Comment Re:5th Admendment? (Score 1) 446
Your past victimhood is not good justification for a police state. I've been burgled, mugged, shot at, and had friends who were assaulted. Sorry bro, not that impressed.
Your past victimhood is not good justification for a police state. I've been burgled, mugged, shot at, and had friends who were assaulted. Sorry bro, not that impressed.
Where you see the boogeyman of conspiracy theory I see the complex interaction of economy and culture.
A man who achieved and understood far more than you or I is often quoted: All crime is political. That's not an argument, just something for you to ponder.
Stay scared, comrade.
Who are these little and big "guys" you are talking about? The distinction here is between citizens and the state.
What people are saying is that citizens - human beings - have certain consitutional and moral rights. These include, but are not limited to, freedom from intrusive surveillance ("unreasonable search and seizure") and freedom from being coerced to testify agains oneself. These rights come paired with the responsibilities of citizens, such as taxes and military conscription.
Few would assert these same rights for the state. If you do, I would be very curious to know your reasoning.
The state has many rights a citizen does not: the rights to wage war, operate a police force, build highways, seize land thru eminent domain, etc. Just as the state's rights differ from those of a citizen, so do its responsibilities differ. In the prevailing ideology of American democracy, the state is said to operate with the consent and direction of the people. Transparancy is but one part of this responsibility.
Selling an actually-secure mobile device in USSA has been illegal at least since the Clinton regime.
I fully expect whatever illusions Google and Apple have about creating this "perfect" secrecy to protect the consumer will be overridden by the "need" for governments to combat terrorism.
Quick way to tell if your communications are "perfectly" secret: Look around, is there an FBI man physically tailing you? No? Okay, that's a good indication you don't have the knowledge/skills to do actually-secure communications.
You only need to code the backdoor once, plus a little maintenance to keep it working with each new Android version. Then you can bill fedgov $$$ every time you use it at their behest to search & seize the personal documents of an American subject.
So no businesses use Android today?
Dude, got news for you: all cellphones sold in the USSA are p0wned by law (CALEA). If they need to ask you for the password, you just haven't pissed of the right part of the Gestapo yet.
Yes and no. Government officials who choose not to follow the Consitutution usually find it expedient to 'interpret' the document in a way that suits their purposes, rather than attempt open defiance.
Because "child predators" (or actually, this risk of encountering the same) are for the most part a fictional creation of the bigmedia. Stay scared, comrade, stay scared.
So they could still stand up and say "no; provide us a Warrant first".
Quick, break out the rubber stamps!
Most flunk on basic questions like "describe any sorting mechanism" (someone hands you 1000 sheets of paper, each with a page number out of order, walk me through the process you will use to sort them).
If you're writing your own sort algorithms, and you aren't hacking on the standard library of your language, you're probably doing it wrong.
Many of the VC-backed "startups" in the Bay Area are openly proud of their death-march style 60hr work weeks.
The kind where you choose who gets a degree by the brains of the student, not the wallet of their parents.
How unamerican.
Yup. I've been writing software for a decade, and I am ready to get the hell out. I've never even met anyone who earned enough money by writing code to afford decent property in California. Worse, salaryman programmers are treated like beasts of burden, while the VCs are trying to kill off independent consultants as a form of life.
Amusing anecdote: In college I worked as a home computer salescreature at $LOCAL_BIGBOX_CHAIN. We sales staff quickly learned on the job - there was no training in this, or in anything else - to love it when couples came in to buy a computer. Invariably, one partner knew more about the actual tech, and one was more emotional about the purchase.
Our habit as salescreatures was always initially to target the female member of a couple for the "sales talk". This worked >90% of the time, because usually the women were the emotional buyers. But now and then we would run into a couple where the female partner had the tech knowledge. Being good capitalist running dog lackeys, we would immediately turn our sales attentions to the male. For better or worse, the pursuit of filthy lucre follows stereotypes in as much as they are useful predictors of behavior, but little farther.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
