You don't know what fop means; you just typed into google and looked at the first dictionary definition to come up. Look it up better this time, and don't (pettily) correct people unless you actually know what you're talking about imo.
38 karma · joined May 1, 2015
You don't know what fop means; you just typed into google and looked at the first dictionary definition to come up. Look it up better this time, and don't (pettily) correct people unless you actually know what you're talking about imo.
But oh yeah some people just play all random frequencies or like a dog. A dog can be music. It's such a huge mystery, music.
Wow, philosophy people.
EDIT: Cry about it all you want. It won't change the fact that in 100 years people will look back and wonder if an entire academic discipline was afflicted with some form of literal mental retardation.
It's becoming a very predictable trick. I can't imagine I'm the only one who sees this.
i.e. The real problem with Facebook and the News is that facebook is fucking blatantly spreading propaganda by misrepresenting consensus and then lying about it.
That will be soooo terrible if we set a precedent that "journalists" actually have to actually give a shit about the standards of their alleged profession.
If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean houses now have back doors. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it.
"But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species.
> 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.
Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.
Aside from the fact that's all probably actually true, that is not the case Cook is making. Cook is, in fact, trying to pretend like this represents a cryptographic back door, when it plainly absolutely does not.
The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance.
If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed.
So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?
~/sArCaSm~
... ah nevermind, I'm sure that doesn't mean anything.