Trump is a brilliant improviser. One way to redirect criticism is to accept the criticism, and spin it as though it agreed with you. I actually took a course on collaboration in a corporate environment that talks about this. Their idea was not to use it to spin things though, but to keep people open to ideas. Instead of saying "no, you are wrong because" you say "yes, and..." elaborate on how you will address the problem. Trump takes this to the next level.
Trump: "I'm going to build a wall" The world: "That's ridiculous, that will cost 5 billions of dollars!" Trump: "My wall idea is soo ridiculous, it will cost 10 billion dollars!" The world: "We can't afford that." Trump: "So I'll have somebody else pay for it!"
Trump: "I'm going to build iPhones in America." The world: "That will cost too much." Trump: "Yeah! They will cost so much that we will have to construct robots to build the phones!" The world: "But if robots build them, that won't employ workers." Trump: "My robots will be so awesome that they will cook breakfast for the workers!"
Sometimes I want him to say "Because I'm Donald Trump, bitch" in the same voice that Dave Chapelle used when he said "'Cuz I'm Rick James, bitch!"
Irony: One reason you can build iPhones cheaply in China is because Chinese workers don't get the kinds of protections and rights that US workers do. That was part of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP): to raise the worker protections in China to level the playing field. Trump is doing the opposite. He says regulations will be removed in the US. So instead of raising worker protections for Chinese workers, it sounds like he is going to remove protections from US workers. And ironically, the blue-collar workers voted for this.
Snowden leaked information about an illegal NSA program. He released the information to several high-class American newspapers in the hopes that they would filter it appropriately. What he released caused material changes to public policy. He may darn well deserve whistle-blower protection for that. Unfortunately, Snowden also leaked a bunch of stuff that was totally legal that the NSA did, just to shame them into paying attention to him. This leaves his status as a potential whistle-blower in a more dubious position.
Chelsea Manning just grabbed every random document he/she had access to and sent them, unfiltered, to a foreign national. Foreign diplomats now hold-back from talking to US diplomats out of fear of their confidential communications being leaked. No public policy changes were made as result of those leaks. What did Manning do that makes him/her a whistle-blower?
I see a big difference between the actions of these two people.
I do not understand the questions. I will try to answer.
But how would that work for devices that aren't tied to a specific service?
Any labeling system has standard lingo. When labeling food for example, vitamin content is listed as a % of the estimated daily value required for an average adult. Protein however is listed in grams. Terms such as "Yellow #5" are standardized. The same would happen when labeling your speakers. When a device is listening, we would need to have a term for "I listen on all IPV4 addresses" and "I listen on the local IP multicast address." If you've ever written socket code, there are already standards for these. We would need other standard terminology for payloads.
When you open the box, you would see a little piece of paper that says "This wifi speaker system communicates on the following protocols:" IP4ANY | RTCP+TCP/UDP | 554 - 556 | LAN realtime streaming service for receiving audio; PCM audio data, device name, model number *.spotify.com | HTTPS+TCP | 443 | Internet streaming service for receiving audio; PCM audio data, device name, model number *.manufacturer.com | HTTPS+TCP | 443 | Firmware update service; sends model number, firmware version, device name, last update date
Hopefully it would not say: *.centralmonitoringservice.cn | HTTP+TCP | 80 | Remote video monitoring and tunneling service; sends video, wifi password, user name, email address, device name
And the OP was saying this information is also coded into the device, in some standard machine-readable way.
If i cut them off from the internet then they simply don't work. I'd have to manually identify every IP that spotify uses and there seem to be a lot of them
This is where I am confused. Why would you need to do that?
My interpretation of what mlts proposed is kinda like what UPnP does. Today, UPnP already has a way for a device to request that the firewall open a port. I don't think it is super broadly used because security wasn't really considered when UPnP was designed. It is part of why some people just universally turn off UPnP on their routers. But my knowledge may be totally out of date. I didn't interpret mlts to be saying that all outgoing communication was turned off by default, and that the owner of the firewall would need to manually whitelist sites. That would be secure, and you could certainly do that today, but that won't be convenient for the end-user. One could certainly make a "friendlier" firewall that made this a bit easier, kinda like how personal firewall software works. "Hey, device WIFI_CAMERA_1234 wants to talk to nsa.trustme.cn. Allow Y/N?":-)
I love that idea! It's like FDA labeling laws, but for electronics. It would be totally cheap for the manufacturer to do, and it would make it totally transparent as to which devices are total crap. And if they lie, they could be liable for it at LEAST under false advertising laws. Now that you say this -- why the heck haven't we done this before? It seems so simple and obvious.
This device communicates on the following protocols: IP address | Protocol | Destination . . .
No they don't. They wish they could, and they try. Here's how they try:
First of all, corporate IT has physical access to everything in the building. Comcast has no access to the devices in my house. That's an important difference. Second, corporate IT achieves most of their security by demanding that all devices on the network be Windows boxes that are on their domain. Comcast can't require this either.
Ultimately though, even corporate IT can'achieve this because they have to allow non-Windows devices onto the network. The fact that I could buy an insecure IOT camera and plug it into the network jack in my cube is what scares the heck out of IT admins. The best they could do is apply mac-address filtering, which would require that I either modify the MAC address, or take the device to IT so they can add it to their whitelist.
So some national testing organization is going to test every device that connect to the Internet?
organizations plural. They already do test most of them. They just don't bother to test security. The point about new software is interesting: currently, when companies make hardware changes it is up to them to notify the testing lab and submit it for certification. I suppose it would be the same for software.
Really I have a hard time believing people are so stupid here.
This is the 3rd time you've said something like that to me. I reply in the hopes that another person reading the thread will learn something, but I am going to stop replying at this point. I hope you get modded down to -1 on all these. It's annoying to write a paragraph explaining something, and get a single line reply like "That doesn't work and you are an idiot."
So Dell is liable because your Dell computer got infected and is part of a botnet?
If Dell installed an insecure piece of software on it, then yes, they can be.
It only makes sense to you because you are an idiot.
LOL, nice burn dawg.
There is no difference between an "IOT device" and a Linux or Windows computer you install software on.
One key difference is: who installed the vulnerable software and firmware onto the device? With a Dell Laptop, the owner can install whatever they want on it, so *maybe* it was the owner's fault not the manufacturer's. With a Frigidaire refrigerator, or a Honeywell thermostat, or an XBOX 360, or a Shenzhen-Guowei security camera, the owner probably can't install software on it. That's a crucial difference. With the laptop, one could argue that it is my fault because I installed the virus. But if my refrigerator gets infected because the manufacturer's firmware allowed anyone to remote into it, that is definitely the manufacturer's fault.
That is what the 3rd-party testing lab determines. It's not up to the manufacturer to test it.
what about devices that legitimately need to phone home
The testing agency should not have a problem with a device that needed to phone home. That's a legitimate feature. The testing agency would make sure that the data was encrypted, that failed pasword attempts are limited, that there isn't a single shared password on each device, etc.
For example that stupid IoT thermostat
Yes!!! That's what we are trying to prevent! It had no encryption, send the user's personal information (email account, password, wifi SSID, wifi password). It had no limit to the number of password attempts. This is really low-hanging fruit that any testing would have uncovered.
So getting some kind of incentive to have devices certified seems like it will be difficult.
Agreed! So to make this work, we need liability.
So how about this: if your device is part of a botnet, or infects another computer - you are liable unless the device was certified by the testing agency. Hmmmm...no, that won't work. The problem there is finding out the source. If there is a DDOS from 5 million devices, nobody is going to sue 5 million people.
So how about this: Hold manufacturer liable. We've been asking for companies (banks, etc.) to be liable for security breaches, and for software companies to be liable for making totally insecure software. So applying such thinking to IOT devices makes prefect sense.
So the next step is that every device that connects to Comcasts network must be approved by this "organization similar to the UL", or they won't allow it on
Almost. We are proposing something similar to how it works with electrical devices and telecommunications devices. In those cases, it isn't the power company or the phone company that gets a say, it is the insurance companies and retailers. So no: Comcast would not be able to approve things. They simply have no way to enforce this even if they wanted to.
And you can't make any unapproved changes to that device, because any change might make it insecure. It is only logical after all.
No, that is not logical, and it is not how the industry we are comparing it to works.
At some point you will be only allowed to use a locked down computer running pre-approved software running in the cloud. Don't think it will happen? That is the logical conclusion to this madness.
If that is the logical conclusion, then why has it not happened already? This is how communications devices and electrical devices work in the at least the US and Europe. Yet people are still allowed to tinker with those devices. Perhaps this is the point of confusion: Your computer is *already* approved by a national testing agency today. Pretty much anything that plugs into a power plug is. All we are saying is that those organizations should also do security testing as well.
Most electronics in the United States are (Underwriters Laboratory) UL approved. That is because there are various non-governmental rules that strongly influence people into buying UL approved products. One is that vendors often refuse to stock products that are not approved by some standards body, because otherwise they may face liability for the product. Another is that homeowners insurance will not cover you if a non-UL approved device started the fire. Hospitals and laboratories will not buy medical devices that are not UL approved.
We need something like UL for security.
It would be great to have a system like that in place, rather than to have the government directly involved. The toughest part is that so much electronics is purchased online, from overseas manufacturers, that this free-market solution may not work. Really, the free market is optimizing around it. It would be awesome to see Amazon and Newegg refuse to sell products unless they had some kind of security approval.
This sounds like a guy who just learned about VR and augmented reality games, and thinks that it trumps all other genres. And he is taking lots of disconnected unrelated things and using them as justification for his tunnel vision. I suspect this is either genius, or really stupid because I just can't make out what the heck he is saying.
He seems to be arguing that, eventually, all video games will be casual augmented reality games. First: No, and second: even if that happens, the line of reasoning presented makes no sense.
When he starts out talking about eggs in your fridge, he is talking about targeted advertising. But the statement "This world where games and life start to blend I think really comes into play..." doesn't follow from there. Advertisers knowing your buying habits doesn't mean that those things will be gamified. Jeez, I sure hope not.
He is right about games being social, but that is only 50% of gaming. He seems to have forgotten the other half, which is that games are an escape. I like games with stories, and fantasy, and space ships, and abstract shapes. That doesn't fit with AR. I don't want to be me, I want to be someone or something totally different.
The music analogy also doesn't work. Music can be a background thing, while video games cannot. When someone listens to Pandora instead of picking a specific song, it is because they are casually listening to music and not really paying that much attention to it. That is just one small part of music. Has he forgotten that there are musical instruments? And musicians? And people who listen to a particular song over and over because it occupies their entire consciousness? It is like this is a guy who only listens to elevator music in the background and thinks that is the future of music. Video games are even less of a background thing than music. Music is cheap and lasts a few minutes while video games last for hundreds of hours. Starting a video game is an investment in time, a big choice. You get emotionally involved with characters and strategies. His proposal might work for casual players of The Sims, but that's about it.
And I sure as heck don't want people playing Need for Speed in their cars!
The latency argument doesn't make sense either since there is no known technology which will remove latency. Speed yes, latency no.
If the both actually played FIFA games, then yeah, I too might call it a "bot" to farm coins. But the bot didn't actually play the games. It just lied, and said it played the games. That sounds closer to fraud.
Why would it take so long? I can imagine 10-20ms before the app actually gets the data, due to audio latency. But latency doesn't matter here since it doesn't matter when the data arrives, it matters when the audio starts recording.
Great job. By showing that number, you have proven, beyond any doubt, that indeed the United States is 50x slower and 8x more expensive. An that there is no legal recourse.
I'm not sure I buy it. How long does it take to "turn on" the microphone? What's the difference between a microphone that is "on" and one that is "off?" There's no shutter to open. No capacitor to charge. This seems like an operation that should take...microseconds? Would it even be milliseconds?
They wouldn't agree to the constitution unless they were given outsized power relative to their populations
This wasn't an issue in 1787. It's our fault for messing it up since that time.
In 1787, the largest state had 10 electoral votes, and the smallest had 3. That's a 3-fold spread. But today, California has 55 votes to Alaska's 3. That's an 18-fold spread, caused by a population difference of 50-fold. It makes no sense to have a state with 1 million people when another state has almost 40 million. Maybe we should split California and Texas?
The reasons you listed come from someone reasoning "Well, back then they rode on horseback, and it was hard to get around and count all those votes, etc." But it is not supported by history. They were perfectly capable of counting the popular vote and rolling that up. They didn't pick the electoral college as a way to get around technological limitations. Think about it: They had to count the popular votes in the state anyway before they could send the electors.
There are 2 much simpler reasons: 1. They believed states should get one vote for each senator and each delegate, not a simple number based on popular vote. This goes back to the "great compromise" that resulted in the bicameral legislature. 2. It abstracts the state's election system from the federal election system.
Let me expand a little bit: If a state was to get 4 electoral votes, then they wanted each state to choose how those votes are apportioned. That means if one stated wanted the state legislature to choose, they could do that. If another state wanted the governor to decide, they could do that. If yet another state wanted it to be decided by a boxing match, they could do that.
That principle still exists today, which is why some states give all the electoral votes to one candidate, and other states split the votes.
I once too tried to give Trump credit for this kind of thinking, but I was wrong. He believes this stuff quite literally, see here:
Donald Trump called Barack Obama "the founder of ISIS." Trump was attacked for the statement because people took it literally. During a Trump interview, conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify that Trump meant it figuratively, stating that Barack Obama created ISIS by pulling out of Iraq too quickly and leaving a power vacuum. But Trump interrupted him, and clarified that no - Barack Obama was literally the founder of ISIS.
Theory: In the elderly, one of the first signs of dementia is the inability to detect sarcasm. They cannot distinguish figurative and literal language. Could it be that 70-year-old Donald Trump, after living a big time player's lifestyle, is starting to lose it? Maybe he literally thinks we can build a wall between the US and Mexico? Suppose he has bought the line that Barack Obama is a Muslim, then is it a stretch for him to think Obama is also the founder of ISIS?
Digitally: It's been >5 years since I read-up on this. Slashdot covered it back when the voting machine debates were happening. One solution is called the "digital cash" problem. But there's another one that is more appropriate for secret ballots, but I cannot recall the name. I know I am hand-waving a bit here, but it involves lots of hashing. Google terms like "digital cash problem" and "digital blind signature" and you can start your journey there. And this was all before blockchains were all the rage.
With paper ballots: The election judges make all this happen. The paper ballot doesn't have any kind of ID that traces back to the individual voter. Voters put the ballots onto the stack, someone (or some machine) counts the paper ballots without knowing whose ballot it is. It's all physical security with people watching. Manual recounts are possible since the original paper is retained.
That's why we need verifiable ballots. Both paper and electronic voting could be designed so that your vote can be verified, but without a third-party being able to coerce you. It's an age-old problem with decades-old solutions, but when we put in these poorly-implemented voting machines with no audit trails, we lost all that.
So don't set the backlight to be brighter than paper.
It is strange to me that people complain that the white background is too bright, when the brightness is adjustable. Do you complain that the sun is too bright, when you have your sunglasses hanging around your neck?:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Trump is a brilliant improviser. One way to redirect criticism is to accept the criticism, and spin it as though it agreed with you. I actually took a course on collaboration in a corporate environment that talks about this. Their idea was not to use it to spin things though, but to keep people open to ideas. Instead of saying "no, you are wrong because" you say "yes, and..." elaborate on how you will address the problem. Trump takes this to the next level.
Trump: "I'm going to build a wall"
The world: "That's ridiculous, that will cost 5 billions of dollars!"
Trump: "My wall idea is soo ridiculous, it will cost 10 billion dollars!"
The world: "We can't afford that."
Trump: "So I'll have somebody else pay for it!"
Trump: "I'm going to build iPhones in America."
The world: "That will cost too much."
Trump: "Yeah! They will cost so much that we will have to construct robots to build the phones!"
The world: "But if robots build them, that won't employ workers."
Trump: "My robots will be so awesome that they will cook breakfast for the workers!"
Sometimes I want him to say "Because I'm Donald Trump, bitch" in the same voice that Dave Chapelle used when he said "'Cuz I'm Rick James, bitch!"
Irony: One reason you can build iPhones cheaply in China is because Chinese workers don't get the kinds of protections and rights that US workers do. That was part of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP): to raise the worker protections in China to level the playing field. Trump is doing the opposite. He says regulations will be removed in the US. So instead of raising worker protections for Chinese workers, it sounds like he is going to remove protections from US workers. And ironically, the blue-collar workers voted for this.
Why does Chelsea Manning deserve a pardon?
Snowden leaked information about an illegal NSA program. He released the information to several high-class American newspapers in the hopes that they would filter it appropriately. What he released caused material changes to public policy. He may darn well deserve whistle-blower protection for that. Unfortunately, Snowden also leaked a bunch of stuff that was totally legal that the NSA did, just to shame them into paying attention to him. This leaves his status as a potential whistle-blower in a more dubious position.
Chelsea Manning just grabbed every random document he/she had access to and sent them, unfiltered, to a foreign national. Foreign diplomats now hold-back from talking to US diplomats out of fear of their confidential communications being leaked. No public policy changes were made as result of those leaks. What did Manning do that makes him/her a whistle-blower?
I see a big difference between the actions of these two people.
I do not understand the questions. I will try to answer.
But how would that work for devices that aren't tied to a specific service?
Any labeling system has standard lingo. When labeling food for example, vitamin content is listed as a % of the estimated daily value required for an average adult. Protein however is listed in grams. Terms such as "Yellow #5" are standardized. The same would happen when labeling your speakers. When a device is listening, we would need to have a term for "I listen on all IPV4 addresses" and "I listen on the local IP multicast address." If you've ever written socket code, there are already standards for these. We would need other standard terminology for payloads.
When you open the box, you would see a little piece of paper that says "This wifi speaker system communicates on the following protocols:"
IP4ANY | RTCP+TCP/UDP | 554 - 556 | LAN realtime streaming service for receiving audio; PCM audio data, device name, model number
*.spotify.com | HTTPS+TCP | 443 | Internet streaming service for receiving audio; PCM audio data, device name, model number
*.manufacturer.com | HTTPS+TCP | 443 | Firmware update service; sends model number, firmware version, device name, last update date
Hopefully it would not say:
*.centralmonitoringservice.cn | HTTP+TCP | 80 | Remote video monitoring and tunneling service; sends video, wifi password, user name, email address, device name
And the OP was saying this information is also coded into the device, in some standard machine-readable way.
If i cut them off from the internet then they simply don't work. I'd have to manually identify every IP that spotify uses and there seem to be a lot of them
This is where I am confused. Why would you need to do that?
My interpretation of what mlts proposed is kinda like what UPnP does. Today, UPnP already has a way for a device to request that the firewall open a port. I don't think it is super broadly used because security wasn't really considered when UPnP was designed. It is part of why some people just universally turn off UPnP on their routers. But my knowledge may be totally out of date. I didn't interpret mlts to be saying that all outgoing communication was turned off by default, and that the owner of the firewall would need to manually whitelist sites. That would be secure, and you could certainly do that today, but that won't be convenient for the end-user. One could certainly make a "friendlier" firewall that made this a bit easier, kinda like how personal firewall software works. "Hey, device WIFI_CAMERA_1234 wants to talk to nsa.trustme.cn. Allow Y/N?" :-)
I love that idea! It's like FDA labeling laws, but for electronics. It would be totally cheap for the manufacturer to do, and it would make it totally transparent as to which devices are total crap. And if they lie, they could be liable for it at LEAST under false advertising laws. Now that you say this -- why the heck haven't we done this before? It seems so simple and obvious.
This device communicates on the following protocols:
IP address | Protocol | Destination
.
.
.
Corporate networks already do this.
No they don't. They wish they could, and they try. Here's how they try:
First of all, corporate IT has physical access to everything in the building. Comcast has no access to the devices in my house. That's an important difference. Second, corporate IT achieves most of their security by demanding that all devices on the network be Windows boxes that are on their domain. Comcast can't require this either.
Ultimately though, even corporate IT can'achieve this because they have to allow non-Windows devices onto the network. The fact that I could buy an insecure IOT camera and plug it into the network jack in my cube is what scares the heck out of IT admins. The best they could do is apply mac-address filtering, which would require that I either modify the MAC address, or take the device to IT so they can add it to their whitelist.
So some national testing organization is going to test every device that connect to the Internet?
organizations plural. They already do test most of them. They just don't bother to test security. The point about new software is interesting: currently, when companies make hardware changes it is up to them to notify the testing lab and submit it for certification. I suppose it would be the same for software.
Really I have a hard time believing people are so stupid here.
This is the 3rd time you've said something like that to me. I reply in the hopes that another person reading the thread will learn something, but I am going to stop replying at this point. I hope you get modded down to -1 on all these. It's annoying to write a paragraph explaining something, and get a single line reply like "That doesn't work and you are an idiot."
So Dell is liable because your Dell computer got infected and is part of a botnet?
If Dell installed an insecure piece of software on it, then yes, they can be.
It only makes sense to you because you are an idiot.
LOL, nice burn dawg.
There is no difference between an "IOT device" and a Linux or Windows computer you install software on.
One key difference is: who installed the vulnerable software and firmware onto the device? With a Dell Laptop, the owner can install whatever they want on it, so *maybe* it was the owner's fault not the manufacturer's. With a Frigidaire refrigerator, or a Honeywell thermostat, or an XBOX 360, or a Shenzhen-Guowei security camera, the owner probably can't install software on it. That's a crucial difference. With the laptop, one could argue that it is my fault because I installed the virus. But if my refrigerator gets infected because the manufacturer's firmware allowed anyone to remote into it, that is definitely the manufacturer's fault.
the problem is what is a "successful test"?
That is what the 3rd-party testing lab determines. It's not up to the manufacturer to test it.
what about devices that legitimately need to phone home
The testing agency should not have a problem with a device that needed to phone home. That's a legitimate feature. The testing agency would make sure that the data was encrypted, that failed pasword attempts are limited, that there isn't a single shared password on each device, etc.
For example that stupid IoT thermostat
Yes!!! That's what we are trying to prevent! It had no encryption, send the user's personal information (email account, password, wifi SSID, wifi password). It had no limit to the number of password attempts. This is really low-hanging fruit that any testing would have uncovered.
So getting some kind of incentive to have devices certified seems like it will be difficult.
Agreed! So to make this work, we need liability.
So how about this: if your device is part of a botnet, or infects another computer - you are liable unless the device was certified by the testing agency. Hmmmm...no, that won't work. The problem there is finding out the source. If there is a DDOS from 5 million devices, nobody is going to sue 5 million people.
So how about this: Hold manufacturer liable. We've been asking for companies (banks, etc.) to be liable for security breaches, and for software companies to be liable for making totally insecure software. So applying such thinking to IOT devices makes prefect sense.
So the next step is that every device that connects to Comcasts network must be approved by this "organization similar to the UL", or they won't allow it on
Almost. We are proposing something similar to how it works with electrical devices and telecommunications devices. In those cases, it isn't the power company or the phone company that gets a say, it is the insurance companies and retailers. So no: Comcast would not be able to approve things. They simply have no way to enforce this even if they wanted to.
And you can't make any unapproved changes to that device, because any change might make it insecure. It is only logical after all.
No, that is not logical, and it is not how the industry we are comparing it to works.
At some point you will be only allowed to use a locked down computer running pre-approved software running in the cloud. Don't think it will happen? That is the logical conclusion to this madness.
If that is the logical conclusion, then why has it not happened already? This is how communications devices and electrical devices work in the at least the US and Europe. Yet people are still allowed to tinker with those devices. Perhaps this is the point of confusion: Your computer is *already* approved by a national testing agency today. Pretty much anything that plugs into a power plug is. All we are saying is that those organizations should also do security testing as well.
Most electronics in the United States are (Underwriters Laboratory) UL approved. That is because there are various non-governmental rules that strongly influence people into buying UL approved products. One is that vendors often refuse to stock products that are not approved by some standards body, because otherwise they may face liability for the product. Another is that homeowners insurance will not cover you if a non-UL approved device started the fire. Hospitals and laboratories will not buy medical devices that are not UL approved.
We need something like UL for security.
It would be great to have a system like that in place, rather than to have the government directly involved. The toughest part is that so much electronics is purchased online, from overseas manufacturers, that this free-market solution may not work. Really, the free market is optimizing around it. It would be awesome to see Amazon and Newegg refuse to sell products unless they had some kind of security approval.
This sounds like a guy who just learned about VR and augmented reality games, and thinks that it trumps all other genres. And he is taking lots of disconnected unrelated things and using them as justification for his tunnel vision. I suspect this is either genius, or really stupid because I just can't make out what the heck he is saying.
He seems to be arguing that, eventually, all video games will be casual augmented reality games. First: No, and second: even if that happens, the line of reasoning presented makes no sense.
When he starts out talking about eggs in your fridge, he is talking about targeted advertising. But the statement "This world where games and life start to blend I think really comes into play..." doesn't follow from there. Advertisers knowing your buying habits doesn't mean that those things will be gamified. Jeez, I sure hope not.
He is right about games being social, but that is only 50% of gaming. He seems to have forgotten the other half, which is that games are an escape. I like games with stories, and fantasy, and space ships, and abstract shapes. That doesn't fit with AR. I don't want to be me, I want to be someone or something totally different.
The music analogy also doesn't work. Music can be a background thing, while video games cannot. When someone listens to Pandora instead of picking a specific song, it is because they are casually listening to music and not really paying that much attention to it. That is just one small part of music. Has he forgotten that there are musical instruments? And musicians? And people who listen to a particular song over and over because it occupies their entire consciousness? It is like this is a guy who only listens to elevator music in the background and thinks that is the future of music. Video games are even less of a background thing than music. Music is cheap and lasts a few minutes while video games last for hundreds of hours. Starting a video game is an investment in time, a big choice. You get emotionally involved with characters and strategies. His proposal might work for casual players of The Sims, but that's about it.
And I sure as heck don't want people playing Need for Speed in their cars!
The latency argument doesn't make sense either since there is no known technology which will remove latency. Speed yes, latency no.
crime of writing a bot to farm coins
If the both actually played FIFA games, then yeah, I too might call it a "bot" to farm coins. But the bot didn't actually play the games. It just lied, and said it played the games. That sounds closer to fraud.
Why would it take so long? I can imagine 10-20ms before the app actually gets the data, due to audio latency. But latency doesn't matter here since it doesn't matter when the data arrives, it matters when the audio starts recording.
OMG the post got modded up. For garbage uncited irrelevant data. Apparently no moderator actually read the post. *facepalm*
Great job. By showing that number, you have proven, beyond any doubt, that indeed the United States is 50x slower and 8x more expensive. An that there is no legal recourse.
I'm not sure I buy it. How long does it take to "turn on" the microphone? What's the difference between a microphone that is "on" and one that is "off?" There's no shutter to open. No capacitor to charge. This seems like an operation that should take...microseconds? Would it even be milliseconds?
So while our internet is 50x as slow as other countries and 8x as expensive
According to Akamai, the US averages 12.6Mbit/sec while South Korea leads the pack at 20.5Mbit/sec.
we have no legal recourse to defend ourselves.
That's a silly statement considering this is an article about someone using legal recourse to defend themself.
(Yes, I wasted time debating a preposterous claim by an AC. Yeah, waste of time.)
They wouldn't agree to the constitution unless they were given outsized power relative to their populations
This wasn't an issue in 1787. It's our fault for messing it up since that time.
In 1787, the largest state had 10 electoral votes, and the smallest had 3. That's a 3-fold spread. But today, California has 55 votes to Alaska's 3. That's an 18-fold spread, caused by a population difference of 50-fold. It makes no sense to have a state with 1 million people when another state has almost 40 million. Maybe we should split California and Texas?
I am sorry, but those reasons are completely and totally wrong. Just do a Google search and click any article on the topic.
Here y'a go, first hit on Google: History.com
The reasons you listed come from someone reasoning "Well, back then they rode on horseback, and it was hard to get around and count all those votes, etc." But it is not supported by history. They were perfectly capable of counting the popular vote and rolling that up. They didn't pick the electoral college as a way to get around technological limitations. Think about it: They had to count the popular votes in the state anyway before they could send the electors.
There are 2 much simpler reasons:
1. They believed states should get one vote for each senator and each delegate, not a simple number based on popular vote. This goes back to the "great compromise" that resulted in the bicameral legislature.
2. It abstracts the state's election system from the federal election system.
Let me expand a little bit:
If a state was to get 4 electoral votes, then they wanted each state to choose how those votes are apportioned. That means if one stated wanted the state legislature to choose, they could do that. If another state wanted the governor to decide, they could do that. If yet another state wanted it to be decided by a boxing match, they could do that.
That principle still exists today, which is why some states give all the electoral votes to one candidate, and other states split the votes.
I once too tried to give Trump credit for this kind of thinking, but I was wrong. He believes this stuff quite literally, see here:
Donald Trump called Barack Obama "the founder of ISIS." Trump was attacked for the statement because people took it literally. During a Trump interview, conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify that Trump meant it figuratively, stating that Barack Obama created ISIS by pulling out of Iraq too quickly and leaving a power vacuum. But Trump interrupted him, and clarified that no - Barack Obama was literally the founder of ISIS.
CNN coverage of the interview.
The interview itself.
Theory: In the elderly, one of the first signs of dementia is the inability to detect sarcasm. They cannot distinguish figurative and literal language. Could it be that 70-year-old Donald Trump, after living a big time player's lifestyle, is starting to lose it? Maybe he literally thinks we can build a wall between the US and Mexico? Suppose he has bought the line that Barack Obama is a Muslim, then is it a stretch for him to think Obama is also the founder of ISIS?
I have a better idea: The police should track the drone's signal back to the person controlling it, and arrest them.
Digitally: It's been >5 years since I read-up on this. Slashdot covered it back when the voting machine debates were happening. One solution is called the "digital cash" problem. But there's another one that is more appropriate for secret ballots, but I cannot recall the name. I know I am hand-waving a bit here, but it involves lots of hashing. Google terms like "digital cash problem" and "digital blind signature" and you can start your journey there. And this was all before blockchains were all the rage.
With paper ballots: The election judges make all this happen. The paper ballot doesn't have any kind of ID that traces back to the individual voter. Voters put the ballots onto the stack, someone (or some machine) counts the paper ballots without knowing whose ballot it is. It's all physical security with people watching. Manual recounts are possible since the original paper is retained.
That's why we need verifiable ballots. Both paper and electronic voting could be designed so that your vote can be verified, but without a third-party being able to coerce you. It's an age-old problem with decades-old solutions, but when we put in these poorly-implemented voting machines with no audit trails, we lost all that.
Acknowledged. Thanks.
And not a single one of them was backlighted.
So don't set the backlight to be brighter than paper.
It is strange to me that people complain that the white background is too bright, when the brightness is adjustable. Do you complain that the sun is too bright, when you have your sunglasses hanging around your neck? :-P