Of course, if he has managed to find a way to roll back time and uncreate things, we should probably work on uncreating nuclear weapons. Once we've done that, we can uncreate a bunch of other things, and perhaps encryption might become one of those, but I doubt it.
Wouldn't it be better to uncreate all crime? I mean, as long as we are going to start implementing impossible solutions to problems, we should aim high.
It's something in between the two.
Am I the only person still using spamgourmet.com?
I think he was referring to personal satellites.
I don't see paypal manipulating the government. The government passed a law, paypal said we can't move to a state who passed that law. No different than if the state passed a law raising corporate taxes.
Actually, if this is manipulation of the government, this is the way corporations *should* be doing it. Clear and out in the open.
Ford raising its wages did put pressure on other companies to do the same. Otherwise Ford ends up luring away all your best employees & you're left with the mouth breathers that Ford didn't want. That was part of Ford's intent. He didn't just want his employees as customers, he wanted everyone's employees as costumers. For that to happen, he needed as many people as possible to make more money.
Ford is a great example of a heartless capitalist treating employees well not because it was the right thing to do, but because he was able to make more money by doing it. Unfortunately, that sort of wisdom seems rare today, but it isn't completely absent:
> Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I have to admit that the difference I mentioned was more of a feeling I have, but let me try to figure out why I feel that way.
If Apple had the data, they could hand it over without suggesting any vulnerability that wasn't already known to exist. In this case, they no longer had access to the data. They had to create access to the data. For me, that active creation of a vulnerability where none existed before is the core of the distinction.
I'd also like to mention that there are other aspects of the San Bernadino case that make me uncomfortable.
The idea that any private citizen of the U.S. should just roll over for the government is ridiculous. Apple wasn't acting illegally. All Apple wanted was to legally respond to the warrant. They believed that the law was on their side, and they were willing to argue that point. They have the right to do so. The government seemed to want to make the case that Apple should just obey. I applaud Apple for telling the government that they would not submit without a fight.
Based on what I've read, the goal was not merely to get the data off that phone. I don't believe the FBI needed or cared about what was on that phone. If there was anything useful on it, the terrorists would have attempted to destroy it as they did with the other two (everything I've seen said they didn't bother). I think the only thing the FBI was interested in was setting a precedent for breaking or weakening encryption.
I believe that the FBI was always going to come back for more. I don't think they would have kept the lock pick. Instead they would have just kept coming back to Apple to recreate it. I think the ultimate goal was to try to prevent tech companies from coming up with encryption that the government couldn't break.
If the government can break the encryption, so can other groups. Unfriendly governments, criminal organizations, and even terrorists could discover the means to break encryption. Once that happens, we all become even more vulnerable.
Of course, all those groups are already breaking our security, but I think the goal should be to make it stronger not weaker.
In the interests of full disclosure, I also believe that the FBI & US government in general have used the terrorist attacks to unnecessarily limit the rights of citizens. I believe accounts which state that the USA PATRIOT act was written well before the 9/11 attack, and the government was just waiting for the appropriate justification to get it enacted. I think they play on the fears of weak minded Americans to increase what we'll put up with and distract us from their true goal of keeping a docile, cooperative populace. Personally, I'd rather die at the hands of a terrorist than give up my freedoms to ensure a longer enslavement.
Also, the history of the FBI tells us we shouldn't trust them. Too many abuses have occured. The only thing that can prevent future abuses is vigilance on the part of the citizens and an active defense of our civil rights.
It is, in my opinion, acceptable for law enforcement to demand cooperation from third parties when that cooperation is limited to turning over data which the third parties have in their possession. So, for example, if Joe Smith backed up his criminal plans to Apple's servers, and Apple has access to those backups, then it would be reasonable for Apple to turn them over to law enforcement when law enforcement presents a court-issued warrant for the backups.
The San Bernardino case was different because Apple didn't actually have the data in its possession. What the FBI wanted was not the data, but instead they wanted Apple to crack the security on the phone. One reason that is different is because it harms Apple to even admit that the cracking is possible. Apple was not a conspirator. The government should not have the ability to harm a private company to solve a case that the company is not involved in.
Put another way, if someone used a motel room to plan a terrorist attack, it would be reasonable for law enforcement to demand, again through a warrant, that the motel manager unlock the room. However, it would not be reasonable for them to go to the company who made the locks the motel uses and insist that they provide a master key. Even if the FBI accidentally dropped the only key to the room down a sewer grate, it would still be unreasonable to have the lock manufacturer reduce the security of their product.
Of course, all of that is just my opinion (which is what you asked for).
>How will it affect eyesight and vision and other things?
This is what I'm wondering about. Our brains expect the focus of our eyes to correspond to the thing we're looking at (ie, if you're eyes are pointed at something 2 feet away, your brain expects your eyes to focus 2 feet away). That's one of the reasons people get eye fatigue or headaches in 3d movies. I'd be curious to know if they've done anything to solve that problem. If not, I suspect they'll have long-time users experiencing vision problems.
According to the article, the people in China wanted healthy lung xrays because they could sell the images to infected people who would use them to prove that they don't have infectious lung disease, even though they do. That allows them to travel and share their infection with people in other places.
Personally, I would consider that to be actual damage. I'd rather not wait to see an infection spread before we decide to be concerned.
I wonder if the half conversations via cell-phones are inherently louder due to less than perfect transmission. I witness people communicating effectively in person while whispering, but I can't imagine being able to be heard while whispering over a cell connection.
However, if you want to see what researchers found, I located an article:
If the material is hydrophobic, and the dirt is not, then it wouldn't be self-cleaning, but it would work much better than what we have now.
Get some soapy water. Wash your car. Let it air dry. Do you see spots? That's the dirt that was mixed with the water droplets that were stuck to the surface of your car. If those droplets couldn't stick, they would have rolled off carrying the dirt with them.
Imagine you're lazy and never wash your car. The first time it rains, anything water soluble dissolves in the rain and rinses right off.
However, if I was then to go burn his house down and torture and then kill his family because I was so consumed by rage that I wanted to end his entire genetic line, then I've gone too far.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Did I misunderstand you, or are you using the Nuremberg trials as an example to suggest that patent trolls are too evil to deserve legal representation?
It should be tied to housing costs instead of prevailing wage:
H-1B wage should be 5 times the annual mortgage payment for a 30-year-fixed mortgage on a median 4-person home in the county where the job is located.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer
