Yeah, I too usually just sign stuff. I hardly ever encrypt. Nobody knows how to decrypt it. *sighs* I kind of wish that it were more well known. It's not exactly difficult any more. It's actually fairly easy. It's just that nobody does it.
I didn't investigate this at all but I just, as a lark, clicked the button that claimed I'd disabled AdBlock Plus (I hadn't) and it let me through. I'm not sure if it is intentional or if uMatrix stops the script from loading. I also have the blocker set loaded in ABP. So, who knows, but i did find it interesting.
From the little bit that I know, which is only a little, he's correct but it's a bit confusing. There's more than one "firmware layer" (for lack of a better description) in play and each applicable to various things. The one in question is that which is probably microcode (I'm assuming assembly but perhaps something custom) and interacts directly with the hardware which means one can change frequencies or power levels on the radio if it's opened and accessed.
I haven't read the paper and I'm still (and will be for a long while to come) rather wrapped up in an NDA but the end result (perhaps the process) is not new by any means. It may be more accurate and I'm sure the process is different but there has been machine automated crowd counting (post event) for quite some time. It wasn't easy or fast but it's been done before. In fact, some of the methods used came from privately funded research from a school not that far away.
I'll definitely give the paper a read but it's going to be a while before I can sit down and do it any justice. I wonder what it cites? It's absolutely not entirely original. I don't see how it can but but I've neither read the abstract, paper, or the likes though I've probably read some of the work it's building from. I wish I'd a bit more time to devote to it while this thread is still active - I could give a more accurate opinion on the quality and originality.
Consider, if you will, I've not been in the industry for eight years and it wasn't entirely new when I sold and retired. So... Yeah... Post-processing crowd count (estimate really) wasn't anything new. Live and real time might be new and interesting - also a huge amount of data. I'm assuming this is more accurate, uses a different methodology, and involves some serious data crunching.
No, it probably won't. I'd not even be surprised to see Linux (kernel) lose market share on the mobile front in the near future. I don't hate Microsoft. I'm glad they've done what they've done - they are really kind of responsible for putting the desktop into the hands of the average person. Sure, we can suggest it might have gone other ways but we only have history to go by.
Me? I like breaking, learning, tinkering. I love it. It's my enjoyment. If it's not broken then I'm not trying hard enough. Then I fix it. I learn, I grow, then I help others. It works for me. Damned right, I'd not even recommend this to most people. I do, sort of, feel comfortable recommending Linux to some now. It just works for so much of what people do. I've a new lady friend that I introduced to Linux. I've since just bought her a new laptop but she wanted Linux on it - specifically Lubuntu at this point. I like Lubuntu and Mint - Cinnamon.
So, no... I don't hate Window. I'm glad they're there. This? This is something you can just turn off. They've been collecting and managing all this data for years. I'm not entirely sure why it's suddenly a problem. If anything, I'd be happy (as a user - if I was one) that they were being more open about it. The data is trivial enough that I'd give it to them if they asked. I'd turn the ads off though - I hate ads.
Heh... If some of these people only knew the data being collected by a modern store or mall they'd shit a brick. My business was traffic modeling and the private sector work was pedestrian trafficking. I retired eight years ago. They were collecting (automatically, too) so much information about you then and I'm sure that it is much more deep and pervasive now. Those cameras aren't just recording video. That video is processed, compiled, cross-checked, and linked to a profile.
That was eight years ago. I helped enable it. In my defense, it was lucrative.
You know - it just uninstalls from the add/remove thingie, right? I have this on good authority. Supposedly it works just fine. When done, stop letting your kid have admin permissions or they'll do admin activities. Funny that. If you're going to give them unfettered access to the hardware and operating system, they might break something or make other unauthorized changes.
Full disclosure: I, umm... Don't actually use Windows. I'd been using Linux as my second OS for a very long time. I finally just said screw it one day and ran around reformatting everything. I was high. I'm too lazy to "fix" it. So, well, I have two laptops and a desktop that still, technically, have Windows on them but they don't get used.
Keep trying random distros. Try Mint, Lubuntu, GhostBSD (not Linux btw), Arch, Debian, Fedora, etc... One of the damned things always seems to work out of the box. Just try live disks and install if you have to. If it works live then it should work installed. One of them works - almost every time. Well, every single time for me - which kind of pisses me off, I *like* breaking and tinkering.
I don't even use the proprietary drivers and I have no composting issues and desktop animations are already a thing - I'm pretty sure (assuming I know what you speak of). I can't imagine why you'd want animated desktops but, you know, you can do it if you want. Once in a blue moon, I come across some tearing - I swap distros until that's not a problem. They're all pretty much similar in my view anyhow. (I know, I know... I'm supposed to root for one or the other. I don't.)
I use Linux on the desktop. Unlike many (weasel word, I know), I don't actually run around advocating its use. Instead, I recommend people use what works best for them. I recommend that they use what enables them to do what they need to do in the most efficient manner. For me, that's Linux. For you? That's Windows and that's okay.
I don't think I got rid of Windows because of any spying. If they want my telemetry data and ask nicely then they can have it. I find Linux easier conceptually. I like being able to interact with more and to learn more. I like to break things in new and unusual ways. I'm not the average user, I suppose.
Perhaps Linux isn't for you. It does require (at times) that you know what you're doing or at least know enough to be able to diagnose a problem - as does any operating system. If you're unfamiliar with it and unwilling to get past the learning curve then, no, it's probably not for you.
You're mistaking two different subjects. They're free to access it. They're not free to do so without leaving a record and that is unfortunate. You can do a lot to hide it, however.
I should have scrolled down. You were much more succinct than I. Thanks.
If anything, we've more tools for anonymity than ever before and, with anonymity, we've more tools to be more private. The clerk at the store in the village often has stuff waiting on the counter for me and half rung-up by the time I reach the checkout. When my neighbor has an animal die then I'm soon underway with my tractor to help them bury it. When another has a child then I've probably already purchased them a gift-card. When I am sad, a neighbor will bring me something to cheer me up. My mailman probably knows a lot of the things I enjoy given all the tech mags and related mail that loudly explain the contents to a casual viewer. In return, my mailman (technically a woman) gets a nice gift card on her birthday and at Christmas and Thanksgiving.
We've never had more tools for privacy than we have today. People still willingly and knowingly give up this privacy. Why? Well, to allude to my above post, I can only presume it's because they want me to give them a gift card. Figuratively, of course.
When was privacy ever normal? In the past you slept in one room with the whole family or, in some cases, an extended family or even a number of families. Everyone you knew, knew you intimately. Sure, there were people on the fringes of society that were not so well known. Hell, lack of privacy was so prevalent that villages were skeptical of outsiders simply because they didn't know them and had assumptions about why you might be traveling.
I don't know where people get this idea that we were somehow a utopia in the past. This is almost always a falsehood. Much of the idyllic past is a myth.
Perhaps you meant the scope? Well, while true, that's because you weren't communicating with people from afar. I am not sure but I suspect we can actually have more privacy today then we've ever had. Of course lots of people give this up (and we can figure out why pretty easily, or make good guesses as to the reasoning).
There is also the method which is new but the results seem more or less the same. I tend to not do much of my own shopping but when I am home and do my shopping in the village the clerks know what I want well enough so that they often have it ready for me and tell me about something that is new that I might be interested in. They've amassed a profile but it's kept in their head and not in a database.
Don't get me wrong... I am a huge fan of privacy. That's because I want things to change. I want it to change because that's not how it has ever been and how it could be in the future.
I am kind of the latter. When I am home, I know everything I eat for the most part. There's no moral or ethical thing in it for me. I just prefer it and the taste. I'll eat anything but I prefer to grow, hunt, or fish for my food. I've learned a number of ways to preserve food. I like it. These days store purchased food taste different to me, even vegetables.
You'll grow up, eventually. Until then, know that I read your post but really don't see any reason to give you a detailed reply. Look back, in twenty years or so, and marvel at the gibberish you typed on the internet.
For the record, I think most Americans speak and write better than the above poster. We, like all other nations, allow our mentally ill, dysfunctional, and illiterate citizens certain freedoms and one such freedom is access to the world wide web and the internet at large. Unfortunately, you do see occasional post of such as the one referenced. I'd like to assure you that most of us, while perhaps not all of us, actually have a decent grasp, or at least a better grasp, on the language and can both write speak in a semi-coherent manner. Please do not judge us all by the behavior of a few because the reality is that the few are capable of being quite vocal.
This message has been brought to you by the American Literacy Program. It's also tongue-in-cheek as my own writing does leave a bit to be desired.
No, it says a lot about the English - it just doesn't mention them (or any other country) by name. Sort of like how someone responds to you actually says a lot about you even though they're not actually saying anything specifically about you. I know, a bit complicated, but easy enough to get where they were going and otherwise true.
You are mistaking freedom and rights. I've a favored saying. I am free to kill you. I do not have a right to do so. I am not at liberty to take your freedom. That's why, in America, we have a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Freedoms. The differences between these two words is so important that, until one grasps the two, meaningful discourse is impossible.
You have, I suppose, complete freedom. What you don't have is a right to exercise those freedoms.
Think of a soup pot... With me? Okay, we, as society, agree to put all of our freedoms into the pot. From that pot we each draw out our rights. Now, we can take them all out - but that leaves nothing for the next person and, as a society, we all agreed to put them in there (and you're forced to agree by rule of law if you're going to be a member of that society) and we all agreed that we need to leave enough of this proverbial right's stew for the next person.
So no, you can't eat all the soup. You can take an equal portion. This is, of course, overly simplified and a bit of an ideal. You do have freedom but you give that freedom up in order to benefit the whole - you give that freedom up to protect your own rights because I may be stronger, more wealthy, and more able to take your freedom from you. It's not generally considered acceptable behavior for me to knock you on the noggin and steal your soup - you'll go hungry and need to take soup from someone else by their grace or by theft or die from lack of soup.
It's called the social contract and it varies from State to State. This is only the start of a meaningful dialogue. To have the conversation you must first understand the differences between freedoms and rights or liberties. How much soup we get is debatable. How much we leave behind is debatable. Those are usually the results of various political ideologies - how much soup and for whom.
And, for my horrific analogy above... The person holding the soup ladle is the government. They're there to smack someone on the knuckles who tries to take too much soup. They are but one small thing and we, the people, can (should be able to) take the ladle away if they're keeping our soup from us - after all, it is our soup to begin with - we just agreed to let them ladle it out on the condition that they do so fairly.
As an aside, I've been working on this soup analogy for years. I think that's the closest I've come to articulating it well enough. Hopefully it's clear and easy to understand. I'm open to suggestions, of course. If you like it then have it, make it your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I too usually just sign stuff. I hardly ever encrypt. Nobody knows how to decrypt it. *sighs* I kind of wish that it were more well known. It's not exactly difficult any more. It's actually fairly easy. It's just that nobody does it.
I didn't investigate this at all but I just, as a lark, clicked the button that claimed I'd disabled AdBlock Plus (I hadn't) and it let me through. I'm not sure if it is intentional or if uMatrix stops the script from loading. I also have the blocker set loaded in ABP. So, who knows, but i did find it interesting.
From the little bit that I know, which is only a little, he's correct but it's a bit confusing. There's more than one "firmware layer" (for lack of a better description) in play and each applicable to various things. The one in question is that which is probably microcode (I'm assuming assembly but perhaps something custom) and interacts directly with the hardware which means one can change frequencies or power levels on the radio if it's opened and accessed.
I haven't read the paper and I'm still (and will be for a long while to come) rather wrapped up in an NDA but the end result (perhaps the process) is not new by any means. It may be more accurate and I'm sure the process is different but there has been machine automated crowd counting (post event) for quite some time. It wasn't easy or fast but it's been done before. In fact, some of the methods used came from privately funded research from a school not that far away.
I'll definitely give the paper a read but it's going to be a while before I can sit down and do it any justice. I wonder what it cites? It's absolutely not entirely original. I don't see how it can but but I've neither read the abstract, paper, or the likes though I've probably read some of the work it's building from. I wish I'd a bit more time to devote to it while this thread is still active - I could give a more accurate opinion on the quality and originality.
Consider, if you will, I've not been in the industry for eight years and it wasn't entirely new when I sold and retired. So... Yeah... Post-processing crowd count (estimate really) wasn't anything new. Live and real time might be new and interesting - also a huge amount of data. I'm assuming this is more accurate, uses a different methodology, and involves some serious data crunching.
No, it probably won't. I'd not even be surprised to see Linux (kernel) lose market share on the mobile front in the near future. I don't hate Microsoft. I'm glad they've done what they've done - they are really kind of responsible for putting the desktop into the hands of the average person. Sure, we can suggest it might have gone other ways but we only have history to go by.
Me? I like breaking, learning, tinkering. I love it. It's my enjoyment. If it's not broken then I'm not trying hard enough. Then I fix it. I learn, I grow, then I help others. It works for me. Damned right, I'd not even recommend this to most people. I do, sort of, feel comfortable recommending Linux to some now. It just works for so much of what people do. I've a new lady friend that I introduced to Linux. I've since just bought her a new laptop but she wanted Linux on it - specifically Lubuntu at this point. I like Lubuntu and Mint - Cinnamon.
So, no... I don't hate Window. I'm glad they're there. This? This is something you can just turn off. They've been collecting and managing all this data for years. I'm not entirely sure why it's suddenly a problem. If anything, I'd be happy (as a user - if I was one) that they were being more open about it. The data is trivial enough that I'd give it to them if they asked. I'd turn the ads off though - I hate ads.
Heh... If some of these people only knew the data being collected by a modern store or mall they'd shit a brick. My business was traffic modeling and the private sector work was pedestrian trafficking. I retired eight years ago. They were collecting (automatically, too) so much information about you then and I'm sure that it is much more deep and pervasive now. Those cameras aren't just recording video. That video is processed, compiled, cross-checked, and linked to a profile.
That was eight years ago. I helped enable it. In my defense, it was lucrative.
You know - it just uninstalls from the add/remove thingie, right? I have this on good authority. Supposedly it works just fine. When done, stop letting your kid have admin permissions or they'll do admin activities. Funny that. If you're going to give them unfettered access to the hardware and operating system, they might break something or make other unauthorized changes.
Full disclosure: I, umm... Don't actually use Windows. I'd been using Linux as my second OS for a very long time. I finally just said screw it one day and ran around reformatting everything. I was high. I'm too lazy to "fix" it. So, well, I have two laptops and a desktop that still, technically, have Windows on them but they don't get used.
Keep trying random distros. Try Mint, Lubuntu, GhostBSD (not Linux btw), Arch, Debian, Fedora, etc... One of the damned things always seems to work out of the box. Just try live disks and install if you have to. If it works live then it should work installed. One of them works - almost every time. Well, every single time for me - which kind of pisses me off, I *like* breaking and tinkering.
I don't even use the proprietary drivers and I have no composting issues and desktop animations are already a thing - I'm pretty sure (assuming I know what you speak of). I can't imagine why you'd want animated desktops but, you know, you can do it if you want. Once in a blue moon, I come across some tearing - I swap distros until that's not a problem. They're all pretty much similar in my view anyhow. (I know, I know... I'm supposed to root for one or the other. I don't.)
Heh... Now that got you added to my favorite's list.
I use Linux on the desktop. Unlike many (weasel word, I know), I don't actually run around advocating its use. Instead, I recommend people use what works best for them. I recommend that they use what enables them to do what they need to do in the most efficient manner. For me, that's Linux. For you? That's Windows and that's okay.
I don't think I got rid of Windows because of any spying. If they want my telemetry data and ask nicely then they can have it. I find Linux easier conceptually. I like being able to interact with more and to learn more. I like to break things in new and unusual ways. I'm not the average user, I suppose.
Perhaps Linux isn't for you. It does require (at times) that you know what you're doing or at least know enough to be able to diagnose a problem - as does any operating system. If you're unfamiliar with it and unwilling to get past the learning curve then, no, it's probably not for you.
You're mistaking two different subjects. They're free to access it. They're not free to do so without leaving a record and that is unfortunate. You can do a lot to hide it, however.
Heh... My public key is right here on /. (as well as on the MIT servers).
http://slashdot.org/pubkey.pl?...
Would you buy a well-crafted standardized case made of wood?
I should have scrolled down. You were much more succinct than I. Thanks.
If anything, we've more tools for anonymity than ever before and, with anonymity, we've more tools to be more private. The clerk at the store in the village often has stuff waiting on the counter for me and half rung-up by the time I reach the checkout. When my neighbor has an animal die then I'm soon underway with my tractor to help them bury it. When another has a child then I've probably already purchased them a gift-card. When I am sad, a neighbor will bring me something to cheer me up. My mailman probably knows a lot of the things I enjoy given all the tech mags and related mail that loudly explain the contents to a casual viewer. In return, my mailman (technically a woman) gets a nice gift card on her birthday and at Christmas and Thanksgiving.
We've never had more tools for privacy than we have today. People still willingly and knowingly give up this privacy. Why? Well, to allude to my above post, I can only presume it's because they want me to give them a gift card. Figuratively, of course.
When was privacy ever normal? In the past you slept in one room with the whole family or, in some cases, an extended family or even a number of families. Everyone you knew, knew you intimately. Sure, there were people on the fringes of society that were not so well known. Hell, lack of privacy was so prevalent that villages were skeptical of outsiders simply because they didn't know them and had assumptions about why you might be traveling.
I don't know where people get this idea that we were somehow a utopia in the past. This is almost always a falsehood. Much of the idyllic past is a myth.
Perhaps you meant the scope? Well, while true, that's because you weren't communicating with people from afar. I am not sure but I suspect we can actually have more privacy today then we've ever had. Of course lots of people give this up (and we can figure out why pretty easily, or make good guesses as to the reasoning).
There is also the method which is new but the results seem more or less the same. I tend to not do much of my own shopping but when I am home and do my shopping in the village the clerks know what I want well enough so that they often have it ready for me and tell me about something that is new that I might be interested in. They've amassed a profile but it's kept in their head and not in a database.
Don't get me wrong... I am a huge fan of privacy. That's because I want things to change. I want it to change because that's not how it has ever been and how it could be in the future.
Well, to be fair, a delivery truck must also constantly fight gravity.
As an avid meat eater who has eaten those meat substitutes, don't worry -- they don't taste like meat.
Nobody can tell you, with any certainty, that you won't be hit in the head with a coconut tomorrow.
I am kind of the latter. When I am home, I know everything I eat for the most part. There's no moral or ethical thing in it for me. I just prefer it and the taste. I'll eat anything but I prefer to grow, hunt, or fish for my food. I've learned a number of ways to preserve food. I like it. These days store purchased food taste different to me, even vegetables.
You'll grow up, eventually. Until then, know that I read your post but really don't see any reason to give you a detailed reply. Look back, in twenty years or so, and marvel at the gibberish you typed on the internet.
For the record, I think most Americans speak and write better than the above poster. We, like all other nations, allow our mentally ill, dysfunctional, and illiterate citizens certain freedoms and one such freedom is access to the world wide web and the internet at large. Unfortunately, you do see occasional post of such as the one referenced. I'd like to assure you that most of us, while perhaps not all of us, actually have a decent grasp, or at least a better grasp, on the language and can both write speak in a semi-coherent manner. Please do not judge us all by the behavior of a few because the reality is that the few are capable of being quite vocal.
This message has been brought to you by the American Literacy Program. It's also tongue-in-cheek as my own writing does leave a bit to be desired.
No, it says a lot about the English - it just doesn't mention them (or any other country) by name. Sort of like how someone responds to you actually says a lot about you even though they're not actually saying anything specifically about you. I know, a bit complicated, but easy enough to get where they were going and otherwise true.
You are mistaking freedom and rights. I've a favored saying. I am free to kill you. I do not have a right to do so. I am not at liberty to take your freedom. That's why, in America, we have a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Freedoms. The differences between these two words is so important that, until one grasps the two, meaningful discourse is impossible.
You have, I suppose, complete freedom. What you don't have is a right to exercise those freedoms.
Think of a soup pot... With me? Okay, we, as society, agree to put all of our freedoms into the pot. From that pot we each draw out our rights. Now, we can take them all out - but that leaves nothing for the next person and, as a society, we all agreed to put them in there (and you're forced to agree by rule of law if you're going to be a member of that society) and we all agreed that we need to leave enough of this proverbial right's stew for the next person.
So no, you can't eat all the soup. You can take an equal portion. This is, of course, overly simplified and a bit of an ideal. You do have freedom but you give that freedom up in order to benefit the whole - you give that freedom up to protect your own rights because I may be stronger, more wealthy, and more able to take your freedom from you. It's not generally considered acceptable behavior for me to knock you on the noggin and steal your soup - you'll go hungry and need to take soup from someone else by their grace or by theft or die from lack of soup.
It's called the social contract and it varies from State to State. This is only the start of a meaningful dialogue. To have the conversation you must first understand the differences between freedoms and rights or liberties. How much soup we get is debatable. How much we leave behind is debatable. Those are usually the results of various political ideologies - how much soup and for whom.
And, for my horrific analogy above... The person holding the soup ladle is the government. They're there to smack someone on the knuckles who tries to take too much soup. They are but one small thing and we, the people, can (should be able to) take the ladle away if they're keeping our soup from us - after all, it is our soup to begin with - we just agreed to let them ladle it out on the condition that they do so fairly.
As an aside, I've been working on this soup analogy for years. I think that's the closest I've come to articulating it well enough. Hopefully it's clear and easy to understand. I'm open to suggestions, of course. If you like it then have it, make it your own.