You appearance on the street does not constitute "sensitive personal data"
True, but the law over here also recognizes that your appearance on the street does not constitute a consent to be photographed.
If some people don't care whether they are photographed in public, but others do, then regardless of the law you should act considerately and ask permission before photographing someone, rather than assuming they feel the same way you do. People have no choice but to appear in public occasionally; it shouldn't be used as justification for photographing them, and the law in Europe recognizes this.
if there were no advantage to bipedalism, then bipedal organisms would not have shown up at all, let alone numerous times in separate groups of animals through history.
The advantage of bipedalism in animals is that it allows them to use their front legs for manipulation, but at the cost of lower stability. Robots don't have to make that compromise.
No - the drive would be the ONLY drive in the computer. What you leave behind is essentially a fancy terminal with no drive in it. The disk can be locked in a secure room at the company or just taken with you.
I understood what you meant, but if you take the internal drive out of the computer and use a removable drive, the data on that removable drive still needs to be encrypted to protect it in the event of theft. It moves the problem of data protection from one device to another. It isn't enough to lock the drive away or carry it with you at all times and hope that protects the data, the drive could still be stolen, probably even more easily than stealing the laptop. You also now have to look after a removable drive as well as your laptop. It's a solution that doesn't address the problem - keeping the data secure in the event of theft.
With their conversion efficiency measured at 40.7%, the metamorphic multijunction concentrator cells surpass the theoretical limit of 37% of single-junction cells at 1000 suns, due to their multijunction structure.'
40.7% efficiency at 1000 suns, so with only one sun that makes them... 0.0407% efficient.
The best way to do this sort of thing is to just use a swappable drive bay.
It sounds like you'd just move the problem from one device to another - if the point is to protect the data in the event of theft then you'd still have to encrypt the external drive. Also you now have two devices you need to look after instead of one.
Time to go home? Take your drive with you.
It's a laptop - when it's time to go home you take the whole computer with you.
Just what exactly does your mum have on her computer that you even considered putting Filevault onto it?
Passwords to her eBay and Paypal accounts, spreadsheets, other financial information. Personal documents, photographs, email. Why leave it unprotected to add more misery on top of the hassle having your laptop stolen?
Also, Filevault isn't something you put onto a Mac; it's part of OSX and is enabled just by ticking a box. In use it's completely transparent apart from requiring a log in at boot. There was no downside to trying it, and many benefits.
You are very confused. First of all, the number of people who can look through a window certainly isn't limited, just as the people who see the image on their PCs isn't limited.
A window is a single object you can travel to and look through, a photograph is a record of one moment that can be duplicated and distributed across the world to many people. They're different things. The photograph is invasive because it multiplies the amount of people who can see that moment. It allows people to examine at their leisure the details of that moment, as opposed to having to loiter outside the actual window.
Secondly, if a person is looking at a photograph they are not looking through the window;
Yes - a photograph through a window is completely different to a glimpse through that window.
there are no people who see the window and hence there is no length of time when they are looking through the window. They are looking at an image of the window.
A photograph of a moment is a record of that moment. That doesn't make it unseen. It simply means that one moment is looked at again and again.
I could argue back and say "The amount of times they can use their brains to recall that image: unlimited". Somebody with a photographic memory could do this flawlessly. But memories are irrelevant.
Importantly, a memory is a private thing. Something you remember seeing goes no further than yourself.
How can a privacy be violated simply beacuse the medium it is stored in is efficient?
The medium is not just more efficient, it's completely different. The ability for photographs to be reproduced and pored over is what gives them the potential for invasions of privacy.
Without using an analogy or example, these are the differences between the two things.
Glimpse through window:
Number of people who see it: 1.
Length of time they see it for: a second.
What can be done with that image: you can tell people about it, and remember it.
Photograph taken through window:
Number of people who see it: unlimited.
Length of time they see it for: unlimited.
What can be done with that image: the information in it can be reproduced and minutely examined at leisure.
These are basic differences. In the UK it is illegal to photograph through someone's window without their permission, but it's not illegal to look through the window, so I'm hardly the only person who sees a difference here.
If it doesn't matter if I'm walking past your house and see it then why on Earth does it matter if I can see it using my PC?
They're different things. Taking a photograph through someone's window isn't the same as glimpsing what can be seen through it as you walk past; it is more akin to standing outside the house and staring in, and inviting hundreds of other people to come and stare through the window, and the person inside only finding out they have been under observation afterwards. It will make many people, especially women, feel violated.
Filevault works fine even on fairly old computers - I use it on my 1GHz Powerbook G4 and there is no decrease in speed, even with video editing. Filevault only encrypts your home folder, not the whole drive, so scratch files and any other files stored outside the home folder are unaffected.
I tried turning it on for my mum's 900MHz G3 iBook, however, and there was a slight decrease in speed - and on an already slow machine she just didn't think it was worth it.
I think encryption is essential for any laptop because they''re so easy to steal, and if I was still using the iBook (my old machines get passed down to my parents) I'd use Filevault and take the performance penalty, but to be fair it never leaves my mum's house and she has a great place to hide it when she goes out.
The same goes for socks. Ooooh... Fear your socks...
Or how about this: God was just man's way of bringing himself in to existence, and man is simply the robot's way of bringing themselves in to existence... and just as we got rid of God, the robots will get rid of us...
Ah, the evil approach to managing your email. I imagine you glower contemptuously at people who ask you stupid questions, too.
Re:People are too easy to distract
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Stop checking it so often and learn to prioritize
A nice side-effect of this is that people stop expecting a reply from you immediately, and so tend to stop sending you so much pointless shit. It's win-win.
"Defensive weapon" is an oxymoron. All weapons are offensive by definition. You may defend yourself by using a weapon, but you would be defending yourself by attacking back - it doesn't make the weapon defensive, and it doesn't change the fact that you are actively using it to hurt or kill, as opposed to something passively protecting you like a wall or a moat. Arguing that a weapon is defensive because it is heavy is disingenuous - plenty of things are difficult to do but it doesn't stop them being what they are.
the problem with people, especially on slashdot, is technophilia: we are always trying, almost fetishistically, to mechanize processes, even if they don't need to be. in most cases, this fetishism is harmless. but when faith in democracy is on the line, our technophilia needs to take a hike
No, the prevailing view of electronic voting machines on Slashdot is that they are defective by design; that they are inherently insecure and the results cannot be checked and verified. I appreciate that you were trying to make a point about some people liking tech solutions because of their convenience, but that view doesn't apply to the Slashdot crowd, it is more likely the view of the average Joe with no tech background at all who associates technology with instant gratification and isn't aware that convenience is the opposite of security. People on Slashdot are likely to be a bit more tech-savvy and aware of the issues.
where Thompson's money comes from? Wikipedia says he's an attorney but it's hard to see how he has spare time to do any actual "attorneying" for anyone. Does he make a living purely from interviews, or is there a sinister backer we should know about?
Slashdot Mirror
If some people don't care whether they are photographed in public, but others do, then regardless of the law you should act considerately and ask permission before photographing someone, rather than assuming they feel the same way you do. People have no choice but to appear in public occasionally; it shouldn't be used as justification for photographing them, and the law in Europe recognizes this.
Hmm.
Also, Filevault isn't something you put onto a Mac; it's part of OSX and is enabled just by ticking a box. In use it's completely transparent apart from requiring a log in at boot. There was no downside to trying it, and many benefits.
A photograph of a moment is a record of that moment. That doesn't make it unseen. It simply means that one moment is looked at again and again. Importantly, a memory is a private thing. Something you remember seeing goes no further than yourself. The medium is not just more efficient, it's completely different. The ability for photographs to be reproduced and pored over is what gives them the potential for invasions of privacy.
Without using an analogy or example, these are the differences between the two things.
Glimpse through window:
Number of people who see it: 1.
Length of time they see it for: a second.
What can be done with that image: you can tell people about it, and remember it.
Photograph taken through window:
Number of people who see it: unlimited.
Length of time they see it for: unlimited.
What can be done with that image: the information in it can be reproduced and minutely examined at leisure.
These are basic differences. In the UK it is illegal to photograph through someone's window without their permission, but it's not illegal to look through the window, so I'm hardly the only person who sees a difference here.
I tried turning it on for my mum's 900MHz G3 iBook, however, and there was a slight decrease in speed - and on an already slow machine she just didn't think it was worth it.
I think encryption is essential for any laptop because they''re so easy to steal, and if I was still using the iBook (my old machines get passed down to my parents) I'd use Filevault and take the performance penalty, but to be fair it never leaves my mum's house and she has a great place to hide it when she goes out.
I, for one, welcome
HELLO ECTOTHERM.
our face-recog... um. Hello.
Quick! Tag this story as "Goldfish" and "Hairdressing".
The same goes for socks. Ooooh... Fear your socks...
Or how about this: God was just man's way of bringing himself in to existence, and man is simply the robot's way of bringing themselves in to existence... and just as we got rid of God, the robots will get rid of us...
Dude. Fear the robots. And socks.
First Page!
Ah, the evil approach to managing your email. I imagine you glower contemptuously at people who ask you stupid questions, too.
In case anyone needs to look it up, Linux is in Eastern Europe between Serbia and Romania.
Happy to help.
"Defensive weapon" is an oxymoron. All weapons are offensive by definition. You may defend yourself by using a weapon, but you would be defending yourself by attacking back - it doesn't make the weapon defensive, and it doesn't change the fact that you are actively using it to hurt or kill, as opposed to something passively protecting you like a wall or a moat. Arguing that a weapon is defensive because it is heavy is disingenuous - plenty of things are difficult to do but it doesn't stop them being what they are.
where Thompson's money comes from? Wikipedia says he's an attorney but it's hard to see how he has spare time to do any actual "attorneying" for anyone. Does he make a living purely from interviews, or is there a sinister backer we should know about?
Anyway, Pete (who has a parallel career as a writer) posted an article on child pornography on his web site before the charges arose.