their security systems and auditing don't have much oversight
So, they're incompetent then?
That makes me feel a whole lot better.
So, now instead of a bunch of lying bastards who abuse their power, ignore the law, and lie to the people who provide oversight... they're a bunch of incompetent, lying bastards who abuse their power, ignore the law, and lie to the people who provide oversight.
As a motorcycle rider, I welcome this awesome advancement in bio-3d printing.
I haven't ridden in years, but I spent some time trackside at races and knew a lot of people who rode... this is cool sounding technology, but in the case of motorcyclists, wear some proper safety gear.
I have seen people riding a motorcycle in essentially cut off shorts.
If that isn't setting yourself up to need a skin graft, I don't know what would be.
Cordura is your friend, and seems to be much more effective that leather for this stuff.
If I went back to riding a motorcycle, my first investment would be some really good gear. Who cares if it's hot and uncomfortable? So is getting a skin graft.
One of the things which concerns me, is you're putting all powerful surveillance tools into the hands of private corporations.
Those corporations can then use and abuse that technology in ways which may ignore the law, and bypass any oversight.
And then if the NSA has included in their contract a share of the take, or simply invoke the PATRIOT act to demand it... then you can effectively have government outsourcing things they're not legally allowed to do out to private industry, but then it doesn't break the law when private industry hands back the data they'd not have been able to collect legally.
At which point, they can basically do an end run around the law, and the people who are tasked with oversight.
And since we know they already lie to the people who are supposed to be overseeing the... I have zero way that you can treat an organization like this as anything other than a rabid dog.
At this point, I think the only way to get the truth out of the NSA is to waterboard it out of them. Because they've demonstrated they don't give a damn about providing it to us.
I rank this as being massively creepy, and with legal implications which boggle the mind.
And, yes, I do come down heavily on the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum. But paranoia doesn't preclude malfeasance, especially when there's already evidence of malfeasance.
Big Brother is scary. Big Brother in bed with private industry is terrifying.
So, all of those things we can't get funding for because they might be illegal?
No problem, we'll just raise the money by selling some technology.
And, while we're at it, we've also got a sideline business of charging shakedown money to politicians.
If they're a government agency, and developed these technologies with tax-payer money, are the technologies theirs to sell or patent?
This sounds like an agency which has more or less decided it is entitled to do anything it wants to, and the more it moves some of its operations into the private sector, the less oversight it comes under.
I never made a contract anyway when I stayed in a hotel, I signed myself in and payed the bill on exit... no contract involved.
I agree with the rest of your post... but that paper you sign on the dotted line when you register?
That's a contract stipulating what they'll give you, and what they expect from you.
I know I've never stayed at a hotel which didn't have the "sign here" form. You probably didn't read it, but you did sign it. At the very least, you agreed to be responsible for damages and your bill.
Unless of course you're in the habit of staying in anonymous, cash-only hotels rented by the hour. But then it's a totally different thing.
I'm pretty sure that most Inn Keeper laws more or less say you're getting the space for your exclusive private use, and that except for housekeeping and extenuating circumstances, the room and its contents are private as long as they're being rented to you.
I think a hotel taking your money is already defined as having an expectation of privacy, and putting recording devices in there would be illegal.
I would be surprised it was legal for a hotel to install recording equipment in rooms and not run afoul of the law.
Otherwise, I'm sure you'd be seeing absolutely massive amounts of reality shows based on what happens in hotel rooms.
My guess, is for purposes of recording, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if you did it.
Nope, wrong. It's your house. You can put all the cameras you want inside of it. There are no restrictions.
So, if the car is private property... I'd be curious to know the legal distinction.
If you have no expectation of privacy in my home, you also have no expectation of privacy in my car.
It's not a public space, and you're there under my permission to complete a specific task. If you subsequently go outside the bounds of that task, or start rifling through my stuff, in what way is it different from a nanny cam?
And, really, just take a page out of the playbook of software... by entering this car you agree to all terms and conditions set forth by the vehicle owner. (I'm joking on that one, I don't agree that click through EULAs in which one party can arbitrarily make changes is a good idea.)
Sorry, but simply by adding "By entering this vehicle you are agreeing to be monitored" is all that is needed.
You know, that brings up an interesting thought exercise.
If the valet can legally refuse to be recorded, then can they then legally say "sorry, you need to park somewhere else"? Because your ability to get service might be trumped by their privacy rights.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, and I'm not sure I'd trust valets who said they wouldn't park the car if they were going to be monitored.
I've been to a few underground parking structures, and the guy basically says "we're full, but leave your keys". At which point I basically say "no, sorry, I have no intention of giving you my keys, I'll be leaving now".
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, you've entered private property with the express intent of providing a service, so what is your expectation of privacy? What is the law on nanny cams in states like this?
You know, if the argument is that I save money on my electric bill AND do something for the environment, great.
If the argument becomes "gee, you'll probably spend more money over the long run, and you're doing the electric company a favor by subsidizing their reductions"... well, then I'm less convinced. Especially since most electric companies just seem hell bent on gouging the consumer.
And, I never said anything about a hummer being better than a hybrid.
I'm saying if you pay a $10+K premium for the car, and after 5 years or so spend another $5+K on new batteries AND you don't get the fuel economy promised to you... then overall, you're paying more for less, and other than reducing local emissions haven't really done much.
I like the idea of hybrids which actually save the consumer money and reduce emissions. I'm not entirely certain it achieves that.
If in the end it's just a shell game where we're more out of pocket Well, the polluting less becomes a negative incentive, unless you have the luxury of saying you're willing and able to do that.
Because, really, nobody is factoring that into cost of living equations, and most of us are already squeezed as it is.
Because the argument goes that in order to prevent terrorism and protect the children, everybody must give up their existing rights to make it possible for law enforcement.
The problem is that law enforcement is also using these expanded powers for things well beyond that.
When they start throwing police offices in jail for perjury due to parallel construction, I will believe they will only use this power in those two cases.
Otherwise, I have to assume they will simply keep abusing it, and that giving them a blanket ability to get anything is just enabling that.
So, no, probably cause, the 4th amendment, and all sorts of reasons say that if you need this information, you need to go through proper channels, and not just cripple all technology in case you ever need to... or in case you decide to break the law like you're already doing.
All of these extra surveillance powers and secret laws were pitches as vital for national security, and would only be used as such. Now they're being used for everything under the sun as just another tool.
So, screw you Mr. Comey... you're lying to us, and you will abuse any tool given to you. If we can't trust you with the tools you have now, giving you even more is a terrible idea.
It's not just the money savings on energy, it's saving energy period. Less pollution = better for the Earth.
Sure, but how much extra does it cost to make and dispose of them? And what is the environmental cost of the nasty stuff in a CFL?
Sure, it makes the energy company make less pollution, but if it means I'm personally paying more for that to happen... other than feeling good, CFLs cease to be cost effective for the consumer.
And if the disposal costs are high, or they're simply discarded and cause more pollution.. it's conceivable CFLs are a net loss for the consumer.
At which point you start getting into the same calculus of whether a hybrid really saves on money and pollution, because the batteries don't last forever, are expensive to replace, and carry an environmental cost in both manufacturing and disposal.
Sure, you've used less gasoline (but not as much less as you were promised), but have you actually had either a cost savings or a net reduction in your pollution?
LOL... assuming my bullshit hypothesis is true... if you do them equally, no twist at all, if you preferentially use the left hand, twist to the right.
You'd probably need accurate statistics on if you have a greater, um, usage with one or the other over your lifetime. Frequency, duration, and... er... grip strength/technique probably play a factor.
Now, please do us all a favor, and keep the answer to yourself.;-)
Unless they sell replacement parts, which they don't, it has the net effect of taking a technology which should last for years, and saddling it with pieces which are not going to.
So, big deal, we've given you this awesome light bulb which should last a long time, but we've paired it with a cheap part which won't.
The net effect is, the CFL doesn't last anywhere near as long as claimed.
If you save more on energy, but spend a lot more on replacement bulbs, what is the break even point before it was a good investment?
I've had several instances of CFLs which lasted much less time than would have been needed to offset the cost.
I would never buy a dimmable CFL again. We had an entire 5-bulb fixture burn out in under a month. In that month, there is no way we saved enough energy to pay for the bulbs.
So, for some lights, I do find them good. But I don't find that the replacement rate is always at a level which doesn't make me think I'm getting screwed.
And then I guess you need to actor in the cradle-to-grave costs of a CFL. They probably cost more to make, and cost more to dispose of. So is this a case of seeming to be better and cheaper? Or is it really costing us money in the long run, and doing more damage to the environment?
There are already reports of CFLs and LED lamps burning out long before their rated lifetimes are reached.
I completely agree about the CFLs.
I've had numerous bulbs which seemed to last only a short period of time before they died. Which means they actually wiped out the cost savings, and ended up costing me more in the long run.
So much so that I stopped buying them for a while.
I've also found a huge variance across manufacturers, both in terms of longevity and color warmth.
I've got some Ikea CFLs in some lamps which have lasted an amazing amount of time. But I've seen some from Philips and GE which really only lasted a few months. I've also had several bulbs out of the same package which produce a visibly different color spectrum.
And, dimmable CFLs? A complete joke. We bought some so go into a dimmable light fixture, and the package said compatible with existing dimmers and doesn't require a special one. In less than a month all of the bulbs had burned out. They were a complete waste of money.
I've long believed the claims by some makers of CFLs are pretty bogus. And it seems that the European made stuff are of much better quality than things like Philips and GE. My guess is because they've been using them longer.
I've seen way too many CFLs burn out after a short period of time to believe you always get the savings claimed.
And I haven't been willing to replace things with LEDs, because proportionally they're even more expensive. The five flood lights in my kitchen would take around $100 to replace with LEDs. And you'd need to use a lot of electricity to recoup that cost, especially since they're not lights we use all the time.
Such incidents may well have resulted from nothing more sinister than careless manufacturing.
You know, that's sinister enough.. because companies increasingly make poorly made stuff we're supposed to accept is just as good as previous versions.
That is, people have not become stupider, they have just moved some information processing from the brains in their skull to the devices in their (hands).
Well, the problem might be that while some people might be remaining smart and advancing our overall knowledge and technology, that on balance individuals are getting stupider and relying more on the tech.
So, if we're going to end up with a bunch of drooling idiots over time (and internet videos tells me there's already plenty;-).. is that a good thing for us?
I routinely see 3 year olds who need a smartphone to be pacified. So what is going to happen to these kids when they reach adulthood? Will they be even less able to focus without the shiny device? Or will they be completely dependent on it for even the most basic things?
I'm sure every generation decries that kids today seem stupider and whatnot. But, really, imagine a world where the average person is 20-30% stupider than they are now (and, yes, those numbers are arbitrary).
Seriously, we're already cybernetic in that a smartphone or PC can already be considered an extension of our brains, an additional storage pool for our memories.
I would disagree with that.
Yes, it's more immediate that a book or an encyclopedia, but I'd hardly consider that it makes us cybernetic or acts as an extension to our brains.
The written word has existed for thousand of years.
I do, however, agree that refusing to decrypt your cell phone is very much like the right to remain silent, or to refuse to give evidence which would incriminate you.
Unfortunately, they increasingly have decided that the rest of the amendments are optional, and have re-defined the terms around unreasonable search and seizure and what counts as "secure in your papers".
Once governments start going down the road "anything at any costs to get what we need", they stop worrying about such niceties.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL ... must ... not ... make ... joke ... about ... "equipment".
Suddenly I'm thinking of the neon lights under cars, and wondering if this won't be the next big thing in body modification.
Can't wait for my 57% brighter Christmas tree.
You'll see that sucker from space.
So, they're incompetent then?
That makes me feel a whole lot better.
So, now instead of a bunch of lying bastards who abuse their power, ignore the law, and lie to the people who provide oversight ... they're a bunch of incompetent, lying bastards who abuse their power, ignore the law, and lie to the people who provide oversight.
That's what we need.
I haven't ridden in years, but I spent some time trackside at races and knew a lot of people who rode ... this is cool sounding technology, but in the case of motorcyclists, wear some proper safety gear.
I have seen people riding a motorcycle in essentially cut off shorts.
If that isn't setting yourself up to need a skin graft, I don't know what would be.
Cordura is your friend, and seems to be much more effective that leather for this stuff.
If I went back to riding a motorcycle, my first investment would be some really good gear. Who cares if it's hot and uncomfortable? So is getting a skin graft.
Is that like "baked with real vegetables", which may or may not imply there's vegetables actually in it? ;-)
LOL ... I thought we were playing Spock, Paper, Scissors.
And Spock Scissors Fingers.
One of the things which concerns me, is you're putting all powerful surveillance tools into the hands of private corporations.
Those corporations can then use and abuse that technology in ways which may ignore the law, and bypass any oversight.
And then if the NSA has included in their contract a share of the take, or simply invoke the PATRIOT act to demand it ... then you can effectively have government outsourcing things they're not legally allowed to do out to private industry, but then it doesn't break the law when private industry hands back the data they'd not have been able to collect legally.
At which point, they can basically do an end run around the law, and the people who are tasked with oversight.
And since we know they already lie to the people who are supposed to be overseeing the ... I have zero way that you can treat an organization like this as anything other than a rabid dog.
At this point, I think the only way to get the truth out of the NSA is to waterboard it out of them. Because they've demonstrated they don't give a damn about providing it to us.
I rank this as being massively creepy, and with legal implications which boggle the mind.
And, yes, I do come down heavily on the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum. But paranoia doesn't preclude malfeasance, especially when there's already evidence of malfeasance.
Big Brother is scary. Big Brother in bed with private industry is terrifying.
So, all of those things we can't get funding for because they might be illegal?
No problem, we'll just raise the money by selling some technology.
And, while we're at it, we've also got a sideline business of charging shakedown money to politicians.
If they're a government agency, and developed these technologies with tax-payer money, are the technologies theirs to sell or patent?
This sounds like an agency which has more or less decided it is entitled to do anything it wants to, and the more it moves some of its operations into the private sector, the less oversight it comes under.
This sounds like some class A bullshit to me.
I agree with the rest of your post ... but that paper you sign on the dotted line when you register?
That's a contract stipulating what they'll give you, and what they expect from you.
I know I've never stayed at a hotel which didn't have the "sign here" form. You probably didn't read it, but you did sign it. At the very least, you agreed to be responsible for damages and your bill.
Unless of course you're in the habit of staying in anonymous, cash-only hotels rented by the hour. But then it's a totally different thing.
I'm pretty sure that most Inn Keeper laws more or less say you're getting the space for your exclusive private use, and that except for housekeeping and extenuating circumstances, the room and its contents are private as long as they're being rented to you.
I think a hotel taking your money is already defined as having an expectation of privacy, and putting recording devices in there would be illegal.
I would be surprised it was legal for a hotel to install recording equipment in rooms and not run afoul of the law.
Otherwise, I'm sure you'd be seeing absolutely massive amounts of reality shows based on what happens in hotel rooms.
My guess, is for purposes of recording, you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if you did it.
Nope, wrong. It's your house. You can put all the cameras you want inside of it. There are no restrictions.
So, if the car is private property ... I'd be curious to know the legal distinction.
If you have no expectation of privacy in my home, you also have no expectation of privacy in my car.
It's not a public space, and you're there under my permission to complete a specific task. If you subsequently go outside the bounds of that task, or start rifling through my stuff, in what way is it different from a nanny cam?
And, really, just take a page out of the playbook of software ... by entering this car you agree to all terms and conditions set forth by the vehicle owner. (I'm joking on that one, I don't agree that click through EULAs in which one party can arbitrarily make changes is a good idea.)
You know, that brings up an interesting thought exercise.
If the valet can legally refuse to be recorded, then can they then legally say "sorry, you need to park somewhere else"? Because your ability to get service might be trumped by their privacy rights.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, and I'm not sure I'd trust valets who said they wouldn't park the car if they were going to be monitored.
I've been to a few underground parking structures, and the guy basically says "we're full, but leave your keys". At which point I basically say "no, sorry, I have no intention of giving you my keys, I'll be leaving now".
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, you've entered private property with the express intent of providing a service, so what is your expectation of privacy? What is the law on nanny cams in states like this?
You know, if the argument is that I save money on my electric bill AND do something for the environment, great.
If the argument becomes "gee, you'll probably spend more money over the long run, and you're doing the electric company a favor by subsidizing their reductions" ... well, then I'm less convinced. Especially since most electric companies just seem hell bent on gouging the consumer.
And, I never said anything about a hummer being better than a hybrid.
I'm saying if you pay a $10+K premium for the car, and after 5 years or so spend another $5+K on new batteries AND you don't get the fuel economy promised to you ... then overall, you're paying more for less, and other than reducing local emissions haven't really done much.
I like the idea of hybrids which actually save the consumer money and reduce emissions. I'm not entirely certain it achieves that.
If in the end it's just a shell game where we're more out of pocket Well, the polluting less becomes a negative incentive, unless you have the luxury of saying you're willing and able to do that.
Because, really, nobody is factoring that into cost of living equations, and most of us are already squeezed as it is.
Of course he did.
Because the argument goes that in order to prevent terrorism and protect the children, everybody must give up their existing rights to make it possible for law enforcement.
The problem is that law enforcement is also using these expanded powers for things well beyond that.
When they start throwing police offices in jail for perjury due to parallel construction, I will believe they will only use this power in those two cases.
Otherwise, I have to assume they will simply keep abusing it, and that giving them a blanket ability to get anything is just enabling that.
So, no, probably cause, the 4th amendment, and all sorts of reasons say that if you need this information, you need to go through proper channels, and not just cripple all technology in case you ever need to ... or in case you decide to break the law like you're already doing.
All of these extra surveillance powers and secret laws were pitches as vital for national security, and would only be used as such. Now they're being used for everything under the sun as just another tool.
So, screw you Mr. Comey ... you're lying to us, and you will abuse any tool given to you. If we can't trust you with the tools you have now, giving you even more is a terrible idea.
Sure, but how much extra does it cost to make and dispose of them? And what is the environmental cost of the nasty stuff in a CFL?
Sure, it makes the energy company make less pollution, but if it means I'm personally paying more for that to happen ... other than feeling good, CFLs cease to be cost effective for the consumer.
And if the disposal costs are high, or they're simply discarded and cause more pollution .. it's conceivable CFLs are a net loss for the consumer.
At which point you start getting into the same calculus of whether a hybrid really saves on money and pollution, because the batteries don't last forever, are expensive to replace, and carry an environmental cost in both manufacturing and disposal.
Sure, you've used less gasoline (but not as much less as you were promised), but have you actually had either a cost savings or a net reduction in your pollution?
Really? Is this for a 24x7 light?
Because I find it hard to believe in 3 months the extra few dollars/bulb is offset in energy savings.
LOL ... assuming my bullshit hypothesis is true ... if you do them equally, no twist at all, if you preferentially use the left hand, twist to the right.
You'd probably need accurate statistics on if you have a greater, um, usage with one or the other over your lifetime. Frequency, duration, and ... er ... grip strength/technique probably play a factor.
Now, please do us all a favor, and keep the answer to yourself. ;-)
Because, too much fscking information.
Unless they sell replacement parts, which they don't, it has the net effect of taking a technology which should last for years, and saddling it with pieces which are not going to.
So, big deal, we've given you this awesome light bulb which should last a long time, but we've paired it with a cheap part which won't.
The net effect is, the CFL doesn't last anywhere near as long as claimed.
Do they really?
If you save more on energy, but spend a lot more on replacement bulbs, what is the break even point before it was a good investment?
I've had several instances of CFLs which lasted much less time than would have been needed to offset the cost.
I would never buy a dimmable CFL again. We had an entire 5-bulb fixture burn out in under a month. In that month, there is no way we saved enough energy to pay for the bulbs.
So, for some lights, I do find them good. But I don't find that the replacement rate is always at a level which doesn't make me think I'm getting screwed.
And then I guess you need to actor in the cradle-to-grave costs of a CFL. They probably cost more to make, and cost more to dispose of. So is this a case of seeming to be better and cheaper? Or is it really costing us money in the long run, and doing more damage to the environment?
I completely agree about the CFLs.
I've had numerous bulbs which seemed to last only a short period of time before they died. Which means they actually wiped out the cost savings, and ended up costing me more in the long run.
So much so that I stopped buying them for a while.
I've also found a huge variance across manufacturers, both in terms of longevity and color warmth.
I've got some Ikea CFLs in some lamps which have lasted an amazing amount of time. But I've seen some from Philips and GE which really only lasted a few months. I've also had several bulbs out of the same package which produce a visibly different color spectrum.
And, dimmable CFLs? A complete joke. We bought some so go into a dimmable light fixture, and the package said compatible with existing dimmers and doesn't require a special one. In less than a month all of the bulbs had burned out. They were a complete waste of money.
I've long believed the claims by some makers of CFLs are pretty bogus. And it seems that the European made stuff are of much better quality than things like Philips and GE. My guess is because they've been using them longer.
I've seen way too many CFLs burn out after a short period of time to believe you always get the savings claimed.
And I haven't been willing to replace things with LEDs, because proportionally they're even more expensive. The five flood lights in my kitchen would take around $100 to replace with LEDs. And you'd need to use a lot of electricity to recoup that cost, especially since they're not lights we use all the time.
You know, that's sinister enough .. because companies increasingly make poorly made stuff we're supposed to accept is just as good as previous versions.
And, increasingly, that's not even remotely true.
Most of us are right handed? ;-)
Dude, dogs don't have hands. ;-)
Well, the problem might be that while some people might be remaining smart and advancing our overall knowledge and technology, that on balance individuals are getting stupider and relying more on the tech.
So, if we're going to end up with a bunch of drooling idiots over time (and internet videos tells me there's already plenty ;-) .. is that a good thing for us?
I routinely see 3 year olds who need a smartphone to be pacified. So what is going to happen to these kids when they reach adulthood? Will they be even less able to focus without the shiny device? Or will they be completely dependent on it for even the most basic things?
I'm sure every generation decries that kids today seem stupider and whatnot. But, really, imagine a world where the average person is 20-30% stupider than they are now (and, yes, those numbers are arbitrary).
Not a pretty thing to imagine.
I would disagree with that.
Yes, it's more immediate that a book or an encyclopedia, but I'd hardly consider that it makes us cybernetic or acts as an extension to our brains.
The written word has existed for thousand of years.
I do, however, agree that refusing to decrypt your cell phone is very much like the right to remain silent, or to refuse to give evidence which would incriminate you.
Unfortunately, they increasingly have decided that the rest of the amendments are optional, and have re-defined the terms around unreasonable search and seizure and what counts as "secure in your papers".
Once governments start going down the road "anything at any costs to get what we need", they stop worrying about such niceties.