I have yet to be in a situation where the camera was anything other than a hindrance. So, that's two use cases right there!
So did Bill Gates. And Bill Clinton. Those two at least do some good work.
. Now that they're in the process of centralizing health care, how long will it be before people's transactions for alcohol, tobacco, fast food, etc., is tracked, and possibly declined because their health isn't good enough?
Never? I mean, we don't do that for people at the VA, or on Medicare/Medicaid. Every "more socialist" country in the world manages to have McD's and socialized medicine. France and China both have tons of smokers.
Or, I suppose, since you're concerned, not having public healthcare didn't stop them from requiring seat belts and airbags in cars (even though those are solely for people's safety), requiring food be labeled, etc.
You are never "forced to consent" to anything. If you're forced, ipso facto it is not consent.
Lack of scoping arguments in English. What I mean was: Aren't you forced to consent (to breathalyzers at any stop while driving your car) when [and as a precondition for] you receive your license? That is, the consent is given when you receive your license.
ou can have your license yanked for declining a breath test. But that's strictly an administrative action, not criminal.
Terminating an agreement seems to be the appropriate action when you have failed to abide by your end.
The US was founded... to secure life, liberty, and property.
The founders went out of their way to specifically change the quote to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Almost as though they disagreed with the original sentiment.
Why would people come together and voluntarily surrender part of their sovereignty?
Just winging it here, but maybe: to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Note that promoting the general welfare and domestic tranquility, and establishing justice, all seem to be missing from your list.
the US helped end the global slave trade
By ceasing to be a customer? I mean Britain definitely helped to end slavery. But how do you think the US did? Most of Europe had outlawed slavery already, as had Mexico.
The ideas that Jefferson et al were following were from Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau and they weren't slave owners.
Jefferson et al actually were slave owners.
In a time when the global sentiment was "government is here because we said so, subjects do what we tell you to do", these guys placed their personal fortunes and lives at risk to create what WAS the freest nation on earth.
The US is awesome. It just wasn't founded on the ideals of "property rights are the end-all" you seem to claim.
And it was founded by slaveholders, who even put in the founding documents explicit "you cannot fuck with our slaves" language.
The only thing criminal about this is what he's being charged with from a federal law perspective
Well, I'd contend the criminal act was calling in a bomb threat.
his actions were just that: stupid. He was going to gain perhaps 24 more hours of study time to get out of a final exam
Hence, GP's point about crime being ultra-high-risk/ultra-low-reward.
We don't typically punish based on the benefit the criminal attempted to receive. I mean, that would be adequate, if:
- criminals were fully-informed and fully-rational actors
- the only goal was deterrence
- the punishment scaled by perceived likelihood of being caught
- it were at all possible, to determine what was going through a criminal's mind
- society didn't mind the wildly varying punishments for identical crimes
- The combination of 4 and 5 did not cause the suspicion (and probable reality) of favoritism, bribery, racism, and other miscarriages of justice.
Is your state TX?
US Government has a history of simply ignoring the rules it enforces for everyone else.
Not in the case of IRBs. They are the most anal IRB requirerers of anyone.
. I mean in the last century the[y] have
... They created the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) as part of trying to prevent this sort of thing. Still when it comes down to it you really have no assurance of what the heck they are testing or even that it won't harm you.
IRBs are pretty good at their job. And part of getting an IRB protocol approved is explaining how and when you will inform the subjects of the purpose of the study, etc. A study on subconscious racism might provide some information up front, but only disclose the full goal afterwards. But the IRB's job is to ensure you have enough warning before you take the test that claiming you are secretly racist won't be super-shocking to you.
A nation FOUNDED on the principle of personal property, and you get this?
I didn't think that was a primary founding principle. I mean, ownership of [non-white] people was, but that was pretty bad and I'm glad we jettisoned it.
peoples' breath was being sampled by officer-worn "non contact" breathalyzers before they were notified and without consent.
Aren't you forced to consent to breathalyzers at any stop while driving your car when you receive your license?
They make _fat_ money. 20% of $200/person. 4 tables, 4 people per table, 3+ seatings.
There's no part of that I don't doubt. 20% is on the higher end of a tip. Most nice restaurants are substantially less than $200/person. Many times nice restaurant dinners are dates/anniversaries/etc. that don't max table capacity. And most importantly, nice dinners normally last several hours; you're not getting 3+ seatings. (Okay, I exaggerated earlier: I don't doubt the 4 tables at a time).
But in the end, I shouldn't be distracted. Some rarified waitstaff make good money. Again, look at the percentage of waitstaff that is. Not enough to support your point that it's a valid career to expect to be able to be in and support a family.
Or, possibly, they just checked who had used Tor in the last few days on their network - can you ID a Tor packet by looking at it?
Depends on who the "you" is. The list of entry nodes is public knowledge. Telecoms/Government agencies probably keep historic lists of entry nodes. So it should be trivial to show a connection to the Tor network. The PDF implied (to me) that the FBI just crossreferenced Harvard's log with their list of entry nodes.
To technically answer your question: Tor packets don't have a unique signature, but they all are of a known size.
It doesn't sound like they needed to crack Tor.
This is one of the best-known ways to deanonymize people using Tor: timestamping entering traffic and exiting traffic. Tor itself explains they have no theoretical way to fix that issue and still maintain a system that is low-latency (there may have been a third feature as well, where they got to pick-2-of-3).
What large connected software system has MS built without purchasing a company that was already doing the thing and re-brand it?
Windows? Office? Visual Studio? I'm not sure about others, but I'd guess that's my ignorance. Not that you really need an answer. Because with the company, they buy the management team. Which means that the proportion of projects acquired vs. homegrown is directly proportional to the likelihood that he worked for a company that did things well enough to be acquired by MS
Every decision a CEO makes is a decision with potentially billions on the line
Some decisions could cost a lot. But I'd posit any billion dollar decision is signed off on by the Board.
A hundred workers could do their best to destroy the company and they won't be able to do as much damage as one decision by a CEO [I assume making the worst possible decision for the company].
Probably true? But I don't recall when in capitalism "paying people according to the consequences of sabotage by those people" was in effect. I mean, I (through their employer) pay fast-food workers who could put me in the hospital less than I (again, through their employer) pay a plumber who fixes a leaky faucet and at worse makes the sink slightly less convenient to use.
CEOs are paid a lot because there is a high demand for people who won't make billion dollar fuck ups.
Actually, they're paid a lot for a variety of reasons. But high demand isn't one - there is an even higher supply than demand. The fact that CEOs have their salary determined by a board that is often made up of their friends, or over whom they hold influence, is a bigger deal. So is the fact that they use other CEOs salaries as compensation for their own. Bottom line, comparing the performance of CEOs, you find that there is little correlation between salary and performance. A greater predictor is the industry that the CEO is in.
sorting stuff to ship is menial labor... is not a job for a grown adult to have to try to support a family. If you are working a job that involves a name tag, you have made some SERIOUS vocational errors, and need to do something about it.
Just based on the percentage of jobs with name tags, that seems to be an unrealistic goal. Frankly, society's need for waitresses outstrips its need for architects.