What a stupid and horrible idea. If you are driving and some road-rage idiot is after you -- you can't call for help? What about those stuck accelerator situations? What if you are speeding to the hospital with some badly injured person and need directions to the nearest hospital? I could go on and on. What a stupid idea!
Nope. The SSID database is not all that they did. They sniffed the data packets as well. As in: they got the MACs of the machines of the network, even hardwired machines, they also logged the contents of all the IP traffic, mDNS names, NMB names, etc.
Really? [Citation needed]
What is publicly broadcast is the SSID and MAC address of the AP only. (No "SSID database", no other MAC addresses.) Most wireless APs are set up to broadcast that information because that's how they operate. There is nothing illegal or even the slightest bit wrong with seeing what APs are near you -- and that means seeing their SSIDs and MAC addresses. That. Isn't. Illegal. Or. Even. Wrong.
The rest of your comment is pure speculation and highly unlikely. You make it sound like the Google car was parked outside these places, sucking down tons of data. I don't say what they did was a good idea, but it wasn't as you pretend. They changed channels five times a second. One fifth of a second is extremely unlikely to contain even a small snippet of the information you claim they obtained. Seriously, if you want to claim that Google did what you say they did, you are going to have to provide proof because what you are accusing them of is pretty much impossible.
Yeah, no. Google only sniffed unsecured access points. What part of "unsecured" (meaning no passwords) did you not understand? Also, according to the technical description: "we will typically have collected only fragments of payload data because: our cars are on the move; someone would need to be using the network as a car passed by; and our in-car WiFi equipment automatically changes channels roughly five times a second. In addition, we did not collect information traveling over secure, password-protected WiFi networks."
With changing channels roughly five times a second while moving, the actual amount of data captured from any one wireless AP would have been very tiny. That's not "password cracking" and the chance of capturing anything understandable would be almost nil.
While it was poorly thought out on Google's part, it wasn't, in most venues, illegal. This is not a good example for your "We no longer have the rule of law in the US" hyperbole.
And no, there isn't enough salt in 'food' (which covers a wide variety of things - more ignorance on your part) to supply all the salt a body needs. That's why mankind has sought supplemental sources throughout history.
Stop pretending knowledge when you are clueless. It doesn't work.
There is far, far, far enough naturally occurring salt in food to supply all the salt that a body needs without having to add any. Perhaps, to be clearer for those who take things too literally, I needed to avoid all foods with any salt added to whatever naturally was there to start with.
It isn't salt, it's too much salt. No one needs the huge levels of sodium chloride that is now added to most processed foods. It is there because it "tastes good" while making you want to eat more and more.
I had to give up salt completely some years ago and it took months before I regained my ability to taste unsalted food. Now, food without salt actually tastes much better that the over-salted crap served to us everywhere.
Yes, the body requires some sodium chloride but the amount is very small. What most people ingest is far, far beyond that. As with just about anything, too much will harm you.
And yet... the payroll tax, somehow, increased! It's magic!
I understand everyone is interested in avoiding blame for the let's-not-call-it-an-increase in the payroll tax. I understand a "decrease expired". I understand they "let it expire". I totally understand the whole tapdance. But, in the real world, the payroll tax went up and, in the real world it is perfectly accurate to describe a "went up" as an "increase".
I'm just greatly amused at the politics of insisting that payroll taxes going up by 2% is "NOT AN INCREASE!!!"
LOL! Payroll taxes were decreased, then... went up. But let's call the "went up" something other than "increase". Yeah, that's good. Words only mean what you say they mean.
And, before some brain-dead idiot accuses me of being a "stupid, ignorant Republicrat/Demublican", I'm only talking about words, not your personal ideology.
LOL! Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I never "denied" anything about "Climate Change". Ever. I never presented any anti-Climate Change facts because that isn't my position and wasn't my point.
Ah, never mind. I don't think you can accept the idea that just asking questions about AGW might not be a crime.
You are absolutely correct. I didn't ask questions. I should have written more accurately that "when anyone questions any part of the Climate Change theory, some people attack rather than answer..." or other like wording. Never mind, this thread has gone long past its "sell by" date.
Argh! The trouble with asking questions about global warming is that people assume you are promoting an anti-AGW agenda. The most common response to questions is the equivalent to "4 out of 5 'doctors' recommend...". How can you doubt with such numbers? Yeah, well, that's not answers. That's "trust us and shut up".
Just asking questions is, apparently, to align myself with "crackpots" and "junk science". Asking questions is unacceptable. If I want to avoid "looking stupid" I'd better just quietly accept what we're told and don't, ever, go looking for more information. Oh, the horror! I might run into "crackpots"! Obviously, if I'm the type of person who actually asks questions, I'm too stupid to recognize "crackpots" when I run into them.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me.
Annnnnd... I wasn't insulting you, I wasn't "defensive" NOR was I accusing you of insulting me. I used the exact same "trick" you did to make my point.
My problem is the active suppression of important questions because the questions are "unacceptable" to those who believe. There are legitimate questions that have not been answered but only "shouted down". That isn't science. Science is supposed to welcome questions, doubts and attempts to disprove the active theory. Politics, on the other hand, is all about shouting down your "enemies'" uncomfortable questions.
I don't have the answers, but I have questions. All I seem to hear is the Climate Change version of the old advertisement: "4 out of 5 'doctors' agree...".
Like I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't know how "settled" the AGW question is. These odd surveys and polls of "scientists" claiming to "prove" this and that seem so artificial and so obviously manipulated. Those things don't prove anything at all but seem to be what most people wave about as "proof". I'm handicapped simply because I'm not a climate scientist and have no access to the raw data.
Science will, eventually, prove out their theories about this. But, in the meantime, science, theoretically, welcomes questions, doubts and attempts to refute working theories. When I see "scientists" trying to silence questions, doubts or attempts to refute this theory, I wonder.
Our planet is massive and its climate is super complex. Do we understand everything that affects our climate with precision? Of course not. We have guesses and "computer models" that roughly simulate the climate. So far, the computer models of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s have completely failed to predict today's climate. New computer models (and faster computers) might be better, we certainly hope so, but that still remains to be seen.
You assert that most scientists working to refute the AGW theory are working for Big Oil -- which, of course, has a vested interest in that point of view. You neglect to mention that just about all scientists working to prove AGW are working for the governments -- which, very much, have a vested interest in proving AGW -- trillions are at stake.
Before you get upset, I'm not actually taking sides here. I want the truth to prevail and I don't want one side to be gagged while the One True View is railroaded through without the concerns, questions and doubts properly addressed. That isn't science, that's politics.
But you are right, the big question after all that is what can and should we do about it? That's very political and that scares me a lot.
I sincerely do not agree with or support either side of the Climate Change debate. I don't like politics and this debate is mostly politics. I disagree with the "Keep calm and carry on" message as well as the "Panic early and often" message.
Why panic when the predictions of immediate total disaster are very speculative and panic is never the proper response. Let's get all the data and map out workable solutions that don't neglect all (or make worse) the other major problems we have.
But I totally agree that we must not just ignore our problems and "just keep on". That's as stupid as panic.
There are better solutions than either "Panic" or "Ignore". I'm in favor of those kinds of solutions.
Did I insult you? Did I insult your mother? Are you a complete idiot? Do you think your response is "rational" and "reasoned" or did you engage in a typical response to legitimate questions with crass insults? Is your belief so frail that you can only respond with stupid insults?
Are you trying to be so very, very clever by framing your ignorant insults as questions? (See what I did there?)
I don't know, because I'm not a climatologist, but I see too much politics (on all sides) and too many attempts to suppress legitimate questions because this debate is about political positions -- science has been superceded by belief.
I see people pushing their agendas, which are all about control. The messages are "Disaster! Panic! Panic early and often! Give us control and we will save you or you will die!" vs. "Don't do anything, everything is fine, leave us in control and shut up."
I don't trust or support either side.
Humans have significantly screwed up our planet -- and continue to do so. We need to stop screwing it up and start healing it. But neither the "Keep calm" nor the "Panic! Panic!" crowd are proposing good, comprehensive, solutions.
The Climate "Change" solution comes down to "Give us control over CO2 of the largest nations (except China)." China and a number of "3rd world" countries are now the largest producers of CO2 -- but ignore that, and give us control of the economies of the largest nations -- for your own good, of course. Yes, because of all the 3rd world countries now becoming industrialized, CO2 will continue to increase -- but don't think about that, just give us control.
What about all the other problems that we used to be concerned with? Landfills, air and water pollution, chemical pollution, etc? No, take our attention off of all those other "unimportant" problems and just think about CO2 -- and give us control.
It's either "Panic early and panic often." or "Don't worry, be happy."
Yes, and calling all science that doesn't agree with your views "dubious research" is not science. Science is supposed to doubt, question and attempt to disprove the current theories. Ah, but we aren't talking about science here, we're talking about politics and "molding public opinion" aren't we?
You are confusing those who believe there is global warming, which is a high number, with those who believe the primary cause of warming is human activities, which is less.
But then that is a common confusion. "Climate Change" fanatics work very hard to muddy this distinction.
Excellent! You are equating any debate, any questions, any doubt about any of the "Climate Change" dogma with religious fundamentalists' religious beliefs. Wonderful! That takes care of that. No more debate.
It is significant that you compare the religion of Climate Change to other religious beliefs. That is appropriate.
However, if you want to abandon religious debate between the religion of "Climate Change" and the religion of the Bible -- and accept scientific debate, you'll have to stop your silly rhetoric and stick to actual discussions.
There is actual debate here, as much as the "Climate Change" religion forbids it. Let's stop using the silly "Climate Change" phrase. The climate is always changing, has always changed and will always change. No one will be able to "stop climate change". That's a very ignorant "goal".
Is the climate getting warmer? Probably. It appears that most scientists who study climatology think so.
Do humans impact their environment? Obviously so. Should the harm that humans do to the environment be mitigated and, hopefully, corrected? Obviously.
Are human beings the primary and most significant factor in the climate warming up? I don't think anyone has proven that. The Climate Change religion states that this is so but climatology scientists don't have nearly as much certainty.
What is the most significant factor in the climate of the Earth? The sun. The problem is that the sun has so much influence that it is difficult to factor in the other influences. This is why the debate is far from over.
To me "Climate Change" is just a ploy for political control. Until it has been definitively proven what are all the factors of global warming and then, any proposed mitigation steps have been proven to work it is silly to panic and give political control over to the Climate Change religious zealots.
Yes. The problem with all of this is that those who promote the dogma of "Climate Change" are demanding that we do something. More, they are demanding that they be given the power (and money) to do something when we are still debating the causes.
You can't just go on and do something until you know the causes and then the workable remedies involved. Just doing "something" is very likely to cause only harm since the "something" will be politically, rather than scientifically, motivated.
The scientific community knows that climate change is real and that human activity is to blame.
That is a political statement, not a scientific statement. Obviously "climate change is real". The climate has always changed and will always change. We can't stop the climate from changing. But you mean "climate warming". An acurate statement might be more along the lines of "There is a majority consensus amongst scientists who study climatology that the climate appears to becoming warmer." That would be more like a scientific statement.
It is my understanding that there is less scientific consensus as to how much human activity is a factor. Obviously, to my mind, humans do have an impact on the environment. How much is very much open to debate (not politically, but scientifically).
The desire to shut down debate and suppress opposition is a political motivation. Science, theoretically, welcomes and encourages questions, disagreement and efforts to disprove the prevailing assumptions. Politics, not so much.
Funding should only come from a neutral side - if the rich want to fund more they can donate funds to that neutral side.
And, of course, only you and those who agree with you get to choose the definition of "neutral".
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true.
LOL! No it doesn't. This is a classic redefinition of "free speech" -- if what a person says is "true" (as defined by you), then they are free to speak. All others are "falsifying information" and must be prevented from speaking -- for the good of the people, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
So you think the app is a good idea?
What a stupid and horrible idea. If you are driving and some road-rage idiot is after you -- you can't call for help? What about those stuck accelerator situations? What if you are speeding to the hospital with some badly injured person and need directions to the nearest hospital? I could go on and on. What a stupid idea!
That is not "password cracking".
Nope. The SSID database is not all that they did. They sniffed the data packets as well. As in: they got the MACs of the machines of the network, even hardwired machines, they also logged the contents of all the IP traffic, mDNS names, NMB names, etc.
Really? [Citation needed]
What is publicly broadcast is the SSID and MAC address of the AP only. (No "SSID database", no other MAC addresses.) Most wireless APs are set up to broadcast that information because that's how they operate. There is nothing illegal or even the slightest bit wrong with seeing what APs are near you -- and that means seeing their SSIDs and MAC addresses. That. Isn't. Illegal. Or. Even. Wrong.
The rest of your comment is pure speculation and highly unlikely. You make it sound like the Google car was parked outside these places, sucking down tons of data. I don't say what they did was a good idea, but it wasn't as you pretend. They changed channels five times a second. One fifth of a second is extremely unlikely to contain even a small snippet of the information you claim they obtained. Seriously, if you want to claim that Google did what you say they did, you are going to have to provide proof because what you are accusing them of is pretty much impossible.
How can password cracking be an accident?
Yeah, no. Google only sniffed unsecured access points. What part of "unsecured" (meaning no passwords) did you not understand? Also, according to the technical description: "we will typically have collected only fragments of payload data because: our cars are on the move; someone would need to be using the network as a car passed by; and our in-car WiFi equipment automatically changes channels roughly five times a second. In addition, we did not collect information traveling over secure, password-protected WiFi networks."
With changing channels roughly five times a second while moving, the actual amount of data captured from any one wireless AP would have been very tiny. That's not "password cracking" and the chance of capturing anything understandable would be almost nil.
While it was poorly thought out on Google's part, it wasn't, in most venues, illegal. This is not a good example for your "We no longer have the rule of law in the US" hyperbole.
And no, there isn't enough salt in 'food' (which covers a wide variety of things - more ignorance on your part) to supply all the salt a body needs. That's why mankind has sought supplemental sources throughout history.
Stop pretending knowledge when you are clueless. It doesn't work.
*sigh*
There is far, far, far enough naturally occurring salt in food to supply all the salt that a body needs without having to add any. Perhaps, to be clearer for those who take things too literally, I needed to avoid all foods with any salt added to whatever naturally was there to start with.
It isn't salt, it's too much salt. No one needs the huge levels of sodium chloride that is now added to most processed foods. It is there because it "tastes good" while making you want to eat more and more.
I had to give up salt completely some years ago and it took months before I regained my ability to taste unsalted food. Now, food without salt actually tastes much better that the over-salted crap served to us everywhere.
Yes, the body requires some sodium chloride but the amount is very small. What most people ingest is far, far beyond that. As with just about anything, too much will harm you.
And yet... the payroll tax, somehow, increased! It's magic!
I understand everyone is interested in avoiding blame for the let's-not-call-it-an-increase in the payroll tax. I understand a "decrease expired". I understand they "let it expire". I totally understand the whole tapdance. But, in the real world, the payroll tax went up and, in the real world it is perfectly accurate to describe a "went up" as an "increase".
I'm just greatly amused at the politics of insisting that payroll taxes going up by 2% is " NOT AN INCREASE!!!"
OK, continue with the tapdance.
LOL! Payroll taxes were decreased, then ... went up. But let's call the "went up" something other than "increase". Yeah, that's good. Words only mean what you say they mean.
And, before some brain-dead idiot accuses me of being a "stupid, ignorant Republicrat/Demublican", I'm only talking about words, not your personal ideology.
Sorry, couldn't find not evil on the ballot.
LOL! Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I never "denied" anything about "Climate Change". Ever. I never presented any anti-Climate Change facts because that isn't my position and wasn't my point.
Ah, never mind. I don't think you can accept the idea that just asking questions about AGW might not be a crime.
You are absolutely correct. I didn't ask questions. I should have written more accurately that "when anyone questions any part of the Climate Change theory, some people attack rather than answer..." or other like wording. Never mind, this thread has gone long past its "sell by" date.
Argh! The trouble with asking questions about global warming is that people assume you are promoting an anti-AGW agenda. The most common response to questions is the equivalent to "4 out of 5 'doctors' recommend...". How can you doubt with such numbers? Yeah, well, that's not answers. That's "trust us and shut up".
Just asking questions is, apparently, to align myself with "crackpots" and "junk science". Asking questions is unacceptable. If I want to avoid "looking stupid" I'd better just quietly accept what we're told and don't, ever, go looking for more information. Oh, the horror! I might run into "crackpots"! Obviously, if I'm the type of person who actually asks questions, I'm too stupid to recognize "crackpots" when I run into them.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me.
Annnnnd... I wasn't insulting you, I wasn't "defensive" NOR was I accusing you of insulting me. I used the exact same "trick" you did to make my point.
My problem is the active suppression of important questions because the questions are "unacceptable" to those who believe. There are legitimate questions that have not been answered but only "shouted down". That isn't science. Science is supposed to welcome questions, doubts and attempts to disprove the active theory. Politics, on the other hand, is all about shouting down your "enemies'" uncomfortable questions.
I don't have the answers, but I have questions. All I seem to hear is the Climate Change version of the old advertisement: "4 out of 5 'doctors' agree...".
Like I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't know how "settled" the AGW question is. These odd surveys and polls of "scientists" claiming to "prove" this and that seem so artificial and so obviously manipulated. Those things don't prove anything at all but seem to be what most people wave about as "proof". I'm handicapped simply because I'm not a climate scientist and have no access to the raw data.
Science will, eventually, prove out their theories about this. But, in the meantime, science, theoretically, welcomes questions, doubts and attempts to refute working theories. When I see "scientists" trying to silence questions, doubts or attempts to refute this theory, I wonder.
Our planet is massive and its climate is super complex. Do we understand everything that affects our climate with precision? Of course not. We have guesses and "computer models" that roughly simulate the climate. So far, the computer models of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s have completely failed to predict today's climate. New computer models (and faster computers) might be better, we certainly hope so, but that still remains to be seen.
You assert that most scientists working to refute the AGW theory are working for Big Oil -- which, of course, has a vested interest in that point of view. You neglect to mention that just about all scientists working to prove AGW are working for the governments -- which, very much, have a vested interest in proving AGW -- trillions are at stake.
Before you get upset, I'm not actually taking sides here. I want the truth to prevail and I don't want one side to be gagged while the One True View is railroaded through without the concerns, questions and doubts properly addressed. That isn't science, that's politics.
But you are right, the big question after all that is what can and should we do about it? That's very political and that scares me a lot.
I sincerely do not agree with or support either side of the Climate Change debate. I don't like politics and this debate is mostly politics. I disagree with the "Keep calm and carry on" message as well as the "Panic early and often" message.
Why panic when the predictions of immediate total disaster are very speculative and panic is never the proper response. Let's get all the data and map out workable solutions that don't neglect all (or make worse) the other major problems we have.
But I totally agree that we must not just ignore our problems and "just keep on". That's as stupid as panic.
There are better solutions than either "Panic" or "Ignore". I'm in favor of those kinds of solutions.
Did I insult you? Did I insult your mother? Are you a complete idiot? Do you think your response is "rational" and "reasoned" or did you engage in a typical response to legitimate questions with crass insults? Is your belief so frail that you can only respond with stupid insults?
Are you trying to be so very, very clever by framing your ignorant insults as questions? (See what I did there?)
I don't know, because I'm not a climatologist, but I see too much politics (on all sides) and too many attempts to suppress legitimate questions because this debate is about political positions -- science has been superceded by belief.
I see people pushing their agendas, which are all about control. The messages are "Disaster! Panic! Panic early and often! Give us control and we will save you or you will die!" vs. "Don't do anything, everything is fine, leave us in control and shut up."
I don't trust or support either side.
Humans have significantly screwed up our planet -- and continue to do so. We need to stop screwing it up and start healing it. But neither the "Keep calm" nor the "Panic! Panic!" crowd are proposing good, comprehensive, solutions.
The Climate "Change" solution comes down to "Give us control over CO2 of the largest nations (except China)." China and a number of "3rd world" countries are now the largest producers of CO2 -- but ignore that, and give us control of the economies of the largest nations -- for your own good, of course. Yes, because of all the 3rd world countries now becoming industrialized, CO2 will continue to increase -- but don't think about that, just give us control.
What about all the other problems that we used to be concerned with? Landfills, air and water pollution, chemical pollution, etc? No, take our attention off of all those other "unimportant" problems and just think about CO2 -- and give us control.
It's either "Panic early and panic often." or "Don't worry, be happy."
Yes, and calling all science that doesn't agree with your views "dubious research" is not science. Science is supposed to doubt, question and attempt to disprove the current theories. Ah, but we aren't talking about science here, we're talking about politics and "molding public opinion" aren't we?
You are confusing those who believe there is global warming, which is a high number, with those who believe the primary cause of warming is human activities, which is less.
But then that is a common confusion. "Climate Change" fanatics work very hard to muddy this distinction.
Excellent! You are equating any debate, any questions, any doubt about any of the "Climate Change" dogma with religious fundamentalists' religious beliefs. Wonderful! That takes care of that. No more debate.
It is significant that you compare the religion of Climate Change to other religious beliefs. That is appropriate.
However, if you want to abandon religious debate between the religion of "Climate Change" and the religion of the Bible -- and accept scientific debate, you'll have to stop your silly rhetoric and stick to actual discussions.
There is actual debate here, as much as the "Climate Change" religion forbids it. Let's stop using the silly "Climate Change" phrase. The climate is always changing, has always changed and will always change. No one will be able to "stop climate change". That's a very ignorant "goal".
Is the climate getting warmer? Probably. It appears that most scientists who study climatology think so.
Do humans impact their environment? Obviously so. Should the harm that humans do to the environment be mitigated and, hopefully, corrected? Obviously.
Are human beings the primary and most significant factor in the climate warming up? I don't think anyone has proven that. The Climate Change religion states that this is so but climatology scientists don't have nearly as much certainty.
What is the most significant factor in the climate of the Earth? The sun. The problem is that the sun has so much influence that it is difficult to factor in the other influences. This is why the debate is far from over.
To me "Climate Change" is just a ploy for political control. Until it has been definitively proven what are all the factors of global warming and then, any proposed mitigation steps have been proven to work it is silly to panic and give political control over to the Climate Change religious zealots.
Yes. The problem with all of this is that those who promote the dogma of "Climate Change" are demanding that we do something. More, they are demanding that they be given the power (and money) to do something when we are still debating the causes.
You can't just go on and do something until you know the causes and then the workable remedies involved. Just doing "something" is very likely to cause only harm since the "something" will be politically, rather than scientifically, motivated.
The scientific community knows that climate change is real and that human activity is to blame.
That is a political statement, not a scientific statement. Obviously "climate change is real". The climate has always changed and will always change. We can't stop the climate from changing. But you mean "climate warming". An acurate statement might be more along the lines of "There is a majority consensus amongst scientists who study climatology that the climate appears to becoming warmer." That would be more like a scientific statement.
It is my understanding that there is less scientific consensus as to how much human activity is a factor. Obviously, to my mind, humans do have an impact on the environment. How much is very much open to debate (not politically, but scientifically).
The desire to shut down debate and suppress opposition is a political motivation. Science, theoretically, welcomes and encourages questions, disagreement and efforts to disprove the prevailing assumptions. Politics, not so much.
Funding should only come from a neutral side - if the rich want to fund more they can donate funds to that neutral side.
And, of course, only you and those who agree with you get to choose the definition of "neutral".
Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true.
LOL! No it doesn't. This is a classic redefinition of "free speech" -- if what a person says is "true" (as defined by you), then they are free to speak. All others are "falsifying information" and must be prevented from speaking -- for the good of the people, of course.