I am looking at radio -- with an accusing eye, that is.
I was 'raised on radio' -- been listening to it all my life, and I appreciate broadcast radio, and think it's sad that it's heyday seems to be over -- but I also like streaming internet radio, and broadcast radio is the reason I see that internet radio is having so many problems. Several years ago the broadcast radio industry threw a hissy-fit over internet radio and royalty fees, which almost immediately drove many internet radio stations out of business, and made the ones that remained in operation have to resort to selling ads. In short broadcast radio forced internet radio to use the same exact business model that they do, regardless of whether or not it applies to internet radio -- which it does not. Of course they knew this, and wanted to see internet radio go away entirely. Well, they may be getting close to their "goal". Of course the irony here is that what's really ripped the guts out of the broadcast radio industry is personal music players, but can they compete with that? No, they can't, so they lash out at whoever they can, desperately grasping at straws, in this case, internet radio.
I'd like to propose using the name "CASH". For portability purposes, it should be printed, using ink containing magnetic properties (which should allow easier electronic authentication of it), and on a flexible, durable, flat substance, similar in appearance to common paper, except woven out of more than one type of fiber, preferably with different colors and in a proprietary mixture, so as to give it a distinctive color. Very high-resolution images and security features can be printed onto each individual monetary unit, (which we can call a 'note'), and perhaps even have a specific security feature woven into the fabric of the 'bill' itself, making it more difficult to create fraudulent facsimilies. Serialization of each 'bill' created will further increase the difficulty of creating counterfeits. To conserve the resources necessary to create these 'bills', I propose different designs be created for specific multiples, say multiples of, 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100. This will also allow larger total value to be transported more easily.
Wouldn't this open the door to the government having people institutionalized simply because they're politically inconvenient? Say, someone is arrested for taking part in a political protest, are "diagnosed" as having some sort of vague mental disorder, refuses "counseling" to "cure" the condition, and is then compelled to "treatment" for it, effectively imprisoning them, medicating them, until they change their opinions? Isn't this the same shit that happens all the time in China to citizens merely demanding that the law be enforced? Do we really want to go there?
I think the problem for many people is that the privacy horse left the barn a long time ago; you'd need a time machine to send yourself a note in the past telling yourself to implement procedures and countermeasure back then so that you'd be protected today. Much like the Internet doesn't forget, neither does the databases of governments and corporations; once they've got information on someone, they're not going to delete it, ever. The goal would have been to prevent any information about yourself being collected in the first place.
Going forward, I'm not sure how much damage control can be done. In the real world (i.e. non-internet), there are places where you simply must use your real name and real information, and there's nothing you can do about that. If it's interaction with government agencies, well, we've all collectively screwed the pooch a long time ago in that area, and thanks so much to so many people who voted away our rights to privacy for hollow promises of "security" that nobody can realistically deliver.. but I digress. Limit your exposure/interaction with government agencies as much as possible? Best I can do there. It took decades to dismantle privacy in this country, and it'll take decades to recover it. Banking/financial institutions, legal matters, entering into contractural agreements with any company or corporation (even something as simple as wireless service)? You've got to use your real name and information for those; best you can do there is to be sure who you're dealing with, and see some legal disclaimers in writing that state what your collected information will be used for. Things like "rewards" clubs (Safeway, Walgreens, etc) and organizations like Costco and Sams Club? Someone may correct me on this, but even something as simple as a Safeway rewards club card is entering into a legal contract with Safeway, and I believe that there must be a privacy agreement associated with that, which (believe it or not) people who work at Safeway may never have even seen; just accepting the card itself could be considered your consent to terms of a contract and privacy (or lack thereof) agreement that you never knew existed, and it may well entitle Safeway to collect information on you and your purchasing habits that they otherwise aren't legally allowed to do; same goes for Costco, Sams Club, etc. Healthcare companies? HIPAA is supposed to protect you, but yes the devil is in the (implementation) details, isn't it? They can claim they're HIPAA compliant, and that you're 100% safe, but they can also completely bungle everything (like we've all read about in the news more than once in the last few years) and some asshat scammer has your (and 100,000 other people's) very personal, private data. If someone else has an idea what you can do about this, I'd like to hear it; all hospitals and doctors offices collect data on you in order to treat you medically; I suppose you could insist they keep no records of you, and instead put everything on a flash drive you provide for them -- except most hospitals have IT policies against using portable flash drives for anything. Keeping your friends or strangers from taking pictures of you and posting them somewhere? Speaking from experience, you may have to go so far as alienating some of your friends and acquaintances, who may not share your views on privacy, and think that you're just being a jerk for no reason. Also, how can you control the actions of others? You can't. Airport security/TSA scrutiny? Don't fly anywhere. Rally to the cause of people who want to dismantle the TSA, write your congresscritter, sign petitions, etc. to make the TSA go away, or at least get reigned in to the point where they're not on track to become the Secret Police.
There are too many things going on this this world for me to address here. The best advice I can give is to stay aware and not stick your head in the sand. It seems like every day there are more and more instances of some government agency or corporation making free with people's privacy. Telev
We (the U.S.) never had any intention of doing that. On the other hand do you know how much of a public relations nightmare it would have been here in the U.S. if they had planted a U.N. flag instead of a U.S. flag?
Yeah, this, except I'll bet you five bucks that once they have their "lander" on the moon, manned or not, they'll try to claim the entire Moon as a Chinese territory.
"The truth" according to my past experience and observations at least, so take it with a salt lick-sized grain of salt, YMMV, etc.
Online dating seems to contain the following people:
Attention whores
Porn site operators looking to increase their business
Porn chicks
Prostitutes looking to increase their business
Predators
Earnest but desperate undesirables
People with social anxiety disorders of one degree or another
Seemingly average people, but with "issues" (ranging from mild to severe, and ranging from few to many)
Actual average people
So far as I can tell "Actual average people" occupy only a small percentage of the total of this list.
I've even tried paywall-protected online dating, with similar observations to the above. You might say that I just had a bad experience, but in the past I tried this time and again, with the same results. My conclusion? Online dating is a waste of time and money at best, and a total scam at worst. Not worth your time, money, and emotional energy. Meet people the "old fashioned" way: in person, local to you, in social settings, or at your church (if you're so inclined), or in college, or in the workplace.
A note to the "moderation trolls", doubtlessly with their fingers, as always, hovering over the keyboard, ready to mod this down: See the disclaimer at the beginning of this comment. Disagreeing with or disliking my opinions of this subject does not constitute me being a "Troll" or "Flamebait" or anything else derogatory in nature; it merely means you don't like it, so get over it and move on.
Never mind that, I wonder if the algorithm is smart enough to discount the "preferences" of porn site operators and prostitutes that inhabit online dating sites looking for new business amongst the desperate and the undesirables that also inhabit online dating sites?
What about people who don't have bank accounts? Believe it or not there are many people in the world (hell, here in the U.S. even!) who are poor and don't have a bank account, living their lives entirely on cash basis. What about them? Also most banks charge fees to someone (the consumer, or the business) for EFT transactions; I see very often smaller, independent retailers won't even be set up to accept EFT or even credit card transactions, because banks are charging them too much to make it viable for them, and as we all well know, prepaid credit cards are a morass of tacked-on, hidden fees that often effectively cancel out any cash value loaded onto the card. Banks would have to be brought to heel by federal regulations, prohibiting them from charging fees like they have been, and since they have the money, they'd fight it for decades to come. Nope, I don't see cash being phased out anytime soon, and considering how public awareness of governments tracking of our everyday lives is on the rise, I'd expect more people to be using cash whenever possible in an attempt (futile as it might turn out to be, anyway) to preserve (or take back) their privacy.
It was basically a full 80486 with different pinout, pricing, and marketing.
Intel also made an 80386/80387 "RapidCAD" chipset, that I managed to get a hold of at one point, and discovered that the 80387 was just a dud (which, according to Wikipedia, was there just to supply the FERR signal, to keep everything compatible with a real '387); the coprocessor was on-die with the '386 core, just like a '486.
I'm surprised you have enough functioning brain cells to operate a computer well enough to even post comments here. If you're a parent then I will lose all hope for the next generation because you sound like a child yourself, or is that just damage from the drug addiction talking?
Since nobody can discipline their children these days without being accused of child abuse and being jailed/having them taken away from you, kids do whatever the fuck they want and parents can't do much about it other than monitor them obsessively like this.
Same as the OP. I've never used my real name on the Internet except when making purchases, which you really can't avoid unless you make all your purchases in-person from local businesses. Granted, it only gives you a layer of protection for your privacy; law enforcement or persons/organizations with resources could still discover who you are and where you are. If you want 100% protection of your privacy from prying eyes on the Internet, then you have to never have used the Internet in the first place, and even then there might be online databases that have your in-real-life information anyway.
You have Caller ID already, just don't answer the phone for numbers you don't recognize. If it's legitimate they'll leave a message on your answering machine. Also do as someone else suggested and crank up the number of rings before your answering machine picks up the call. People who know you will wait for an answer. Legitimate callers will either wait and leave a message; if they don't then it obviously wasn't important enough to even leave a message, so you shouldn't worry about it. Also change the outgoing message on your answering machine if you state your name on it, or better yet if it's got a pre-recorded generic outgoing message, use that instead of one recorded in your own voice. If necessary send an email or give a call to family and friends explaining the changes so they're neither put off by it or worried that something drastic is wrong. I know this all does sound drastic, but personally I don't see any other alternatives; these sorts of "organizations" are ruthless and persistent (kind of like African honey-badgers), but if you can convince them that you've changed your number without actually having to do so, they'll lose interest in you and stop wasting their time trying to harass you.
Not sure if you wanted to slam me or someone else commenting on my comment, but I feel the need to remind you that disagreeing with someone or not liking what they have to say is not the same thing as their being a troll, being flamebait, etc. it simply means you don't like it for some reason. Your moderation points are being misused if used for that purpose.
Wow, someone more profoundly cynical than I am! Maybe even projecting a bit? Did you have a 20+ year long close and loving marriage that ended when you found out she wasn't at all the person you thought she was? Or was it you?
In any event you're missing the point, perhaps intentionally. Unless you're really going to try to press the idea that the average person is such a good actor that they can totally misrepresent themselves in person day after day and never have anyone suspect they're a total fraud -- and that it's no easier to totally misrepresent yourself online, when you have total control over every single word and every single image you post about yourself -- and in some cases, total control over anything that anyone else has to say, too.
No, it doesn't. The text and images that people post on the internet, like on Facebook, have about as much to do with who and what they are as the speeches that a political candidate gives during their election campaign; it's a carefully crafted, edited, imaginary-ideal version of that person. Who and what they are in real life, in person is something different from that. Furthermore for all anyone knows, what you see posted on someone's Facebook page, unless you know them personally, may as well be some computer-generated fantasy character and not a real person. The Internet hasn't "brought people together", it's provided another layer of separation that masquerades as something bringing them together.
The reason they don't care is that they've been indoctrinated/brainwashed into believing that they shouldn't care, and that "privacy" is something that only criminals (pedophiles, etc) seek, and that being "open and connected" with everyone else is the hallmark of an honest, law-abiding person; "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear". Of course that's complete and utter bullshit, but good luck convincing the garden-variety sheeple of this, they won't get it until it's way, way too late, and even then they'll somehow convince themselves that the camera in their bedroom, watching them fuck, and in their bathrooms, watching them shit, piss, and bathe, is "for their own good" and that "only Bad People feel the need to hide their sexual habits and bodily functions from everyone else". No, I'm not even trying to be funny here, the logical progression of the surveillance culture we're in is to be watched even in our own homes 24/7/365 -- and so far I'm being proven right (TVs that "phone home", game consoles with cameras and microphones, etc, all this can and is being used to watch people in their homes).
Most people are fucktardedly stupid and make stupid decisions about important things.
So far as I'm concerned, this technology won't be ready for "prime time" for at least 20 years, and I for one will not consider it until a few hundred thousand other people beta-test it for me.
Before anyone lumps me in with the bad drivers: I'd be dead if I were, I've logged hundreds of thousands more miles over the course of my life on motorcycles than driving cars; If I was a fuck-up, I'd be dead, or at least maimed. I'm still 100% original equipment.
Could this whole incident have just been a pretense to arm the TSA, a crucial move towards making them the "secret police" of the U.S.? Everyone else remember the news stories of how roaming teams of TSA agents were inhabiting bus stations and other non-airports? Yeah yeah yeah I know, "get a tinfoil hat" -- or could I be right? Power always seeks more power, and corruption is directly proportional to the percentage of power attained. Given their track record, does anyone doubt for a moment that the TSA would like to be the Secret Police?
I realize this may be only me, but whenever someone mentions Google Glass, I think Virtual Light glasses from the Gibson series of novels -- where the Bay Bridge was no longer used as a bridge, and squatters were living on it instead, which for some reason I was reminded of again by having Google's floating structure in the Bay..
Given physical access this is a trivial firmware hack. You simply bypass all the verification routines other than the one that checks the length of the bill inserted.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at radio
I am looking at radio -- with an accusing eye, that is.
I was 'raised on radio' -- been listening to it all my life, and I appreciate broadcast radio, and think it's sad that it's heyday seems to be over -- but I also like streaming internet radio, and broadcast radio is the reason I see that internet radio is having so many problems. Several years ago the broadcast radio industry threw a hissy-fit over internet radio and royalty fees, which almost immediately drove many internet radio stations out of business, and made the ones that remained in operation have to resort to selling ads. In short broadcast radio forced internet radio to use the same exact business model that they do, regardless of whether or not it applies to internet radio -- which it does not. Of course they knew this, and wanted to see internet radio go away entirely. Well, they may be getting close to their "goal". Of course the irony here is that what's really ripped the guts out of the broadcast radio industry is personal music players, but can they compete with that? No, they can't, so they lash out at whoever they can, desperately grasping at straws, in this case, internet radio.
I'd like to propose using the name "CASH". For portability purposes, it should be printed, using ink containing magnetic properties (which should allow easier electronic authentication of it), and on a flexible, durable, flat substance, similar in appearance to common paper, except woven out of more than one type of fiber, preferably with different colors and in a proprietary mixture, so as to give it a distinctive color. Very high-resolution images and security features can be printed onto each individual monetary unit, (which we can call a 'note'), and perhaps even have a specific security feature woven into the fabric of the 'bill' itself, making it more difficult to create fraudulent facsimilies. Serialization of each 'bill' created will further increase the difficulty of creating counterfeits. To conserve the resources necessary to create these 'bills', I propose different designs be created for specific multiples, say multiples of, 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100. This will also allow larger total value to be transported more easily.
which is really the answer to the question: by political action.
Actually as I see it the real problem is convincing enough people that the whole thing matters enough for them to get involved politically over it.
Wouldn't this open the door to the government having people institutionalized simply because they're politically inconvenient? Say, someone is arrested for taking part in a political protest, are "diagnosed" as having some sort of vague mental disorder, refuses "counseling" to "cure" the condition, and is then compelled to "treatment" for it, effectively imprisoning them, medicating them, until they change their opinions? Isn't this the same shit that happens all the time in China to citizens merely demanding that the law be enforced? Do we really want to go there?
I think the problem for many people is that the privacy horse left the barn a long time ago; you'd need a time machine to send yourself a note in the past telling yourself to implement procedures and countermeasure back then so that you'd be protected today. Much like the Internet doesn't forget, neither does the databases of governments and corporations; once they've got information on someone, they're not going to delete it, ever. The goal would have been to prevent any information about yourself being collected in the first place.
Going forward, I'm not sure how much damage control can be done. In the real world (i.e. non-internet), there are places where you simply must use your real name and real information, and there's nothing you can do about that. If it's interaction with government agencies, well, we've all collectively screwed the pooch a long time ago in that area, and thanks so much to so many people who voted away our rights to privacy for hollow promises of "security" that nobody can realistically deliver.. but I digress. Limit your exposure/interaction with government agencies as much as possible? Best I can do there. It took decades to dismantle privacy in this country, and it'll take decades to recover it. Banking/financial institutions, legal matters, entering into contractural agreements with any company or corporation (even something as simple as wireless service)? You've got to use your real name and information for those; best you can do there is to be sure who you're dealing with, and see some legal disclaimers in writing that state what your collected information will be used for. Things like "rewards" clubs (Safeway, Walgreens, etc) and organizations like Costco and Sams Club? Someone may correct me on this, but even something as simple as a Safeway rewards club card is entering into a legal contract with Safeway, and I believe that there must be a privacy agreement associated with that, which (believe it or not) people who work at Safeway may never have even seen; just accepting the card itself could be considered your consent to terms of a contract and privacy (or lack thereof) agreement that you never knew existed, and it may well entitle Safeway to collect information on you and your purchasing habits that they otherwise aren't legally allowed to do; same goes for Costco, Sams Club, etc. Healthcare companies? HIPAA is supposed to protect you, but yes the devil is in the (implementation) details, isn't it? They can claim they're HIPAA compliant, and that you're 100% safe, but they can also completely bungle everything (like we've all read about in the news more than once in the last few years) and some asshat scammer has your (and 100,000 other people's) very personal, private data. If someone else has an idea what you can do about this, I'd like to hear it; all hospitals and doctors offices collect data on you in order to treat you medically; I suppose you could insist they keep no records of you, and instead put everything on a flash drive you provide for them -- except most hospitals have IT policies against using portable flash drives for anything. Keeping your friends or strangers from taking pictures of you and posting them somewhere? Speaking from experience, you may have to go so far as alienating some of your friends and acquaintances, who may not share your views on privacy, and think that you're just being a jerk for no reason. Also, how can you control the actions of others? You can't. Airport security/TSA scrutiny? Don't fly anywhere. Rally to the cause of people who want to dismantle the TSA, write your congresscritter, sign petitions, etc. to make the TSA go away, or at least get reigned in to the point where they're not on track to become the Secret Police.
There are too many things going on this this world for me to address here. The best advice I can give is to stay aware and not stick your head in the sand. It seems like every day there are more and more instances of some government agency or corporation making free with people's privacy. Telev
We (the U.S.) never had any intention of doing that. On the other hand do you know how much of a public relations nightmare it would have been here in the U.S. if they had planted a U.N. flag instead of a U.S. flag?
Yeah, this, except I'll bet you five bucks that once they have their "lander" on the moon, manned or not, they'll try to claim the entire Moon as a Chinese territory.
Online dating seems to contain the following people:
So far as I can tell "Actual average people" occupy only a small percentage of the total of this list.
I've even tried paywall-protected online dating, with similar observations to the above. You might say that I just had a bad experience, but in the past I tried this time and again, with the same results. My conclusion? Online dating is a waste of time and money at best, and a total scam at worst. Not worth your time, money, and emotional energy. Meet people the "old fashioned" way: in person, local to you, in social settings, or at your church (if you're so inclined), or in college, or in the workplace.
____________________________________________________________
A note to the "moderation trolls", doubtlessly with their fingers, as always, hovering over the keyboard, ready to mod this down: See the disclaimer at the beginning of this comment. Disagreeing with or disliking my opinions of this subject does not constitute me being a "Troll" or "Flamebait" or anything else derogatory in nature; it merely means you don't like it, so get over it and move on.
Never mind that, I wonder if the algorithm is smart enough to discount the "preferences" of porn site operators and prostitutes that inhabit online dating sites looking for new business amongst the desperate and the undesirables that also inhabit online dating sites?
No, I'm not being funny.
..if this kind of shit continues.
What about people who don't have bank accounts? Believe it or not there are many people in the world (hell, here in the U.S. even!) who are poor and don't have a bank account, living their lives entirely on cash basis. What about them? Also most banks charge fees to someone (the consumer, or the business) for EFT transactions; I see very often smaller, independent retailers won't even be set up to accept EFT or even credit card transactions, because banks are charging them too much to make it viable for them, and as we all well know, prepaid credit cards are a morass of tacked-on, hidden fees that often effectively cancel out any cash value loaded onto the card. Banks would have to be brought to heel by federal regulations, prohibiting them from charging fees like they have been, and since they have the money, they'd fight it for decades to come. Nope, I don't see cash being phased out anytime soon, and considering how public awareness of governments tracking of our everyday lives is on the rise, I'd expect more people to be using cash whenever possible in an attempt (futile as it might turn out to be, anyway) to preserve (or take back) their privacy.
It was basically a full 80486 with different pinout, pricing, and marketing.
Intel also made an 80386/80387 "RapidCAD" chipset, that I managed to get a hold of at one point, and discovered that the 80387 was just a dud (which, according to Wikipedia, was there just to supply the FERR signal, to keep everything compatible with a real '387); the coprocessor was on-die with the '386 core, just like a '486.
I'm surprised you have enough functioning brain cells to operate a computer well enough to even post comments here. If you're a parent then I will lose all hope for the next generation because you sound like a child yourself, or is that just damage from the drug addiction talking?
Since nobody can discipline their children these days without being accused of child abuse and being jailed/having them taken away from you, kids do whatever the fuck they want and parents can't do much about it other than monitor them obsessively like this.
Same as the OP. I've never used my real name on the Internet except when making purchases, which you really can't avoid unless you make all your purchases in-person from local businesses. Granted, it only gives you a layer of protection for your privacy; law enforcement or persons/organizations with resources could still discover who you are and where you are. If you want 100% protection of your privacy from prying eyes on the Internet, then you have to never have used the Internet in the first place, and even then there might be online databases that have your in-real-life information anyway.
You have Caller ID already, just don't answer the phone for numbers you don't recognize. If it's legitimate they'll leave a message on your answering machine. Also do as someone else suggested and crank up the number of rings before your answering machine picks up the call. People who know you will wait for an answer. Legitimate callers will either wait and leave a message; if they don't then it obviously wasn't important enough to even leave a message, so you shouldn't worry about it. Also change the outgoing message on your answering machine if you state your name on it, or better yet if it's got a pre-recorded generic outgoing message, use that instead of one recorded in your own voice. If necessary send an email or give a call to family and friends explaining the changes so they're neither put off by it or worried that something drastic is wrong. I know this all does sound drastic, but personally I don't see any other alternatives; these sorts of "organizations" are ruthless and persistent (kind of like African honey-badgers), but if you can convince them that you've changed your number without actually having to do so, they'll lose interest in you and stop wasting their time trying to harass you.
Not sure if you wanted to slam me or someone else commenting on my comment, but I feel the need to remind you that disagreeing with someone or not liking what they have to say is not the same thing as their being a troll, being flamebait, etc. it simply means you don't like it for some reason. Your moderation points are being misused if used for that purpose.
Wow, someone more profoundly cynical than I am! Maybe even projecting a bit? Did you have a 20+ year long close and loving marriage that ended when you found out she wasn't at all the person you thought she was? Or was it you?
In any event you're missing the point, perhaps intentionally. Unless you're really going to try to press the idea that the average person is such a good actor that they can totally misrepresent themselves in person day after day and never have anyone suspect they're a total fraud -- and that it's no easier to totally misrepresent yourself online, when you have total control over every single word and every single image you post about yourself -- and in some cases, total control over anything that anyone else has to say, too.
The internet brings all people into proximity
No, it doesn't. The text and images that people post on the internet, like on Facebook, have about as much to do with who and what they are as the speeches that a political candidate gives during their election campaign; it's a carefully crafted, edited, imaginary-ideal version of that person. Who and what they are in real life, in person is something different from that. Furthermore for all anyone knows, what you see posted on someone's Facebook page, unless you know them personally, may as well be some computer-generated fantasy character and not a real person. The Internet hasn't "brought people together", it's provided another layer of separation that masquerades as something bringing them together.
The reason they don't care is that they've been indoctrinated/brainwashed into believing that they shouldn't care, and that "privacy" is something that only criminals (pedophiles, etc) seek, and that being "open and connected" with everyone else is the hallmark of an honest, law-abiding person; "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear". Of course that's complete and utter bullshit, but good luck convincing the garden-variety sheeple of this, they won't get it until it's way, way too late, and even then they'll somehow convince themselves that the camera in their bedroom, watching them fuck, and in their bathrooms, watching them shit, piss, and bathe, is "for their own good" and that "only Bad People feel the need to hide their sexual habits and bodily functions from everyone else". No, I'm not even trying to be funny here, the logical progression of the surveillance culture we're in is to be watched even in our own homes 24/7/365 -- and so far I'm being proven right (TVs that "phone home", game consoles with cameras and microphones, etc, all this can and is being used to watch people in their homes).
Are they just going to keep multiplying the size of the thing by a factor of 'X' every 'Y' years? ;-)
Most people are fucktardedly stupid and make stupid decisions about important things.
So far as I'm concerned, this technology won't be ready for "prime time" for at least 20 years, and I for one will not consider it until a few hundred thousand other people beta-test it for me.
Before anyone lumps me in with the bad drivers: I'd be dead if I were, I've logged hundreds of thousands more miles over the course of my life on motorcycles than driving cars; If I was a fuck-up, I'd be dead, or at least maimed. I'm still 100% original equipment.
Could this whole incident have just been a pretense to arm the TSA, a crucial move towards making them the "secret police" of the U.S.? Everyone else remember the news stories of how roaming teams of TSA agents were inhabiting bus stations and other non-airports? Yeah yeah yeah I know, "get a tinfoil hat" -- or could I be right? Power always seeks more power, and corruption is directly proportional to the percentage of power attained. Given their track record, does anyone doubt for a moment that the TSA would like to be the Secret Police?
I realize this may be only me, but whenever someone mentions Google Glass, I think Virtual Light glasses from the Gibson series of novels -- where the Bay Bridge was no longer used as a bridge, and squatters were living on it instead, which for some reason I was reminded of again by having Google's floating structure in the Bay..
Given physical access this is a trivial firmware hack. You simply bypass all the verification routines other than the one that checks the length of the bill inserted.