I don't do piss tests or credit checks. Why should I do fingerprints of photographs?
Not very damned many people need a particular job that badly; there is usually other work to be had.
it seems like it's really good news for the people who stream Netflix on Comcast.
People tend to forget: they're already paying for that bandwidth. What Comcast has done is start charging Netflix to send you video over bandwidth you're already paying for. And now Netflix's costs are higher, which they will likely pass onto you, so you will end up paying twice for the same ISP service.
No, that's not good.
Yah, that's not a great move vs. a civil regulator like the FAA or FCC.
Considering that the FAA recently lost a Federal lawsuit over this very thing, I would think they would be the ones backing down. The judge ruled that it was legal.
You'd think that all they do is sell papers, when in fact they collect and organize them.
Anyone that does serious research will have used specialist librarians before. Just because the data is out there and available, doesn't mean you're going to find it. Even if you do find it, it doesn't mean your search was efficient.
I think you missed the whole point. The bill wouldn't stop them from doing the research. It would simply stop them from SELLING the results to other government agencies.
I mean come on, think about how ridiculous that is. The research was done with taxpayer dollars. Then they sell that research to other government agencies for more taxpayer dollars?
I do think it's a good idea to account for which government agencies use the service, and how much. But selling? Too far.
"You're just a mean, spiteful, jealous person, through and through."
Amazing. All I did was post a comment about OP that, to the best of my knowledge, is impersonal, factual, and true.
While all you've done is track me down in order to be personal, rude and insulting. But then you were before, too.
And somehow *I* am supposed to be the psychopath? How do you figure?
You're not merely content to be mean-spirited, though -- you have to be *better*. I'm hopeful you really are female; makes it statistically less likely your psychopathic behavior will turn to violence.
I've had to put up with lots of people before who couldn't stand being shown they were wrong. But this comment I think is the best yet.
Listen up, man. If you are the same Anonymous Coward I think you are, the very first comment you made to me was rude, personal, and insulting (saying a comment of mine you took out of context was "dumb", as I recall), and it only got worse from there.
I do my best to stay impersonal and simply discuss the subject at hand. But you weren't satisfied with that, and kept trying to make it personal. Well, too bad. This being the internet, your words don't have any weight to throw around. When someone is rude to me first, I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for putting them in their place.
I haven't done anything wrong, so you can take your rudeness and bullying elsewhere. Maybe if you try to be polite and refrain from insulting others, they will respond in kind. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Evidence so far says I'd be waiting or a very long time.
Since you clearly never took logic 101: an appeal to authority is only wrong when your appeal to authority does not involve an actual authority. Which the two people referred to, are. In which case an appeal to authority is actually the right course of action.
Since you apparently flunked logic 101: no, it isn't.
"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy when someones says an argument is true because an authority said it. That is a flawed argument. The whole point is that it doesn't matter what an authority says, they have to prove it just like everybody else.
Example: You say "Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) says it is so; therefore it is so." That is an example of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Plait is a noted authority on some subjects. But that does not automatically make him correct if evidence says otherwise.
Counterexample: "Phil Plait demonstrated it in an experiment, and the results were published in June 2012." That is not "appeal to authority", because it relies on the evidence of the experiment that was performed, not Phil Plait's word.
Third example: "Bob Jones performed an experiment that demonstrated X. But Phil Plait, Bad Astronomer, says it's not so, so I believe Phil Plait."
Again this is the "appeal to authority" fallacy, because the actual evidence indicates X, while the counterargument merely relies on the word of the supposed "authority".
" Especially pertaining to Transmeta *and* FPGA"
Pardon me. In those particular instances,, I was wrong. Those are not firmware. BUT... and here is the main thing... that is completely irrelevant to the discussion that was taking place.
There are 2 points that are relevant here:
First, you took my comment out of context, and then called it dumb. Well, guess what? Lots of things are dumb when taken out of context. The context was: GP said "back doors" in cell phone conversations (that is the context) are in hardware (GP's comment). I said no, it isn't. If you want to argue about something else, you're going to have to argue with yourself.
The second point, related to the first, is: you didn't make any specific arguments against what I said, instead you just called it dumb. That's called an "ad-hominem", and in any kind of logical debate not only does it carry no weight, it can get you kicked out.
It might have been appropriate to ask me how I knew the back doors (if any) are not in hardware. But you didn't do that.
I have news for you: you aren't always the smartest person in the room. But more to the point: even if you are the smartest person in the room, there might be somebody there who knows something you don't.
So be careful about calling people stupid, lest you end up looking stupid.
I would have explained to you how I knew that back doors in cell phones aren't in hardware, if you had only asked politely. But since you didn't, I'm not going to bother.
"Setting aside the fact that "hardware" and "software" have a fine and wavering line between them, you have apparently never heard of (say) Transmeta, or FPGAs."
That's not "a fine and wavering line", at all. That's firmware, a third category.
"Or even software working around hardware issues -- e.g. the kernel patch for the Intel F00F bug."
That's moving the goalposts. It's a different subject from the one under discussion.
"Maybe you shouldn't try to sound so authoritative about stuff. Nobody knows everything, and, unless you do, acting as an Authority is dumb."
Since it is in the general field in which I make my living, I think I had the general qualifications to reply to GP.
The point here, which you seem to have missed, is: properly written software can make hardware (or even firmware) "back doors" irrelevant, unless your hardware has a complete second voice channel connected to the microphone that it's sending its data through. And I think it's pretty damned obvious that cell phone carriers aren't assigning 2 separate voice channels in realtime to U.S. cell phones.
Look up RedPhone. Go ahead, look it up.
"The hardware on cell phones provides the back door. Look up how SIM cards operate and get back to us (hint: it's how T-Mobile prevented Google Wallet from using NFC on my Samsung Galaxy S4, until the most recent update sent out by Samsung - an update which was sent out by mistake and never authorized by T-Mobile)."
Your own comment proves that it's software, not hardware. If it was correctable via a software update, then it isn't the hardware's fault.
"Unless it specifically says the company will never, under any circumstances comply with a government order to open up its communications, then the service should not be considered secure."
Most likely the "service" has very little if anything to do with the security, since in order to be secure, it HAS TO be encrypted on the phone prior to sending.
It is the software that needs to be evaluated, not the service. If the software on the phone doesn't allow a back door, then "the service" has no way to access the content, and it is secure. Otherwise it is not. There are few if any plausible alternative situations.
"That isn't even close to what I wrote. Trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is not logic."
"I never claimed it was what you wrote."
You tried to claim I was making that kind of comparison. Still having reading comprehension issues I see.
"And I saw Megyn Kelly once, on YouTube. I don't remember what it was about. What does she have to do with anything?"
"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=megyn+kel... [lmgtfy.com] If you need additional help understanding the reference, I'd be happy to oblige, but to summarize: you are presenting a false equivalence between two very different things in an attempt to make the moral difference ambiguous and subjective."
I'm not the one who needs education here. I knew what you meant by Megyn Kelly (or however her name is spelled). The fact that I've only seen her once or twice does not mean I do not know who she is. I asked what she had to do with this. You tried to pass it off as my ignorance, but in fact what you were trying to do was imply that I made this whole argument because I am a conservative. You are wrong.
"OkCupid has no force of law, they have attempted to use no force of law.
That's just laughable. Of course it is. And you can see that it is, in the very sentence you wrote: "... social action against someone".
I repeat: coercion and bullying are not just violence. They are threats of negative consequences. "social action against someone" is a negative consequence. Therefore social action against someone -- over the way they vote -- is an attempt to coerce people (not necessarily him, but perhaps others) into not voting that way.
Come on, use that logic you claim you possess. "Social action against someone" because of how they voted is a threat against someone because of how they voted. And it is also an implied threat against others that they should not vote that way.
This isn't frigging rocket science, man. It's simple if-then.
"Bullying is the threat of violence (which I mentioned)."
No, bullying is intimidation and coercion, which are threats of negative consequences. Those negative consequences do not have to be violence.
If you said to an employee, "Give me sexual favors or I won't pay you", that is sexual harassment, which is one form of bullying. But there is no violence involved.
You can justify this kind of nonsense to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day what you are doing, in simple terms, is rationalizing the action of coercing people to vote a certain way. That is an un-American activity. Period. End of story.
Have a nice day.
"The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so."
was then modded down. What a hilarious proof of my point. These folks can pretend it's about the science all they want, but what it's really about for them is stifling dissent.
Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.