"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "
Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.
That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.
This commendable Senator took care of the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is more institutional in nature. It grants one hell of an advantage to those who view various forms of freedom as an inconvenient hinderence to their goals.
All oppressive laws have this in common: those who push for them view a defeat like this as merely a delay or minor setback. They can keep trying to get them passed, over and over, through defeat after defeat, until finally they find a Congress more willing to be swayed by their arguments. They understand that once they get the law passed, it will stay on the books forever and will never be repealed. Agencies, bureaucracies and contractors will form around it and give it even more inertia. After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo.
/. is certainly drinking the cloud-flavored kool-aid
They decided to take a short break from every little thing Google does, every little thing Apple does, sending balloons to the stratosphere and calling it "space", and never writing a negative book review yet having YRO stories that promote free speech. They decided to take a long break from well-deserved criticism of Microsoft.
It's premature to say whether clouds will become the next SCO in terms of article count but they're definitely trying.
Exactly. People don't care till their backs are up against the wall. It's amazing how complacent this country has become.
Apparently the certain knowledge that they will have their backs up against the wall if they continue down this path doesn't move them. Until it actually happens there's lots denial to go around.
The predictability of it all makes me want to use "stupid" where you used "complacent" sometimes.
The more these assholes abuse their power, the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.
Oh god, who am I kidding?..
Yeah, you mean they're doing that exact thing that we knew they were going to do and abusing their power? Nope, nobody saw that coming.
Oh, and you're some kind of paranoid tin-foil hat wearing nutter if you ever read about a not-yet-implemented proposal and say "this is dangerous because it will be abused." We must ridicule and marginalize those who aren't in denial about basic reality... err I mean those paranoid naysayers at once. Cue the "I got nothing to hide", "why don't you want to stop terrorists", and "this is all for your own good" posts.
...you don't need a department of Homeland Security to trample on your rights.
No, it just streamlines the process when everything is organized under one umbrella.
The average Canadian should start using end-to-end encryption. And why not? It's what the criminals are already doing. May as well achieve parity with them.
...because the fact that they have sufficient influence to push open standards indicates that they also have the power to do a lot of hypothetical bad things? like (I don't know) mass killing of puppies?
Your insistence on substituting condescension for disputation gets old.
Is the solution to make sure that no entity ever has influence?
The solution is to ensure that any influence they have is within reasonable limits and legitimately earned.
By your definition, things which are also bad:
Actually I offered no definitions, only some reasoning. Like condescension, putting your own words in my mouth only indicates that you have a weak position, no ability to articulate your viewpoint, or both.
I merely suggested that it is unrealistic and naive to think Apple is going to selflessly champion open standards with no regard for their own gain or whether doing so is always going to suit their marketing strategy. The moment advocating open standards means that Apple makes less profit will be the moment they stop and reverse course. If they operated otherwise, they'd fail to serve their shareholders. That means they are not a dependable or principled ally of open standards. You believe this is absurd?
1. Every company in the world.
When they are accountable to their customers they are not bad. When they obtain too much control (monopolies for example) they become bad. Simple.
2. every popular organization ever in the history of mankind ever.
I made no such claim. I spoke of Apple and only of Apple. This is merely your attempt to cause confusion and distraction by bringing up irrelevant topics.
3. all forms of functional government.
Ever heard of the Founding Fathers? They labored to come up with a system of government with limited, enumerated powers. They also understood that the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances is vital. Do you know why? Because some limited government is a good and necessary thing. Government that has too much power spirals out of control quickly. Again, this is simple.
4. all forms of media, including the internet and the printing press.
It depends. When those things are used to promote propaganda and lies they fail to serve the viewers and consumers of said media, though the media companies benefit from this. When those things are used to tell the truth, provide useful information, and expose corruption they serve the viewers and consumers while also benefitting the companies that provide such media. See the difference?
5. anyone who has ever been modded +5
This is yet more absurd hyperbole from you. But what the hell, I'll bite. When posts that don't really provide anything useful get modded to +5 it just worsens the signal-to-noise ratio of the forum. When posts that really deserve to be promoted get modded to +5 it makes Slashdot better and more useful for everyone.
Despite your struggle to avoid acknowledging it, all of these things have uses and misuses. Pointing out that Apple Inc. is not a charity organization and definitely has its own agenda when it appears to promote open standards is not some crime against logic. I don't know whether you're a rabid Apple fanboy or precisely what your problem is, but it won't change the reality.
So long as the push for open standards or anything else comes from the companies and not from the customers of those companies, it will be necessary to carefully scrutinize the motivations behind such advocacy. That's particularly true when you consider that average users don't understand or appreciate the difference between open systems and proprietary systems and more generally have little understanding of the t
Did you seriously just argue that Apple pushing for "open standards" would suddenly lead to them controlling everything on the Web?
No, I spoke about the effect on Apple's customers derived from Apple's great deal of control over their platforms. I also mentioned that this may affect people other than Apple's customers -- for example, when you design Web content you may take into consideration the formats you use and whether they exclude say, iPhone users.
You never saw the phrase "everything on the Web" in my previous post. That's not a coincidence. That's because I wasn't talking about everything on the Web. I was talking about the few specific things I explicitly mentioned. Reading comprehension is not this difficult.
Your argument is that Apple may be doing the right thing, but they are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and who knows what they've got planned once they get us all hooked on a free internet based on open standards?
I mean seriously shut the fuck up and stop existing.
It means that once those wrong reasons are fulfilled they may decide that open standards are no longer in their business interests. The great deal of control they have over their platforms makes this a potential problem for their users. Then there are network effects that mean people other than Apple's customers could be affected. So yes, the reason why something is done is important.
I'm curious, did you think that being rude and mistreating the GP somehow negates this concern? It is a legitimate issue and will remain such as long as single vendors have enough power in the marketplace to decide whether open standards will be used. That, in turn, won't change until average users are educated and understand why vendorlock and proprietary standards are not in their interests. When that happens devices that don't support open standards simply won't sell. Until then, potential loss of freedom is a very real problem.
You speak of the 'Slashdot crowd' like we all joined at the same time and we're all the same age and of the same background but it's simply not true. It's not even a valid generalisation.
The concept you're missing is called "gestalt". It's not quite the same thing as a generalization. If you don't want to appreciate that, then you won't, and that's not really my concern. Incidentally I used the repetitive memes as a lighthearted analogy. The subject of my post was the overabundance of "balloons floating" stories out there. Deliberately or accidentally, you missed that.
And the fact that someone modded something funny means that they enjoyed reading it enough to give it a mod point. And that's how this thing works. Don't be a back seat moderator. You use your mod points on whatever the hell you want and let everyone else do the same.
Me writing a post to try and point something out does not prevent anyone with mod points from using those points as they see fit. It's possible I might pursuade someone to reconsider how they moderate, but only if they want to be persuaded. If they don't agree with me then they will moderate however they please no matter what I say.
I will use my own mod points however the hell I want, I always have, this isn't your idea, and I really don't care whether you approve. Likewise, I am not preventing anyone else from doing the same. Other mods don't need me to "let" them do anything. I am not their master. Meanwhile you're just upset that I might convince them of something you dislike and you veil that quite thinly. That's frankly not my problem. Worrying about this is beneath you, and if it isn't, it should be.
Oh, one more thing. By your very own standard there, several moderators found my comment "Insightful". They enjoyed reading it enough to give it a mod point. And that's how this thing works, or so I've recently heard. I'm sure you can demonstrate the "use your mod points on whatever the hell you want" portion of your little philosophy there. Can you model for me the part about "let everyone else do the same"? Or do you feel a need to complain about that when it doesn't go the way you like?
Would it be any better for you if we made a Beowulf cluster of them? So that you can enjoy your petrified Natalie Portman with hot grits?
Haha. I salute you, fellow long-time Slashdotter.
Of course, the hot grits need to be poured down someone's pants. And someone should link to an XKCD comic or something. Preferably the GNAA will not be involved.
"others have to wash their hands eight hundred times a day,"
If we strictly followed the guidelines that is - its called 'infection control' in the healthcare industry.
( disclaimer: IAOACNA) (I am only a CNA)
Well, I do draw a distinction between obsessive-compulsion disorder and institutional requirements grounded in a medical basis. But maybe that's just me.
Most hobbiests don't have the backing of a newspaper and a defence contractor.
Well, newspapers have slow news days and (though it's their own damn fault) defense contractors are always in need of good PR. Sounds like this hobbyist was ready for a little exploitation, er I mean assistance.
Yes. That is damn cool.
The naysayers and nitpickers will swarm on this story soon enough. But it's still cool.
It was absolutely frickin' badass... the first ten times. Now it's just plain getting old. Hey look, someone used a weather balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere. Hey wow, someone uses a balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere, and THIS TIME it was a father and son. Whoa, look, someone used a balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere, and THIS TIME it has a glider made of paper! Really I'm at the edge of my seat, but it's getting repetitive.
Now I know where I am. This is Slashdot (say it like King Leonitus and kick something if you need to). It's nothing to be ashamed of, but Slashdotters have a problem. After seeing the ten millionth repetition of "in Soviet Russia" or "sharks with lasers" and modding it up to +5 Funny for the 9 trillionth time, they have a very hard time admitting when something has gotten old and it's time to move on. (Someone is tempted to reply with one of those memes thinking "hah, that'll fix him, he'll NEVER see this coming!")
Now, no one's judging anyone here. Some people are alcoholics, others have to wash their hands eight hundred times a day, while others still are just plain not nice. In the scheme of things never admitting that something is old and repetitive and redundant is pretty tame. I understand that. I'm just sayin', maybe the Slashdot crowd isn't in the best position to realize that it's OK to stop beating the dead horse. The guy who points out that the dead horse is not only dead, but also embedded in the ground, starting to decay, and really starting to smell -- well, that guy might seem like a naysayer or a nitpicker to you. That's only natural.
Just don't be too harsh on that guy. He may be trying to help you appreciate objectivity.
Technically, the U.S. isn't really going towards nanny state as that would imply an element of taking care of people rather than just watching them. It's more a Mommy Dearest state really.
Yes but all of that watching is in the name of preventing terrorism, preventing crime, and making sure no one gets offended. It's for your own good, because the world can be a very scary place and we know what's best for you. It only takes a teensy-weensy little bit more political power, then we can finally make all the big nasty scary things in the media go away. Our intentions are as pure as the driven snow. Just trust us, we have such a trustworthy history. After all, trusting us is what a real patriot would do. Oh, and dissent at such a critical time might embolden our enemies. You are a real patriot, aren't you?
Just so you know, the data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement don't have anything to do with this particular bit of madness despite the misleading summary.
If those two forces haven't yet figured out that they have a lot of common interests, give it time.
I get that this is Slashdot which means defending everything Google does, but they deserve to be punished as a deterrent and to remind them to be that much more careful handling personal information next time, regardless of how they acquire it. Sometimes, it feels as if people excuse Google's behavior simply because Google uses Linux or works on open source projects or puts out an image that it's an "open" company (okay, so where's the source code for the search engine then?) in order to attract the Slashdot-browsing technical crowd.
I mean, we're talking 600 gigabytes of data here, collected over the span of three years. For three years, they didn't notice they were collecting emails and passwords? If their engineers were so neglectful that they incorrectly configured their data scanners, and their database admins didn't notice they were collecting much more data than they were looking for, then Google should be punished for that incompetence alone. They're handling personal information here. How about a little incentive for them to pay attention?
I agree. Further, I'd sum this up into one simple principle: if you are incapable of collecting such data competently then you have no business collecting such data. But this works both ways:
As for claiming that people can't claim ignorance about Wi-Fi technology...what planet are you living on? You seriously think people are aware of how Wi-Fi works and that they didn't simply go down and buy a cheap Linksys router from Wal-mart and hooked it up according to the little brochure of instructions given to them by their ISPs, unaware that they're broadcasting personal information into the streets? You think they equate the mysterious computer network in their homes to television and radio or that they expect it to have enough range to reach out past the walls of their house?
That's where your analogy to "shouting" falls apart. People shouting are intentionally broadcasting information. People with unencrypted networks are not intentionally broadcasting information and are most likely unaware that they are. Just because they don't know they're doing it doesn't make it okay to exploit that fact. That a major corporation is driving vans around doing just that, and that people are defending said company, is simply amazing. If this was Microsoft or Apple, the tone of the comments would be totally different. Microsoft collecting people's emails and passwords would be a huge scandal around here.
If you're incapable of running a Wi-fi network competently, then you have no business running such a network. I don't expect anyone to understand how Wi-fi or broadcast radio works... until they want to run one. At that point they have no excuse for their ignorance. This is particularly true when these are the very most basic facts about Wi-fi. They do not require expertise or specialized knowledge to understand. A few minutes reading a FAQ (freely accessible) would do the trick. If they can't be bothered with that, then they assume the risk. Using what you don't understand is risky behavior and it's reasonable to expect adults to understand that.
I defend neither Google nor the ignorant masses who run open Wi-fi networks without understanding what that means. Both are negligent. Neither is OK.
Believe it or not the most compassionate thing you can do with this kind of ignorance is to throw them under the bus. Let them face the full consequences of their negligence. Particularly for the end-users who insist on owning and operating what they do not understand, do not coddle them with laws intended to protect them from the results of their decisions. That's the very worst thing you can do to adults, though it (falsely) looks so nice and kind-hearted. That kind of phony "compassion" only encourages people to be helpless and irresponsible. That doesn't serve them; it's a tremendous disservice.
Hmmm, illegal acts like enabling people to find an available wireless connection without paying ATT or Verizon for it?
Yeah, shame on them how dare they enable people to connect to the internet without paying out the ass for it, just plain un-American!
I'm all for utilizing bandwidth in a cost-effective way. If ATT or Verizon don't like that, too bad for them. Having said that, if someone wants to share your connection (that you pay for, that your name is on) then why can't they ask you first? Seems like common courtesy to me. Then you can give them a password or encryption key and allow them as an authorized user.
It's reasonable to assume that those who don't show that kind of common courtesy are more likely to cause trouble.
Why would they even REMOTELY think this was a good idea? What's the point of Google collecting this kind of information
I think they proceed from the philosophy of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission". They are, after all, a corporation and therefore unlikely to suffer any penalty worse than a slap on the wrist. Individuals who might face real jail time tend to think it's easier to ask for permission than for forgiveness.
More and more I feel that people who are that paranoid and quick to believe conspiracies have an extrem form of narcism. They actually believe that the are important enough to worth that much effort. They think the world is out to get them in fact most the world doesn't even know they are here.
There is one glaring problem with that viewpoint. It may have been true back when tracking/spying on a particular target would have required special effort and dedication of manpower. It is no longer true now that surveillance, monitoring, and database technology has advanced to the point where monitoring everyone all of the time is becoming increasingly feasible and cost-effective.
For one narrow example, consider police. It used to be that if they wanted to track someone's whereabouts, they had to assign police officers to stake out a suspect and follow him/her around. That's expensive. There are only so many police officers. Dedicating a number of them to constantly track a particular individual had to be justified. That individual had to be exceptional and extraordinary to justify this cost, because that manpower could be put to much better use otherwise. Now it's both cost-effective and (recently) legally justifiable to simply install GPS tracking devices on citizens' vehicles. Now a computer can automatically perform that tracking and all it costs is a piece of mass-produced electronics that only becomes cheaper over time.
Far from narcissists, I am coming to believe that those you call "paranoid" are realists. In a previous era they may have been quaint and paranoid but these days they're among the few willing to face the implications of a hard truth.
Slashdot Mirror
"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm
Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.
That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.
This commendable Senator took care of the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is more institutional in nature. It grants one hell of an advantage to those who view various forms of freedom as an inconvenient hinderence to their goals.
All oppressive laws have this in common: those who push for them view a defeat like this as merely a delay or minor setback. They can keep trying to get them passed, over and over, through defeat after defeat, until finally they find a Congress more willing to be swayed by their arguments. They understand that once they get the law passed, it will stay on the books forever and will never be repealed. Agencies, bureaucracies and contractors will form around it and give it even more inertia. After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo.
What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?
We all knew it, but it seems that now, somebody in a position to do something about it is doing something about it..
(emphasis added)
That's supposed to be us. Clearly you can see the problem...
/. is certainly drinking the cloud-flavored kool-aid
They decided to take a short break from every little thing Google does, every little thing Apple does, sending balloons to the stratosphere and calling it "space", and never writing a negative book review yet having YRO stories that promote free speech. They decided to take a long break from well-deserved criticism of Microsoft.
It's premature to say whether clouds will become the next SCO in terms of article count but they're definitely trying.
We must ridicule and marginalize those who aren't in denial about basic reality ... err I mean those paranoid naysayers at once.
You mean like anyone who watches video of the collapse of building 7 and concludes that it wasn't an obvious controlled demolition?
Well yeah. If they concluded otherwise they would be unpatriotic and un-American, comrade!
Exactly. People don't care till their backs are up against the wall. It's amazing how complacent this country has become.
Apparently the certain knowledge that they will have their backs up against the wall if they continue down this path doesn't move them. Until it actually happens there's lots denial to go around.
The predictability of it all makes me want to use "stupid" where you used "complacent" sometimes.
The more these assholes abuse their power, the less willing the public will be to entrust power to them.
Oh god, who am I kidding?..
Yeah, you mean they're doing that exact thing that we knew they were going to do and abusing their power? Nope, nobody saw that coming.
... err I mean those paranoid naysayers at once. Cue the "I got nothing to hide", "why don't you want to stop terrorists", and "this is all for your own good" posts.
Oh, and you're some kind of paranoid tin-foil hat wearing nutter if you ever read about a not-yet-implemented proposal and say "this is dangerous because it will be abused." We must ridicule and marginalize those who aren't in denial about basic reality
...you don't need a department of Homeland Security to trample on your rights.
No, it just streamlines the process when everything is organized under one umbrella.
The average Canadian should start using end-to-end encryption. And why not? It's what the criminals are already doing. May as well achieve parity with them.
Your insistence on substituting condescension for disputation gets old.
The solution is to ensure that any influence they have is within reasonable limits and legitimately earned.
Actually I offered no definitions, only some reasoning. Like condescension, putting your own words in my mouth only indicates that you have a weak position, no ability to articulate your viewpoint, or both.
I merely suggested that it is unrealistic and naive to think Apple is going to selflessly champion open standards with no regard for their own gain or whether doing so is always going to suit their marketing strategy. The moment advocating open standards means that Apple makes less profit will be the moment they stop and reverse course. If they operated otherwise, they'd fail to serve their shareholders. That means they are not a dependable or principled ally of open standards. You believe this is absurd?
When they are accountable to their customers they are not bad. When they obtain too much control (monopolies for example) they become bad. Simple.
I made no such claim. I spoke of Apple and only of Apple. This is merely your attempt to cause confusion and distraction by bringing up irrelevant topics.
Ever heard of the Founding Fathers? They labored to come up with a system of government with limited, enumerated powers. They also understood that the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances is vital. Do you know why? Because some limited government is a good and necessary thing. Government that has too much power spirals out of control quickly. Again, this is simple.
It depends. When those things are used to promote propaganda and lies they fail to serve the viewers and consumers of said media, though the media companies benefit from this. When those things are used to tell the truth, provide useful information, and expose corruption they serve the viewers and consumers while also benefitting the companies that provide such media. See the difference?
This is yet more absurd hyperbole from you. But what the hell, I'll bite. When posts that don't really provide anything useful get modded to +5 it just worsens the signal-to-noise ratio of the forum. When posts that really deserve to be promoted get modded to +5 it makes Slashdot better and more useful for everyone.
Despite your struggle to avoid acknowledging it, all of these things have uses and misuses. Pointing out that Apple Inc. is not a charity organization and definitely has its own agenda when it appears to promote open standards is not some crime against logic. I don't know whether you're a rabid Apple fanboy or precisely what your problem is, but it won't change the reality.
So long as the push for open standards or anything else comes from the companies and not from the customers of those companies, it will be necessary to carefully scrutinize the motivations behind such advocacy. That's particularly true when you consider that average users don't understand or appreciate the difference between open systems and proprietary systems and more generally have little understanding of the t
No, I spoke about the effect on Apple's customers derived from Apple's great deal of control over their platforms. I also mentioned that this may affect people other than Apple's customers -- for example, when you design Web content you may take into consideration the formats you use and whether they exclude say, iPhone users.
You never saw the phrase "everything on the Web" in my previous post. That's not a coincidence. That's because I wasn't talking about everything on the Web. I was talking about the few specific things I explicitly mentioned. Reading comprehension is not this difficult.
Your argument is that Apple may be doing the right thing, but they are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and who knows what they've got planned once they get us all hooked on a free internet based on open standards?
I mean seriously shut the fuck up and stop existing.
It means that once those wrong reasons are fulfilled they may decide that open standards are no longer in their business interests. The great deal of control they have over their platforms makes this a potential problem for their users. Then there are network effects that mean people other than Apple's customers could be affected. So yes, the reason why something is done is important.
I'm curious, did you think that being rude and mistreating the GP somehow negates this concern? It is a legitimate issue and will remain such as long as single vendors have enough power in the marketplace to decide whether open standards will be used. That, in turn, won't change until average users are educated and understand why vendorlock and proprietary standards are not in their interests. When that happens devices that don't support open standards simply won't sell. Until then, potential loss of freedom is a very real problem.
The concept you're missing is called "gestalt". It's not quite the same thing as a generalization. If you don't want to appreciate that, then you won't, and that's not really my concern. Incidentally I used the repetitive memes as a lighthearted analogy. The subject of my post was the overabundance of "balloons floating" stories out there. Deliberately or accidentally, you missed that.
Me writing a post to try and point something out does not prevent anyone with mod points from using those points as they see fit. It's possible I might pursuade someone to reconsider how they moderate, but only if they want to be persuaded. If they don't agree with me then they will moderate however they please no matter what I say.
I will use my own mod points however the hell I want, I always have, this isn't your idea, and I really don't care whether you approve. Likewise, I am not preventing anyone else from doing the same. Other mods don't need me to "let" them do anything. I am not their master. Meanwhile you're just upset that I might convince them of something you dislike and you veil that quite thinly. That's frankly not my problem. Worrying about this is beneath you, and if it isn't, it should be.
Oh, one more thing. By your very own standard there, several moderators found my comment "Insightful". They enjoyed reading it enough to give it a mod point. And that's how this thing works, or so I've recently heard. I'm sure you can demonstrate the "use your mod points on whatever the hell you want" portion of your little philosophy there. Can you model for me the part about "let everyone else do the same"? Or do you feel a need to complain about that when it doesn't go the way you like?
Would it be any better for you if we made a Beowulf cluster of them? So that you can enjoy your petrified Natalie Portman with hot grits?
Haha. I salute you, fellow long-time Slashdotter.
Of course, the hot grits need to be poured down someone's pants. And someone should link to an XKCD comic or something. Preferably the GNAA will not be involved.
"others have to wash their hands eight hundred times a day,"
If we strictly followed the guidelines that is - its called 'infection control' in the healthcare industry. ( disclaimer: IAOACNA) (I am only a CNA)
Well, I do draw a distinction between obsessive-compulsion disorder and institutional requirements grounded in a medical basis. But maybe that's just me.
Most hobbiests don't have the backing of a newspaper and a defence contractor.
Well, newspapers have slow news days and (though it's their own damn fault) defense contractors are always in need of good PR. Sounds like this hobbyist was ready for a little exploitation, er I mean assistance.
When you said "the edge of space" I thought you meant the border of the universe, so I was all WTF.
Apparently a little buoyancy goes a long way.
Yes. That is damn cool. The naysayers and nitpickers will swarm on this story soon enough. But it's still cool.
It was absolutely frickin' badass... the first ten times. Now it's just plain getting old. Hey look, someone used a weather balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere. Hey wow, someone uses a balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere, and THIS TIME it was a father and son. Whoa, look, someone used a balloon and sent it up into the atmosphere, and THIS TIME it has a glider made of paper! Really I'm at the edge of my seat, but it's getting repetitive.
Now I know where I am. This is Slashdot (say it like King Leonitus and kick something if you need to). It's nothing to be ashamed of, but Slashdotters have a problem. After seeing the ten millionth repetition of "in Soviet Russia" or "sharks with lasers" and modding it up to +5 Funny for the 9 trillionth time, they have a very hard time admitting when something has gotten old and it's time to move on. (Someone is tempted to reply with one of those memes thinking "hah, that'll fix him, he'll NEVER see this coming!")
Now, no one's judging anyone here. Some people are alcoholics, others have to wash their hands eight hundred times a day, while others still are just plain not nice. In the scheme of things never admitting that something is old and repetitive and redundant is pretty tame. I understand that. I'm just sayin', maybe the Slashdot crowd isn't in the best position to realize that it's OK to stop beating the dead horse. The guy who points out that the dead horse is not only dead, but also embedded in the ground, starting to decay, and really starting to smell -- well, that guy might seem like a naysayer or a nitpicker to you. That's only natural.
Just don't be too harsh on that guy. He may be trying to help you appreciate objectivity.
Technically, the U.S. isn't really going towards nanny state as that would imply an element of taking care of people rather than just watching them. It's more a Mommy Dearest state really.
Yes but all of that watching is in the name of preventing terrorism, preventing crime, and making sure no one gets offended. It's for your own good, because the world can be a very scary place and we know what's best for you. It only takes a teensy-weensy little bit more political power, then we can finally make all the big nasty scary things in the media go away. Our intentions are as pure as the driven snow. Just trust us, we have such a trustworthy history. After all, trusting us is what a real patriot would do. Oh, and dissent at such a critical time might embolden our enemies. You are a real patriot, aren't you?
Just so you know, the data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement don't have anything to do with this particular bit of madness despite the misleading summary.
If those two forces haven't yet figured out that they have a lot of common interests, give it time.
Soft tyranny -- it's for your protection!
I agree. Further, I'd sum this up into one simple principle: if you are incapable of collecting such data competently then you have no business collecting such data. But this works both ways:
If you're incapable of running a Wi-fi network competently, then you have no business running such a network. I don't expect anyone to understand how Wi-fi or broadcast radio works ... until they want to run one. At that point they have no excuse for their ignorance. This is particularly true when these are the very most basic facts about Wi-fi. They do not require expertise or specialized knowledge to understand. A few minutes reading a FAQ (freely accessible) would do the trick. If they can't be bothered with that, then they assume the risk. Using what you don't understand is risky behavior and it's reasonable to expect adults to understand that.
I defend neither Google nor the ignorant masses who run open Wi-fi networks without understanding what that means. Both are negligent. Neither is OK.
Believe it or not the most compassionate thing you can do with this kind of ignorance is to throw them under the bus. Let them face the full consequences of their negligence. Particularly for the end-users who insist on owning and operating what they do not understand, do not coddle them with laws intended to protect them from the results of their decisions. That's the very worst thing you can do to adults, though it (falsely) looks so nice and kind-hearted. That kind of phony "compassion" only encourages people to be helpless and irresponsible. That doesn't serve them; it's a tremendous disservice.
Hmmm, illegal acts like enabling people to find an available wireless connection without paying ATT or Verizon for it?
Yeah, shame on them how dare they enable people to connect to the internet without paying out the ass for it, just plain un-American!
I'm all for utilizing bandwidth in a cost-effective way. If ATT or Verizon don't like that, too bad for them. Having said that, if someone wants to share your connection (that you pay for, that your name is on) then why can't they ask you first? Seems like common courtesy to me. Then you can give them a password or encryption key and allow them as an authorized user.
It's reasonable to assume that those who don't show that kind of common courtesy are more likely to cause trouble.
Why would they even REMOTELY think this was a good idea? What's the point of Google collecting this kind of information
I think they proceed from the philosophy of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission". They are, after all, a corporation and therefore unlikely to suffer any penalty worse than a slap on the wrist. Individuals who might face real jail time tend to think it's easier to ask for permission than for forgiveness.
More and more I feel that people who are that paranoid and quick to believe conspiracies have an extrem form of narcism. They actually believe that the are important enough to worth that much effort. They think the world is out to get them in fact most the world doesn't even know they are here.
There is one glaring problem with that viewpoint. It may have been true back when tracking/spying on a particular target would have required special effort and dedication of manpower. It is no longer true now that surveillance, monitoring, and database technology has advanced to the point where monitoring everyone all of the time is becoming increasingly feasible and cost-effective.
For one narrow example, consider police. It used to be that if they wanted to track someone's whereabouts, they had to assign police officers to stake out a suspect and follow him/her around. That's expensive. There are only so many police officers. Dedicating a number of them to constantly track a particular individual had to be justified. That individual had to be exceptional and extraordinary to justify this cost, because that manpower could be put to much better use otherwise. Now it's both cost-effective and (recently) legally justifiable to simply install GPS tracking devices on citizens' vehicles. Now a computer can automatically perform that tracking and all it costs is a piece of mass-produced electronics that only becomes cheaper over time.
Far from narcissists, I am coming to believe that those you call "paranoid" are realists. In a previous era they may have been quaint and paranoid but these days they're among the few willing to face the implications of a hard truth.
I mean seriously. Do people really fall for these scams?
"A fool and his money are soon parted" -- Thomas Tusser.
It's as true today as when he said it back in the 1500s.