We're not talking about them blocking wireless hotspots in guest's rooms, that's just overlap. The issue is that they were blocking wireless hotspots in convention space they were renting out, so the individual conventioneers and exhibitors HAD to buy the Marriot wi-fi package at exorbitant prices.
How could they be sure it wasn't an exhibit attendee. Attendees don't sign agreements before entering that promise not to use personal WiFi, so what if the hotel stomped on them? What about someone physically outside the convention space, but close enough that due to signal reflections the hotel equipment decided was inside the hall? Is stomping on them OK since they seemed to be in the hall? I am sure there are more examples where innocent people could get targetted by such a device.
It's Mariott, not Mariot
I think the Slashdot editors actually take pride in screwing up.
Just like you did. It Marriott, not Mariott. And the summary spelled it Marriot, not Mariot as you wrote.
In partial fairness to the Slashdot editor, the linked BBC article has the title "Marriot hotels do U-turn over wi-fi hotspot blocks", and the first use of the hotel's name in the article uses the same misspelling. Later uses in the article get it right though. Still confused as to how a BBC article got this so wrong, especially since it has both the right and wrong spelling in the same article. Your misspelling on the other hand has no excuse.
Wouldn't another robot which knows of all possible decisions of this particular robot be better that this "Perfect Robotic Player"?
No, the best that should happen is they both win the same amount after a large number of hands (note the phrase "given enough hands" so the law of large numbers is involved). Since the decisions are based on probability given the known cards (or so I assume since I haven't read the article), any decisions by the second robot trying to beat the first that went against the probability tree would be sub-optimal and cause it to slowly lose.
Sure, they get sloppy, but this just defies logic on every level.
What defies logic? Do you not believe North Korea has the ability or motivation to hack Sony as a result of this movie's production and imminent release (or for any other reason that regime may have given how much logic they appear to employ in their decisions)? Unless you believe the North Koreans were incapable of performing the hack, then there is no problem with logic, only that the evidence that you have personally seen doesn't meet what you demand in order to satisfy you of their likely guilt.
The real problem with your statement is this part:
It will take iron clad evidence with third party collaboration to convince most people this could possibly have been North Korea.
First, note your telling use of the word "possibly", not even the word "probably".
Unless you had a bunch of surveillance cameras watching every move as a hack was done, and probably not even then, "iron clad evidence" doesn't exist in this virtual world of the Internet. No matter what evidence is collected, someone will say it could have been faked, misinterpreted, or lied about, and technically they are right. This means the standards you say most people will demand in order to believe North Korea was the driving force behind this are not obtainable, even if North Korea is guilty. Of course the same holds true for evidence in any crime, which is why in the US the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not as I have heard many say, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first is obtainable, the second isn't, after all, for any given crime, prove that advanced space aliens didn't do it and create all the evidence to implicate the accused, including planting false memories? At some point the evidence is convincing and you believe the implicated party is guilty, at least for those who don't have a need to believe otherwise. If all you see is conspiracy theories, then that is the lens you will use to interpret everything, and bend the interpretation to what you desire the reality to be.
Hackers don't "get sloppy" technologically. They have scripts to prevent that. They get sloppy in the real world.
Clearly you have never dealt with actual hackers. Every one I have ever seen has gotten sloppy at some stage, and that was with hackers up to Advance Persistent Threat level. Or did you mean any sloppiness was by the hacker and not by the script, including the hacker's sloppiness writing the script, so the ever-present sloppiness is in the real world? If that is what you meant then I agree. The scripts/programs always do exactly what they were programmed to do, even if that is not what the programmer intended.
Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.
It's his job.
No, it's not.
According to Websters, the word job has a definition of "the work that a person does regularly in order to earn money", and since he is being paid to do exactly what he has done, then I think it is his job. The fact that you didn't hire him to do it doesn't change that he has been hired by someone to do it, just like you didn't hire all the pastors at the local churches, but being pastors is still their jobs. If you disagree with what he is saying then don't watch his shows or follow his tweets, just like if you disagree with the philosophy of the local church's pastor don't go to their service.
You do not understand what "end-to-end encryption" means. The end isn't where ever you feel an "end" is. It's the other end that you are communicating with. That's why it's called "end-to-end" and not "end-to-middle" or "end-to-system" or any other variations.
How did this get modded up? The "ends" are the handsets. As I said "the call is encrypted at one handset and the encrypted data travels to the other handset before being decrypted for the purpose of the call". One handset encrypts it and the other decrypts it. The encrypted data is sent from one handset to the other with the transport system as designed not decrypting the data anywhere in the middle. That is the definition of end-to-end encryption. The only way to push the endpoints further out, assuming the handset is treated as a single unit, would be for your ears or brain to do the encrypting/decrypting. If the system does the encrypting in an insecure manner, due to bugs or due to backdoor, that doesn't change where the transport system encryption and decryption occur and therefore doesn't change that the encryption is "end-to-end encryption". What part of that do YOU not understand?
Aren't our calls supposed to be encrypted anyway? I mean, so some jack ass with a radio can't listen to them?
Cellular communications are encrypted between the handset and the tower to prevent the radio buff from listening in. How effective that encryption is is up for debate. This means any end-to-end encryption would actually be double encrypting the data as it passed between handsets and towers, once for the cellular signal, and once for the end-to-end system.
Apparently, in Verizon-land, "end-to-end encryption" means something entirely different than it does in the real world.
Also I believe the summary is misleading. This probably is an end-to-end encryption system, meaning the call is encrypted at one handset and the encrypted data travels to the other handset before being decrypted for the purpose of the call. If there is a backdoor that compromises the encryption key, that doesn't change that the system is end-to-end encrypted, just that a snooper would be able to decrypt the traffic.
Doesn't the USA have a concept of jury nullification, where the jury does much more than just determine facts, and actually takes a position on what's right and wrong?
Yes, but that is for criminal trials, not civil trials. Basically, for a criminal trial if the jury returns a verdict of innocent then the defendant walks, no matter how the jury reached that verdict, even if it blatantly goes against the evidence. Jury nullification isn't explicitly codified in law, rather it is a concept that people have applied that is based on how the legal process works, i.e. a jury that returns innocent ends the prosecution. It has been used for juries to deliver justice when people have been unfairly, but legally, charged with crimes.
A civil trial doesn't really have the same protection since a judge is allowed to toss a jury's verdict if he feels it goes egregiously against the facts of the case, but if he does he must defend his decision and he doesn't get to replace the verdict with his own, but rather he in essence declares a mistrial and it has to be retried. Again, this is for the trial portion where the jury's purpose is as a determiner of facts. On the other hand, the jury award during the penalty phase can be reduced by the judge. And like always, any such action by a judge better be defensible otherwise he opens it up to being overturned on appeal.
Just like in criminal trials, in civil trials juries are given wide discretion in order to allow justice to be served. For example, it is not uncommon for the plaintiff to be awarded more by the jury than the plaintiff asked for, or for the jury to decide with their hearts instead of what the evidence logically dictates. Since civil juries decide based on the preponderance of the evidence and that is subjective, the level that must be reached for the judge to be able to toss the jury's decision is pretty high, so overturning such jury results is not very common (though make big press when the few do happen in big cases).
I expect that like so many other technical cases the jury's verdict will be overturned on appeal because juries in the US rarely understand the actual law.
Then it is good that the jury doesn't interpret the law - that is up to the judge and is (supposed to be) based on case law. The sole purpose of the jury during the trial phase is to determine facts, like given the judge's instructions about what the law is, did the defendant violate it, or based on the evidence, did the party do or not do the claimed action. Any appeal will not be based on the jury getting the wrong answer, it will be based on the judge giving the jury the wrong instructions about what the law is, or on what evidence was allowed in or not allowed in, or some other procedural issue, but not the jury's decision.