Hmmm.... don't like that app, like maybe a different browser, or a Skype-ish app, or maybe a snooper, etc. It's onerous. I'll wait for a decent compile that obviates the problem.
Apple was boorish and out-of-control enough (coupled to a really marginal phone offering ) to keep me from paying their obscene, carrier-captive fee. Android is supposed to be a lot more open, and it gets farther. Open-Moku and its ilk have a better chance, in my mind.
Carrier love is at an all-time low, lower than that of even the investment banking community and the politicians trying to rescue them. Captivity to carriers should end. Decent user community choice is what it's all about. The phones offered in the North American market frankly are dismal compared to Japan and S Korea, which also have captivity problems but with less boorishness. Being good users means keeping a phone clean from malware-- but how is that done? A performance-robbing, uber-controlling app from Symantec? Ye Gawds.
Carriers should be that-- not monopolistic service-providing little empires that bribe the legislatures. {/rant}
This is an ostensible open source device. The GPL arguments apply here. Apps could be closed source and covered by other theories of use.
But I've paid for them, and have use of the apps, and certainly own my data. You believe in the altruism that if one of the apps on the phone goes berserk then the network should be protected. I say: partition the device and leave it to the user to have the device returned to a 'friendly' state should that need to happen to accommodate the overall operability of the network.
Otherwise, the operator has essentially whimsical lordship over your device and your selection of components that you want to use. I don't want to hand over to google, or to T-Mobile (or any other carrier) the right to kill my device whimsically. Or any other *government*. You open a Pandora's Box by letting them do this under the cover of potentially rogue application determination and subsequent 'kill'.
So, suddenly, for whatever reason, white knight or bad mood, your app from google gets killed. It might be able to take other stuff with it. Even if it doesn't, it should be my right, and only my right by consent (explicit opt-in) for google to kill MY apps. MY apps also contain MY data, and I own that, too. Should they do this under the laws of any number of states (and likely other jurisdictions), they could be both ciminially and civily prosecuted.
Apple's 'jail' is bad enough. Only users should have the triggers on their own equipment. That's why Psystar will hopefully win, too. I fully realize that warranties and support are null and void by breaking 'jail', and have no problem with that. If I want to mod my xbox, ps*, etc., that's my business. Those that hide behind the criminal DCMA legislation that inhibits alteration are the enemies of hackers everywhere. Pigs, all.
Compress it all into a neat little ball, and at some point, that ball will go bang. Maybe a Big Bang. What do time and other dimensional characteristics look like after the event? Something like us?
If one considers the law that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, the answer would have to be that the universe is just the exit point for the blackhole preceding it. And so on. You've heard of the infinite loop?;)
It would seem that killing MY apps on MY phone would give me nexus to hire MY lawyer and get MY settlement from the google fatcat overloards with their options swimming under water.
We're forced to nearly disrobe, pull things from our suitcases, have anything sharp or pointy confiscated, be subjected to machines that display us in the nude, and now our notebooks are fair game for some ham-fisted twit to peruse our files.
I unfortunately can only point to the evidence. Consider that there is an essentially unlimited budget available, and all of the resources that can be mustered towards finding ways to crack encryption. No one in the government is going to admit it one way or another. Add in budgets that are seriously huge, and access to information 'in the name of government security' that we don't have.
Consider also that the government hasn't made much noise about anyone using encryption. It's my educated guess, as I've watched all kinds of schemes through MD5 cracked like an egg far before it was predicted it could happen, that the combinations mean that it's not reasonable to believe that any given scheme can be cracked. Just think of all of the cacheing that Windows does, for an example, to get an idea where passwords and keys might be found. Hibernation files, browser cache and history, Java caches and other trails that were deemed secure-- right down to the ability to write out DRAM long after it's been powered down, all add up to my guess.
Unfounded, no. More than I want to say, yes. Not on/.
Even with ciphers, it seems that image fundamentals can be inferred without decrypting an image, just like the old ASCII art that we used to print on weird dot-matrix printers. I believe the same techniques are currently employed to check for child porn. But it shouldn't be done without a warrant based on probable cause.
I don't doubt for a minute that RSA is in cahoots with the NSA. Think about it. I don't trust either, frankly. There are big fat keys, but using them, and starting encryption in the middle of a file somewhere, then moving back and forth in a file, seems to be the biggest hassle to surmount, because only the user knows how to unwind such a thing.
With a big enough hammer, you can break anything, an old adage states. Instead, if I have confidential docs, I watermark them as described. There are all sorts of slick ways to do that. Many people have things that should be private and for good reasons. Vote in November.
It's ok to give currency to things you can trust. Photos were once our eyes on the world. Now that world has digital lipstick and pancake makeup. The point here is to know when you're being deceived. We have to trust, not assume that all we see is rendered through a skeptic's eye, as though everyone is known to lie first, and we must somehow extract truth from lies, which is nigh impossible.
The idea can work. It requires a leap of faith that those that produce false images will get burned. We know that many won't, but when we can nail it, and its onerous intent, then we can make an example so that people understand that we need truth, not presumed fiction on the part of everything we see. That skepticism breeds the distrust we have for each other today, and drives the wedges of divisiveness.
No one thinks that it would be a good idea to have such a thing as a 'photo approval bureau(cracy)'. Instead, when pros or others publish an image, we need to know if it's been photoshopped to render its effect, or if what we're seeing is real. And yes, there is reality. You said initially upthread that you don't trust any images, and so what now is the difference that you give any of them credence? There is an initial image, unfettered by alteration software (don't split hairs), that's the original. If it's altered beyond the aforementioned, then let us know. If you inserted individuals or distorted the aspect ratio to make someone look fatter or thinner, or give then wrinkles, or whatever, let us know.
The cover of Newsweek this week has a blown up image of Sarah Palin on it. Some complain that the image wasn't doctored. I'm horrified. We're all wrinkles and all, pores on our face, acne, little weird hairs. That's how we are. Don't feed the cosmetic and beauty industry trolls.... among others.
I have a friend that looks like a terrorist. He moved to New Zealand. He's just a nice Jewish guy from the Bronx, who was born looking very serious and 'foreign' to WASP-ish eyes. After years of getting detentions while transversing US airports, I think he gave up and left. That's sad.
If your data gets misused, call those attorneys for the RIAA. They seem to be able to get settlements. Bastards.
A messy computer bag is normal. I would think that obfuscation is a good thing; and after all, who has time to look through tons of stuff?
Somewhere there's a horribly misguided DHS nabob in DC that needs to be sent on a new mission, maybe to watch grass grow in the Arctic. We need a regime change to get back our civil rights and liberties. Vote in November. If in Chicago, frequently.
We agree that you don't surrender US Constitutional rights. But you may end up surrendering your laptop. It hasn't happened to me in my international travels, but it could.
And the principle of the thing is very and deeply important. That's why pressure placed upon the Congress and executive branch is important. That doesn't mean they won't take your laptop, for mindboggling reasons unknown (mostly because they can, and lesser civil servants need to feel powerful). If you have the need for high security, there are many means available. But I truly believe that there are methods available to make short work of encryption if it's believed you're a terrorist, and not just a good looking blonde female to hassle (sorry to insult so many people by saying this, but ugly people like me seem to get hassled less).
Such a plan is an invitation for disaster and confiscation. Don't think for a second that encryption isn't a red flag. And if they could decrypt (I believe for many reasons that there isn't such a thing as an unbreakable cypher) your data, why are you angry? Would they steal it? Put it up on a flickr site?
Yes, the entire program is a total affront to both US Constitutional rights to reasonable search (this isn't), to privacy (yes, we need a real amendment) and just plain human dignity.
If you have important data, drop it to a DVD. Put that in a separate place. Carry lots of them. Don't look like a terrorist or mad scientist as you go through customs and immigration. Then restore your data as needed. And feel free to make your computer bag as messy as you can.
Don't be so sure. Boeing uses analogs, and hydraulics controlled by the motive force of the pilot that is in turn, connected to the 'autopilot'. Airbus uses system whereby controls are 100% translated to their operational functions. Should a lot of EMI confuse their computers, although it's admittedly unlikely, an Airbus could conceviably do strange things.
Yes, sheilding should be adequate to diffuse the problem, but transconductance and skin effect, along with misbehavior of poorly designed consumer electronics could make a wicked aeronautical stew.
The business plan then becomes: stretch and 'repurpose content', flogging the same shtick until people want to kick it to the curb.
The final outcome: people are sick to death of it, all possible variants of the original idea are bereft of any fun at all, and it's buh-bye for everyone, after Volume 12.
In the interim, interesting ideas go away for wont of creative entrepreneurship or just the ability to get in front of a fresh audience. Ah, the wonders of modern capitalism.
When you're born, you're naive, a blank sheet of paper, ready to receive information and learn from your parents/care providers. We learn in our youth about the choices of truth and not-truth. It's not a process of understanding binaries, rather of how the truth is arrived at. Healthy skepticism is necessary in life, as well as an understanding of the many vectors of truth. We arrive at conclusions based on a lot of data.
There's a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry that's spawned from the belief that those pictures must be real (in fashion photography in this example) and indeed a very vast majority of them are doctored/manipulated from the highly-enhanced original subject. We've become numbed to believe that this is ok.
Other images are believed to be somehow 'true' or otherwise bereft of manipulation/modification. In reality, we have no way of knowing, and so all images are discounted as having been possibly manipulated and the currency of an image-- really all images-- has been lowered as a result.
We have silver-halide photography these days, alongside CCD-based photography. Were I to be spontaneously required to try to define 'alteration', it could be simple: post image acquisition processing that adds or subtracts anything but brightness, contrast, and chroma values or crops of the actual initially captured image. The rest is alteration, and needs to be identified as such. Bravo for really nicely altered images, as well as originals within this standard/context. But credibility is contingent on knowing that image has been altered.
Garbage in, garbage out and denial at the ticket counter because you exercise your right to free association, assembly, and rights to speech and dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm.... don't like that app, like maybe a different browser, or a Skype-ish app, or maybe a snooper, etc. It's onerous. I'll wait for a decent compile that obviates the problem.
Apple was boorish and out-of-control enough (coupled to a really marginal phone offering ) to keep me from paying their obscene, carrier-captive fee. Android is supposed to be a lot more open, and it gets farther. Open-Moku and its ilk have a better chance, in my mind.
Carrier love is at an all-time low, lower than that of even the investment banking community and the politicians trying to rescue them. Captivity to carriers should end. Decent user community choice is what it's all about. The phones offered in the North American market frankly are dismal compared to Japan and S Korea, which also have captivity problems but with less boorishness. Being good users means keeping a phone clean from malware-- but how is that done? A performance-robbing, uber-controlling app from Symantec? Ye Gawds.
Carriers should be that-- not monopolistic service-providing little empires that bribe the legislatures. {/rant}
We would tend to disagree.
This is an ostensible open source device. The GPL arguments apply here. Apps could be closed source and covered by other theories of use.
But I've paid for them, and have use of the apps, and certainly own my data. You believe in the altruism that if one of the apps on the phone goes berserk then the network should be protected. I say: partition the device and leave it to the user to have the device returned to a 'friendly' state should that need to happen to accommodate the overall operability of the network.
Otherwise, the operator has essentially whimsical lordship over your device and your selection of components that you want to use. I don't want to hand over to google, or to T-Mobile (or any other carrier) the right to kill my device whimsically. Or any other *government*. You open a Pandora's Box by letting them do this under the cover of potentially rogue application determination and subsequent 'kill'.
If the motive is to partition someone from a network-- do it at the switch, not at the end device.
So, suddenly, for whatever reason, white knight or bad mood, your app from google gets killed. It might be able to take other stuff with it. Even if it doesn't, it should be my right, and only my right by consent (explicit opt-in) for google to kill MY apps. MY apps also contain MY data, and I own that, too. Should they do this under the laws of any number of states (and likely other jurisdictions), they could be both ciminially and civily prosecuted.
Apple's 'jail' is bad enough. Only users should have the triggers on their own equipment. That's why Psystar will hopefully win, too. I fully realize that warranties and support are null and void by breaking 'jail', and have no problem with that. If I want to mod my xbox, ps*, etc., that's my business. Those that hide behind the criminal DCMA legislation that inhibits alteration are the enemies of hackers everywhere. Pigs, all.
Mod me flamebait; mod me free.
Exactly.
Compress it all into a neat little ball, and at some point, that ball will go bang. Maybe a Big Bang. What do time and other dimensional characteristics look like after the event? Something like us?
If one considers the law that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, the answer would have to be that the universe is just the exit point for the blackhole preceding it. And so on. You've heard of the infinite loop? ;)
It would seem that killing MY apps on MY phone would give me nexus to hire MY lawyer and get MY settlement from the google fatcat overloards with their options swimming under water.
Nah.
Label them: code v.0.9.3.a , then scribble something incomprehensible.
Privacy? In an airport?
We're forced to nearly disrobe, pull things from our suitcases, have anything sharp or pointy confiscated, be subjected to machines that display us in the nude, and now our notebooks are fair game for some ham-fisted twit to peruse our files.
The terrorists seemingly have won.
That's the spirit!
Nothing of the kind.
I unfortunately can only point to the evidence. Consider that there is an essentially unlimited budget available, and all of the resources that can be mustered towards finding ways to crack encryption. No one in the government is going to admit it one way or another. Add in budgets that are seriously huge, and access to information 'in the name of government security' that we don't have.
Consider also that the government hasn't made much noise about anyone using encryption. It's my educated guess, as I've watched all kinds of schemes through MD5 cracked like an egg far before it was predicted it could happen, that the combinations mean that it's not reasonable to believe that any given scheme can be cracked. Just think of all of the cacheing that Windows does, for an example, to get an idea where passwords and keys might be found. Hibernation files, browser cache and history, Java caches and other trails that were deemed secure-- right down to the ability to write out DRAM long after it's been powered down, all add up to my guess.
Unfounded, no. More than I want to say, yes. Not on /.
We agree. Whaddya going to do about it-- is their attitude. Better prepared, than not.
Even with ciphers, it seems that image fundamentals can be inferred without decrypting an image, just like the old ASCII art that we used to print on weird dot-matrix printers. I believe the same techniques are currently employed to check for child porn. But it shouldn't be done without a warrant based on probable cause.
I don't doubt for a minute that RSA is in cahoots with the NSA. Think about it. I don't trust either, frankly. There are big fat keys, but using them, and starting encryption in the middle of a file somewhere, then moving back and forth in a file, seems to be the biggest hassle to surmount, because only the user knows how to unwind such a thing.
With a big enough hammer, you can break anything, an old adage states. Instead, if I have confidential docs, I watermark them as described. There are all sorts of slick ways to do that. Many people have things that should be private and for good reasons. Vote in November.
It's ok to give currency to things you can trust. Photos were once our eyes on the world. Now that world has digital lipstick and pancake makeup. The point here is to know when you're being deceived. We have to trust, not assume that all we see is rendered through a skeptic's eye, as though everyone is known to lie first, and we must somehow extract truth from lies, which is nigh impossible.
The idea can work. It requires a leap of faith that those that produce false images will get burned. We know that many won't, but when we can nail it, and its onerous intent, then we can make an example so that people understand that we need truth, not presumed fiction on the part of everything we see. That skepticism breeds the distrust we have for each other today, and drives the wedges of divisiveness.
No one thinks that it would be a good idea to have such a thing as a 'photo approval bureau(cracy)'. Instead, when pros or others publish an image, we need to know if it's been photoshopped to render its effect, or if what we're seeing is real. And yes, there is reality. You said initially upthread that you don't trust any images, and so what now is the difference that you give any of them credence? There is an initial image, unfettered by alteration software (don't split hairs), that's the original. If it's altered beyond the aforementioned, then let us know. If you inserted individuals or distorted the aspect ratio to make someone look fatter or thinner, or give then wrinkles, or whatever, let us know.
The cover of Newsweek this week has a blown up image of Sarah Palin on it. Some complain that the image wasn't doctored. I'm horrified. We're all wrinkles and all, pores on our face, acne, little weird hairs. That's how we are. Don't feed the cosmetic and beauty industry trolls.... among others.
I have a friend that looks like a terrorist. He moved to New Zealand. He's just a nice Jewish guy from the Bronx, who was born looking very serious and 'foreign' to WASP-ish eyes. After years of getting detentions while transversing US airports, I think he gave up and left. That's sad.
If your data gets misused, call those attorneys for the RIAA. They seem to be able to get settlements. Bastards.
A messy computer bag is normal. I would think that obfuscation is a good thing; and after all, who has time to look through tons of stuff?
Somewhere there's a horribly misguided DHS nabob in DC that needs to be sent on a new mission, maybe to watch grass grow in the Arctic. We need a regime change to get back our civil rights and liberties. Vote in November. If in Chicago, frequently.
We agree that you don't surrender US Constitutional rights. But you may end up surrendering your laptop. It hasn't happened to me in my international travels, but it could.
And the principle of the thing is very and deeply important. That's why pressure placed upon the Congress and executive branch is important. That doesn't mean they won't take your laptop, for mindboggling reasons unknown (mostly because they can, and lesser civil servants need to feel powerful). If you have the need for high security, there are many means available. But I truly believe that there are methods available to make short work of encryption if it's believed you're a terrorist, and not just a good looking blonde female to hassle (sorry to insult so many people by saying this, but ugly people like me seem to get hassled less).
I sit corrected.
Such a plan is an invitation for disaster and confiscation. Don't think for a second that encryption isn't a red flag. And if they could decrypt (I believe for many reasons that there isn't such a thing as an unbreakable cypher) your data, why are you angry? Would they steal it? Put it up on a flickr site?
Yes, the entire program is a total affront to both US Constitutional rights to reasonable search (this isn't), to privacy (yes, we need a real amendment) and just plain human dignity.
If you have important data, drop it to a DVD. Put that in a separate place. Carry lots of them. Don't look like a terrorist or mad scientist as you go through customs and immigration. Then restore your data as needed. And feel free to make your computer bag as messy as you can.
Show me a working 787.
767 and 777 DO NOT use fbw.
Don't be so sure. Boeing uses analogs, and hydraulics controlled by the motive force of the pilot that is in turn, connected to the 'autopilot'. Airbus uses system whereby controls are 100% translated to their operational functions. Should a lot of EMI confuse their computers, although it's admittedly unlikely, an Airbus could conceviably do strange things.
Yes, sheilding should be adequate to diffuse the problem, but transconductance and skin effect, along with misbehavior of poorly designed consumer electronics could make a wicked aeronautical stew.
A creative idea catches fire.
The business plan then becomes: stretch and 'repurpose content', flogging the same shtick until people want to kick it to the curb.
The final outcome: people are sick to death of it, all possible variants of the original idea are bereft of any fun at all, and it's buh-bye for everyone, after Volume 12.
In the interim, interesting ideas go away for wont of creative entrepreneurship or just the ability to get in front of a fresh audience. Ah, the wonders of modern capitalism.
We disagree on many points.
When you're born, you're naive, a blank sheet of paper, ready to receive information and learn from your parents/care providers. We learn in our youth about the choices of truth and not-truth. It's not a process of understanding binaries, rather of how the truth is arrived at. Healthy skepticism is necessary in life, as well as an understanding of the many vectors of truth. We arrive at conclusions based on a lot of data.
There's a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry that's spawned from the belief that those pictures must be real (in fashion photography in this example) and indeed a very vast majority of them are doctored/manipulated from the highly-enhanced original subject. We've become numbed to believe that this is ok.
Other images are believed to be somehow 'true' or otherwise bereft of manipulation/modification. In reality, we have no way of knowing, and so all images are discounted as having been possibly manipulated and the currency of an image-- really all images-- has been lowered as a result.
We have silver-halide photography these days, alongside CCD-based photography. Were I to be spontaneously required to try to define 'alteration', it could be simple: post image acquisition processing that adds or subtracts anything but brightness, contrast, and chroma values or crops of the actual initially captured image. The rest is alteration, and needs to be identified as such. Bravo for really nicely altered images, as well as originals within this standard/context. But credibility is contingent on knowing that image has been altered.
Uh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's lots of evidence that points to the contrary.
Garbage in, garbage out and denial at the ticket counter because you exercise your right to free association, assembly, and rights to speech and dissent.