And it always will. The purpose of the encryption is to allow remote-wipe (and even local-wipe, I suppose) to be nearly instantaneous. Wipe the key, and the data is unreadable, as opposed to having to spend time wiping the entire contents of the flash memory.
The encryption isn't meant to be used day-to-day. It's meant to be transparent until you need to destroy your data.
Over the years, we as a society have become very good at dismantling civil unrest. I don't think a civil war or revolution would be successful.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
We are told that all life would be destroyed if the island sinks,
I don't remember that specifically. I remember two things.
1) If the light goes out on the island, it goes out everywhere (shown to be exaggerated, if not simply untrue.)
2) If the monster gets off the island, it's all over for everyone (not demonstrated, but then the "monster" seemed to become human once the light went out.)
But it is discouraging for them to have the "limbo" timeline, which while apparently totally fake, has a sunken island with the rest of the world humming along cheerily. Does this mean the island WAS meaningless all along, other than having some nifty supernatural puddle?
Well the world in which the island had sunk was apparently not in any way real, so certain rules of the real world may not have applied. This could have been a very clever deceit on the part of the writers, or it could simply be that they didn't know that they were going to make the alternate timeline into purgatory at the time that they decided to show the sunken island.
FWIW I've seen the proof-of-concept sites that supposedly bring up every site you've ever visited, and using the system is very hit-or-miss. I have no Facebook account, for example, but the site came up, presumably because at some point in the past I clicked on a link that turned out to be a FB profile.
That's not a miss, then, is it? You visited Facebook. It doesn't make the technique invalid in the slightest.
Even banks might be more awkward than it appears: numerous banks and credit card companies appeared on my list of visited links, despite me not recalling ever visiting them, until I remembered that I'd done some research into getting a new card a year or so ago.
The bottom line is that a site that uses such a system to determine the phishing sites to pick will more likely than not create numerous fake "You have been logged out" pages for sites you never logged into, and you know you never logged into.
And lucky you, you won't be fooled. But if enough people are fooled, then the exploit is successful.
Kinda like me. Every once in a while, I come across a page which tells me it's scanning for viruses. It looks just like a regular Windows XP themed window--except that I'm using Linux. But I don't go around saying how stupid or foolish the author was, or that the hack obviously doesn't work.
Re:So, my only question regarding Lost is
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Midichlorians!
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Well Jacob's mother said that if the light went out, it would go out everywhere (and that there is a little bit of the light inside everyone.) But absent any evidence to support that (and evidence to the contrary--people didn't start dying left and right when the light was put out) I'm inclined to think that was superstition. Anything Jacob thought or knew about the light would have come from his mother. He may have believed that he was acting in the best interest of the world, but we saw what happened when the light went out. Immortals became mortal and the island started to sink.
Hell, the mother could have known full well that the light was what allowed her to be/grant immortality, and that could have been her motivation for protecting it. But that's not the interpretation I choose to go with.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
You're right. Ilana was the one who said that he was stuck. It was such a throwaway moment that I'm inclined to think that the writers were telling the audience that, rather than the characters talking to each other. That, and if Michael (or anyone else) were meant to be Smokey, the writers probably would have revealed it somehow.
By this point in the series, people being someone other than they seem would have to be made clear for there to be any semblance of plot continuity and purpose of writing.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Inasmuch as you can trust anything that was said during the course of the show, Smokey-as-Locke indicated that he was trapped in Locke's form. He was clearly able to turn into smoke again, but we're not given any indication that he can take the form of others anymore.
Who is the "they" that didn't appear on the island?
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps it was more "limbo." A place to wait until you're ready to move on. Some people weren't ready (Ana Lucia) and some never will be (Michael, who doesn't even get to go to Limbo.)
That said, I think the end of the world is vastly overstated. Though they outright said that the world would end if Smokey got off of the island, I think that was just a means of control to get the survivors to play Jacob's little game. Smokey apparently had to snuff out the light in order to leave. To get to the light, he had to find someone capable of withstanding the radiation and get past Jacob, since Jacob knows that snuffing out the light will cause the island to sink.
Only once the light is snuffed out, Smokey's just a regular mortal again. He's not some monster who is going to ravage the world. There is no indication that the rest of the world is in danger. That means that a really big portion of the show was essentially pointless. Why should we care if this island sinks, when we don't know why it's important? To me, Jacob was the bad guy, keeping Smokey chained to the Island for apparently no good reason.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
"why the black cloud killed who it did and left others": The smoke monster was blocked from killing any of the "candidates" by Jacob. We don't know exactly how Jacob's magic worked, but that's why the smoke monster couldn't kill Jack, Sawyer, Hurley, etc. Anyone else he let live was incidental.
The guardian of the island apparently gets to set some rules, much like the rules that the Boy in Black set when he found the board game on the island. The whole series was a game between Jacob and the Man in Black. Though Jacob died, the Man in Black lost.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Halfway through this season, Hurley met his ghost. Michael said that he couldn't move on because of what he did.
Moving on was a pretty big theme this season. I think it's because the writers knew they were going to piss people off. It was a subtle way of telling their audience that it's time to move on.
As others have pointed out, they stay blue for a really long time in two-player mode. Also, I somehow got the ghosts to go in a loop where they wouldn't ever find me. Granted, I was staying in one place the entire time.
Because actions and conversations are, you know, different things.
The biggest difference--and I suspect the one which comes into play--is field of observance. In order to record a conversation in public, you usually need to be fairly close to a person or have sophisticated equipment. In order to record a video of a person's actions, you could be fairly far away. Normal recordings of scenery could well capture a large number of people's actions. Video in any public place would effectively be illegal if you couldn't record video.
The laws (are supposed to) reflect the needs and wants of the people. We don't necessarily need/want the power to move about the streets unrecorded, but do reserve the right to have conversations with an expectation of privacy. Otherwise, we'd all wind up retreating to 'privacy zones' in order to discuss anything.
Well, on any given issue, there's going to be a minority who disagree on what ultimately becomes law. That minority may be quite large. Consider the debate on public health care. In fact, without a referendum, it's actually pretty hard to gauge the wants of the people, because politicians are pretty good on focusing on and promoting particular, controversial issues on which they are fairly sure that they can get votes.
I don't think it's clear at all that the laws here reflect the will of the people in this case, since it's not a hot-button issue.
Think for a moment about attorney-client privilege. It doesn't make any sense. Why can't the cops just listen in on and/or record the defense's planning sessions?
However it is perfectly consistent with most of the rest of the laws. Police can't listen to private conversations in general unless they believe a crime is about to be committed and they can convince a judge of that.
Maybe to hold them to the same standards to which any person would be held. I can't just give the police a copy of my hard drive if they have evidence that I've committed a crime--they'll take the whole drive.
If corporations want to be people, we need to treat them like people. My life would be severely impacted by the loss of my computing equipment--why do they get special treatment? Hell, it probably wouldn't even be a significant burden unless all of their equipment was seized (which, incidentally, is what would happen to your average person.)
The below is my understanding of the law in Texas, and does not constitute legal advice.
In Texas, it's actually illegal to record a conversation unless at least one of the parties of the conversation knows that they are being recorded. It doesn't matter if the recording is over a wire or in person.
It is legal, however, to record images of a person in public except under different circumstances generally involving recordings of crotches and breasts.
So to me, this presents something of an inconsistent legal sphere. Why are public conversations protected, while public actions are not? Given this inconsistent interpretation, I can quite easily see Google's actions being of questionable legality in Texas.
The article shows that a per-site setting (page zoom) persists between incognito sessions. That's all. No mention or even speculation that Google is storing that information on their servers.
That said, Incognito was never meant to be private browsing from Google. Your search queries still get send to your search provider (imagine that!) and auto-suggest will still work. What Incognito mode is for is to prevent your wife/brother/sister/boss from seeing the sites you use. This has been discussed to death already.
Slashdot Mirror
And it always will. The purpose of the encryption is to allow remote-wipe (and even local-wipe, I suppose) to be nearly instantaneous. Wipe the key, and the data is unreadable, as opposed to having to spend time wiping the entire contents of the flash memory.
The encryption isn't meant to be used day-to-day. It's meant to be transparent until you need to destroy your data.
All who? Any citation on large numbers of SSDs failing between 1 and 2 years?
Over the years, we as a society have become very good at dismantling civil unrest. I don't think a civil war or revolution would be successful.
We are told that all life would be destroyed if the island sinks,
I don't remember that specifically. I remember two things.
1) If the light goes out on the island, it goes out everywhere (shown to be exaggerated, if not simply untrue.)
2) If the monster gets off the island, it's all over for everyone (not demonstrated, but then the "monster" seemed to become human once the light went out.)
But it is discouraging for them to have the "limbo" timeline, which while apparently totally fake, has a sunken island with the rest of the world humming along cheerily. Does this mean the island WAS meaningless all along, other than having some nifty supernatural puddle?
Well the world in which the island had sunk was apparently not in any way real, so certain rules of the real world may not have applied. This could have been a very clever deceit on the part of the writers, or it could simply be that they didn't know that they were going to make the alternate timeline into purgatory at the time that they decided to show the sunken island.
That's really the wrong thing to do, though. If I copy something, I expect what I've highlighted to be in the clipboard.
And then it includes content that he didn't write!
FWIW I've seen the proof-of-concept sites that supposedly bring up every site you've ever visited, and using the system is very hit-or-miss. I have no Facebook account, for example, but the site came up, presumably because at some point in the past I clicked on a link that turned out to be a FB profile.
That's not a miss, then, is it? You visited Facebook. It doesn't make the technique invalid in the slightest.
Even banks might be more awkward than it appears: numerous banks and credit card companies appeared on my list of visited links, despite me not recalling ever visiting them, until I remembered that I'd done some research into getting a new card a year or so ago.
The bottom line is that a site that uses such a system to determine the phishing sites to pick will more likely than not create numerous fake "You have been logged out" pages for sites you never logged into, and you know you never logged into.
And lucky you, you won't be fooled. But if enough people are fooled, then the exploit is successful.
Kinda like me. Every once in a while, I come across a page which tells me it's scanning for viruses. It looks just like a regular Windows XP themed window--except that I'm using Linux. But I don't go around saying how stupid or foolish the author was, or that the hack obviously doesn't work.
Midichlorians!
Well Jacob's mother said that if the light went out, it would go out everywhere (and that there is a little bit of the light inside everyone.) But absent any evidence to support that (and evidence to the contrary--people didn't start dying left and right when the light was put out) I'm inclined to think that was superstition. Anything Jacob thought or knew about the light would have come from his mother. He may have believed that he was acting in the best interest of the world, but we saw what happened when the light went out. Immortals became mortal and the island started to sink.
Hell, the mother could have known full well that the light was what allowed her to be/grant immortality, and that could have been her motivation for protecting it. But that's not the interpretation I choose to go with.
You're right. Ilana was the one who said that he was stuck. It was such a throwaway moment that I'm inclined to think that the writers were telling the audience that, rather than the characters talking to each other. That, and if Michael (or anyone else) were meant to be Smokey, the writers probably would have revealed it somehow.
By this point in the series, people being someone other than they seem would have to be made clear for there to be any semblance of plot continuity and purpose of writing.
Inasmuch as you can trust anything that was said during the course of the show, Smokey-as-Locke indicated that he was trapped in Locke's form. He was clearly able to turn into smoke again, but we're not given any indication that he can take the form of others anymore.
Who is the "they" that didn't appear on the island?
Perhaps it was more "limbo." A place to wait until you're ready to move on. Some people weren't ready (Ana Lucia) and some never will be (Michael, who doesn't even get to go to Limbo.)
That said, I think the end of the world is vastly overstated. Though they outright said that the world would end if Smokey got off of the island, I think that was just a means of control to get the survivors to play Jacob's little game. Smokey apparently had to snuff out the light in order to leave. To get to the light, he had to find someone capable of withstanding the radiation and get past Jacob, since Jacob knows that snuffing out the light will cause the island to sink.
Only once the light is snuffed out, Smokey's just a regular mortal again. He's not some monster who is going to ravage the world. There is no indication that the rest of the world is in danger. That means that a really big portion of the show was essentially pointless. Why should we care if this island sinks, when we don't know why it's important? To me, Jacob was the bad guy, keeping Smokey chained to the Island for apparently no good reason.
"why the black cloud killed who it did and left others": The smoke monster was blocked from killing any of the "candidates" by Jacob. We don't know exactly how Jacob's magic worked, but that's why the smoke monster couldn't kill Jack, Sawyer, Hurley, etc. Anyone else he let live was incidental.
The guardian of the island apparently gets to set some rules, much like the rules that the Boy in Black set when he found the board game on the island. The whole series was a game between Jacob and the Man in Black. Though Jacob died, the Man in Black lost.
Halfway through this season, Hurley met his ghost. Michael said that he couldn't move on because of what he did.
Moving on was a pretty big theme this season. I think it's because the writers knew they were going to piss people off. It was a subtle way of telling their audience that it's time to move on.
As others have pointed out, they stay blue for a really long time in two-player mode. Also, I somehow got the ghosts to go in a loop where they wouldn't ever find me. Granted, I was staying in one place the entire time.
I just keep a pair of headphones plugged in at all times. If I want to listen to something, I put them on.
Because actions and conversations are, you know, different things.
The biggest difference--and I suspect the one which comes into play--is field of observance. In order to record a conversation in public, you usually need to be fairly close to a person or have sophisticated equipment. In order to record a video of a person's actions, you could be fairly far away. Normal recordings of scenery could well capture a large number of people's actions. Video in any public place would effectively be illegal if you couldn't record video.
The laws (are supposed to) reflect the needs and wants of the people. We don't necessarily need/want the power to move about the streets unrecorded, but do reserve the right to have conversations with an expectation of privacy. Otherwise, we'd all wind up retreating to 'privacy zones' in order to discuss anything.
Well, on any given issue, there's going to be a minority who disagree on what ultimately becomes law. That minority may be quite large. Consider the debate on public health care. In fact, without a referendum, it's actually pretty hard to gauge the wants of the people, because politicians are pretty good on focusing on and promoting particular, controversial issues on which they are fairly sure that they can get votes.
I don't think it's clear at all that the laws here reflect the will of the people in this case, since it's not a hot-button issue.
Think for a moment about attorney-client privilege. It doesn't make any sense. Why can't the cops just listen in on and/or record the defense's planning sessions?
However it is perfectly consistent with most of the rest of the laws. Police can't listen to private conversations in general unless they believe a crime is about to be committed and they can convince a judge of that.
Your entire post presupposed that any form of capturing is illegal. That's absurd, and I think you know it.
Maybe to hold them to the same standards to which any person would be held. I can't just give the police a copy of my hard drive if they have evidence that I've committed a crime--they'll take the whole drive.
If corporations want to be people, we need to treat them like people. My life would be severely impacted by the loss of my computing equipment--why do they get special treatment? Hell, it probably wouldn't even be a significant burden unless all of their equipment was seized (which, incidentally, is what would happen to your average person.)
Receive? Yes. Record? Not necessarily.
The below is my understanding of the law in Texas, and does not constitute legal advice.
In Texas, it's actually illegal to record a conversation unless at least one of the parties of the conversation knows that they are being recorded. It doesn't matter if the recording is over a wire or in person.
It is legal, however, to record images of a person in public except under different circumstances generally involving recordings of crotches and breasts.
So to me, this presents something of an inconsistent legal sphere. Why are public conversations protected, while public actions are not? Given this inconsistent interpretation, I can quite easily see Google's actions being of questionable legality in Texas.
The article shows that a per-site setting (page zoom) persists between incognito sessions. That's all. No mention or even speculation that Google is storing that information on their servers.
That said, Incognito was never meant to be private browsing from Google. Your search queries still get send to your search provider (imagine that!) and auto-suggest will still work. What Incognito mode is for is to prevent your wife/brother/sister/boss from seeing the sites you use. This has been discussed to death already.
I think that Gizmodo knew it was Apple's. I was just pointing out how completely pointless and pedantic the grandparent poster was being.
I doubt that 100% sure is the legal requirement.
Good example of a fake with an Apple logo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_TZfpEvzrQ#t=0m25s