Oh, yeah, forgot about that since I stopped using Failbook a long time ago now: Get rid of your Facebook account, never use it again, and stay off all so-called "social networking". Facebook and all social networking sites are probably the #1 tool the NSA, CIA, FBI, and whoever else in the government is watching, is using to gather data on people's daily lives.
what can the lay person do have a modicum of protection, or at least peace of mind?
In all seriousness? Stop using the Internet entirely. And your phone. And, there are cameras everywhere. "Modicum of protection", you say? That boat sailed a long time ago now, and frankly it's the desire for "protection" and "safety" that got us into this mess in the first place. It may take decades to sort it out. It may in fact be decades too late to do anything about it.
I've never been made sick or had a headache from CRT's at 60Hz refresh rate, but I do recall being able to notice it was at 60Hz, and increasing it to 75Hz (or preferably 85Hz) then it was fine. Newer car tail lights that are PWM dimmed LEDs, I notice they're PWM, and it can be a big distraction. Some people not only notice but apparently are actually sensitive to it on some level. I do not concur that it's a "placebo effect", it's real, it just doesn't affect you/you don't/can't see it.
Um, no, that would be a bad idea, you're just turning electricity into waste heat that way. What you're proposing is essentially putting a resistor in series with the LEDs. PWM is more energy-efficient and doesn't generate anywhere near as much waste heat, but as I stated above I believe the implementation is lacking.
More and more autos, trucks, and buses are using LED's for taillights/brakelights, and the PWM frequency they use is slow enough that I can notice the strobelight-like effect when the vehicle is moving or I move my eyes. It's very distracting, and I really don't see the reason why they can't raise the frequency enough so it isn't noticable anymore.
Why? Because corporations lie about their intentions. Because corporations are all about profit, not protecting people's rights, and cannot be trusted to be responsible anymore.
Trying to think like someone working for a police state would: If you were observed, you would probably at least get "interviewed" by the police, because they'd think that if you were that much of an exhibitionist, knowing that you were obviously being monitored, that you might expose yourself to children -- and we have to think of the children! Of course that's why this shit has to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible, so we don't end up going down that road. Or, at least, put off going down that road until I'm dead, after which I won't give a crap, because I'll be dead.
1. Put it back in the box, take it back to the store, exchange it for something with no camera and no microphone.
2. Electrical tape over the camera and/or microphone.
3. Disconnect it from your network when you're not actively using these features for the legitimate purposes you bought them for.
3a. Doesn't work when disconnected from the network/internet? Return it to the store or sell it on Craigslist, get something that doesn't invade your privacy.
In the 1984-esque future that some people would have for us all, you'd be quietly picked up by law enforcement officials some time shortly afterwards, and taken to a hospital for "observation" because of your "deviant behavior", then either committed to a mental institution or a "re-education" facility to "cure" you of the mental illness causing your deviant outbursts. Have to protect the citizens, after all.
1. Don't allow the technology at all. Why does your television or set-top box (video game consoles excluded) need a camera or microphone in it in the first place?
2. Mandatory user-configurable setting to turn off such devices permanently if that's what the consumer wants, or better yet, make such devices separate accessories that physically plug in, so you can physically disconnect them when you're not actively using them.
What if I want to go somewhere there is no infrastructure to power the car? What if I don't want my tax dollars going to the probably trillions of dollars necessary to install this everywhere? What if I don't think it's a good idea to have powered rails carrying hundreds (maybe thousands) of volts along major roads? If there's a glitch somewhere, then everyone on that road is stranded? I could go on. I think this is a really dumb idea. Focus on better, higher-density, longer-lifespan battery technology instead.
This has to be shut down now, and proper protest is what it's going to take.
Good luck getting enough people to listen. They're mostly fat, lazy sheep now, which is just what the NSA, CIA, and who knows who else wanted them to be: easily controlled, and mollified by bread a circuses.
Fine. Just remember this: questions like this have come up before, for real, and they'll come up again, for real, and it may very well happen in a way that doesn't give you a direct opportunity to cast a ballot that says "No, I don't want this". Your only opportunity to say "no" may be pleading with your local congressperson, who probably won't listen to you.
I notice nobody wants to answer the question directly: If the government of your country mandated you be tattooed "for identification purposes" or "for security purposes", are you saying you're OK with that?
I am not religious in the least. I do not even discuss the subject because I do not find it relevant.
Carrying a driver's license or some keyfob that generates a unique encryption code is fine. Attaching something permanently to my body? Fuck no. Did you think I was just typing to hear my keys click? Answer the question: Would you be OK with the government mandating a permanent tattoo or an RFID chip implanted in your body for "identification purposes" or "security purposes"?
I see. So are you declaring that you'd be OK with a state-mandated permanent tattoo on your skin, or an RFID tag surgically implanted in your body? Mandated, as in you submit to it or are imprisoned? That's where this is going, and I and many others are not OK with it.
This would be voluntary. That is a pretty big difference.
At first. It would be voluntary at first. There are many people in power in this world today who would love to be able to tattoo some sort of ID on people from birth, or embed an RFID in their bodies at birth, and so on, so they can be tracked everywhere they go (with greater ease than we already are with goddamn fucking cameras everywhere. NO. JUST. NO. Yes, I understand the article is talking about something like a henna tattoo or a sticker you wear.. but it would set a dangerous precedent. The line has to be drawn here, no farther!
to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well
So politicians in Singapore are just as fucktardedly stupid when it comes to technology as politicians anywhere else in the world? Good luck making that work, Singapore.
Maybe public opinion and government policy will be changed for the better because of it.
That's a pretty big "maybe". Also, you're totally missing the point. Why should people you don't know, or people that you work for/with and are not part of your social circle know everything you do? Would you want people knowing what your sexual habits are like, in detail? No? Or what your bathroom habits are like? No? How about your private thoughts? Would you be OK if someone invented technology that can read your mind at a distance, and you can't stop it? No? These are extreme examples but they illustrate my point: people are being "gentled" into this Age of Surveillance, and by the time the average person really realizes what's going on, it'll be way late to take your privacy back.
In my world a single entry in an online forum identiofying him as a young earth creationist will eliminate him from the list of candicates for some tasks.
Believe me, I am the last person who will defend a creationist, but: If they can keep their religious views out of the workplace completely, then I don't really care if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or think Santa is real.
Slashdot Mirror
I automatically add "for the Facebooks".
Oh, yeah, forgot about that since I stopped using Failbook a long time ago now: Get rid of your Facebook account, never use it again, and stay off all so-called "social networking". Facebook and all social networking sites are probably the #1 tool the NSA, CIA, FBI, and whoever else in the government is watching, is using to gather data on people's daily lives.
what can the lay person do have a modicum of protection, or at least peace of mind?
In all seriousness? Stop using the Internet entirely. And your phone. And, there are cameras everywhere. "Modicum of protection", you say? That boat sailed a long time ago now, and frankly it's the desire for "protection" and "safety" that got us into this mess in the first place. It may take decades to sort it out. It may in fact be decades too late to do anything about it.
placebo
I've never been made sick or had a headache from CRT's at 60Hz refresh rate, but I do recall being able to notice it was at 60Hz, and increasing it to 75Hz (or preferably 85Hz) then it was fine. Newer car tail lights that are PWM dimmed LEDs, I notice they're PWM, and it can be a big distraction. Some people not only notice but apparently are actually sensitive to it on some level. I do not concur that it's a "placebo effect", it's real, it just doesn't affect you/you don't/can't see it.
..current regulation
Um, no, that would be a bad idea, you're just turning electricity into waste heat that way. What you're proposing is essentially putting a resistor in series with the LEDs. PWM is more energy-efficient and doesn't generate anywhere near as much waste heat, but as I stated above I believe the implementation is lacking.
More and more autos, trucks, and buses are using LED's for taillights/brakelights, and the PWM frequency they use is slow enough that I can notice the strobelight-like effect when the vehicle is moving or I move my eyes. It's very distracting, and I really don't see the reason why they can't raise the frequency enough so it isn't noticable anymore.
Why? Because corporations lie about their intentions. Because corporations are all about profit, not protecting people's rights, and cannot be trusted to be responsible anymore.
Simple.
Blacklist all the ad servers on your router.
Trying to think like someone working for a police state would: If you were observed, you would probably at least get "interviewed" by the police, because they'd think that if you were that much of an exhibitionist, knowing that you were obviously being monitored, that you might expose yourself to children -- and we have to think of the children!
Of course that's why this shit has to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible, so we don't end up going down that road. Or, at least, put off going down that road until I'm dead, after which I won't give a crap, because I'll be dead.
1. Put it back in the box, take it back to the store, exchange it for something with no camera and no microphone.
2. Electrical tape over the camera and/or microphone.
3. Disconnect it from your network when you're not actively using these features for the legitimate purposes you bought them for.
3a. Doesn't work when disconnected from the network/internet? Return it to the store or sell it on Craigslist, get something that doesn't invade your privacy.
I know you're going for the Funny here, but:
In the 1984-esque future that some people would have for us all, you'd be quietly picked up by law enforcement officials some time shortly afterwards, and taken to a hospital for "observation" because of your "deviant behavior", then either committed to a mental institution or a "re-education" facility to "cure" you of the mental illness causing your deviant outbursts. Have to protect the citizens, after all.
1. Don't allow the technology at all. Why does your television or set-top box (video game consoles excluded) need a camera or microphone in it in the first place?
2. Mandatory user-configurable setting to turn off such devices permanently if that's what the consumer wants, or better yet, make such devices separate accessories that physically plug in, so you can physically disconnect them when you're not actively using them.
What if I want to go somewhere there is no infrastructure to power the car? What if I don't want my tax dollars going to the probably trillions of dollars necessary to install this everywhere? What if I don't think it's a good idea to have powered rails carrying hundreds (maybe thousands) of volts along major roads? If there's a glitch somewhere, then everyone on that road is stranded? I could go on. I think this is a really dumb idea. Focus on better, higher-density, longer-lifespan battery technology instead.
This has to be shut down now, and proper protest is what it's going to take.
Good luck getting enough people to listen. They're mostly fat, lazy sheep now, which is just what the NSA, CIA, and who knows who else wanted them to be: easily controlled, and mollified by bread a circuses.
Assuming M$ did go bankrupt, do you think someone would buy up the Windows IP and try to keep it going? Would seem to be an obvious move to make.
electric jet
Wouldn't that actually be an 'electric ducted-fan'?
So long, Microsoft. Wonder who we'll be getting our OS from shortly after you go bankrupt?
Fine.
Just remember this: questions like this have come up before, for real, and they'll come up again, for real, and it may very well happen in a way that doesn't give you a direct opportunity to cast a ballot that says "No, I don't want this". Your only opportunity to say "no" may be pleading with your local congressperson, who probably won't listen to you.
I notice nobody wants to answer the question directly: If the government of your country mandated you be tattooed "for identification purposes" or "for security purposes", are you saying you're OK with that?
I am not religious in the least. I do not even discuss the subject because I do not find it relevant.
Carrying a driver's license or some keyfob that generates a unique encryption code is fine. Attaching something permanently to my body? Fuck no. Did you think I was just typing to hear my keys click? Answer the question: Would you be OK with the government mandating a permanent tattoo or an RFID chip implanted in your body for "identification purposes" or "security purposes"?
I see. So are you declaring that you'd be OK with a state-mandated permanent tattoo on your skin, or an RFID tag surgically implanted in your body? Mandated, as in you submit to it or are imprisoned? That's where this is going, and I and many others are not OK with it.
5. APOCALYPSE. EXTINCTION-LEVEL EVENT.
Fixed that for you.
This public service announcement brought to you by your friends at the Umbrella Corporation
This would be voluntary. That is a pretty big difference.
At first. It would be voluntary at first.
There are many people in power in this world today who would love to be able to tattoo some sort of ID on people from birth, or embed an RFID in their bodies at birth, and so on, so they can be tracked everywhere they go (with greater ease than we already are with goddamn fucking cameras everywhere. NO. JUST. NO.
Yes, I understand the article is talking about something like a henna tattoo or a sticker you wear.. but it would set a dangerous precedent. The line has to be drawn here, no farther!
to ensure that websites which are hosted overseas but report on Singapore news are brought under the licensing framework as well
So politicians in Singapore are just as fucktardedly stupid when it comes to technology as politicians anywhere else in the world? Good luck making that work, Singapore.
Maybe public opinion and government policy will be changed for the better because of it.
That's a pretty big "maybe". Also, you're totally missing the point. Why should people you don't know, or people that you work for/with and are not part of your social circle know everything you do? Would you want people knowing what your sexual habits are like, in detail? No? Or what your bathroom habits are like? No? How about your private thoughts? Would you be OK if someone invented technology that can read your mind at a distance, and you can't stop it? No? These are extreme examples but they illustrate my point: people are being "gentled" into this Age of Surveillance, and by the time the average person really realizes what's going on, it'll be way late to take your privacy back.
In my world a single entry in an online forum identiofying him as a young earth creationist will eliminate him from the list of candicates for some tasks.
Believe me, I am the last person who will defend a creationist, but: If they can keep their religious views out of the workplace completely, then I don't really care if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or think Santa is real.