Remember the days when you would shake your head at the very idea of carrying a video camera into a theatre? Now think about how you feel about that prospect today. (It's been years since I went to a theatre without one.) That's how you will feel about this issue in 5 or 10 years.
If it takes a federal organization hours to find someone proficient with a piece of hardware, they're doing it wrong. If they have a hardware guru who needs to review the process before examining the data, then there is no need to interrogate the guy. But since he's there, why not, right? And if we can get him to confess over hours of interrogation, even better, right?
I'm not saying I disagree with their process, but this wasn't showing them in their best light. And frankly, if theatres are worried about screencam movie rips, then they're doing something wrong. Especially a head mount setup. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than watch something like that. Failing that, I'd be willing to pay for me and a guest to watch it in reasonably comfortable seats with a crowd of strangers.
My thoughts exactly. 200m a day is peanuts. According to this story, 21 billion texts per year are sent in Britain alone - that's 57 million a day, or about one per head of population (way down from its peak a couple of years earlier). Extrapolating wildly, the global figure must be at least a couple of billion per day.
So the real story here is "NSA ignores 90% of SMS traffic".
Or, they collect just about every text sent in the US daily. About 300m people, 200m texts/day, about one per head of population. Besides, how much easier is it for them to collect texts that are sent locally rather than those in, say, Rwanda or China?
That's what I'd use - I've declined all but one option for location-based services since I've had a cell phone. So Search Nearby would never work for me anyway.
P.S. The one time I allowed it was for a phone where I have location-based services turned off anyway. I also learned the command to turn it off if it becomes at all intrusive before I even allowed it.
Read about the features of GSM modules, with respect to being able to poll towers, access GPS, etc., while the phone is supposedly turned off. This is a prerequisite for achieving their stated goals.
When Edward left the NSA, all the computers, including cabling were removed. Someone thought this was just another example of government waste, which I disagreed with. Now we know why - they had a certainty that there were malicious cables available.
But let's be honest - Firefox has about a million config options hidden somewhere where it doesn't impact the UI in any meaningful way. And if a feature is restored, most of the code required to make it happen is already written. Presuming the code removed is of a reasonable size, adding it in is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. So why isn't it there?
Likewise, developers benefit from the extended 'debug phase' such users can provide. And note that they might look like freeloaders to you, but you can't tell from their usage behaviour whether or not they're promoting your software when someone mentions a need that your product solves.
In other words, you're far better off to treat 'freeloaders' as valuable users than to treat them as a drain on your resources.
Think about this. This is what you want when you are building a standard. Think the TCP/IP stack. One of the consequences of this behaviour is that people can use these open standards in just about any environment, including Windows. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.
I believe that the use of potentially deadly force is only justified when that same force is first used against you, or you're in immediate and imminent danger of having it being used against you.
I'd propose that it's justified if someone else is physically threatened, as well.
I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices.
Yeah, about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I think the only people who weren't sure what you were subtly trying to infer are those who can't read English. Also, are you under the delusion that this is the first hard-to-notice personal recording device? I think you're about 20 years too late. Okay, maybe only 10.
They're lucky that they found some cheap monitors, but that's not going to work for everyone.
It's a shame that they couldn't compare their experience of 4K monitors with the alternative of dual 1080p monitors (which would run around $300 today). But yes, they do get the screen area of four 1080p monitors with this solution.
And none of the headaches of dual-monitor games while using it. It's only this year that I stopped having problems with some applications not liking being split between both screens. "But why would you do that?" you ask. "How can you effectively use a window that's split between two screens?" And there's another example of something you don't have to worry about on a giant screen vs. two (much) smaller ones...
It's running SYNC by Microsoft. On the odd occasions the software actually manages to connect to my iPhone and dial, I can hear the modem screeching through the speakers. It's about as subtle as a brick through the windshield.
Hey, this is Slashdot, we don't say nice things about Microsoft here...
That's right, you can do that, but we don't have an origin for the universe, so we keep setting our origin points for some arbitrary point, like the centre of Sol or the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. Which is another way of saying it's a relative reference point.
Yes, the point about Google and Facebook is perfectly valid. In that case, people are dreaming or happily wearing their rose-coloured glasses. But this story was also about non-American corporations (i.e., not headquartered in the US) looking for non-American hosting (i.e., not hosted in the US) so that FISA warrants became a non-issue.
I hadn't heard where there wouldn't be criminal liability if using an automated car. It makes sense if you aren't required to be alert and monitoring the car's performance while using it, but I can see it going the other way if you are.
Do you think you would get criminally charged _today_ if you "accidentally" veered onto a side walk and ran over a couple of children?
No, but if I was looking at my cell phone and hit a few kids in the street, I would. If I'm required to be alert while the automated car is driving, how would this be different? See the problem? I won't sign up to have to prove a computer glitch caused an accident or risk going to jail, but I'm more than happy to have a computer do the driving, far better than the average driver and better than most, if I don't face the risk of criminal liability if it does fail. Civil liability isn't a problem - insurance already covers that.
That's a valid perspective for civil liability. Now what about criminal liability? Do I go to jail for manslaughter if the computer miscalculates and accidentally drives over a pedestrian? That's the problem.
The difference is, when your data is stored in the US, the US can pass laws saying that the data has to be handed over, and the companies holding it for you can't tell you. If it's in Canada, there are two options.
First, Canada rolls over and requires the data be sent to the US. Of course, we don't currently have laws to require that, or for us to be silent about it if it does happen. Granted, we have the notwithstanding clause, which allows plenty of leeway, but not so much that they can emplace gag orders or warrantless searches.
Second, the Canadian company holding your data knowingly and actively does all it can to stop the unlawful access of your data, and responds if there are attempted breaches. Note that this will not and can not happen in the US as things currently stand.
At worst, it will be no different from having your data in the US. At best, you may have actual corporate security.
Yeah, that was my base assumption. Just the $/kg to get anything into orbit makes it more valuable if it's already out of our gravity well. There just aren't that many things on earth that we value at greater than $1400/kg, and most of those don't count for a lot of the weight being sent up. Of course, you have to factor in the transportation cost to get it where you want it, but there are a number of options in that area, too (painting one side of an asteroid a different color can change its orbit). Imagine if the only things we sent up the gravity well were the things we don't already have in space. Plants, seeds, people, high-tech components (for now), and all those other things - oxygen, hydrogen, water, rock, metals - were shipped in 'locally'. That's your initial case for space mining/manufacturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the days when you would shake your head at the very idea of carrying a video camera into a theatre? Now think about how you feel about that prospect today. (It's been years since I went to a theatre without one.) That's how you will feel about this issue in 5 or 10 years.
If it takes a federal organization hours to find someone proficient with a piece of hardware, they're doing it wrong. If they have a hardware guru who needs to review the process before examining the data, then there is no need to interrogate the guy. But since he's there, why not, right? And if we can get him to confess over hours of interrogation, even better, right?
I'm not saying I disagree with their process, but this wasn't showing them in their best light. And frankly, if theatres are worried about screencam movie rips, then they're doing something wrong. Especially a head mount setup. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than watch something like that. Failing that, I'd be willing to pay for me and a guest to watch it in reasonably comfortable seats with a crowd of strangers.
"200 yummy dolphins eagerly await being turned into delicious food, to the point of injuring themselves in their excitement"
Apple isn't alone on this, anything made by Microsoft is suspected of having a backdoor.
To be fair, when the front door of Microsoft products are secured, it's only a screen door, anyway.
My thoughts exactly. 200m a day is peanuts. According to this story, 21 billion texts per year are sent in Britain alone - that's 57 million a day, or about one per head of population (way down from its peak a couple of years earlier). Extrapolating wildly, the global figure must be at least a couple of billion per day.
So the real story here is "NSA ignores 90% of SMS traffic".
Or, they collect just about every text sent in the US daily. About 300m people, 200m texts/day, about one per head of population. Besides, how much easier is it for them to collect texts that are sent locally rather than those in, say, Rwanda or China?
That's what I'd use - I've declined all but one option for location-based services since I've had a cell phone. So Search Nearby would never work for me anyway.
P.S. The one time I allowed it was for a phone where I have location-based services turned off anyway. I also learned the command to turn it off if it becomes at all intrusive before I even allowed it.
Read about the features of GSM modules, with respect to being able to poll towers, access GPS, etc., while the phone is supposedly turned off. This is a prerequisite for achieving their stated goals.
When Edward left the NSA, all the computers, including cabling were removed. Someone thought this was just another example of government waste, which I disagreed with. Now we know why - they had a certainty that there were malicious cables available.
I'd argue about whether it was insightful, just like I argued that the comment that started this was subtle.
But let's be honest - Firefox has about a million config options hidden somewhere where it doesn't impact the UI in any meaningful way. And if a feature is restored, most of the code required to make it happen is already written. Presuming the code removed is of a reasonable size, adding it in is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. So why isn't it there?
Likewise, developers benefit from the extended 'debug phase' such users can provide. And note that they might look like freeloaders to you, but you can't tell from their usage behaviour whether or not they're promoting your software when someone mentions a need that your product solves.
In other words, you're far better off to treat 'freeloaders' as valuable users than to treat them as a drain on your resources.
Think about this. This is what you want when you are building a standard. Think the TCP/IP stack. One of the consequences of this behaviour is that people can use these open standards in just about any environment, including Windows. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.
Better make sure you stick to that one point, because you'll have a hard time refuting a single other thing he said.
I believe that the use of potentially deadly force is only justified when that same force is first used against you, or you're in immediate and imminent danger of having it being used against you.
I'd propose that it's justified if someone else is physically threatened, as well.
I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices.
Yeah, about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I think the only people who weren't sure what you were subtly trying to infer are those who can't read English. Also, are you under the delusion that this is the first hard-to-notice personal recording device? I think you're about 20 years too late. Okay, maybe only 10.
TFA wasn't working when I tried to read it.
They're lucky that they found some cheap monitors, but that's not going to work for everyone.
It's a shame that they couldn't compare their experience of 4K monitors with the alternative of dual 1080p monitors (which would run around $300 today). But yes, they do get the screen area of four 1080p monitors with this solution.
And none of the headaches of dual-monitor games while using it. It's only this year that I stopped having problems with some applications not liking being split between both screens. "But why would you do that?" you ask. "How can you effectively use a window that's split between two screens?" And there's another example of something you don't have to worry about on a giant screen vs. two (much) smaller ones...
It's running SYNC by Microsoft. On the odd occasions the software actually manages to connect to my iPhone and dial, I can hear the modem screeching through the speakers. It's about as subtle as a brick through the windshield.
Hey, this is Slashdot, we don't say nice things about Microsoft here...
That's right, you can do that, but we don't have an origin for the universe, so we keep setting our origin points for some arbitrary point, like the centre of Sol or the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. Which is another way of saying it's a relative reference point.
Yes, the point about Google and Facebook is perfectly valid. In that case, people are dreaming or happily wearing their rose-coloured glasses. But this story was also about non-American corporations (i.e., not headquartered in the US) looking for non-American hosting (i.e., not hosted in the US) so that FISA warrants became a non-issue.
There wouldn't be any criminal liability.
I hadn't heard where there wouldn't be criminal liability if using an automated car. It makes sense if you aren't required to be alert and monitoring the car's performance while using it, but I can see it going the other way if you are.
Do you think you would get criminally charged _today_ if you "accidentally" veered onto a side walk and ran over a couple of children?
No, but if I was looking at my cell phone and hit a few kids in the street, I would. If I'm required to be alert while the automated car is driving, how would this be different? See the problem? I won't sign up to have to prove a computer glitch caused an accident or risk going to jail, but I'm more than happy to have a computer do the driving, far better than the average driver and better than most, if I don't face the risk of criminal liability if it does fail. Civil liability isn't a problem - insurance already covers that.
That's a valid perspective for civil liability. Now what about criminal liability? Do I go to jail for manslaughter if the computer miscalculates and accidentally drives over a pedestrian? That's the problem.
The mosquitoes are not insignificant, either.
The difference is, when your data is stored in the US, the US can pass laws saying that the data has to be handed over, and the companies holding it for you can't tell you. If it's in Canada, there are two options.
First, Canada rolls over and requires the data be sent to the US. Of course, we don't currently have laws to require that, or for us to be silent about it if it does happen. Granted, we have the notwithstanding clause, which allows plenty of leeway, but not so much that they can emplace gag orders or warrantless searches.
Second, the Canadian company holding your data knowingly and actively does all it can to stop the unlawful access of your data, and responds if there are attempted breaches. Note that this will not and can not happen in the US as things currently stand.
At worst, it will be no different from having your data in the US. At best, you may have actual corporate security.
Yeah, that was my base assumption. Just the $/kg to get anything into orbit makes it more valuable if it's already out of our gravity well. There just aren't that many things on earth that we value at greater than $1400/kg, and most of those don't count for a lot of the weight being sent up. Of course, you have to factor in the transportation cost to get it where you want it, but there are a number of options in that area, too (painting one side of an asteroid a different color can change its orbit). Imagine if the only things we sent up the gravity well were the things we don't already have in space. Plants, seeds, people, high-tech components (for now), and all those other things - oxygen, hydrogen, water, rock, metals - were shipped in 'locally'. That's your initial case for space mining/manufacturing.