“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone, it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government."
In the America I grew up in, this would have been a bad joke, and a Police Commissioner who said this in earnest into a live microphone would've been out of a job within days. What the hell is going on?
Of what? Simply informing them is bad enough? To prevent that, we would have to forbid all communication with the outside world. And with anyone within our borders who might be an adversary.
Mike Hayden might North Korea too liberal for his tastes.
(But more likely his words just don't mean anything.)
An organized charity has two purposes: 1) to help those poor illiterate starving Lower Slobbovians, and/or 2) to give warm fuzzy feelings to donors in exchange for their money.
If the second goal dominates, then the less said about what really goes the better. The charity serves its purpose whether or not it does any good for the poor, or even whether or not the poor people in question really exist. Competition between charities will destroy those that waste their money on actually helping people (although "help" that cripples a society can be useful to the charity in the long run).
To pursue the first goal, donors must demand results-- real results, not just children's letters in crayon. And for getting results, nothing beats...
You know, this time I think I'll let somebody else take the heat for suggesting that capitalism is good for the poor.
"...[H]e has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself..."
If I found I had been doing things at odds with my image of myself, I would either revise my image of myself, or consult a psychiatrist about my Jekyll-and-Hyde behavior (and maybe consult a lawyer before turning myself in to the police). My first concern would not be stemming the public controversy I had caused.
Mr Hosein has convinced me that I don't want to pay the University of Washington for the privilege of attending his Digital Media Program, I cannot understand why anyone would hire Dan Safkow as a "video marketing strategist", and that short clip of "Pretty Much It" makes me wish that they would move their show behind the paywall so that I wouldn't run the risk of seeing any more of it by accident.
In principle, yes, a patent should contain all information necessary to reproduce the process, so that anyone could visit the patent office, read the "Stradivarius" patent and then start making Strads.
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
Not one word in the secret service announcement about how accurate these counterfeit-sniffing dogs are, or whether anyone has actually tried a controlled test of their abilities.
This sounds an awful lot like the racket some U.S. police forces were running years ago, where they'd seize cash if a drug-sniffing dog "responded" to it -- or if they simply claimed that it had.
It's a little more nuanced than that. When a messed-up teenager sees that shooting up a school gets you instant nationwide attention, and shoots up a school, it's the guns' fault. When a messed-up teenager sets off a bomb at a time and place where there will be lots and lots of video cameras-- we need more cameras.
It's more than that. They chose the finish line of the Marathon because they knew there would be hundreds of cameras there. They wanted a big audience-- why else choose that street on that day? They weren't indifferent to camera coverage, they wanted it. To suggest that more cameras could have deterred them is idiotic, even for surveillance maximalists.
"Anyone leaving their home WI-FI unsecured needs to be thoroughly chastised here."
Why?
"I cannot think of any reason that anyone would want to leave their [wireless] networks open beyond negligence." [oxymoron deleted]
I can think of a few, starting with a wish to help others as others have helped me. Bruce Schneier, one of the world's premier computer security experts, leaves his open.
"Surely, you only want people in your home to access your network?"
Why? As long as my computer is secure enough to use other networks (e.g. at the coffee shop), I really don't mind if other people use my network from time to time.
"[Google] has been fined €145,000 in Germany. Since that's pocket change to Google, insatiable parasites are calling for bigger bites out that enormous cow."
"[E]ngineers at many of these companies... think the CFAA is ridiculous, turning ordinary everyday activity into a possible felony. But some of the execs at these companies see a weapon to be used against people who make off with digital information..."
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.
where's the camera?
“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone, it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government."
In the America I grew up in, this would have been a bad joke, and a Police Commissioner who said this in earnest into a live microphone would've been out of a job within days. What the hell is going on?
coffee mug, bumper sticker, mouse pad...
You beat me to it. I most certainly am the enemy of Rep. Rogers and those who think like him. And he is mine whether he sees it or not.
As to whether he would consider me "within" or "outside", or whether I am "more damaging" than the others, I have no idea.
May I shout "SILENCE"?
"It informs our adversaries."
Of what? Simply informing them is bad enough? To prevent that, we would have to forbid all communication with the outside world. And with anyone within our borders who might be an adversary.
Mike Hayden might North Korea too liberal for his tastes.
(But more likely his words just don't mean anything.)
Scrooge saves the world
An organized charity has two purposes: 1) to help those poor illiterate starving Lower Slobbovians, and/or 2) to give warm fuzzy feelings to donors in exchange for their money.
If the second goal dominates, then the less said about what really goes the better. The charity serves its purpose whether or not it does any good for the poor, or even whether or not the poor people in question really exist. Competition between charities will destroy those that waste their money on actually helping people (although "help" that cripples a society can be useful to the charity in the long run).
To pursue the first goal, donors must demand results-- real results, not just children's letters in crayon. And for getting results, nothing beats...
You know, this time I think I'll let somebody else take the heat for suggesting that capitalism is good for the poor.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would this tax prevent piracy, even in theory, except by driving Apple out of France?
Apple should fight this no matter what its ostensible purpose, whether to prevent piracy, supress cultural corruption or save the Tridacna clam.
Re: Re:
How about:
"...a tax break of €10M, plus an amount we will determine later to cover the costs of pulling up stakes, then returning."
I've been haveing these ethical blackouts
"...[H]e has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself..."
If I found I had been doing things at odds with my image of myself, I would either revise my image of myself, or consult a psychiatrist about my Jekyll-and-Hyde behavior (and maybe consult a lawyer before turning myself in to the police). My first concern would not be stemming the public controversy I had caused.
tiny flaws in the plan
"Our brilliant American programmers, they assert, will find ways to enable wiretapping without creating new vulnerabilities."
1: China has some brilliant programmers too.
2: where excellent security is possible and has not yet been implemented, half of the time it's because no one wants to pay for it.
3: ...and the other half of the time, it's because it's slightly inconvenient to use.
4: this is supposed to be a free society, so when you try to install secret police, you're going to run into some problems. That's as it should be.
update
...And now the videos have been removed from YouTube.
conclusions
Mr Hosein has convinced me that I don't want to pay the University of Washington for the privilege of attending his Digital Media Program, I cannot understand why anyone would hire Dan Safkow as a "video marketing strategist", and that short clip of "Pretty Much It" makes me wish that they would move their show behind the paywall so that I wouldn't run the risk of seeing any more of it by accident.
Re: Re: Re: yet another bad idea
In principle, yes, a patent should contain all information necessary to reproduce the process, so that anyone could visit the patent office, read the "Stradivarius" patent and then start making Strads.
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
sounds familiar
Not one word in the secret service announcement about how accurate these counterfeit-sniffing dogs are, or whether anyone has actually tried a controlled test of their abilities.
This sounds an awful lot like the racket some U.S. police forces were running years ago, where they'd seize cash if a drug-sniffing dog "responded" to it -- or if they simply claimed that it had.
remarks
Does Mr. Valvis have an address for fan mail?
Re: Re: Think of the children!
It's a little more nuanced than that. When a messed-up teenager sees that shooting up a school gets you instant nationwide attention, and shoots up a school, it's the guns' fault. When a messed-up teenager sets off a bomb at a time and place where there will be lots and lots of video cameras-- we need more cameras.
Re: Re: smile
It's more than that. They chose the finish line of the Marathon because they knew there would be hundreds of cameras there. They wanted a big audience-- why else choose that street on that day? They weren't indifferent to camera coverage, they wanted it. To suggest that more cameras could have deterred them is idiotic, even for surveillance maximalists.
Re:
"Anyone leaving their home WI-FI unsecured needs to be thoroughly chastised here."
Why?
"I cannot think of any reason that anyone would want to leave their [wireless] networks open beyond negligence." [oxymoron deleted]
I can think of a few, starting with a wish to help others as others have helped me. Bruce Schneier, one of the world's premier computer security experts, leaves his open.
"Surely, you only want people in your home to access your network?"
Why? As long as my computer is secure enough to use other networks (e.g. at the coffee shop), I really don't mind if other people use my network from time to time.
imperfect translation
"[Google] has been fined €145,000 in Germany. Since that's pocket change to Google, insatiable parasites are calling for bigger bites out that enormous cow."
smile
"The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack..."
Bloomberg thinks that these guys wouldn't have planted a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon if they'd known there might be cameras around?
Re: Clicked submit too soon
Yes, I would still want that person to have Miranda rights, and a fair trial too.
Now what if someone kills dozens of people with, say, a battle axe, and you were accused. Would you want due process?
basic economics, again
"[E]ngineers at many of these companies... think the CFAA is ridiculous, turning ordinary everyday activity into a possible felony. But some of the execs at these companies see a weapon to be used against people who make off with digital information..."
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.