Re: Might be?
Point well taken!
"That said, I don't believe the poster you are replying to was being entirely serious."
That would explain why his comment doesn't actually address the point I was making. :)
3421 posts • joined 20 Feb 2015
Not to take away from your point (which is valid, although an edge case), but...
if the payee is willing to cooperate (and payees always have to cooperate for any payment method, anonymous or not) then there are several mostly anonymous options including the use of prepaid debit cards, using masked virtual credit cards, or even using PayPal, if you're careful (there are a few considerations to take into account to do this, but the most important are to make a PayPal account that is only used for this, access it only through a VPN that hides your real IP, and to link your account to a prepaid debit card so that it is not associated with a bank account that can be traced to you.)
"It can't be robbed from you: Without the encryption code for the device, the robber has only gotten your phone/computer."
It only solves the problem if you restrict the problem space to burglary. It doesn't solve the problem of getting mugged. The mugger would just do what muggers do with ATM cards: force you to do the transaction yourself.
"that's a huge boost to fact checking."
I don't understand how knowing the full provenance of a given story helps with fact-checking. Whether you know path the story has traveled or not, the fact-checking process is exactly the same: you read the story, and every time it asserts a fact, you check to see if that fact can be substantiated.
"You can't send cash remotely other than by courier or mail service."
Sure you can. I've done it. There are several methods available, but prepaid debit cards are the easiest (you can load the card from anywhere, without having to physically possess the card).
That's not entirely anonymous, as the card company knows when and where you withdraw the money, but you can, at least, load the card anonymously.
But that isn't some sort of differentiator that explains what problem blockchain solves in this space. Public audit trails have been possible and used from long before computers existed, after all. How, taking into account all of the benefits and drawbacks of each, is using blockchain better than the existing methods?
"it is that this is both a symptom and a cause of Linux's problems"
What problems are you talking about, though?
"Because Linux is not popular, common mainstream name brand apps don't get ported / developed for it. "
I don't see that as a problem. You do, and that's fair, but not everyone agrees with you.
"stop trying to push it towards that desktop usage in order to only see it fail due to its under-addressed desktop deficiencies."
This is where I get confused -- Linux is perfectly fine for the desktop right now, for a huge number of people. I don't see any serious deficiency there at all.
"Do or Do Not, there is no Try."
And it already does, quite successfully.
Perhaps what you're talking about is trying to make Linux the most popular desktop OS? Personally, I'm not on board with that, because the way to do that is to make it a clone of what most people already know well: Windows. And if we're going there, then we may as well just use Windows.
Linux already has (and has had for years) what it needs in order to be a successful and useful desktop OS -- enough users to make serious development worthwhile. It doesn't need the majority of computer users.
"I'm sick of getting downvotes from Linux fans who can't admit an UNDENIABLE truth"
I haven't downvoted you, but could it be you're not getting downvotes because people can't admit that Linux isn't the most popular desktop OS (that's not exactly a controversial assertion, after all), but because that's not an important point?
My objection to SystemD is neither the quality of its implementation, nor that Poettering is an ass -- both of those are just aggravating factors. My objection is the fundamental design concept of the thing.It inherently destroys much of what makes Unix great, and brings in much of what makes Windows not great.
Even worse, it doesn't even bring much in terms of benefits unless you are a distro manufacturer or are deploying in container form.
So, for literally every use case I have, SystemD is a net negative.
I don't know the details of the law, but even the explainer that Sajjad Karim gave in this article certainly makes it sound like this is highly likely to suppress legitimate speech and data sharing. On the surface, this sounds like a terrible idea to me.
But I don't live there and this isn't likely to affect me, so my opinion doesn't actually mean anything.
As an American, what I find amazing about the US government's campaign against Huawei is that they have yet to offer any real justification for it. Yes, they've made general accusations, but where are the specifics? Where is the evidence? Are they really thinking that "trust us" is an argument that works anymore?
So looking at stuff "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is forbidden? I'm sure the law must be more specific than this, but summarized like that, wouldn't just about anything qualify? Information about where tourist destinations are located, information about how to take public transportation or to drive, even just plain reading and writing itself would all be useful in committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism, for example.
“American Media believes fervently that it acted lawfully in the reporting of the story of Mr Bezos."
This is an interesting statement, as the accusation is not that AMI acted unlawfully in its news reporting. It's that AMI acted unlawfully by attempting to engage in extortion.
Methinks they're trying to move some goalposts here.
"I will consider sharing data with Google, Facebook and all the other grubby e-stalkers (not allow, mind, just think about it) if their executives make all their own personal data available publicly"
Not me. They can all fuck right off. I have no interest in seeing their personal data. I just want them to stop spying on me.
"I was wondering whether it's even legal to publish a (stolen) picture of someone's penis without their authorization"
If a reasonable argument can be made that publishing the picture is legitimately newsworthy, then I believe that doing so would be legal even without the subject's authorization.
But I am not a lawyer...
It depends. Activities with journalistic merit have a much wide leeway than purely for-profit activities. In any case, this isn't that -- they didn't publish this information, so they can't have broken that law no matter what. Instead, they decided to engage in blackmail/extortion, which isn't legal under any circumstances.
Perhaps, but it seems that the laws against extortion would unambiguously apply. Extortion is covered under multiple statutes, but here's one that seems on the money:
18 U.S. Code § 875. Interstate communications, paragraph D:
"Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"Isn't blackmail against the law in the US?"
Yes, it is. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
One complicating factor is the fact that the owner of AMI is also a very close associate of Trump and has used their influence to support and protect him. Trump may have AMI's back on this.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019