so when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?
If surveillance of the bad guys involves widespread surveillance of innocent people as a side-effect, then yes, they should be off limits.
This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets?
Using the wide variety of techniques that have been used before these things existed.
Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused
There is no "might". History (even just US history) shows us, time and time again, that surveillance powers will always end up being abused -- and usually on a fairly wide scale. There is nothing different now that changes that.
most people doing "Agile" aren't really doing Agile......they're doing more of an iterative-waterfall with the overhead of certain Agile processes.
I always hear this from Agile proponents, and maybe it's true. All I know is that I've worked at four places that use Agile (three of them had been using it for a long enough time that they aren't new at it), and in all four of those it has made development a living hell, delayed production, and reduced the quality of the end product. It amplifies the fear factor, not reduces it.
The place I work for now is in the process of adopting Agile, and so far it's going about as well as I've experienced before. In fact, it's inspired me to move on to a different company.
There lots of things people use their smartphones for that only require a quick glance. They are the kinds of things a smartwatch is suited for.
Most of the things I glance at my phone for (calendar, maps, shopping lists, etc.) are things that require a larger display size than a watch has. There are a few that would work, but I can't think of enough of them that would justify the hassle and expense of the watch.
I wouldn't be surprised that they will wind up a status symbol.
I would. Apple's cache as a status brand is falling fast as near as I can tell (judging by the increasing number of people I encounter who seem embarrassed by their use of an iPhone.)
We all learned our lesson with the moving target which was HD initially, that left early adopters with TVs which were no longer allowed to display HD due to HDCP/HDMI.
Meh. I still have exactly zero interest in HD. It's just not compelling enough to affect my purchasing decisions at all, except insofar as I really try hard to avoid anything that is tied to HDCP/HDMI.
I think the watch form factor fails at this. It's still effectively "carrying" yet another device, and it's not that much more convenient than a phone.
Not until the health/life insurance companies start offering incentives to wear and heed a smartwatch's fitness advice.
My work-provided health insurance currently does this, reducing premiums for people who use such devices and provide the collected data to them. Nonetheless, that's not nearly enough incentive for me to go along with it.
I don't wear a watch and don't want to. When I try to think of some application that would overcome my aversion to watch-wearing, I can't really think of any at all: everything I'd want to do with it would be equally (or more) convenient by using my phone directly.
That said, here's what a watch would have to be for me to even begin to consider it: small and lightweight, look "normal" (not like a smartwatch), and the ability to effectively interact with me without me having to raise my arm or look at it. It should rely on my phone/tablet/laptop for communications and storage (no direct connection to the internet at all).
It's evil because it's incredibly dangerous -- even worse than tailgating.. Motorcycles are hard to see to begin with. Having them dart out from nowhere and eliminate the buffer space around my car is a recipe for disaster. I don't want to be the driver who accidentally injures or kills a motorcyclist because he got too close to me.
I agree with you, at least for the near to mid future. I know that I personally have no desire for a self-driving car. It would be gee-whiz cool for a while, sure, but I'd very quickly want to drive my own car again. There are just too many situations where I want the car to be in a very specific place, and it would just be easier to put it there myself rather than try to explain it to a machine. I suspect a large majority of people feel the same.
But in a couple of decades that could very well change.
15 years after driverless cars are released your going to have a whole generation of people who never learned to drive a car.
We are well on our way there already in some places, no driverless car needed. My daughter is 20-something, and she as well as about 25% of her friends don't know how to drive and have no interest in learning. The percentage of people who have no interest in driving is even higher in the 16-20 year old bracket.
I have to admit, I've never understood this fetishism for boot times. Boot times stopped being unreasonably long years ago. Why do people still care about modest improvements in speed to something that doesn't happen that often?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but that's not today. And if that day ever comes, there are other ways of dealing with the issue. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
If this is such a large worry for you then carry a "In case emergency, contact..." card, bracelet, necklace, etc.
so when US adversaries (and lets just caveat this by saying people YOU, personally, agree are legitimate US adversaries) don't use their own "codes", but instead share the same systems, networks, services, devices, cloud providers, operating systems, encryption schemes, and so on, that Americans and much of the rest of the world uses, would you suggest that they should be off limits?
If surveillance of the bad guys involves widespread surveillance of innocent people as a side-effect, then yes, they should be off limits.
This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets?
Using the wide variety of techniques that have been used before these things existed.
Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused
There is no "might". History (even just US history) shows us, time and time again, that surveillance powers will always end up being abused -- and usually on a fairly wide scale. There is nothing different now that changes that.
It's a bit of a stretch to call Apple "an American company". It's a multinational company that has no special allegiance to the US.
I am happily surprised to see Apple doing something good for once!
Now, if only we could get rid of the rest of the company.
I will guard my privacy just as I already do: by physically disabling the GPS and communications systems in the car.
most people doing "Agile" aren't really doing Agile......they're doing more of an iterative-waterfall with the overhead of certain Agile processes.
I always hear this from Agile proponents, and maybe it's true. All I know is that I've worked at four places that use Agile (three of them had been using it for a long enough time that they aren't new at it), and in all four of those it has made development a living hell, delayed production, and reduced the quality of the end product. It amplifies the fear factor, not reduces it.
The place I work for now is in the process of adopting Agile, and so far it's going about as well as I've experienced before. In fact, it's inspired me to move on to a different company.
There isn't one now, either.
There lots of things people use their smartphones for that only require a quick glance. They are the kinds of things a smartwatch is suited for.
Most of the things I glance at my phone for (calendar, maps, shopping lists, etc.) are things that require a larger display size than a watch has. There are a few that would work, but I can't think of enough of them that would justify the hassle and expense of the watch.
You can still get phones that aren't very large. Personally, I much prefer the larger-sized phones.
I wouldn't be surprised that they will wind up a status symbol.
I would. Apple's cache as a status brand is falling fast as near as I can tell (judging by the increasing number of people I encounter who seem embarrassed by their use of an iPhone.)
We all learned our lesson with the moving target which was HD initially, that left early adopters with TVs which were no longer allowed to display HD due to HDCP/HDMI.
Meh. I still have exactly zero interest in HD. It's just not compelling enough to affect my purchasing decisions at all, except insofar as I really try hard to avoid anything that is tied to HDCP/HDMI.
I think the watch form factor fails at this. It's still effectively "carrying" yet another device, and it's not that much more convenient than a phone.
Not until the health/life insurance companies start offering incentives to wear and heed a smartwatch's fitness advice.
My work-provided health insurance currently does this, reducing premiums for people who use such devices and provide the collected data to them. Nonetheless, that's not nearly enough incentive for me to go along with it.
I don't wear a watch and don't want to. When I try to think of some application that would overcome my aversion to watch-wearing, I can't really think of any at all: everything I'd want to do with it would be equally (or more) convenient by using my phone directly.
That said, here's what a watch would have to be for me to even begin to consider it: small and lightweight, look "normal" (not like a smartwatch), and the ability to effectively interact with me without me having to raise my arm or look at it. It should rely on my phone/tablet/laptop for communications and storage (no direct connection to the internet at all).
People actually use the Windows Store? Wow.
It's evil because it's incredibly dangerous -- even worse than tailgating.. Motorcycles are hard to see to begin with. Having them dart out from nowhere and eliminate the buffer space around my car is a recipe for disaster. I don't want to be the driver who accidentally injures or kills a motorcyclist because he got too close to me.
Legal or not, lane-splitting is just downright evil.
The reason is public transport sucks and the blocks are too large to make walking a viable option.
That's the case where we live as well.
If I lived somewhere where a car wasn't necessary I would still be pushing my kids HARD to get their license asap.
I tried, but I can't actually force her.
I agree with you, at least for the near to mid future. I know that I personally have no desire for a self-driving car. It would be gee-whiz cool for a while, sure, but I'd very quickly want to drive my own car again. There are just too many situations where I want the car to be in a very specific place, and it would just be easier to put it there myself rather than try to explain it to a machine. I suspect a large majority of people feel the same.
But in a couple of decades that could very well change.
15 years after driverless cars are released your going to have a whole generation of people who never learned to drive a car.
We are well on our way there already in some places, no driverless car needed. My daughter is 20-something, and she as well as about 25% of her friends don't know how to drive and have no interest in learning. The percentage of people who have no interest in driving is even higher in the 16-20 year old bracket.
Sortof. But even if this were 100% true, it still doesn't solve the problem that systemd is present.
That sounds like a truly excellent reason to stop using Gnome.
I have to admit, I've never understood this fetishism for boot times. Boot times stopped being unreasonably long years ago. Why do people still care about modest improvements in speed to something that doesn't happen that often?