I checked out OSM after the last/. story on the subject after years of forgetting about it. I checked out where I live (a small village), and sure enough there were some crazy errors (eg. a circular road not connected to any other - I'd love to see something like this in real life!), but a couple of minutes with the mouse and they're all fixed now. I also added in some extra detail I happen to know quite well.
What I'd like to see is what my TomTom and g-maps and as far as I know everyone else lacks - I'd like to add some meta to the roads. For example, a road might have a 30mph speed limit, but it's got mountainous speed humps every 50 yards, so it's a really crappy cut-through. Roads near me often lack pavements - that could be really handy to know when I'm out running, or taking the kids out in their push chair (or in the future, on their scooters, roller-skates or whatever). Single track roads can either be easy or hard to drive down - if there are lots of good sized passing places that aren't a matter of trying to put your car into an overgrown hedge, then it's easier than those roads that have high hedgerows either side and very few passing places. I could go on to poor visibility junctions, blind corners where people driving in the opposite direction always seem to be in the middle of the road, and countless other phenomena that would be really great to know about on a map. I'm sure you get the idea.
So anyway... I've told the Internet what my wishlist is. I dare say it'll all be implemented by the end of the week;-)
> the more you understand how good these guys are at spycraft
Actually, I disagree - they're not targeting very well at all. If they were going after specific individuals, whom had been selected by some proper surveillance and intelligence gathering then I'd say they were really good. As it is, they're just a very large version of 'grep'.
I'll bet I can find a terrorist if you give me every email and text message ever written and the details of every Angry Birds game ever played. The only difference between me and them is they've got virtually limitless amounts of money and don't have to worry about getting caught.
...and if the code says "280mm of insulation", then feel free to put in 350mm. We're all going to have to insulate our houses like we live in the arctic pretty soon. Sure, those code changes might hit the US after everyone else in the world is well on board, but it's another place where a little extra cost now makes for lots of smug points later on.
I remember an Aussie telling me that because the kids don't want to have to wear a helmet, they just do it so badly that it's all but useless. For example, perched on the back of their head, not buckled up, buckled up so loosely that they can take it off without undoing it, etc. I can't say all of them do it, but I definitely saw it going on when I was there.
Personally, I'd be all for some (rational) TV or poster ads that said something like "cycling without a helmet? You're X times more likely to get a head injury" (or something more compelling). The point being to make it "frowned upon" that you're cycling without one, rather than illegal. We've got enough laws already.
In 10 years, 50 Shades of Grey, as an example, will be a long-forgotten memory. Just last year it was THE book to be reading (although probably not on public transport). If they make a film out of it in 10 years, it might just help shift a few extra books.
I'd hazard that the same would be true for Harry Potter. I seriously doubt it'll be a popular book in 5 years, and so making a film might give it a bit of a boost. Shame they already used up that option though;-)
Really? What else won't you walk naked in front of? How about your fridge? Your alarm clock? Or maybe your TV?
Why *wouldn't* you feel free enough to walk about naked anywhere you damn well like in your own home? You have an expectation of privacy there, and you are perfectly reasonably not to expect a Telescreen to be recording your every move and relaying it back to persons unknown.
So perhaps the answer is to now 'lobby' for more filtering, along the lines of what you suggest. The aim to be that the only thing not blocked will be the BBC. Once we've got to that level of obvious stupidity, start voting for someone who'll undo it all.
There's a world of difference to working out how to make a viable explosive and then making a viable bomb to just popping down to the shops to buy one ready made, and ready tested (probably with countless 'reviews' saying how good it is). Do guns come with instruction manuals? If so, your purchased bomb probably would too - all the training you'll need to do the job.
On the other hand, if I were to do any of this, I'd have to go through a learning step first. Not a hard one for anyone with vague DIY skills, but enough time to maybe think clearly about what I was doing, and maybe talk myself out of it.
As for movies and whatnot. You may or may not have a point there. Someone who is 'unstable' doesn't think rationally, and so is unpredictable. I'd personally rather they grabbed a kitchen knife while trying to run away from the voices than a gun (or explosive), but that's just me.
The author also doesn't seem to know that there are dozens of regional currencies in Europe that apart from being deemed 'legal' by the state have nothing to do with the state at all. Have a look for the Brixton Pound, as one example. It's doing just fine, it has an electronic version as well as paper too. I understand that there are some regional currencies in Germany that aren't 'sanctioned', but serve to transfer wealth from person to person because they don't like the Euro.
What's to say they didn't really cut the undersea cable? How about they cut it on nice-and-cosy dry land, but told you it was actually an undersea problem?
Or... how about they wanted to cut the cable on dry land, but couldn't because it would disrupt everyone using it. Instead, they called up their pals in the Navy and asked them to rent a ship and drop anchor on the cable. At the same time, they cut the cable on dry land, added in their splitters and then let the cable company repair the under-sea problem. When the cable company lit the cable up again, they recalibrated it for the repair to the undersea cut, and the split cut, but never knew about the split cut.
Or... how about they just got into the cable companies ahead of time and tapped it right there, and actually the anchor drops were real accidents?
Either way, the cables got tapped, and we got screwed over.
Maybe the deal required them to work for their new overlords for 2 years, or relocate the company to Elbonia, or whetever else. It may have been that they got offered the majority of the money as shares in their new overlord, which they thought might tank once the truth of their own organisation became public. Who knows?
There is also something about believing your own hype. That is, is you started snapchat, you presumably think it's a good idea. Whilst the market may have other ideas, you may not have shifted your position, and so believe that your present worth is much less than your future worth. You may also over-estimate your own abilities to get to that future worth.
Right - and so if you wanted to make a resistant organisation, you'd need to break it up into numerous pieces. Let's take an email provider as an example. You could break your whole organisation into countries (even if you're entirely based in one country). People signing up pick a country, and get hosted as part of that country. If you get a secret court order for a country, you shut it down, but continue to operate the others.
The problem with this approach is that it makes it really hard to run a business. You now have to run "n" businesses, and they can't have an umbrella group holding company to syphon money through. Also, what if your accountant is in the company you need to shut down - now you have to move him to another organisation. Not exactly hard, but it's a whole lot of overhead you could probably live without.
As a Londoner, I'm proud to know that some poor sap had to use a black marker pen to cover over the manufacturer's (tiny) logo on every one of the 70,000 'pixels' they put in the seating in the main stadium. I'm proud that no visitor to the Olympics was tarnished by seeing the name of a company who wasn't a sponsor, even though there was no "official pixel provider" at the games.
Apparently maths is the accountant's responsibility in most media companies;-) Down in Marketing, they think some ads are so good they count as "double hours" though.
We asked 1000 people, "if you had the option of buying a non-existent product, of unspecified quality, that you will hand responsibility for your life to, in return for cheaper car insurance, would you do it?" If said auto-car was made by JML, then I'd have to say 'no'. If it was made by Google, then I might say yes, after seeing it perform - and then, perhaps only if there were enough others on the road to have something of a 'critical mass'.
It's a whole lot simpler than that. MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are getting questioned by MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24847399). This means The People get to see the questions and answers a whole lot more than they used to when said MPs would meet the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ in normal (secret) circumstances.
Before we the people start saying things like "oh my, surveillance really is a bad thing, isn't it!?", the MPs want to make sure they can call us all paedo-lovers for daring to have such an opinion. The "senior whitehall official" cited needs his balls cutting off for this. We have to stop letting them get away with this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked out OSM after the last /. story on the subject after years of forgetting about it. I checked out where I live (a small village), and sure enough there were some crazy errors (eg. a circular road not connected to any other - I'd love to see something like this in real life!), but a couple of minutes with the mouse and they're all fixed now. I also added in some extra detail I happen to know quite well.
What I'd like to see is what my TomTom and g-maps and as far as I know everyone else lacks - I'd like to add some meta to the roads. For example, a road might have a 30mph speed limit, but it's got mountainous speed humps every 50 yards, so it's a really crappy cut-through. Roads near me often lack pavements - that could be really handy to know when I'm out running, or taking the kids out in their push chair (or in the future, on their scooters, roller-skates or whatever). Single track roads can either be easy or hard to drive down - if there are lots of good sized passing places that aren't a matter of trying to put your car into an overgrown hedge, then it's easier than those roads that have high hedgerows either side and very few passing places. I could go on to poor visibility junctions, blind corners where people driving in the opposite direction always seem to be in the middle of the road, and countless other phenomena that would be really great to know about on a map. I'm sure you get the idea.
So anyway... I've told the Internet what my wishlist is. I dare say it'll all be implemented by the end of the week ;-)
They'd probably sue them just to give them some credibility ;-)
> the more you understand how good these guys are at spycraft
Actually, I disagree - they're not targeting very well at all. If they were going after specific individuals, whom had been selected by some proper surveillance and intelligence gathering then I'd say they were really good. As it is, they're just a very large version of 'grep'.
I'll bet I can find a terrorist if you give me every email and text message ever written and the details of every Angry Birds game ever played. The only difference between me and them is they've got virtually limitless amounts of money and don't have to worry about getting caught.
Sounds like a racket to me ;-)
And should anyone ever, ever ask you "why do you work here?", be sure to respond "er... cheap, lack ambition and live local?"
My wife bought me walkie talkies for Christmas for this purpose - I guess we're back to the wireless or wired argument though ;-)
...and if the code says "280mm of insulation", then feel free to put in 350mm. We're all going to have to insulate our houses like we live in the arctic pretty soon. Sure, those code changes might hit the US after everyone else in the world is well on board, but it's another place where a little extra cost now makes for lots of smug points later on.
I remember an Aussie telling me that because the kids don't want to have to wear a helmet, they just do it so badly that it's all but useless. For example, perched on the back of their head, not buckled up, buckled up so loosely that they can take it off without undoing it, etc. I can't say all of them do it, but I definitely saw it going on when I was there.
Personally, I'd be all for some (rational) TV or poster ads that said something like "cycling without a helmet? You're X times more likely to get a head injury" (or something more compelling). The point being to make it "frowned upon" that you're cycling without one, rather than illegal. We've got enough laws already.
In 10 years, 50 Shades of Grey, as an example, will be a long-forgotten memory. Just last year it was THE book to be reading (although probably not on public transport). If they make a film out of it in 10 years, it might just help shift a few extra books.
I'd hazard that the same would be true for Harry Potter. I seriously doubt it'll be a popular book in 5 years, and so making a film might give it a bit of a boost. Shame they already used up that option though ;-)
Really? What else won't you walk naked in front of? How about your fridge? Your alarm clock? Or maybe your TV?
Why *wouldn't* you feel free enough to walk about naked anywhere you damn well like in your own home? You have an expectation of privacy there, and you are perfectly reasonably not to expect a Telescreen to be recording your every move and relaying it back to persons unknown.
So perhaps the answer is to now 'lobby' for more filtering, along the lines of what you suggest. The aim to be that the only thing not blocked will be the BBC. Once we've got to that level of obvious stupidity, start voting for someone who'll undo it all.
There's a world of difference to working out how to make a viable explosive and then making a viable bomb to just popping down to the shops to buy one ready made, and ready tested (probably with countless 'reviews' saying how good it is). Do guns come with instruction manuals? If so, your purchased bomb probably would too - all the training you'll need to do the job.
On the other hand, if I were to do any of this, I'd have to go through a learning step first. Not a hard one for anyone with vague DIY skills, but enough time to maybe think clearly about what I was doing, and maybe talk myself out of it.
As for movies and whatnot. You may or may not have a point there. Someone who is 'unstable' doesn't think rationally, and so is unpredictable. I'd personally rather they grabbed a kitchen knife while trying to run away from the voices than a gun (or explosive), but that's just me.
Was the 'major advance' the fact they managed to paint it white? I mean, who ever thought that a huge, pointy black aircraft was 'stealthy'?
Even leaving doesn't always convince them to hire someone ;-)
Get ready for a whole new slew of 'sex tapes' ;-)
The author also doesn't seem to know that there are dozens of regional currencies in Europe that apart from being deemed 'legal' by the state have nothing to do with the state at all. Have a look for the Brixton Pound, as one example. It's doing just fine, it has an electronic version as well as paper too. I understand that there are some regional currencies in Germany that aren't 'sanctioned', but serve to transfer wealth from person to person because they don't like the Euro.
What's to say they didn't really cut the undersea cable? How about they cut it on nice-and-cosy dry land, but told you it was actually an undersea problem?
Or... how about they wanted to cut the cable on dry land, but couldn't because it would disrupt everyone using it. Instead, they called up their pals in the Navy and asked them to rent a ship and drop anchor on the cable. At the same time, they cut the cable on dry land, added in their splitters and then let the cable company repair the under-sea problem. When the cable company lit the cable up again, they recalibrated it for the repair to the undersea cut, and the split cut, but never knew about the split cut.
Or... how about they just got into the cable companies ahead of time and tapped it right there, and actually the anchor drops were real accidents?
Either way, the cables got tapped, and we got screwed over.
Maybe the deal required them to work for their new overlords for 2 years, or relocate the company to Elbonia, or whetever else. It may have been that they got offered the majority of the money as shares in their new overlord, which they thought might tank once the truth of their own organisation became public. Who knows?
There is also something about believing your own hype. That is, is you started snapchat, you presumably think it's a good idea. Whilst the market may have other ideas, you may not have shifted your position, and so believe that your present worth is much less than your future worth. You may also over-estimate your own abilities to get to that future worth.
Right - and so if you wanted to make a resistant organisation, you'd need to break it up into numerous pieces. Let's take an email provider as an example. You could break your whole organisation into countries (even if you're entirely based in one country). People signing up pick a country, and get hosted as part of that country. If you get a secret court order for a country, you shut it down, but continue to operate the others.
The problem with this approach is that it makes it really hard to run a business. You now have to run "n" businesses, and they can't have an umbrella group holding company to syphon money through. Also, what if your accountant is in the company you need to shut down - now you have to move him to another organisation. Not exactly hard, but it's a whole lot of overhead you could probably live without.
As a Londoner, I'm proud to know that some poor sap had to use a black marker pen to cover over the manufacturer's (tiny) logo on every one of the 70,000 'pixels' they put in the seating in the main stadium. I'm proud that no visitor to the Olympics was tarnished by seeing the name of a company who wasn't a sponsor, even though there was no "official pixel provider" at the games.
Apparently maths is the accountant's responsibility in most media companies ;-) Down in Marketing, they think some ads are so good they count as "double hours" though.
We asked 1000 people, "if you had the option of buying a non-existent product, of unspecified quality, that you will hand responsibility for your life to, in return for cheaper car insurance, would you do it?" If said auto-car was made by JML, then I'd have to say 'no'. If it was made by Google, then I might say yes, after seeing it perform - and then, perhaps only if there were enough others on the road to have something of a 'critical mass'.
It's a whole lot simpler than that. MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are getting questioned by MPs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24847399). This means The People get to see the questions and answers a whole lot more than they used to when said MPs would meet the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ in normal (secret) circumstances.
Before we the people start saying things like "oh my, surveillance really is a bad thing, isn't it!?", the MPs want to make sure they can call us all paedo-lovers for daring to have such an opinion. The "senior whitehall official" cited needs his balls cutting off for this. We have to stop letting them get away with this stuff.
First up - any idea who the "official" was?
Pff! I wouldn't get out of bed for that. No wonder they're complaining it's not enough ;-)
Surely you'd want to download a movie through your camera, not your speaker, wouldn't you? ;-)