That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following:
1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality
1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
I think the clearest conclusion we can make is that the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on health is very small. It may be positive, negative or neither, and perhaps we could identify specific populations in which it has larger effects, overall it's is negligible. However, this only applies to light to moderate consumption; heavy consumption is clearly very bad for you.
(And before the AC calls me out for being an alcoholic in denial, I'll mention that I'm a non-drinker. I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life.)
Unlocking the bootloader and flashing a ROM requires a backup, wipe, and restore. What's the easiest way for a user to be sure that a backup tool downloaded from Google Play Store actually saved everything in a way that it can restore?
What apps do you use that need to be backed up? Games, I suppose... if you care about having your progress saved.
Personally, I don't worry about backup/restore. When I reflash, or get a new device, I just start clean. Pretty much everything I'd care to back up and restore is synced to the cloud anyway, so it just shows up. Android Marshmallow made it particularly slick the most recent time. It asked if I wanted to restore all my apps and stuff from my old phone and it did an outstanding job. Nearly everything was automatically installed and it even laid out my home screen and set my background. It still took a few minutes to set up a few things, and then for a while I was having to log into various apps the first time I used them, but all in all it was quite painless.
I suppose if you turn off all of the cloud backup options then it would be a different story.
You mean your 4 year old phone that you bought while Google had a published 2 year (from first sale) major update, 3 year (again, from first sale; or 18mo from last sale in the Google store) security update policy? If you're claiming you didn't know what you were buying, that's on you.
To be fair, Google didn't have an official support policy for Nexus devices when the Galaxy Nexus was released. In fact, Google didn't have such a policy until August 2015. It was understood previously that devices would get updates for a couple of years, but there was no specific commitment.
Actually, it seems that official update policies for mobile devices are a new idea. AFAICT Google's was the first, and I don't know that any other company has yet matched it. That includes Apple -- though in practice Apple usually supports devices for longer than 2-3 years.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google Android engineer, working on the Android security team. I'm speaking for myself, though, not for Google.)
Name the candidate that doesn't that is likely to even be on the ballot.
We also decide who will be on the ballot. It's a smaller subset of "we", namely the people who participate in local, state and national party caucuses, but it's still "we". Anyone who wants to can participate.
Apparently, you believe we enjoy sending our children out to fight (and die) when in your ass is in a sling. The vast majority of us would prefer not to do so.
Yet we keep electing people who apparently do enjoy it. Sigh.
You're the naïve fool (or the paid shill). Let me give you a hint, the DoD has spent billions of dollars on trusted fabs. That's because we know that the Asian fabs are compromised.
I hope reading comprehension isn't among your best abilities, because you're not very good at it.
And you don't get to whine if people stop buying your products because they can't trust you anymore.
Why the hell not?
If my government is damaging my business, against my wishes, in order to spy on me (and the rest of the world), I'd damned well better not just whine but yell and shout. I suppose the "you" in your statements was intended to refer to the US as a whole, but the US as a whole didn't do it and isn't on board with it. Unfortunately, a lot of voters who don't understand the issues and are afraid of brown people are on board with it. That just means those of us who do understand need to educate them.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective "we're losing billions of dollars every year because the world won't buy our goods and services because the NSA has been piggybacking spyware on them" is an argument said voters will understand. Once it gets bad enough.
Every governmental agency can legally force domestic companies to include a backdoor and keep their mouth shut about it.
Cite? Under what law?
Note that National Security Letters do not provide the power you mention. NSLs are restricted, by law, to requests for metadata about communications that the target possesses. Court orders have few limitations, but judges tend not to issue the sort of open-ended, unrestricted order that would be required for what you describe (the Lavabit story is famous because it's exceptional, not because it's normal).
I like C++, and consider it my preferred language for most work, but it clearly has more landmines than any other major language. It's not hard to avoid them, but you do have to know where they are.
Then again, what if Apple decided people would be unhappy with the speed on iOS 9 so they decided to limit it to iPhone 5? I bet the same people grumbling about this issue would be grumbling about Apple's forced upgrades.
If they would let people downgrade OSes (or even if they didn't go out of their way to prevent people from downgrading the OS), then it wouldn't be a problem at all.
That would create security problems, or maintenance problems, take your pick. It would also create fragmentation.
If Apple allowed downgrades, then users would downgrade their phone OS to older versions with known vulnerabilities, and people would complain about Apple not backporting security fixes to the older versions.
If Apple did backport security fixes, then they'd be forced to maintain many different versions of their OS. Actually, they probably do already maintain multiple versions, for different hardware versions, but backporting bugfixes would multiply the versions they'd have to manage. Doable, but a big drain on scarce engineering resources.
And then there's fragmentation. By and large iOS app developers don't have to deal with writing for many different versions of iOS, specifically because Apple keeps essentially the entire iOS device base on the latest release.
Here, let's try this. I used Wikipedia:Random to grab 20 random articles. Can you (or someone else) provide corrections for the majority of them? Or any of them? (Aside: Wikipedia:Random gives a fascinating glimpse into the extreme breadth of Wikipedia topics.)
FWIW, my perception is that -- as found in the Nature study a few years ago -- Wikipedia is as good as any other encyclopedia in terms of accuracy, and blows every other encyclopedia in the world away in terms of breadth and depth. Nearly all of the controversy over editing and accuracy is really confined to a small subset of articles which are related to current events or currently-controversial topics. Editors are a little quicker on the "revert" trigger than they should be, but I've found that by providing references and being a little bit persistent (and trying to write reasonably good prose) I can always get corrections in when I see problems. Not that I often see problems in the topics I tend to look up.
Until there is research indicating otherwise I would not believe humans could either draw enough energy out of the wind, nor install enough solar panels to change the climate one bit.
This study concludes that large solar farms will cause a localized cooling effect.
It did not. For starters, the plot is basically identical to EP IV.
I was fine with that. I think the rationale was "Let's show the fans that we're taking the franchise back where it started from, rather than the horrible mess Lucas made in the prequels." So they set up a new Empire, with a new Death Star and a new young Jedi (one I like a lot more than I ever liked that crybaby Luke, actually). Yeah, it was more or less the same plot, with lots of fan-service thrown in, but they also set up some interesting new characters.
The real test will be what happens in the next movie. If it's a rehash of ESB, then I'll be annoyed that they didn't just call it a reboot rather than a continuation of the story -- though if it's an entertaining movie I'll still see enjoy it. But I don't think it will be. I think having established that they've thrown Lucas out of the airlock and gone back to the Star Wars roots, they're now free to do something new. Note that I'm not saying I expect radically novel filmmaking. Obviously not. What comes next is going to be more big-budget space cowboys. But it will be fun.
I'm actually much more upset at the Star Trek reboot, but that's because I always held Star Trek to a higher standard. Star Trek started out as real science fiction, social commentary exploring much more interesting questions that "Does love defeat all?" and "How many people can we blow up?". There were some occasional missteps, and it really declined after Roddenberry was gone, but the reboot fell off a cliff. The Abrams Star Trek movies are entertaining, but they're no longer Star Trek. He kept the universe and the characters (sort of) but lost the soul.
In contrast, The Force Awakens has resurrected Star Wars. It's simple, mindless fun, but that's what it always was, and we liked it.
They're scheduled to make roughly one launch a month, so if all goes to plan they should soon have plenty of rockets to run tests with, they just want to keep the first one as a souvenir.
I think the more interesting souvenir would be the first rocket to be reused.
Maybe they'll fly the next one twice and then put it on display.
And if your position is that 'he identifies as black', then can he change his mind tomorrow? And if he can't, then at what age do people get to choose their 'race'? And if he can, what in the name of bloody bollocks does an outdated concept of 'race' even mean outside the industry that breeds cats, dogs and horses?
These question contain a raft of invalid assumptions.
Clearly, race is a social construct, not a genetic one, and anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't looked closely enough at the question. This means that to a large degree people do choose what race they are. Obviously there is no age by which people must make that choice, but that's not because there is no choice to be made, but because they're perfectly free to change their choice at any point in time. Racial identity is really just a form of tribalism, and people absolutely can choose to move from one tribe to another.
However, that in no way implies that changing tribes is easy, because what tribe you're a member of depends less on what you think than on what the other members of the tribe think. Tribal boundaries are fluid, dynamic and context-dependent, but they shift based on group decisions, not individual decisions. Witness the public hue and cry over Rachel Dolezal.
But, in fact, people do change their racial identity. A 2010 study found that going to prison can turn white people black. Specifically, people who previously self-identified and were identified by researchers as white committed crimes, went to prison, and subsequently self-identified -- and were identified by researchers -- as non-white, in most cases black.
Could Barack Obama decide to be white? Sure. He could decide to self-identify as white, and he could announce that to the world. The response would be a mixture of bafflement, outrage and laughter, and no one would buy it, because his tribal membership is too strongly and publicly established.
Race is a load of meaningless crap.
Any notion of genetic, objective race is meaningless crap, sure. But tribal identity is very, very far from meaningless. For many people racial identity is a central part of their individual identity. Identity is powerful... people befriend, ostracize, even kill over identity.
Note that I'm not saying this is good, or right, or in any way desirable. We'd all be a lot better off if everyone discarded racial identity from their personal worldviews. But that's not the world we live in, and calling it meaningless, ostrich-like, is foolish.
Guess who has in the past, is currently and will in the future spend millions and millions to both politicians and media to ensure that real minimum wage with no loopholes and exceptions doesn't happen.
Which is good, because minimum wages are a bad idea, especially today.
We're on the cusp of a massive economic upheaval, as we become able to automate huge swaths of unskilled and low-skilled labor. This upheaval is going to come, regardless, but we have some ability to control how fast it comes, and when it comes to massively rearranging your economy it's a really good idea to keep it slow enough that people can adapt to the new reality. The biggest lever we have is the cost of paying humans to perform those automatable jobs. The lower that cost the longer it will take to automate those jobs.
Instituting a basic income (which we're going to need anyway) and abolishing minimum wages would allow low-skilled people to continue making what they are now while reducing the cost of low-skill labor, and delaying automation. Note that from a pure economic perspective this is a bad thing, because when the total cost of a human (BI + low wage) exceeds the cost of the machine, it's more efficient to switch to the machine, but this approach would stay with the human until low wage alone exceeds the cost of the machine.
However, BI won't create your utopian vision of low-skilled people being able to live comfortable lives (though massive automation likely will) because the BI will have to be set low enough that living on BI alone is uncomfortable. And the real market value of a job like lawn mowing is likely going to be low enough that it doesn't lift someone to the level of "comfortable"... but it will life someone a little.
One can only hope that he hasn't touched anything else related to PRNGs, cryptography, etc. since he wrote this broken code 7 years ago.
I'm not sure why you mentioned "cryptography, etc.", since Math.random() should never be used for cryptography or other security purposes. It's entirely reasonable to believe that if it were supposed to be used for those purposes that the Google engineer would have picked something known to be good for those purposes.
It is very obvious when someone is using the phone to take pictures/video.
Only if they're concerned about framing. If you're using a phone to spy, you don't have to be obvious about it at all. For example, just get a cellphone that is large enough that it protrudes from a shirt pocket. Start recording, slip it into the pocket with the camera protruding and facing forward, then walk around.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
I think the clearest conclusion we can make is that the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on health is very small. It may be positive, negative or neither, and perhaps we could identify specific populations in which it has larger effects, overall it's is negligible. However, this only applies to light to moderate consumption; heavy consumption is clearly very bad for you.
(And before the AC calls me out for being an alcoholic in denial, I'll mention that I'm a non-drinker. I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life.)
Unlocking the bootloader and flashing a ROM requires a backup, wipe, and restore. What's the easiest way for a user to be sure that a backup tool downloaded from Google Play Store actually saved everything in a way that it can restore?
What apps do you use that need to be backed up? Games, I suppose... if you care about having your progress saved.
Personally, I don't worry about backup/restore. When I reflash, or get a new device, I just start clean. Pretty much everything I'd care to back up and restore is synced to the cloud anyway, so it just shows up. Android Marshmallow made it particularly slick the most recent time. It asked if I wanted to restore all my apps and stuff from my old phone and it did an outstanding job. Nearly everything was automatically installed and it even laid out my home screen and set my background. It still took a few minutes to set up a few things, and then for a while I was having to log into various apps the first time I used them, but all in all it was quite painless.
I suppose if you turn off all of the cloud backup options then it would be a different story.
You mean your 4 year old phone that you bought while Google had a published 2 year (from first sale) major update, 3 year (again, from first sale; or 18mo from last sale in the Google store) security update policy? If you're claiming you didn't know what you were buying, that's on you.
To be fair, Google didn't have an official support policy for Nexus devices when the Galaxy Nexus was released. In fact, Google didn't have such a policy until August 2015. It was understood previously that devices would get updates for a couple of years, but there was no specific commitment.
Actually, it seems that official update policies for mobile devices are a new idea. AFAICT Google's was the first, and I don't know that any other company has yet matched it. That includes Apple -- though in practice Apple usually supports devices for longer than 2-3 years.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google Android engineer, working on the Android security team. I'm speaking for myself, though, not for Google.)
Name the candidate that doesn't that is likely to even be on the ballot.
We also decide who will be on the ballot. It's a smaller subset of "we", namely the people who participate in local, state and national party caucuses, but it's still "we". Anyone who wants to can participate.
Apparently, you believe we enjoy sending our children out to fight (and die) when in your ass is in a sling. The vast majority of us would prefer not to do so.
Yet we keep electing people who apparently do enjoy it. Sigh.
You're the naïve fool (or the paid shill). Let me give you a hint, the DoD has spent billions of dollars on trusted fabs. That's because we know that the Asian fabs are compromised.
I hope reading comprehension isn't among your best abilities, because you're not very good at it.
And you don't get to whine if people stop buying your products because they can't trust you anymore.
Why the hell not?
If my government is damaging my business, against my wishes, in order to spy on me (and the rest of the world), I'd damned well better not just whine but yell and shout. I suppose the "you" in your statements was intended to refer to the US as a whole, but the US as a whole didn't do it and isn't on board with it. Unfortunately, a lot of voters who don't understand the issues and are afraid of brown people are on board with it. That just means those of us who do understand need to educate them.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective "we're losing billions of dollars every year because the world won't buy our goods and services because the NSA has been piggybacking spyware on them" is an argument said voters will understand. Once it gets bad enough.
Every governmental agency can legally force domestic companies to include a backdoor and keep their mouth shut about it.
Cite? Under what law?
Note that National Security Letters do not provide the power you mention. NSLs are restricted, by law, to requests for metadata about communications that the target possesses. Court orders have few limitations, but judges tend not to issue the sort of open-ended, unrestricted order that would be required for what you describe (the Lavabit story is famous because it's exceptional, not because it's normal).
My Asus router supports IPv6. The IPv6 firewall is configured by default to reject all incoming connections. Done.
Right. Like C and Perl don't have more landmines.
I like C++, and consider it my preferred language for most work, but it clearly has more landmines than any other major language. It's not hard to avoid them, but you do have to know where they are.
Then again, what if Apple decided people would be unhappy with the speed on iOS 9 so they decided to limit it to iPhone 5? I bet the same people grumbling about this issue would be grumbling about Apple's forced upgrades.
If they would let people downgrade OSes (or even if they didn't go out of their way to prevent people from downgrading the OS), then it wouldn't be a problem at all.
That would create security problems, or maintenance problems, take your pick. It would also create fragmentation.
If Apple allowed downgrades, then users would downgrade their phone OS to older versions with known vulnerabilities, and people would complain about Apple not backporting security fixes to the older versions.
If Apple did backport security fixes, then they'd be forced to maintain many different versions of their OS. Actually, they probably do already maintain multiple versions, for different hardware versions, but backporting bugfixes would multiply the versions they'd have to manage. Doable, but a big drain on scarce engineering resources.
And then there's fragmentation. By and large iOS app developers don't have to deal with writing for many different versions of iOS, specifically because Apple keeps essentially the entire iOS device base on the latest release.
So... you don't actually know of a specific instance.
For example?
Here, let's try this. I used Wikipedia:Random to grab 20 random articles. Can you (or someone else) provide corrections for the majority of them? Or any of them? (Aside: Wikipedia:Random gives a fascinating glimpse into the extreme breadth of Wikipedia topics.)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FWIW, my perception is that -- as found in the Nature study a few years ago -- Wikipedia is as good as any other encyclopedia in terms of accuracy, and blows every other encyclopedia in the world away in terms of breadth and depth. Nearly all of the controversy over editing and accuracy is really confined to a small subset of articles which are related to current events or currently-controversial topics. Editors are a little quicker on the "revert" trigger than they should be, but I've found that by providing references and being a little bit persistent (and trying to write reasonably good prose) I can always get corrections in when I see problems. Not that I often see problems in the topics I tend to look up.
Until there is research indicating otherwise I would not believe humans could either draw enough energy out of the wind, nor install enough solar panels to change the climate one bit.
This study concludes that large solar farms will cause a localized cooling effect.
It did not. For starters, the plot is basically identical to EP IV.
I was fine with that. I think the rationale was "Let's show the fans that we're taking the franchise back where it started from, rather than the horrible mess Lucas made in the prequels." So they set up a new Empire, with a new Death Star and a new young Jedi (one I like a lot more than I ever liked that crybaby Luke, actually). Yeah, it was more or less the same plot, with lots of fan-service thrown in, but they also set up some interesting new characters.
The real test will be what happens in the next movie. If it's a rehash of ESB, then I'll be annoyed that they didn't just call it a reboot rather than a continuation of the story -- though if it's an entertaining movie I'll still see enjoy it. But I don't think it will be. I think having established that they've thrown Lucas out of the airlock and gone back to the Star Wars roots, they're now free to do something new. Note that I'm not saying I expect radically novel filmmaking. Obviously not. What comes next is going to be more big-budget space cowboys. But it will be fun.
I'm actually much more upset at the Star Trek reboot, but that's because I always held Star Trek to a higher standard. Star Trek started out as real science fiction, social commentary exploring much more interesting questions that "Does love defeat all?" and "How many people can we blow up?". There were some occasional missteps, and it really declined after Roddenberry was gone, but the reboot fell off a cliff. The Abrams Star Trek movies are entertaining, but they're no longer Star Trek. He kept the universe and the characters (sort of) but lost the soul.
In contrast, The Force Awakens has resurrected Star Wars. It's simple, mindless fun, but that's what it always was, and we liked it.
They're scheduled to make roughly one launch a month, so if all goes to plan they should soon have plenty of rockets to run tests with, they just want to keep the first one as a souvenir.
I think the more interesting souvenir would be the first rocket to be reused.
Maybe they'll fly the next one twice and then put it on display.
And if your position is that 'he identifies as black', then can he change his mind tomorrow? And if he can't, then at what age do people get to choose their 'race'? And if he can, what in the name of bloody bollocks does an outdated concept of 'race' even mean outside the industry that breeds cats, dogs and horses?
These question contain a raft of invalid assumptions.
Clearly, race is a social construct, not a genetic one, and anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't looked closely enough at the question. This means that to a large degree people do choose what race they are. Obviously there is no age by which people must make that choice, but that's not because there is no choice to be made, but because they're perfectly free to change their choice at any point in time. Racial identity is really just a form of tribalism, and people absolutely can choose to move from one tribe to another.
However, that in no way implies that changing tribes is easy, because what tribe you're a member of depends less on what you think than on what the other members of the tribe think. Tribal boundaries are fluid, dynamic and context-dependent, but they shift based on group decisions, not individual decisions. Witness the public hue and cry over Rachel Dolezal.
But, in fact, people do change their racial identity. A 2010 study found that going to prison can turn white people black. Specifically, people who previously self-identified and were identified by researchers as white committed crimes, went to prison, and subsequently self-identified -- and were identified by researchers -- as non-white, in most cases black.
Could Barack Obama decide to be white? Sure. He could decide to self-identify as white, and he could announce that to the world. The response would be a mixture of bafflement, outrage and laughter, and no one would buy it, because his tribal membership is too strongly and publicly established.
Race is a load of meaningless crap.
Any notion of genetic, objective race is meaningless crap, sure. But tribal identity is very, very far from meaningless. For many people racial identity is a central part of their individual identity. Identity is powerful... people befriend, ostracize, even kill over identity.
Note that I'm not saying this is good, or right, or in any way desirable. We'd all be a lot better off if everyone discarded racial identity from their personal worldviews. But that's not the world we live in, and calling it meaningless, ostrich-like, is foolish.
"OpenJDK is under the GPL, which means there will be a lot more GPL in Android now."
Good, let the virality begin.
Muahahaha... yeah baby, this will force Google to open source all of the code that is... er... uh... open source.
Guess who has in the past, is currently and will in the future spend millions and millions to both politicians and media to ensure that real minimum wage with no loopholes and exceptions doesn't happen.
Which is good, because minimum wages are a bad idea, especially today.
We're on the cusp of a massive economic upheaval, as we become able to automate huge swaths of unskilled and low-skilled labor. This upheaval is going to come, regardless, but we have some ability to control how fast it comes, and when it comes to massively rearranging your economy it's a really good idea to keep it slow enough that people can adapt to the new reality. The biggest lever we have is the cost of paying humans to perform those automatable jobs. The lower that cost the longer it will take to automate those jobs.
Instituting a basic income (which we're going to need anyway) and abolishing minimum wages would allow low-skilled people to continue making what they are now while reducing the cost of low-skill labor, and delaying automation. Note that from a pure economic perspective this is a bad thing, because when the total cost of a human (BI + low wage) exceeds the cost of the machine, it's more efficient to switch to the machine, but this approach would stay with the human until low wage alone exceeds the cost of the machine.
However, BI won't create your utopian vision of low-skilled people being able to live comfortable lives (though massive automation likely will) because the BI will have to be set low enough that living on BI alone is uncomfortable. And the real market value of a job like lawn mowing is likely going to be low enough that it doesn't lift someone to the level of "comfortable"... but it will life someone a little.
One can only hope that he hasn't touched anything else related to PRNGs, cryptography, etc. since he wrote this broken code 7 years ago.
I'm not sure why you mentioned "cryptography, etc.", since Math.random() should never be used for cryptography or other security purposes. It's entirely reasonable to believe that if it were supposed to be used for those purposes that the Google engineer would have picked something known to be good for those purposes.
It is very obvious when someone is using the phone to take pictures/video.
Only if they're concerned about framing. If you're using a phone to spy, you don't have to be obvious about it at all. For example, just get a cellphone that is large enough that it protrudes from a shirt pocket. Start recording, slip it into the pocket with the camera protruding and facing forward, then walk around.
Of course, if someone really wants to record without being noticed there are other options which are much less obvious than Google Glass (old design or new). And cheaper. For example: http://www.brickhousesecurity...., or http://www.brickhousesecurity.....
I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.
Definitely has limitations when you live in Hawai`i as I do.
Only if you're lazy. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
They have dictionaries, only the definitions in them are completely different than the ones you and I get to use.
"Humpty Dumpty dictionaries": the words mean exactly what the user wants them to mean, neither more nor less.
Yet another reason for companies to make sure they don't have the keys to their users' data. You can't provide what you provably never had.
Of course, if governments require vendors to escrow the keys that strategy won't work. But it doesn't appear that China has gone that far.
If you follow the right people you can find a lot of insight in 140 characters. It forces you to be direct and concise.
It also encourages soundbite-quality thinking, because it's impossible to express complex, nuanced ideas.