If you follow news about uprisings around the world, it doesn't look like small arms are a significant threat to government. Are the police and military willing to shoot into crowds, or not? That is a much bigger determining factor in uprisings than small arms.
And in this sort of scenario, the rich might not need to protect "public order" for confidence in government, as is normally an issue in uprisings; it might be enough simply to define protected zones and protect those, even with private security and gun towers. Americans have lots of small arms, but they don't have easy access to mortars or artillery. Even RPGs are very rare here. It isn't reasonable to attack a machine gun nest with rifles, even military rifles.
A "downward spiral" is still profitable for those already in power, at least for most of the way down. And they can outlast the resulting depression easily. It isn't obvious at all that that is any sort of brake on the problem. In business cycles, they proved themselves to prefer boom/bust to steady growth, which is why we have a central bank managing lending rates to try to keep it near the middle.
You don't even have a user id, why would you be a real sysadmin?
You don't think the distros that are switching to systemd have sysadmins? You don't think the people contributing to the decision to switch are sysadmins? You thought sysadmins love SysV? None of that is reasoned.
You're calling me a "whiner," what did I whine about? I gave opinions and commentary. Whining is complaining. I didn't complain, I gave an opinion you don't like, and so you're calling me names while hiding behind anonymity. That shows you're not confident enough in your opinions to discuss them. And "hypocrite?" Find a dictionary, Coward. Words have meaning.
Maybe I have paid attention, and sysadmins mostly like systemd? You use the word "whining," but isn't that exactly what the complaints about systemd are? After all, they can simply switch and use a different system. Nothing is being done to them; it is one thing to say that they choose something else for reasons, that is great. But they complain even just that systemd exists! What could be more whiny than that?
And, in the past there were long, long lists of things people would do if they had the time.
Automation eventually gets us to where people individually don't have anything on that list that is really important to them. It was a long list, starting from humans plowing the fields with stone hoes. A better plow, another better plow, another better plow, a better grinder, the work horse, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.. Eventually, air travel, air mail, international air travel. There is still room for improvement in air travel; people desire to visit distant relatives on a day trip. But if it took 30 minutes to fly around the world, would faster air travel still matter to people? No. There is a point where all the creature comforts are available all day; all the places are reachable quickly; all of the technical questions programmed into the expert systems (such as automated banking advice, siri, etc); all of the factories able to output whatever products are ordered without human intervention.
This can be utopia or dystopia depending on the availability and participation systems that we choose to use for a post-scarcity economy. The problem is, are we going to make compatible changes while scarcity still exists, but is simply going down, or are we going to repeat the history of the Industrial Revolution and let the workers starve to death before reorganizing society?
Subtract 100 years and talk about horse carriages and it is an excellent argument that the horse-drawn carriage is not going anywhere. This has been proven countless times since the 1600s (or possibly earlier!).
If you take automation to the extreme, to Star Trek "replicator," then it may be that those jobs would not come back. And if you consider the part-way-there, which is where we are now, where there are robots that can do some of the jobs, there is not any obvious reason why the robots would then lose the job back to the humans. That actually seems a bit silly and hand-wavy.
Jobs lost to business cycles will likely come back the next cycle. Jobs lost to automation likely will not come back during the current civilization era.
The rich will still need 2 or 3 human workers per restaurant, for the pleasure of being served by those below their station. But that doesn't help the minimum wage workers; it just means a couple percent of the employees at fancy restaurants won't lose their jobs.
The hand-wavy idea that understanding the meaning of what you found in a search is part of the search is rather silly. I don't expect the SCOTUS to be impressed by that, though clearly at least a percentage of Magistrates are.
Nobody doubts that the DoJ has the right to demand that the County Health Department turn over their private encryption keys. The problem is, the owner of the phone (the health department) didn't store the device keys anywhere other than on the device. The only copies of the key are already in the FBI's possession.
Just like, if the safe key was melted down for scrap, then their might not be anything that the government has left to compel. Under CALEA, they explicitly cannot ask for modifications of a communication device.
You think the DOJ either forcing Apple to write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys, is "by the book" and in line with the Constitution?
The second half clearly is allowed, if they pay for it. Problem is, what is the Apple firmware signing key worth? $500 Billion? Something more than DoJ can pay, to be sure. Constitutional problems over takings come down to the requirement to pay for what is taken. Generally, for a company to buy that item they would have to buy the whole company. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if they want something not for sale, they would have to buy the business to get it. If they government wants to nationalize Apple, they're allowed to take all the stock and pay market rate.
The first part isn't really clear in the general case, Constitutionally, because is that a taking or not? Unclear. But given the damage that it would do to Apple's speech, their intended PR that is their own prerogative, it would likely need to also cost many many billions of dollars. But with a communication device specifically, we don't have to worry about the Constitution, because the CALEA statute addresses this directly and the government is forbidden from asking for modifications of devices or systems.
Hey Dufus, a lot of cults commit mass suicide and stuff like that. Saying "they're a cult" doesn't support your conclusions. If you thought they were a cult, you should be prepared to accept whatever behavior is consistent with their claimed teaching, including quitting, or even immolating themselves on the courthouse steps.
I know, I know, it is hard to think and hate at the same time.
Then say that, instead of making weird and sideways arguments.
See, if you said that at the start you'd have had a chance to have a discussion about it. Now it is too late, you've already burned your bridges in this conversation.
I've been making images of old CDs over and the majority read without any problems (dvdisaster), even ones I burned back in the late 90's!.
Gosh, me too! And yet, for archival use, "the majority" is just too small a value.
I would switch to archival tape long, long before I would start making multiple copies with different brands of disk. What an absurdity, what a time sink.
You're not supposed to try to figure out "where [I] got [an] idea from," you're supposed to try to understand the idea.
If you think that talking to the HR department is the way to understand worker rights, that is hopeless. Your user id is too low to hope for progress, or to try to explain it.
If you even just read the business section for a decade, and read the articles about worker lawsuits, you'd know that "exempt" doesn't mean "free unlimited hours." The rate is by definition for full-time work. Claiming that you thought it meant 80 hours would make it a fraudulent contract. Full time salary only covers full time work. If the company schedules more work than that, they still have to pay overtime.
Most States have a labor department of some sort that does outreach work like explaining these rules.
What they're exempt from is being paid hourly. And they're exempt from overtime pay that would exist because of the math formulas written into those laws. Because they're exempt from a particular system of measurement does not mean they are exempt from other systems of measurement, which vary by industry and the actual professional requirements of different jobs. That is why it is different for a doctor, whose work load is at least partly beyond an employers control and is time-sensitive, and an office worker whose boss sets the standards and culture for what work is expected and could schedule it any arbitrary way. The more control the boss has, the more likely they are to owe overtime if they are putting pressure on the worker to work more than full time.
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking issue that you pretend it is.
I hope, for the sake of your education, that you experience hunger at some point in your life. You'll learn the difference between food, and amusement.
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral argument against utilization of animal resources. You just brought your weird baggage along while arguing that animal torture is OK, because some people find cows entertaining. Fail.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
I find putting my data in a room with a locked door is pretty effective.
So did one of my clients whose manager was embezzling all their money. Initially. Later, we added cameras and electronic locks, and moved all the paper ledgers to spreadsheets on a VPN.
Also, thieves planning to steal an encryption key from a physical location might be able to open a door lock pretty easily. They might in fact have a copy of the key. I'm not convinced that is actually more secure than just having it in a desk drawer.
For personal use, yeah. Absolutely. Nobody is going to steal my embarrassingly bad poetry or old personal emails, they would only want my money, which isn't encrypted. Work stuff? I'd at least want a fire safe. It isn't Fort Knox, but I'll probably know if somebody got it open without the key, and they can't copy the key at a normal locksmith. For a business whose core competency involves encryption? Not good enough.
Optical disks have horrible shelf life. They degrade over time. They are not suitable for important backups. Magnetic tapes OTOH can be purchased in archival quality.
Plastics often take a long time to fully decompose, but their optical properties degrade rapidly.
Well, I'm not afraid to say it next to my name; the answer was just horseshit.
There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. I've contracted for restaurants, and I've contracted for banks. The answer is very different depending which one it is. You can't generalize the answer from the question, you have to extend the question to include use cases or other context analysis.
The fact he even said it makes me wonder if he even knows what things like specifications and requirements are.
Yeah, but you're not a lawyer and also didn't look it up and read about it in depth so you didn't realize that there are a bunch of caveats and that being "exempt" doesn't mean you're not owed overtime if you work overtime. It means there is a different legal principle, and it requires different evidence than just a time card. Being exempt doesn't stop your salary from being based on full time, or the requirement to pay overtime; it does mean that if you work 80 hours one week, and take the following week off (paid), then you're not owed overtime. And if the legitimate work requires more time for real reasons relating to the job, then you don't get overtime. If you make a mistake and it gets you behind, yeah you might have to stay late to fix it. But if your boss simply schedules you for 80 hours, or pushes you to work more than full time, then you're owed extra pay for that.
When people make general statements, they're talking about generally. You're arguing against the absolute statement "no VC said," which isn't what I said at all.
I can also find people who say, "murder is OK if you kill the right person." And yet it is still true that there is general consensus that murder is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
If you follow news about uprisings around the world, it doesn't look like small arms are a significant threat to government. Are the police and military willing to shoot into crowds, or not? That is a much bigger determining factor in uprisings than small arms.
And in this sort of scenario, the rich might not need to protect "public order" for confidence in government, as is normally an issue in uprisings; it might be enough simply to define protected zones and protect those, even with private security and gun towers. Americans have lots of small arms, but they don't have easy access to mortars or artillery. Even RPGs are very rare here. It isn't reasonable to attack a machine gun nest with rifles, even military rifles.
A "downward spiral" is still profitable for those already in power, at least for most of the way down. And they can outlast the resulting depression easily. It isn't obvious at all that that is any sort of brake on the problem. In business cycles, they proved themselves to prefer boom/bust to steady growth, which is why we have a central bank managing lending rates to try to keep it near the middle.
You don't even have a user id, why would you be a real sysadmin?
You don't think the distros that are switching to systemd have sysadmins? You don't think the people contributing to the decision to switch are sysadmins? You thought sysadmins love SysV? None of that is reasoned.
You're calling me a "whiner," what did I whine about? I gave opinions and commentary. Whining is complaining. I didn't complain, I gave an opinion you don't like, and so you're calling me names while hiding behind anonymity. That shows you're not confident enough in your opinions to discuss them. And "hypocrite?" Find a dictionary, Coward. Words have meaning.
Maybe I have paid attention, and sysadmins mostly like systemd? You use the word "whining," but isn't that exactly what the complaints about systemd are? After all, they can simply switch and use a different system. Nothing is being done to them; it is one thing to say that they choose something else for reasons, that is great. But they complain even just that systemd exists! What could be more whiny than that?
Having been wrong 99 times in the past in exactly similar situations is not an argument against something?
Correct.
And, in the past there were long, long lists of things people would do if they had the time.
Automation eventually gets us to where people individually don't have anything on that list that is really important to them. It was a long list, starting from humans plowing the fields with stone hoes. A better plow, another better plow, another better plow, a better grinder, the work horse, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.. Eventually, air travel, air mail, international air travel. There is still room for improvement in air travel; people desire to visit distant relatives on a day trip. But if it took 30 minutes to fly around the world, would faster air travel still matter to people? No. There is a point where all the creature comforts are available all day; all the places are reachable quickly; all of the technical questions programmed into the expert systems (such as automated banking advice, siri, etc); all of the factories able to output whatever products are ordered without human intervention.
This can be utopia or dystopia depending on the availability and participation systems that we choose to use for a post-scarcity economy. The problem is, are we going to make compatible changes while scarcity still exists, but is simply going down, or are we going to repeat the history of the Industrial Revolution and let the workers starve to death before reorganizing society?
we need a solution that helps the people put out of work as soon as it happens - not in 2086 after they are long dead.
Solution = Robot Tax + Citizens Dividend
People have been saying we are about to enter that era for 150 years.
And we've been moving in that direction that whole time.
What somebody predicted the timing wrong?! Say it isn't so! LMFAO
That isn't even an argument against it, did you realize that?
Subtract 100 years and talk about horse carriages and it is an excellent argument that the horse-drawn carriage is not going anywhere. This has been proven countless times since the 1600s (or possibly earlier!).
If you take automation to the extreme, to Star Trek "replicator," then it may be that those jobs would not come back. And if you consider the part-way-there, which is where we are now, where there are robots that can do some of the jobs, there is not any obvious reason why the robots would then lose the job back to the humans. That actually seems a bit silly and hand-wavy.
Jobs lost to business cycles will likely come back the next cycle. Jobs lost to automation likely will not come back during the current civilization era.
The rich will still need 2 or 3 human workers per restaurant, for the pleasure of being served by those below their station. But that doesn't help the minimum wage workers; it just means a couple percent of the employees at fancy restaurants won't lose their jobs.
I say we just institute a robot tax and use that to support a Citizen Dividend.
My rate proposal is 25% of the pay of the displaced humans.
If they won't pay, just confiscate their robots and give them a 10 year ban on using automation technologies.
The hand-wavy idea that understanding the meaning of what you found in a search is part of the search is rather silly. I don't expect the SCOTUS to be impressed by that, though clearly at least a percentage of Magistrates are.
Nobody doubts that the DoJ has the right to demand that the County Health Department turn over their private encryption keys. The problem is, the owner of the phone (the health department) didn't store the device keys anywhere other than on the device. The only copies of the key are already in the FBI's possession.
Just like, if the safe key was melted down for scrap, then their might not be anything that the government has left to compel. Under CALEA, they explicitly cannot ask for modifications of a communication device.
You think the DOJ either forcing Apple to write malware to compromise their customers' security, or demanding their security signing keys, is "by the book" and in line with the Constitution?
The second half clearly is allowed, if they pay for it. Problem is, what is the Apple firmware signing key worth? $500 Billion? Something more than DoJ can pay, to be sure. Constitutional problems over takings come down to the requirement to pay for what is taken. Generally, for a company to buy that item they would have to buy the whole company. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if they want something not for sale, they would have to buy the business to get it. If they government wants to nationalize Apple, they're allowed to take all the stock and pay market rate.
The first part isn't really clear in the general case, Constitutionally, because is that a taking or not? Unclear. But given the damage that it would do to Apple's speech, their intended PR that is their own prerogative, it would likely need to also cost many many billions of dollars. But with a communication device specifically, we don't have to worry about the Constitution, because the CALEA statute addresses this directly and the government is forbidden from asking for modifications of devices or systems.
Apple is a cult, they aren't going to quit.
Hey Dufus, a lot of cults commit mass suicide and stuff like that. Saying "they're a cult" doesn't support your conclusions. If you thought they were a cult, you should be prepared to accept whatever behavior is consistent with their claimed teaching, including quitting, or even immolating themselves on the courthouse steps.
I know, I know, it is hard to think and hate at the same time.
Then say that, instead of making weird and sideways arguments.
See, if you said that at the start you'd have had a chance to have a discussion about it. Now it is too late, you've already burned your bridges in this conversation.
I've been making images of old CDs over and the majority read without any problems (dvdisaster), even ones I burned back in the late 90's!.
Gosh, me too! And yet, for archival use, "the majority" is just too small a value.
I would switch to archival tape long, long before I would start making multiple copies with different brands of disk. What an absurdity, what a time sink.
You're not supposed to try to figure out "where [I] got [an] idea from," you're supposed to try to understand the idea.
If you think that talking to the HR department is the way to understand worker rights, that is hopeless. Your user id is too low to hope for progress, or to try to explain it.
If you even just read the business section for a decade, and read the articles about worker lawsuits, you'd know that "exempt" doesn't mean "free unlimited hours." The rate is by definition for full-time work. Claiming that you thought it meant 80 hours would make it a fraudulent contract. Full time salary only covers full time work. If the company schedules more work than that, they still have to pay overtime.
Most States have a labor department of some sort that does outreach work like explaining these rules.
What they're exempt from is being paid hourly. And they're exempt from overtime pay that would exist because of the math formulas written into those laws. Because they're exempt from a particular system of measurement does not mean they are exempt from other systems of measurement, which vary by industry and the actual professional requirements of different jobs. That is why it is different for a doctor, whose work load is at least partly beyond an employers control and is time-sensitive, and an office worker whose boss sets the standards and culture for what work is expected and could schedule it any arbitrary way. The more control the boss has, the more likely they are to owe overtime if they are putting pressure on the worker to work more than full time.
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth.
Uhm... really? You didn't know what happens if animals don't eat?
You're really going to go with the argument that food is optional, it is just entertainment?
Wow, that is just exceptionally daft. There are perhaps issues relating to food choices that would be relevant in other discussions, but the difference between hunting animals and torturing animals is actually really clear and stark. We can just concede that many humans eat meat and then proceed to the rest of the analysis. It isn't the sort of blocking issue that you pretend it is.
I hope, for the sake of your education, that you experience hunger at some point in your life. You'll learn the difference between food, and amusement.
No, they're not killing orcas to survive. That is just an insane justification that implies you have a serious internal moral disagreement.
Maybe it is perfectly ok to kill an orca to survive, but still barbaric to kill them for amusement? Perhaps that would solve your internal conflict.
Notice that nothing that I said about the comparison of lifespan in captivity to in the wild would leave any room for mistake that I was making a general moral argument against utilization of animal resources. You just brought your weird baggage along while arguing that animal torture is OK, because some people find cows entertaining. Fail.
...that stuff is truly barbaric.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
I find putting my data in a room with a locked door is pretty effective.
So did one of my clients whose manager was embezzling all their money. Initially. Later, we added cameras and electronic locks, and moved all the paper ledgers to spreadsheets on a VPN.
Also, thieves planning to steal an encryption key from a physical location might be able to open a door lock pretty easily. They might in fact have a copy of the key. I'm not convinced that is actually more secure than just having it in a desk drawer.
For personal use, yeah. Absolutely. Nobody is going to steal my embarrassingly bad poetry or old personal emails, they would only want my money, which isn't encrypted. Work stuff? I'd at least want a fire safe. It isn't Fort Knox, but I'll probably know if somebody got it open without the key, and they can't copy the key at a normal locksmith. For a business whose core competency involves encryption? Not good enough.
Optical disks have horrible shelf life. They degrade over time. They are not suitable for important backups. Magnetic tapes OTOH can be purchased in archival quality.
Plastics often take a long time to fully decompose, but their optical properties degrade rapidly.
That's leaving aside the "obscurity" flamebait. ;)
Well, I'm not afraid to say it next to my name; the answer was just horseshit.
There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. I've contracted for restaurants, and I've contracted for banks. The answer is very different depending which one it is. You can't generalize the answer from the question, you have to extend the question to include use cases or other context analysis.
The fact he even said it makes me wonder if he even knows what things like specifications and requirements are.
It's mean of you to make coffee shoot out of my nose like that, you know.
What are you talking about, you've been snorting coffee most of your life. You should send him a tip.
Yeah, but you're not a lawyer and also didn't look it up and read about it in depth so you didn't realize that there are a bunch of caveats and that being "exempt" doesn't mean you're not owed overtime if you work overtime. It means there is a different legal principle, and it requires different evidence than just a time card. Being exempt doesn't stop your salary from being based on full time, or the requirement to pay overtime; it does mean that if you work 80 hours one week, and take the following week off (paid), then you're not owed overtime. And if the legitimate work requires more time for real reasons relating to the job, then you don't get overtime. If you make a mistake and it gets you behind, yeah you might have to stay late to fix it. But if your boss simply schedules you for 80 hours, or pushes you to work more than full time, then you're owed extra pay for that.
I didn't say "no VC said."
When people make general statements, they're talking about generally. You're arguing against the absolute statement "no VC said," which isn't what I said at all.
I can also find people who say, "murder is OK if you kill the right person." And yet it is still true that there is general consensus that murder is bad.
Small business failure rate is 50% at 4 years. So, no.
He's not going to protect us, he's going to protect himself, his company, his values. That protects others who share his values.
No need to run off the rails because he isn't Harry Potter.