you keep ignoring the realities of "broadcasting to everyone". It doesn't matter if people are deluded that they're doing something privatly when they're sending everything in the clear, in plain sight, where any bog standard, normal, cheap, unspecialised remarkable laptop can pick it up. If I'm deluded that only I and my friend can hear each other when we use a walkie talkie it isn't the fault of anyone else with the same model if we're too foolish to read the warnings we're given that anyone else can pick up our conversation.
I'm not setting the bar high, I'm setting the bar as low as is remotely reasonable.
I can clap my hands and believe, believe real hard that I can broadcast things at my neighbours in the clear and still not be broadcasting it in the clear at them but that doesn't make it so.
there can be a starbucks in a residential neighbourhood. I can have an expectation of privacy as I walk down the street naked wearing my imaginary invisibility cloak but that doesn't make it real or take away anyone elses right to look at me or anything else on the public street or even take away their right to walk down the street with a camcorder recording me.
Delusions need to be corrected, not coddled and catered to.
correction: A precision milled, polished, treated, coated and mounted piece of glass.
it is however in no way special. a regular video camera perhaps then?That's almost as complex as my netbook, in some ways more so and far more specialized.
I wouldn't consider a netbook special equipment and neither would a judge with an ounce of sense.
If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open? Of course not.
this is where you passed into utter absurdity. if you happen to find an open wifi in a coffee shop, sitting on the steps of the library,in the park or in your neighbourhood you are not breaking in by connecting. If you crack their wep key sure but connecting to an open wifi is no more breaking in than reading a postcard you find on the ground is tampering with the mail.
"When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view"
spectacles would qualify here. "special equipment" perhaps but then this requires no special equipment whatsoever, the cheapest netbook you can buy can connect to an open wireless network and listen.
"If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them"
Repeat but make sense.
If I then proceeded to release a free mapping service to everyone and made money from putting ads in then I'm fairly sure people would probably understand my motives.
if you shout your username and password at your friend out on a public street while I'm walking past with a video camera is it my fault or yours? should I then blank my recordings for the sake of your fuckup and that you only wanted your friend to hear?
I log ago gave up any hope that politicians give a damn about the greater good or actual harm to the public.
How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about gun control/gun regulations/drugs/etc How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about stairwell safety and regulations on handrails?
now go away and look up the figures for all of the above.
if politicians cared even a little about "the greater good" or the real dangers out there rather than whatever is loud and sexy we'd all be a lot safer and more free.
There's the rub. I don't expect people to "properly" secure their network. I don't expect people to seal their letters inside a safe before posting. But I do expect a letter rather than a postcard, symbolic security.
what I expect is symbolic security at the very least, you know, the kind which almost all routers use by default which you have to specifically disable(normally with warnings).
"What about the 17 year old that proudly blogged how he screwed a neighbours kid out of some stuff or other... It's bad enough for the youth to live it down that time. But would you want potential future employers 20 years later make a call on how trustworthy, how grown-up you are by what you posted back then, and might be indexed by some other service in the future?"
20 years ago nothing was different, he just had to go on the radio or TV and say it and thousands could record his statements. In a small town he just had to say it and people would remember.
oh it can leave your 4 walls but you have to make at least a symbolic gesture that you wish it to be private.
Encrypt with WEP rather than broadcast it openly. Seal it in an envelope rather than writing it on a postcard. Speak it over a private telephone line rather than using a loudspeaker.
Go for a shit in the bathroom and you can expect privacy. Go for a shit in the middle of the public street and you can expect none. Even if you're deranged or stupid and convinced that you're invisible.
pull the curtain closed in the changing room if you want privacy rather than screaming that passers-by are violating your privacy when you don't.
if people don't know unsecured actually means "unsecured" then they need to learn.it's simple. the world does not need to bend over backwards for them.
It is reasonable however to expect them to tick that little box when they first set up their router, you know the one, to secure it. If that isn't enough their computer makes every effort to tell them "warning this connection is unsecured" etc etc etc
If you're too stupid to realise than things written in the margins of a library book are less private than things written in your diary or that "warning, this connection is not secured" means "warning, this connection is not secured" then you've passed bellow the "reasonable" threshold.
I assume you think videocameras should be outlawed then? someone can just walk down the street with one and record not just images but snippets of the conversations they pass, owners of video cameras should be prosecuted like the eavesdroppers they are!!!
actually they prefer to use acids but in most of the US sites the ground already contains too much carbonates so they have to use the less efficient carbonates on the uranium. so it's already being dissolved due to the carbonates. just less.
Whatever makes you think it takes more energy than the uranium contains? It'd have to take a startling amount of energy to reach that point.
And the method people are generally referring to in such cases does not involve boiling any seawater or big pumps. You use a mesh of specially treated polyethylene fiber which binds to uranium. It's is hung bellow a platform in seawater. The mesh is reusable and after sitting in the water for quite some time it's lifted out and uranium and a few other metals are extracted from it.
Even if you did that the land would still be usable, eating the food off it for the first few decades would probably mean you'd die of cancer by age 40 and the infant mortality rate would be positively medieval but people would still survive.
no, you'd need more than just nukes to do it. a war using large quantities of chemical and biological plus an even spread of nuclear weapons might manage it(or close). add in some drone warfare(think a few generations beyond our current drone tech, drones which hunt targets independently) to hunt down the stragglers to be sure.
let me guess, you think they're talking about getting uranium from seawater by boiling off the water?
if uranium ever costs $150 per pound you think greedy investors won't spend that 130 dollars per pound for the 20 dollars profit? the point is that it puts a practical cap on the potential price of uranium for the next few thousand years.
meh, if they want they'll just say the factorys producing the solvents for making the solar pannels are being used to create chemical weapons. If they want a pretext for war they can just claim the renewable bioreactors are being used as a cover for producing bioweapons. nothing changes.
In the US in situ leaching is used. Basicly you pump a mix of water and baking soda into the ground and the uranium disolves in it. Then you pump it back up and extract the uranium. Baking soda isn't high on my list of things I'm afraid of getting in my water. Pretty clean and safe.
waste storage wouldn't be too hard if it was treated as a technical problem, unfortunatly politicians who consider the words "nuclear" and "satanic" interchangable screwed that one up.
In the case of reuters and other serious news companies photoshopped images generally lead 1 or more people getting canned.
This sort of thing- companies releasing images to simply mislead the public is far far far more common.
I've seen some odd ones like a coal company releasing photoshopped images of coal faces.(clone tool to make it look like there was more coal than there really was) Police have been caught photoshoping images subtly for court proceedings.
But the worst offenders seem to be governments. Be it cutting out unpoplar people from a publicity shoot, changing history or enlarging a crowd photoshop is the politicians greatest friend.
Slashdot Mirror
you keep ignoring the realities of "broadcasting to everyone".
It doesn't matter if people are deluded that they're doing something privatly when they're sending everything in the clear, in plain sight, where any bog standard, normal, cheap, unspecialised remarkable laptop can pick it up.
If I'm deluded that only I and my friend can hear each other when we use a walkie talkie it isn't the fault of anyone else with the same model if we're too foolish to read the warnings we're given that anyone else can pick up our conversation.
I'm not setting the bar high, I'm setting the bar as low as is remotely reasonable.
I can clap my hands and believe, believe real hard that I can broadcast things at my neighbours in the clear and still not be broadcasting it in the clear at them but that doesn't make it so.
correct their delusions, don't cater to them.
there can be a starbucks in a residential neighbourhood.
I can have an expectation of privacy as I walk down the street naked wearing my imaginary invisibility cloak but that doesn't make it real or take away anyone elses right to look at me or anything else on the public street or even take away their right to walk down the street with a camcorder recording me.
Delusions need to be corrected, not coddled and catered to.
correction: A precision milled, polished, treated, coated and mounted piece of glass.
it is however in no way special.
a regular video camera perhaps then?That's almost as complex as my netbook, in some ways more so and far more specialized.
I wouldn't consider a netbook special equipment and neither would a judge with an ounce of sense.
"5,000,000 to 10,000,000"
I think you overestimate how many people do nothing but trawl through streetview looking for tits.
If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open? Of course not.
this is where you passed into utter absurdity.
if you happen to find an open wifi in a coffee shop, sitting on the steps of the library,in the park or in your neighbourhood you are not breaking in by connecting.
If you crack their wep key sure but connecting to an open wifi is no more breaking in than reading a postcard you find on the ground is tampering with the mail.
"When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view"
spectacles would qualify here.
"special equipment" perhaps but then this requires no special equipment whatsoever, the cheapest netbook you can buy can connect to an open wireless network and listen.
"If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them"
Repeat but make sense.
If I then proceeded to release a free mapping service to everyone and made money from putting ads in then I'm fairly sure people would probably understand my motives.
if you shout your username and password at your friend out on a public street while I'm walking past with a video camera is it my fault or yours?
should I then blank my recordings for the sake of your fuckup and that you only wanted your friend to hear?
I log ago gave up any hope that politicians give a damn about the greater good or actual harm to the public.
How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about gun control/gun regulations/drugs/etc
How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about stairwell safety and regulations on handrails?
now go away and look up the figures for all of the above.
if politicians cared even a little about "the greater good" or the real dangers out there rather than whatever is loud and sexy we'd all be a lot safer and more free.
"properly secure their network?"
There's the rub.
I don't expect people to "properly" secure their network.
I don't expect people to seal their letters inside a safe before posting.
But I do expect a letter rather than a postcard, symbolic security.
what I expect is symbolic security at the very least, you know, the kind which almost all routers use by default which you have to specifically disable(normally with warnings).
"What about the 17 year old that proudly blogged how he screwed a neighbours kid out of some stuff or other... It's bad enough for the youth to live it down that time. But would you want potential future employers 20 years later make a call on how trustworthy, how grown-up you are by what you posted back then, and might be indexed by some other service in the future?"
20 years ago nothing was different, he just had to go on the radio or TV and say it and thousands could record his statements.
In a small town he just had to say it and people would remember.
type "new and different" into the search engines and the advertisers will get the idea.
oh it can leave your 4 walls but you have to make at least a symbolic gesture that you wish it to be private.
Encrypt with WEP rather than broadcast it openly.
Seal it in an envelope rather than writing it on a postcard.
Speak it over a private telephone line rather than using a loudspeaker.
Go for a shit in the bathroom and you can expect privacy.
Go for a shit in the middle of the public street and you can expect none. Even if you're deranged or stupid and convinced that you're invisible.
pull the curtain closed in the changing room if you want privacy rather than screaming that passers-by are violating your privacy when you don't.
if people don't know unsecured actually means "unsecured" then they need to learn.it's simple. the world does not need to bend over backwards for them.
It is reasonable however to expect them to tick that little box when they first set up their router, you know the one, to secure it.
If that isn't enough their computer makes every effort to tell them "warning this connection is unsecured" etc etc etc
If you're too stupid to realise than things written in the margins of a library book are less private than things written in your diary or that "warning, this connection is not secured" means "warning, this connection is not secured" then you've passed bellow the "reasonable" threshold.
yes there is. there's that little box you can tick and a password field you can fill in which makes everything you broadcast private. LIKE MAGIC!!!
I assume you think videocameras should be outlawed then?
someone can just walk down the street with one and record not just images but snippets of the conversations they pass, owners of video cameras should be prosecuted like the eavesdroppers they are!!!
I wouldn't be too mad on drinking the groundwater where there's a natural uranium deposit with or without mining.
actually they prefer to use acids but in most of the US sites the ground already contains too much carbonates so they have to use the less efficient carbonates on the uranium.
so it's already being dissolved due to the carbonates.
just less.
Whatever makes you think it takes more energy than the uranium contains?
It'd have to take a startling amount of energy to reach that point.
And the method people are generally referring to in such cases does not involve boiling any seawater or big pumps.
You use a mesh of specially treated polyethylene fiber which binds to uranium.
It's is hung bellow a platform in seawater.
The mesh is reusable and after sitting in the water for quite some time it's lifted out and uranium and a few other metals are extracted from it.
you mean the groundwater where they'd be mining? where there's already natural deposits of uranium and as such uranium in the groundwater?
far safer than living next to a pesticide plant at least....
Even if you did that the land would still be usable, eating the food off it for the first few decades would probably mean you'd die of cancer by age 40 and the infant mortality rate would be positively medieval but people would still survive.
no, you'd need more than just nukes to do it.
a war using large quantities of chemical and biological plus an even spread of nuclear weapons might manage it(or close).
add in some drone warfare(think a few generations beyond our current drone tech, drones which hunt targets independently) to hunt down the stragglers to be sure.
thermodynamic break even point??
let me guess, you think they're talking about getting uranium from seawater by boiling off the water?
if uranium ever costs $150 per pound you think greedy investors won't spend that 130 dollars per pound for the 20 dollars profit?
the point is that it puts a practical cap on the potential price of uranium for the next few thousand years.
meh, if they want they'll just say the factorys producing the solvents for making the solar pannels are being used to create chemical weapons.
If they want a pretext for war they can just claim the renewable bioreactors are being used as a cover for producing bioweapons.
nothing changes.
In the US in situ leaching is used.
Basicly you pump a mix of water and baking soda into the ground and the uranium disolves in it.
Then you pump it back up and extract the uranium.
Baking soda isn't high on my list of things I'm afraid of getting in my water.
Pretty clean and safe.
waste storage wouldn't be too hard if it was treated as a technical problem, unfortunatly politicians who consider the words "nuclear" and "satanic" interchangable screwed that one up.
In the case of reuters and other serious news companies photoshopped images generally lead 1 or more people getting canned.
This sort of thing- companies releasing images to simply mislead the public is far far far more common.
I've seen some odd ones like a coal company releasing photoshopped images of coal faces.(clone tool to make it look like there was more coal than there really was)
Police have been caught photoshoping images subtly for court proceedings.
But the worst offenders seem to be governments. Be it cutting out unpoplar people from a publicity shoot, changing history or enlarging a crowd photoshop is the politicians greatest friend.