jlc

We have to have a good definition of the problem before we can discuss the validity of potential solutions. The best description I was able to find was on io9:
"Apple offered the government four alternative techniques to help it access the phone’s data, as an alternate to creating a special software, the executive told reporters. This is a very different scenario than the one portrayed in the government’s motion, which paints Apple as thoroughly uncooperative.

But there is one thing the government and Apple agree on: It is technically possible for Apple to write the kind of software in demand. In fact, the executive admitted that the Cupertino company would be able to write this software not only for its newest phones but also for all phones it has in use. And that’s one of the reasons Apple insists that the burden of writing the software is far too great—any software it creates could act as a master key.

Apple hasn’t revealed exactly how far it will go before it acquiesces. However, this will likely have an impact on how it designs security measures in the future. Apple may design them to make it technically impossible to force the company to comply. "

If this is accurate, it changes my answer: Apple should (a) use one of its 4 solutions to hack the individual phone, (b) let the appeal against writing exploit software for the FBI drag on for years, and (c) make future versions of the iphone unhackable. (God should make a rock that is to big for him to lift.) After years worth of appeals, and with all of the phones by-that-time unhackable, the issue will be moot.

Jan

I think that eliminating the NSA would result in an increase in terrorist incidents, db, but I do not care. I care a lot more about their presumed right to scrutinize my routine communications without a specific warrant. I am willing to increase risk in order to increase freedom.

Jan

I understand your feelings. When I got out of the USAF, as part of out-processing we were all told to be sure to file for unemployment. As an avid reader of Rand and Heinlein since my teens, it felt 'unclean' to take unemployment. So I scurried my butt around and got a job.

Now, as an employer, I agree with Mamaemma: We bloody well pay for you to be unemployed, and I would rather you had the bucks than the gov had them.

But there is another side to the story: How many people will milk this for all it is worth and not even try to get another job? How will the statistics of unemployment be used to manage social expectations of 'the right of people to have a money from public funds forever even if they do not work'?

I know a hard-working young horse trainer down in San Diego who is bitter about the fact that one of her students is on eternal welfare due to migraines and now she wants her adult son to get on welfare so that he can afford a horse and riding lessons too!

Good luck in finding a job.

Jan

I differ. I would rather have the risk of the NSA not scrutinizing our routine communications. This would result in an increase in terrorist incidents. The solution to this would be for more people to carry guns and shoot the terrorist bastards when they try something.

I would like to get away from the 'they (NSA/FBI./etc) are supposed to protect us' viewpoint and back to the 'we Americans are tough and can protect ourselves' philosophy.

Jan, reads Heinlein

I find that this argument is only tenable if you re-define 'god' as 'whatever Ayn Rand believed in'. All three of the above definitions of god include the assumption of an irrational attachment to a power, symbol, or actual thing.

If you remove that assumption of irrationality, then 'god' becomes merely a word, such as when an atheist says, "God bless you!" when a friend sneezes.

Jan

I am wondering if it is actually an error. Perhaps his comments have been accidentally flagged as hidden.

Jan

His personal life choice is for socialism - his right.
His choice for me to live in a socialist society - not his right.

I suspect that a number of candidates are 'not really Christian', which is to say that you gotta at least check the "Christian" box if you want to get elected.

This means that he targeted pretty much all of the candidates: the Repub candidates because they would secure the border; the Demo candidates because they are token Christians...except for Bernie who is a token Jew. Hmmm. Maybe you are right.

Jan

I am finding this 'accusation' really amusing. While I do not particularly like Trump, the idea of the Pope choosing to sling a particularly meaningless mud at One Particular candidate is interesting. Let me see, the Liberal meda, the Conservative media, the Republican party, and the Pope all dislike Trump.

Maybe I am warming to this fellow...

Jan

Oh. Giggle.

Jan

Ashinoff has the right of it. The devil's details are that:
(1) the actual owner of the phone (the County) has given permission for the phone to be accessed
(2) last I heard, the phone was a 5c (which can be hacked by Apple) and not a 5s or 6 (which can apparently not be hacked)

The big question for me is whether the hacking of this particular phone will give the FBI the key to open any 5c level phone. It is appropriate for Apple to take legal measures to appeal the court order, but if the unlocking of the phone will unlock only this phone and not all 5c phones then Apple should do so. If unlocking this phone will let the FBI unlock all 5c phones, then Apple should not be called on to do so and should continue to refuse if asked.

Jan

Why are the courteous posts of the originator' of this thread being 'hidden'? While I find his thread to be somewhat specious, I do not see any reason to hide UT911t05's remarks.

Jan

Sorry, I evidently did not explain myself clearly. What I was trying to say is that most people ('<=2SD of the norm' type normal) are not interested in philosophy of any kind. They just want to get on with their lives. We do not need to 'make' them care about philosophy, but if THEY want 'the kind of life they imagine' and WE want 'a life of freedom and innovation' then they need to vote for candidates who we regard as 'good'. The normal person will not do this because it is 'philosophically sound', he will do it because his favorite football player promotes a candidate or because the movies and TV shows he watches show capitalism and individual freedom in a positive light.

If you imagine a Bell-curve, the furthest right ~15% is who we are talking about. Right now, I think that most of those 'people who care about philosophy' are Socialist; we need them to be Objectivist. And we need media to portray Objectivist type values in a positive light...which will sway the ~70% in the middle.

Jan

OK. I misunderstood. I just filter all of my Gulch messages into a subfolder (called "Gulch", unimaginatively enough). This keeps them out of my primary Inbox, but I get a pop-up on the bottom right of my screen that alerts me when any email (Gulch or work or personal) comes in, so I get the needed nudge.

Jan

I almost agree with you, jjj. While there are situations where intentions count, too much weight is given to them in general.

Jan

Perhaps I misinterpreted this: "On reddit (on which this site is based), whenever someone replies to your comment, you get a message in you account inbox (NOT your email address)." It sounded to me that a reply to a post would not go to email. (Which means I would have to sign on and monitor a forum account to see if someone replied to me...would it not?)

Jan, needs the nudge

"Invisible Idiot".

Jan

This sounds like sabre-rattling between Trump and the Republicans, not like actual action.

Jan

If that is the definition of Objectivist, then I am one. By just about any other definition, I am not.

Jan

You can ignore Objectivism; you cannot ignore the results of ignoring Objectivism. (to paraphrase irreverently)

Most people just want to go to work, raise their families, and watch TV. They want there to be food to eat, no one shooting at them, and medical care. This is just fine. What Abaco and others have cited about the '15%' is probably accurate...but no more people are needed in order to make a difference.

You see, the best way for the other 85% to be able to go about their lives without caring is a political structure that resembles Objectivism. It will give 'them' the food in the fridge, car in the garage, their kid's HS graduation ceremony - the things they want out of life. They will just go to work and do their jobs of monitoring the QC of the production of bearings in a factory, oblivious to whether they are working for a Socialist gov or an Objectivist one: But the Socialist gov will not deliver the life they want and the Objectivist gov will. Because of this, this 85% need to vote in favor of work and freedom and minimal gov interference, and in order for this to happen the media needs to present Capitalism in a positive light, heroes in movies need to be freedom fighters, etc.

Everyday safety and affluence is what Objectivism means to most people, and this is all that it needs to mean to them. If most of the 15% who do care were Objectivists (I think they are currently Socialists) then we would have what we need to make a world that is like what we dreamed of as kids.

Jan

You advised a change from a 'push' of notices to your email to a 'pull' system where the user would log on to a forum and check to see if he had anything new. I have observed that changes from 'push email' to 'pull forum' structure often fail; I know that this change would fail with me, not for any deep philosophical reason but just because I would rarely remember to log on and check. If the emails are pushed to me, then they serve as their own reminder: I click on them and see what you are saying.

Jan

Here is an article you might like:
http://www.dawn.com/news/722513/india...

Jan

I had thought Rand was popular in India - a post-socialist culture.

Jan

Strongly disagree. If I have to go to the Account and pull my responses, I will just drop out of the Gulch. I really need them to be pushed to me.

Jan

You guys are both cutting me some extra slack for morning pre-coffee dumbness. That is very kind of you (but I still take the hit for rotten grammar.)

Jan

You guys are both cutting me some extra slack for morning pre-coffee dumbness. That is very kind of you (but I still take the hit for rotten grammar.)

Jan