Honest question - would you rather see our species capable of transforming Mars and building a colony there, or be able to create a realistic simulation environment, one that was capable of arbitrarily slowing down time.
My issue is that while medical technology may progress at an exponential rate, so too might the challenges of repairing our biology. So yea, we may be getting way smarter, but the problems may keep getting way harder, and then it is not as self evident as this particular article makes out that we are all going to be immortals.
Something I do not understand in this debate is the notion that creating the OS will somehow create an extra security vector - if they have the ability to create it (ie, since they have the private signing key) then isn't that already the same thing? It is not like Apple has a monopoly on good developers, presumably if someone is able to obtain their signing key it would lead to the same thing as obtaining the OS they are worried about getting out.
Agree, I've wonder this too, though I'm guessing Apple is very aware of this and actively takes steps to make this near impossible. That said, I have never seen any public statement on the topic from Apple why this is the case; I asked them before and got no answer.
I imagine that they are referring to all of the 3-letter agency's propensity to install back-doors willy-nilly and spy on everyone a la 1984 - Warrants be damned.
Sounds interesting - however, if they are successful in reconciliation, then seems logical that the next step will be addressing the transfer of wealth that happens after reconciliation (ie, clearing). I am not sure how much of a problem this truly is - ie, how much of counter party risk is attributed to how often the counter party agrees on the reconciliation but just does not have the capital to pay up at t+3.
Whatever it is, if you could instantaneously reconcile and clear, then some forms of trading could get a lot faster.
Can you post a reference for TPG (which I assume you actually mean Texas Pacific Group) being an "official" CIA proxy, as you say? That is a pretty bold assertion...
It should not be illegal to alter the car's computer, but to drive that car on a road where you are endangering other people, we have certifications and laws for that. IMHO, that is reasonable. I don't want your buggy software to deactivate your power steering and have you slam into me.
FWIW, I find the comparison to getting struck by lighting to be somewhat facetious. Sure, goes to show just how unlikely it is to be killed in a terrorist attack, but I wager that the purpose of a terrorist attack is often more than just the immediate deaths.
Every single terror victim is a tragedy and one too many.
However, when you follow the news media and the politician speeches you are led to believe that we're all going to die from a terrorist attack any minute now. In my opinion, the numbers don't support that.
Moreover, it's this perception of an urgent threat that governments worldwide use to justify an unprecedented curtailment of civil rights (privacy, presumption of innocence, etc.).
So yes, the comparison may be seen as facetious or tasteless.
But at this point I'm far more worried about the NSA and the increasingly commonplace "us vs them" rhetoric, than about being harmed by a terrorist.
Moreover, it's this perception of an urgent threat that governments worldwide use to justify an unprecedented curtailment of civil rights (privacy, presumption of innocence, etc.).
Exactly right. But why? Is this curtailment of civil rights an emergent behavior, or is it on purpose? Back in 2001, I was pretty shocked at how fast the PATRIOT Act went into law: it was signed Oct 26, 2001. Was there some kind of potential candidate law lying around, ready to be put into the hopper for Congressional approval? If so, who wrote it, and why?
> I wager that the purpose of a terrorist attack is often more than just the immediate deaths.
And judging by the last 13 years, rather succesfully too.
The US has not gone on a global campaign to install lightning rods everywhere, nor have they declared a War on Thunder.
Instead they are happily responding to terrorists' incitements in the most desirable way: creating the atmosphere to breed the current and the next generation of terrorists. (The domestic ones have been so incompetent that they've needed assistance from the FBI with their plans and attempts.[0][1])
Evidon is an interesting company, they sort of screw with both of their customers:
* Users - the main thrust of this article, potentially misleading tracking
* Advertisers - holding them hostage via being one of the sole providers of certification to the legislation they support (I have witnessed instances where a company turned down their services, were reportedly threatened by an evidon sales rep, and then were shortly thereafter reported as not serving the ad choices banner. Not a smoking gun, but suspicious).
This actually seems kind of brilliant. It's using the still small but statistically signifiant pool of people who are proactive about not being tracked to track the trackers themselves, then selling this information to the the people who pay the trackers.
