)
Or, the complaints come from the people buying the very cheapest printers from the cheapest big box stores, and your cheapest junk isn't as cheap as our cheapest junk. In that case, people buying a midrange printer would have the exact same experience.
I print on a wide variety of papers, different sizes, weights, materials. The cheapest cheap discounted paper does jam more, but name-brand cheap paper is usually of high quality in the US. A4 is definitely not going to make a difference, it is only very slightly different than the US Letter size.
100% of the paper jams I've had in the last 15 years on commercial printers were caused by faulty paper. (folds, creases, adhering foreign objects) In that time I've had a few jams of cheap consumer printers, but it was never the printer's fault; it was always obvious that I was loading it to near its limit, or something like that. A professional model maybe it makes sense to expect to be able to fill the infeed, but in a consumer model you should expect to have to learn its quirks.
The really weird thing is that the basic claim "paper jams are a trivial problem" goes unchallenged. The author doesn't understand the word "trivial" in engineering. It doesn't mean the use case is unimportant, for example.;) You can find out if it is trivial by just trying to look it up; is it just a matter of looking up a known formula or algorithm, and applying it to some data, or is it actually a complicated thing with a mix of moving parts and software, where the correct action depends on a wide variety of environmental conditions in both the ambient air and also the workpiece? Yeah, not "trivial" in any way, shape, or form.
Unclogging a paper jam is a trivial problem; you stop the machine and turn on an indicator light instructing the human to clear the jam! If you want the machine to clear its own jam, that is not at all trivial.
"Trivial" would mean, all you have to do is a long series of known differential equations and tomorrow you have the answer.
I'm sure glad my local Fedinko's has Canon copiers in the self-service area, I print on all sorts of "plain paper" including fancy textured paper and even homemade paper with embedded pressed flowers!
Most likely though he just needed to set the paper type to 80lb bond and had it set to plain paper!
The last thing I would do is listen to the workers who have been stuck in that job for years and years. They tell me all sorts of things are "impossible" like printing a two-sided document from two jpgs without first going home and creating a double-sided PDF. They can only remember about 5 steps, so the 13 button presses needed to get that one done is "impossible" for them, and they will prove it is impossible by telling you how many years they worked there! LOL
In my town if you can goad the cop into doing that you get a big payout and the cop gets six months of desk duty. And that's if they only false-arrest you, if they beat you down they get fired and have to go to work in the suburb where we keep the urban rednecks.
The difference is, the cop doesn't own the sidewalk, and I have a Right to walk down it. I talk lots of smack to asshole cops who stop me for no reason, and since I know my rights and I know the local laws and I don't do it if they caught me violating a traffic law or something. No problem. You have to actually be smarter than the cop and really know the local laws, though. You have to talk shit in a way that sounds like your smack-talk was written by a lawyer. Then the cop will be confused enough they might even go and sit in their car and call somebody to ask what to do! Then they find out, yes I can talk shit and waste their time, no they can't do anything about it.
Youtube, OTOH, is policing their own private property. As a visitor I have no right to remain, no right to continue the relationship. If a cop on the sidewalk wants to hassle me, I've got a Right to use that sidewalk. If a bouncer at a bar tells me to leave, I'm gonna leave really fast, and if I want to hurl verbal abuse I would most certainly do it from just off their property, on a public sidewalk! It isn't enough to wait until you're out the door, pay attention to the property line when dealing with private security in the US.
Having a bunch of angry followers doesn't actually help them. If it was the Gubermint hassling him, then having a bunch of loud supporters might help their causes. In the case of a private party, it just makes them appear more controversial! That doesn't really help. And the most vocal supporters start shouting "boycott youtube" and nonsense like that, that doesn't help. Without youtube, they wouldn't even be able to make money from their videos in most cases.
Dave from EEVblog for example admits in his rants that he needs youtube more than they need him, but he makes the rant anyways. If he'd listen to his own words during the part of the video where he's tempering his outrage, he might even realize he has no cause for outrage. If they didn't have an automated review system that takes time for correcting mistakes, they would lose too much money on the service to even keep publishing his stuff and paying him for it. He points out that if everybody switched to a competing service, the competing service would go out of business immediately because nobody has the money to lose(!) to try to "compete" with youtube. For google it is an important loss-leader that helps keep them in control of the online advertising market. Nobody else even has the money to do it, but if they did, they wouldn't have a reason to lose money doing it! Dave explains all this, but does a rant anyways. In the same video. D'oh!
Right, you care about how the words look, I care about if they're true or not. Nothing you said would cause me to care less about the accuracy of stated claims.
If you assume "everyone" in a group of humans understands the meaning of all the words, you're probably one of the people with low comprehension of what was said.
A) The original song doesn't have a drum part or B) He played something different than the original song, but that was on the same theme.
I don't doubt there are lawyers who take a particular position on it, and maybe even have court rulings finding that the "original" song was only for two instruments. So from the legal perspective, maybe the answer is anything. But that doesn't tell you about the creative process; from the artistic perspective, the song clearly would not have even been a Beatles song if it was for 2 instruments. It had to have 4 parts to become a Beatles song; if it was a cover, that would require an arrangement, but if it is an original song there is nothing to arrange until the parts are written!
The words work fine in court either way, but if you're actually writing a song then the creative process drives the semantics, changing the meanings of words doesn't change who has to create something, and when in the process different parts have to be written in order to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Put a hardware access method on the phone that lets the phone be decrypted at the cost of destroying the phone
Putting a self destruct device next to the backdoor still leaves you with no security, and a backdoor that can be remotely accessed based on bugs in your destruct device.
It is just magical thinking phrased as science fiction. But it lacks reality either way. Decryption must be based on math, a promise to self destruct is not math.
The Declaration of Independence covered that:
essential liberty? Who gets to define that?
History.
Done.
Oh, and if you want to know what History did decide, you can start by adding SCOTUSblog to your daily reading. Then come back in 10 years, and we can talk about it.
Math doesn't work that way. If a force is evil and powerful enough maybe they can get people to stop doing math, but they're not going to manage to change how it works.
Right, but Mom has you, and you understand her use case.
Clueless users that don't have an i.r.id10t around to do it for them would have an easier time buying some sort of netbook, running who cares.
The only companies that spend capital without going through a budget cycle are startups burning though VC money.
Or privately held.
The real question is how much money they're being paid
That is the question for sure! But it doesn't really matter how much. What matters is that they are in fact being paid by the open infringers. So they get this smackdown and have to play nice now, under supervision.
The lesson is: Plausible deniability has to be plausible. Without it, you get an injunction.
The problem with leaning on "belief" is that you would have to prove what your belief actually is, you can't just assert anything and insist on it. The other side will have experts that dig into the details of it and try to prove, based on your other words or actions, that you probably believed something else. And they'll do that by talking not about you, but about what a mythical Reasonable Person would believe.
If this was two companies, that might matter. But it doesn't matter if this company had some measly low-level rights violated, because the Constitution gives the Executive branch of government wide discretion over national security and foreign policy. Even if you don't believe the Government about their reasons for the action, that doesn't matter; the reasons given are clearly reasonable, and clearly within Executive discretion. The Executive can slander or libel any foreign entity they want, and even if it harms their Rights that will be OK because their Rights have to be balanced against the Executive responsibility for national security and foreign policy. The Government always wins that fight against a foreign entity, by definition!
Nothing about defamation would even come up; you can only sue the US Government where there is a federal law that permits you to do it. And that mostly means, when your Rights have been violated. So you don't sue the Government for defamation, and you don't even get to use that word in Court against them.
The question is not about "objective" anything, either, but about if the Government's reasons seem reasonable on their face. The Court doesn't have authority to second-guess the Executive's judgment, they're not going to go there. It will be like a Habeas hearing where they just look at what is alleged, and does the alleged conduct reasonably fit the charges filed? So here that would be, Did the government give a reason that seems to relate to national security? If everything the Government alleges were true, would the Government have the right to refuse to purchase a company's product? See, you don't even get to the real analysis, because Kaspersky won't be able to write a court filing that pushes a reasonable theory as to why they have a right to have their product purchased by the US government. That is not an enumerated right. But if it was, then it would be weighed against the Executive foreign policy prerogatives and the government would only have to prove that the government didn't trust Kaspersky. That's it, that's all they have to show; not even prove! They simply have to assert that yes, they promise they relied on some sort of information that involved national security or foreign policy.
In their defense, they do have a right to a hearing.
One hearing. At which their lawsuit gets tossed. :)
Hell, I don't need a flame-resistant suit, burn it down for all I care!
Fanbois unite! Go and crowd around whatever is the popular flavor of the week. Oh, Debian again? LOL awesome! Black gets to be the new black this season!
I get no benefit at all from others making the same choice as me.
Linux is for experts. If you have a good reason to use linux, you probably know what it is. You can probably select the distro that best meets the needs of your use case. I prefer the business-y one that has been unpopular but somehow one of the most used ever since the 90s.
Thanks to Debian for being like a giant honeypot sucking in the newbs and keeping them out of the help forums that sysadmins use! 3 3 3
You apparently are unfamiliar with the programming.
You don't learn how to program a real self-driving car in a free online class called "how to program a self-driving car." What you learn is the high-level algorithms. What you program in the class is a computer simulation similar to a roomba. What students actually build on their own after taking the class is almost always a roomba-competitor, except when it does even less and just drives around chasing the cat.
Do they even know? If you ask a mathematician what his job is, and you ask his employer what his job is, are you going to get the same answer? Highly unlikely. Mathematicians generally refuse to believe that anything defined outside of math is even defined! Will they even agree that their job is narrowly defined, in words, words clearly written by their employer, or will they insist that "what their job is" is some sort of unanswerable philosophical question and that therefore, they can only charge ahead blindly using the proto-philosophy they learned in math class?
The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple.
Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
Ha! That's what Job said!
That's the joy of the parallel port; it sources enough current it might really be on fire!
almost every office printer other than the very cheapest model has an optional attachment for rolls of paper for continuous printing.
You don't even have to get a professional grade printer for that, much less go to a tractor.
Because you shopped at an awful big box store full of cheap crap, and that's the life you deserve: Unclogging imaginary paper jams.
The thing is, that tells you nothing about anything. At least, nothing about the things you were purporting to talk about.
When a service worker is grousing to an engineer, the engineer responds with slapstick one-liners because that is what the service worker is going to understand, and in fact the complaints are rhetorical anyways. The goal isn't to give you information, but to respond in a friendly way that you'll understand.
The response you got is boiler-plate "simplest explanation of why all products are not built like the Space Shuttle," it was not any sort of insight gained from having access to the engineers. ;)
Or, the complaints come from the people buying the very cheapest printers from the cheapest big box stores, and your cheapest junk isn't as cheap as our cheapest junk. In that case, people buying a midrange printer would have the exact same experience.
I print on a wide variety of papers, different sizes, weights, materials. The cheapest cheap discounted paper does jam more, but name-brand cheap paper is usually of high quality in the US. A4 is definitely not going to make a difference, it is only very slightly different than the US Letter size.
100% of the paper jams I've had in the last 15 years on commercial printers were caused by faulty paper. (folds, creases, adhering foreign objects) In that time I've had a few jams of cheap consumer printers, but it was never the printer's fault; it was always obvious that I was loading it to near its limit, or something like that. A professional model maybe it makes sense to expect to be able to fill the infeed, but in a consumer model you should expect to have to learn its quirks.
The really weird thing is that the basic claim "paper jams are a trivial problem" goes unchallenged. The author doesn't understand the word "trivial" in engineering. It doesn't mean the use case is unimportant, for example. ;) You can find out if it is trivial by just trying to look it up; is it just a matter of looking up a known formula or algorithm, and applying it to some data, or is it actually a complicated thing with a mix of moving parts and software, where the correct action depends on a wide variety of environmental conditions in both the ambient air and also the workpiece? Yeah, not "trivial" in any way, shape, or form.
Unclogging a paper jam is a trivial problem; you stop the machine and turn on an indicator light instructing the human to clear the jam! If you want the machine to clear its own jam, that is not at all trivial.
"Trivial" would mean, all you have to do is a long series of known differential equations and tomorrow you have the answer.
I'm sure glad my local Fedinko's has Canon copiers in the self-service area, I print on all sorts of "plain paper" including fancy textured paper and even homemade paper with embedded pressed flowers!
Most likely though he just needed to set the paper type to 80lb bond and had it set to plain paper!
The last thing I would do is listen to the workers who have been stuck in that job for years and years. They tell me all sorts of things are "impossible" like printing a two-sided document from two jpgs without first going home and creating a double-sided PDF. They can only remember about 5 steps, so the 13 button presses needed to get that one done is "impossible" for them, and they will prove it is impossible by telling you how many years they worked there! LOL
In my town if you can goad the cop into doing that you get a big payout and the cop gets six months of desk duty. And that's if they only false-arrest you, if they beat you down they get fired and have to go to work in the suburb where we keep the urban rednecks.
The difference is, the cop doesn't own the sidewalk, and I have a Right to walk down it. I talk lots of smack to asshole cops who stop me for no reason, and since I know my rights and I know the local laws and I don't do it if they caught me violating a traffic law or something. No problem. You have to actually be smarter than the cop and really know the local laws, though. You have to talk shit in a way that sounds like your smack-talk was written by a lawyer. Then the cop will be confused enough they might even go and sit in their car and call somebody to ask what to do! Then they find out, yes I can talk shit and waste their time, no they can't do anything about it.
Youtube, OTOH, is policing their own private property. As a visitor I have no right to remain, no right to continue the relationship. If a cop on the sidewalk wants to hassle me, I've got a Right to use that sidewalk. If a bouncer at a bar tells me to leave, I'm gonna leave really fast, and if I want to hurl verbal abuse I would most certainly do it from just off their property, on a public sidewalk! It isn't enough to wait until you're out the door, pay attention to the property line when dealing with private security in the US.
Having a bunch of angry followers doesn't actually help them. If it was the Gubermint hassling him, then having a bunch of loud supporters might help their causes. In the case of a private party, it just makes them appear more controversial! That doesn't really help. And the most vocal supporters start shouting "boycott youtube" and nonsense like that, that doesn't help. Without youtube, they wouldn't even be able to make money from their videos in most cases.
Dave from EEVblog for example admits in his rants that he needs youtube more than they need him, but he makes the rant anyways. If he'd listen to his own words during the part of the video where he's tempering his outrage, he might even realize he has no cause for outrage. If they didn't have an automated review system that takes time for correcting mistakes, they would lose too much money on the service to even keep publishing his stuff and paying him for it. He points out that if everybody switched to a competing service, the competing service would go out of business immediately because nobody has the money to lose(!) to try to "compete" with youtube. For google it is an important loss-leader that helps keep them in control of the online advertising market. Nobody else even has the money to do it, but if they did, they wouldn't have a reason to lose money doing it! Dave explains all this, but does a rant anyways. In the same video. D'oh!
And yet, nothing you said makes it any prettier.
Right, you care about how the words look, I care about if they're true or not. Nothing you said would cause me to care less about the accuracy of stated claims.
If you assume "everyone" in a group of humans understands the meaning of all the words, you're probably one of the people with low comprehension of what was said.
He only arranged the drum part if:
A) The original song doesn't have a drum part
or
B) He played something different than the original song, but that was on the same theme.
I don't doubt there are lawyers who take a particular position on it, and maybe even have court rulings finding that the "original" song was only for two instruments. So from the legal perspective, maybe the answer is anything. But that doesn't tell you about the creative process; from the artistic perspective, the song clearly would not have even been a Beatles song if it was for 2 instruments. It had to have 4 parts to become a Beatles song; if it was a cover, that would require an arrangement, but if it is an original song there is nothing to arrange until the parts are written!
The words work fine in court either way, but if you're actually writing a song then the creative process drives the semantics, changing the meanings of words doesn't change who has to create something, and when in the process different parts have to be written in order to exist.
All the lawyers on all the sides agree that there is a grammatical error either way.
If you can't find it, it just means you should pipe down.