... given all the comments in all the places that 'Anonymous Coward' has made, you're pretty certain not to get a visa then. And since they now know who you are - listen for the black helicopters, perhaps?
315 posts • joined 20 Sep 2013
I know - I know. What comes next in this post is nothing new to most folks here. But - sigh. Once more around the lighthouse.
1: Anything - _anything_ - can be put to a purpose that is either not the intended one - or a use of the 'thing' that may be illegal, objectionable or otherwise pernicious.
2: The argument that 'because (thing) can be used by some people improperly should mean nobody can use it' therefore leads to 'nobody should be permitted to use anything'.
Here comes the obligatory example - feel free to look away. And no, I'm not going to talk guns - nor Amendment related issues. I'm going to offer something directly relate-able, in my view, to Mr Passoff's point. Because cameras, both still and video, are a direct tool of the people and purpose he finds unacceptable (and as to the people and purpose, I do not necessarily disagree). So therefore, would he care to take up the cause of banning all still and video cameras? That would serve to significantly limit child abuse, surely? Or if not to ban them, to insist all still and video camera be modified to send copies of all still and videos record to a government agency for analysis and review? From his perspective, to allow people the unfettered right to record images and video may indeed be important to them, but surely it should not come at the expense of the potential and actuality of child sex abuse? Or is that somehow 'different'?
Sigh. OK - I'll shut up now. Grump. With extra grump.
With genuine and sincere respect, if the position of the signatories of the US Constitution were 'unassailably correct', then logically, philosophically and legally there would be no such thing as an 'Amendment', no? To amend is to change, to change is to challenge and prevail - and to challenge is to assail. Or am I missing something? After all, I'm an Idiot... :-)
"democracy is tyranny of the 51%". I see. So what would you prefer? The 'tyranny of the less than 50%'? The 'tyranny of the Electoral College'? The 'tyranny of the Corporations'? In any system where decisions are made through a process (and even rolling dice can be seen as a 'tyranny' for those who like buzz phrases), there is always a 'tyranny' of some kind. The 'tyranny' of 'whoever decides'. The very establishment of a system of government, _any_ system of government, can be seen as the establishment of a 'tyranny' - at least, seen that way by those who disagree with the decisions imposed by the system. But to each their own marketing language - and their own debates.
I respectfully suggest you and Chris the bean counter go sit in a corner and debate your views. He was the one who said, quite emphatically, that the USA _is_ a democracy. However, I would hold to my view. While Person A thinks 'democracy' is a mongoose, and Person B thinks it's a liquid, while Person C thinks it's round and Person D thinks it's a pink petunia - none of them can debate whether something 'is' or 'is not' democracy. Not because the word is meaningless - but because it has _too_many_ meanings. Which pretty much results in it appearing meaningless, and hence not a worthwhile element of discussion, debate or communication.
"Also USA is a democracy" Well - maybe. It depends on your definition of 'democracy'. The US President is not elected by the will of the majority of the people (of course, neither is the UK's Prime Minister). Russia holds elections where people get to 'vote', though arguably the offering of only one candidate limits the 'power of the vote'.
The US President is not elected by US voters. She or he is elected by the will of a much smaller group of generally older and well connected people. People who currently legally may or may not choose to vote how the electorate in their State told them to (the Electoral college). In short, I would suggest 'democracy' is a marketing catch phrase these days, not a definition. Thoughts?
And yes, that sort of thing could have been a potentially viable solution. This one, as far as I can tell, isn't it. But they're still marketing it as 'serving advertised purpose' and also 'totally anonymous'. If it _had_ been the type of solution you describe, and if they _had_ implemented a full release of source code to back their claims - then maybe. But not with what I've seen and heard of _this_ code.
... that developing something that tells you 'someone unknown' came into potentially contagious contact with 'some somebody else-s unknown' would hardly serve the stated purpose. Equally, even if you know 'Person X' came into contact with a a bunch of 'somebody unknown-s', you're hardly going to be much further forward.
So to engage in contagion limitation you pretty much have to know Person X came into contact with Person Y, Z, F, K etc - _and_ know which, if any, of those people had been infected, or come into contact with those infected. Thus making any pretense of 'it's OK, it's all aninny... er, anumby... er, 'nobody knows who anyone being tracked really _is_' rather self defeating. If you're going to sell BS, at least don;t try to tell people they're just imagining the smell...
... would suggest, a lot of fair comments made here. Comments, often perfectly valid, negatively comparing ICE and EV modes of transport, and why commenters would/ will never switch from ICE. Things like short ranges, the scarcity of fueling and fueling infrastructure stops for EV, the dangers of battery explosion - many others.
I think, and not intending in any way to shoot at those who have made those comments, that nearly every one, or maybe even every one, might have been offered long ago, when the debate was between the horse and those new-fangled infernal combusted whatchamamcallums. The horse, it could stop and eat some grass at a pinch, or oats at one of the many farms around. The infernal devices? Nary a fuel stop in site, and the fuel itself went bang, or had the potential to go bang, rather more than grass or oats. Range? Hah! Whether a decent rider and a good horse or (with apologies to Roger Cook / Roger Greenaway / Tony Macaulay), high speed runs with horse changes (a la Pony Express) would beat any infernally-thing. And as to skill sets for refueling, the horse took care of most of it, and people learned to ride across the class boundaries, not like those cumbustickles,, that only rich folk could use.
Hear that fluttering sound? It's the pages of history, flipping by. Hang on a moment, because....
There. Or rather, here. Now horses are for the well off, and largely (in the 'developed world') for recreation. And those comcbstickle things? They're every-bloody-where. With gas stations, and sealed fuel tanks, and processes for getting from A to B that even still-at-school teenagers can manage.
So do I think the comments here are wrong? Nope, probably not. Do I think, with a few more of those fluttered pages in our ears, they may _become_ wrong? Hell, yes. And after enough pages have turned, maybe the combustickles will be recreational vehicles, running only on recreational tracks - and people get there and go home in EVs, with easy powering/ refueling/ infrastructure - and at the weekend drive to see Great Grand Mom, and hear her say how she never could abide these new-fangled elektricky things...
It's alright. I'll stop now - I promise (blush) :-).
"think of a world where there is no encryption"
Um, no. I'd really rather not, if you don't mind. Encryption is just math. So 'think of a world without encryption' really means 'think of a world without math' (I'm going to put encipherment on one side for a moment). I'm afraid the implications of 'a world without math' are, I would suggest, far more horrible than anything encryption may bring. Not, I mean, a world 'where nobody knows/ has invented math'. A world 'without math'. Heck, it's hard to see how such a world could exist at all - but I'm not going to even try. Ewwwwww,
"(I thought we were innocent until proven guilty?)"
Well, they did sort of get rid of that, but they worked out they're safe anyway. "We hereby define the proof of guilt as the absence of proof of innocence. Since nobody can prove they're innocent, everybody is therefore guilty! Guilty as charged! Er - as soon as we think up some charges!"
... try again. In language even a politician should understand.
Question (yes or no): You technical folks. Yes, we know 1+3 must equal 4. But surely you can come up with a clever way to make it equal 7, or maybe 2, so long as we produce a warrant? Oh, and only for us - everyone else gets 4. OK? Thanks.
Crypto. It's mathematics, not a debate, or a vote in the house.
"Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) said in a statement that he “is committed to ensuring that Utah’s facial recognition system will only be used for law enforcement purposes and never against law-abiding Utahns.”"
Now to be filed under 'well, I was only joking', maybe?
Well, given the current state of 'politici-speak', I suggest the key weasel word here will be 'against'. They'll argue it isn't being used _against_ US citizens, because it's being used to 'protect' them and 'increase their security', so it's being used _for_ US citizens. Sigh...
... police, security or government agency is going to issue a notification against backdoors because they 'help identity thieves (including, but not limited to, property title thieves), people who want to break into your bank account, credit card cloners, stalkers, rogue newspaper editors and reporters, insurance fraudsters, tax fraudsters, blackmailers, political agents, foreign countries interfering with elections, rogue security and police opera... er, no, not those. Of course, _they_ don't exist. Right? Er, I mean... right?
Yes, and lots of others.
I see. Kind of quiet all of a sudden, huh? Well, apart from folks like those who come here, who often (not always - I come here too (blush)) know what they're talking about. Sigh...
... they should be asking for/ demanding every room in every building has concealed microphones 'only accessible by law enforcement', every outside area have microphones situated in suitably mapped overlap zones 'only accessible by law enforcement', so as to ensure people don't have non-electronic conversations not 'available only to law enforcement'. Would that be OK? By their standards, I mean? Because, after all, there would never be any reason for people to object to such a level of surveillance, because of, like, terrorists, the children and people maybe stealing the newspaper the paper boy threw on their stoop. And _no_ possibility that 'Bad Guys(tm)' would _ever_ be able to gain access to what the microphones recorded, right? Right? Er.... right?
"The moment you're not touching the arm, you are not bearing it."
Hmmm. So it's therefore only legal to have guns if you're actually touching them! So storing them at home, under any conditions where you're not touching them, are illegal! And so are guns in holsters (you're touching the hostler if it's on your body, not the gun)! And gun racks on trucks! And...
OK, OK. I know. Back to the drawing board - sigh :-).
Room for an enterprising app here :-).
1: Establish (possibly crowd sourced data) database of all facial recognition camera locations.
2: App polls database, polls phone location.
3: If (Current location) (close enough) (facial recognition camera location) then (automatically file pre-templated GDPR information request)
That might get a little expensive for someone :-).
"there isn't any way for them to search for other recordings for that particular person"
Well, with respect, 'there isn't any way' can, like most absolutes (and potentially all of them, but I wouldn't wish to use an absolute (blush)) trip you up. Recordings could, at least in principle, be processed for audio pattern recognition (I'm not fond of the term 'voiceprint'). Would it be 100% reliable? Probably not. Would it qualify as 'a way to search for other recordings for that particular person'? I would suggest it might - but, of course, I'm an Idiot, so I'm sure others (and possibly you) might think otherwise :-).
"...ONLY the terminally stupid"
Perhaps not. Maybe high-risk, low capability individuals, like my wife, who has advanced Multiple Sclerosis and is totally wheelchair bound? We can't afford day-time or live-in care, so while I'm at work, she's on her own. While the FUCKING LIVE MICROPHONE system (and recording/ playback) I have in place is NOT Siri, it is _still_ a fucking live microphone, so if something bad happened I would stand a chance of knowing. Does that make her, in your view, 'terminally stupid'? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion either way.
"... be forced to make its execs accountable for the decisions they make"
And the fact that this can be stated as something to be imposed, and not something automatic and explicit across all execs in all companies in all industries is itself a huge part of the problem - at least, in my view.
"Oh, we broke the law? Ah. Oops. Well, we didn't mean it, honest. Here's some money. So that's alright then, right?" No. It isn't. You broke the law? Go to court, get found guilty and go to jail.
Sadly (for you at least), I can tell you don't live in a decent sized (for audience pool) condo in Toronto. Where I live, the building was originally established with cable. The cable's still there if you're mad enough to want it. However, at least two companies are now also in the building offering fiber to the apartment. Both of them came in at their own expense and established infrastructure as needed. If Apartment A has Company 1 fiber, and Apartment B next door has Company 2? Well, no big - two strands of string down the hall in the ceiling voidspace. I know at least one of those companies does not require a fixed term contract, because I'm with them - 250 Mbs symetric uncapped, for C$50 a month. I could have 1Gbps for C$100 if I needed it. Oh - and because I asked, they give me a naked transducer so I can run my own firewall/ routing. If I wanted to get really paranoid I could have both of them run a line to me and have failover.
Ah yes. But that's Canada - so behind them times compared to the US, right?
"Even if Cisco equipment has NSA-supported backdoors, that's the United States NSA, not the Peoples' Republic of China — a major threat to, if not enemy of, the United States."
Right. Because the United States are well known not to be a threat to any of their 'allies' under the current (or potentially previous) regimes. They don 't use economic action as a form of political coercion, don't act against those (European or otherwise) allies, don't try to enforce their good at the expense of others. Got it, sir. Right. If it's good for the US, it's good for - um, the US. And everybody else should accept that as 'good enough', yes?
"The Haskell Free Library, which straddles the U.S.-Canada border, is home to an array of novels, an opera house and — for a brief time — international gun smugglers.
The heritage building was built in 1904 and is the only library in the world to straddle a border, between the towns of Derby Line, Vt., and Stanstead, Que. There is a black line on the library floor marking the divide.
You enter the building through the U.S., but the circulation desk and most of the books are in Canada. The reading room is in both countries. The building’s unique layout may be why it was an attractive location for a Montreal man to smuggle handguns into Canada."
... again. Sigh.
Content provider A is based in Country 1. Among other things, they make available content. Let's say, with no intention at all of offending anyone including the Sultan of Brunei, that content includes male-male an*l interpersonal activity. Said content is found to be legal under Country 1 free speech and other laws.
Country 2 declares said content 'harmful'. Makes the provision by Content provider A illegal.
A citizen of anywhere, but to keep things simple, lets say of Country 2, entirely of their own volition accesses the content provided by Content provider A. And gets found out.
So, er - what? And let's ignore calling VPN providers accessories for now.
1: Country 2 takes Content provider A to court for being Bad People(tm) and breaking their law?
2: Country 2 says accessing any content provided from regions not under Country 2's legal jurisdiction is a Bad Thing(tm) and firewalls themselves from the world?
3: Something else equally stupid?
I'm not suggesting there is no content available I personally would consider a Bad Thing(tm). But to assume my own values should apply to everybody? To make access to such content the fault of content providers, who simply offer an option to access, and not consider it purely the fault of those who in _fact_ access it? Hmmm. With extra 'here we go again'. Sigh...
You have me _every_ sympathy. Offered sincerely and genuinely - from experience.
I apologise to those for whom what follows is TMI. Feel free not to read further. But my own wife has Primary Progressive MS. She is fully wheelchair bound, has a colostomy for solid waste and an indwelling catheter for liquid waste, one _I_ have to maintain and replace as a result of cuts to care funding. She is losing the use of her hands and her voice volume is dropping. I still work full time and I'm also her sole carer. I'm in tech, and tech should be a savior for someone whose computer is her sole window on the world. Does it help? Sure. Has the available help changed much in the past ten years she's been chair bound? Not so much. And lord knows I've tried most of what's available. Head mice? Yes. Dragon? Yes. Crossed fingers and hope I don;t come home to find she's finally given up and OD-d? So yes I can't say it loud enough.
AC, whoever you are, you have my every sympathy - and my hope that, gamer though I am, the tech world takes a little of its eye off a gazillion core cpu with graphics to show the atoms in a hair on the Bad Guy's face - and opens the world to those who have no window to look through but a computer screen.
"Are children being exposed to naughty audio on a regular basis?"
Only if they want to spend five (all numbers made up, as per Internet standards) minutes looking for it and like it when they find it. A bit like drugs, gambling, the lyrics to the latest single by some artist I'm probably far too old to ever want to know, the price of an iphone, the road to Fiddlers Green...
Er, OK. Forget that last one. I'm showing my age. Or something... (blush)
I'll go back to the beginning. Only if they want to spend five (all numbers made up, as per Intern et standards) minutes looking for it and like it when they find it. And so far, the world hasn't ended.
"In cases where we must terminate positions (which, of course won't be, like, _ours_, as we're, like, _important_, not like you), we will put reasonable (from the perspective of our accountants, and, more importantly, the bonus I'm going to get after this) plans, including severance packages (because some bloody stupid laws say we sort of have to, but we're spending a really, really large amount of money on lawyers to see if we can get out of it), in place to ease the transition for those affected (which is us, not you. After all, you'll be gone, and we'll still be here)."
I'm pretty sure (read: absolutely totally sure, 'cos I watched them run the fibre down the corridor). But then, I'm in Canada, and in a condo tower that has a provider with fibre to the apartment as an option (as well as other providers serving the tower who offer cable and other technologies). I would suggest a qualification, whether geographic or otherwise, to the hook line might be in order :-). I'll try to be nice and not mention my symetric, uncapped service - or the cost. Or, um, rather the 'lack' of significant cost :-))). Oh, alright. 250Mbps for $50 a month. I could have 1Gbps if I felt like shelling a whole $100 a month...
... that nice, friendly Mr Pai said everything was going great!
"“Today’s report confirms that the FCC’s policies to promote broadband deployment are working, After Internet service providers reduced new investments in 2015 and 2016 under the prior Administration’s regulatory approach, broadband investment increased in 2017 by $1.5 billion over the previous year.”
Right. 2%. That'll fix it, yes? Oh - was that before or _after_ factoring in inflation, and the fact that the US was already _behind_ lots of other places? Sigh...
My cat likes windows. She sits and stares out of the at the traffic twenty-five floors below and smiles ot herself. She watches the rain on them and, I'm sure, snuggles inside, remembering when she was a street cat out in the cold and rain before she was rescued - _before_ she had windows. On the other hand she was sort of unix-ed after her first litter (is a neutered female a eunixed one?), so I guess she has the best of both ways of operating... :-).
... might wonder if, at some point, the government will say 'well, we're here to make things easier for you. You give us copies of all your data, and we'll sort out the whole porting thing for you. And we _promise_ not to use the data for anything, um, naughty. Or sell it to folks you might not want us to.
Of course, that would be just an excess of cynicism, wouldn't it. Couldn't possibly ever happen. Er... right?
Then with respect, and since this is essentially a techno site, if I may I'll take your premise and apply a little logic.
1: It's fairly apparent that the US has a higher incidence of gun related violence and death than other countries (I'm sure there are those who would argue this, and they are of course entitled to. But I'm posing it as a premise).
2: Accepting your point (purely for the sake of logical review), let us assume the root cause is indeed not guns but 'evil, sick, depraved people'.
3: The logical combination of (1) and (2) would appear to suggest that the US has a significantly higher incidence of 'evil, sick, depraved people' than other countries (I'm not saying this is so, merely extending the logic).
4: Er - why? All those evil etc people in the US, I mean? What is the root cause under this logical structure?
... or NAS drive has a re-silver lining.
It's all very well to dream about filling a great big N-bay NAS with 4TB drives. But I'd suggest people also consider time-to-resilver, and the increasing odds of additional drive failures during re-silver operations. Or maybe I'm just being unduly cynical and pessimistic...
... don't hate mine. Fibre to the premises, uncapped, synchronous speeds up to 1Gbps if I want it, no outages, knowledgeable, friendly and cooperative tech support (oh, you want to run your own router? Sure! We'll just put a convertor in and take ours away. No, no fee! Sure, if you change your mind we'll come put ours back!). Did I mention $50 a month for the 250Gbps I _am_ paying for (and getting - both ways, all the time?).
Oh. Right. I'm in Canada. My apologies... :-).
... first can we have some form of 'qualification questionaire' for said probing MPs? You know, maybe things like:
You want to be on a committee looking into tech effectiveness. Answer the following multiple choice questions:
1: Is the Internet really made of tubes?
2: Do you believe in magic encryption that law officers can get into but Bad People can't?
3: Are hashtags a critical tool for identifying Bad People?
4: You are in Opposition. A huge, expensive government project just failed. Is this a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
5: You are in Government. A huge expensive government project is reported as having failed. Do you blame the previous government, blame the opposition or announce it as a major success?
Sigh - I know. I'm dreaming...
With respect, the Anonymous post asked for a citation - a citation was provided. Additionally the McGrath biography from which the article quotes is by Dr Alister McGrath, not someone totally unknown for his rigour in such things:
Alister McGrath is Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion of the University of Oxford. In addition, he is Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College at Oxford and President of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.
The comments about book royalties are from an executive at Harper One, who hold current publication rights in this context and might be thought to be a reliable source. You may, of course, feel this is not the case and have every right to do so :-).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020