That's not necessarily helpful, shockwave encounters high pressure areas less.
It's probably good to have a back door, but remember these things are designed to send a shockwave through your bunker... litterally vaporzing you with pressure. STP x Y0,000 or so.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT. Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels in your country, and which is also useful against reporters.
Which is sad, because if their government cared at all for their people, they'd realize that pissing off the US is a good way to look more like large parking lot than an industrialized country.
Replace: Government + People -> Slaves. U.S. -> Overseer.
Helps people like you begin to understand the problem.
They will be less enticed to provide more bandwidth.
What part of: More product = More Customers. Better Value / Price = Happier customers willing to pay more.
That's like, the system. Don't bypass that system, unless we can strip you of management and turn you into a crown corporation (a Canadian/Brit/Aussie concept, but something the U.S. should consider).
Can we see some statistics on how much it's costing in support calls due to poorer than advertised speed/latency/availability? I'm pretty sure these companies are spending millions (billions?) on support personnel they wouldn't need if their services WORKED and their pricing system wasn't INSANE.
These companies want to report increased revenues to their shareholders. From the statistics they are spreading on how many users will be affected by tiered (capped) service and the probable level of support and billing required to implement it there won't be any more profits for these companies (though I suspect we'll find their implementation would be surprisingly aggressive/unfair/hostile/targeted/unfair/illegal [in some areas, particularly people with no legal recourse, as always] and will produce incredible profits [some of which might come from law enforcement inducements for disrupting subversive information users]). Which is really how we should support good ISPs: A: go with them. b:do illegal things c: bring them court order reinbursement money d: give subsequent generations internet freedom e: Profit, culturally?
I'd also like to point out something specific to the IT industry (and increasingly the manufacturing industry).
We put ourselves out of work. If we build something that does the job, it doesn't need to be built again. In fact it can be used forever.
When industrialization came in the number of manufacturing jobs was cut in half, with modern robotics it's cut in half again. Not profits, not prices, costs are cut in half.
When we realized that the system was increasingly becoming a few owners lording over automation they didn't envision, design or implement we should have kicked up a fuss. Implemented some kind of system so that corporations couldn't have billion dollar companies with 20 employees... distributed the wealth or enforced price scaling measures.
For the rich of course nothing has changed, they have enough money that they could never spend it normally (only battles between the incredibly wealthy over power [I can sell shares in your company until it's bankrupt] or prestige [I'm willing to pay more for that Van Gogh] really have any effect on their money supply).
Ironically the rich have largely managed to gentlemanly avoid such confrontations, unlike the poor who still lie on their resumes.
At approximately $3-5 million dollars you start to be approached by people many times smarter than you who want to manage your money. At that point it starts growing beyond any normal spending habits. It never stops growing.
As long as really smart people whore themselves out to the rich they'll always be able to compensate for the intellectual with the fiduciary. Their funds will never diminish. And we'll have an increasing number of people with an essentially unlimited amount of money.
To maintain their wealth as being unlimited they will simply dissuade the others from organizing behind... say a smart person... or an ethical person. People being naturally antagonistic to good advice or submission to anyone (on any grounds) make this incredibly easy.
Let it stew long enough, until that percentage is 2-3% and you get a class situation not dissimilar to France under XIV, and probably the same results.
Just a reminder, we had something called the G20 protests here in Toronto a little while ago. The biggest point of interest was the agent provocateurs brought in by U.S. interests and distributed throughout the protest with orders to make things violent and disorderly.
If the government is going to allow for paid shills to disrupt peaceful protest without investigation or justice then grass roots will always be hampered.
People are mad, they are justifiably mad, they are mad for many reasons. In this case their message is simple, greed is not ok, it's a vice... a sin....
This whole thing is a bit like telling murderers that "hey, it's not ok". Not a tough message but these people have their heads SO FAR UP their own asses that it's going to take a LONG LONG TIME to get something done about it.
Let me say the word, Guillotine. Now let's come to an accommodation.
The mindset of the rich that their success is mostly the result of their efforts is RIDICULOUS. If you get rich enough you pay people to think for you. If I had $50,000 a year I'd be as smart as another university educated person... shit maybe I'd be a biologist or a doctor. It's an absurd system. The rich have maintained it by hurting job security in times of social consciousness. It's not disingenuous to say that a person who is at risk of losing their job, needs to make money to support children or deal with family illness or aging, or are otherwise bound to work will be more likely to do unethical things at the behest of their employer.
The truth is YOU NEED A JOB. It's expected in our society. And quitting because you're asked to do something unethical, evil, manipulative, unfair, hurtful, etc. Is something most people aren't capable of.
Add to that the new notion that a good employee is a dependent and non-creative cog, and you've got a system where the brilliance of employees (below VP level) is discarded(60% of VPs become VPs by saving massive corporations 5c or less on each unit sold, raising quality does not get you promoted). The often stupid, shortsighted, wasteful, three ring binder orders of the corporation... dictated by someone who cares nothing at all about the actual effects of the company.
The best part is how these same corporations that treat their employees like shit, take every opportunity to keep them dependent (which is not dissimilar from actively shitting on them), then use the fact that they have X employees who will be hurt by any regulation against the corporation.
If the government looked at how many GOOD jobs where people actually create, contribute, or are paid enough to have a decent life outside work the subsidies for WalMart, Rogers, T-Mobile, etc. Would disappear.
But remember you can't tax the rich, because they'll close their companies and move them somewhere else, where taxpayers haven't educated their employees.
Imagine M$ trying to start again with a bunch of Indonesian orphans, "This is a Mouse!". 10 years at least till they get a qualified person.
Anyway I'm sure that was all obvious, just a reminder.
It really is good VS evil. We need to put up a permanent wall against tiered service. They're going to keep attacking it and they only need to win once for the freedom of speech on the internet to be compromised and everyone to hurtle towards some horrible fascism.
Conservatives, in my experience, are more likely to attack network neutrality. Seems like Icarus heading to the mind control sun.
Oh just had a thought, you know how conservatives can't say the word "taxes" properly. How about they start working on giving people more hours for a while, not just more money. P.S. Occupy protests rule! Eliabeth Warren for Vice-President (Dem). And good luck to my southern neighbors in this their election year!!!!
I kind of resent you pushing Google as some kind of white knight in the communications space. They're doing a pretty good job in many areas but they don't have a perfectly open goal they're chasing.
Obviously you're right about running wires, unless some kind of line renting system is implemented it's expensive. Same for radio frequencies (GSM,CDMA,) super high cost to buy spectrum, the big companies just gobble it up... needs to be regulated into seperately owned chunks and significant free(as in libre) bandwidth.
Finally yes, Google >ul>can
do a nationwide rollout without bankrupting itself. It's just not where the money is, when people understand the power of SIP and move to online phoning Google wants to be THERE. And of course the customers aren't the customers, the government, law enforcement, etc. pay big money. Communications companies end up deploying privacy destroying systems. Google probably gets some of it's tax loopholes through schemes like that.
We all know what we want, a phone that you plug your sim in and it doesn't matter who you are you get unlimited bandwidth (enough to stream video to your screen) and decent latency.
There's more than enough WIRE and FREQUENCY to make this happen, so someone's shit the bed.
Nimbuzz is better and for a while offered Skype service (a good indication of an interoperability disposition).
Plus the added scariness of M$ becoming involved means I heartily recommend it, even if it wasn't already just plain better and cheaper.
It's run by a company out of the
Netherlands (EU. Legal protection, information and privacy respect + support for most IM networks + Available for all major platforms).
Let's not do MSN again; no storage of sent messages, no privacy, crappy client application, split up community (ICQ, Jabber, AOL, Yahoo!, ETC.).
"These acts are evil, we won't do them": At least then we'd have a hope of reacting appropriately.
News of horrors coming out of the U.S. comes out every day and heads never seem to roll. Your country looks more and more like a fascism every day with bread and circuses fueling a bizarre patriotism that sees everyone else as inferior and less free. Even though the U.S. comes in at the lowest end of every statistic on overall quality of life (in the developed world).
The rest of the developed world seems to be largely moving away from nationalism, the E.U. came together, the Asian nations have strong economic ties and massive immigration and emigration.
Considering that the U.S. is multi ethnic it begs the question what are they protecting? I mean the only way the U.S. really stands out is that they're a large economy with a large military and that they're the third most conservative country in the world (behind Somalia and Israel).
The division of church and state seems to be proceeding a pace... perhaps it's my Canadian rose coloured glasses which allow me to think that the need for division is lessening but I really just don't see the purpose. Yes the U.S. is becoming less and less relevant. Yes they are coasting on cultural superiority (which leads to success in software and hardware ventures, I.E.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
).
There's a thin line between suppressing madness and suppressing subversion and brilliance. I don't think the kind of people who would implement a program like this are at all capable of making those kinds of judgments. The more I imagine the culture in those kinds of places the more I pity them for the blinders they have to put on.
I'm an english major, though I'm also a computer scientist. My preference is to speak as simply, rapidly and directly as possible. I find that there are often misunderstandings where people should have been able to make inferences but were distracted or under a false impression initially.
I think everyone has things in their life that if taken out of context could be interpreted poorly. Friendships with people who became troubled. Comments that could be taken out of context. Teenage angst that if applied to an adult might indicate extreme sentiments.
The deaths caused by unibombers, Bin Laden's, serial killers, etc. Are really a tiny tiny fraction of deaths. Further these acts tend to be caused (at least from the perspective of the perpetrators) by mistrust from society and the victims. Adding the level of security that the U.S. intelligence agencies seem to be so keen on will vastly increase the amount of paranoia, social distance and hostility in that type of mind.
By looking at possible causal factors you drive practitioners of victim-less but socially frowned upon activities underground, where they will form groups united by their distrust of society and authority.
It is unclear whether these government agencies would act to prevent true subversion (such as bitcoins or revolution) but they certainly seem to be used for things like Watergate, monitoring peaceful protests and tracking down people who borrow subversive materials from the library far more than they are used to detect real threats.
The Jury system where you are innocent until proven guilty has given westerners a level of trust in authority not seen before in the world (minus certain minorities who may or may not be justified in their distrust). The current action of intelligence services completely undermines that. It will have consequences.
I'm still in my late twenties but I've found that no one thinks they are a bad person. Many violent or seemingly vindictive acts are thought of as retaliation. Asymmetric warfare is a real thing, and giving motivational ammunition to groups like Anonymous, gangs or "Fight Club"s would seem to be building pressure in a vessel.
If the president (Obama) can't pass the legislation he wanted to enact (removing the troops) because of interference from the administrative elements of security councils then the will of the people is already being subverted.
Eventually someone will stop the rat race for success with a goodly amount of resources and decide that blowing up say, Langley, Microsoft, T-Mobile or New York is the most meaningful accomplishment they can leave behind.
I hope the think tanks at Darpa and RAND to consider the implications of a world with $20 remote control airplanes, 3D printers, open source software, global communications combined with a selfish governing body.
Louis the XIV had spies everywhere, didn't help much.
A guillotine is still a simple thing to make and being middle class is the safest place to be.
I've tasted blow fish, it's delicious, but if I hadn't I really would have missed nothing. If we move towards removing copyright, patents, etc. People will be happily driving around in well made cars, eating food that's delicious and cheap and not willing to commit horrific crimes. If you make poverty a crime... well Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood might come again.
The first that comes to mind is that they require a new password each time. Since people usually have about 15 passwords and recycle them they'll eventually have all of your passwords.
Google, you need to start an Internal Affairs department... get the EFF to send you some people. Let them keep tract of subpoenas, data stored internally, anonymity aspects, encouraging developers to implement security procedures, etc.
If you get really crazy privacy advocates, it won't upset your corporate culture. Hire men in suits and it will.
Like anything it's a bell curve. Scarily there are probably some AMAZINGLY talented hackers in the military, also scarily brainwashed. But of course they only have so many tricks, they don't want to reveal them unless there is a crisis.
They certainly don't want their efforts to go into a honeypot or enemy database of cyber attacks.
So they write each one from scratch (so it won't have Made in the XXX written on it) and write them poorly if it'll get the job done.
Think of the SIGINT work in WW2, if they could break Enigma easily then you think they've gotten worse since?
It's a nice thought that people smart enough to design really powerful intrusion systems wouldn't be brainwashed into the "Everyone but us is hostile" mindset of the military... but I imagine some are quite conservative and have the associated mindset... "Yay paycheck! Screw the consequences! Whoever pays my salary is right about everything! And I don't need to know what they're actually doing!"
If a war started right now we don't know who would choose where any of the major weapons would be pointed. Anonymous? The NSA? China? Russia?
Of course the really secret weapons (buried by the opposition under Soviet and American cities) are probably still just as effective as they were when deployed in the 60s and 70s.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not necessarily helpful, shockwave encounters high pressure areas less.
It's probably good to have a back door, but remember these things are designed to send a shockwave through your bunker... litterally vaporzing you with pressure. STP x Y0,000 or so.
Just to refresh YOUR memory U.S. Invades (well about 2-3 countries a year but let's do 1 example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
U.S. creates no fly zone, economic sanctions, practices attack maneuvers OVER your contry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030302/iran_fires_antiaircraft_missile_fails.html
Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/. Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... what a catalog of success.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT.
Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels in your country, and which is also useful against reporters.
Which is sad, because if their government cared at all for their people, they'd realize that pissing off the US is a good way to look more like large parking lot than an industrialized country.
Replace: Government + People -> Slaves. U.S. -> Overseer.
Helps people like you begin to understand the problem.
Seriously?? Have you ever seen girls fight?
:P
Not enough
"The size of a nations army is directly proportional to it's open distrust of it's neighbors" - Neitzche
CTKO (chances to kill obama).
Could our bunker busters get our leaders? If not we need better bunker busters.
They gotta know, no one survives if they fuck up. No... one...
They will be less enticed to provide more bandwidth.
What part of: More product = More Customers. Better Value / Price = Happier customers willing to pay more.
That's like, the system. Don't bypass that system, unless we can strip you of management and turn you into a crown corporation (a Canadian/Brit/Aussie concept, but something the U.S. should consider).
Can we see some statistics on how much it's costing in support calls due to poorer than advertised speed/latency/availability? I'm pretty sure these companies are spending millions (billions?) on support personnel they wouldn't need if their services WORKED and their pricing system wasn't INSANE.
These companies want to report increased revenues to their shareholders. From the statistics they are spreading on how many users will be affected by tiered (capped) service and the probable level of support and billing required to implement it there won't be any more profits for these companies (though I suspect we'll find their implementation would be surprisingly aggressive/unfair/hostile/targeted/unfair/illegal [in some areas, particularly people with no legal recourse, as always] and will produce incredible profits [some of which might come from law enforcement inducements for disrupting subversive information users]). Which is really how we should support good ISPs:
A: go with them.
b:do illegal things
c: bring them court order reinbursement money
d: give subsequent generations internet freedom
e: Profit, culturally?
I'd also like to point out something specific to the IT industry (and increasingly the manufacturing industry).
We put ourselves out of work. If we build something that does the job, it doesn't need to be built again. In fact it can be used forever.
When industrialization came in the number of manufacturing jobs was cut in half, with modern robotics it's cut in half again. Not profits, not prices, costs are cut in half.
When we realized that the system was increasingly becoming a few owners lording over automation they didn't envision, design or implement we should have kicked up a fuss. Implemented some kind of system so that corporations couldn't have billion dollar companies with 20 employees... distributed the wealth or enforced price scaling measures.
For the rich of course nothing has changed, they have enough money that they could never spend it normally (only battles between the incredibly wealthy over power [I can sell shares in your company until it's bankrupt] or prestige [I'm willing to pay more for that Van Gogh] really have any effect on their money supply).
Ironically the rich have largely managed to gentlemanly avoid such confrontations, unlike the poor who still lie on their resumes.
At approximately $3-5 million dollars you start to be approached by people many times smarter than you who want to manage your money. At that point it starts growing beyond any normal spending habits. It never stops growing.
As long as really smart people whore themselves out to the rich they'll always be able to compensate for the intellectual with the fiduciary. Their funds will never diminish. And we'll have an increasing number of people with an essentially unlimited amount of money.
To maintain their wealth as being unlimited they will simply dissuade the others from organizing behind... say a smart person... or an ethical person. People being naturally antagonistic to good advice or submission to anyone (on any grounds) make this incredibly easy.
Let it stew long enough, until that percentage is 2-3% and you get a class situation not dissimilar to France under XIV, and probably the same results.
Just a reminder, we had something called the G20 protests here in Toronto a little while ago. The biggest point of interest was the agent provocateurs brought in by U.S. interests and distributed throughout the protest with orders to make things violent and disorderly.
If the government is going to allow for paid shills to disrupt peaceful protest without investigation or justice then grass roots will always be hampered.
People are mad, they are justifiably mad, they are mad for many reasons. In this case their message is simple, greed is not ok, it's a vice... a sin....
This whole thing is a bit like telling murderers that "hey, it's not ok". Not a tough message but these people have their heads SO FAR UP their own asses that it's going to take a LONG LONG TIME to get something done about it.
Let me say the word, Guillotine. Now let's come to an accommodation.
The mindset of the rich that their success is mostly the result of their efforts is RIDICULOUS. If you get rich enough you pay people to think for you. If I had $50,000 a year I'd be as smart as another university educated person... shit maybe I'd be a biologist or a doctor. It's an absurd system. The rich have maintained it by hurting job security in times of social consciousness. It's not disingenuous to say that a person who is at risk of losing their job, needs to make money to support children or deal with family illness or aging, or are otherwise bound to work will be more likely to do unethical things at the behest of their employer.
The truth is YOU NEED A JOB. It's expected in our society. And quitting because you're asked to do something unethical, evil, manipulative, unfair, hurtful, etc. Is something most people aren't capable of.
Add to that the new notion that a good employee is a dependent and non-creative cog, and you've got a system where the brilliance of employees (below VP level) is discarded(60% of VPs become VPs by saving massive corporations 5c or less on each unit sold, raising quality does not get you promoted). The often stupid, shortsighted, wasteful, three ring binder orders of the corporation... dictated by someone who cares nothing at all about the actual effects of the company.
The best part is how these same corporations that treat their employees like shit, take every opportunity to keep them dependent (which is not dissimilar from actively shitting on them), then use the fact that they have X employees who will be hurt by any regulation against the corporation.
If the government looked at how many GOOD jobs where people actually create, contribute, or are paid enough to have a decent life outside work the subsidies for WalMart, Rogers, T-Mobile, etc. Would disappear.
But remember you can't tax the rich, because they'll close their companies and move them somewhere else, where taxpayers haven't educated their employees.
Imagine M$ trying to start again with a bunch of Indonesian orphans, "This is a Mouse!". 10 years at least till they get a qualified person.
Anyway I'm sure that was all obvious, just a reminder.
I agree, this is entirely designed to try and stave off a rebellion. U.S. just tested a facism toool. Nasty.
It really is good VS evil. We need to put up a permanent wall against tiered service. They're going to keep attacking it and they only need to win once for the freedom of speech on the internet to be compromised and everyone to hurtle towards some horrible fascism.
Conservatives, in my experience, are more likely to attack network neutrality. Seems like Icarus heading to the mind control sun.
Oh just had a thought, you know how conservatives can't say the word "taxes" properly. How about they start working on giving people more hours for a while, not just more money.
P.S. Occupy protests rule! Eliabeth Warren for Vice-President (Dem). And good luck to my southern neighbors in this their election year!!!!
Obviously you're right about running wires, unless some kind of line renting system is implemented it's expensive.
Same for radio frequencies (GSM,CDMA,) super high cost to buy spectrum, the big companies just gobble it up... needs to be regulated into seperately owned chunks and significant free(as in libre) bandwidth.
Finally yes, Google >ul>can
do a nationwide rollout without bankrupting itself. It's just not where the money is, when people understand the power of SIP and move to online phoning Google wants to be THERE. And of course the customers aren't the customers, the government, law enforcement, etc. pay big money. Communications companies end up deploying privacy destroying systems. Google probably gets some of it's tax loopholes through schemes like that.
We all know what we want, a phone that you plug your sim in and it doesn't matter who you are you get unlimited bandwidth (enough to stream video to your screen) and decent latency.
There's more than enough WIRE and FREQUENCY to make this happen, so someone's shit the bed.
Nimbuzz is better and for a while offered Skype service (a good indication of an interoperability disposition).
Plus the added scariness of M$ becoming involved means I heartily recommend it, even if it wasn't already just plain better and cheaper.
It's run by a company out of the Netherlands (EU. Legal protection, information and privacy respect + support for most IM networks + Available for all major platforms).
Let's not do MSN again; no storage of sent messages, no privacy, crappy client application, split up community (ICQ, Jabber, AOL, Yahoo!, ETC.).
Will now go into monitoring communications between people!
When government's don't need to worry about each other they have more time to worry about their citizens!
I love you big brother, can I borrow your car? I'll spy on your GF (Canada) and report back to you I promise!
"These acts are evil, we won't do them": At least then we'd have a hope of reacting appropriately.
News of horrors coming out of the U.S. comes out every day and heads never seem to roll. Your country looks more and more like a fascism every day with bread and circuses fueling a bizarre patriotism that sees everyone else as inferior and less free. Even though the U.S. comes in at the lowest end of every statistic on overall quality of life (in the developed world).
The rest of the developed world seems to be largely moving away from nationalism, the E.U. came together, the Asian nations have strong economic ties and massive immigration and emigration.
Considering that the U.S. is multi ethnic it begs the question what are they protecting? I mean the only way the U.S. really stands out is that they're a large economy with a large military and that they're the third most conservative country in the world (behind Somalia and Israel).
The division of church and state seems to be proceeding a pace... perhaps it's my Canadian rose coloured glasses which allow me to think that the need for division is lessening but I really just don't see the purpose. Yes the U.S. is becoming less and less relevant. Yes they are coasting on cultural superiority (which leads to success in software and hardware ventures, I.E.
).
There's a thin line between suppressing madness and suppressing subversion and brilliance. I don't think the kind of people who would implement a program like this are at all capable of making those kinds of judgments. The more I imagine the culture in those kinds of places the more I pity them for the blinders they have to put on.
No offense, but I wish you and those who also believe this were dead.
Mindless minions serving evil overlords. Holy shit there must be some really convincing arguments, oh wait they sign away all rights to information.
CNN is so biased it's unbelievable, CIA edited CNN must be even worse!
I'm an english major, though I'm also a computer scientist. My preference is to speak as simply, rapidly and directly as possible. I find that there are often misunderstandings where people should have been able to make inferences but were distracted or under a false impression initially.
I think everyone has things in their life that if taken out of context could be interpreted poorly. Friendships with people who became troubled. Comments that could be taken out of context. Teenage angst that if applied to an adult might indicate extreme sentiments.
The deaths caused by unibombers, Bin Laden's, serial killers, etc. Are really a tiny tiny fraction of deaths. Further these acts tend to be caused (at least from the perspective of the perpetrators) by mistrust from society and the victims. Adding the level of security that the U.S. intelligence agencies seem to be so keen on will vastly increase the amount of paranoia, social distance and hostility in that type of mind.
By looking at possible causal factors you drive practitioners of victim-less but socially frowned upon activities underground, where they will form groups united by their distrust of society and authority.
It is unclear whether these government agencies would act to prevent true subversion (such as bitcoins or revolution) but they certainly seem to be used for things like Watergate, monitoring peaceful protests and tracking down people who borrow subversive materials from the library far more than they are used to detect real threats.
The Jury system where you are innocent until proven guilty has given westerners a level of trust in authority not seen before in the world (minus certain minorities who may or may not be justified in their distrust). The current action of intelligence services completely undermines that. It will have consequences.
I'm still in my late twenties but I've found that no one thinks they are a bad person. Many violent or seemingly vindictive acts are thought of as retaliation. Asymmetric warfare is a real thing, and giving motivational ammunition to groups like Anonymous, gangs or "Fight Club"s would seem to be building pressure in a vessel.
If the president (Obama) can't pass the legislation he wanted to enact (removing the troops) because of interference from the administrative elements of security councils then the will of the people is already being subverted.
Eventually someone will stop the rat race for success with a goodly amount of resources and decide that blowing up say, Langley, Microsoft, T-Mobile or New York is the most meaningful accomplishment they can leave behind.
I hope the think tanks at Darpa and RAND to consider the implications of a world with $20 remote control airplanes, 3D printers, open source software, global communications combined with a selfish governing body.
Louis the XIV had spies everywhere, didn't help much.
A guillotine is still a simple thing to make and being middle class is the safest place to be.
I've tasted blow fish, it's delicious, but if I hadn't I really would have missed nothing. If we move towards removing copyright, patents, etc. People will be happily driving around in well made cars, eating food that's delicious and cheap and not willing to commit horrific crimes. If you make poverty a crime... well Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood might come again.
The first that comes to mind is that they require a new password each time. Since people usually have about 15 passwords and recycle them they'll eventually have all of your passwords.
Google, you need to start an Internal Affairs department... get the EFF to send you some people. Let them keep tract of subpoenas, data stored internally, anonymity aspects, encouraging developers to implement security procedures, etc.
If you get really crazy privacy advocates, it won't upset your corporate culture. Hire men in suits and it will.
Tells everyone their special ->Narcissism.
Genuine lack of rational levels of freedom -> Extreme acts.
Sure it can. Status = normal -> Have sex with, no red flags.
Might be some patching involved. Keep in mind you don't control the radio in your phone, they need to be set up to receive updates securely.
But yea, this is an iPhone story, not a real story.
Don't forget the U.S. assassinated someone in Afghanistan WITH A ROBOT no less about two weeks ago.
I'm not sure robots are against the Geneva convention but they certainly should be.
Nothing will eliminate humanity faster than an escalating robot war.
Like anything it's a bell curve. Scarily there are probably some AMAZINGLY talented hackers in the military, also scarily brainwashed. But of course they only have so many tricks, they don't want to reveal them unless there is a crisis.
They certainly don't want their efforts to go into a honeypot or enemy database of cyber attacks.
So they write each one from scratch (so it won't have Made in the XXX written on it) and write them poorly if it'll get the job done.
Think of the SIGINT work in WW2, if they could break Enigma easily then you think they've gotten worse since?
It's a nice thought that people smart enough to design really powerful intrusion systems wouldn't be brainwashed into the "Everyone but us is hostile" mindset of the military... but I imagine some are quite conservative and have the associated mindset... "Yay paycheck! Screw the consequences! Whoever pays my salary is right about everything! And I don't need to know what they're actually doing!"
Shhhh. If radiomen and generals can't play solitaire anymore they'll rebel!
Heaven help us if you take away their animated cursors
If a war started right now we don't know who would choose where any of the major weapons would be pointed. Anonymous? The NSA? China? Russia?
Of course the really secret weapons (buried by the opposition under Soviet and American cities) are probably still just as effective as they were when deployed in the 60s and 70s.