There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.
If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.
If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.
OT: It's so unfortunate to read comments like this. Where on the Internet is there a forum where people adhere to some standard of behavior?
I would be much happier if HN would kill any comments that are not civil, no matter what else is in them. This kind of comment significantly reduces the value of HN; imagine the quality if they were all removed.
The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by American writer Eric Hoffer that discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.
The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam.
Change up your metaphor. Sometimes it's best to think of your "stuff" as a stack to go through sequentially, sometimes a library to collect and browse, sometimes transactions to be budgeted on some kind of ledger of your time and attention, etc.
When you find a metaphor that works for you, the "rules" become rather intuitive. Lately I think of my information consumption habit as something of a diet: Eat when you are hungry. Stop eating when you are full. Stock only enough food for your anticipated needs. Favor nutritious foods. When possible, share meals with friends and family.
Glad to see The Intercept is still bringing those hard-hitting revelatory leaks instead of merely capitalizing on public idolization with hagiographic exclusives.
My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong.
You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.
Yes, in the first paragraph is implicitly assumed
that law enforcement didn't have a warrant.
But eventually I also wrote "if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them?"
In the US, major carriers Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA-based networks whose devices did not use SIM cards. I think it was the iPhone 4 that Apple once shipped 3 different versions of in the US: AT&T (GSM), Verizon (one set of CDMA bands), and Sprint (another set of CDMA bands).
But did you notice that Sprint is supported in this announcement? It is because LTE does in fact use a SIM, even on the carriers that rely on CDMA for voice. Fortunately for the iPad, it has no voice requirement.
In reality, there is the technical means to support this on ANY carrier. You just set the IMSI or ESN in software on the microprocessor and then hit an API at the carrier telling them to pair X device with Y unique ID. The difference now is that no one before Apple has had the weight to get the carriers to go along with this, since it encourages modularity and discourages device and carrier lock in.
Apple's new campus is powered by the outrage and impatience of people that won't download VLC or ffplay to watch their two-hour commercials before they're available on YouTube.
There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.
If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.
If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.