I think Clarkson crossed the line when he challenged BBC in a public forum. BBC felt that it couldn't back down, which meant its only recourse was to fire Clarkson. It's unfortunate because I'm a Top Gear fan, and I rather like Clarkson's sometimes rude demeanor.
> Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too..
Banished? Snowden wasn't banished. If he comes back to the States, the US government will kill him in the fastest, swiftest trial you'll ever see.
I lived in Russia for 5 years. While I'm not a huge fan of the government, the people are amazing and friendship is for life. It's a pretty good quality of life for those that don't know. I don't think Snowden is missing much from the states, except peanut better, ranch dressing and cream cheese (oh, and good chips).
He'll likely get a pardon when the american people are ready to oust those congressional folks that are pushing this high surveillance agenda, primarily those older folks like Mich McConnell that come from old power.
Haha, sure the radio is fine. And to head off any future responses about sourcing from the inside out and maintaining a static connection via long-polling, I don't agree to that, either.
I don't have any problem with a drone flying over my property, if it's 300-400 feet up. I mean, I don't have a problem with a helicopter flying 300ft over my property, what's the difference if it's a drone or kite or bird or anything else?
This happened because auto-makers think it's OK to remotely communicate with your vehicle at their leisure. They think it's OK to download usage information and other private forms of data from your vehicle without your knowledge. Maybe they're even downloading GPS data, creating profiles out of their customers, and selling it all to a third party. All that said, I don't agree to be a future product and revenue stream for an auto vendor. I value my private data.
There should not be any listening services running on my new car at all. Any wireless connectivity must be sourced FROM the vehicle only. If I want the auto vendors to have all this private data, they'll make a button that I can push to give it on my terms.
Do we really want all our electronic things to be communicating our usage information (and god knows what else) back to the vendors?
The mainstream public is a bit ridiculous when it comes to drones - they think they're so important that another person would waste their time and spy on them using a drone. First off, you're not that important, get over yourself. Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
If you ask these same people how they feel about low flying aircraft or someone walking down the street with a mobile phone, you would get a more accepting response. But why? Lower flying planes could carry hundreds of pounds photography gear and could zoom in on your eyebrow lashes. The person walking down the street with a mobile phone could zoom and get some real up-close shots of you while you're in your garden.
Is it possible that the drone flyer is just making a video of the general area or just having fun flying a remote controlled toy?
I can (and do) build drones out of 3 sticks, 4 motors, 4 speed controllers, one flight controller, one receiver and 4 props with 30 minute flight times and 10km range.
What are you babbling about again? transponderwoohoo??
You're better off using lithium polymer. Flight time depends heavily on the speed of the motors, the weight of the frame and the size of the propellers. Mini quads run for 5-10 minutes while larger quads can run for 20-30 minutes.
I would add one more threat: a sophisticated, targeted attack. While very rare, these threat actors represent a serious risk. It's important to note that smaller, less known companies are typically not at risk
I really enjoyed all the Star Trek series that followed TOS. I loved Voyager and even Enterprise was entertaining to watch. I really wish a new "official" Star Trek series starts again soon.
I wouldn't call it a rigid standard by any means. I think of it more like common sense. I'm not accounting for those that are typically more paranoid than most.
Nothing about security is absolute; it's all about risk management. Sure the impacts are huge here, but what are the likelihoods? When protecting yourself (digitally or physically), everyone takes a reasonable approach and draws the line on what is acceptable to them. In this specific case, if your second factor is compromised, your first factor is still intact because it's different for each resource. If you use strong keys for your first factor, then you would have to be specifically targeted for both factors to be compromised. Unless you're someone really important, the likelihood of that happening is next to zero.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Clarkson crossed the line when he challenged BBC in a public forum. BBC felt that it couldn't back down, which meant its only recourse was to fire Clarkson. It's unfortunate because I'm a Top Gear fan, and I rather like Clarkson's sometimes rude demeanor.
> Not at all. iOS is UNIX.
I love UNIX. I hate iOS. What were you saying again?
I'm pretty sure the US Govt wants him back and it's not jail they be wantin', it be death.
Are you kidding? Snowden has an open invitation by the US government to come back home. I wouldn't call that being banished.
> Of course, being banished to Russia, is fine too..
Banished? Snowden wasn't banished. If he comes back to the States, the US government will kill him in the fastest, swiftest trial you'll ever see.
I lived in Russia for 5 years. While I'm not a huge fan of the government, the people are amazing and friendship is for life. It's a pretty good quality of life for those that don't know. I don't think Snowden is missing much from the states, except peanut better, ranch dressing and cream cheese (oh, and good chips).
He'll likely get a pardon when the american people are ready to oust those congressional folks that are pushing this high surveillance agenda, primarily those older folks like Mich McConnell that come from old power.
Then I suppose you have a problem with everything; sucks to be you.
Haha, sure the radio is fine. And to head off any future responses about sourcing from the inside out and maintaining a static connection via long-polling, I don't agree to that, either.
Thanks for proving my point so quickly.
I don't have any problem with a drone flying over my property, if it's 300-400 feet up. I mean, I don't have a problem with a helicopter flying 300ft over my property, what's the difference if it's a drone or kite or bird or anything else?
This happened because auto-makers think it's OK to remotely communicate with your vehicle at their leisure. They think it's OK to download usage information and other private forms of data from your vehicle without your knowledge. Maybe they're even downloading GPS data, creating profiles out of their customers, and selling it all to a third party. All that said, I don't agree to be a future product and revenue stream for an auto vendor. I value my private data.
There should not be any listening services running on my new car at all. Any wireless connectivity must be sourced FROM the vehicle only. If I want the auto vendors to have all this private data, they'll make a button that I can push to give it on my terms.
Do we really want all our electronic things to be communicating our usage information (and god knows what else) back to the vendors?
The mainstream public is a bit ridiculous when it comes to drones - they think they're so important that another person would waste their time and spy on them using a drone. First off, you're not that important, get over yourself. Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
If you ask these same people how they feel about low flying aircraft or someone walking down the street with a mobile phone, you would get a more accepting response. But why? Lower flying planes could carry hundreds of pounds photography gear and could zoom in on your eyebrow lashes. The person walking down the street with a mobile phone could zoom and get some real up-close shots of you while you're in your garden.
Is it possible that the drone flyer is just making a video of the general area or just having fun flying a remote controlled toy?
> If you do this stuff as a hobby, have fun with it. The rest of us don't have the time or the inclination to consider upgrading the OS to be a hobby.
Let me translate that for you: Some of us are hackers. The rest of us are not.
You're welcome.
Did you forget about the DMCA already?
Step 4: Take another bong rip :)
Can I pay full price and keep all my data to myself?
You choose your own destiny. I make my living happily working with Linux..
I can (and do) build drones out of 3 sticks, 4 motors, 4 speed controllers, one flight controller, one receiver and 4 props with 30 minute flight times and 10km range.
What are you babbling about again? transponderwoohoo??
I make my living happily working with Linux. Why would you "put up" with something that you don't enjoy?
And boom goes the dynamite.
You're better off using lithium polymer. Flight time depends heavily on the speed of the motors, the weight of the frame and the size of the propellers. Mini quads run for 5-10 minutes while larger quads can run for 20-30 minutes.
I would add one more threat: a sophisticated, targeted attack. While very rare, these threat actors represent a serious risk. It's important to note that smaller, less known companies are typically not at risk
No kidding. It takes him 2 minutes to say something that takes ordinary folks one or two sentences.
Not only that, but he talks as if the technology he's playing with is cutting edge; it's not.
"Where are the cheetos?"
"Roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk!"
Classic - awesome.
I really enjoyed all the Star Trek series that followed TOS. I loved Voyager and even Enterprise was entertaining to watch. I really wish a new "official" Star Trek series starts again soon.
I wouldn't call it a rigid standard by any means. I think of it more like common sense. I'm not accounting for those that are typically more paranoid than most.
Nothing about security is absolute; it's all about risk management. Sure the impacts are huge here, but what are the likelihoods? When protecting yourself (digitally or physically), everyone takes a reasonable approach and draws the line on what is acceptable to them. In this specific case, if your second factor is compromised, your first factor is still intact because it's different for each resource. If you use strong keys for your first factor, then you would have to be specifically targeted for both factors to be compromised. Unless you're someone really important, the likelihood of that happening is next to zero.
Still well within the confines of acceptable risk. Now, if you're personally being targeted, then that's another conversation.