What, you think we're going to tell the telcos to play nice, but not back it up with laws? That's what regulation is.
"Ok, guys, you have a big responsibility as network providers to not play favorites with your traffic. You can't throttle your competitors' connections and boost your own; that wouldn't be fair. However, since regulation is Bad (tm), we're not going to pass any laws forcing you do play nice, or even check up on you. We think you'll be good all on your own."
My biggest problem with Firefox was that it was far too easy to create webpages that simply didn't work for other people looking at them with Internet Explorer. For a new user, playing with designing websites for the first time, to find this out having created some quite big and complicated websites in Firefox was a huge turn-off. I now invariably use my old version of IE 6.
AFAIK, there is not even a snag list of things to be careful of, that will work on Firefox, but will break the page on IE.
As well as formatting and display issues, as far as I remember the most systematic mistake I'd made was using margin and padding values on ranges of divs with exact pixel width measurements. Firefox would treat them as additions to the width, and carry on fine; but on IE it would make the whole box width the maximum.
Going through and debugging this (finding workarounds to make it work on IE) is something I don't want to have to do again. Because I don't know what other things are there that may then not work on IE, I no longer use Firefox for designing webpages. Funny how, for web browsers, that same logic is used to call for change in the broken Microsoft product, instead of shunning the program that works better.
I agree with your premise that fewer entrepreneurs would be participating in a high-cost mission, but I don't think the cost of this mission falls into that category.
Most of the expense of the mission will be launch costs ($20m+). These can be easily purchased from one of the many companies that offer it, like Sea Launch, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, etc. The cost of developing the robot itself, which is what this contest is really trying to spur research on, is much lower, and enters the same tier as the original X-Prize. This allows all the same entrepreneurs to participate, with a possible bigger payout at the end. If a team looks like it's getting really close, and has a great design, I'm sure some company would be happy to back the $20m launch cost in return for some publicity.
I'd expect Armadillo Aerospace to be one of the first in line, since they have already developed advanced thruster systems (for the original X-Prize) that could be easily repurposed for a soft lunar touchdown.
Firefox does not block popups generated by Windows. It only blocks popups generated by websites, and even then, it's not really *blocking* them, it's just refusing to run that bit of code.
Unless the popups are coming from the Firefox browser itself (which they won't be, in this patent... it says "OS level"), then Firefox will not be infringing.
Scenario (C) Microsoft writes software with a non-broken security model. Auto Updates are turned on by default, but don't sneak behind user's backs if the users explicitly turn it off.
Hey, that pig just radioed the tower for a landing clearance.
Right, because a tiny little rounding error in the 195th decimal place, integrated out over 95 million years, couldn't possibly introduce an error big enough to miss Earth entirely.
Seriously, there's no way we could ever possibly calculate those kinds of orbits with that kind of accuracy over a time span of 160 million years with current technologies. The solar system as a macroscopic gravitational system, and asteroids in particular, are a fairly chaotic system. There's a reason spacecraft carry trajectory correction thrusters.
There is a ridiculous amount of speculation going on here.
Those are all natural monopolies because physical items need to travel along the lines from provider to customer, and cannot be mixed with other customer's items (with the possible exception of phone, which I'll get to later). When you order water from the water company, it has to physically travel from the reservoir controlled by the utility to your house, and the water company owns all the lines in between. The water you order can't be mixed with water your neighbor orders, if your neighbor orders from a different water company. Water, electricity, and natural gas don't have routing addresses.
The difference with internet is that only the last mile is a natural monopoly. Many different companies could plug their backbones into the last mile going to your house, and in fact many different companies could share the same backbone lines, and your traffic would not be "mixed" or confused with your neighbor's traffic like it would if many water companies were plugged into an analogous hub. The internet is a very unique utility in this way. In fact, the phone system works the same way, but only recently (since digital telephone transmission), and of course telephone providers still maintain their "natural monopoly" status along the whole length of the line, left over from the analog days.
So the solution in this case is, I think, to separate the last mile providers from the connection providers. Allow the last mile providers to be a natural monopoly, either run by a city/town/village or heavily regulated, just like the rest of the utilities (but separate from the data providers). However, allow free market competition from companies providing Internet service to that last mile hub. This would be even further aided if the last mile providers created a universal standard for providers to plug into, which only requires a software change in order to change providers, instead of a truck changing a physical plug. All data (internet, phone, cable) would come into your home with the same type of cable, whether it comes from a telephone company, a cable company, or some other newcomer. When customers can switch Internet providers easily (as they could when the last mile is owned by the city and software switchable) there will be a real market at work, and all the wonderful pro-consumer effects of supply and demand would suddenly kick in.
The layman's description of how MP3s work is that the look for soft frequencies that will be pyschoaccoustically masked by the loud parts of other frequencies, and then information to encode those is removed. You must know some really smart laymen.
The real layman's description of how mp3s work is the black box model: CD goes in here, mp3 comes out there. It's smaller now.
Also, we're orbiting the Sun while it moves through the galaxy. Every six months, we're behind it again, and should be able to see the "tail" all around us.
I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit.
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will never be economical for trips between two points on the Earth's surface. The energies involved in getting to that speed are ridiculously high for that short of a distance (relatively speaking, of course). LEO brings a whole host of problems with it, including high reentry temperatures (due to the high velocity needed to attain LEO to begin with) and ridiculous amounts of fuel needed to reach it.
To put things in perspective: Burt Rutan and crew basically recreated the very first manned Mercury launch (the one with Al Shephard aboard). It was a sub-orbital launch that placed the rocket on a parabolic trajectory... pretty much the same as if you could throw a ball in the air high enough to just barely leave the atmosphere, and then let it fall back to Earth. Since the velocity of the projectile (or spacecraft) is very small when it reenters the atmosphere, no heat shielding is needed.
On the other hand, to get a vehicle to low Earth orbit requires balancing the force of gravity exactly with forward velocity to create a stable system. This requires velocities in excess of 17,000 mph, which is why spacecraft reentering from orbit need all kinds of heat shielding to protect the craft from the friction of the atmosphere.
It would be much more economical for a craft to launch at an angle (or start out in flight at high altitudes, with airbreathing jet engines), and gain just enough energy to leave the atmosphere on a parabolic path that would cross much of the trip in the vacuum of space. Since you're in a vacuum, you could shut off the engines to save fuel, and let Newton drive. Reentering would not need much heat shielding, because the velocities would not be as high as an orbital flight, which would make the trip much safer. Such systems using combinations of airbreathing engines and rockets could be very fuel efficient.
Just after Main Engine Cutoff, the Space Shuttle, which is launched from Florida, is on a parabolic flight path (suborbital) that will have it reenter and land in the Indian Ocean (if it stayed ballistic; the shuttle also has control surfaces and can steer). During missions, it has to fire the engines several more times after MECO to elevate this orbit and attain LEO.
Traveling between points on the Earth's surface will almost always be suborbital. However, that being said, finding economical ways to get to LEO in the first place is the first step to economical travel to places like the Moon and beyond.
A flight on a plane, today, is basically just the price of the fuel plus a thin margin.
Right. Because pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, gate personnel, accountants, IT departments, and all the other people who work for the airline don't like getting paid. And terminal rental, office space, utilities, and landing fees are negligible.
You are right that the cost of the airplane itself is amortized across the millions of flight hours accumulated by the plane in its lifetime, but that upfront cost does not include part replacements, insurance, routine maintenance, and all the other costs associated with maintaining that plane. Airlines historically have the highest level of sunk asset costs than any other industry.
Most airlines find that their fuel expense represents approximately 25% of their total revenues, and most airlines are operating on razor-thin margins, even during the high points of the extremely cyclical air travel industry. To say that cost is the only determiner of the cost of travel is disingenuous to the infrastructure required to operate an airline.
And this is all with garage level technology.
Right, because Armadillo Aerospace doesn't have some of the most talented computer programmers in the world working on its flight controls and stability systems.
The user must take responsibility for their own security. Yet we turn around and lambaste Microsoft for allowing users to run as Administrator by default, having no-password logins, not locking down the registry, and allowing 3rd party developers to still require admin privileges just to run a userspace application.
The point is, security is more than just "what's available." It also has to be about how good the defaults are. The technical community cried foul when Microsoft included a firewall in Windows XP but didn't have it turned on by default, and we complained so much that in SP2 Microsoft finally changed the default.
I agree that security is ultimately the responsibility of the user, but they should not have to seek out secure settings and turn them all on one by one. The default mode for any network-enabled program should be Secure. If the user needs Insecure, then they should have to change a setting to make it so. Spam should be opt-in, security should be opt-out. Anything else is unfair to the user.
I ditched the command line with Dos and Win3.1 I agree with your post, I just wanted to share a bit of wisdom that I shamelessly stole from someone's sig.
DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a Pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
For your job, the command line is not very efficient, and a GUI is better. For a sysadmin, whose job involves lots of scripting and configuration, it is essential - and MS-DOS doesn't even hold a candle to what's possible in bash.
But you're right... Linux fanatics can't expect everyone to edit xorg.conf by hand and apply diff patches to rebuild their wireless drivers. Regular people need GUIs, and hand-holding scripts. Power users want bash scripting and piping. Different tasks, different tools. We can't neglect either.
Cruel and unusual punishment only applies to criminal cases, where the freedom of the accused is at stake. It does not usually apply to civil cases, where the only thing at stake is money.
In civil cases, the plaintiff is only allowed to recover compensatory damages by statute. At the judges discretion, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages based on the severity of the willful misconduct. Conduct in good faith should not be punished by punitive damages.
The word you're looking for is "excessive punitive damages," which could be a basis for an appeal, but would not work as a defense during the initial trial (and in fact could only work after the judge has ruled in favor of the plaintiff at least once).
Instead of tiles and dynamos, which would be constantly creating an uneven surface and making things difficult for children, the elderly, people in wheelchairs, people on crutches, etc., why wouldn't you just use a rubber surface with piezos on the underside?
When walking on a hard surface, the energy of each step is dissipated in the form of vibration, sound, and heat, most of which is absorbed by your legs. Walking on a slightly softer (not sand soft, though) surface, allows the surface to depress slightly, which absorbs most of the impact. The reason walking on sand is much harder than walking on a hard surface is that the sand moves out of the way when you push against it, causing you to exert more muscle effort to take the same size step. On a soft surface that has the proper "springiness", the floor won't move out of the way as much. The combination of springy floor and floors that bend slightly on every step is exceedingly comfortable to walk on. Ask anyone who's walked on one of those horizontal escalators in airports with the rubber belt instead of the escalator steps (I know there are some in O'Hare airport; I'm sure there are other places, too). You feel positively lighter.
If we attached hundreds of tiny piezoelectric devices per square foot on the underside of the floor, they will be able to capture the energy in the bending of the floor. The advantage of this is that the wiring infrastructure could be printed, like a circuit board, on the underside of rubber sections of floor, each of which could be swapped out for maintenance or replacement individually. Economies of scale would be in effect, since production of each floor tile would be identical to all the others before installation. Additionally, this floor might even be *more* comfortable than standard tile, and still allows for free movement of kids, the elderly, and the handicapped.
Football mum goes in the queue with a bottle of water. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether she was a threat or not.
Terrorist goes in the queue with a bottle of clear liquid that will blow up an aeroplane. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether he was a threat or not.
You go in the line with a bottle of clear liquid that is innocuous, but incidentally happens to react with the clear liquid the terrorist was bringing. They take away the bottle, toss it into the trash, it leaks...
BOOM.
In a busy terminal full of people.
The fact of the matter is, if there is the SLIGHTEST bit of suspicion that a container contains liquids which are a danger to the people around them, then proper handling procedures must be followed, including isolation and proper disposal. The fact that they're not checking for threats is not the point... the point is they are tossing potentially explosive liquids together in a standard trash can in a terminal full of hundreds of people. If the liquid wasn't potentially dangerous, then why do they take it away?
As long as access into the database is tracked to prevent abuse Tracked? Just make it public.
Create a database where everyone's face is tracked all the time by cameras all over the country, but then make that data publicly available to anyone at any time. It restores the balance of power between citizens and authorities, and eliminates the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument, because everyone has access to all the data, all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet.
What, you think we're going to tell the telcos to play nice, but not back it up with laws? That's what regulation is.
"Ok, guys, you have a big responsibility as network providers to not play favorites with your traffic. You can't throttle your competitors' connections and boost your own; that wouldn't be fair. However, since regulation is Bad (tm), we're not going to pass any laws forcing you do play nice, or even check up on you. We think you'll be good all on your own."
I, for one, welcome more women in scientific and engineering disciplines.
Bring on the ladies!
AFAIK, there is not even a snag list of things to be careful of, that will work on Firefox, but will break the page on IE.
As well as formatting and display issues, as far as I remember the most systematic mistake I'd made was using margin and padding values on ranges of divs with exact pixel width measurements. Firefox would treat them as additions to the width, and carry on fine; but on IE it would make the whole box width the maximum.
Going through and debugging this (finding workarounds to make it work on IE) is something I don't want to have to do again. Because I don't know what other things are there that may then not work on IE, I no longer use Firefox for designing webpages. Funny how, for web browsers, that same logic is used to call for change in the broken Microsoft product, instead of shunning the program that works better.
I agree with your premise that fewer entrepreneurs would be participating in a high-cost mission, but I don't think the cost of this mission falls into that category.
Most of the expense of the mission will be launch costs ($20m+). These can be easily purchased from one of the many companies that offer it, like Sea Launch, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, etc. The cost of developing the robot itself, which is what this contest is really trying to spur research on, is much lower, and enters the same tier as the original X-Prize. This allows all the same entrepreneurs to participate, with a possible bigger payout at the end. If a team looks like it's getting really close, and has a great design, I'm sure some company would be happy to back the $20m launch cost in return for some publicity.
I'd expect Armadillo Aerospace to be one of the first in line, since they have already developed advanced thruster systems (for the original X-Prize) that could be easily repurposed for a soft lunar touchdown.
No, that's crap.
Firefox does not block popups generated by Windows. It only blocks popups generated by websites, and even then, it's not really *blocking* them, it's just refusing to run that bit of code.
Website: "Please open a new window, size 400x320, and load http://www.doubleclick.net/advertisement.gif in it."
Firefox: "No. Bugger off."
Unless the popups are coming from the Firefox browser itself (which they won't be, in this patent... it says "OS level"), then Firefox will not be infringing.
Yes, but unfortunately such dedicated QPUs will be used to ensure I can only watch my DVD twice before I pay the Media Freedom Fee again.
Scenario (C) Microsoft writes software with a non-broken security model. Auto Updates are turned on by default, but don't sneak behind user's backs if the users explicitly turn it off.
Hey, that pig just radioed the tower for a landing clearance.
(3 years) * (365 days) * (24 hours) * (60 minutes) * (60 seconds) / (200 million installs) = 0.47 seconds per install
Wow! What distro are you using?
</smartass>
Why, are there mysterious deaths in England?
Must be nice to be so smug.
Right, because a tiny little rounding error in the 195th decimal place, integrated out over 95 million years, couldn't possibly introduce an error big enough to miss Earth entirely.
Seriously, there's no way we could ever possibly calculate those kinds of orbits with that kind of accuracy over a time span of 160 million years with current technologies. The solar system as a macroscopic gravitational system, and asteroids in particular, are a fairly chaotic system. There's a reason spacecraft carry trajectory correction thrusters.
There is a ridiculous amount of speculation going on here.
Those are all natural monopolies because physical items need to travel along the lines from provider to customer, and cannot be mixed with other customer's items (with the possible exception of phone, which I'll get to later). When you order water from the water company, it has to physically travel from the reservoir controlled by the utility to your house, and the water company owns all the lines in between. The water you order can't be mixed with water your neighbor orders, if your neighbor orders from a different water company. Water, electricity, and natural gas don't have routing addresses.
The difference with internet is that only the last mile is a natural monopoly. Many different companies could plug their backbones into the last mile going to your house, and in fact many different companies could share the same backbone lines, and your traffic would not be "mixed" or confused with your neighbor's traffic like it would if many water companies were plugged into an analogous hub. The internet is a very unique utility in this way. In fact, the phone system works the same way, but only recently (since digital telephone transmission), and of course telephone providers still maintain their "natural monopoly" status along the whole length of the line, left over from the analog days.
So the solution in this case is, I think, to separate the last mile providers from the connection providers. Allow the last mile providers to be a natural monopoly, either run by a city/town/village or heavily regulated, just like the rest of the utilities (but separate from the data providers). However, allow free market competition from companies providing Internet service to that last mile hub. This would be even further aided if the last mile providers created a universal standard for providers to plug into, which only requires a software change in order to change providers, instead of a truck changing a physical plug. All data (internet, phone, cable) would come into your home with the same type of cable, whether it comes from a telephone company, a cable company, or some other newcomer. When customers can switch Internet providers easily (as they could when the last mile is owned by the city and software switchable) there will be a real market at work, and all the wonderful pro-consumer effects of supply and demand would suddenly kick in.
Hey! Stop predicting what will happen based on what the CEO said!
It's patented, you know.
The real layman's description of how mp3s work is the black box model: CD goes in here, mp3 comes out there. It's smaller now.
Evolve the monkey and win an iPod!
Because Hubble isn't the only means of seeing what's out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_telescope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Also, we're orbiting the Sun while it moves through the galaxy. Every six months, we're behind it again, and should be able to see the "tail" all around us.
I'm more interested in NY to London or Sydney. For that you're actually going to have to hit orbit.
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will never be economical for trips between two points on the Earth's surface. The energies involved in getting to that speed are ridiculously high for that short of a distance (relatively speaking, of course). LEO brings a whole host of problems with it, including high reentry temperatures (due to the high velocity needed to attain LEO to begin with) and ridiculous amounts of fuel needed to reach it.
To put things in perspective: Burt Rutan and crew basically recreated the very first manned Mercury launch (the one with Al Shephard aboard). It was a sub-orbital launch that placed the rocket on a parabolic trajectory... pretty much the same as if you could throw a ball in the air high enough to just barely leave the atmosphere, and then let it fall back to Earth. Since the velocity of the projectile (or spacecraft) is very small when it reenters the atmosphere, no heat shielding is needed.
On the other hand, to get a vehicle to low Earth orbit requires balancing the force of gravity exactly with forward velocity to create a stable system. This requires velocities in excess of 17,000 mph, which is why spacecraft reentering from orbit need all kinds of heat shielding to protect the craft from the friction of the atmosphere.
It would be much more economical for a craft to launch at an angle (or start out in flight at high altitudes, with airbreathing jet engines), and gain just enough energy to leave the atmosphere on a parabolic path that would cross much of the trip in the vacuum of space. Since you're in a vacuum, you could shut off the engines to save fuel, and let Newton drive. Reentering would not need much heat shielding, because the velocities would not be as high as an orbital flight, which would make the trip much safer. Such systems using combinations of airbreathing engines and rockets could be very fuel efficient.
Just after Main Engine Cutoff, the Space Shuttle, which is launched from Florida, is on a parabolic flight path (suborbital) that will have it reenter and land in the Indian Ocean (if it stayed ballistic; the shuttle also has control surfaces and can steer). During missions, it has to fire the engines several more times after MECO to elevate this orbit and attain LEO.
Traveling between points on the Earth's surface will almost always be suborbital. However, that being said, finding economical ways to get to LEO in the first place is the first step to economical travel to places like the Moon and beyond.
A flight on a plane, today, is basically just the price of the fuel plus a thin margin.
Right. Because pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, gate personnel, accountants, IT departments, and all the other people who work for the airline don't like getting paid. And terminal rental, office space, utilities, and landing fees are negligible.
You are right that the cost of the airplane itself is amortized across the millions of flight hours accumulated by the plane in its lifetime, but that upfront cost does not include part replacements, insurance, routine maintenance, and all the other costs associated with maintaining that plane. Airlines historically have the highest level of sunk asset costs than any other industry.
Most airlines find that their fuel expense represents approximately 25% of their total revenues, and most airlines are operating on razor-thin margins, even during the high points of the extremely cyclical air travel industry. To say that cost is the only determiner of the cost of travel is disingenuous to the infrastructure required to operate an airline.
And this is all with garage level technology.
Right, because Armadillo Aerospace doesn't have some of the most talented computer programmers in the world working on its flight controls and stability systems.
Look, I'm as optimistic as the next guy abou
The point is, security is more than just "what's available." It also has to be about how good the defaults are. The technical community cried foul when Microsoft included a firewall in Windows XP but didn't have it turned on by default, and we complained so much that in SP2 Microsoft finally changed the default.
I agree that security is ultimately the responsibility of the user, but they should not have to seek out secure settings and turn them all on one by one. The default mode for any network-enabled program should be Secure. If the user needs Insecure, then they should have to change a setting to make it so. Spam should be opt-in, security should be opt-out. Anything else is unfair to the user.
Try here.
http://linux-wless.passys.nl/
DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a Pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
For your job, the command line is not very efficient, and a GUI is better. For a sysadmin, whose job involves lots of scripting and configuration, it is essential - and MS-DOS doesn't even hold a candle to what's possible in bash.
But you're right... Linux fanatics can't expect everyone to edit xorg.conf by hand and apply diff patches to rebuild their wireless drivers. Regular people need GUIs, and hand-holding scripts. Power users want bash scripting and piping. Different tasks, different tools. We can't neglect either.
Cruel and unusual punishment only applies to criminal cases, where the freedom of the accused is at stake. It does not usually apply to civil cases, where the only thing at stake is money.
In civil cases, the plaintiff is only allowed to recover compensatory damages by statute. At the judges discretion, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages based on the severity of the willful misconduct. Conduct in good faith should not be punished by punitive damages.
The word you're looking for is "excessive punitive damages," which could be a basis for an appeal, but would not work as a defense during the initial trial (and in fact could only work after the judge has ruled in favor of the plaintiff at least once).
IANAL.
Instead of tiles and dynamos, which would be constantly creating an uneven surface and making things difficult for children, the elderly, people in wheelchairs, people on crutches, etc., why wouldn't you just use a rubber surface with piezos on the underside?
When walking on a hard surface, the energy of each step is dissipated in the form of vibration, sound, and heat, most of which is absorbed by your legs. Walking on a slightly softer (not sand soft, though) surface, allows the surface to depress slightly, which absorbs most of the impact. The reason walking on sand is much harder than walking on a hard surface is that the sand moves out of the way when you push against it, causing you to exert more muscle effort to take the same size step. On a soft surface that has the proper "springiness", the floor won't move out of the way as much. The combination of springy floor and floors that bend slightly on every step is exceedingly comfortable to walk on. Ask anyone who's walked on one of those horizontal escalators in airports with the rubber belt instead of the escalator steps (I know there are some in O'Hare airport; I'm sure there are other places, too). You feel positively lighter.
If we attached hundreds of tiny piezoelectric devices per square foot on the underside of the floor, they will be able to capture the energy in the bending of the floor. The advantage of this is that the wiring infrastructure could be printed, like a circuit board, on the underside of rubber sections of floor, each of which could be swapped out for maintenance or replacement individually. Economies of scale would be in effect, since production of each floor tile would be identical to all the others before installation. Additionally, this floor might even be *more* comfortable than standard tile, and still allows for free movement of kids, the elderly, and the handicapped.
Football mum goes in the queue with a bottle of water. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether she was a threat or not.
Terrorist goes in the queue with a bottle of clear liquid that will blow up an aeroplane. They take away the bottle, nobody checked whether he was a threat or not.
You go in the line with a bottle of clear liquid that is innocuous, but incidentally happens to react with the clear liquid the terrorist was bringing. They take away the bottle, toss it into the trash, it leaks...
BOOM.
In a busy terminal full of people.
The fact of the matter is, if there is the SLIGHTEST bit of suspicion that a container contains liquids which are a danger to the people around them, then proper handling procedures must be followed, including isolation and proper disposal. The fact that they're not checking for threats is not the point... the point is they are tossing potentially explosive liquids together in a standard trash can in a terminal full of hundreds of people. If the liquid wasn't potentially dangerous, then why do they take it away?
Create a database where everyone's face is tracked all the time by cameras all over the country, but then make that data publicly available to anyone at any time. It restores the balance of power between citizens and authorities, and eliminates the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument, because everyone has access to all the data, all the time.