It was less than 2 years ago that the Linux kernel dropped official support for the 80386 chip in the "current" kernel. It's successor, the 80486, has been around since 1989.
Several versions of the Linux kernel that still support the 386 are still officially supported. See http://www.kernel.org/ for details.
If the feds had good quantum computers that could decrypt this stuff in a reasonable amount of time they wouldn't object to what Apple and Google are doing.
Unless it's a double-fakeout and they just want us to think they don't have good quantum computers.
How is this modded "Interesting"... there needs to be another label "Obvious"
* Sometimes the obvious needs to be repeated. * There should be two ways to mod "obvious": "-1 Thank you Captain Obvious..." and "+1 Obvious but worth repeating."
It's not that they lost their DMCA status completely, it's that some of their activities were not covered by the DMCA - enough to result in a judgment against them strong enough to possibly shut them down via injunctions and/or financial judgments that will drive them into bankruptcy.
Read the court ruling. I'll pull out one of several examples of "bad behavior" that led to the adverse ruling:
"Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that Escape employees illegally uploaded 1,800 additional files to Grooveshark. Moreover, as it did above, see supra at 30, the court finds that Escape streamed a copy of each of the illegally uploaded 1,800 files 21,000 times." (from page 30 of the PDF file)
... you can't afford to do anything that will give them a knockout blow.
How would things have turned out differently if the founders of Grooveshark had started off the way they started off - with some illegal uploading and other things - but instead of "carrying on" they closed down their operation then started a whole new "legally clean" one and make 100% certain that neither they nor their officers or employees ever did anything that would give the opposition any ammunition other than, of course, providing a neutral platform for end users to use their services.
Yes, the opposition could claim "willful blindness" regarding what their customers were doing but their lawyers could reasonably counter-claim that the DMCA specifically allows or even requires hosting providers to be "willfully blind" to infringement unless they receive a specific notification of a specific violation. Thanks to the "dirty hands" of the officers and management, the company will probably never get a judge to rule on that part of the case.
In 2009, IBM's US workforce was 105,000 out of 399,409 worldwide. (source: IBM stops disclosing U.S. headcount data, Patrick Thibodeau, Computerworld, Mar 12, 2010 6:00 AM PT)
IBM stopped releasing its US headcount in 2010, but I think it's safe to assume the US:World ratio is not much more than the 1:4 it was in 2009.
Connectivity and I/O features that aren't inherently necessary should be "hardware off" by default, and the end user should be made fully aware of any known or "it would be prudent to assume they are there" non-obvious risks of turning them on.
One of the best features an "Internet-enabled" thermostat can have is a hardware "Internet on/off" switch, along with hard-to-miss warning on the packaging that hooking your device up to the Internet has risks some of which are not yet known.
After reading such a warning, most consumers would (I hope) leave the "Internet" feature off except when they really needed it.
Another "nice feature" that all consumer-grade Internet devices that aren't designed to be on 24x7 should have is a "front-end gatekeeper." This "front end gatekeeper" should be an extremely simple device that did nothing more than turn on access to what is behind the gate for a specified period of time under specific conditions - basically, a very blunt "time lock" that opens when you present an valid credential then closes after a pre-determined time. This "front end gatekeeper" should not be programmable except at the console or over a dedicated (i.e. non-Internet) communications channel. This "front end gatekeeper" should be so simple that it can be mathematically proven to be bug-free provided that there are no hardware issues.
I can understand the "At some point, I'm going to stop trying to stay alive for the sake of staying alive" attitude.
I can't understand projecting a fixed age. He doesn't know what his health will be like at 75. If his health starts to rapidly decline at 70 or 65, he may want to change his health-care attitude earlier. If he's still in great shape at 75 he may try to stay alive as long as he's healthy or only suffering acute ailments.
As for me, I'm going to treat my body like an old car: Barring a sudden fatal or mentally-incapacitating calamity, I'll try to keep it running well enough to be "fully functional" until it gets to the point that "it's just not worth it" then I'll cut back on how much effort I spend staying alive. Whether that's 65, 75, 85, or some other age, $DIETY only knows.
The technology listed is not raid-proof, only raid-resistant.
It is still vulnerable to legal attack IF the governments in the countries where the servers are located are willing to use subpeonas or other means to "quietly" (i.e. without TPB finding out) determine what the next "downstream" server is until they have a full list, then do a coordinated takedown.
All it takes to stop this is to make sure that at least some key servers are in countries in which such court orders could not be legally issued.
The summary didn't say it, but I would think that after all that they have been through, TPB also has recent-enough "disconnected" backups of all of their key servers that they could bring it all back up within a matter of days if their servers were all seized at the same time. I would also think that they have a "shadow staff" who can take over in the event that the people currently running the show are arrested or ordered by a court to not participate in the project.
Nobody* requires you to back your phone up to the iCloud.
*Nobody that I can confirm that is. I can neither confirm nor deny that the FBI/NSA can require Apple or your phone/internet provider to install hidden code on your phone that backs everything up to iCloud.
... but I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing requests for courts to order phone/internet providers and/or Apple to install trojans and/or man-in-the-middle-enabling SSL certificates on suspects' phones.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to find out 5 years from now in a leak or declassified-in-2019 document that this is already routine practice in 2014.
Is it time for banks to start issuing "limited use" credit cards?
Personally, I would love to have: * A general use credit card # good for transactions up to $SMALL_AMOUNT_I_SET per transaction and $SMALL_AMOUNT_PER_DAY limit unless I specify otherwise in advance. This would be of limited value to a data thief. * A travel credit card # that is good only at $CERTAIN_TYPES_OF_BUSINESSES like airlines, hotels, gas stations, etc. and only for dollar amounts typical for the particular merchant unless I specify otherwise in advance. This would also be of limited value to a data thief. * An internet credit card # that is only good for goods delivered to pre-designated addresses and with a pre-set daily and weekly limit unless I specify otherwise in advance. Likewise, this would be of limited value to a data thief. * For merchants that have recurring charges, like my phone bill, a unique credit card # just for them, one that would be worthless to a data thief. * A relatively easy but secure (yeah yeah, it's a trade-off) way to pre-authorize short-term exceptions like buying a refrigerator or a large Christmas-shopping trip. Preferably this authorization would require two independent communications channels, such as me calling the bank and talking to a live human and/or entering a code number printed on my monthly statement prior to going online and making the authorization. * Alerts for any activity that is over any limit I set or otherwise meets any fraud-related parameter that I pre-set (some banks allow this today).
Please send me a bootable CD or other read-only media (i.e not a USB memory stick) that I can boot my computer with when I want to bank and a "password of the month" needed to log in in addition to my account name and password. To authenticate the CD, please create a signed hash for the CD and publish it in every major print newspaper in markets that you operate and publish the algorithm used to create the hash and the public key needed to verify the hash.
If I need to access my account remotely from a device that is not booted with that CD or from a machine that is not in a secure location such as one of your branches or a cooperating bank's branch or an ATM operated by an ATM operator that you trust, I will either visit a branch or log in to a secure terminal and retrieve a set of temporary one-time-use passwords that are valid only for a short period of time, only for transactions which I pre-designate, only for devices of specific types that I pre-designate (or "any" if I don't know ahead of time), and only for devices believed to be in certain geographic areas (i.e. where I will be traveling over the next few weeks). Thank you.
I agree in general but I disagree in two key areas:
* Internet and telephone access to the poor should be subsidized for the same reason we subsidize food, housing, and medicine for the poor: Because in practical terms they are essential to function in American society. However, as a "necessity" the average person only need enough instantaneous bandwidth to talk, email, and browse the web. In most cases "slow DSL" speeds of 0.5Mbps is adequate, and in almost all cases 2-3Mbps is more than enough. If a poor person can pay $20 for subsidize 10Mbps service that would be more expensive without the subsidy, he can pay 100% of a $20 bill for unsubsidized "entry level" service from his local ISP or smartphone network provider.
* In lightly populated remote areas that are currently not serviced and where running new wires or fiber is impractical and radio or satellite is the only option that's remotely cost-effective, I'm fine using my tax dollars to provide 1Mbps service or even 0.5Mbps service if the alternative is either no service at all or spending significantly more for a legally-mandated 10Mbps service. However, this is contingent on either the recipient being a full-time resident (sorry, not for summer vacation homes) or some other public benefit, such as providing internet to a public park or roadside rest area.
For technical jobs a tech degree with a non-tech minor is generally better than a pure tech degree, but a tech degree is generally better than a non-tech degree.
For non-technical jobs a non-tech major with a technical minor usually beats a pure-non-tech degree. As to whether that's better than a tech degree with a non-technical minor, well, there's too many variables to make a general statement one way or the other.
A good hiring manager would consider "equivalent life experience" paid or not (yes, serious/huge-time-commitment hobbies count) as good enough to substitute for the lack of any particular class or program of study.
Personally, I wish I had had the time and money to take a couple of business classes, a couple more humanities classes, and maybe a fine art class but my degree program was 9 semesters of almost-all-tech with just the university-minimum-requirements for non-tech stuff as it was and I didn't want to extend graduation nor did I want to increase my tuition bill.
It may affect the prosecution of those detained in the War on Terror too, if judges recognize illegally-obtained evidence and the subsequent evidence produced from it. That could well mean problems with interrogations, and given that this ruling cited a problem with military justice, there's a possibility that such rulings could apply to military tribunals too.
You are probably correct in cases where the cops aren't hiding things from the judge.
However, if one set of cops uses illegal means to find that a suspect did a crime then anonymously tips off another set of cops with enough information so that they could get a conviction if the tip had been given to them by someone outside the government then it's very unlikely that the shenanigans will ever be uncovered and it is very likely that the conviction will stand.
This "investigate once and ignore the rules, then do it again legally to cover our tracks" technique has a name but I can't remember it now.
Only the supreme court can act to affect the results of past laws on past actions..
Lower courts do it all the time.
Well, the president can grant a pardon, but that doesn't absolve guilt, it just removes punishment.
Legally speaking, an unconditional pardon removes guilt. Moral guilt doesn't even depend on getting caught, it only depends on some absolute standard of behavior to which a person's actual behavior can be measured against.
But the media is doing the damnedest effort to convince the people that if police accuse someone he is certainly guilty of something and it is a matter of digging deep and broad enough to nail him.
Not always.
Take that NFL football player who was indicted last week for child abuse. He's not contesting the facts of the case. The media isn't rushing out to tar him as a child abuser, they seem to be waiting for this one to play out in front of a jury. I wonder how the press will react if a Texas jury looks at the undisputed facts and declares that his actions did violate Texas's child-abuse laws. My bet is that a few press outlets will be calling for change but most will not.
On the other hand, if the NFL doesn't hold him accountable in accordance with whatever policy was in effect at the time of the actual acts then the press will tar and feather top NFL officials - an act doesn't have to violate a criminal law to be so socially unacceptable that organizations like the NFL cannot be seen to tolerate it.
2) Because it rightfully results in guilty people going free, actual victims may be denied justice.*
*For the sake of argument let's assume I'm talking about a crime where everyone agrees there is an actual victim e.g. burglary, assault, etc. - I acknowledge that at least a small percentage of/. readers (NOT including myself) may consider typical cases of possession or downloading child porn as being a victimless crimes, making this particular case less than ideal for supporting my argument that bad policing is bad for the 2nd reason stated above.
You can bet your $THINGOFVALUE here that the CIA and similar organizations are already researching this if they don't have it already.
Like handwriting recognition this will be full of examples of "bad output" in the early days and there will always be cases where lack of context and/or deliberate obfuscation by the speaker makes this unreliable.
Let's just assume that this will be as reliable 5 or 10 years from now as automated face recognition is today and within 20 years both will be very reliable. What do we do about it as a society? Do we pass laws and adopt social norms such that only "authorized" people can use this technology? Do we pass laws requiring that people be put on notice if their lips are being read by a computer without a court order or something similar? Do we become a society where people just expect that anything they say in public will be picked up and understood by a computer, likely in real-time?
I should have said 1080i, not 1080p. My point was, if both television programs (as seen by the viewer) take up so much bandwidth that there is not enough room for the other program to be at "maximum quality," then the other program will not be at "maximum quality" and the earlier editor's claim that channel-sharing (typically) results in a lower maximum-quality show (as displayed on the customer's screen) is true.
Also, of course the two companies must cooperate in a technical sense. I should have clarified that by "cooperate" I meant in a business sense, as in "okay, you want to transmit an HD program from 7-8PM on December 1 and you say that the nature of the program requires that you use minimal compression and you will need at least 15 Mbit/s of the available bandwidth? We already have plans to broadcast a show at 720p during that time slot. We can't both be on at the same time. How about you do your broadcast with some compression from 7-8PM then replay it after midnight with minimal compression when we are off the air?"
If the stations cooperate in this way and the viewer watches both the heavily-compressed and the lightly-compressed version of the 1080i show, there will almost certainly be perceptible differences in quality.
On the other hand, of the stations cannot cooperate, say, because the station that is not doing the 1080i program is airing 720p programming 24x7, then the viewer will be stuck with the lower-quality version.
Slashdot Mirror
It was less than 2 years ago that the Linux kernel dropped official support for the 80386 chip in the "current" kernel. It's successor, the 80486, has been around since 1989.
Several versions of the Linux kernel that still support the 386 are still officially supported. See http://www.kernel.org/ for details.
If the feds had good quantum computers that could decrypt this stuff in a reasonable amount of time they wouldn't object to what Apple and Google are doing.
Unless it's a double-fakeout and they just want us to think they don't have good quantum computers.
How is this modded "Interesting"... there needs to be another label "Obvious"
* Sometimes the obvious needs to be repeated.
* There should be two ways to mod "obvious": "-1 Thank you Captain Obvious..." and "+1 Obvious but worth repeating."
It's not that they lost their DMCA status completely, it's that some of their activities were not covered by the DMCA - enough to result in a judgment against them strong enough to possibly shut them down via injunctions and/or financial judgments that will drive them into bankruptcy.
Read the court ruling. I'll pull out one of several examples of "bad behavior" that led to the adverse ruling:
"Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that Escape employees illegally uploaded 1,800 additional files to Grooveshark.
Moreover, as it did above, see supra at 30, the court finds that Escape streamed a copy of each of the illegally uploaded 1,800 files 21,000 times." (from page 30 of the PDF file)
There are others.
... you can't afford to do anything that will give them a knockout blow.
How would things have turned out differently if the founders of Grooveshark had started off the way they started off - with some illegal uploading and other things - but instead of "carrying on" they closed down their operation then started a whole new "legally clean" one and make 100% certain that neither they nor their officers or employees ever did anything that would give the opposition any ammunition other than, of course, providing a neutral platform for end users to use their services.
Yes, the opposition could claim "willful blindness" regarding what their customers were doing but their lawyers could reasonably counter-claim that the DMCA specifically allows or even requires hosting providers to be "willfully blind" to infringement unless they receive a specific notification of a specific violation. Thanks to the "dirty hands" of the officers and management, the company will probably never get a judge to rule on that part of the case.
In 2009, IBM's US workforce was 105,000 out of 399,409 worldwide. (source: IBM stops disclosing U.S. headcount data, Patrick Thibodeau, Computerworld, Mar 12, 2010 6:00 AM PT)
IBM stopped releasing its US headcount in 2010, but I think it's safe to assume the US:World ratio is not much more than the 1:4 it was in 2009.
Connectivity and I/O features that aren't inherently necessary should be "hardware off" by default, and the end user should be made fully aware of any known or "it would be prudent to assume they are there" non-obvious risks of turning them on.
One of the best features an "Internet-enabled" thermostat can have is a hardware "Internet on/off" switch, along with hard-to-miss warning on the packaging that hooking your device up to the Internet has risks some of which are not yet known.
After reading such a warning, most consumers would (I hope) leave the "Internet" feature off except when they really needed it.
Another "nice feature" that all consumer-grade Internet devices that aren't designed to be on 24x7 should have is a "front-end gatekeeper." This "front end gatekeeper" should be an extremely simple device that did nothing more than turn on access to what is behind the gate for a specified period of time under specific conditions - basically, a very blunt "time lock" that opens when you present an valid credential then closes after a pre-determined time. This "front end gatekeeper" should not be programmable except at the console or over a dedicated (i.e. non-Internet) communications channel. This "front end gatekeeper" should be so simple that it can be mathematically proven to be bug-free provided that there are no hardware issues.
SkyOrbiter UAVs Could Fly For Years and Provide Global Internet Access
They should have called it Complete Internet Access. They should also clarify that there will be No Surveillance Allowed.
As for the name,
I can understand the "At some point, I'm going to stop trying to stay alive for the sake of staying alive" attitude.
I can't understand projecting a fixed age. He doesn't know what his health will be like at 75. If his health starts to rapidly decline at 70 or 65, he may want to change his health-care attitude earlier. If he's still in great shape at 75 he may try to stay alive as long as he's healthy or only suffering acute ailments.
As for me, I'm going to treat my body like an old car: Barring a sudden fatal or mentally-incapacitating calamity, I'll try to keep it running well enough to be "fully functional" until it gets to the point that "it's just not worth it" then I'll cut back on how much effort I spend staying alive. Whether that's 65, 75, 85, or some other age, $DIETY only knows.
The technology listed is not raid-proof, only raid-resistant.
It is still vulnerable to legal attack IF the governments in the countries where the servers are located are willing to use subpeonas or other means to "quietly" (i.e. without TPB finding out) determine what the next "downstream" server is until they have a full list, then do a coordinated takedown.
All it takes to stop this is to make sure that at least some key servers are in countries in which such court orders could not be legally issued.
The summary didn't say it, but I would think that after all that they have been through, TPB also has recent-enough "disconnected" backups of all of their key servers that they could bring it all back up within a matter of days if their servers were all seized at the same time. I would also think that they have a "shadow staff" who can take over in the event that the people currently running the show are arrested or ordered by a court to not participate in the project.
Nobody* requires you to back your phone up to the iCloud.
*Nobody that I can confirm that is. I can neither confirm nor deny that the FBI/NSA can require Apple or your phone/internet provider to install hidden code on your phone that backs everything up to iCloud.
... but I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing requests for courts to order phone/internet providers and/or Apple to install trojans and/or man-in-the-middle-enabling SSL certificates on suspects' phones.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to find out 5 years from now in a leak or declassified-in-2019 document that this is already routine practice in 2014.
Is it time for banks to start issuing "limited use" credit cards?
Personally, I would love to have:
* A general use credit card # good for transactions up to $SMALL_AMOUNT_I_SET per transaction and $SMALL_AMOUNT_PER_DAY limit unless I specify otherwise in advance. This would be of limited value to a data thief.
* A travel credit card # that is good only at $CERTAIN_TYPES_OF_BUSINESSES like airlines, hotels, gas stations, etc. and only for dollar amounts typical for the particular merchant unless I specify otherwise in advance. This would also be of limited value to a data thief.
* An internet credit card # that is only good for goods delivered to pre-designated addresses and with a pre-set daily and weekly limit unless I specify otherwise in advance. Likewise, this would be of limited value to a data thief.
* For merchants that have recurring charges, like my phone bill, a unique credit card # just for them, one that would be worthless to a data thief.
* A relatively easy but secure (yeah yeah, it's a trade-off) way to pre-authorize short-term exceptions like buying a refrigerator or a large Christmas-shopping trip. Preferably this authorization would require two independent communications channels, such as me calling the bank and talking to a live human and/or entering a code number printed on my monthly statement prior to going online and making the authorization.
* Alerts for any activity that is over any limit I set or otherwise meets any fraud-related parameter that I pre-set (some banks allow this today).
Dear bank:
Please send me a bootable CD or other read-only media (i.e not a USB memory stick) that I can boot my computer with when I want to bank and a "password of the month" needed to log in in addition to my account name and password. To authenticate the CD, please create a signed hash for the CD and publish it in every major print newspaper in markets that you operate and publish the algorithm used to create the hash and the public key needed to verify the hash.
If I need to access my account remotely from a device that is not booted with that CD or from a machine that is not in a secure location such as one of your branches or a cooperating bank's branch or an ATM operated by an ATM operator that you trust, I will either visit a branch or log in to a secure terminal and retrieve a set of temporary one-time-use passwords that are valid only for a short period of time, only for transactions which I pre-designate, only for devices of specific types that I pre-designate (or "any" if I don't know ahead of time), and only for devices believed to be in certain geographic areas (i.e. where I will be traveling over the next few weeks). Thank you.
It's getting to the point where I just want to do my banking in brick-and-mortar buildings.
I agree in general but I disagree in two key areas:
* Internet and telephone access to the poor should be subsidized for the same reason we subsidize food, housing, and medicine for the poor: Because in practical terms they are essential to function in American society. However, as a "necessity" the average person only need enough instantaneous bandwidth to talk, email, and browse the web. In most cases "slow DSL" speeds of 0.5Mbps is adequate, and in almost all cases 2-3Mbps is more than enough. If a poor person can pay $20 for subsidize 10Mbps service that would be more expensive without the subsidy, he can pay 100% of a $20 bill for unsubsidized "entry level" service from his local ISP or smartphone network provider.
* In lightly populated remote areas that are currently not serviced and where running new wires or fiber is impractical and radio or satellite is the only option that's remotely cost-effective, I'm fine using my tax dollars to provide 1Mbps service or even 0.5Mbps service if the alternative is either no service at all or spending significantly more for a legally-mandated 10Mbps service. However, this is contingent on either the recipient being a full-time resident (sorry, not for summer vacation homes) or some other public benefit, such as providing internet to a public park or roadside rest area.
You need math to aim your artillery.
For technical jobs a tech degree with a non-tech minor is generally better than a pure tech degree, but a tech degree is generally better than a non-tech degree.
For non-technical jobs a non-tech major with a technical minor usually beats a pure-non-tech degree. As to whether that's better than a tech degree with a non-technical minor, well, there's too many variables to make a general statement one way or the other.
A good hiring manager would consider "equivalent life experience" paid or not (yes, serious/huge-time-commitment hobbies count) as good enough to substitute for the lack of any particular class or program of study.
Personally, I wish I had had the time and money to take a couple of business classes, a couple more humanities classes, and maybe a fine art class but my degree program was 9 semesters of almost-all-tech with just the university-minimum-requirements for non-tech stuff as it was and I didn't want to extend graduation nor did I want to increase my tuition bill.
It may affect the prosecution of those detained in the War on Terror too, if judges recognize illegally-obtained evidence and the subsequent evidence produced from it. That could well mean problems with interrogations, and given that this ruling cited a problem with military justice, there's a possibility that such rulings could apply to military tribunals too.
You are probably correct in cases where the cops aren't hiding things from the judge.
However, if one set of cops uses illegal means to find that a suspect did a crime then anonymously tips off another set of cops with enough information so that they could get a conviction if the tip had been given to them by someone outside the government then it's very unlikely that the shenanigans will ever be uncovered and it is very likely that the conviction will stand.
This "investigate once and ignore the rules, then do it again legally to cover our tracks" technique has a name but I can't remember it now.
Only the supreme court can act to affect the results of past laws on past actions..
Lower courts do it all the time.
Well, the president can grant a pardon, but that doesn't absolve guilt, it just removes punishment.
Legally speaking, an unconditional pardon removes guilt. Moral guilt doesn't even depend on getting caught, it only depends on some absolute standard of behavior to which a person's actual behavior can be measured against.
But the media is doing the damnedest effort to convince the people that if police accuse someone he is certainly guilty of something and it is a matter of digging deep and broad enough to nail him.
Not always.
Take that NFL football player who was indicted last week for child abuse. He's not contesting the facts of the case. The media isn't rushing out to tar him as a child abuser, they seem to be waiting for this one to play out in front of a jury. I wonder how the press will react if a Texas jury looks at the undisputed facts and declares that his actions did violate Texas's child-abuse laws. My bet is that a few press outlets will be calling for change but most will not.
On the other hand, if the NFL doesn't hold him accountable in accordance with whatever policy was in effect at the time of the actual acts then the press will tar and feather top NFL officials - an act doesn't have to violate a criminal law to be so socially unacceptable that organizations like the NFL cannot be seen to tolerate it.
The "fuck the constitution" reality show.
You mean that show on C-SPAN that shows Congressional committee hearings and votes in Congress?
Not to be confused with the Federal Trade Commission reality show, also on on C-SPAN.
1) It denies innocent people their rights.
2) Because it rightfully results in guilty people going free, actual victims may be denied justice.*
*For the sake of argument let's assume I'm talking about a crime where everyone agrees there is an actual victim e.g. burglary, assault, etc. - I acknowledge that at least a small percentage of /. readers (NOT including myself) may consider typical cases of possession or downloading child porn as being a victimless crimes, making this particular case less than ideal for supporting my argument that bad policing is bad for the 2nd reason stated above.
You can bet your $THINGOFVALUE here that the CIA and similar organizations are already researching this if they don't have it already.
Like handwriting recognition this will be full of examples of "bad output" in the early days and there will always be cases where lack of context and/or deliberate obfuscation by the speaker makes this unreliable.
Let's just assume that this will be as reliable 5 or 10 years from now as automated face recognition is today and within 20 years both will be very reliable. What do we do about it as a society? Do we pass laws and adopt social norms such that only "authorized" people can use this technology? Do we pass laws requiring that people be put on notice if their lips are being read by a computer without a court order or something similar? Do we become a society where people just expect that anything they say in public will be picked up and understood by a computer, likely in real-time?
I should have said 1080i, not 1080p. My point was, if both television programs (as seen by the viewer) take up so much bandwidth that there is not enough room for the other program to be at "maximum quality," then the other program will not be at "maximum quality" and the earlier editor's claim that channel-sharing (typically) results in a lower maximum-quality show (as displayed on the customer's screen) is true.
Also, of course the two companies must cooperate in a technical sense. I should have clarified that by "cooperate" I meant in a business sense, as in "okay, you want to transmit an HD program from 7-8PM on December 1 and you say that the nature of the program requires that you use minimal compression and you will need at least 15 Mbit/s of the available bandwidth? We already have plans to broadcast a show at 720p during that time slot. We can't both be on at the same time. How about you do your broadcast with some compression from 7-8PM then replay it after midnight with minimal compression when we are off the air?"
If the stations cooperate in this way and the viewer watches both the heavily-compressed and the lightly-compressed version of the 1080i show, there will almost certainly be perceptible differences in quality.
On the other hand, of the stations cannot cooperate, say, because the station that is not doing the 1080i program is airing 720p programming 24x7, then the viewer will be stuck with the lower-quality version.