I'd have to sit down and read through the specs for the protocol, but on the surface these 'advertising packets' make me wonder if there's a way someone can listen in on you even if the device isn't paired to them. If so and coupled with mesh networking, wouldn't you potentially have audio surveillance everywhere there's bluetooth headsets? Has anyone ever audited the firmware in these devices?
Are you, like myself, sick and tired of people and the media-at-large referring to software algorithms as 'artificial intelligence'? It's like everyone saw too many Terminator movies.
Oh, I think there's an 'escape' available: Stop using Microsoft products entirely. Also, Microsoft needs to be brought up on charges for violating anti-hacking laws. Their compiler is, by default, inserting unwanted and malicious code into other people's code. I think that qualifies as 'hacking' under the anti-hacking laws, doesn't it? Where's the indictments against Microsoft for this and all the other malicious things they've been doing?
Oh and by the way are you all going to get on the prosecute-Microsoft-bandwagon, now? Because now they're violating anti-hacking laws by inserting unwanted and malicious spyware into other people's software.
..yeah, how about NO? Please, go to your desert island in the middle of the ocean to play Anarchist, okay? Things are bad enough as it is without people like you playing out your Lord of the Flies fantasies in real life.
Know what else is legal, in most places? Being arrested for vagrancy. So if you're not carrying any cash, credit cards, or debit cards with you, you can be arrested, and if you are carrying cash, debit cards, or credit cards, they can be 'seized' without charges against you, or a warrant, and the burden of proof is on you to prove you're not a criminal? According to the WIkipedia reference, theoretically they can come to your house, that you legally own, and seize it, everything in it, and everything you own, in addition to all your assets, just by asserting that they suspect you might be involved in something criminal. It's clearly an abuse of police powers, it's clearly an abuse of the justice system, and it's clearly an abuse of our legislative system that such a 'law' could be allowed on the books in the first place.
Are you from the U.S.? If not then I'll give you a pass on the 'proving you're innocent' thing. Otherwise: If we actually reach the point where 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't the Law of the Land anymore? Then it's time to straight to the Ammo Box.
I think that nice iPad you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that smartphone you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that laptop computer you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that Rolex watch you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that diamond ring you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that expensive jewelry you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that pizza you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that car you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it. ..yeah, no potential for abuse of police powers here, no sireee.
That's nice, glad they found a way to make it work. However, how do you store the CO2 in the meantime? Are all ICE vehicles supposed to carry a compressor and a giant tank around behind them, or a gigantic balloon or something, to trap all the exhaust gasses? The article doesn't say anything about how you're supposed to get the CO2 from vehicles burning fossil fuels (or anything else burning fossil fuels for that matter) to where they inject it underground.
The problem is, that while we here in the U.S. haven't done a perfect job of managing it, and have done some questionable things, there are many countries out there that, if they started having a say in how the entire internet is operated, would make it much less open place, put more restrictions of free speech, etc, than it is right now. Good things rarely come out of decisions made by committees. I for one don't want to have to think about maybe being arrested and extradited to Thailand because I said something online construed as derogatory to their King, for instance, and while that may sound pretty wild in the current internet climate, who knows what things might end up like if many nations of the world suddenly had a say in how it's operated?
What if I just want a car (or light pickup in my case) that's just a car, and not a rolling amusement park/lifestyle? What if I just want it to be as plain and simple as possible? What if, at the very minimum, I don't want my vehicle 'connected' to anything at all wirelessly, is there an 'Off' switch I can flip to kill all the transceivers? At least a fuse I can pull that will depower it all?
You know what it means when someone says that, don't you, Slashdotters? It means it's just an idea they had, and they have a vague idea how to do it, but none of the details are worked out yet and they don't even have a proof-of-concept yet. It's basically clickbait for investors who have more dollars than sense.
What's with Slashdot super-early adopters? Are you in a big hurry to find out if there's an afterlife?
There's a big difference between being a Luddite (opposed to all new technology) and waiting for new technology to mature for a bit, so they can get the the bugs worked out of it. Something that rolls on the ground? Maybe you can walk away from a catastrophic failure. An oversized quadcopter? You're dead. Tell you what: You can go up in it first, okay?
A decent personal music player, too, and enough control over it to secure the phone from being hacked. Stereo bluetooth. User-replaceable battery. A slot for a microSD card. Wifi access to the internet that I can be sure only ever uses wifi and never the cellphone network, so I don't need a dataplan. That's about what I want out of a phone.
They more or less control it now, but if Internet 2.0 was built completely separate from Internet 1.0, and completely outside of any government control (as unlikely as that would be), then the corporations building it would control it lock stock and barrel. You're all afraid of Internet 1.0 becoming a 'walled garden', courtesy of the ISPs? That's how Internet 2.0 would end up. Instead of World Wide Web, you'd have World Wide AOL.
Even if you managed to build Internet 2.0 without any corporate or government support, governments are too aware of the power of a world-wide data network that anyone can access, and would immediately take steps to exert control over it. In some countries that would go as far as police and/or military action, to secure control of facilities. Even if it was a mesh network of wireless access points, people would have their doors kicked in and arrested; it would essentially be made illegal in some countries, perhaps even regarded as terrorist action.
In my opinion our best bet is to keep fighting to make Internet 1.0 a better place for everyone instead of abandoning it and trying to create Internet 2.0. Besides which, as someone else pointed out, Internet 2.0 can be built on top of Internet 1.0 anyway; the The Onion Routing network is an example of this, as is the so-called 'dark web'.
I'm sure Microsofts wet-dream is to find a way to make all other operating systems illegal to create or operate, either by law or de-facto by no computer being created that allows a non-Microsoft OS to run. We're almost there now, by the way.
I'd like to see any so-called 'AI' get around a double-pole, single-throw power switch being opened.
Save that, I'd like to see any software running on any computer get around having it's plug yanked out of the wall. Or, for that matter, the power cord being cut with a fire axe. Or, if you really want to be dramatic about it: Hose down the racks with a firehose.
All that being said: Come on, people, don't you think some of you are buying into science fantasy movies a little too much? Nobody is creating goddamned Skynet, or even anything you can talk to, or anything that's going to be self-aware enough that it's going to even realize it exists on the level that a human being knows they exist. Please, stop being so over-dramatic, stop buying into media hype, and for fuck's sake will you stop calling it 'artificial intelligence', because it is not.
It won't be the first time that Microsoft has misbehaved on a scale that required some sort of large legal action. An organization like the EFF has enough credibility that if they 'investigate' the situation, find serious problems, and start talking to the right people, they'll be heard and something on an official level will be started. Random tech geeks complaining on an internet discussion forum aren't going to get anything done on their own, especially when 99% of the computer-using public don't even understand the problem when you try to explain it to them, they think they're just getting something that costs hundreds of dollars for free, and since the malware aspects of Windows 10 is silent, they don't even know how they're being taken advantage of with hardware they bought and paid for with their own money.
I was already against the idea of so-called 'self-driving cars' in the first place, but now? Oh, HELL NO, I'd rather walk than ever have to endure any vehicle that has Microsoft anything operating in it.
Listen friend, I've been riding motorcycles as well for decades (for 10 years all I had was a motorcycle; have at least half a million miles I can account for on all 7 of them I've owned, including the current one) and know damned well how dumb some drivers can be, have grown eyes in the back of my head, and naturally expect people in vehicles to damned near try to kill me on purpose -- and it doesn't stop me from riding a motorcycle, or training for road racing on my bike, out on public roads all over the place, or taking it into traffic, etc. I'm just aware of what's going on. Some people here on Slashdot think that people need to not be allowed to drive at all and have a machine do it. I think that's bullshit, I think we need to train drivers better and test them more rigorously and frequently, and I think that average cyclists need to be educated and trained better, too, because I see them all the time also doing dumb things, or assuming that since they're on a bike they don't need to maintain a high level of awareness of their situation at all times.Of course the bike haters and the 'self-driving car' people would have bicycles completely banned from all public roads everywhere, and you'd better believe it's true.
I'm really not an advocate of e-bikes to start with, especially here in the U.S.; too many people are fat and unfit, and they should just pedal a normal bike if they want to ride, they need the exercise! However most e-bikes are the 'pedal assist' variety, which only supply motor power when you're pedaling, not allowing you to use it like a scooter, so at least the e-bike people will still get some exercise. So far as the whole concept of e-bikes goes, I don't really think they'll 'catch on' because they're too expensive. For what one costs you can buy a small used motorcycle or scooter or even a moped, not have to worry about battery charging, and has a full set of lights and signals, better brakes, etc.
It's not safe for you. I and many people I know ride a couple hundred miles a week on public roads for years and years, and surprise, we're still alive, have all our original body parts, and aren't scared little rabbits while we're doing it. By all means, if you find riding on public roads too scary, then please don't ride on them, but I'd prefer you take some classes or go ride with local cycling clubs or groups and get some experience and the confidence that goes with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to sit down and read through the specs for the protocol, but on the surface these 'advertising packets' make me wonder if there's a way someone can listen in on you even if the device isn't paired to them. If so and coupled with mesh networking, wouldn't you potentially have audio surveillance everywhere there's bluetooth headsets? Has anyone ever audited the firmware in these devices?
Are you, like myself, sick and tired of people and the media-at-large referring to software algorithms as 'artificial intelligence'? It's like everyone saw too many Terminator movies.
Oh, I think there's an 'escape' available: Stop using Microsoft products entirely. Also, Microsoft needs to be brought up on charges for violating anti-hacking laws. Their compiler is, by default, inserting unwanted and malicious code into other people's code. I think that qualifies as 'hacking' under the anti-hacking laws, doesn't it? Where's the indictments against Microsoft for this and all the other malicious things they've been doing?
Considering that Microsoft's own compiler is inserting spyware into people's code by default, I'd say this is a smart move on the part of Mozilla.
Oh and by the way are you all going to get on the prosecute-Microsoft-bandwagon, now? Because now they're violating anti-hacking laws by inserting unwanted and malicious spyware into other people's software.
..yeah, how about NO? Please, go to your desert island in the middle of the ocean to play Anarchist, okay? Things are bad enough as it is without people like you playing out your Lord of the Flies fantasies in real life.
Know what else is legal, in most places? Being arrested for vagrancy. So if you're not carrying any cash, credit cards, or debit cards with you, you can be arrested, and if you are carrying cash, debit cards, or credit cards, they can be 'seized' without charges against you, or a warrant, and the burden of proof is on you to prove you're not a criminal? According to the WIkipedia reference, theoretically they can come to your house, that you legally own, and seize it, everything in it, and everything you own, in addition to all your assets, just by asserting that they suspect you might be involved in something criminal. It's clearly an abuse of police powers, it's clearly an abuse of the justice system, and it's clearly an abuse of our legislative system that such a 'law' could be allowed on the books in the first place.
Are you from the U.S.? If not then I'll give you a pass on the 'proving you're innocent' thing. Otherwise: If we actually reach the point where 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't the Law of the Land anymore? Then it's time to straight to the Ammo Box.
I think that nice iPad you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
..yeah, no potential for abuse of police powers here, no sireee.
I think that smartphone you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that laptop computer you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that Rolex watch you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that diamond ring you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that expensive jewelry you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that pizza you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
I think that car you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
That's nice, glad they found a way to make it work. However, how do you store the CO2 in the meantime? Are all ICE vehicles supposed to carry a compressor and a giant tank around behind them, or a gigantic balloon or something, to trap all the exhaust gasses? The article doesn't say anything about how you're supposed to get the CO2 from vehicles burning fossil fuels (or anything else burning fossil fuels for that matter) to where they inject it underground.
You are now trolling everyone with every comment and deserve to be moderated as such.
..says the guy posting as Anonymous Coward. Uh-huh, I see what you did there..
Does it have a predilection for jumping into boxes too small to contain it? xD
The problem is, that while we here in the U.S. haven't done a perfect job of managing it, and have done some questionable things, there are many countries out there that, if they started having a say in how the entire internet is operated, would make it much less open place, put more restrictions of free speech, etc, than it is right now. Good things rarely come out of decisions made by committees. I for one don't want to have to think about maybe being arrested and extradited to Thailand because I said something online construed as derogatory to their King, for instance, and while that may sound pretty wild in the current internet climate, who knows what things might end up like if many nations of the world suddenly had a say in how it's operated?
What if I just want a car (or light pickup in my case) that's just a car, and not a rolling amusement park/lifestyle? What if I just want it to be as plain and simple as possible? What if, at the very minimum, I don't want my vehicle 'connected' to anything at all wirelessly, is there an 'Off' switch I can flip to kill all the transceivers? At least a fuse I can pull that will depower it all?
You know what it means when someone says that, don't you, Slashdotters? It means it's just an idea they had, and they have a vague idea how to do it, but none of the details are worked out yet and they don't even have a proof-of-concept yet. It's basically clickbait for investors who have more dollars than sense.
What's with Slashdot super-early adopters? Are you in a big hurry to find out if there's an afterlife?
There's a big difference between being a Luddite (opposed to all new technology) and waiting for new technology to mature for a bit, so they can get the the bugs worked out of it. Something that rolls on the ground? Maybe you can walk away from a catastrophic failure. An oversized quadcopter? You're dead. Tell you what: You can go up in it first, okay?
A decent personal music player, too, and enough control over it to secure the phone from being hacked. Stereo bluetooth. User-replaceable battery. A slot for a microSD card. Wifi access to the internet that I can be sure only ever uses wifi and never the cellphone network, so I don't need a dataplan. That's about what I want out of a phone.
They more or less control it now, but if Internet 2.0 was built completely separate from Internet 1.0, and completely outside of any government control (as unlikely as that would be), then the corporations building it would control it lock stock and barrel. You're all afraid of Internet 1.0 becoming a 'walled garden', courtesy of the ISPs? That's how Internet 2.0 would end up. Instead of World Wide Web, you'd have World Wide AOL.
Even if you managed to build Internet 2.0 without any corporate or government support, governments are too aware of the power of a world-wide data network that anyone can access, and would immediately take steps to exert control over it. In some countries that would go as far as police and/or military action, to secure control of facilities. Even if it was a mesh network of wireless access points, people would have their doors kicked in and arrested; it would essentially be made illegal in some countries, perhaps even regarded as terrorist action.
In my opinion our best bet is to keep fighting to make Internet 1.0 a better place for everyone instead of abandoning it and trying to create Internet 2.0. Besides which, as someone else pointed out, Internet 2.0 can be built on top of Internet 1.0 anyway; the The Onion Routing network is an example of this, as is the so-called 'dark web'.
9) (Future) The human race has to survive all the shenanigans, nonsense, and utter bullshit it keeps inflicting on itself.
I'm sure Microsofts wet-dream is to find a way to make all other operating systems illegal to create or operate, either by law or de-facto by no computer being created that allows a non-Microsoft OS to run. We're almost there now, by the way.
I'd like to see any so-called 'AI' get around a double-pole, single-throw power switch being opened.
Save that, I'd like to see any software running on any computer get around having it's plug yanked out of the wall. Or, for that matter, the power cord being cut with a fire axe. Or, if you really want to be dramatic about it: Hose down the racks with a firehose.
All that being said: Come on, people, don't you think some of you are buying into science fantasy movies a little too much? Nobody is creating goddamned Skynet, or even anything you can talk to, or anything that's going to be self-aware enough that it's going to even realize it exists on the level that a human being knows they exist. Please, stop being so over-dramatic, stop buying into media hype, and for fuck's sake will you stop calling it 'artificial intelligence', because it is not.
It won't be the first time that Microsoft has misbehaved on a scale that required some sort of large legal action. An organization like the EFF has enough credibility that if they 'investigate' the situation, find serious problems, and start talking to the right people, they'll be heard and something on an official level will be started. Random tech geeks complaining on an internet discussion forum aren't going to get anything done on their own, especially when 99% of the computer-using public don't even understand the problem when you try to explain it to them, they think they're just getting something that costs hundreds of dollars for free, and since the malware aspects of Windows 10 is silent, they don't even know how they're being taken advantage of with hardware they bought and paid for with their own money.
I was already against the idea of so-called 'self-driving cars' in the first place, but now? Oh, HELL NO, I'd rather walk than ever have to endure any vehicle that has Microsoft anything operating in it.
Listen friend, I've been riding motorcycles as well for decades (for 10 years all I had was a motorcycle; have at least half a million miles I can account for on all 7 of them I've owned, including the current one) and know damned well how dumb some drivers can be, have grown eyes in the back of my head, and naturally expect people in vehicles to damned near try to kill me on purpose -- and it doesn't stop me from riding a motorcycle, or training for road racing on my bike, out on public roads all over the place, or taking it into traffic, etc. I'm just aware of what's going on. Some people here on Slashdot think that people need to not be allowed to drive at all and have a machine do it. I think that's bullshit, I think we need to train drivers better and test them more rigorously and frequently, and I think that average cyclists need to be educated and trained better, too, because I see them all the time also doing dumb things, or assuming that since they're on a bike they don't need to maintain a high level of awareness of their situation at all times.Of course the bike haters and the 'self-driving car' people would have bicycles completely banned from all public roads everywhere, and you'd better believe it's true.
I'm really not an advocate of e-bikes to start with, especially here in the U.S.; too many people are fat and unfit, and they should just pedal a normal bike if they want to ride, they need the exercise! However most e-bikes are the 'pedal assist' variety, which only supply motor power when you're pedaling, not allowing you to use it like a scooter, so at least the e-bike people will still get some exercise. So far as the whole concept of e-bikes goes, I don't really think they'll 'catch on' because they're too expensive. For what one costs you can buy a small used motorcycle or scooter or even a moped, not have to worry about battery charging, and has a full set of lights and signals, better brakes, etc.
It's not safe for you. I and many people I know ride a couple hundred miles a week on public roads for years and years, and surprise, we're still alive, have all our original body parts, and aren't scared little rabbits while we're doing it. By all means, if you find riding on public roads too scary, then please don't ride on them, but I'd prefer you take some classes or go ride with local cycling clubs or groups and get some experience and the confidence that goes with it.