It still doesn't get to the heart of the matter. How do we image under somebody's clothing without a warrant and not violate the Fourth Amendment? Metal detectors are "passive" whereas an imaging technique - no matter how it's transformed (cartoons, stick figures, freaky mirrors, etc...) are still actively gathering data where previously it was considered unreasonable without probable cause or a search warrant (which requires a different sort of probable cause).
If this progresses and people allow it to become reasonable (electronic strip search without a warrant, probable cause, or any other reason whatsoever) we have traded freedom for security. Furthermore, the first Ten are generally considered inalienable - rights we have simply by being human and alive. As such, they are not rights which we can wave, surrender, or legislate away - they may only be violated. The trick is what is considered reasonable - and any change in that definition which takes power away from the people should be gravely thought out if not completely rejected. The consequences are likely to last centuries (however, past performance is not a guarantee of future success).
I know many people who still keep a cord phone back in a closet for such a purpose. It was more common when I lived in less population dense areas and a power outage typically lasted a few days to a couple of weeks depending on the event and their location in the grid.
What about when the power is out? How do you get the number to call hot food service X? or gym Y across town to see if they have power and hot showers? What if it's an extended outage and you are calling to see if grocery store Z is open (with or without power) to replenish your staples (food not brads)?
Not only do the companies save money by not printing, but they make money every time you would have used the resource they are no longer providing when you call information.
Information is definitely not imaginary. People walk around synthesizing extremely complex molecules based on an information storage and expression system (DNA, translation, & etc...). Logic gates have measurable states, computer storage media have observable information, and Schrodinger's bloody cat dies (or not) when you look at it you insensitive gorgon! Heck, even imaginary numbers aren't imaginary - they can have some extremely profound effects in the physical world (blow up anything recently with an un-dampened oscillation from a controller's set point).
Information can even be owned (I can write something down right now on using my pen on my paper and I own it; completely). The catch is that information can not be shared between humans without copying. The fidelity of that copy depends on the sharing mechanism and efficiency of the recording medium. If one hears a song on the radio it's stored in the mind, most will have an average recall but a musical expert or savant may be able to sit down at an instrument and give a very accurate rendition after a single listen. Every observation of information propagates a copy of that information with the observer. Information, as a real, physical, and non-imaginary construct, is also subject to the second law and thus tends to undergo decay. All of the above still goes for computer media - generally with much higher fidelity copying, to utilize information it must be shared (copied) between long term storage, caches, transmission, processors, displays, and to the user.
Except that the group of people you call "isheep" do a lot of purchasing. Economics are going to drive this, and the economics (influenced by marketing) suggest that the consumer is very much ok with proprietary systems, DRM (of varying degree), and other things which really lock them into the first company's system. You could make a decent argument that the greatest threat to the internet isn't the total volume controlled, but rather the degree of success had at preventing or obfuscating open standards. I'm not talking about open or closed source - but the ability to buy interchangeable cords to jack in with, or transfer the data you purchased from company A to a device made by company B at a later point in time. If you don't have that, you don't have the option of jumping ship with your assets - and that is a serious threat indeed.
You know - the candy sector hasn't seemed to really get behind apple nougat - something about price I believe. But I bet if you got the right marketing behind it, apple nougat could go viral.
You can have both at the same time. The FDA has specified monographs and if you perform a process outside of that monograph you're violating the law (unless you've gotten your innovative new drug license, etc...)
Or elite gated communities which house the corporate headquarters of multi-national banks such that they avoid paying any taxes what so ever? And I'm sure many very rich people like the idea of retiring to a small personal island in the south pacific - now they can have it built to order.
If it's about giving someone the money to fix the problem, then all you have to do is follow the slurs to find the money.
...security gaps left open by legacy technologies like firewalls, anti-virus, and simple URL blockers.
So the terror monger here is likely to be someone who makes money through (producing or advertising) two factor authenticator, an alternate active-DNS, or an ISP selling the "we filter the internet for you" service.
And checking net-security.org's "about us:"
Help Net Security is recognized as a media sponsor of leading information security conferences around the globe including: RSA Conference US, RSA Conference Europe, Infosecurity Europe, CSI, InfoSec World Conference & Expo, SC World Congress and more.
I think we have a winner. Why does the cynical approach have to be right so often?
No - the way to really make third party vote extremely effective is to reform our voting system to make better use of game theory to make decisions. As it is we tend to throw away about half of the information provided by our citizens votes (give or take depending on the election). Systems like instant runoff, approval voting, ranking, and etc... put to use much more information to come up with a (mathematically) better selection. Some are more "accurate" than others and some are "simpler" than others.
This is something that can happen, but it will have to be from the bottom up (because it's a big threat to the two parties in control - they can agree on that at least). Start local at the city or county governments (or even the PTA). There's already several communities in the country which use instant runoff (Google it). States which allow voter ballot initiatives would probably be the easiest places to implement it (That may be how South Carolina adopted it, but I don't know the history there). With increased adoption of vote counting reform, pressure on the big two will increase until they look really bad if they don't implement the system in their states.
Write up a quick email and send it off to your local state legislators asking them to introduce the legislation - it's more likely to happen there than it is in DC (although that's a good place to write letters to also). Ask for a response and see what they say.
First and foremost - read that EULA. Learn what Facebook owns, what Google owns, heck - even WoW owns the copyright and any IP generated in game chat. Different companies have different EULAs, but you don't often see pro-consumer language in them.
Second - if it happens in public, it's public record. (Or if not in the wide open public - then at least in some sort of community where you either have no reasonable expectation of privacy or at least a limited expectation (e.g. what's the difference between a register to use website or shopping in person at Costco with a membership card?). Public is public - it is not private. If it's viewable from a public location you don't have an expectation of privacy (see the Streisand house here.) The fact that we don't have to dig into dusty archives and use a microfiche to search for public information should not change a thing. Technology is supposed to make things easier - which includes searching into the past.
If you want to make laws which don't screw with well established expectations of privacy then you should aim at discrimination based on lifestyle. Don't make it illegal (which some of it already is) without giving some serious teeth (i.e. major fiscal penalties for a job which refuses to hire you based on how you spend your time in the evenings (assuming it's non-relevant to the job in question)). In addition to teeth you'll also have to make access to information a part of the law too. It doesn't do any good if you can have a rat-sneaky HR make lifestyle policy choices while selecting another candidate for a job or promotion "based on [bogus] qualification" X.
Part of the problem is that collective health care spending is the land-mine in the middle of the road which we need to get around and the parties had fundamental philosophical differences on how to get it done. If you want to avoid that land-mine and one group says left and the other says right - compromise is a really bad thing. Both options have a possibility of getting past safely, but merging fundamentally different philosophies in this case leaves the best benefits of either direction out of the picture.
In an effort to not tick people off (impossible with something so personal to every individual) the democrats punted on some very critical issues with cost control and health care (e.g. tort reform, health care costs (not just insurance reform), etc... we all know the list). They should have had the guts to run with the full spectrum of what they wanted - live or die with the results (and the mid-term would have been bloody anyway because they touched an issue people are scared of), but then they could have claimed full credit for their successes for years to come (or blame if they made bad choices).
The part where they really lost American trust was in the closed door sessions with rescinded promises about C-Span broadcasting and openness. You tell people here's a several thousand page document which nobody has time to read which we came up with in special secret meetings - it's not any wonder that people get scared about "death-squads" and government funded baby killing programs.
So the big screw up was being too timid (with the excuse of compromise which they knew was impossible) and scared (don't watch me while I make my plans). I don't expect the elephant people to be any better, but if they don't learn more words than just "no" they'll be in for a spanking like a two year old child in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
"Put a drop of vanilla behind your ears and you'll smell like a cookie all day" - somebody in MST3K once upon a time
It still doesn't get to the heart of the matter. How do we image under somebody's clothing without a warrant and not violate the Fourth Amendment? Metal detectors are "passive" whereas an imaging technique - no matter how it's transformed (cartoons, stick figures, freaky mirrors, etc...) are still actively gathering data where previously it was considered unreasonable without probable cause or a search warrant (which requires a different sort of probable cause).
If this progresses and people allow it to become reasonable (electronic strip search without a warrant, probable cause, or any other reason whatsoever) we have traded freedom for security. Furthermore, the first Ten are generally considered inalienable - rights we have simply by being human and alive. As such, they are not rights which we can wave, surrender, or legislate away - they may only be violated. The trick is what is considered reasonable - and any change in that definition which takes power away from the people should be gravely thought out if not completely rejected. The consequences are likely to last centuries (however, past performance is not a guarantee of future success).
... our new automated journalist overlords...
As opposed to our current geopolitical journalist overlords?
Quick - someone leave out an Eldar sandwich so we can discover penicillum istari
I for one welcome our ubiquitous underlords
It's fastest with a diamond pick.
I know many people who still keep a cord phone back in a closet for such a purpose. It was more common when I lived in less population dense areas and a power outage typically lasted a few days to a couple of weeks depending on the event and their location in the grid.
Not to mention that phone books are not distributed for cellular phones - it's the land line.
What about when the power is out? How do you get the number to call hot food service X? or gym Y across town to see if they have power and hot showers? What if it's an extended outage and you are calling to see if grocery store Z is open (with or without power) to replenish your staples (food not brads)? Not only do the companies save money by not printing, but they make money every time you would have used the resource they are no longer providing when you call information.
Information is definitely not imaginary. People walk around synthesizing extremely complex molecules based on an information storage and expression system (DNA, translation, & etc...). Logic gates have measurable states, computer storage media have observable information, and Schrodinger's bloody cat dies (or not) when you look at it you insensitive gorgon! Heck, even imaginary numbers aren't imaginary - they can have some extremely profound effects in the physical world (blow up anything recently with an un-dampened oscillation from a controller's set point).
Information can even be owned (I can write something down right now on using my pen on my paper and I own it; completely). The catch is that information can not be shared between humans without copying. The fidelity of that copy depends on the sharing mechanism and efficiency of the recording medium. If one hears a song on the radio it's stored in the mind, most will have an average recall but a musical expert or savant may be able to sit down at an instrument and give a very accurate rendition after a single listen. Every observation of information propagates a copy of that information with the observer. Information, as a real, physical, and non-imaginary construct, is also subject to the second law and thus tends to undergo decay. All of the above still goes for computer media - generally with much higher fidelity copying, to utilize information it must be shared (copied) between long term storage, caches, transmission, processors, displays, and to the user.
Theology is a little disturbing too.
Except that the group of people you call "isheep" do a lot of purchasing. Economics are going to drive this, and the economics (influenced by marketing) suggest that the consumer is very much ok with proprietary systems, DRM (of varying degree), and other things which really lock them into the first company's system. You could make a decent argument that the greatest threat to the internet isn't the total volume controlled, but rather the degree of success had at preventing or obfuscating open standards. I'm not talking about open or closed source - but the ability to buy interchangeable cords to jack in with, or transfer the data you purchased from company A to a device made by company B at a later point in time. If you don't have that, you don't have the option of jumping ship with your assets - and that is a serious threat indeed.
You know - the candy sector hasn't seemed to really get behind apple nougat - something about price I believe. But I bet if you got the right marketing behind it, apple nougat could go viral.
Just relax.
I wonder how the cities will hold up to Chinese fishing boats?
Besides - Kevin Costner never had any trouble until people made an issue out of his gills.
You can have both at the same time. The FDA has specified monographs and if you perform a process outside of that monograph you're violating the law (unless you've gotten your innovative new drug license, etc...)
Or elite gated communities which house the corporate headquarters of multi-national banks such that they avoid paying any taxes what so ever? And I'm sure many very rich people like the idea of retiring to a small personal island in the south pacific - now they can have it built to order.
If it's about giving someone the money to fix the problem, then all you have to do is follow the slurs to find the money.
So the terror monger here is likely to be someone who makes money through (producing or advertising) two factor authenticator, an alternate active-DNS, or an ISP selling the "we filter the internet for you" service.
And checking net-security.org's "about us:"
I think we have a winner. Why does the cynical approach have to be right so often?
Mister Whirly? Does that mean you were on the receiving end of trouble as Mister Swirly? ;)
I would also take the step of immediately terminating with prejudice ...
HR and Legal called - they "strongly advise" you to find a different phrase unless you'd like first hand experience ;)
No - the way to really make third party vote extremely effective is to reform our voting system to make better use of game theory to make decisions. As it is we tend to throw away about half of the information provided by our citizens votes (give or take depending on the election). Systems like instant runoff, approval voting, ranking, and etc... put to use much more information to come up with a (mathematically) better selection. Some are more "accurate" than others and some are "simpler" than others.
This is something that can happen, but it will have to be from the bottom up (because it's a big threat to the two parties in control - they can agree on that at least). Start local at the city or county governments (or even the PTA). There's already several communities in the country which use instant runoff (Google it). States which allow voter ballot initiatives would probably be the easiest places to implement it (That may be how South Carolina adopted it, but I don't know the history there). With increased adoption of vote counting reform, pressure on the big two will increase until they look really bad if they don't implement the system in their states.
Write up a quick email and send it off to your local state legislators asking them to introduce the legislation - it's more likely to happen there than it is in DC (although that's a good place to write letters to also). Ask for a response and see what they say.
But it's not your information.
First and foremost - read that EULA. Learn what Facebook owns, what Google owns, heck - even WoW owns the copyright and any IP generated in game chat. Different companies have different EULAs, but you don't often see pro-consumer language in them.
Second - if it happens in public, it's public record. (Or if not in the wide open public - then at least in some sort of community where you either have no reasonable expectation of privacy or at least a limited expectation (e.g. what's the difference between a register to use website or shopping in person at Costco with a membership card?). Public is public - it is not private. If it's viewable from a public location you don't have an expectation of privacy (see the Streisand house here.) The fact that we don't have to dig into dusty archives and use a microfiche to search for public information should not change a thing. Technology is supposed to make things easier - which includes searching into the past.
If you want to make laws which don't screw with well established expectations of privacy then you should aim at discrimination based on lifestyle. Don't make it illegal (which some of it already is) without giving some serious teeth (i.e. major fiscal penalties for a job which refuses to hire you based on how you spend your time in the evenings (assuming it's non-relevant to the job in question)). In addition to teeth you'll also have to make access to information a part of the law too. It doesn't do any good if you can have a rat-sneaky HR make lifestyle policy choices while selecting another candidate for a job or promotion "based on [bogus] qualification" X.
As the gentleman said to the feminist: "I didn't open the door for you because you're a woman. I opened the door for you because I am a man."
Part of the problem is that collective health care spending is the land-mine in the middle of the road which we need to get around and the parties had fundamental philosophical differences on how to get it done. If you want to avoid that land-mine and one group says left and the other says right - compromise is a really bad thing. Both options have a possibility of getting past safely, but merging fundamentally different philosophies in this case leaves the best benefits of either direction out of the picture.
In an effort to not tick people off (impossible with something so personal to every individual) the democrats punted on some very critical issues with cost control and health care (e.g. tort reform, health care costs (not just insurance reform), etc... we all know the list). They should have had the guts to run with the full spectrum of what they wanted - live or die with the results (and the mid-term would have been bloody anyway because they touched an issue people are scared of), but then they could have claimed full credit for their successes for years to come (or blame if they made bad choices).
The part where they really lost American trust was in the closed door sessions with rescinded promises about C-Span broadcasting and openness. You tell people here's a several thousand page document which nobody has time to read which we came up with in special secret meetings - it's not any wonder that people get scared about "death-squads" and government funded baby killing programs.
So the big screw up was being too timid (with the excuse of compromise which they knew was impossible) and scared (don't watch me while I make my plans). I don't expect the elephant people to be any better, but if they don't learn more words than just "no" they'll be in for a spanking like a two year old child in the future.