Oh you'll know it if it hits the ground. There is no secret hole it comes out of where you won't see it.
The thing you are likely not to see is when the fule gets sucked into the vapor recovery system. If there is a big hood thing you will see it clearly when you separate the noces and tank. If its the kind where there are a bunch of holes around the outside of the tip of the nozzle then a slow-fill top-off may send a non-trivial amount of that gas you are pumping back into the pump.
There is an ongoing design war to prevent topping-off from becoming an all-out spill. The vacuum in the recovery system getting stronger, the sensors getting more responsive. all sorts of little tweaks. blarg.
A fuel cell basically "burns" (uses up) its reagent to make electricity directly.
This (according to the article) is a reversible reaction between two liquids, one acting as an anode and one acting as a cathode, where the reaction is bounded by a membrane. It is really more of the "capacitance gel" idea, only with two carries (which makes sense).
Think of it as two halves of a standard battery that can only interact when brought into proximity. While electrons (or maybe ions or something beyond my simple ability translate, not having seen the research or studied in the field) pass through the membrane by definition, the idea is that the charged medium is not part of the fixed assembly, so the fixed assembly (the reactor and membrane) is permanent while the charged part moves.
In a standard battery the anode and cathode are permanent parts of the battery. When the battery is discharged the whole battery is trashed. For instance, and alkaline battery is assembled in a charged state, the dissolving of the metals in the alkaline solution is what makes the voltage. Lead-acid batteries wear out because the lead is changed by the charging process (applying voltage in the presence of acid solution) and changed back by the discharge. This cycling slowly causes the lead to flake and degrade until there is either so much lead flakes in the battery that a cell shorts out because of the lead connecting the two parts, or the odd chemical impurities and available oxygen slowly make the lead into a chemical that will not react with the acid correctly any more.
In this arrangement the parts that would degrade are in the fluids, draining and replacing the fluids "assembles a new, fully charged battery". In this model the ideal of pulling into a service station and replacing your discharged battery pack with a new, charged one, becomes practical.
In the alternate, as a rechargeable battery the non-solid nature of the battery itself lets the battery be charged and cooled all at once. The anode and cathode material won't "flake" because it isn't sold to begin with. Plus nearly all of the anode and cathode material is used by weight, there is no "inner core" area acting as a superstructure. This should improve the energy density (how many kilowatt hours you can store per pound etc).
In the rechargeable battery usage the battery would probably need to be changed regularly, like an oil change, but _then_ one could probably use charged plates to separate/filter the degraded particles from the good ones, so the "battery" could be recycled in place instead of having to take it back to a factory.
There is a lot potential wins here, but it is _very_ unlike a fuel cell.
revolts have nothing to do with right and wrong. Please read all the words before re-casting my cometary into your world view. Assuming one motive for any action is always wrong. They themselves call it a revolt, and I say they may not be wrong. You are trying to make it "romantic" so that you can attack that romance.
Do you even know what "romance" means? (as a literary term, the thing is, now that you mention it, this is very like something from the romance period, but you make that connection not I. 8-)
Its not "faux" high minded crap, its _actual_ high-minded crap.
This is not a one sided issue and time will tell.
And I am not a first-person actor in _any_ of it. Just and observer. (I have a real life with real credentials and everything so I could not personally afford to be on _either_ side of this in any active capacity.)
And a revolution is defined by the people in revolt, not by some litmus test of right and wrong, nor win, nor lose.
I know, in your black-and-white world your inability anesthetize yourself with pokimon or shout-um-ups is distressing, and you feel you have been wronged. And indeed to some extent you have been. But that's just by-catch in a much larger cycle of events and outcomes that will not resole itself in our lifetimes, if ever.
I just report the facts as I see them. You may color my observations with your vitriol all you wish.
Two fluids, out and in, reduce the mixing so that the fresh fluid is not diluted unacceptably by the stale, ensure none of the anode fluid _ever_ mixes with the cathode fluid, ensure that no person (including a curious child) is exposed to both fluids at once even if they "poke at" the nozzle. This is not a "fill the tank with gas" analog operation at all.
I think the material has great promise, and since it is fluid based, it is probably very able to be cooled quickly as it charges so a closed-loop fast charge in-place is probably _way_ more workable than replacing the fluid every time a charge is needed.
The gas-pump experience I would expect would be a "hose" from the pumping station which carried an electrical cable and a cooling loop. The fluids inside the closed system in the car would be pumped "briskly" though the charging manifold, the "nozzle" would sandwich the charging manifold and both apply the electric potential and aggressive chilling. The charged fluid would return to primary containment somewhat cool to the touch.
The cooling would alleviate the thermal degradation that limits current fast-charging of batteries. The closed system would eliminate the dangers inherent in letting untrained people move 100kwh of charged chemical danger out in the wild. It would be "as quick and easy as pumping gas" as far as the user experience. But it would not be "filling an empty tank with go-juice", and even the article doesn't say it would be.
The fluids would clearly have a replacement schedule, much like engine oil, and you would take your car in for that maintenance when the pump told you that the charging rate during your "fill up" was sub-optimal.
Much better than a true pump and nozzle arrangement.
If you know your tank isn't anywhere near full, then you are not "topping off" technically or morally, you are continuing to fill your tank.
There are two primary reasons that the nozzle will trip "for no reason". (1) improperly inserted nozzles will self trip when their stream of gas hits the side of the pipe and causes back-pressure, and likewise for letting the nozzle back out of the pipe. (2) Someone before you topped off and got "just a little" liquid gas into the vapor recovery system, when those liquid drops hit the internal sensors the last-ditch anti-siphon system kicks in and trips the shutoff. Both conditions are the result of improper fueling technique by the current or previous operator. (A caveat here is that the equipment can, through continued mis-used get worn out but that's a compounded case of items 1 and 2.)
I had a car for a while that would only fill properly if I put the nozzle in at a slight angle because of item 1 and crappy design of the fill pipe.
If you put eight gallons of gas in a rated-ten-gallon tank that wasn't bone dry you have no reason to squeeze the handle again. And if you do and it trips _again_ and you squeeze the handle a third time you are wanking off.
I've watched people re-squeeze the handle like eight times. This is topping off at its most primal level of idiocy.
I love this moderation... it shoudl be +1 Flaimbait as any arrangement where four fluids (two charged fluids going in, and two discharged fluids coming out) of varying electrical potentials are being exchanged by someone of the same technical competence as, say, my mother, is _bound_ to end in flames, or at least tears... So having my mom pump this stuff, were she still alive, would be baiting flames indeed.
Topping off leads to gas on the ground all the time. Look at the ground at your gas station, heck lick it (I cannot honestly recommend touching the ground with a light lighter but it _would_ be funny) and see if you can see or taste gas. That stuff comes from somewhere, and it isn't just the disk-shake-drop that most people leave when they pull out too soon.
A wait ten seconds and then trickle-pump some more top-off can be done with predictable results. It's never necessary. Most people who top off make a mess. The mess can be compounded by successive fouling of the vapor recovery lines.
People top off and gush all over the place all the time.
Its unnecessary. You aren't saving yourself anything by getting that extra tenth of a gallon into your tank. There is a good chance that when you top off, fully half of that extra tenth is actually ending up in the vapor recovery system instead of your tank anyway, and the gas station just gets to sell it on to the next guy.
Am I innocent of topping off myself? no. Do I know its dumb? yes. Am I old enough that sometimes I do it without thinking? yes. Is it _still_ dumb? yes. Should I do it? no. Do I try not to do it despite a lifetime of practice? yes, at least when I am paying attention. Do I always spill, or even usually spill? no. Is it _still_ dumb? yes.
You should not top off your tank. It's never the right thing to do, even if you can do it well. About half the people who do it do it worse than average. 8-)
I would expect a standardized interlocking cartridge thing, or in-place charging.
In the case of replacing the fluids: (1) The quantity of the two liquids would need to be kept in balance, which would be very hard to do using a "pumping" paradigm. (2) The liquid isn't "consumed" (e.g. burnt) so much as "exhausted" (reduced to a non-charged state) so the spent liquid would need to be returned at the same time as the new liquid is supplied, which would get you up to four connections in the system instead of two. (3) Punctures to containment would be hugely problematic, unlike gas, so the storage mechanism would need to have internal isolations to keep "the whole charge" from going off at once. (gas is amazingly stable in an accident since the liquid itself does not burn, not so much for the charged binary liquid in question.)
The in-place charging is much more likely. The charge process could be _very_ fast if the fluids are pumped quickly through a charging manifold. This would be the orthogonal structure to (or indeed the same exact structure as) the discharging manifold. Since the fluid is in motion it can be charged and _cooled_ immediately. That is the fluid would be pumped pass the charge point and into a heat sink or heat exchanger. In a full charging loop it might be chilled to an optimal pre-charge temperature, charged, and then cooled in series. Each individual annode/cathode element in the suspension would not have to take a full charge in one pass as you could keep circulating the fluid until the feedback voltage, charging current, and temperature told you the fluid was a charged as it was going to get. (and indeed the "worn-out-ness" of the fluid could probably be measured in the same way, telling you when you need to have your fluid changed by a proper professional etc.)
The system could work in a gas-pump like time and user modality (e.g. I put this thing in my car, watch it go "ding" for a while, then take it out and drive away) but the chance that the four fluids being exchanged by an average-joe in an air-gap setting is quite low.
No fluid exchange coupling known to date is absolutely residue free. It would only take one kid "checking out" the interlock and getting both liquids on his fingers and then touching them together to call in the liability lawyers big-time.
There is a reason it's called "topping off" if my father's long-ago explanation is to be believed...
First: there is no "drain hole" in the fuel system (at least in the US etc) since the fuel system is supposed to be vapor tight. There _is_ a small drain hole behind the typical fuel filler door which mostly exists to prevent water from getting caught inside the compartment and rusting things out. That said...
We pump gas _far_ too fast to be environmentally sound. It _froths_ out of the hose in a turbulent flow and a lot of vapor escapes because of the frothing, which is why we now have those vapor recovery hoods etc on a lot of pumps.
When the tank is nearly full, e.g. "as full as it ought to be", the froth boils up the fill-pipe and triggers the back-pressure sensor causing the nozzle to click closed. I few seconds latter the frothing settles and there is now a space in the tank. "Topping off" is the attempt to fill that space.
Back in the before time, that is, before gas was expensive and mileage was important, getting that quarter of a gallon into the car meant getting another three or four miles before needing to fill up. Nobody cared that the net effect was 3 cents of gas gushing out of the pipe and onto the ground because everybody thought "what the heck" because nobody knew that dispersing hydrocarbons did anything but smell nice and industrial. Plus gas fill points were low and typically at the bumper so it didn't even ruin the paint job.
Now days, "topping off" is as bad as it ever was, and worse too boot. The attempt to fill that last little bit not only causes gas to gush out onto your paint job, and pollute the environment, not it also can put liquid gasoline into the vapor recovery system. This can cause the back-pressure valve in the pump to "miss" the fact that froth is rising in the fill tube. You can end up pumping gas right back out of your car and into the gas station tanks ( this costs you money) and then when you separate the nozzle from the car a _lot_ of gas can have collected in that rubber hood thing which then goes everywhere.
Better yet, then next guy will get the same treatment if there is still liquid gas in the vapor recovery system. I filled up my Prius in a bad part of town the other day, and when I pulled the nozzle out, a good 3 cups of gas went everywhere. Some person before me must have "topped off" and that turned the vapor recovery system into a siphon. Who knows how many people that effected before me, and after as now _my_ gas was in the hose for the next guy.
Your gas tank is never supposed to be _full_ by absolute measure. Just like every other container of liquid you have ever dealt with, there is a little space at the top.
Topping off _any_ container is the act of trying to fill that last little bit between "properly full" and "absolutely full" and it _always_ results in waste and spillage due to over-filling.
In my grandfather's age, the tank wasn't full until some spilled out. Topping off was the norm. People still do it because that's how they learned to do it "no matter what the sign says, my daddy showed me good"; this is the law of the dumb.
Ah, but in objective view, we are into "the contractors working on the Death Star" debate. Blindly supporting one bad actor (Sony) and then complaining about suffering the fallout from another bad actor (hackers) is a tad disingenuous.
You may not have _known_ you were supporting a bad actor, but its not so much that you happened to be in a bar when a brawl broke out, more you got into his car and rode to the convenience store, sat there in the car while he attempted a robbery, and then complain about getting hit with broken glass when the store clerk shoots back.
This is, in my humble opinion, a case of _nobody_ being innocent and nobody being right. Everybody knows, or should have known, that Sony is a draconian evil empire as far as DRM and generally bing that least trustworthy entity "a corporation".
The problem is that there is no other battlefield available to the revolting parties. They see themselves as revolutionaries, and they are not necessarily wrong in that perception.
Revolution is always messy.
I, personally, avoid Sony. I _do_ play Xbox whit Xbox Live, knowing full well what exposure that brings. I don't use windows except as work requires, nor mac (I use Linux at home and as the supervisor in most of my Windows work stuff). I don't use debit cards, only credit cards to interact with the Internet entities at large.
The internet is "the bad part of town", I know not to bring my good car (the debit cards on real accounts) and I know to stay out of the seediest bits, but I have business there. I don't get to pick the street gangs, the corrupt cops, or the organized criminals that populate place. I pay my money and I take my chance. You to.
We don't know how this is going to shake out. The history will be written by the winners, as it always is.
Innocence is as much a myth as safety or security. Privacy is largely in that same boat.
Back when I was a kid my grandmother used to say "a secret, once told, is a secret no longer" and that becomes orders of magnitude more true on the Internet or in the realms of alleged mental property.
I said that Sony took the first lightning bolt. The storm is far from over. Some people are going to get wet, some people are going to get struck down, some things will burn and some things will grow. Fore every minute of playstation network downtime there is an improved chance of increased fairness in the credit reporting regulations. We don't know the unintended consequences yet.
This thing gripping us economically here in the "new world", the same chaos that is gripping the "third world" in the flesh. The hackers believe they are hacking in your best long-term interests. Sony is claiming that their interests and your interests are the same. The waves rush outward from there.
Don't spill that shit. Imagine the average "I always top off my tank" bone head at a "gas pump" spilling what is basically the first practical, room temprature binary explosive all over the outside of his Jetta. Granted it isn't a proper explosive, it would be more of a flash of heat and electrical potential as the two materials mixed without the interleaving membrane.
As a sealed cell this is a fine idea. As a dispensed material it has "technical issues".
Just like the TSA hasn't stopped a single act of terror, only passengers have done that; most security measures cannot stop a determined professional.
Safety and Security are largely mythological, the concepts are sold to a public that feels the need to exist with impunity.
In point of fact, it is largely manners that keeps people safe and secure. Most of us do not act on our darker natures because it would be rude.
Sony has demonstrated that they don't care about being well-mannered, and that they honestly believe that technology can keep them safe. They believe in DRM and they believe that they have the right to change a deal they have already made as if they were Darth Vader. They believe in their own Empire and they are willing to use any means necessary to maintain their grasp.
In point of fact, the technological community is simply having a very high immune response to this bad actor in their midst.
If Sony were to just come out, apologize for being douche-bags and promise never to do it again, they attacks would taper off quickly. They don't even have to mean it.
For all that the *IAA have been idiots and evil, they didn't mess with the technologists as a whole, so they have gotten a pass so far. They also don't actually do anything, so they have been impossible to strike.
Sony, as a member of *IAA(s) _and_ as a first person actor in technology via the PS3 etc, _and_ having stepped far across the line with the Hotz thing, has simply taken the first hit of lightning.
Thing is, the community at large has now learned that they _can_ make a company pay. The frontier has been opened. The Streisand Effect is real, and it will, sadly, take the business world a little longer to learn that "The Angry Villagers Rule" is real as well.
The torches are alight and the pitchforks are out and waving.
In the technological circles, the technologists are peasants, but they do feed the nation and they do strike back.
In my most productive configuration I use three monitors.
Front-and-center is the programming environment where my output goes, that is, the center screen is where "I am working".
Right-of-center is the monitor where I have consultation resources. This API definitions, RFCs, exemplar code blocks, that sort of thing. This is taken directly from the layout of a "word processing station". I don't know why its easier to consult resources on the right of the center eyeline, but it seems to be universally true.
Left of center (most likely to be sacrificed if I can't get three monitors) is where "requirements, interruptions, past failures, and distractions" live. This is where I will have things like email clients (if I even bother having one open) and screen captures of previous runs that contain "interesting features" (e.g. faults etc), and also where I will put mini-vacation things (web pages, break materials etc). The natural bias that disfavors the left-of-eyeline screen means that I won't spend too much time over there, but I also wont have to dig around over there if I go there at all.
Int the shortest version, the "second screen" is like having the book open on the desk when you need to consult a reference. It sucks to have to hide your work when you want to consult a reference.
The typical IDE already eats monitor space wiht "helper" tools and sub windows that you mentally ignore 85% of the time. Forcing your development staff to then shrink of cover their IDE so that they can read a manual page or find code is just _requiring_ them to interrupt their own workflow.
The third monitor is _nice_ but not _required_.
I'd say that giving the second monitor to Accounting probably did less for the accountant than it did cost the developer.
Next, the developer now has to re-invent all his two-monitor work habits to "crowd then into just the one screen".
Plus, when you just take things from people you eat a huge amount of good will. (it's a smack in the face even if they _don't_ use the taken object).
All in all, taking the $300 monitor form the developer probably cost the original poster a _minimum_ of 2 months of the developer's salary.
The "pro lifers" in the grandparent post are the people being gagged and the grandparent post the poster is decrying the fact that without such a gag order the the "pro lifers" would be trying to turn the personal and painful decision to terminate life support into a media and internet circus just like with Schivo (spelling?).
So the poster you are criticizing is saying "yea, to give this family some peace I would support the court order" and you are what...? saying it is being mean to the people who would make this family's pain into political hay for their own gain to support a judge telling them to STFU?
Your position would be spiteful indeed, except your post makes no damn sense.
At the highest level wold be persons who have registered signing keys with a global scope (e.g. public key infrastructure etc) and used those keys to sign their commentary publicly.
Next are those with same who have signed their posts but have hidden those signatures.
Next are those who have hidden their signature and their user names but still signed.
Next are those who have a user account and a used that account name.
Next are those who have a user account but hidden that account name (AC to the world, non AC to the platform)
Next are those who remain fully anonymous.
This establishes a hierarchy of credibility, int that they have put their identity behind their words. Individual posts from a high credibility source can be, at the time of post, made in a down-mode that appears to be lower credibility.
When an identity is queried it can be cross queried by their real and apparent credibility (key level and down-mode) and in the case of PKI etc, a user or source could back-reference signing keys to the master key as "sometimes one feels like a nut" so there is no reason to ban using separate signing keys for your different personae.
In all cases each posing is made using a computational/web dingus (javascript, java applet, real application, etc) that signs and encrypts the data for transit to the server the fingerprint of the signing key is used as part of the Message ID catalog the message. This way spambots etc can be forced to either create a new fake key for every message or have all their messages invalidated at once when they are caught spamming.
Optionally posts are based on, and must return include-headers that are generated by session.
Optionally services could accept responses based on static forms or just well-formed mime messages with payloads encrypted to published keys.
Response forms and posts can be sent and received via alternative means such as email (allowing for email drop-boxes to be used to defer identity).
The response can include the public key to use to check the message signature to allow for one-time commentary tickets.
While the servers now have the burden of decrypting the messages, the commenter origin is known to have received and processed a request form, and done the exact computational work to generate the message in context (so no bulk messaging by form replay or blind post). Users are encouraged to rise to at least the third level of coherency (key generation costs are best paid once). True anonymity is possible by generating and transmitting unique public keys with each signed message.
The server agrees to decouple and not-record any reconcilable IP or email address with any given message decrypt and post. (basically use a queue to decouple POST action from the validation and site content integration phases of the message.)
This forms a balanced covenant of identity between all parties that even allows cross-site identity (via the PKI key etc) to be maintained when/where the user so desires. It discourages spam, it allows users to check the credibility of sources by finding semi-automagically other commentary by the same persons. At the highest level it requires no "account database" as the key/fingerprint is the identity so nicknames are just nicknames for "real participants". Key banishment makes cleaning out spam and abuse pretty easy as ones current comments risk all of ones prior comments under the same key.
E.g. this makes the user put something in the pot if they want to be taken seriously, while still providing one or more levels of anonymity.
As an added bonus anyone should be allowed to pick up the private replies and messages to any key identity. Such replies would be posted to the account encrypted with the target's PKI key by the sender. This does turn every web site into a private message drop box, but who cares. It does take up some storage on the site but if every site is doing this stuff then no one site would be overburdened. The idea here is to remove the entire
The only way to assure you never see again such likes is to have everybody stomp down very hard indeed when people and organizations and governments try to crawl onto the upper reaches of the slippery slope which leads to the depths of those likes.
The word you are missing in your complaint is "yet", the DHS does not _YET_ merit a claim of one-for-one congruency to the SA.
And "yet" the DHS is very like the precursors to the SA, so the comparison is apt. "Comparison" is not evil, and as the congruency grows, as the demand and abuses swell, the fact that the comparison is becoming more true, that it is progressing from 0.0 on its way to 1.0 correlation _is_ the cause for concern and validates the comparison.
With every good and bad governmental precedent hanging in a coordinate space, each new and/or evolving agency _should_ and _must_ be compared to any valid data point.
If we do not remain vigilant, not becomes yet becomes soon becomes now.
You cannot prevent a new SA if you are unwilling to police your own government's behavior with respect to the old one.
It is not enough to _hope_ you never see this stuff again, you must press on against its formation about you.
If you chose to rely on the "if I don't see it, it isn't happening" level of hope, you will find soon enough that your hopes have been dashed.
You should not -ever- decry a comparison between action and previous failures, as such comparison is the fruit of learning. To ban learning and the lessons of the past that teach it from the ongoing political discourse is to encourage the past to reoccur.
To Quote: The past does not repeat, but it does rhyme.
The future abuses will not be identical to the past, but it is the similarity in precursor and outcome that should let you know that ugly bits very like the previous ugly bits are about to come round again at the end of the stanza.
At least two applications on the phone has access to the data, that would be the application making the log, first is the one making the log, the second is the one keeping it in sync with the desktop.
The main, public SDK may not publish an iCall for the iApp to real the iSpy database in a friendly widget *ahem* _YET_ *ahem*, but it is not in some walled secret garden of write-only-memory somewhere that is magically inaccessible from the CPU memory bus and file system logic.
So we _know_ that iOS can and does read that data, we (you) just seem to think it doesn't matter because the data is more easily read by the iSpy/iTunes desktop application and anything else on your main Mac (like, say, an internet music store that would _never_ be interested in your shopping habbits...)
So Apple has tried to patent/is patenting revealing the data THEY HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED as something that applications might be interested in... hrm... so apps cannot access that data *yet* but clearly Apple intends that they would have "some day soon" like maybe the next SDK update or two mayhaps?
I _do_ beleive the log file is "an error" as that frog was not supposed to boil yet. I don't think the existence of the code sprung into existence by itself, mind you, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of "log rotate" to limit the size of the file and digest it nicely, so the code probably wasn't supposed to be "on" *yet*.
Apple isn't afraid the RDF people are going to flee Apple, those guys never do because they are in the RDF and incapable of seeing iEvil as anything but progress.
But now all the competitors _know_ about iSpy, and the leak happened before the iSpy announcement so "it isn't a feature" they way it would have been when officially announced. Dang, lost the edge. It would have been so sweet to see the other guys scramble to put logs into their phones once Apple had made that "patented feature" an RDS default.
Besides, by the way, the Google Tracks application does this on Android on purpose, for user controllable and decided intervals, so Apple got caught spying 100% of the time, while Tracks only runs when I want to be tracked....
But apple filed a patent first even if any such code is now a disavowed mistake, so they'll probably end up "owning" what other people already do.
So yes, no app uses that data yet, but that's just "yet", meanwhile your phone has been tracking you for however long and the instant they turn it on, or you get a traffic stop, it will be like they turned it on years ago.
You phone is "pre-tapped", that is, a tap order woudln't "begin collecting the data when the court ordered a warrant", it _began_ (past tense) collecting the data when the batter was installed and the warrant can "peer into the past". Might as well be loggin 100% of your calls today in case someone gets a warrant tomorrow to see what you said yesterday.
Just like the carnivore email sniffer thing, just because nobody is looking at _your_ data _yet_, it doesn't mean that you should feel okay with the fact that it is already being collected without your knowledge.
Dude, the fact that apple doesn't collect that information by default at the present time doesn't help _you_ or any other member of the Reality Distortion Field...
(1) Any app at any time including IOS updates has that information at its disposal, so iFarmville now knows where you spend most of your time and when you are not home. So maybe does any active advertisement ware and those free-but-buy-stuff games your kid is playing.
(2) Your phone is PRE-tapped as far as law enforcement is concerned. If I put a GPS anklet on you now "just in case do do something later" would you be fine with that? If I say it also "does iTunes" does it make it retroactively okay?
(3) I can "give you" an app and that app can now tell me how much time you spend shopping and where you shop down to the department of the store (couple meters).
(4) God save you if you get divorced or become subject to any legal fishing exiditions.
Suppose some legal person gets a hard on for the legal pursuit of you. I decide you are a child predator because that helps me get reelected. I take your phone log, makes excerpts of it, and "notice" in front of the Grand Jury and the actual Jury that you spend an awful lot of time near a preschool. Now _you_ never noticed that your coffee stand of choice is right next to some kinder-care place in the same strip mall, or if you did, you didn't care at all. But _there_ _you_ _are_ spending every morning watching the kiddies come and go "according to your phone" and the way someone has chosen to take data and "reimagine" your intent.
Less Obviously: If I took the iPhone you have in your hot little hands, and computed all the time-distance values "near" roads, how often would you "be speeding"... lets just use that to set your car and health insurance rates shall we? Do you have an app from your insurance company on your phone right now? Will you never have such an app? Are you _sure_?
The question isn't who is getting the data by default, its a question of where the data _might_ go and what it says about your past to some creative mind somewhere.
Don't paint me as "all hysterical" though. I have latatude on my Android devices. I know about the _actual_ cache in Android as opposed to the full journal in iPhones. Every day I walk into a number of places where cell phones are forbidden for security reasons. I have been fully briefed about the background cost in lost privacy to having a hot phone in my hands for more than ten years.
IOS _has_ stepped over a very bright line, but we are boiling frogs here, and the Reality Distortion Field is just letting the iFrogs cook faster.
Most societies function _despite_ their system of jurisprudence not because of it.
On a day-to-day basis do you feel guided or governed by your overlords? Is there a cop holding your hand from the trigger moment by moment? Is there a guy making sure you _never_ speed, and _do_ you never speed?
The jurisprudence system is the lane-gutters of society not its founding force. When it goes wrong makes a right mess, and it isn't wholly unnecessary, but it only punishes after the fact. Few people, in the heat of the moment, actually stop mid-draw and decide not to shoot because of the potential sentence.
Lots of people _believe_ in the "deterrent effect", but observable evidence suggests strongly that it is far less a factor in the daily lives of both law abiders and scofflaws alike.
Just like you, moment by moment the reason most people don't steal, kill, maim, lie, or tort is because they have empathy. They can put themselves in the other guy's place, and that empathic modeling tells them that their actions are wrong.
Only those who lack empathy, or suffer under exigent circumstance, break the social contract of "you don't X me and I won't X you".
If they lack empathy, the law will only stay their hand till they expect the reward to outweigh the risk, the law _delays_ at best, and sometimes that best _is_ good enough.
If they are in exigent circumstance then the law will have little to no impact whatsoever.
This is all demostrated quite clearly by the existence of crime and tort. Any denial of that is just that, denial pure and simple.
===
The other way you missed the point is that the original point of this whole page of commentary is based in "civil law" which, even if it breaks down, has little direct bearing on the social order. Wholly corrupt societies continue to function, they just have a function predicated on bribes and corruption. We view it as less functional because it is far more intimate. It doesn't scale well. But fully one third of the world lives in a civilly corrupt, indeed civilly bankrupt social order.
Software patent trolls and misuse of civil proceedings will not lead to civil bankruptcy as it will be proceeded by economic bankruptcy.
The bad actors will all sue each other out of existence and take the legitimate businesses with them and the market will move on. The U.S.A. will become an economic also-ran for a while, then Life Will Go On. It always does.
Or the court will develop a "high immune response" to these types of cases, and people, and the law or the body of precedent will change.
But once you catch a cold the fever has to run its course.
We have caught a bad case of "idea patents". It's in the form of software patents, which should be in copyright matters not patent matters. Whenever any organic fluid ends up in the wrong place you get sick. Same thing for the law.
We are _nowhere_ sick enough yet to get our legal antibodies really rolling.
Foretelling doom is way out of line here, and so is imagining that a legal system collapse would be a social collapse.
Everybody _hates_ anarchy, they'll live under despotism to avoid anarchy. Even "anarchists" hate anarchy, they are in love with the idea of anarchy where everybody still gets fed and there is someone to help keep the "other anarchists" off their damn lawn.
So no. All in all, the world functions because of manners not wrath from above, be it legal or theological.
Law is a byproduct of society, not a creator or protector of it. It starts out helpful and then becomes toxic if you make too much of it or it doesn't get cleaned out regularly. Think lactic acid in the muscles. You need it in small doses, its a vital element in the process, it is _entirely_ unavoidable even if you try to eliminate it from the process it will show up anyway, and when you get to much you get all muscle-bound and you freeze up. Once the swelling goes down you learn not to overreach that way again.
Yes, that was thick with analogy. But it is true analogy.
(2) the reason _I_ don't shoot people is because it is _rude_ to do so. I don't need a god, or the court, or any other "threat from above" to realize that if everybody went around shooting everyone, then we would all waste all our time trying not to get shot, and that would be anathema to the entire idea of civilization.
'The "Information wants to be free" types' you describe are not actually the ones who use the phrase correctly.
In its original usage and intent the phrase would be better as "information wants to escape", that is it wants to "be free" not so much in price, though of course the escape tends to reduce the marginal price drastically, but in terms of the other internet meme "what has been seen cannot be unseen".
The people you sneer at with your usage do deserve some sneering, IMHO, but only because they have taken up "I want information to cost me nothing" and misapplied it to the original sentiment, thereby diminishing its import. It is very like finding that the KKK has decided to endorse your candidacy, in that it is sensationalist and the fact of the vociferous support can derail your message entirely.
So the things information wants to be free of are DRM and the restriction of motion.
This "want" is of the same caliber as "water want's to find its own level" and "heat wants to dissipate", that is the "wnat" is a natural tendency to seek a state anthropomorphized for the sake of metaphor.
Most people _using_ the phrase understand that the "so I shouldn't have to pay for anything" is a fringe justification; far too many people hearing the phrase do so from the mouths of that fringe.
Sadly the original message has been lost. I try to use "information wants to escape" now because the "be free" part is apparently too subtle to survive its own freedom. 8-)
I tried to join the Comcast IPv6 testbed. My ownership of an XboX 360 eliminated my potential participation (even though I know how to do a 4to6 translation endpoint).
Its not the home routers etc, though I am sure that the large number of NAT-presumptive home routers is no small drop in the bucket, the bulk of systems rolling out are plagued by the IPv4 Assumption.
Gaming, Mobile Phones, Clearwire Routers, the entire cell-phone data support infrastructure, none of these sections of the "internet base" have exerted one forward-thinking jot of effort to join the IPv6 reality.
"Bit-Wise, Byte-Foolish" is the new "Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish" for the information age.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh you'll know it if it hits the ground. There is no secret hole it comes out of where you won't see it.
The thing you are likely not to see is when the fule gets sucked into the vapor recovery system. If there is a big hood thing you will see it clearly when you separate the noces and tank. If its the kind where there are a bunch of holes around the outside of the tip of the nozzle then a slow-fill top-off may send a non-trivial amount of that gas you are pumping back into the pump.
There is an ongoing design war to prevent topping-off from becoming an all-out spill. The vacuum in the recovery system getting stronger, the sensors getting more responsive. all sorts of little tweaks. blarg.
A fuel cell basically "burns" (uses up) its reagent to make electricity directly.
This (according to the article) is a reversible reaction between two liquids, one acting as an anode and one acting as a cathode, where the reaction is bounded by a membrane. It is really more of the "capacitance gel" idea, only with two carries (which makes sense).
Think of it as two halves of a standard battery that can only interact when brought into proximity. While electrons (or maybe ions or something beyond my simple ability translate, not having seen the research or studied in the field) pass through the membrane by definition, the idea is that the charged medium is not part of the fixed assembly, so the fixed assembly (the reactor and membrane) is permanent while the charged part moves.
In a standard battery the anode and cathode are permanent parts of the battery. When the battery is discharged the whole battery is trashed. For instance, and alkaline battery is assembled in a charged state, the dissolving of the metals in the alkaline solution is what makes the voltage. Lead-acid batteries wear out because the lead is changed by the charging process (applying voltage in the presence of acid solution) and changed back by the discharge. This cycling slowly causes the lead to flake and degrade until there is either so much lead flakes in the battery that a cell shorts out because of the lead connecting the two parts, or the odd chemical impurities and available oxygen slowly make the lead into a chemical that will not react with the acid correctly any more.
In this arrangement the parts that would degrade are in the fluids, draining and replacing the fluids "assembles a new, fully charged battery". In this model the ideal of pulling into a service station and replacing your discharged battery pack with a new, charged one, becomes practical.
In the alternate, as a rechargeable battery the non-solid nature of the battery itself lets the battery be charged and cooled all at once. The anode and cathode material won't "flake" because it isn't sold to begin with. Plus nearly all of the anode and cathode material is used by weight, there is no "inner core" area acting as a superstructure. This should improve the energy density (how many kilowatt hours you can store per pound etc).
In the rechargeable battery usage the battery would probably need to be changed regularly, like an oil change, but _then_ one could probably use charged plates to separate/filter the degraded particles from the good ones, so the "battery" could be recycled in place instead of having to take it back to a factory.
There is a lot potential wins here, but it is _very_ unlike a fuel cell.
revolts have nothing to do with right and wrong. Please read all the words before re-casting my cometary into your world view. Assuming one motive for any action is always wrong. They themselves call it a revolt, and I say they may not be wrong. You are trying to make it "romantic" so that you can attack that romance.
Do you even know what "romance" means? (as a literary term, the thing is, now that you mention it, this is very like something from the romance period, but you make that connection not I. 8-)
They _could_ do anything.
Its not "faux" high minded crap, its _actual_ high-minded crap.
This is not a one sided issue and time will tell.
And I am not a first-person actor in _any_ of it. Just and observer. (I have a real life with real credentials and everything so I could not personally afford to be on _either_ side of this in any active capacity.)
And a revolution is defined by the people in revolt, not by some litmus test of right and wrong, nor win, nor lose.
I know, in your black-and-white world your inability anesthetize yourself with pokimon or shout-um-ups is distressing, and you feel you have been wronged. And indeed to some extent you have been. But that's just by-catch in a much larger cycle of events and outcomes that will not resole itself in our lifetimes, if ever.
I just report the facts as I see them. You may color my observations with your vitriol all you wish.
Two fluids, out and in, reduce the mixing so that the fresh fluid is not diluted unacceptably by the stale, ensure none of the anode fluid _ever_ mixes with the cathode fluid, ensure that no person (including a curious child) is exposed to both fluids at once even if they "poke at" the nozzle. This is not a "fill the tank with gas" analog operation at all.
I think the material has great promise, and since it is fluid based, it is probably very able to be cooled quickly as it charges so a closed-loop fast charge in-place is probably _way_ more workable than replacing the fluid every time a charge is needed.
The gas-pump experience I would expect would be a "hose" from the pumping station which carried an electrical cable and a cooling loop. The fluids inside the closed system in the car would be pumped "briskly" though the charging manifold, the "nozzle" would sandwich the charging manifold and both apply the electric potential and aggressive chilling. The charged fluid would return to primary containment somewhat cool to the touch.
The cooling would alleviate the thermal degradation that limits current fast-charging of batteries. The closed system would eliminate the dangers inherent in letting untrained people move 100kwh of charged chemical danger out in the wild. It would be "as quick and easy as pumping gas" as far as the user experience. But it would not be "filling an empty tank with go-juice", and even the article doesn't say it would be.
The fluids would clearly have a replacement schedule, much like engine oil, and you would take your car in for that maintenance when the pump told you that the charging rate during your "fill up" was sub-optimal.
Much better than a true pump and nozzle arrangement.
If you know your tank isn't anywhere near full, then you are not "topping off" technically or morally, you are continuing to fill your tank.
There are two primary reasons that the nozzle will trip "for no reason". (1) improperly inserted nozzles will self trip when their stream of gas hits the side of the pipe and causes back-pressure, and likewise for letting the nozzle back out of the pipe. (2) Someone before you topped off and got "just a little" liquid gas into the vapor recovery system, when those liquid drops hit the internal sensors the last-ditch anti-siphon system kicks in and trips the shutoff. Both conditions are the result of improper fueling technique by the current or previous operator. (A caveat here is that the equipment can, through continued mis-used get worn out but that's a compounded case of items 1 and 2.)
I had a car for a while that would only fill properly if I put the nozzle in at a slight angle because of item 1 and crappy design of the fill pipe.
If you put eight gallons of gas in a rated-ten-gallon tank that wasn't bone dry you have no reason to squeeze the handle again. And if you do and it trips _again_ and you squeeze the handle a third time you are wanking off.
I've watched people re-squeeze the handle like eight times. This is topping off at its most primal level of idiocy.
I love this moderation... it shoudl be +1 Flaimbait as any arrangement where four fluids (two charged fluids going in, and two discharged fluids coming out) of varying electrical potentials are being exchanged by someone of the same technical competence as, say, my mother, is _bound_ to end in flames, or at least tears... So having my mom pump this stuff, were she still alive, would be baiting flames indeed.
Topping off leads to gas on the ground all the time. Look at the ground at your gas station, heck lick it (I cannot honestly recommend touching the ground with a light lighter but it _would_ be funny) and see if you can see or taste gas. That stuff comes from somewhere, and it isn't just the disk-shake-drop that most people leave when they pull out too soon.
A wait ten seconds and then trickle-pump some more top-off can be done with predictable results. It's never necessary. Most people who top off make a mess. The mess can be compounded by successive fouling of the vapor recovery lines.
People top off and gush all over the place all the time.
Its unnecessary. You aren't saving yourself anything by getting that extra tenth of a gallon into your tank. There is a good chance that when you top off, fully half of that extra tenth is actually ending up in the vapor recovery system instead of your tank anyway, and the gas station just gets to sell it on to the next guy.
Am I innocent of topping off myself? no. Do I know its dumb? yes. Am I old enough that sometimes I do it without thinking? yes. Is it _still_ dumb? yes. Should I do it? no. Do I try not to do it despite a lifetime of practice? yes, at least when I am paying attention. Do I always spill, or even usually spill? no. Is it _still_ dumb? yes.
You should not top off your tank. It's never the right thing to do, even if you can do it well. About half the people who do it do it worse than average. 8-)
I would expect a standardized interlocking cartridge thing, or in-place charging.
In the case of replacing the fluids:
(1) The quantity of the two liquids would need to be kept in balance, which would be very hard to do using a "pumping" paradigm.
(2) The liquid isn't "consumed" (e.g. burnt) so much as "exhausted" (reduced to a non-charged state) so the spent liquid would need to be returned at the same time as the new liquid is supplied, which would get you up to four connections in the system instead of two.
(3) Punctures to containment would be hugely problematic, unlike gas, so the storage mechanism would need to have internal isolations to keep "the whole charge" from going off at once. (gas is amazingly stable in an accident since the liquid itself does not burn, not so much for the charged binary liquid in question.)
The in-place charging is much more likely. The charge process could be _very_ fast if the fluids are pumped quickly through a charging manifold. This would be the orthogonal structure to (or indeed the same exact structure as) the discharging manifold. Since the fluid is in motion it can be charged and _cooled_ immediately. That is the fluid would be pumped pass the charge point and into a heat sink or heat exchanger. In a full charging loop it might be chilled to an optimal pre-charge temperature, charged, and then cooled in series. Each individual annode/cathode element in the suspension would not have to take a full charge in one pass as you could keep circulating the fluid until the feedback voltage, charging current, and temperature told you the fluid was a charged as it was going to get. (and indeed the "worn-out-ness" of the fluid could probably be measured in the same way, telling you when you need to have your fluid changed by a proper professional etc.)
The system could work in a gas-pump like time and user modality (e.g. I put this thing in my car, watch it go "ding" for a while, then take it out and drive away) but the chance that the four fluids being exchanged by an average-joe in an air-gap setting is quite low.
No fluid exchange coupling known to date is absolutely residue free. It would only take one kid "checking out" the interlock and getting both liquids on his fingers and then touching them together to call in the liability lawyers big-time.
There is a reason it's called "topping off" if my father's long-ago explanation is to be believed...
First: there is no "drain hole" in the fuel system (at least in the US etc) since the fuel system is supposed to be vapor tight. There _is_ a small drain hole behind the typical fuel filler door which mostly exists to prevent water from getting caught inside the compartment and rusting things out. That said...
We pump gas _far_ too fast to be environmentally sound. It _froths_ out of the hose in a turbulent flow and a lot of vapor escapes because of the frothing, which is why we now have those vapor recovery hoods etc on a lot of pumps.
When the tank is nearly full, e.g. "as full as it ought to be", the froth boils up the fill-pipe and triggers the back-pressure sensor causing the nozzle to click closed. I few seconds latter the frothing settles and there is now a space in the tank. "Topping off" is the attempt to fill that space.
Back in the before time, that is, before gas was expensive and mileage was important, getting that quarter of a gallon into the car meant getting another three or four miles before needing to fill up. Nobody cared that the net effect was 3 cents of gas gushing out of the pipe and onto the ground because everybody thought "what the heck" because nobody knew that dispersing hydrocarbons did anything but smell nice and industrial. Plus gas fill points were low and typically at the bumper so it didn't even ruin the paint job.
Now days, "topping off" is as bad as it ever was, and worse too boot. The attempt to fill that last little bit not only causes gas to gush out onto your paint job, and pollute the environment, not it also can put liquid gasoline into the vapor recovery system. This can cause the back-pressure valve in the pump to "miss" the fact that froth is rising in the fill tube. You can end up pumping gas right back out of your car and into the gas station tanks ( this costs you money) and then when you separate the nozzle from the car a _lot_ of gas can have collected in that rubber hood thing which then goes everywhere.
Better yet, then next guy will get the same treatment if there is still liquid gas in the vapor recovery system. I filled up my Prius in a bad part of town the other day, and when I pulled the nozzle out, a good 3 cups of gas went everywhere. Some person before me must have "topped off" and that turned the vapor recovery system into a siphon. Who knows how many people that effected before me, and after as now _my_ gas was in the hose for the next guy.
Your gas tank is never supposed to be _full_ by absolute measure. Just like every other container of liquid you have ever dealt with, there is a little space at the top.
Topping off _any_ container is the act of trying to fill that last little bit between "properly full" and "absolutely full" and it _always_ results in waste and spillage due to over-filling.
In my grandfather's age, the tank wasn't full until some spilled out. Topping off was the norm. People still do it because that's how they learned to do it "no matter what the sign says, my daddy showed me good"; this is the law of the dumb.
Ah, but in objective view, we are into "the contractors working on the Death Star" debate. Blindly supporting one bad actor (Sony) and then complaining about suffering the fallout from another bad actor (hackers) is a tad disingenuous.
You may not have _known_ you were supporting a bad actor, but its not so much that you happened to be in a bar when a brawl broke out, more you got into his car and rode to the convenience store, sat there in the car while he attempted a robbery, and then complain about getting hit with broken glass when the store clerk shoots back.
This is, in my humble opinion, a case of _nobody_ being innocent and nobody being right. Everybody knows, or should have known, that Sony is a draconian evil empire as far as DRM and generally bing that least trustworthy entity "a corporation".
The problem is that there is no other battlefield available to the revolting parties. They see themselves as revolutionaries, and they are not necessarily wrong in that perception.
Revolution is always messy.
I, personally, avoid Sony. I _do_ play Xbox whit Xbox Live, knowing full well what exposure that brings. I don't use windows except as work requires, nor mac (I use Linux at home and as the supervisor in most of my Windows work stuff). I don't use debit cards, only credit cards to interact with the Internet entities at large.
The internet is "the bad part of town", I know not to bring my good car (the debit cards on real accounts) and I know to stay out of the seediest bits, but I have business there. I don't get to pick the street gangs, the corrupt cops, or the organized criminals that populate place. I pay my money and I take my chance. You to.
We don't know how this is going to shake out. The history will be written by the winners, as it always is.
Innocence is as much a myth as safety or security. Privacy is largely in that same boat.
Back when I was a kid my grandmother used to say "a secret, once told, is a secret no longer" and that becomes orders of magnitude more true on the Internet or in the realms of alleged mental property.
I said that Sony took the first lightning bolt. The storm is far from over. Some people are going to get wet, some people are going to get struck down, some things will burn and some things will grow. Fore every minute of playstation network downtime there is an improved chance of increased fairness in the credit reporting regulations. We don't know the unintended consequences yet.
This thing gripping us economically here in the "new world", the same chaos that is gripping the "third world" in the flesh. The hackers believe they are hacking in your best long-term interests. Sony is claiming that their interests and your interests are the same. The waves rush outward from there.
Don't spill that shit. Imagine the average "I always top off my tank" bone head at a "gas pump" spilling what is basically the first practical, room temprature binary explosive all over the outside of his Jetta. Granted it isn't a proper explosive, it would be more of a flash of heat and electrical potential as the two materials mixed without the interleaving membrane.
As a sealed cell this is a fine idea. As a dispensed material it has "technical issues".
You beat me to it.
The idea has been around a long time, but making it work is a wholly different kettle of electromotive potential.
I made no claim that the crackers were well mannered.
Bad manners never engender good manners in others.
I was also not advocating the process, just diagnosing it.
Just like the TSA hasn't stopped a single act of terror, only passengers have done that; most security measures cannot stop a determined professional.
Safety and Security are largely mythological, the concepts are sold to a public that feels the need to exist with impunity.
In point of fact, it is largely manners that keeps people safe and secure. Most of us do not act on our darker natures because it would be rude.
Sony has demonstrated that they don't care about being well-mannered, and that they honestly believe that technology can keep them safe. They believe in DRM and they believe that they have the right to change a deal they have already made as if they were Darth Vader. They believe in their own Empire and they are willing to use any means necessary to maintain their grasp.
In point of fact, the technological community is simply having a very high immune response to this bad actor in their midst.
If Sony were to just come out, apologize for being douche-bags and promise never to do it again, they attacks would taper off quickly. They don't even have to mean it.
For all that the *IAA have been idiots and evil, they didn't mess with the technologists as a whole, so they have gotten a pass so far. They also don't actually do anything, so they have been impossible to strike.
Sony, as a member of *IAA(s) _and_ as a first person actor in technology via the PS3 etc, _and_ having stepped far across the line with the Hotz thing, has simply taken the first hit of lightning.
Thing is, the community at large has now learned that they _can_ make a company pay. The frontier has been opened. The Streisand Effect is real, and it will, sadly, take the business world a little longer to learn that "The Angry Villagers Rule" is real as well.
The torches are alight and the pitchforks are out and waving.
In the technological circles, the technologists are peasants, but they do feed the nation and they do strike back.
Companies need to rediscover their manners.
In my most productive configuration I use three monitors.
Front-and-center is the programming environment where my output goes, that is, the center screen is where "I am working".
Right-of-center is the monitor where I have consultation resources. This API definitions, RFCs, exemplar code blocks, that sort of thing. This is taken directly from the layout of a "word processing station". I don't know why its easier to consult resources on the right of the center eyeline, but it seems to be universally true.
Left of center (most likely to be sacrificed if I can't get three monitors) is where "requirements, interruptions, past failures, and distractions" live. This is where I will have things like email clients (if I even bother having one open) and screen captures of previous runs that contain "interesting features" (e.g. faults etc), and also where I will put mini-vacation things (web pages, break materials etc). The natural bias that disfavors the left-of-eyeline screen means that I won't spend too much time over there, but I also wont have to dig around over there if I go there at all.
Int the shortest version, the "second screen" is like having the book open on the desk when you need to consult a reference. It sucks to have to hide your work when you want to consult a reference.
The typical IDE already eats monitor space wiht "helper" tools and sub windows that you mentally ignore 85% of the time. Forcing your development staff to then shrink of cover their IDE so that they can read a manual page or find code is just _requiring_ them to interrupt their own workflow.
The third monitor is _nice_ but not _required_.
I'd say that giving the second monitor to Accounting probably did less for the accountant than it did cost the developer.
Next, the developer now has to re-invent all his two-monitor work habits to "crowd then into just the one screen".
Plus, when you just take things from people you eat a huge amount of good will. (it's a smack in the face even if they _don't_ use the taken object).
All in all, taking the $300 monitor form the developer probably cost the original poster a _minimum_ of 2 months of the developer's salary.
The "pro lifers" in the grandparent post are the people being gagged and the grandparent post the poster is decrying the fact that without such a gag order the the "pro lifers" would be trying to turn the personal and painful decision to terminate life support into a media and internet circus just like with Schivo (spelling?).
So the poster you are criticizing is saying "yea, to give this family some peace I would support the court order" and you are what...? saying it is being mean to the people who would make this family's pain into political hay for their own gain to support a judge telling them to STFU?
Your position would be spiteful indeed, except your post makes no damn sense.
At the highest level wold be persons who have registered signing keys with a global scope (e.g. public key infrastructure etc) and used those keys to sign their commentary publicly.
Next are those with same who have signed their posts but have hidden those signatures.
Next are those who have hidden their signature and their user names but still signed.
Next are those who have a user account and a used that account name.
Next are those who have a user account but hidden that account name (AC to the world, non AC to the platform)
Next are those who remain fully anonymous.
This establishes a hierarchy of credibility, int that they have put their identity behind their words. Individual posts from a high credibility source can be, at the time of post, made in a down-mode that appears to be lower credibility.
When an identity is queried it can be cross queried by their real and apparent credibility (key level and down-mode) and in the case of PKI etc, a user or source could back-reference signing keys to the master key as "sometimes one feels like a nut" so there is no reason to ban using separate signing keys for your different personae.
In all cases each posing is made using a computational/web dingus (javascript, java applet, real application, etc) that signs and encrypts the data for transit to the server the fingerprint of the signing key is used as part of the Message ID catalog the message. This way spambots etc can be forced to either create a new fake key for every message or have all their messages invalidated at once when they are caught spamming.
Optionally posts are based on, and must return include-headers that are generated by session.
Optionally services could accept responses based on static forms or just well-formed mime messages with payloads encrypted to published keys.
Response forms and posts can be sent and received via alternative means such as email (allowing for email drop-boxes to be used to defer identity).
The response can include the public key to use to check the message signature to allow for one-time commentary tickets.
While the servers now have the burden of decrypting the messages, the commenter origin is known to have received and processed a request form, and done the exact computational work to generate the message in context (so no bulk messaging by form replay or blind post). Users are encouraged to rise to at least the third level of coherency (key generation costs are best paid once). True anonymity is possible by generating and transmitting unique public keys with each signed message.
The server agrees to decouple and not-record any reconcilable IP or email address with any given message decrypt and post. (basically use a queue to decouple POST action from the validation and site content integration phases of the message.)
This forms a balanced covenant of identity between all parties that even allows cross-site identity (via the PKI key etc) to be maintained when/where the user so desires. It discourages spam, it allows users to check the credibility of sources by finding semi-automagically other commentary by the same persons. At the highest level it requires no "account database" as the key/fingerprint is the identity so nicknames are just nicknames for "real participants". Key banishment makes cleaning out spam and abuse pretty easy as ones current comments risk all of ones prior comments under the same key.
E.g. this makes the user put something in the pot if they want to be taken seriously, while still providing one or more levels of anonymity.
As an added bonus anyone should be allowed to pick up the private replies and messages to any key identity. Such replies would be posted to the account encrypted with the target's PKI key by the sender. This does turn every web site into a private message drop box, but who cares. It does take up some storage on the site but if every site is doing this stuff then no one site would be overburdened. The idea here is to remove the entire
The only way to assure you never see again such likes is to have everybody stomp down very hard indeed when people and organizations and governments try to crawl onto the upper reaches of the slippery slope which leads to the depths of those likes.
The word you are missing in your complaint is "yet", the DHS does not _YET_ merit a claim of one-for-one congruency to the SA.
And "yet" the DHS is very like the precursors to the SA, so the comparison is apt. "Comparison" is not evil, and as the congruency grows, as the demand and abuses swell, the fact that the comparison is becoming more true, that it is progressing from 0.0 on its way to 1.0 correlation _is_ the cause for concern and validates the comparison.
With every good and bad governmental precedent hanging in a coordinate space, each new and/or evolving agency _should_ and _must_ be compared to any valid data point.
If we do not remain vigilant, not becomes yet becomes soon becomes now.
You cannot prevent a new SA if you are unwilling to police your own government's behavior with respect to the old one.
It is not enough to _hope_ you never see this stuff again, you must press on against its formation about you.
If you chose to rely on the "if I don't see it, it isn't happening" level of hope, you will find soon enough that your hopes have been dashed.
You should not -ever- decry a comparison between action and previous failures, as such comparison is the fruit of learning. To ban learning and the lessons of the past that teach it from the ongoing political discourse is to encourage the past to reoccur.
To Quote: The past does not repeat, but it does rhyme.
The future abuses will not be identical to the past, but it is the similarity in precursor and outcome that should let you know that ugly bits very like the previous ugly bits are about to come round again at the end of the stanza.
At least two applications on the phone has access to the data, that would be the application making the log, first is the one making the log, the second is the one keeping it in sync with the desktop.
The main, public SDK may not publish an iCall for the iApp to real the iSpy database in a friendly widget *ahem* _YET_ *ahem*, but it is not in some walled secret garden of write-only-memory somewhere that is magically inaccessible from the CPU memory bus and file system logic.
So we _know_ that iOS can and does read that data, we (you) just seem to think it doesn't matter because the data is more easily read by the iSpy/iTunes desktop application and anything else on your main Mac (like, say, an internet music store that would _never_ be interested in your shopping habbits...)
So Apple has tried to patent/is patenting revealing the data THEY HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED as something that applications might be interested in... hrm... so apps cannot access that data *yet* but clearly Apple intends that they would have "some day soon" like maybe the next SDK update or two mayhaps?
I _do_ beleive the log file is "an error" as that frog was not supposed to boil yet. I don't think the existence of the code sprung into existence by itself, mind you, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of "log rotate" to limit the size of the file and digest it nicely, so the code probably wasn't supposed to be "on" *yet*.
Apple isn't afraid the RDF people are going to flee Apple, those guys never do because they are in the RDF and incapable of seeing iEvil as anything but progress.
But now all the competitors _know_ about iSpy, and the leak happened before the iSpy announcement so "it isn't a feature" they way it would have been when officially announced. Dang, lost the edge. It would have been so sweet to see the other guys scramble to put logs into their phones once Apple had made that "patented feature" an RDS default.
Besides, by the way, the Google Tracks application does this on Android on purpose, for user controllable and decided intervals, so Apple got caught spying 100% of the time, while Tracks only runs when I want to be tracked....
But apple filed a patent first even if any such code is now a disavowed mistake, so they'll probably end up "owning" what other people already do.
So yes, no app uses that data yet, but that's just "yet", meanwhile your phone has been tracking you for however long and the instant they turn it on, or you get a traffic stop, it will be like they turned it on years ago.
You phone is "pre-tapped", that is, a tap order woudln't "begin collecting the data when the court ordered a warrant", it _began_ (past tense) collecting the data when the batter was installed and the warrant can "peer into the past". Might as well be loggin 100% of your calls today in case someone gets a warrant tomorrow to see what you said yesterday.
Just like the carnivore email sniffer thing, just because nobody is looking at _your_ data _yet_, it doesn't mean that you should feel okay with the fact that it is already being collected without your knowledge.
Dude, the fact that apple doesn't collect that information by default at the present time doesn't help _you_ or any other member of the Reality Distortion Field...
(1) Any app at any time including IOS updates has that information at its disposal, so iFarmville now knows where you spend most of your time and when you are not home. So maybe does any active advertisement ware and those free-but-buy-stuff games your kid is playing.
(2) Your phone is PRE-tapped as far as law enforcement is concerned. If I put a GPS anklet on you now "just in case do do something later" would you be fine with that? If I say it also "does iTunes" does it make it retroactively okay?
(3) I can "give you" an app and that app can now tell me how much time you spend shopping and where you shop down to the department of the store (couple meters).
(4) God save you if you get divorced or become subject to any legal fishing exiditions.
Suppose some legal person gets a hard on for the legal pursuit of you. I decide you are a child predator because that helps me get reelected. I take your phone log, makes excerpts of it, and "notice" in front of the Grand Jury and the actual Jury that you spend an awful lot of time near a preschool. Now _you_ never noticed that your coffee stand of choice is right next to some kinder-care place in the same strip mall, or if you did, you didn't care at all. But _there_ _you_ _are_ spending every morning watching the kiddies come and go "according to your phone" and the way someone has chosen to take data and "reimagine" your intent.
Less Obviously: If I took the iPhone you have in your hot little hands, and computed all the time-distance values "near" roads, how often would you "be speeding"... lets just use that to set your car and health insurance rates shall we? Do you have an app from your insurance company on your phone right now? Will you never have such an app? Are you _sure_?
The question isn't who is getting the data by default, its a question of where the data _might_ go and what it says about your past to some creative mind somewhere.
Don't paint me as "all hysterical" though. I have latatude on my Android devices. I know about the _actual_ cache in Android as opposed to the full journal in iPhones. Every day I walk into a number of places where cell phones are forbidden for security reasons. I have been fully briefed about the background cost in lost privacy to having a hot phone in my hands for more than ten years.
IOS _has_ stepped over a very bright line, but we are boiling frogs here, and the Reality Distortion Field is just letting the iFrogs cook faster.
Most societies function _despite_ their system of jurisprudence not because of it.
On a day-to-day basis do you feel guided or governed by your overlords? Is there a cop holding your hand from the trigger moment by moment? Is there a guy making sure you _never_ speed, and _do_ you never speed?
The jurisprudence system is the lane-gutters of society not its founding force. When it goes wrong makes a right mess, and it isn't wholly unnecessary, but it only punishes after the fact. Few people, in the heat of the moment, actually stop mid-draw and decide not to shoot because of the potential sentence.
Lots of people _believe_ in the "deterrent effect", but observable evidence suggests strongly that it is far less a factor in the daily lives of both law abiders and scofflaws alike.
Just like you, moment by moment the reason most people don't steal, kill, maim, lie, or tort is because they have empathy. They can put themselves in the other guy's place, and that empathic modeling tells them that their actions are wrong.
Only those who lack empathy, or suffer under exigent circumstance, break the social contract of "you don't X me and I won't X you".
If they lack empathy, the law will only stay their hand till they expect the reward to outweigh the risk, the law _delays_ at best, and sometimes that best _is_ good enough.
If they are in exigent circumstance then the law will have little to no impact whatsoever.
This is all demostrated quite clearly by the existence of crime and tort. Any denial of that is just that, denial pure and simple.
===
The other way you missed the point is that the original point of this whole page of commentary is based in "civil law" which, even if it breaks down, has little direct bearing on the social order. Wholly corrupt societies continue to function, they just have a function predicated on bribes and corruption. We view it as less functional because it is far more intimate. It doesn't scale well. But fully one third of the world lives in a civilly corrupt, indeed civilly bankrupt social order.
Software patent trolls and misuse of civil proceedings will not lead to civil bankruptcy as it will be proceeded by economic bankruptcy.
The bad actors will all sue each other out of existence and take the legitimate businesses with them and the market will move on. The U.S.A. will become an economic also-ran for a while, then Life Will Go On. It always does.
Or the court will develop a "high immune response" to these types of cases, and people, and the law or the body of precedent will change.
But once you catch a cold the fever has to run its course.
We have caught a bad case of "idea patents". It's in the form of software patents, which should be in copyright matters not patent matters. Whenever any organic fluid ends up in the wrong place you get sick. Same thing for the law.
We are _nowhere_ sick enough yet to get our legal antibodies really rolling.
Foretelling doom is way out of line here, and so is imagining that a legal system collapse would be a social collapse.
Everybody _hates_ anarchy, they'll live under despotism to avoid anarchy. Even "anarchists" hate anarchy, they are in love with the idea of anarchy where everybody still gets fed and there is someone to help keep the "other anarchists" off their damn lawn.
So no. All in all, the world functions because of manners not wrath from above, be it legal or theological.
Law is a byproduct of society, not a creator or protector of it. It starts out helpful and then becomes toxic if you make too much of it or it doesn't get cleaned out regularly. Think lactic acid in the muscles. You need it in small doses, its a vital element in the process, it is _entirely_ unavoidable even if you try to eliminate it from the process it will show up anyway, and when you get to much you get all muscle-bound and you freeze up. Once the swelling goes down you learn not to overreach that way again.
Yes, that was thick with analogy. But it is true analogy.
(1) people get shot all the time...
(2) the reason _I_ don't shoot people is because it is _rude_ to do so. I don't need a god, or the court, or any other "threat from above" to realize that if everybody went around shooting everyone, then we would all waste all our time trying not to get shot, and that would be anathema to the entire idea of civilization.
'The "Information wants to be free" types' you describe are not actually the ones who use the phrase correctly.
In its original usage and intent the phrase would be better as "information wants to escape", that is it wants to "be free" not so much in price, though of course the escape tends to reduce the marginal price drastically, but in terms of the other internet meme "what has been seen cannot be unseen".
The people you sneer at with your usage do deserve some sneering, IMHO, but only because they have taken up "I want information to cost me nothing" and misapplied it to the original sentiment, thereby diminishing its import. It is very like finding that the KKK has decided to endorse your candidacy, in that it is sensationalist and the fact of the vociferous support can derail your message entirely.
So the things information wants to be free of are DRM and the restriction of motion.
This "want" is of the same caliber as "water want's to find its own level" and "heat wants to dissipate", that is the "wnat" is a natural tendency to seek a state anthropomorphized for the sake of metaphor.
Most people _using_ the phrase understand that the "so I shouldn't have to pay for anything" is a fringe justification; far too many people hearing the phrase do so from the mouths of that fringe.
Sadly the original message has been lost. I try to use "information wants to escape" now because the "be free" part is apparently too subtle to survive its own freedom. 8-)
You asked the wrong question...
I tried to join the Comcast IPv6 testbed. My ownership of an XboX 360 eliminated my potential participation (even though I know how to do a 4to6 translation endpoint).
Its not the home routers etc, though I am sure that the large number of NAT-presumptive home routers is no small drop in the bucket, the bulk of systems rolling out are plagued by the IPv4 Assumption.
Gaming, Mobile Phones, Clearwire Routers, the entire cell-phone data support infrastructure, none of these sections of the "internet base" have exerted one forward-thinking jot of effort to join the IPv6 reality.
"Bit-Wise, Byte-Foolish" is the new "Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish" for the information age.