Sure, but when a 3rd party reseller is offering to make the list of white neighborhoods and only ask the post office to deliver the ad to those neighborhoods then it leaves not really much room for interpretation.
The actual situation is perhaps more clear than your example.
The funny part is that these racists rushing out to defend the practice are accidentally defending the people using facebook's service instead of facebook, because they misunderstood who is being accused. Words, they mean something or other, I think...
The shocking thing is how quickly so many slashdot readers jump onto really dubious defenses of this behavior. This is not an edge case, this is a head-slapping "D'oh!"
You just CAN'T SPECIFY PREFERENCE IN THE MARKETING ITSELF.
The part you're missing is that FACEBOOK IS OFFERING FOR YOU TO SPECIFY PREFERENCE. Duh. Nobody is saying it is illegal to choose one outlet or the other, it is illegal to offer the service of only advertising to specified races. Facebook markets a service that is race-restricted. That it is variable and anybody can discriminate against anybody doesn't matter. They're not allowed to advertise the service of intentionally discriminating based on race.
You're missing the point; it is not the advertising utilizing the facebook ad service that is accused of violating the law, it is facebook that is advertising the service of limiting the ads based on race. Facebook is the one offering the illegal service, not the person who buys it.
You identified a technical problem not in their claim, but rather in your understanding of it. It should have led you to self-correct.
He's a republican, it isn't their fault they're being controlled by mind control satellites or something. Or at least they feel like it with the absurd talking points they're asked to repeat...
No, the first investigation cleared her, and the FBI director, who was in-the-loop but not part of the investigation, said those nasty things about her.
Just take out the extra words, go to newegg or any place that sells android-based devices, and search for "android" instead of "phone" and you'll see that in fact very few android devices have qualcomm anything in them. They do however quite often have CPUs from NXP.
The whole idea of a cell phone chip getting "crushed" in a benchmark is hilarious; newsflash, your cell phone is constrained by other things the IC it uses. As a tablet, lets be honest, qualcomm doesn't stuff doesn't lead the benchmarks, and power trades off for battery life. Qualcomm doesn't have a lock on a smaller IC tech than anybody else, so I know already they don't have better benchmarks even if they made a set of tradeoffs that result in their preferred benchmark results that sync with their marketing.
Sortof, but the Chinese generics are crushing most them in profits. The market forces that are driving the mergers are the same ones that are making things so much better for small and medium sized OEMs. Only the largest OEMs have anything to worry about. You could actually end up with a situation where the largest batch sizes actually more per unit than regular-large quantities! That could happen when there are only a couple mega-suppliers left that can even fill the big orders, but there are a zillion factories offering regular sized batches. You can only get quantity discounts up to the max output of a single supplier; then past that you're paying extra for somebody to scrape together the different batches. And if you need matched parts, then you're paying high prices.
Losing NXP will be a big hit for the small designer, because they sell lots of great chips with quality, easily accessible datasheets. Qualcomm sells expensive chips to exclusive buyers and they protect datasheets as if it is their private laundry. But the overall effects of the mergers might be good for the little guy, mostly because it is a battle that the medium-sized Chinese factories win in the end; and they sell to anybody. And they'll include the datasheet when they have it.
That's derpy as hell, there is no connection at all between the things called "Android" and "Qualcomm."
If you're going to comment on that basis, you'd have to say words establishing a connection first.
The reason this is bad for android is actually that NXP makes a lot of ARM chips that are important to embedded devices, including ones that run... android! That's what makes your comment extra-derpy. Truly a sad day for android, but no, not because there is some "connection" between android and qualcomm but because qualcomm chips are not usable in this revolution of design accessibility.
".. what response there was to the influx of double-agents, or if the responses were effective."
That can usually be seen with an influx of different science education offers, the building of listening stations globally, the power needs, cooling water and the rushed reaction to a few very select very fake signals collected.
Is that how it was in your daydream, or are you going off a TV show?
You're being naive and credulous again, even while defending yourself against it! No, you do not, did not, and will not know how many double-agents there were, how many were triple agents, how many were single agents pretending to be double agents, if their activities were monitored in a way that made them ineffective, if their activities were monitored in a way that actually exposed intelligence resources in their home country, etc., etc., etc.
What sort of weird magical being do you believe yourself to be that you would glance at some sort of "science education offer" somewhere and know from that how many double agents were effective in country Y? I mean, that is totally fucking stupid, even as magical thinking goes. No, you wouldn't fucking know.
These are known unknowns. That means everybody already knows you didn't know it even before you say it and look stupid.
"wikipedia!" lol yeah, the spies would never think of that, golly, I'm sure national secrets are all over wikipedia. You point to a disinformation plan from the past... MY FUCKING GOD DUDE, that is the exact shit that should prove to you that you won't know what the fucking truth is because there is lots of disinformation. The thing you point at as showing how you magically know what is going on in the world is actually the exact fucking shit that should prove to you that you would never know any of that.
Who fucking cares? The cops are going to shoot you if they catch you. You'll be hoping it it the FBI that arrests you, because you won't end up full of holes.
You're not even going to fucking do any of that shit, you start following the cops around with your debug kit like that and you're already in jail before you even figure their shit out, because there are serious federal resources at play in that stuff. When you start fucking with police equipment control, that isn't normal crime.
I understand you wouldn't do it, and don't know how. But it is a pretty fucking stupid daydream compared to what would happen if you were a criminal and tried to protect yourself by hacking the cops.
You even used the term "electronic warfare" in your original post. That shows you actually had enough information to refute your own bullshit. If you try to fuck with their drones, it will be treated as a non-state military attack, also known as terrorism. And if you do that shit from outside the country, expect either a cruise missile through your window, or the local feds to detain and render you, depending on location.
And as for your "design once, print anywhere" fantasy, modern electronics can have new firmware loaded. There isn't going to be some unfixable factory weakness that you magically exploit and they can't do anything about. Instead, they update and now instead of interfering with the device it just reports your location for arrest or destruction.
What I want to know is, if I rent a flying car instead of flying the traditional way, do I still have to be fondled and have my shoes violated by TSA, or not? It might be worth the additional safety risk to avoid the indignities of security theater.
Cameras work fine around bigfoot, but there are all these conspiracy nuts who start shouting about the mythical "Black Bear" every time you take a picture of one.
If you want to see some clear pictures of bigfoot, just search for "walking black bear" on youtube.
You're very credulous. You read all that information, and fail to suss out the most important implication: there is no way for you to know what any of that means. You have no way to know what response there was to the influx of double-agents, or if the responses were effective. Neither side benefits from giving you accurate knowledge, but both sides are known to leak nonsense to conspiracy theorists and overly-credulous historians.
Just like, you have no idea why the NSA got funding, or what it was for. Members of Congress had closed-door hearings about it, and nobody knows what reasons were given. It could be anything as well as it could be any thing that you would name.
Claiming to know things you obviously wouldn't have access to knowing about does not make you appear knowledgeable, it only makes you appear credulous.
Or to use Rumsfeldian information analysis, these are known unknowns. Falsely believing that what others know to be unknown is known to you, because people you trusted told you so, is a standard error that people make. Rumsfeld talked about that after the Iraq War. And the lesson he talked about; don't be credulous when people tell you that they know how to make known unknowns into known knowns, unless you have access to high quality data that corroborates it. And he had access to lots of data. You're just a regular joe, you don't have any access at all, not even marginal or fleeting access.
Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal.
That is not a universal guarantee. It may be that available drones are loud because the use cases don't really cause "quiet" to increase the price enough. Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually. But for the most part, it doesn't need to be quiet. It needs to be effective when it gets into range.
They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.
If you're shooting at the equipment the police are deploying, they just shoot you. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang. That's how many times they shot you for shooting at their drone, even if you missed.
Last time I checked, it isn't legally a projectile unless it reaches a certain number of feet per second. These types of devices do not have that much power.
Generally there is an exception for low speed objects only if they have a certain type of penetrating head. For example, is most states a "broadhead" hunting arrow is a projectile; a target arrow is generally not a projectile from the perspective of laws regulating projectiles. Deadly, but just not the same type of risk as a gun or broadhead.
Yeah, but now the one guy in your gang smart enough to hook all that shit up right is in federal prison, and when the rest of you get out of your State prison and start things back up, you don't have any of that anymore.
It "works" one time, but the SWAT team still arrests everybody.
That reminds me of an interview with chess grandmaster Lev Alburt, who defected to the US around 1980. When he was a kid growing up in the Soviet Union, the government propaganda always said that the Americans were preparing to attack. And the people believed it. So the local kids drew maps showing the locations of military barracks and other landmarks, to give to the American paratroopers when they landed. But the liberation forces never came.
You're over-thinking it. If the enemy knows that it is unreliable and can't be used for an attack... it won't be used for an attack.
It might not have to thwart other types of attack in order to achieve the purpose it was intended for.
Yes, you show that the purpose is not likely to be to fool people into believing that they are really at the airport when near the Kremlin. But that doesn't mean it won't work, it just means that the more likely purpose is to deny use of GPS for detonating a bomb near there.
It might even be backwards; they might be protecting the airport by sending a false "you're at the airport" signal in various places and it is only downtown where people noticed, and blamed the nearby government building.
That's the thing about intelligence services... you can't measure what they're doing very well unless you know what their intent is, and they're not going to tell you. So. You never really know. Even when stuff "leaks," or is purported to, there is no way to weigh it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but when a 3rd party reseller is offering to make the list of white neighborhoods and only ask the post office to deliver the ad to those neighborhoods then it leaves not really much room for interpretation.
The actual situation is perhaps more clear than your example.
The funny part is that these racists rushing out to defend the practice are accidentally defending the people using facebook's service instead of facebook, because they misunderstood who is being accused. Words, they mean something or other, I think...
The shocking thing is how quickly so many slashdot readers jump onto really dubious defenses of this behavior. This is not an edge case, this is a head-slapping "D'oh!"
You just CAN'T SPECIFY PREFERENCE IN THE MARKETING ITSELF.
The part you're missing is that FACEBOOK IS OFFERING FOR YOU TO SPECIFY PREFERENCE. Duh. Nobody is saying it is illegal to choose one outlet or the other, it is illegal to offer the service of only advertising to specified races. Facebook markets a service that is race-restricted. That it is variable and anybody can discriminate against anybody doesn't matter. They're not allowed to advertise the service of intentionally discriminating based on race.
Is it unethical to advertise on Univision, where the audience is 99% Hispanic?
No, but it would illegal to sell an advertising aggregation service where you promised to only buy ads that target certain races.
It is actually pretty obvious what the difference is; in one case you're making a public offer involving race, the other you're not.
These arguments are so weak, it really makes me have to "wonder" why they get raised? LOL no it doesn't, I know why hahaha
You're missing the point; it is not the advertising utilizing the facebook ad service that is accused of violating the law, it is facebook that is advertising the service of limiting the ads based on race. Facebook is the one offering the illegal service, not the person who buys it.
You identified a technical problem not in their claim, but rather in your understanding of it. It should have led you to self-correct.
Uhm... it says right in the part you quoted which part of the law it violates.
They have these other things, called statutes or "laws," that are in addition to the Constitution. The summary mentions 2 that are relevant here.
Wow, I know not to read the article or click any links, but you're taking alliteracy to a new level.
Yep, that's what they're going to be left with; they're allowed to discriminate against Luddites in app provision, but not many others.
I don't care what you thought you were "getting at," what I responded to was what you said, because that is what you said.
If what you said didn't mean what you wanted to "get at," maybe try harder?
He's a republican, it isn't their fault they're being controlled by mind control satellites or something. Or at least they feel like it with the absurd talking points they're asked to repeat...
No, the first investigation cleared her, and the FBI director, who was in-the-loop but not part of the investigation, said those nasty things about her.
Nice one TED, you inserted extra words!
Just take out the extra words, go to newegg or any place that sells android-based devices, and search for "android" instead of "phone" and you'll see that in fact very few android devices have qualcomm anything in them. They do however quite often have CPUs from NXP.
The whole idea of a cell phone chip getting "crushed" in a benchmark is hilarious; newsflash, your cell phone is constrained by other things the IC it uses. As a tablet, lets be honest, qualcomm doesn't stuff doesn't lead the benchmarks, and power trades off for battery life. Qualcomm doesn't have a lock on a smaller IC tech than anybody else, so I know already they don't have better benchmarks even if they made a set of tradeoffs that result in their preferred benchmark results that sync with their marketing.
Sortof, but the Chinese generics are crushing most them in profits. The market forces that are driving the mergers are the same ones that are making things so much better for small and medium sized OEMs. Only the largest OEMs have anything to worry about. You could actually end up with a situation where the largest batch sizes actually more per unit than regular-large quantities! That could happen when there are only a couple mega-suppliers left that can even fill the big orders, but there are a zillion factories offering regular sized batches. You can only get quantity discounts up to the max output of a single supplier; then past that you're paying extra for somebody to scrape together the different batches. And if you need matched parts, then you're paying high prices.
Losing NXP will be a big hit for the small designer, because they sell lots of great chips with quality, easily accessible datasheets. Qualcomm sells expensive chips to exclusive buyers and they protect datasheets as if it is their private laundry. But the overall effects of the mergers might be good for the little guy, mostly because it is a battle that the medium-sized Chinese factories win in the end; and they sell to anybody. And they'll include the datasheet when they have it.
That's derpy as hell, there is no connection at all between the things called "Android" and "Qualcomm."
If you're going to comment on that basis, you'd have to say words establishing a connection first.
The reason this is bad for android is actually that NXP makes a lot of ARM chips that are important to embedded devices, including ones that run... android! That's what makes your comment extra-derpy. Truly a sad day for android, but no, not because there is some "connection" between android and qualcomm but because qualcomm chips are not usable in this revolution of design accessibility.
".. what response there was to the influx of double-agents, or if the responses were effective."
That can usually be seen with an influx of different science education offers, the building of listening stations globally, the power needs, cooling water and the rushed reaction to a few very select very fake signals collected.
Is that how it was in your daydream, or are you going off a TV show?
You're being naive and credulous again, even while defending yourself against it! No, you do not, did not, and will not know how many double-agents there were, how many were triple agents, how many were single agents pretending to be double agents, if their activities were monitored in a way that made them ineffective, if their activities were monitored in a way that actually exposed intelligence resources in their home country, etc., etc., etc.
What sort of weird magical being do you believe yourself to be that you would glance at some sort of "science education offer" somewhere and know from that how many double agents were effective in country Y? I mean, that is totally fucking stupid, even as magical thinking goes. No, you wouldn't fucking know.
These are known unknowns. That means everybody already knows you didn't know it even before you say it and look stupid.
"wikipedia!" lol yeah, the spies would never think of that, golly, I'm sure national secrets are all over wikipedia. You point to a disinformation plan from the past... MY FUCKING GOD DUDE, that is the exact shit that should prove to you that you won't know what the fucking truth is because there is lots of disinformation. The thing you point at as showing how you magically know what is going on in the world is actually the exact fucking shit that should prove to you that you would never know any of that.
Who fucking cares? The cops are going to shoot you if they catch you. You'll be hoping it it the FBI that arrests you, because you won't end up full of holes.
You're not even going to fucking do any of that shit, you start following the cops around with your debug kit like that and you're already in jail before you even figure their shit out, because there are serious federal resources at play in that stuff. When you start fucking with police equipment control, that isn't normal crime.
I understand you wouldn't do it, and don't know how. But it is a pretty fucking stupid daydream compared to what would happen if you were a criminal and tried to protect yourself by hacking the cops.
You even used the term "electronic warfare" in your original post. That shows you actually had enough information to refute your own bullshit. If you try to fuck with their drones, it will be treated as a non-state military attack, also known as terrorism. And if you do that shit from outside the country, expect either a cruise missile through your window, or the local feds to detain and render you, depending on location.
And as for your "design once, print anywhere" fantasy, modern electronics can have new firmware loaded. There isn't going to be some unfixable factory weakness that you magically exploit and they can't do anything about. Instead, they update and now instead of interfering with the device it just reports your location for arrest or destruction.
I really don't care about flying cars.
What I want to know is, if I rent a flying car instead of flying the traditional way, do I still have to be fondled and have my shoes violated by TSA, or not? It might be worth the additional safety risk to avoid the indignities of security theater.
Cameras work fine around bigfoot, but there are all these conspiracy nuts who start shouting about the mythical "Black Bear" every time you take a picture of one.
If you want to see some clear pictures of bigfoot, just search for "walking black bear" on youtube.
You're very credulous. You read all that information, and fail to suss out the most important implication: there is no way for you to know what any of that means. You have no way to know what response there was to the influx of double-agents, or if the responses were effective. Neither side benefits from giving you accurate knowledge, but both sides are known to leak nonsense to conspiracy theorists and overly-credulous historians.
Just like, you have no idea why the NSA got funding, or what it was for. Members of Congress had closed-door hearings about it, and nobody knows what reasons were given. It could be anything as well as it could be any thing that you would name.
Claiming to know things you obviously wouldn't have access to knowing about does not make you appear knowledgeable, it only makes you appear credulous.
Or to use Rumsfeldian information analysis, these are known unknowns. Falsely believing that what others know to be unknown is known to you, because people you trusted told you so, is a standard error that people make. Rumsfeld talked about that after the Iraq War. And the lesson he talked about; don't be credulous when people tell you that they know how to make known unknowns into known knowns, unless you have access to high quality data that corroborates it. And he had access to lots of data. You're just a regular joe, you don't have any access at all, not even marginal or fleeting access.
Flying drones generate so much noise as it approaches the criminal.
That is not a universal guarantee. It may be that available drones are loud because the use cases don't really cause "quiet" to increase the price enough. Expect some sort of fixed-wing dirigible to fill this role eventually. But for the most part, it doesn't need to be quiet. It needs to be effective when it gets into range.
They can be easily discovered, and destroyed.
If you're shooting at the equipment the police are deploying, they just shoot you. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang. That's how many times they shot you for shooting at their drone, even if you missed.
Last time I checked, it isn't legally a projectile unless it reaches a certain number of feet per second. These types of devices do not have that much power.
Generally there is an exception for low speed objects only if they have a certain type of penetrating head. For example, is most states a "broadhead" hunting arrow is a projectile; a target arrow is generally not a projectile from the perspective of laws regulating projectiles. Deadly, but just not the same type of risk as a gun or broadhead.
Yeah, but now the one guy in your gang smart enough to hook all that shit up right is in federal prison, and when the rest of you get out of your State prison and start things back up, you don't have any of that anymore.
It "works" one time, but the SWAT team still arrests everybody.
I disagree. It doesn't make him a "jerk," it makes him a "person who deserves to be behind bars."
I agree. He's probably not a jerk, he was just born predisposed to the reprehensible behavior that requires society to keep him caged.
It is too bad that we can't just go full "Clockwork Orange" and try to brainwash these people and at least partially recover the situation.
That reminds me of an interview with chess grandmaster Lev Alburt, who defected to the US around 1980. When he was a kid growing up in the Soviet Union, the government propaganda always said that the Americans were preparing to attack. And the people believed it. So the local kids drew maps showing the locations of military barracks and other landmarks, to give to the American paratroopers when they landed. But the liberation forces never came.
You're over-thinking it. If the enemy knows that it is unreliable and can't be used for an attack... it won't be used for an attack.
It might not have to thwart other types of attack in order to achieve the purpose it was intended for.
Yes, you show that the purpose is not likely to be to fool people into believing that they are really at the airport when near the Kremlin. But that doesn't mean it won't work, it just means that the more likely purpose is to deny use of GPS for detonating a bomb near there.
It might even be backwards; they might be protecting the airport by sending a false "you're at the airport" signal in various places and it is only downtown where people noticed, and blamed the nearby government building.
That's the thing about intelligence services... you can't measure what they're doing very well unless you know what their intent is, and they're not going to tell you. So. You never really know. Even when stuff "leaks," or is purported to, there is no way to weigh it.