That's why. They don't have desires, fears, or joys. Without those it's impossible to understand, in any meaningful sense, human beings. That's not to say that they can't have them but it's likely to come with trade-offs that are unappealing. And for good measure, they also don't understand novelty and cannot for the most part improvise. All of which are considered hallmarks of human intelligence.
nobody is perfect. And so the ideologues turn on themselves fighting with each other rather than the greater enemy, cableco and telco, and so dissolve into an ineffectual cacophony. Comcast must be grinning.
How about legalizing or decriminalizing those things sold on a black market removing the financial incentives?
Stuff like meth, heroin, difficult-to-trace guns, stolen property, murder-for-hire services? The average street level thugs works longer hours for effectively less than minimum wage anyway, so it's not as if they are going to become perfectly rational citizens when the easy money is cut off.
How about early intervention through more funding for pre-schools in urban areas to provide the structure the kids' parents cannot?
No matter how much you `early-intervention' a student, seeing their neighbors killed in a drive-by or stabbed by a junkie over a pair of shoes is going to fuck them up and cause them to despair and lead them to seek revenge (usually by joining a gang).
Yes, those might be good ideas, but the gangsters have got to fucking go before anything like that can even begin to work. A police force not consisting of bullies, morons, or cowards too scared to get out of their fucking car would go a long way too. How to attack this problem? I do not know. But it doesn't appear that softer methods are working very much. How many more generations can we afford to let be eaten alive before we can bring out the big guns?
And you would know this from first hand experience? Or, are you relying on "common sense"? Human beings are more resilient than you might expect and many kids that grow up in these environments don't turn into gangsters.
Give them???? How many trillions of dollars have been transfered from the workers to the non-workers, and how effective has it actually been?
Besides, why work mowing grass and digging ditches (what else are they qualified for, given their piss poor grades in their piss poor schools) when (a) that's "Mexican work", and (b) you can make more by selling drugs and living off the dole?
Well, I'm glad we got the two most worn-out stereotypes out of the way so quickly. Now maybe we can have a useful conversation. How about legalizing or decriminalizing those things sold on a black market removing the financial incentives? How about early intervention through more funding for pre-schools in urban areas to provide the structure the kids' parents cannot? Or about a million other things that would be more effective than "hand-outs" or "policing the lazy".
The tension created by "City vs. Suburbs" is strictly for the benefit of the story. Existing companies are opening new offices in urban areas but for the most part they aren't closing offices in the suburbs. Sure, new companies are often starting in cities but they will likely open suburban offices if they survive long enough. It's a healthy kind of diversification that will likely reach some sort of equilibrium over the next decade or two. Does that mean the stature of suburbs will decrease a bit while that of cities increases? Sure, but talk of "winners" and "losers" in some binary or zero-sum sense is overblown.
I think most commenters here will end up completely missing the point, just as I initially did. Of course it will be trivial to bypass any possible protection the font might briefly provide, but that isn't the point. The making of the font is a political statement against government machinery and software spying on us and taking our humanity away. As such, I'd say it's quite clever and attention-getting.
Now I'll sit back and watch 50 different people get up-modded for pedantically explaining how it will be trivial to train an OCR to recognize the font and how software reads the bytecodes and doesn't care about the font and blah blah blah...
Is that a giant whooshing sound I hear?
Either way, it's still lame. I mean the pedants are obnoxious but so are pointless political gestures.
Oh gosh, my sincerest apologies. I'll be sure to let everyone know that all political gestures need to be cleared by you first. You know, to make sure they're not "lame".
Yeah, please do. It'd save everyone a lot of wasted time and effort. Thanks.
I think most commenters here will end up completely missing the point, just as I initially did. Of course it will be trivial to bypass any possible protection the font might briefly provide, but that isn't the point. The making of the font is a political statement against government machinery and software spying on us and taking our humanity away. As such, I'd say it's quite clever and attention-getting.
Now I'll sit back and watch 50 different people get up-modded for pedantically explaining how it will be trivial to train an OCR to recognize the font and how software reads the bytecodes and doesn't care about the font and blah blah blah...
Is that a giant whooshing sound I hear?
Either way, it's still lame. I mean the pedants are obnoxious but so are pointless political gestures.
The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking").
So, the president of MIT was urging MIT students to pull clever practical jokes? That's stupid or he meant something different. Presumably he meant "hack" in the same way that people who have been actually involved with computers understand it: exploring the possibilities of a system (often including some that the inventor never intended) for the sake of discovery and in some cases using those discoveries to create unique and innovative outcomes. I get that you are trying to make a distinction between "hacking" and "cracking" but "hacking" has a meaning that transcends the special case of practical jokes that are a part of MIT folklore and if the president of MIT did not have the broader meaning in mind, then his comments are almost comical.
Not a single business partner, client, or home user that I've dealt with for the last 3 year has an active IPv6 DNS registration. _None_.
The critical factor for IPv4 exhaustion was the lack of "/24" addres spaces for businesses and buildings. This has been impressively ameliorated by the use of NAT, which shares numerous intenral and protected IP addresses behind a single or pair of public addresses and should be the _default_ configuraiton in most businesses and organizaitons, simply to reduce the constant external vulnerability scanning of any host directly connected to the Internet.
The growth of high capacity load balancers for web servers and other network services has also helped tremendously, allowing a wide set of behind the scenes hosts to be serviced by a single exposed device and reducing the IPv4 footprint of these services. Also, people have learned how to economize in the ir IPv4 use: They _do no tneed_ a different IP address for their email server, their FTP server, their web server, their phone server, their chat server, and their IRC server. The services are being easily funneled through a single exposed router or firewall, far more efficiently than before.
The result has been that the great need for IPv6 simply has not yet occurred, and is unlikely to occur for another 10 years. The foundation of the need for IPv6 is basically that of ubiquitous comuputing: the idea that every single device scattered around the home or around the workplace will have its own IP address for remote communications, and they _should not have_ public IP addresses. Providing public, routable IP addresses puts them at risk of attack at all times: putting them in the unroutable, easily tracked and maintained IPv4 address space handles almost all internal network needs quie effectively and is a signigicant security advantage and eases scanning and tracking of local resources.
Um, yeah, creating a single bottleneck and point of attack to the internet seems like a great idea... It's not that your ideas don't have merit (although you do over state and misstate some of them) but that they only address the needs of a certain set of users. NAT is not an unmitigated good. NAT has significant shortcomings.
It's become clear that the federal government no longer serves the interests of the people.
Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the problem?
Whenever some "government done did wrong again" article comes up, the comments are all non-constructive: blithe unconcern, fatalism, pessimism, and so on.
What constructive actions can be taken, and how can the people be encouraged to support these actions?
My one idea: If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.
(And no, replies of "you won't accomplish anything because of this reason" are not constructive.)
Eliminate the two party duopoly by voting for a third-party candidate.
Now that you've made myelin, how do you get it to stick to actual damaged neurons and/or brian cells. If you inject it in there, is it naturally just going to bind to damaged cells?
Yeah, exactly. Otherwise I don't think clumps of myelin just floating around the brain are going to be a good thing.
I think states and cities should be rolling out their own fiber. Sort of like building roads. And then subsidize installation for last mile fiber for any homeowner that can afford $1000. They don't need to install the network equipment but they can or they can lease the lines to businesses. The state could fund a redundant backbone network that the cities could trunk into. Just design the lines to be replaced every 30 years.
Cites could then individually choose to offer "free" internet. Of course that would mean they would just subcontract out to a business to provide the network equipment and service. Cities pay for these sorts of things through property taxes.
I may be libertarian but I classify this as necessary infrastructure that will benefit the vast majority. Everything else is just more expensive.
I absolutely agree. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. Presumably FUD and resistance from incumbent monopolies.
I understand why we don't get this on average across the US, because population density is low. But why don't we get it in the Bay Area? We have high population density, and surely there is demand. What is wrong with California?
Because population density isn't really the main issue. It's mostly a red herring. The real reason you don't have 1-gigabit internet access is a lack of healthy competition.
This is a media story engineered to generate goodwill. I would not go so far as to call it a gimmick, but it sounds and feels like one.
FTTH, as it's known, costs between $5,000 and $12,000 per home in the rural market and only exists through subsidy. By comparision, FTTH is between $1,500 and $3,000 in suburban markets which is recouped by annual customer commitments.
The only way these costs are made affordable is through government subsidies. Google is subsidizing these customers in a similar way. As with many subsidies, unless they are bonafide charity/goodwill missions, they are not sustainable. This is okay as long as Google has the goodwill of the overall financial markts, by, e.g., having such a huge P/E ratio that they enjoy enough excess money to spend on things like driverless cars, imaging satellites, and hot tub airplaines.
Speeds comparable to FTTH can be achieved for so much less money by using Fiber to the Neighborhood instead of to the home. While I'm no fan of local cable TV monopolies, they already do this today. The problem many local cable TV companies is that they still carry local channels in analog. If they were to convert to all-digital carriage their existing cable plant could compare with FTTH using DOCSIS 3.x but this dream inexplicably escapes them.
You clearly don't understand their business model or strategy. They are not trying to be a traditional ISP (i.e. bit pusher). That business model is a loser and that's why cable companies are trying to resist it through nefarious means and otherwise. Google plans on making its money on services and advertising. It's the same model that allows them to provide search for free.
Maybe you live somewhere backwards where wifi and the computers using it are powered by some kind of device that you have to manually power by rotating a wheel or something, but in the western world the effort involved would simply be turning a computer on which is pre-configured to simply log passively all wifi data.
Neither the pre-configuration or pressing the power button before you do your streetview drive on the morning though add any merit to your debate, the fundamental point still remains that Google were passively collecting data that was publicly available in a public space and not protected at all.
"You're just wrong. Get over it."
Well aren't you acting like an irrational little child. Rather than accept that your original argument was trivially disproven with a simple example you cover your ears, close your eyes and pretend reality isn't reality. I guess it sucks to be you. Oh well, keep telling yourself you're not wrong, the rest of us will just keep laughing at you.
Haha. "My wifi did it, not me!" is not really an acceptable defense. Your response is a classic case of casuistry. You can find ever finer objections regressing ad infinitum, if you like, but I'll just take the limit and call you wrong. I guess it sucks to be you. Oh well, keep telling yourself you're not wrong, I'll just keep laughing at you. The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
"Ridiculous. You have to be actively listening for it on a given frequency."
The same applies to hearing someone's conversation as you walk past, the frequency in question is standard to Wifi.
"In short you have to expend effort to get the information."
Rubbish, all Wifi receiving equipment automatically works on the frequencies it's built for, you don't have to do any kind of magical tuning to receive wifi data - the same is true of your ears, when you overhear someone.
"This propensity to blame victims in this case is just astounding."
The same goes for my overhearing someone talking loudly in their garden example. So if they talk to loudly, you hear them, and they call you an annoying little eavesdropper and you tell them they shouldn't talk so loud then then you're blaming the victim?
The thing is I'd have sympathy and side with you if they really were expending effort - i.e. they were breaking WEP keys and bypassing security etc. but that's not the case, it was passive monitoring and the very fact it was passive explains why no effort was expended.
"Google knew they shouldn't be doing it. They told staff not to do it. And they admitted by doing it they did wrong. What more do you need?"
Right, and we've had numerous politicians have to apologise that something they said was wrong. Sometimes it genuinely was, other times not. Just because they had to to keep their job doesn't mean they really were actually wrong though, it just means they were forced into it.
And recording that information takes no effort? You're just wrong. Get over it.
It's only like a peeping Tom if said peeping Tom is peeping at someone running round in the middle of a public street naked.
It's not like they creeped into people's gardens to gather this data, it was being broadcast all over the local neighbourhood unencrypted.
What next? you're going to say that someone who overheard someone else speaking too loud in their front garden as they walked past along the pavement is a creepy little snooper too?
Ridiculous. You have to be actively listening for it on a given frequency. In short you have to expend effort to get the information. This propensity to blame victims in this case is just astounding. Google knew they shouldn't be doing it. They told staff not to do it. And they admitted by doing it they did wrong. What more do you need?
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
You, sir, are the troll. I am not.
Assuming you're the one who wrote the submission, yes actually you are.
You're comparing sniffing passwords from open, unsecured access points (which is arguably not even 'naughty' to start with) to a directed break-in of a computer system you were told, and signed an agreement, to not enter into. But since "Down with the Evil Corporation, Up with the Lone Renegade!" stories get a lot of page hits, they went ahead and pushed it to the front page.
Sniffing open unsecured access point is most certainly naughty. It's basically like being a peeping Tom. Whether it deserves legal action and to what extent is debatable. But the "They were asking for it" argument also doesn't hold water.
2D graphics provide exponentially more information at once than a command line. 3D graphics, at least for every model I've seen, provides at best incrementally more information and, at worse, less information at once. The only way a 3D interface would work is if the 3D objects have some symbolic value. If you mean 3D for the sake of FPS or modeling, then it'll happen when there is enough demand for it. I just don't see much demand for it from the general population
Slashdot Mirror
faked. I'm not sure how admissable it'd be in court but they do accept GPS data so maybe...
in the acquisition? Exactly fuck all. Really, do you think Microsoft would pay $7.5 just to avoid yet another Android also-ran competitor?
Big difference. Former requires probability and evidence. Latter is an invitation to a fishing expedition.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130318-treading-softly-in-a-connected-world/
That's why. They don't have desires, fears, or joys. Without those it's impossible to understand, in any meaningful sense, human beings. That's not to say that they can't have them but it's likely to come with trade-offs that are unappealing. And for good measure, they also don't understand novelty and cannot for the most part improvise. All of which are considered hallmarks of human intelligence.
Sorry, it's hard not to be snarky with claims of energy breakthroughs. There is always a trade-off. What is it?
nobody is perfect. And so the ideologues turn on themselves fighting with each other rather than the greater enemy, cableco and telco, and so dissolve into an ineffectual cacophony. Comcast must be grinning.
How about legalizing or decriminalizing those things sold on a black market removing the financial incentives?
Stuff like meth, heroin, difficult-to-trace guns, stolen property, murder-for-hire services? The average street level thugs works longer hours for effectively less than minimum wage anyway, so it's not as if they are going to become perfectly rational citizens when the easy money is cut off.
How about early intervention through more funding for pre-schools in urban areas to provide the structure the kids' parents cannot?
No matter how much you `early-intervention' a student, seeing their neighbors killed in a drive-by or stabbed by a junkie over a pair of shoes is going to fuck them up and cause them to despair and lead them to seek revenge (usually by joining a gang).
Yes, those might be good ideas, but the gangsters have got to fucking go before anything like that can even begin to work. A police force not consisting of bullies, morons, or cowards too scared to get out of their fucking car would go a long way too. How to attack this problem? I do not know. But it doesn't appear that softer methods are working very much. How many more generations can we afford to let be eaten alive before we can bring out the big guns?
And you would know this from first hand experience? Or, are you relying on "common sense"? Human beings are more resilient than you might expect and many kids that grow up in these environments don't turn into gangsters.
give them jobs
Give them???? How many trillions of dollars have been transfered from the workers to the non-workers, and how effective has it actually been?
Besides, why work mowing grass and digging ditches (what else are they qualified for, given their piss poor grades in their piss poor schools) when (a) that's "Mexican work", and (b) you can make more by selling drugs and living off the dole?
Well, I'm glad we got the two most worn-out stereotypes out of the way so quickly. Now maybe we can have a useful conversation. How about legalizing or decriminalizing those things sold on a black market removing the financial incentives? How about early intervention through more funding for pre-schools in urban areas to provide the structure the kids' parents cannot? Or about a million other things that would be more effective than "hand-outs" or "policing the lazy".
The tension created by "City vs. Suburbs" is strictly for the benefit of the story. Existing companies are opening new offices in urban areas but for the most part they aren't closing offices in the suburbs. Sure, new companies are often starting in cities but they will likely open suburban offices if they survive long enough. It's a healthy kind of diversification that will likely reach some sort of equilibrium over the next decade or two. Does that mean the stature of suburbs will decrease a bit while that of cities increases? Sure, but talk of "winners" and "losers" in some binary or zero-sum sense is overblown.
I think most commenters here will end up completely missing the point, just as I initially did. Of course it will be trivial to bypass any possible protection the font might briefly provide, but that isn't the point. The making of the font is a political statement against government machinery and software spying on us and taking our humanity away. As such, I'd say it's quite clever and attention-getting.
Now I'll sit back and watch 50 different people get up-modded for pedantically explaining how it will be trivial to train an OCR to recognize the font and how software reads the bytecodes and doesn't care about the font and blah blah blah...
Is that a giant whooshing sound I hear?
Either way, it's still lame. I mean the pedants are obnoxious but so are pointless political gestures.
Oh gosh, my sincerest apologies. I'll be sure to let everyone know that all political gestures need to be cleared by you first. You know, to make sure they're not "lame".
Yeah, please do. It'd save everyone a lot of wasted time and effort. Thanks.
I think most commenters here will end up completely missing the point, just as I initially did. Of course it will be trivial to bypass any possible protection the font might briefly provide, but that isn't the point. The making of the font is a political statement against government machinery and software spying on us and taking our humanity away. As such, I'd say it's quite clever and attention-getting.
Now I'll sit back and watch 50 different people get up-modded for pedantically explaining how it will be trivial to train an OCR to recognize the font and how software reads the bytecodes and doesn't care about the font and blah blah blah...
Is that a giant whooshing sound I hear?
Either way, it's still lame. I mean the pedants are obnoxious but so are pointless political gestures.
At MIT, the word "hack" means something very specific, and not criminal or unethical. It is a impressive, creative, and clever achievement.
From http://hacks.mit.edu/
The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking").
So, the president of MIT was urging MIT students to pull clever practical jokes? That's stupid or he meant something different. Presumably he meant "hack" in the same way that people who have been actually involved with computers understand it: exploring the possibilities of a system (often including some that the inventor never intended) for the sake of discovery and in some cases using those discoveries to create unique and innovative outcomes. I get that you are trying to make a distinction between "hacking" and "cracking" but "hacking" has a meaning that transcends the special case of practical jokes that are a part of MIT folklore and if the president of MIT did not have the broader meaning in mind, then his comments are almost comical.
Not a single business partner, client, or home user that I've dealt with for the last 3 year has an active IPv6 DNS registration. _None_.
The critical factor for IPv4 exhaustion was the lack of "/24" addres spaces for businesses and buildings. This has been impressively ameliorated by the use of NAT, which shares numerous intenral and protected IP addresses behind a single or pair of public addresses and should be the _default_ configuraiton in most businesses and organizaitons, simply to reduce the constant external vulnerability scanning of any host directly connected to the Internet.
The growth of high capacity load balancers for web servers and other network services has also helped tremendously, allowing a wide set of behind the scenes hosts to be serviced by a single exposed device and reducing the IPv4 footprint of these services. Also, people have learned how to economize in the ir IPv4 use: They _do no tneed_ a different IP address for their email server, their FTP server, their web server, their phone server, their chat server, and their IRC server. The services are being easily funneled through a single exposed router or firewall, far more efficiently than before.
The result has been that the great need for IPv6 simply has not yet occurred, and is unlikely to occur for another 10 years. The foundation of the need for IPv6 is basically that of ubiquitous comuputing: the idea that every single device scattered around the home or around the workplace will have its own IP address for remote communications, and they _should not have_ public IP addresses. Providing public, routable IP addresses puts them at risk of attack at all times: putting them in the unroutable, easily tracked and maintained IPv4 address space handles almost all internal network needs quie effectively and is a signigicant security advantage and eases scanning and tracking of local resources.
Um, yeah, creating a single bottleneck and point of attack to the internet seems like a great idea... It's not that your ideas don't have merit (although you do over state and misstate some of them) but that they only address the needs of a certain set of users. NAT is not an unmitigated good. NAT has significant shortcomings.
It's become clear that the federal government no longer serves the interests of the people.
Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the problem?
Whenever some "government done did wrong again" article comes up, the comments are all non-constructive: blithe unconcern, fatalism, pessimism, and so on.
What constructive actions can be taken, and how can the people be encouraged to support these actions?
My one idea: If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.
(And no, replies of "you won't accomplish anything because of this reason" are not constructive.)
Eliminate the two party duopoly by voting for a third-party candidate.
Now that you've made myelin, how do you get it to stick to actual damaged neurons and/or brian cells. If you inject it in there, is it naturally just going to bind to damaged cells?
Yeah, exactly. Otherwise I don't think clumps of myelin just floating around the brain are going to be a good thing.
I think states and cities should be rolling out their own fiber. Sort of like building roads. And then subsidize installation for last mile fiber for any homeowner that can afford $1000. They don't need to install the network equipment but they can or they can lease the lines to businesses. The state could fund a redundant backbone network that the cities could trunk into. Just design the lines to be replaced every 30 years.
Cites could then individually choose to offer "free" internet. Of course that would mean they would just subcontract out to a business to provide the network equipment and service. Cities pay for these sorts of things through property taxes.
I may be libertarian but I classify this as necessary infrastructure that will benefit the vast majority. Everything else is just more expensive.
I absolutely agree. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. Presumably FUD and resistance from incumbent monopolies.
1 Gigabit connection for $70 a month?
I understand why we don't get this on average across the US, because population density is low. But why don't we get it in the Bay Area? We have high population density, and surely there is demand. What is wrong with California?
Because population density isn't really the main issue. It's mostly a red herring. The real reason you don't have 1-gigabit internet access is a lack of healthy competition.
This is a media story engineered to generate goodwill. I would not go so far as to call it a gimmick, but it sounds and feels like one.
FTTH, as it's known, costs between $5,000 and $12,000 per home in the rural market and only exists through subsidy. By comparision, FTTH is between $1,500 and $3,000 in suburban markets which is recouped by annual customer commitments.
The only way these costs are made affordable is through government subsidies. Google is subsidizing these customers in a similar way. As with many subsidies, unless they are bonafide charity/goodwill missions, they are not sustainable. This is okay as long as Google has the goodwill of the overall financial markts, by, e.g., having such a huge P/E ratio that they enjoy enough excess money to spend on things like driverless cars, imaging satellites, and hot tub airplaines.
Speeds comparable to FTTH can be achieved for so much less money by using Fiber to the Neighborhood instead of to the home. While I'm no fan of local cable TV monopolies, they already do this today. The problem many local cable TV companies is that they still carry local channels in analog. If they were to convert to all-digital carriage their existing cable plant could compare with FTTH using DOCSIS 3.x but this dream inexplicably escapes them.
You clearly don't understand their business model or strategy. They are not trying to be a traditional ISP (i.e. bit pusher). That business model is a loser and that's why cable companies are trying to resist it through nefarious means and otherwise. Google plans on making its money on services and advertising. It's the same model that allows them to provide search for free.
Why can't these guys just graciously accept the prize, without claiming or implying they don't deserve it?
I dunno because their discovery was built on 2500 years of work by their predecessors?
Maybe you live somewhere backwards where wifi and the computers using it are powered by some kind of device that you have to manually power by rotating a wheel or something, but in the western world the effort involved would simply be turning a computer on which is pre-configured to simply log passively all wifi data.
Neither the pre-configuration or pressing the power button before you do your streetview drive on the morning though add any merit to your debate, the fundamental point still remains that Google were passively collecting data that was publicly available in a public space and not protected at all.
"You're just wrong. Get over it."
Well aren't you acting like an irrational little child. Rather than accept that your original argument was trivially disproven with a simple example you cover your ears, close your eyes and pretend reality isn't reality. I guess it sucks to be you. Oh well, keep telling yourself you're not wrong, the rest of us will just keep laughing at you.
Haha. "My wifi did it, not me!" is not really an acceptable defense. Your response is a classic case of casuistry. You can find ever finer objections regressing ad infinitum, if you like, but I'll just take the limit and call you wrong. I guess it sucks to be you. Oh well, keep telling yourself you're not wrong, I'll just keep laughing at you. The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
"Ridiculous. You have to be actively listening for it on a given frequency."
The same applies to hearing someone's conversation as you walk past, the frequency in question is standard to Wifi.
"In short you have to expend effort to get the information."
Rubbish, all Wifi receiving equipment automatically works on the frequencies it's built for, you don't have to do any kind of magical tuning to receive wifi data - the same is true of your ears, when you overhear someone.
"This propensity to blame victims in this case is just astounding."
The same goes for my overhearing someone talking loudly in their garden example. So if they talk to loudly, you hear them, and they call you an annoying little eavesdropper and you tell them they shouldn't talk so loud then then you're blaming the victim?
The thing is I'd have sympathy and side with you if they really were expending effort - i.e. they were breaking WEP keys and bypassing security etc. but that's not the case, it was passive monitoring and the very fact it was passive explains why no effort was expended.
"Google knew they shouldn't be doing it. They told staff not to do it. And they admitted by doing it they did wrong. What more do you need?"
Right, and we've had numerous politicians have to apologise that something they said was wrong. Sometimes it genuinely was, other times not. Just because they had to to keep their job doesn't mean they really were actually wrong though, it just means they were forced into it.
And recording that information takes no effort? You're just wrong. Get over it.
It's only like a peeping Tom if said peeping Tom is peeping at someone running round in the middle of a public street naked.
It's not like they creeped into people's gardens to gather this data, it was being broadcast all over the local neighbourhood unencrypted.
What next? you're going to say that someone who overheard someone else speaking too loud in their front garden as they walked past along the pavement is a creepy little snooper too?
Ridiculous. You have to be actively listening for it on a given frequency. In short you have to expend effort to get the information. This propensity to blame victims in this case is just astounding. Google knew they shouldn't be doing it. They told staff not to do it. And they admitted by doing it they did wrong. What more do you need?
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
You, sir, are the troll. I am not.
Assuming you're the one who wrote the submission, yes actually you are.
You're comparing sniffing passwords from open, unsecured access points (which is arguably not even 'naughty' to start with) to a directed break-in of a computer system you were told, and signed an agreement, to not enter into. But since "Down with the Evil Corporation, Up with the Lone Renegade!" stories get a lot of page hits, they went ahead and pushed it to the front page.
Sniffing open unsecured access point is most certainly naughty. It's basically like being a peeping Tom. Whether it deserves legal action and to what extent is debatable. But the "They were asking for it" argument also doesn't hold water.
2D graphics provide exponentially more information at once than a command line. 3D graphics, at least for every model I've seen, provides at best incrementally more information and, at worse, less information at once. The only way a 3D interface would work is if the 3D objects have some symbolic value. If you mean 3D for the sake of FPS or modeling, then it'll happen when there is enough demand for it. I just don't see much demand for it from the general population