"Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place."
Why do you say Prey won't help you get your phone back? That is what it was designed to do. You can get location data, you can take screenshots of what the perp is doing, and even snapshots with the webcam. It's proven to work... there are lots of success stories. So I'd like to know (honest question) why you say it won't help.
"Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch?"
How / why would government ever intercept telephone and internet communications? History shows that if you give the government the power to do something, sooner or later it will. It will find some "reason" that it's good for you. It always has.
" If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? "
That's my whole point about Prey, which you seem to have missed. Except it's you doing the tracking, not the government.
"What? Someone linked to the site directly above./. staff do have the ability to remove posts and as such are every bit as liable for links in the comments as for links in the summary."
No, they aren't. This reflects ignorance of how the law in the US actually works. (No insult intended. A great many people don't know how it works.)
First, the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA -- the only good provisions in the DMCA -- free them from liability from any content uploaded by their users... as long as they don't mess with that content.
Another important legal precedent says that if they DO mess with that content, including editing, censoring, or even top-down moderation, then they DO become liable for that content. Because then they are controlling that content, and if they control it they become liable for it. (Question: if you remove one "illegal" post but not another, why would you NOT be responsible for leaving that other post up? The law says you are. You made a choice.)
There is an exception: if a DMCA take-down request comes from an outside party, then they may be obligated to take down that post. That's one of the many BAD provisions of the DMCA, because it imposes a sort of "prior restraint": forcing people to act before there is any proof or court determination of illegal conduct.
So the upshot is: except for stupid parts of the DMCA (that is to say, most of it), they are far better off just leaving content alone, and not trying to censor it. They stand a much lower chance of running into legal difficulties.
"To be fair, once Google gets their cars that drive themselves, glasses that give me information at all times, and provide TV/phone services through a high speed fiber connection for cheaper than anyone else, I'm ok if they take a break for a bit and coast, just improving what they've already done."
This brings up a bone I have to pick with OP's basic premise. I think he's got things a bit distorted here.
Look at the announcement of the new Mac Pros at WWDC. You may not agree with everything they did with it, but to say it's "not innovation" is just a little bit skewed.
Google's big successes so far have been (A) a search engine, and (B) cheap fiber to the home. And B isn't even original, they just did it for less.
Driverless vehicles are nothing new, and the technology isn't even theirs. They just threw money behind it. Glass is pretty much the same: not an original idea, or even a very good one... other companies are doing "augmented" and "virtual" reality better, and without a Google lock-in. They did good on Maps but they abused it too. Hell, Facebook wasn't even Zuckerberg's idea. And the only "innovation" Facebook really represents is how to make money via privacy intrusion.
Not to burst anybody's bubble, but other than Google's search engine, pretty much ALL of the successful ideas from both companies have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. Pretty obvious ways to go, actually. In fact, pretty much all the other attempts at "revolutionary" things at Google have failed.
I'm not trying to compare companies here. I'm just saying OP doesn't have it right. He lumps things together that don't belong together, and makes generalizations about them that are just plain false. Google and Facebook have not, for the most part, been innovators. They had one or two good ideas and ran with them. We should not expect those companies to come up with the the next big ideas. That would be asking too much.
"Yes, it is a waste of money. But not of domestic politics."
It's no more "a waste of money" than the Cold War was. Granted, the money could have been better spent elsewhere, if it hadn't been absolutely essential to the freedom and safety of our country to spend it.
So it is with the moon. It's strategic importance cannot be overemphasized. Letting other countries dominate it would be a strategic mistake of epic proportions.
"Yeah, this does seem like political games just to make Obama look bad somehow."
I don't see how. He doesn't need any help. He does a fine job of looking bad all by himself. The "asteroid rendezvous" was a bonehead idea at this stage of the game.
"While I would love for this country to get back to the moon, we won't get there anytime soon."
We'd better. Both Russia and China are aimed at the moon, and it is strategically not just important, but essential. Whoever controls near-space controls Earth, period. Don't ever forget that. Far space can wait. (By the way: Russia pledged 17 times NASA's entire budget on space exploration and research for this fiscal year.)
"A mission to an asteroid seems like it would be much cheaper and quicker to accomplish."
And a skateboard is much cheaper and quicker to obtain than an automobile. What's your point?
"Worry about a lunar lander and re-launch vehicle later."
"I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!"
I agree with the sarcasm. Kill switches are a horrible idea. And completely unnecessary.
For example, have a look at The Prey Project. This is a good example of a secure means by which an OWNER can track, and even get screenshots and camera shots from, a stolen device.
Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.
I don't have to defend an idle thought that crossed my mind. Or ANY thoughts of mine, for that matter. The only thing other people should concern themselves about at all is what I DO, not what I think. If even that.
"An increase in vegetables in the next few years as well."
"What a load of BS. Look, all you have to do is stick these things to your forehead and flip this little chromium sw... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZTTT. Huh? Wut?"
"Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that."
I agree it won't happen, but it won't happen for other reasons.
Studies like this invariably project current statistical trends onward as though they will never change. But that's BS, because they always change.
If we take PAST studies, for example, even from just a few decades ago, we were told that China and India would have way more than twice as many people as they currently do. Further, food production trends were also projected as linear so even the population we really do have would have been starving.
You should take such projections with a grain of salt the size of a 5-gallon bucket.
"We are calling out every day with both omnidirectional broadcasts and high intensity beams that are aimed at satellites."
Yes, but those aren't the same as something designed specifically to get attention. Those are more like graffiti in an alley, as opposed to this idea, which is more like a giant billboard.
"Professors Say Massive Open Online Courses Threaten Academic Freedom" : LOL , more like threaten future royalties.
Not really. If you read OP more carefully, what they're actually saying (bad, BAD OP for getting the headline wrong) is that the colleges are actually threatening academic freedom, not the online courses.
What if it turned out to be like a scantily-dressed 18-year-old female yelling "Here I am! Come get me!" in the middle of a crowd of bikers at Sturgis?
"Then two other things must also be remembered: First, Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War. Second, there are two qualifiers present: essential and little temporary."
More straw-man arguments. They were at war with their own government. We are not... yet. The situation is hardly comparable.
"Are essential liberties being given up, and which ones?"
The First and Fourth Amendments. Read them; you might find them instructive.
"Permanently?"
When was the last time you saw government start a program like this, then shut it down intentionally, without an outcry from The People? That's a serious question. I think you can answer it yourself.
"And by god because ole Benny said it, it must be holy! What the hell do you think "government" is? It is a means of giving up certain liberties for protection against larger external threats. It is a balancing act. You cannot have complete freedom and have an effective government. It will not function."
Hahaha! And your point is... WHAT?
Nobody here, as far as I have seen, said anything at all about complete freedom. So what's your point? This is what is commonly known as a straw-man argument. You bring up an issue that seems relevant but really isn't, then knock it down in an attempt to seem like you are actually making a logical argument when you're not. It won't wash here.
This has nothing to do with complete freedom. It has everything to do with having enough freedom to call ourselves a free society.
If you want to live under a dictatorship, fine. And then you can talk about complete freedom all you like... if you can avoid getting your head bashed in for doing it, that is.
Not Gospel. History. People quote it because it has time and again proven to be historically accurate. People who trade freedom for security well end up getting neither. That's just the way it works.
"Given the damage he's done to the US and the West, he will suffer consequences, there's no doubt about that."
Honest question: are you out of your mind?
He was pointing out damage the government has done, not causing any himself.
Treason is betraying The People of the United States. That's what the government was doing. Treason is NOT betraying the government, it is betraying The People.
A hero, on the other hand, is somebody who says "The public has A Need To Know, damn the torpedoes". That's what Snowden did.
"Even there, however, the government can still potentially gain information on who you may be sharing the data with. "
Not with OneSwarm. It was specifically designed such that content is distributed throughout your OneSwarm network, and it is physically impossible to determine which node or nodes are supplying the data you are receiving via that network.
It might be theoretically possible for them to find out who is in your network, with a lot of effort. But even if they managed to insert a node into your network, they could not tell with whom you are communicating. By design.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place."
Why do you say Prey won't help you get your phone back? That is what it was designed to do. You can get location data, you can take screenshots of what the perp is doing, and even snapshots with the webcam. It's proven to work... there are lots of success stories. So I'd like to know (honest question) why you say it won't help.
"Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch?"
How / why would government ever intercept telephone and internet communications? History shows that if you give the government the power to do something, sooner or later it will. It will find some "reason" that it's good for you. It always has.
" If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? "
That's my whole point about Prey, which you seem to have missed. Except it's you doing the tracking, not the government.
"What? Someone linked to the site directly above. /. staff do have the ability to remove posts and as such are every bit as liable for links in the comments as for links in the summary."
No, they aren't. This reflects ignorance of how the law in the US actually works. (No insult intended. A great many people don't know how it works.)
First, the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA -- the only good provisions in the DMCA -- free them from liability from any content uploaded by their users... as long as they don't mess with that content.
Another important legal precedent says that if they DO mess with that content, including editing, censoring, or even top-down moderation, then they DO become liable for that content. Because then they are controlling that content, and if they control it they become liable for it. (Question: if you remove one "illegal" post but not another, why would you NOT be responsible for leaving that other post up? The law says you are. You made a choice.)
There is an exception: if a DMCA take-down request comes from an outside party, then they may be obligated to take down that post. That's one of the many BAD provisions of the DMCA, because it imposes a sort of "prior restraint": forcing people to act before there is any proof or court determination of illegal conduct.
So the upshot is: except for stupid parts of the DMCA (that is to say, most of it), they are far better off just leaving content alone, and not trying to censor it. They stand a much lower chance of running into legal difficulties.
"... their contributions to the world of open source ... won't be forgotten."
Quite right. Pretty hard to forget something you never even knew existed.
I've been involved in the "cutting edge" of the software industry for many years, but I don't recall ever even hearing of Songbird before.
"To be fair, once Google gets their cars that drive themselves, glasses that give me information at all times, and provide TV/phone services through a high speed fiber connection for cheaper than anyone else, I'm ok if they take a break for a bit and coast, just improving what they've already done."
This brings up a bone I have to pick with OP's basic premise. I think he's got things a bit distorted here.
Look at the announcement of the new Mac Pros at WWDC. You may not agree with everything they did with it, but to say it's "not innovation" is just a little bit skewed.
Google's big successes so far have been (A) a search engine, and (B) cheap fiber to the home. And B isn't even original, they just did it for less.
Driverless vehicles are nothing new, and the technology isn't even theirs. They just threw money behind it. Glass is pretty much the same: not an original idea, or even a very good one... other companies are doing "augmented" and "virtual" reality better, and without a Google lock-in. They did good on Maps but they abused it too. Hell, Facebook wasn't even Zuckerberg's idea. And the only "innovation" Facebook really represents is how to make money via privacy intrusion.
Not to burst anybody's bubble, but other than Google's search engine, pretty much ALL of the successful ideas from both companies have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. Pretty obvious ways to go, actually. In fact, pretty much all the other attempts at "revolutionary" things at Google have failed.
I'm not trying to compare companies here. I'm just saying OP doesn't have it right. He lumps things together that don't belong together, and makes generalizations about them that are just plain false. Google and Facebook have not, for the most part, been innovators. They had one or two good ideas and ran with them. We should not expect those companies to come up with the the next big ideas. That would be asking too much.
s/It's/Its
Damn Saturday Morning typographical errors.
"Yes, it is a waste of money. But not of domestic politics."
It's no more "a waste of money" than the Cold War was. Granted, the money could have been better spent elsewhere, if it hadn't been absolutely essential to the freedom and safety of our country to spend it.
So it is with the moon. It's strategic importance cannot be overemphasized. Letting other countries dominate it would be a strategic mistake of epic proportions.
"Yeah, this does seem like political games just to make Obama look bad somehow."
I don't see how. He doesn't need any help. He does a fine job of looking bad all by himself. The "asteroid rendezvous" was a bonehead idea at this stage of the game.
"While I would love for this country to get back to the moon, we won't get there anytime soon."
We'd better. Both Russia and China are aimed at the moon, and it is strategically not just important, but essential. Whoever controls near-space controls Earth, period. Don't ever forget that. Far space can wait. (By the way: Russia pledged 17 times NASA's entire budget on space exploration and research for this fiscal year.)
"A mission to an asteroid seems like it would be much cheaper and quicker to accomplish."
And a skateboard is much cheaper and quicker to obtain than an automobile. What's your point?
"Worry about a lunar lander and re-launch vehicle later."
No.
"I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!"
I agree with the sarcasm. Kill switches are a horrible idea. And completely unnecessary.
For example, have a look at The Prey Project. This is a good example of a secure means by which an OWNER can track, and even get screenshots and camera shots from, a stolen device.
Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.
"I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!"
Methinks they dost protest too much. :)
Sure. Here is my reply:
I don't have to defend an idle thought that crossed my mind. Or ANY thoughts of mine, for that matter. The only thing other people should concern themselves about at all is what I DO, not what I think. If even that.
"his is great so long as everything is published as they go. Waveforms, Impulse frequency or duration..."
This is known as The First Principle of Exploration. Also known as "Make sure everybody knows what killed you."
"An increase in vegetables in the next few years as well."
"What a load of BS. Look, all you have to do is stick these things to your forehead and flip this little chromium sw... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZTTT. Huh? Wut?"
"Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that."
I agree it won't happen, but it won't happen for other reasons.
Studies like this invariably project current statistical trends onward as though they will never change. But that's BS, because they always change.
If we take PAST studies, for example, even from just a few decades ago, we were told that China and India would have way more than twice as many people as they currently do. Further, food production trends were also projected as linear so even the population we really do have would have been starving.
You should take such projections with a grain of salt the size of a 5-gallon bucket.
"We are calling out every day with both omnidirectional broadcasts and high intensity beams that are aimed at satellites."
Yes, but those aren't the same as something designed specifically to get attention. Those are more like graffiti in an alley, as opposed to this idea, which is more like a giant billboard.
This.
I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day.
"Professors Say Massive Open Online Courses Threaten Academic Freedom" : LOL , more like threaten future royalties.
Not really. If you read OP more carefully, what they're actually saying (bad, BAD OP for getting the headline wrong) is that the colleges are actually threatening academic freedom, not the online courses.
What if it turned out to be like a scantily-dressed 18-year-old female yelling "Here I am! Come get me!" in the middle of a crowd of bikers at Sturgis?
"Then two other things must also be remembered: First, Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War. Second, there are two qualifiers present: essential and little temporary."
More straw-man arguments. They were at war with their own government. We are not... yet. The situation is hardly comparable.
"Are essential liberties being given up, and which ones?"
The First and Fourth Amendments. Read them; you might find them instructive.
"Permanently?"
When was the last time you saw government start a program like this, then shut it down intentionally, without an outcry from The People? That's a serious question. I think you can answer it yourself.
"And by god because ole Benny said it, it must be holy! What the hell do you think "government" is? It is a means of giving up certain liberties for protection against larger external threats. It is a balancing act. You cannot have complete freedom and have an effective government. It will not function."
Hahaha! And your point is... WHAT?
Nobody here, as far as I have seen, said anything at all about complete freedom. So what's your point? This is what is commonly known as a straw-man argument. You bring up an issue that seems relevant but really isn't, then knock it down in an attempt to seem like you are actually making a logical argument when you're not. It won't wash here.
This has nothing to do with complete freedom. It has everything to do with having enough freedom to call ourselves a free society.
If you want to live under a dictatorship, fine. And then you can talk about complete freedom all you like... if you can avoid getting your head bashed in for doing it, that is.
"Why do people quote this like it were gospel."
Not Gospel. History. People quote it because it has time and again proven to be historically accurate. People who trade freedom for security well end up getting neither. That's just the way it works.
While not directly related to the quote, here is an excellent description of the basic problem we are discussing in this topic.
---
"No it didn't. Please stop saying this."
Yes, it did, and fuck off.
"Given the damage he's done to the US and the West, he will suffer consequences, there's no doubt about that."
Honest question: are you out of your mind?
He was pointing out damage the government has done , not causing any himself.
Treason is betraying The People of the United States. That's what the government was doing. Treason is NOT betraying the government, it is betraying The People.
A hero, on the other hand, is somebody who says "The public has A Need To Know, damn the torpedoes". That's what Snowden did.
I think you need to get your priorities examined.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Had to be said.
Generally speaking, they simply block dynamically-assigned addresses. That is the only way they know if it is a "residential" account.
The solution to that is simply to pay your ISP a few bucks a month for a static IP.
"Even there, however, the government can still potentially gain information on who you may be sharing the data with. "
Not with OneSwarm. It was specifically designed such that content is distributed throughout your OneSwarm network, and it is physically impossible to determine which node or nodes are supplying the data you are receiving via that network.
It might be theoretically possible for them to find out who is in your network, with a lot of effort. But even if they managed to insert a node into your network, they could not tell with whom you are communicating. By design.