I'm sorry, but if every version of your OS is trivially jail-breakable (with, for example, exploits that amount to root privilege escalation by simply visiting a web page on the device's browser), you are NOT a bastion of security.
You can argue that Apple does a better job of "securing" their app store than Google does, but that doesn't make the devices themselves any more secure. Just because something trivially exploitable hasn't been exploited (that you know of... yet) doesn't make it secure.
You do the same fucking thing in every Apple story or Android story, because you're a hilarious Apple apologist. Get down off your high horse. You're not fooling anybody.
My first thought when I read this was, "how is this any different than the fact that Apple pays for product placement in *every* TV show or movie that has a laptop or phone in it?" And for the record, I'm disgusted by both forms of advertising.
You can come up with a plan and work hard to improve a situation and still know that it's unfair and that it doesn't have to be that way. This false dichotomy between being a professional victim vs. being responsible for your actions is just a conservative talking point.
If one observes a pigeon shitting on all the cars in one area (under a statue perhaps), is it bigotry to be a little cautious parking your car and seeing a a pigeon heading your way....maybe you want to park somewhere else ?
No, it's not bigotry to avoid parking your car around pigeons. However, it became bigotry when you compared black people to pigeons.
Do you have evidence that safety features make up 90% of the cost of a car, or is that just a number you pulled out of your ass? Kind of like the '99% of regulations being bad' idiocy that started this thread.
If you have data, show it. Maybe you'll convince somebody. Otherwise DO NOT QUOTE NUMBERS. It just makes you look like a jackass.
No, it isn't at all. The entire article is flamebait. Network neutrality is about making it illegal to prioritize or block internet traffic from domains that aren't even directly connected to whatever ISP you have (Verizon, Comcast, whoever). e.g. Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra for its packets to go across its routers, even though Netflix has no direct peering with Comcast, and Netflix's upstream provider(s) has already entered into agreements with Comcast.
This is simply a service agreement between a customer and a service provider. It could be a stupid service agreement, but it isn't a network neutrality issue and no amount of bleating will make it so.
So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?
Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)
No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.
1) It doesn't work. 2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.
So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.
It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.
Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.
As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.
Going to work might seem like fun now, but I think you might change your tune about going to work if that were always your only option. If you had never been given the option to choose to be a stay at home parent (even if you end up hating it), you might not be so excited to stay at home. Some choice is better than none.
And if you honestly believe that today men have an option of being a stay-at-home parent, you're delusional. In the US and most of the rest of the world, a woman won't even *look* at you unless you make at least as much as she does.
Nah, because that would take away from time you could spend bitching and moaning about one available option, among *many*, that doesn't perfectly suit your specific needs.
You're a Mac guy. You like stuff that does things for you. We get it.
*We* like stuff that lets us do things we want. If you don't understand the difference, that just reinforces my point.
People only say "The 1%" because it's easier to say than what it really is, which is closer to the 0.001%, but the concept is not difficult to grasp. The vast majority of wealth and power is concentrated in very few hands.
But somehow, even this simple concept seems to have gone over your head, and you think that it makes sense to lump someone making $40k/year (in the US, I assume) into the same group as someone making tens of millions per year. At this point I'm going to assume that your feigned ignorance is either real ignorance or, quite possibly, stupidity.
It's a chicken/egg problem. The show gets popular; the network is able to sell expensive ad slots. The actors know that they're part of a valuable asset so they negotiate for a larger piece of the pie.
I'm perfectly fine with this, personally. Same with pro athletes. They're the ones doing the useful stuff that makes a ton of money, they should get their cut.
The root of the problem is the selling of advertising itself, not that actors/athletes are greedy.
"Pacific Rim" was absolutely terrible. I don't think there was a single second of on-screen time that wasn't 100% lifted whole cloth from any number of very tired cliches.
But it was highly entertaining, in a way that none of Michael Bay's shit ever is. I'd watch it again when it's available on disc; if for nothing else than to play TV Tropes Bingo.
Actually, that sounds kind of fun. If TV Tropes Bingo doesn't already exist, someone should put that together.
Amazing stuff, it's always the political right that believe in personal responsibility (as this sort of thing should be, take the laptop away, put it in the family room, adult supervision for 'the kids' sake) that does the heavy handed censorship.
Umm, there are plenty of "progressives" that are perfectly ok with censoring porn, with the justification that it's degrading to women.
You can't brute force a problem that doesn't have discrete parameters.
The rest of your responses make it clear that you don't understand this. Brute forcing a password is possible because for every character in the password, it can be from a discrete set of characters.
You can't brute force an optimal real number, unless your equation is so simple that you can solve it by just looking for local optima and wouldn't need a computer anyway. Your search space could be [0, 1] or it could be [-1000, 1000] or it could be [-inf, inf]; it doesn't matter. Say your brute force algorithm comes up with 0.5 as an optimum... when you search 0.0, 0.1, 0.2... 1.0. If you increase the resolution, maybe your optimum becomes 0.73. Increase the resolution again and maybe it becomes 0.348. Searches in a continuous space work COMPLETELY differently than searches in discrete space, and you can't just brute force them.
It's amusing to me that for the longest time, Apple fanbois mocked Android users for having the permissions list which "nobody reads anyway," while having *no* information or control over what iOS apps used.
Apple finally gets something that is clearly superior to what Android has out-of-the-box (though it would still be nice to know an app's permissions list before downloading) and suddenly they have no idea why Android doesn't also do it this way. In another 6-12 months when this feature is rolled into stock Android, the Apple fanbois will then claim that Google stole the idea and that iOS has *always* had better handling of app permissions (while also ignoring the fact that this feature has been available for years to pretty much any Android user who wanted it enough to get it).
It doesn't exist, and your goalpost moving doesn't constitute much of an argument.
You can only try to minimize the middlemen as much as possible. If you look at the percentage of GDP spent on health care in the US vs any other nation with socialized healthcare, they're doing a much better job than we are; by a factor of 2 or better.
As though HIGHLY regulated businesses - read: the nuclear power industry, air travel, rail and auto transport, oil and gas, etc. etc. - don't also have disasters.
So... are you saying that unregulated business have failures, and regulated businesses have failures?
I don't think that a few anecdotes really supports whatever position you have, though the "Occupy bloviating nonsense" bit makes it pretty clear where you stand.
You don't see anything evil in a politician trying to use an unarguably morally corrupt (slavery is fine if you treat them not too badly, stoning people to death is OK, rape isn't that bad so long as you pay her dad afterward, etc.) and scientifically indefensible (differentiation of species has happened and been recorded in within the timeframe of modern science, if the climate thing isn't enough) religious text as the basis for government policy?
Nope. I'm as anti-Bible-as-authoritative-reference as the next guy, but I still chalk people using it as one up to ignorance, not evil.
Most people who deal in absolutes are idiots. I include the people who try to demonize their opponents as evil using "wit' us or ag'in us" in that category.
(As evidence, watch the flood of comments that will follow labeling me a "denier" because I used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.)
As opposed to the True Believers who will label you a Church of Global Warming member because you used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.
Your characterization of your (presumably) opponents says a lot about you; if you leave out that last aside, I assume you are actually interested in discussion of nuance. But its inclusion tips you in the direction of "probably actually a moron with a persecution complex."
Slashdot Mirror
Nice anecdote.
Do you have any data to back it up?
--Jeremy
I'm sorry, but if every version of your OS is trivially jail-breakable (with, for example, exploits that amount to root privilege escalation by simply visiting a web page on the device's browser), you are NOT a bastion of security.
You can argue that Apple does a better job of "securing" their app store than Google does, but that doesn't make the devices themselves any more secure. Just because something trivially exploitable hasn't been exploited (that you know of ... yet) doesn't make it secure.
--Jeremy
You do the same fucking thing in every Apple story or Android story, because you're a hilarious Apple apologist. Get down off your high horse. You're not fooling anybody.
My first thought when I read this was, "how is this any different than the fact that Apple pays for product placement in *every* TV show or movie that has a laptop or phone in it?" And for the record, I'm disgusted by both forms of advertising.
--Jeremy
You can come up with a plan and work hard to improve a situation and still know that it's unfair and that it doesn't have to be that way. This false dichotomy between being a professional victim vs. being responsible for your actions is just a conservative talking point.
--Jeremy
If one observes a pigeon shitting on all the cars in one area (under a statue perhaps), is it bigotry to be a little cautious parking your car and seeing a a pigeon heading your way....maybe you want to park somewhere else ?
No, it's not bigotry to avoid parking your car around pigeons. However, it became bigotry when you compared black people to pigeons.
--Jeremy
Do you have evidence that safety features make up 90% of the cost of a car, or is that just a number you pulled out of your ass? Kind of like the '99% of regulations being bad' idiocy that started this thread.
If you have data, show it. Maybe you'll convince somebody. Otherwise DO NOT QUOTE NUMBERS. It just makes you look like a jackass.
--Jeremy
No, it isn't at all. The entire article is flamebait. Network neutrality is about making it illegal to prioritize or block internet traffic from domains that aren't even directly connected to whatever ISP you have (Verizon, Comcast, whoever). e.g. Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra for its packets to go across its routers, even though Netflix has no direct peering with Comcast, and Netflix's upstream provider(s) has already entered into agreements with Comcast.
This is simply a service agreement between a customer and a service provider. It could be a stupid service agreement, but it isn't a network neutrality issue and no amount of bleating will make it so.
--Jeremy
So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?
Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)
No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.
1) It doesn't work.
2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.
So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.
It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.
Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.
As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.
--Jeremy
Well it's comforting to know that we aren't as bad as Nazis.
--Jeremy
And I'm sorry, but there's nothing about "Child Labour Watch" that raises it above the rest of the noise.
LA LA LA I can't hear you! LA LA LA!
The story here, as usual, is that Apple is no better than anybody else. And everybody seems to know this except you.
--Jeremy
You miss the parts where your husband could beat you with impunity.
No they couldn't. Wife beating has never been acceptable. This is a myth.
--Jeremy
Going to work might seem like fun now, but I think you might change your tune about going to work if that were always your only option. If you had never been given the option to choose to be a stay at home parent (even if you end up hating it), you might not be so excited to stay at home. Some choice is better than none.
And if you honestly believe that today men have an option of being a stay-at-home parent, you're delusional. In the US and most of the rest of the world, a woman won't even *look* at you unless you make at least as much as she does.
--Jeremy
Nah, because that would take away from time you could spend bitching and moaning about one available option, among *many*, that doesn't perfectly suit your specific needs.
You're a Mac guy. You like stuff that does things for you. We get it.
*We* like stuff that lets us do things we want. If you don't understand the difference, that just reinforces my point.
--Jeremy
When Obama does something like this, the media print stories about how wonderful he is and nothing he does could ever be bad.
Why do you type this shit? Do you honestly believe it?
--Jeremy
People only say "The 1%" because it's easier to say than what it really is, which is closer to the 0.001%, but the concept is not difficult to grasp. The vast majority of wealth and power is concentrated in very few hands.
But somehow, even this simple concept seems to have gone over your head, and you think that it makes sense to lump someone making $40k/year (in the US, I assume) into the same group as someone making tens of millions per year. At this point I'm going to assume that your feigned ignorance is either real ignorance or, quite possibly, stupidity.
--Jeremy
Designing, printing, and delivering crappy ads that most people will just immediately throw away is NOT a constructive activity.
--Jeremy
It's a chicken/egg problem. The show gets popular; the network is able to sell expensive ad slots. The actors know that they're part of a valuable asset so they negotiate for a larger piece of the pie.
I'm perfectly fine with this, personally. Same with pro athletes. They're the ones doing the useful stuff that makes a ton of money, they should get their cut.
The root of the problem is the selling of advertising itself, not that actors/athletes are greedy.
--Jeremy
"Pacific Rim" was absolutely terrible. I don't think there was a single second of on-screen time that wasn't 100% lifted whole cloth from any number of very tired cliches.
But it was highly entertaining, in a way that none of Michael Bay's shit ever is. I'd watch it again when it's available on disc; if for nothing else than to play TV Tropes Bingo.
Actually, that sounds kind of fun. If TV Tropes Bingo doesn't already exist, someone should put that together.
--Jeremy
Amazing stuff, it's always the political right that believe in personal responsibility (as this sort of thing should be, take the laptop away, put it in the family room, adult supervision for 'the kids' sake) that does the heavy handed censorship.
Umm, there are plenty of "progressives" that are perfectly ok with censoring porn, with the justification that it's degrading to women.
--Jeremy
You can't brute force a problem that doesn't have discrete parameters.
The rest of your responses make it clear that you don't understand this. Brute forcing a password is possible because for every character in the password, it can be from a discrete set of characters.
You can't brute force an optimal real number, unless your equation is so simple that you can solve it by just looking for local optima and wouldn't need a computer anyway. Your search space could be [0, 1] or it could be [-1000, 1000] or it could be [-inf, inf]; it doesn't matter. Say your brute force algorithm comes up with 0.5 as an optimum ... when you search 0.0, 0.1, 0.2... 1.0. If you increase the resolution, maybe your optimum becomes 0.73. Increase the resolution again and maybe it becomes 0.348. Searches in a continuous space work COMPLETELY differently than searches in discrete space, and you can't just brute force them.
--Jeremy
It's amusing to me that for the longest time, Apple fanbois mocked Android users for having the permissions list which "nobody reads anyway," while having *no* information or control over what iOS apps used.
Apple finally gets something that is clearly superior to what Android has out-of-the-box (though it would still be nice to know an app's permissions list before downloading) and suddenly they have no idea why Android doesn't also do it this way. In another 6-12 months when this feature is rolled into stock Android, the Apple fanbois will then claim that Google stole the idea and that iOS has *always* had better handling of app permissions (while also ignoring the fact that this feature has been available for years to pretty much any Android user who wanted it enough to get it).
--Jeremy
It doesn't exist, and your goalpost moving doesn't constitute much of an argument.
You can only try to minimize the middlemen as much as possible. If you look at the percentage of GDP spent on health care in the US vs any other nation with socialized healthcare, they're doing a much better job than we are; by a factor of 2 or better.
--Jeremy
As though HIGHLY regulated businesses - read: the nuclear power industry, air travel, rail and auto transport, oil and gas, etc. etc. - don't also have disasters.
So ... are you saying that unregulated business have failures, and regulated businesses have failures?
I don't think that a few anecdotes really supports whatever position you have, though the "Occupy bloviating nonsense" bit makes it pretty clear where you stand.
--Jeremy
You don't see anything evil in a politician trying to use an unarguably morally corrupt (slavery is fine if you treat them not too badly, stoning people to death is OK, rape isn't that bad so long as you pay her dad afterward, etc.) and scientifically indefensible (differentiation of species has happened and been recorded in within the timeframe of modern science, if the climate thing isn't enough) religious text as the basis for government policy?
Nope. I'm as anti-Bible-as-authoritative-reference as the next guy, but I still chalk people using it as one up to ignorance, not evil.
Most people who deal in absolutes are idiots. I include the people who try to demonize their opponents as evil using "wit' us or ag'in us" in that category.
--Jeremy
(As evidence, watch the flood of comments that will follow labeling me a "denier" because I used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.)
As opposed to the True Believers who will label you a Church of Global Warming member because you used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.
Your characterization of your (presumably) opponents says a lot about you; if you leave out that last aside, I assume you are actually interested in discussion of nuance. But its inclusion tips you in the direction of "probably actually a moron with a persecution complex."
--Jeremy