If they had dignity, they would still have it even if they were starving to death. They have shitty jobs because they have no dignity, and value money above self respect.
And other people have the exact same job, and do have dignity, and do have self respect, and they have that job because they wanted it, not because they couldn't find where to stand for a bag of money to land on their head.
I swear, man... I've been homeless, and if you go to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen very few of the people there have this sort of sense of entitlement. At least half the homeless are going to be fighting against this revolution if you nutters ever organize.;)
Read the "open letter." It is just a kid who grows up and finds out the world isn't fair and there are no free ponies, and an English degree isn't actually useful unless you want to teach English, and then she blames her employer. Guess what? Writers don't prepare to be writers by getting an English degree. Now, maybe she has a legit gripe against her HS career counselor. Somebody should have pointed it out. If you want to work in "media," you need an art degree, a computer degree, a drama degree, maybe even meteorology. If you want to be a writer... there is no degree for that, you have to "go out in the world and live" and then "find your voice." English degrees are for teachers. It is really that simple. The don't even start teaching how to write until the 4th year. An English degree doesn't even prepare you to be an editor. So she finds a crap job, and she's shocked she would have to work a year in her starting position before having any chance to transfer. A whole year, omg that is like so long because I'm still a kid! Except, a year is a really short time in a job. If you don't even want the job you're taking, they're not going to promise to move you into a better job. You need to prove yourself in the first position, not act entitled and show disdain for the actual position that they hired you for.
And for the record, if you starve a pack of wolves and throw them a steak, the alpha pair will eat it, and everybody else will sit back crying. They teach that in a different department than English, though.
What kind of idiot takes a full time job that would only pay 80% of their rent, without having moved as soon as they knew they were taking the job? I thought even English majors had to pass algebra, and this is just arithmetic! I'm sure there is a word problem for this. There is no irony in not having enough money for food. There is only arithmetic in it. When it gets the BART part, we find out the truth; she's still too spoiled to move to a part of the bay area that she can afford. She probably doesn't want to give up her free time to spend it commuting on a bus. Welcome to the most expensive part of the country, why did you expect to live there at the start of your career... with an English degree?
either convince people to vote for someone that will fix the problem, or convince people the system is not democratic (which may be the case or not: what matters is how it is perceived) and they should revolt.
Or install remote gun turrets at the bottom of the driveway.
It isn't enough to present an abstract set of conditions when people might overthrow a democracy. There are millions of us who are patriotic enough to fight for our republic even if you raise however many rebels who decided it isn't freedomy enough and they're going to try a dictatorship. Nope. That just adds up to a bunch of dead rebels.
Most of the idiots who say this shit don't even vote, and have no idea the depth of patriotism of many around them, left right and center.
If you don't find a political solution that is reasonable and has enough votes and is legal, you just won't have your concerns addressed. Even if the concern is people starving. It is as simple as that, really.
Yeah, yeah, heard that one. What happens if the rich have private security and machine guns, then what? Then maybe it is the rabble huddled outside the city wall that isn't liking it much.
If your position is, "don't leave us unhappy because we might get violent," don't be surprised when the corollary is, "Bring it on."
And that is before even considering that when that few people have jobs, the jobs are being done by robots. They can probably build robots to kill advancing masses. This isn't the old days where there is no way to stop thousands of people with pitchforks.
She may or may not "deserve" this or that based on your perception of the social contract, but does any reasonable interpretation of the existing social contract imply she deserves any of it from one company of her choosing? The fact is that if you've decided your employer sucks, it is time for you to go; the right thing is to quit, but if you want to abuse your employers trust and pretend to still be qualified for the job, it is up to you to keep your feelings under the radar. Because when you show contempt for your boss, they can (and really should) fire you with cause. This is well established in the courts; you have to want the job, not just the money, for it to be just and righteous to show up to work and clock in. If you don't like your boss, that is a real and legit reason for them not to trust you to do a good job.
I do agree that if nothing is done, there will be conflict eventually. It is in the best interests of the working class to find political resolutions before their part of the economy collapses and they lose all bargaining power. Simply being angry will not continue to provide any sort of power, the way it does now.
If you didn't even read it close enough to know if I was talking about "my neck of the woods" or not, then how do you even know what the "situation" is that you're agreeing to?
I assure you that the banks in my area are much more precise in their communication and security.
I see a lot of proclamations from around the world about the security of dams and power plants, why is it that the security people point out that they are barely secured at all, and always complaining loudly about it?
What if they're not that sophisticated, and don't have an active "theory of mind" process? Then it is exactly what I said; they don't imagine that the person might have a moral basis that they disagree with, because they don't imagine that the person has a mind different than their own. They're going entirely on matching the behavior against the descriptions of behaviors that they're exposed to in the media; they are not attempting to compare behavior against any theory about the intent of the speaker. Therefore they will not, can not, uncover the nonsensical nature of it.
You think it is "not even close" because you, having not applied theory of mind so as to understand what I intended to communicate, have found that it didn't match the first thing that popped into your head that matched. That "politically correct" is a stupid nonsensical phrase doesn't stop the people saying it from having some understanding, mistaken or not, about what it means.
"Correct" meaning something else doesn't stop people from using it in that way in that example, meaning that it also means the thing they use it for. That is true because English is an open language. Language-based pedanticisms should be constructed with a built-in brake for that reason; overstated they just become the reason why you don't understand certain words or phrases. Claiming it is an oxymoron is claiming that the speaker is intentionally using it as a contradictory figure of speech. Stop and talk to one of these people for a couple minutes, politely. You'll find few of them know what an oxymoron is, and almost all of them do indeed believe that librAwaaaals are some sort of political beasts that don't actually have morals, principles, opinions, or core values, and instead that they are cold, calculating creatures who choose positions based proximity to approved groups or sometimes popular opinion. Note that references to "popular opinion" are not cognizant of the democratic implications, it is meant purely in the sense of "only as important as a singer or movie star," because that is what "popular" means. If you think they're faking, take a mainstream example of a liberal and try to convince somebody who commonly uses the term "politically correct" that that liberal has core values, and that those core values are the ones that the said liberal claims they are. They won't likely even agree with that!
There are lots of other shocking things up here on the surface.
China had had a civil war, and the place we now call Taiwan was the last stronghold of the old government; they were still recognized internationally as the government of China until 1971.
The Soviet Union (USSR) was not only helping North Korea, they were also boycotting the UN meetings over the "wrong" China being represented there.
Things were right on the edge as far as if the UN would survive. Most of those types of organizations had failed. However, if it failed most of the world would have simply been behind the US. Russia realized after Korea that they were better off if they attended the UN and made use of their vote; that's why that is the only major war ever authorized by the UN, and everything else military has been smaller peacekeeping missions with broad support.
It doesn't move you off of disagreeing with meaning of justice. You're asserting that "social justice is not justice," without having defined justice, and the claim isn't the fact you state it as, but clearly an actual difference of definition of that one word. Which is what I said. You don't even seem to perceive that your argument supports my claim.
"Politically correct" is the claim that a person is saying something differently not out of respect, but to be seen as showing respect. You seem to not even consider that people might choose to use respectful language because they believe it is morally preferable and not out of a political purpose. The term "politically correct" is not a term either side of that language debate is claiming means "correct." So your comparison totally fails and is not analogous.
In the case of "Social Justice," it means literally Justice, in the context of the word. You can't challenge that without offering a definition of Justice; you can't claim that "social justice" is not "justice" without taking that step.
If you can't even comprehend that the wikipedia page for "Social Justice" contains ideas that are literally intended to be about Justice, then there is no hope at all to even communicate with you.
Exactly. I clicked on a news link today and saw some words covering the page that said, "the thing about ad blockers is..." and after closing the tab I finished the sentence for them: "... that users who use them, use them!" LOL And then I just clicked a different link.
I don't give a squat what some company's financial plan is. That isn't the basis for what content I consume. Did they ask my permission as a future potential reader to put ads on it? No? Well, it explains why I didn't worry about their opinion of my ad blocker. It is a totally symmetrical issue, and we (me and them both, together) never agreed for me to look at their ads. They don't want me to view their content? No hard feelings! I mean that genuinely with all my heart. They can suck however they want, it is their prerogative. I'm not asking them to change so that I would want to use their site. If what they want to provide and what I want to consume are in alignment, then network packets will happily exchange.
These people who imagine that I should view ads because the content provider wants me to, they neglect that I wasn't a party to the decision, and might not agree; and might happily not consume their content if they want to make it a requirement. It is totally up to them if they want their game to be "no purchase necessary to play" or "customers only."
I also only own a TV so I can watch PBS. Why should I care what some company I don't do business with wants me to watch?
Slashdot has long had a "disable advertising" checkbox. The funny thing... when the cookie resets and the box isn't checked, it annoys me. I have an ad blocker; I still don't see the ads. But I appreciate the respect that the box shows. I always click it even though it is effectively a no-op.
Matrox didn't die, the internet says they still have "3-5% market share" for video cards, and they're a market leader in multi-monitor cards. I didn't know any of that until I checked, since they don't have a track record of *nix support, but 3% of the current video card market might be more than the whole market was worth when they were a market leader! Are they "ruined," or were they saved by having a lot of smart employees and being able to grab niches even right after stumbling?
I do expect people to disagree over the meaning of justice. But this new fad of being anti-Justice, while simultaneously whining about being oppressed, it is really just mind-blowing.
I can't even read slashdot anymore without listening to Hampsterdance: der de der der der de der der, der der derderder, der de der der de der der de der der der!
I'm normally a big fan of R&D, but if a company is spending a lot of money on R&D and their R hasn't produced a product in decades and their D can't fix known bugs in core products, then getting rid of them is a great idea. They need R&D for their future, they do. And they won't have any until they've purged whoever was pocketing the money intended for R&D. In a few years, they can rebuild the department. In the meantime, D is getting folded into product teams, where it already should have been.
Yeah, Yahoo! Finance is still the best free financial data provider. They still have better charts than Google, and they had those charts before Google even had a finance page.
Also, Yahoo Messenger is used by people who don't use facebook to stay in touch with people they added to their IM in the late 90s...
Most viruses/exploits target a particular library running in the context of a particular application.
That has a lot to do with the historical way that applications are linked, though. If applications were commonly linked against different libraries, there would be a lot more fuzzing and things going on. The nature of the exploits would be different than they are.
Targeted attacks already use the techniques that would be more common in that alternate world.
The proposal isn't all bad; it may or may not even be bad, generally. But since it wouldn't be able to achieve what it claims, it is more likely harmful that helpful, the same as any random mutation.
It is already fairly normal to spam all inputs with malformed SQL:) My logs are usually filled with it, anyways, on most services. I also see various string overflows being tried on any input.
From a technical perspective, it is not likely to make much progress on these problems at the same time as wanting to constantly "innovate" and have new features. Once people figure out what features they want from computers, then a serious effort to write solutions that won't require constant change can begin. If you don't have code thrash, any of these linking paradigms can eventually reach a state of very few bugs, and very little attack surface.
The funny part is that the NY pen trap case that the FBI is citing goes into the exact stuff you say here; the order was legal because the phone company already used the tool for internal fraud prevention, and for customers who wanted to trace their own lines. The SCOTUS decision had a dissent that warned of this exact future problem; the majority ruling asserted that this wouldn't be a problem in the future, and that it was obvious that it wouldn't apply more broadly.
My prediction is that the SCOTUS will back up both sides of that by overturning this ruling, and saying that the old precedent already prevents it.
Banks don't care about privacy, they care about contracts and liabilities and stuff like that that is not secret.
Customer confidentiality is not privacy; they are expected to protect the customers information from the general public, but it is assumed that it isn't private data and that lots of people at the bank and in the government are reviewing transactions as needed.
I've written code for a (foreign) bank interchange system, and I think you're engaged in magical thinking about the way the network communication is handled. They're way more focused on defining liability and having insurance that covers losses than they are concerned about actually locking down their communications and preventing any theft. ATMs are broken into frequently, and large sums are stolen from banking networks.
The code I was asked to write didn't have any encryption, and they laughed at me when I suggested it. Everything gets audited at both ends later, they can just fix the numbers. The same theft won't happen repeatedly, because it requires inside access, and they have to flee with the money before the ongoing internal audits find the discrepancy. That makes it manageable.
Contracts don't trump laws, and the investigative actions of law enforcement are authorized by laws. The lawsuit you contemplate would not be legally possible. If there was something that could go to court in that scenario, the government agency would have to be a named defendant, and the former Apple employee would only have to show that they thought the government had authorized... what they had authorized. If it wasn't in their power to authorize it, that doesn't pass through to the civilian as legal liability unless that person would have known it was illegal; and we already know we're talking about engineers, not lawyers, so there is no expectation that they would know the government lawyers were wrong.
More likely, being a former employee wouldn't actually help because engineers don't memorize all the datasheets for all the chips they've worked with in their careers.;) I'm not a bigshot Apple engineer, but if I'm writing firmware I have to keep some of the header files, datasheets, and other documentation open while I'm writing it; even reading it an hour ago isn't good enough.
It is probably modded down because it conflates access to the data stored on the phone with access to the data stored in a iCloud account.
Users who care about privacy have different expectations of cloud data than they do for data that is stored on physical devices they own and exclusively control.
Can a court order compell a safe manufacturer to assist the authorities with opening a safe that may contain private papers belonging to the person charged with a crime, in this case a deceased person who can't provide the combination to open it?
According to the cases that the FBI is actually citing, the Court can only compel that action if the safe manufacturer already offers the service requested. If they offer the service, for example to living customers, or as part of a repair or warranty program, or internally for "refurbishing," then the court can compel it. If they didn't already offer the service, then they could not.
That's the NY case that appears to support the FBI... if you only read a one-paragraph short explanation without reading the ruling.
In chess if your opponent dies during the game, the result is a draw. If you think you're winning and your opponent is trying to commit suicide, it is in your best interests to stop him; it might be his one way to save the game!
Reform Government Surveillance companies believe it is extremely important to deter terrorists and criminals and to help law enforcement by processing legal orders for information in order to keep us all safe. But technology companies should not be required to build in backdoors to the technologies that keep their users' information secure. RGS companies remain committed to providing law enforcement with the help it needs while protecting the security of their customers and their customers' information.
Just because they support certain government activities doesn't mean they would have to support other ones. Maybe in some countries that seems natural, but it doesn't work that way in the US. Companies, and people, take positions on each issue independently. It is not a requirement to join a team and then be on their side on every issue.
You seem to admit you don't understand the business case; what if customers have choice, and customers like privacy? Does that clarify the business case? Did German customers in the 1930s have lots of choice? Could they simply choose companies that respected their privacy, or was that choice not available?
Slashdot Mirror
If they had dignity, they would still have it even if they were starving to death. They have shitty jobs because they have no dignity, and value money above self respect.
And other people have the exact same job, and do have dignity, and do have self respect, and they have that job because they wanted it, not because they couldn't find where to stand for a bag of money to land on their head.
I swear, man... I've been homeless, and if you go to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen very few of the people there have this sort of sense of entitlement. At least half the homeless are going to be fighting against this revolution if you nutters ever organize. ;)
Read the "open letter." It is just a kid who grows up and finds out the world isn't fair and there are no free ponies, and an English degree isn't actually useful unless you want to teach English, and then she blames her employer. Guess what? Writers don't prepare to be writers by getting an English degree. Now, maybe she has a legit gripe against her HS career counselor. Somebody should have pointed it out. If you want to work in "media," you need an art degree, a computer degree, a drama degree, maybe even meteorology. If you want to be a writer... there is no degree for that, you have to "go out in the world and live" and then "find your voice." English degrees are for teachers. It is really that simple. The don't even start teaching how to write until the 4th year. An English degree doesn't even prepare you to be an editor. So she finds a crap job, and she's shocked she would have to work a year in her starting position before having any chance to transfer. A whole year, omg that is like so long because I'm still a kid! Except, a year is a really short time in a job. If you don't even want the job you're taking, they're not going to promise to move you into a better job. You need to prove yourself in the first position, not act entitled and show disdain for the actual position that they hired you for.
And for the record, if you starve a pack of wolves and throw them a steak, the alpha pair will eat it, and everybody else will sit back crying. They teach that in a different department than English, though.
What kind of idiot takes a full time job that would only pay 80% of their rent, without having moved as soon as they knew they were taking the job? I thought even English majors had to pass algebra, and this is just arithmetic! I'm sure there is a word problem for this. There is no irony in not having enough money for food. There is only arithmetic in it. When it gets the BART part, we find out the truth; she's still too spoiled to move to a part of the bay area that she can afford. She probably doesn't want to give up her free time to spend it commuting on a bus. Welcome to the most expensive part of the country, why did you expect to live there at the start of your career... with an English degree?
either convince people to vote for someone that will fix the problem, or convince people the system is not democratic (which may be the case or not: what matters is how it is perceived) and they should revolt.
Or install remote gun turrets at the bottom of the driveway.
It isn't enough to present an abstract set of conditions when people might overthrow a democracy. There are millions of us who are patriotic enough to fight for our republic even if you raise however many rebels who decided it isn't freedomy enough and they're going to try a dictatorship. Nope. That just adds up to a bunch of dead rebels.
Most of the idiots who say this shit don't even vote, and have no idea the depth of patriotism of many around them, left right and center.
If you don't find a political solution that is reasonable and has enough votes and is legal, you just won't have your concerns addressed. Even if the concern is people starving. It is as simple as that, really.
Yeah, yeah, heard that one. What happens if the rich have private security and machine guns, then what? Then maybe it is the rabble huddled outside the city wall that isn't liking it much.
If your position is, "don't leave us unhappy because we might get violent," don't be surprised when the corollary is, "Bring it on."
And that is before even considering that when that few people have jobs, the jobs are being done by robots. They can probably build robots to kill advancing masses. This isn't the old days where there is no way to stop thousands of people with pitchforks.
She may or may not "deserve" this or that based on your perception of the social contract, but does any reasonable interpretation of the existing social contract imply she deserves any of it from one company of her choosing? The fact is that if you've decided your employer sucks, it is time for you to go; the right thing is to quit, but if you want to abuse your employers trust and pretend to still be qualified for the job, it is up to you to keep your feelings under the radar. Because when you show contempt for your boss, they can (and really should) fire you with cause. This is well established in the courts; you have to want the job, not just the money, for it to be just and righteous to show up to work and clock in. If you don't like your boss, that is a real and legit reason for them not to trust you to do a good job.
I do agree that if nothing is done, there will be conflict eventually. It is in the best interests of the working class to find political resolutions before their part of the economy collapses and they lose all bargaining power. Simply being angry will not continue to provide any sort of power, the way it does now.
If you didn't even read it close enough to know if I was talking about "my neck of the woods" or not, then how do you even know what the "situation" is that you're agreeing to?
I assure you that the banks in my area are much more precise in their communication and security.
I see a lot of proclamations from around the world about the security of dams and power plants, why is it that the security people point out that they are barely secured at all, and always complaining loudly about it?
What if they're not that sophisticated, and don't have an active "theory of mind" process? Then it is exactly what I said; they don't imagine that the person might have a moral basis that they disagree with, because they don't imagine that the person has a mind different than their own. They're going entirely on matching the behavior against the descriptions of behaviors that they're exposed to in the media; they are not attempting to compare behavior against any theory about the intent of the speaker. Therefore they will not, can not, uncover the nonsensical nature of it.
You think it is "not even close" because you, having not applied theory of mind so as to understand what I intended to communicate, have found that it didn't match the first thing that popped into your head that matched. That "politically correct" is a stupid nonsensical phrase doesn't stop the people saying it from having some understanding, mistaken or not, about what it means.
"Correct" meaning something else doesn't stop people from using it in that way in that example, meaning that it also means the thing they use it for. That is true because English is an open language. Language-based pedanticisms should be constructed with a built-in brake for that reason; overstated they just become the reason why you don't understand certain words or phrases. Claiming it is an oxymoron is claiming that the speaker is intentionally using it as a contradictory figure of speech. Stop and talk to one of these people for a couple minutes, politely. You'll find few of them know what an oxymoron is, and almost all of them do indeed believe that librAwaaaals are some sort of political beasts that don't actually have morals, principles, opinions, or core values, and instead that they are cold, calculating creatures who choose positions based proximity to approved groups or sometimes popular opinion. Note that references to "popular opinion" are not cognizant of the democratic implications, it is meant purely in the sense of "only as important as a singer or movie star," because that is what "popular" means. If you think they're faking, take a mainstream example of a liberal and try to convince somebody who commonly uses the term "politically correct" that that liberal has core values, and that those core values are the ones that the said liberal claims they are. They won't likely even agree with that!
There are lots of other shocking things up here on the surface.
China had had a civil war, and the place we now call Taiwan was the last stronghold of the old government; they were still recognized internationally as the government of China until 1971.
The Soviet Union (USSR) was not only helping North Korea, they were also boycotting the UN meetings over the "wrong" China being represented there.
Things were right on the edge as far as if the UN would survive. Most of those types of organizations had failed. However, if it failed most of the world would have simply been behind the US. Russia realized after Korea that they were better off if they attended the UN and made use of their vote; that's why that is the only major war ever authorized by the UN, and everything else military has been smaller peacekeeping missions with broad support.
They *do* have large budgets, only not large enough (what do you think me saying "not even banks can afford it" really meant?)
I can't think of anything more absurd than the idea that banks don't have the money. It doesn't pass even the laugh test.
And no, I didn't say you must have meant something else; I said it is absurd, and you are wrong. Sorry if I was unclear about that.
I didn't use the word "treason" in my comment. I was discussing the issue of when a war has or has not been declared, legally.
Remind me again what you're replying to?
No, actually social justice means "social" + "justice." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It doesn't move you off of disagreeing with meaning of justice. You're asserting that "social justice is not justice," without having defined justice, and the claim isn't the fact you state it as, but clearly an actual difference of definition of that one word. Which is what I said. You don't even seem to perceive that your argument supports my claim.
"Politically correct" is the claim that a person is saying something differently not out of respect, but to be seen as showing respect. You seem to not even consider that people might choose to use respectful language because they believe it is morally preferable and not out of a political purpose. The term "politically correct" is not a term either side of that language debate is claiming means "correct." So your comparison totally fails and is not analogous.
In the case of "Social Justice," it means literally Justice, in the context of the word. You can't challenge that without offering a definition of Justice; you can't claim that "social justice" is not "justice" without taking that step.
If you can't even comprehend that the wikipedia page for "Social Justice" contains ideas that are literally intended to be about Justice, then there is no hope at all to even communicate with you.
Exactly. I clicked on a news link today and saw some words covering the page that said, "the thing about ad blockers is..." and after closing the tab I finished the sentence for them: "... that users who use them, use them!" LOL And then I just clicked a different link.
I don't give a squat what some company's financial plan is. That isn't the basis for what content I consume. Did they ask my permission as a future potential reader to put ads on it? No? Well, it explains why I didn't worry about their opinion of my ad blocker. It is a totally symmetrical issue, and we (me and them both, together) never agreed for me to look at their ads. They don't want me to view their content? No hard feelings! I mean that genuinely with all my heart. They can suck however they want, it is their prerogative. I'm not asking them to change so that I would want to use their site. If what they want to provide and what I want to consume are in alignment, then network packets will happily exchange.
These people who imagine that I should view ads because the content provider wants me to, they neglect that I wasn't a party to the decision, and might not agree; and might happily not consume their content if they want to make it a requirement. It is totally up to them if they want their game to be "no purchase necessary to play" or "customers only."
I also only own a TV so I can watch PBS. Why should I care what some company I don't do business with wants me to watch?
Slashdot has long had a "disable advertising" checkbox. The funny thing... when the cookie resets and the box isn't checked, it annoys me. I have an ad blocker; I still don't see the ads. But I appreciate the respect that the box shows. I always click it even though it is effectively a no-op.
No, they were all R and no D. They're still called R, but they're inside product teams now. That means now they are all D and no R.
Matrox didn't die, the internet says they still have "3-5% market share" for video cards, and they're a market leader in multi-monitor cards. I didn't know any of that until I checked, since they don't have a track record of *nix support, but 3% of the current video card market might be more than the whole market was worth when they were a market leader! Are they "ruined," or were they saved by having a lot of smart employees and being able to grab niches even right after stumbling?
I burnt my breakfast, probably because my distro chose systemd and I didn't know that I can still read my logs in ASCII if I want.
You speak truth, dudebro. They're everywhere. There are even SJWs in my toilet; I know because it stank really bad while I was using it.
Wait, what? Justice isn't obviously bad?
I do expect people to disagree over the meaning of justice. But this new fad of being anti-Justice, while simultaneously whining about being oppressed, it is really just mind-blowing.
I can't even read slashdot anymore without listening to Hampsterdance:
der de der der der de der der, der der derderder, der de der der de der der de der der der!
You've got some gamergate in your neckbeard, you might want to find a handkerchief there Bilbo.
I'm normally a big fan of R&D, but if a company is spending a lot of money on R&D and their R hasn't produced a product in decades and their D can't fix known bugs in core products, then getting rid of them is a great idea. They need R&D for their future, they do. And they won't have any until they've purged whoever was pocketing the money intended for R&D. In a few years, they can rebuild the department. In the meantime, D is getting folded into product teams, where it already should have been.
Yeah, Yahoo! Finance is still the best free financial data provider. They still have better charts than Google, and they had those charts before Google even had a finance page.
Also, Yahoo Messenger is used by people who don't use facebook to stay in touch with people they added to their IM in the late 90s...
I'm still using ICQ for that, though.
Most viruses/exploits target a particular library running in the context of a particular application.
That has a lot to do with the historical way that applications are linked, though. If applications were commonly linked against different libraries, there would be a lot more fuzzing and things going on. The nature of the exploits would be different than they are.
Targeted attacks already use the techniques that would be more common in that alternate world.
The proposal isn't all bad; it may or may not even be bad, generally. But since it wouldn't be able to achieve what it claims, it is more likely harmful that helpful, the same as any random mutation.
It is already fairly normal to spam all inputs with malformed SQL :) My logs are usually filled with it, anyways, on most services. I also see various string overflows being tried on any input.
From a technical perspective, it is not likely to make much progress on these problems at the same time as wanting to constantly "innovate" and have new features. Once people figure out what features they want from computers, then a serious effort to write solutions that won't require constant change can begin. If you don't have code thrash, any of these linking paradigms can eventually reach a state of very few bugs, and very little attack surface.
The funny part is that the NY pen trap case that the FBI is citing goes into the exact stuff you say here; the order was legal because the phone company already used the tool for internal fraud prevention, and for customers who wanted to trace their own lines. The SCOTUS decision had a dissent that warned of this exact future problem; the majority ruling asserted that this wouldn't be a problem in the future, and that it was obvious that it wouldn't apply more broadly.
My prediction is that the SCOTUS will back up both sides of that by overturning this ruling, and saying that the old precedent already prevents it.
Banks don't care about privacy, they care about contracts and liabilities and stuff like that that is not secret.
Customer confidentiality is not privacy; they are expected to protect the customers information from the general public, but it is assumed that it isn't private data and that lots of people at the bank and in the government are reviewing transactions as needed.
I've written code for a (foreign) bank interchange system, and I think you're engaged in magical thinking about the way the network communication is handled. They're way more focused on defining liability and having insurance that covers losses than they are concerned about actually locking down their communications and preventing any theft. ATMs are broken into frequently, and large sums are stolen from banking networks.
The code I was asked to write didn't have any encryption, and they laughed at me when I suggested it. Everything gets audited at both ends later, they can just fix the numbers. The same theft won't happen repeatedly, because it requires inside access, and they have to flee with the money before the ongoing internal audits find the discrepancy. That makes it manageable.
Contracts don't trump laws, and the investigative actions of law enforcement are authorized by laws. The lawsuit you contemplate would not be legally possible. If there was something that could go to court in that scenario, the government agency would have to be a named defendant, and the former Apple employee would only have to show that they thought the government had authorized... what they had authorized. If it wasn't in their power to authorize it, that doesn't pass through to the civilian as legal liability unless that person would have known it was illegal; and we already know we're talking about engineers, not lawyers, so there is no expectation that they would know the government lawyers were wrong.
More likely, being a former employee wouldn't actually help because engineers don't memorize all the datasheets for all the chips they've worked with in their careers. ;) I'm not a bigshot Apple engineer, but if I'm writing firmware I have to keep some of the header files, datasheets, and other documentation open while I'm writing it; even reading it an hour ago isn't good enough.
It is probably modded down because it conflates access to the data stored on the phone with access to the data stored in a iCloud account.
Users who care about privacy have different expectations of cloud data than they do for data that is stored on physical devices they own and exclusively control.
Can a court order compell a safe manufacturer to assist the authorities with opening a safe that may contain private papers belonging to the person charged with a crime, in this case a deceased person who can't provide the combination to open it?
According to the cases that the FBI is actually citing, the Court can only compel that action if the safe manufacturer already offers the service requested. If they offer the service, for example to living customers, or as part of a repair or warranty program, or internally for "refurbishing," then the court can compel it. If they didn't already offer the service, then they could not.
That's the NY case that appears to support the FBI... if you only read a one-paragraph short explanation without reading the ruling.
In chess if your opponent dies during the game, the result is a draw. If you think you're winning and your opponent is trying to commit suicide, it is in your best interests to stop him; it might be his one way to save the game!
This is the statement that MS endorsed:
Just because they support certain government activities doesn't mean they would have to support other ones. Maybe in some countries that seems natural, but it doesn't work that way in the US. Companies, and people, take positions on each issue independently. It is not a requirement to join a team and then be on their side on every issue.
You seem to admit you don't understand the business case; what if customers have choice, and customers like privacy? Does that clarify the business case? Did German customers in the 1930s have lots of choice? Could they simply choose companies that respected their privacy, or was that choice not available?