Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something?
Of course I see the difference. And nobody disagrees with you that a random search is a problem. But nobody here (except you) is talking about random searches.
Those were made illegal for good reasons. Those should be illegal now and in the future too for the same good reasons. We all agree on that.
The issue here is the *warranted search*. Up until now, if the police got a warrant they COULD search your papers/diary etc. Now EVEN with a warrant they can't do that. And that is a "problem" of sorts.
Self-incrimination would be EVEN MORE prevalent in raw thoughts as opposed to vocalizing.
Retreiving your password via a non-invasive mind probe is no different in terms of its function as evidence than a DNA test.
It even avoids the issues with imagined crimes, and fantasy crimes, and misremembered events, vs real ones etc, because its a simple fact.
If the password they read out of your mind unlocks your phone, then they are into your phone. And the evidence there is no different from any other evidence. If such a technology existed, I suspect it would be allowable, at least for the limited use of simply reading a password.
I expect it would and should continue to be illegal to go fishing for "thoughts about committing crimes" or "general dissatisfaction with government"... but even then, if they could extract, for example, a set of specific details about a murder that only the murderer would know, that could theoretically add to the evidence against you, too. I think.
The fact remains that if you are suspected of treason, due to circumstantial evidence, and a hair found at a known drop site -- and they use that to get a warrant to search your home, where they find your diary in a safe, listing your intelligence leaking, along with papers containing intelligence you were planning to leak.
The 4th and 5th amendments are not designed to protect you from prosecution in that scenario.
Law enforcement has been legitimately allowed to search your property for evidence of a particular crime.
Encryption currently can block that search, so that even WITH a LEGITIMATE warrant they can't get at that evidence. They can get a warrant to search you, recover your laptop, and then not be able to break into it to get at the information inside.
Historically they've always been able to break into any safe. The bill of rights, 4th, 5th amendments etc have never protected anyone from this sort of legitimate investigation, and never were intended to.
The digital age has given us un-crackable safes, and law enforcement is struggling to figure how to deal with that.
My guess is in the days before the WW2, they would have had difficulty in breaking ciphers too.
They didn't usually need to break them if they could get a warrant to search the space you kept the key.
THAT is what has changed. Up until now, sure they might not be able to simply "break" the encryption easily simply when presented with encrypted materials, but law enforcement could always get the keys with a warrant if they knew where you kept them.
Remember this is *law enforcement* not international espionage. Law enforcement historically had the means to break any criminal's use of 'encryption', because they could always, at least in theory, obtain the keys through regular police work. The codebook, or cipher, or one time pads, etc were always there somewhere. And they could search a suspects home to find the safe hidden under the carpet with a warrant, and then drill it open with a warrant.
In the digital age, they (reasonably and legitimately) still want the ability to get into the safe. The trouble is nobody makes a drill that get in before the universe expires.
If unobtanioum impervium had been discovered and safes constructed from it literally could not be opened, law enforcement would be in the same tizzy. There would be these "safes" that they could get their hands on but couldn't open.
Especially if these safes were cheap to build or buy, and people could synthesize unobtanium impervium from common household supplies.
This is a war on your ability to have secrets from the government they're not allowed to access by going to a third party
Its not "a third party" its "any party at all".
Other than the contents of one's own mind, we've never actually had that ability until recently.
The very best you could do was put your one time pad in a safe which they could open with a warrant and several hours with a drill.
Digital didn't take away your ability, it actually for the first time, gave us something new... places to put secrets that COULDN'T be easily broken into by law enforcement. This is new for them.
Of course the idiots out there are proposing nonsense like backdoors, or banning encryption etc which are never going to end well if they came to pass. But the adults in the room should be able to have a real conversation about it. Do we treat the contents of securely encrypted systems as an extension of the mind, and vastly increase the total amount of data that is effectively untouchable to law enforcement short of coercion/torture (which is itself illegal).
And on the flip side, what happens if they develop a method of pulling secrets directly from your mind that isn't invasive/destructive. Will that suddenly create a situation where they can get a warrant for the contents of your mind? The 5th amendment is a pragmatic one, you have the right not to testify because they can't make you talk short of torture... but what if they could simply read your mind remotely? And pluck your passwords out. Sci-fi / fantasy? Maybe. Maybe not.
Another possible future is the augmentation of the mind itself directly... imagine an SSD for the brain, *IN THE BRAIN*. What would the legal status of that be in terms of warrant access?
Only because of the rise of large screen smart phones.
. People want computers with power, or they don't want computers much at all.
True to a point, but the bulk of the web isn't aimed for them, its aimed for...
The latter wants an appliance anyway and your argument is moot for them.
The bulk of the web is aimed at them, if the bulk of the web can get them locked down enough, it doesn't need to lock down the open PC, it can just block them out unless they run an approved ad-friendly app to connect. Because the web can ignore the PC if its the minority... and like or not, the people who need computers and not just appliances are in the minority.
There will be resources for PC users, by PC users, for resources for Open/Free/OSS/whatever advocates by Open/Free/OSS/whatever advocates but the mainsteam web... for better or for worse will be made for people with locked down tablets, and they'll care if you can connect with a "PC" then about as much as they care if you can connect from Linux today.
Thanks, I was crunching the numbers in my head, and I was heading to the same conclusion you detailed.
That said, I think batteries become viable, if not today, maybe soon:
[...] a research team at the University of Tokyo School of Engineering has announced a new lithium ion battery [...] energy density â" at 2,570 watt-hours per kilogram [...]
This is a couple years old...but its clear the tech is moving forward.
Obviously stability/reliability, production scalability, and cost are all obstacles. But 2570 w-h/kg is almost 10MJ/kg which changes the viability substantially.
Your point about jet fuel expenditure being front loaded on the trip... I read somewhere that the most fuel efficient flight for a jet is around 4300 miles. It seems that an alternate fuel for short hops could make sense.
Fossil fuels are great, and there's no reason to stop using them anytime soon; I am not anti fossil fuels.
But unless we find a way of producing it cheaply we do need to move on eventually. Growing crops to turn into fuel, it amounts to an *extremely* inefficient solar solution (months of solar collected in the form of plant biomass) which then has to be processed into fuel... better perhaps to take those fields grow food in them, and throw up panels in the deserts to charge batteries.
As for your comments about the charging issues, I imagine a battery swap solution being viable for fleets of aircraft.
For a typical airplane, though, increasing the weight of the energy source by 10x guarantees that it will never leave the ground: at take-off the jet fuel powered version is already 25-60% fuel by mass; increasing this by 10x would increase the total mass of the plane by 3-6x.
Does hold that true even for short hops? Paris to Madrid? London to Frankfurt? LA to Vegas? Sydney to Melbourne?
Sure a plane with an 8000 NM range is 50%+ fuel by weight... but most european continental flights are under 500 miles.
How fast you can charge the plan is going to be a limiting factor.
Airports would potentially be the sort of scenario where exchanging the batteries themselves between flights might be feasible. Aircraft fleets are lot more standardized/standardizable than the consumer auto market.
No. They already know 11 months in advance, that they will do a bug-fix fix only release a week before the christmas/new years holiday season; when everyone takes off for a few weeks.
They will not release anything major that release. And they will make it a short cycle (5 weeks) because by the next week, the 20th of December, people will already be taking off.
Well, cars stay on the ground. Weight isn't nearly as big of a deal for cars as it is for planes.
Fuel / energy to weight ratio defines the range in a car as much as a plane.
And yes, a fully loaded trans-pacific jet is half fuel by weight, so a less dense energy storage becomes a big issue, the jet would weight 20x as much if it were battery powered... and that's before counting the energy need to move those batteries so those batteries would themselves need more batteries because of the weight they added... so it just doesn't work.
But what percentage of the weight is fuel from LA to Vegas or LA to Palm Springs? Maybe it does work.
You can recharge/refuel more frequently with an electric car. A bit hard to land and recharge in the middle of the Atlantic ocean
Lots of flights are between New York and Chicago, LA and Las Vegas, Miami and New York, Seattle and LA... their is no necessity that that electrics have to do trans-pacific runs before we can start using them.
o you need a lot more fuel proportionally, so its efficiency matters more for planes.
I can see that it matters more. I'm not sure its nearly as far away as you suggest. Even if a plane needs some a lot of extra weight in batteries than it would in fuel, if its cheaper to recharge / swap batteries than buy jet fuel then it becomes practical.
Especially for short hops. For example, LA to Vegas.
For example, a restaurant owner is known to be rude and cruel to his employees.
And if the threshold of proving that, is "some guy said it on facebook" or "some 20 second clip posted to youtube" well, this sort of vigilantism will never miss its target and destroy a completely innocent person.
United social power can be a real scum squasher.
Yes, mobs are well known for their rational considered responses to situations. Wait...
He said he turned off all options that appeared. e.g. he did what a human being without specialized knowledge of Windows group policy would have done.
Precisely. And the article summary that got posted to slashdot, what does THAT say? That even with all telemetry turned off that windows 10 was phoning home left and right. That's not even slightly accurate, is it? And that's not acceptable either.
He left windows update running on a fresh install, and a shit pile of network activity happened as he monitored the next 8 hours after a fresh install.
Holy crap... call the papers! Lets collectively lose our shit!
Why is this acceptable?
Its not acceptable. Windows should give users more control. But that's not the point.
The point is that this isn't a list of 90+ ip addresses that were "surreptitiously contacted" after all telemetry was turned off. Telemetry wasn't turned off. Windows updates wasn't turned off. The internet connectivity check was running, the internet time sync was running, etc...
This is as ridiculous as cataloging all the bacteria on your body after taking a shower, and then losing your shit that the shower utterly failed to get you clean. The shower did what it was supposed to do; it's not defective. And half the bacteria that you cataloged was gut bacteria that should be there. And you didn't separate any of that out.
If I read the actual article correctly, it was just a Vanilla install of Windows 10 enterprise. There was no active attempt to disable or block any of the actual telemetry features at all. He did go through the customized install and turned off the 'cloud/personalization/sync options there', but that's it.
The actual telemetry features would still have been on.
Not to mention all the usual windows features that phone home:
Everything from windows update, to time sync, to the regular ping it does to see if you have internet connectivity would have still been on.
I'm guessing all the live tiles in his start menu were still on too, so they'd have been pulling ads and updates, etc.
Seriously... it's an interesting exercise and an interesting article about what one's computer is doing. But it doesn't show what anybody here is really concluding.
They make the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks. They make a version without. You can use either version.
But that doesn't satisfy; you want to use the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks, but now you demand to have them build a back door for you to use.
And then they say... that back door reduces the security for anyone who uses the product. It increases the attack surface of the product.
And then you say, but any one who opens the backdoor needs a level of access that would also allow them to drive a bulldozer through the brick windows. So give me a back door.
And then they say... sure, your right, if they have that much access they can drive a bulldozer through the windows... but that still doesn't mean it makes sense to increase the attack surface.
Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.
I read it, and meant is as a 50/50 shot. Half never lift a finger against us, and we lose track of half them as they disappear into the Pakistan mountains and rejoin the Taliban, or al Quaida, or whatever group they originated with.
With the implication that even those we lose track of that do rejoin the Taliban or alQuaida or whatever will not pose a threat to the US. Because if they ever did anything even slightly high profile we'd see them, because we're on the watch for them. So they can go train militia or carry supplies around in the mountains somewhere in Pakistan, and that's fine. It may be 'against us' but its not and never will be a real threat to the USA.
You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.
Let me try to explain.
The unconditional release stems from US taking prisoners and then categorizing them ON PURPOSE to put them into a legal limbo, and then torturing them using further loopholes and legal murkiness, and denying them any protection under the Geneva convention. And that's the reason they should be simply released. Because WE fucked up. We could have done better.
The reality is they are prisoners of war [...] which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.
Then they should have been treated at the very least as POWs.
The reason I call for unconditional release and deportation, is that we really fucked up as a country here. They should have been afforded the legal status and protections of POWs. Morally, we should undo this by simply sending them back home. In the same way that we release a known criminal that we captured with tainted illegal evidence. We know they are bad, but we are a nation of morals and laws. They may well pose some minor ongoing threat to the US and its persons... but so be it. Maybe we'll get them next time. Maybe someone will die first. But that is the price of the moral high ground. That is the price of freedom. That is the price for being a nation of law. We don't get to be completely safe all the time.
And they aren't so supremely dangerous that it justifies perpetuating our mistake. IF they actually and legitimately posed an existential threat to the country then yes, releasing them would not be a viable solution. I would not destroy the nation to make a moral point. But there is simply nothing they can do that is so great a threat that it is worth perpetuating this farce to continue to hold them. And if they play some small part in some small bomb in some possible future scenario... so be it. I'm sure we'll do our best to prevent exactly that; we know who they are and we'll be watching them.
In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way.
In the future, we should categorize them as captured civilians or captured POWs and treat them accordingly; rather than invent shameful legal black holes and then drop them into an oubliette to be forgotten.
But its like arguing that there's no reason not lock the front door when you go out if there's a window that doesn't lock properly and that people could climb through.
. There are some very legitimate reasons for this such as: Changing your call back number to a toll-free number, and maintaining the original calling number on forwarded calls.
It should be pretty trivial to develop a system where the carrier can verify that the spoofed ID is in fact a legitimate number tied to the calling organization.
It should be even more trivial to develop a system where the callerid spoofed on my handset can be reported to the carrier, with the time of the call, and they can immediately determine where the call REALLY came from, and report that to me, to the police... to whomever.
Your door handle freezes up, you take it to a little shop who fixes it with an aftermarket part.
A few weeks later your car pushes an OTA update and bricks the entire car on you.
No problem, your fault or the fault of the shop. One should always be required to use OEM parts at the dealership when making any repairs or risk having your car remotely disabled at the whim of the manufacturer... on purpose or otherwise?
We USED to demand that this sort of shit be illegal. Now you seem to accept it as something we should expect.
As many as 30 percent of the nearly 600 released Gitmo inmates started fighting again.
And you would use that to justify keeping the other 70% in prison forever? Really? How sick are you?
Meanwhile, I never said NONE of them would rejoin the fight against the US, i said they'd disappear into the caves (with the implication that they would rejoin their movements). Perhaps i was wrong that we'd lose track of them... if we actually know where most of them are: great... that's another win for us. All kinds of useful intel as we track their movements, contacts, and communications, right?
What I said was ridiculous was that they'd pose an existential threat to the united states. And that remains ridiculous. Has the United States fallen? Are we on the verge of collapse thanks to those released inmates?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported.
I qualified that as being supported by SOME manufacturers/devices, which it is.
. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix.
Actually those select manufacturers have committed that reflashing the OS does NOT void the warranty. But yes, naturally you can't take it to T-Mobile to troubleshoot a problem with syncing your email. If you swap out the OS you take ownership of that. But those manufacturers have committed to dealing with buttons that fail, batteries that fail, and other hardware warranty issues. Worst case you may have to flash it back to a stock OS to demonstrate that its not a software issue.
I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do.
That's the right decision for Grandma and the VP of marketing. If they doesn't know f-droid from myHappyLuckyTotallyNotAScamStorePlusPlus then they shouldn't leave the google play store.
Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?
I haven't see the source for Portal either, which runs on linux. That doesn't make linux non open. Android is not google apps, and you can use android without them. I ONLY use the google app for maps myself.
You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.
I don't deny that android as an ecosystem, especially from the perspective of the major corporations behind it is not ABOUT openness per se. Corporations are motivated by marketshare, profitability, revenue, etc... I get that. I get that they aren't ABOUT openness as a concept. Even RedHat isn't really ABOUT openness, its just a means to an end.
Nevertheless Android is still MUCH more open in actual practice. And even in spirit, it is far less hostile to openness than Apple is even if openness isn't the primary consideration driving all decisions.
They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.
That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.
I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.
We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.
If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.
There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something?
Of course I see the difference. And nobody disagrees with you that a random search is a problem. But nobody here (except you) is talking about random searches.
Those were made illegal for good reasons. Those should be illegal now and in the future too for the same good reasons. We all agree on that.
The issue here is the *warranted search*. Up until now, if the police got a warrant they COULD search your papers/diary etc. Now EVEN with a warrant they can't do that. And that is a "problem" of sorts.
Self-incrimination would be EVEN MORE prevalent in raw thoughts as opposed to vocalizing.
Retreiving your password via a non-invasive mind probe is no different in terms of its function as evidence than a DNA test.
It even avoids the issues with imagined crimes, and fantasy crimes, and misremembered events, vs real ones etc, because its a simple fact.
If the password they read out of your mind unlocks your phone, then they are into your phone. And the evidence there is no different from any other evidence. If such a technology existed, I suspect it would be allowable, at least for the limited use of simply reading a password.
I expect it would and should continue to be illegal to go fishing for "thoughts about committing crimes" or "general dissatisfaction with government"... but even then, if they could extract, for example, a set of specific details about a murder that only the murderer would know, that could theoretically add to the evidence against you, too. I think.
Yes, but what is your actual point here?
The fact remains that if you are suspected of treason, due to circumstantial evidence, and a hair found at a known drop site -- and they use that to get a warrant to search your home, where they find your diary in a safe, listing your intelligence leaking, along with papers containing intelligence you were planning to leak.
The 4th and 5th amendments are not designed to protect you from prosecution in that scenario.
Law enforcement has been legitimately allowed to search your property for evidence of a particular crime.
Encryption currently can block that search, so that even WITH a LEGITIMATE warrant they can't get at that evidence. They can get a warrant to search you, recover your laptop, and then not be able to break into it to get at the information inside.
Historically they've always been able to break into any safe. The bill of rights, 4th, 5th amendments etc have never protected anyone from this sort of legitimate investigation, and never were intended to.
The digital age has given us un-crackable safes, and law enforcement is struggling to figure how to deal with that.
My guess is in the days before the WW2, they would have had difficulty in breaking ciphers too.
They didn't usually need to break them if they could get a warrant to search the space you kept the key.
THAT is what has changed. Up until now, sure they might not be able to simply "break" the encryption easily simply when presented with encrypted materials, but law enforcement could always get the keys with a warrant if they knew where you kept them.
Remember this is *law enforcement* not international espionage. Law enforcement historically had the means to break any criminal's use of 'encryption', because they could always, at least in theory, obtain the keys through regular police work. The codebook, or cipher, or one time pads, etc were always there somewhere. And they could search a suspects home to find the safe hidden under the carpet with a warrant, and then drill it open with a warrant.
In the digital age, they (reasonably and legitimately) still want the ability to get into the safe. The trouble is nobody makes a drill that get in before the universe expires.
If unobtanioum impervium had been discovered and safes constructed from it literally could not be opened, law enforcement would be in the same tizzy. There would be these "safes" that they could get their hands on but couldn't open.
Especially if these safes were cheap to build or buy, and people could synthesize unobtanium impervium from common household supplies.
This is a war on your ability to have secrets from the government they're not allowed to access by going to a third party
Its not "a third party" its "any party at all".
Other than the contents of one's own mind, we've never actually had that ability until recently.
The very best you could do was put your one time pad in a safe which they could open with a warrant and several hours with a drill.
Digital didn't take away your ability, it actually for the first time, gave us something new... places to put secrets that COULDN'T be easily broken into by law enforcement. This is new for them.
Of course the idiots out there are proposing nonsense like backdoors, or banning encryption etc which are never going to end well if they came to pass. But the adults in the room should be able to have a real conversation about it. Do we treat the contents of securely encrypted systems as an extension of the mind, and vastly increase the total amount of data that is effectively untouchable to law enforcement short of coercion/torture (which is itself illegal).
And on the flip side, what happens if they develop a method of pulling secrets directly from your mind that isn't invasive/destructive. Will that suddenly create a situation where they can get a warrant for the contents of your mind? The 5th amendment is a pragmatic one, you have the right not to testify because they can't make you talk short of torture... but what if they could simply read your mind remotely? And pluck your passwords out. Sci-fi / fantasy? Maybe. Maybe not.
Another possible future is the augmentation of the mind itself directly... imagine an SSD for the brain, *IN THE BRAIN*. What would the legal status of that be in terms of warrant access?
Tablets are already on a downward trend.
Only because of the rise of large screen smart phones.
. People want computers with power, or they don't want computers much at all.
True to a point, but the bulk of the web isn't aimed for them, its aimed for...
The latter wants an appliance anyway and your argument is moot for them.
The bulk of the web is aimed at them, if the bulk of the web can get them locked down enough, it doesn't need to lock down the open PC, it can just block them out unless they run an approved ad-friendly app to connect. Because the web can ignore the PC if its the minority... and like or not, the people who need computers and not just appliances are in the minority.
There will be resources for PC users, by PC users, for resources for Open/Free/OSS/whatever advocates by Open/Free/OSS/whatever advocates but the mainsteam web... for better or for worse will be made for people with locked down tablets, and they'll care if you can connect with a "PC" then about as much as they care if you can connect from Linux today.
At least, that's one plausible future.
It was a couple weeks later. The earth would have spun on its axis ~14 times in the interim. Not to mention traversing 3%-4% of its solar orbit.
At best the odds are higher they'd hit the same hemisphere (north or south) if they were from the same source.
Thanks, I was crunching the numbers in my head, and I was heading to the same conclusion you detailed.
That said, I think batteries become viable, if not today, maybe soon:
[...] a research team at the University of Tokyo School of Engineering has announced a new lithium ion battery [...] energy density â" at 2,570 watt-hours per kilogram [...]
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
This is a couple years old...but its clear the tech is moving forward.
Obviously stability/reliability, production scalability, and cost are all obstacles. But 2570 w-h/kg is almost 10MJ/kg which changes the viability substantially.
Your point about jet fuel expenditure being front loaded on the trip ... I read somewhere that the most fuel efficient flight for a jet is around 4300 miles. It seems that an alternate fuel for short hops could make sense.
Fossil fuels are great, and there's no reason to stop using them anytime soon; I am not anti fossil fuels.
But unless we find a way of producing it cheaply we do need to move on eventually. Growing crops to turn into fuel, it amounts to an *extremely* inefficient solar solution (months of solar collected in the form of plant biomass) which then has to be processed into fuel... better perhaps to take those fields grow food in them, and throw up panels in the deserts to charge batteries.
As for your comments about the charging issues, I imagine a battery swap solution being viable for fleets of aircraft.
For a typical airplane, though, increasing the weight of the energy source by 10x guarantees that it will never leave the ground: at take-off the jet fuel powered version is already 25-60% fuel by mass; increasing this by 10x would increase the total mass of the plane by 3-6x.
Does hold that true even for short hops? Paris to Madrid? London to Frankfurt? LA to Vegas? Sydney to Melbourne?
Sure a plane with an 8000 NM range is 50%+ fuel by weight... but most european continental flights are under 500 miles.
How fast you can charge the plan is going to be a limiting factor.
Airports would potentially be the sort of scenario where exchanging the batteries themselves between flights might be feasible. Aircraft fleets are lot more standardized/standardizable than the consumer auto market.
No. They already know 11 months in advance, that they will do a bug-fix fix only release a week before the christmas/new years holiday season; when everyone takes off for a few weeks.
They will not release anything major that release.
And they will make it a short cycle (5 weeks) because by the next week, the 20th of December, people will already be taking off.
Well, cars stay on the ground. Weight isn't nearly as big of a deal for cars as it is for planes.
Fuel / energy to weight ratio defines the range in a car as much as a plane.
And yes, a fully loaded trans-pacific jet is half fuel by weight, so a less dense energy storage becomes a big issue, the jet would weight 20x as much if it were battery powered... and that's before counting the energy need to move those batteries so those batteries would themselves need more batteries because of the weight they added... so it just doesn't work.
But what percentage of the weight is fuel from LA to Vegas or LA to Palm Springs? Maybe it does work.
You can recharge/refuel more frequently with an electric car. A bit hard to land and recharge in the middle of the Atlantic ocean
Lots of flights are between New York and Chicago, LA and Las Vegas, Miami and New York, Seattle and LA... their is no necessity that that electrics have to do trans-pacific runs before we can start using them.
o you need a lot more fuel proportionally, so its efficiency matters more for planes.
I can see that it matters more. I'm not sure its nearly as far away as you suggest. Even if a plane needs some a lot of extra weight in batteries than it would in fuel, if its cheaper to recharge / swap batteries than buy jet fuel then it becomes practical.
Especially for short hops. For example, LA to Vegas.
Genuinely curious: Can you clarify why your argument doesn't apply to cars?
Given jet fuel is 45MJ/kg, and the best battery is 1MJ/kg (per your post), then how is it electric cars are already viable, given gasoline is 44MJ/kg?
For example, a restaurant owner is known to be rude and cruel to his employees.
And if the threshold of proving that, is "some guy said it on facebook" or "some 20 second clip posted to youtube" well, this sort of vigilantism will never miss its target and destroy a completely innocent person.
United social power can be a real scum squasher.
Yes, mobs are well known for their rational considered responses to situations. Wait...
So what?
He said he turned off all options that appeared. e.g. he did what a human being without specialized knowledge of Windows group policy would have done.
Precisely. And the article summary that got posted to slashdot, what does THAT say? That even with all telemetry turned off that windows 10 was phoning home left and right. That's not even slightly accurate, is it? And that's not acceptable either.
He left windows update running on a fresh install, and a shit pile of network activity happened as he monitored the next 8 hours after a fresh install.
Holy crap... call the papers! Lets collectively lose our shit!
Why is this acceptable?
Its not acceptable. Windows should give users more control. But that's not the point.
The point is that this isn't a list of 90+ ip addresses that were "surreptitiously contacted" after all telemetry was turned off. Telemetry wasn't turned off. Windows updates wasn't turned off. The internet connectivity check was running, the internet time sync was running, etc...
This is as ridiculous as cataloging all the bacteria on your body after taking a shower, and then losing your shit that the shower utterly failed to get you clean. The shower did what it was supposed to do; it's not defective. And half the bacteria that you cataloged was gut bacteria that should be there. And you didn't separate any of that out.
Read the article, temetry wasn't disabled.
If I read the actual article correctly, it was just a Vanilla install of Windows 10 enterprise. There was no active attempt to disable or block any of the actual telemetry features at all. He did go through the customized install and turned off the 'cloud/personalization/sync options there', but that's it.
The actual telemetry features would still have been on.
Not to mention all the usual windows features that phone home:
Everything from windows update, to time sync, to the regular ping it does to see if you have internet connectivity would have still been on.
I'm guessing all the live tiles in his start menu were still on too, so they'd have been pulling ads and updates, etc.
Seriously... it's an interesting exercise and an interesting article about what one's computer is doing. But it doesn't show what anybody here is really concluding.
But this goes in circles...
They make the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks. They make a version without. You can use either version.
But that doesn't satisfy; you want to use the version with the bricked up windows and remote locks, but now you demand to have them build a back door for you to use.
And then they say... that back door reduces the security for anyone who uses the product. It increases the attack surface of the product.
And then you say, but any one who opens the backdoor needs a level of access that would also allow them to drive a bulldozer through the brick windows. So give me a back door.
And then they say... sure, your right, if they have that much access they can drive a bulldozer through the windows... but that still doesn't mean it makes sense to increase the attack surface.
Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.
I read it, and meant is as a 50/50 shot. Half never lift a finger against us, and we lose track of half them as they disappear into the Pakistan mountains and rejoin the Taliban, or al Quaida, or whatever group they originated with.
With the implication that even those we lose track of that do rejoin the Taliban or alQuaida or whatever will not pose a threat to the US. Because if they ever did anything even slightly high profile we'd see them, because we're on the watch for them. So they can go train militia or carry supplies around in the mountains somewhere in Pakistan, and that's fine. It may be 'against us' but its not and never will be a real threat to the USA.
You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.
Let me try to explain.
The unconditional release stems from US taking prisoners and then categorizing them ON PURPOSE to put them into a legal limbo, and then torturing them using further loopholes and legal murkiness, and denying them any protection under the Geneva convention. And that's the reason they should be simply released. Because WE fucked up. We could have done better.
The reality is they are prisoners of war [...] which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.
Then they should have been treated at the very least as POWs.
The reason I call for unconditional release and deportation, is that we really fucked up as a country here. They should have been afforded the legal status and protections of POWs. Morally, we should undo this by simply sending them back home. In the same way that we release a known criminal that we captured with tainted illegal evidence. We know they are bad, but we are a nation of morals and laws. They may well pose some minor ongoing threat to the US and its persons... but so be it. Maybe we'll get them next time. Maybe someone will die first. But that is the price of the moral high ground. That is the price of freedom. That is the price for being a nation of law. We don't get to be completely safe all the time.
And they aren't so supremely dangerous that it justifies perpetuating our mistake. IF they actually and legitimately posed an existential threat to the country then yes, releasing them would not be a viable solution. I would not destroy the nation to make a moral point. But there is simply nothing they can do that is so great a threat that it is worth perpetuating this farce to continue to hold them. And if they play some small part in some small bomb in some possible future scenario... so be it. I'm sure we'll do our best to prevent exactly that; we know who they are and we'll be watching them.
In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way.
In the future, we should categorize them as captured civilians or captured POWs and treat them accordingly; rather than invent shameful legal black holes and then drop them into an oubliette to be forgotten.
You are technically right.
But its like arguing that there's no reason not lock the front door when you go out if there's a window that doesn't lock properly and that people could climb through.
. There are some very legitimate reasons for this such as: Changing your call back number to a toll-free number, and maintaining the original calling number on forwarded calls.
It should be pretty trivial to develop a system where the carrier can verify that the spoofed ID is in fact a legitimate number tied to the calling organization.
It should be even more trivial to develop a system where the callerid spoofed on my handset can be reported to the carrier, with the time of the call, and they can immediately determine where the call REALLY came from, and report that to me, to the police... to whomever.
Would that line of reasoning apply to a car?
Your door handle freezes up, you take it to a little shop who fixes it with an aftermarket part.
A few weeks later your car pushes an OTA update and bricks the entire car on you.
No problem, your fault or the fault of the shop. One should always be required to use OEM parts at the dealership when making any repairs or risk having your car remotely disabled at the whim of the manufacturer... on purpose or otherwise?
We USED to demand that this sort of shit be illegal. Now you seem to accept it as something we should expect.
As many as 30 percent of the nearly 600 released Gitmo inmates started fighting again.
And you would use that to justify keeping the other 70% in prison forever? Really? How sick are you?
Meanwhile, I never said NONE of them would rejoin the fight against the US, i said they'd disappear into the caves (with the implication that they would rejoin their movements). Perhaps i was wrong that we'd lose track of them... if we actually know where most of them are: great... that's another win for us. All kinds of useful intel as we track their movements, contacts, and communications, right?
What I said was ridiculous was that they'd pose an existential threat to the united states. And that remains ridiculous. Has the United States fallen? Are we on the verge of collapse thanks to those released inmates?
Of course not, because that's RIDICULOUS.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported.
I qualified that as being supported by SOME manufacturers/devices, which it is.
. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix.
Actually those select manufacturers have committed that reflashing the OS does NOT void the warranty. But yes, naturally you can't take it to T-Mobile to troubleshoot a problem with syncing your email. If you swap out the OS you take ownership of that. But those manufacturers have committed to dealing with buttons that fail, batteries that fail, and other hardware warranty issues. Worst case you may have to flash it back to a stock OS to demonstrate that its not a software issue.
I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do.
That's the right decision for Grandma and the VP of marketing. If they doesn't know f-droid from myHappyLuckyTotallyNotAScamStorePlusPlus then they shouldn't leave the google play store.
Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?
I haven't see the source for Portal either, which runs on linux. That doesn't make linux non open. Android is not google apps, and you can use android without them. I ONLY use the google app for maps myself.
You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.
I don't deny that android as an ecosystem, especially from the perspective of the major corporations behind it is not ABOUT openness per se. Corporations are motivated by marketshare, profitability, revenue, etc... I get that. I get that they aren't ABOUT openness as a concept. Even RedHat isn't really ABOUT openness, its just a means to an end.
Nevertheless Android is still MUCH more open in actual practice. And even in spirit, it is far less hostile to openness than Apple is even if openness isn't the primary consideration driving all decisions.
They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.
That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.
I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.
We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.
If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.
There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.