Correct this would be used along side the existing cellular networks. However as was pointed out to me what I was thinking of already exists as one way pagers but not as a combined device. You could recive texts directly via a one way pager along with notice of attempted incoming calls then if you needed further information and weren't somewhere you you needs your location protected you could switch the cellular side of your phone on and continue like today.
It wouldn't fully eliminate tracking but it would knock it down to only when you were transmitting which is a big step IMHO from being tracked 24/7 without the loss of the ability to be contacted at any time.
Yes I should have been more clear In my post so it wasn't so ambiguous.
The network would still be centrally managed so every tower would recive and broadcast the message every 10 minutes 4x or so and then give up never knowing if the message was actually received.
It won't scale which is why it wasn't done in the first place. But it would still likely handle everyone that would be interested in a allways on communications network that only tracked you when you were transmitting. Eg when you called someone, sent a message or browsed the web.
Would make it so your location isn't revealed without your consent while still allowing you to be contacted at any time.
A while back I suggested using a passive alert system.
Your phone could listen for its ID and receive text messages without revealing it's location. Making calls or sending messages would however reveal your location to your carrier.
IIRC there are 4 names available Alexa, Echo, Amazon & Computer.
Alexa is getting to where developers can customise their apps based on whose voice invokes it.
Google home has a feature where you can set a shortcut to any command that also takes the invokers voice into account.
So you can actually set it up to give different answers to different people.
So for example you could set it so if you asked "what's the weather" it could tell you the weather in cincinnati but if someone else asked it could tell them the weather in orlando.
Considering you can combine it with the repeat after me function you can have quite a bit of fun with it.
However it's not as versatile as alexa is in the app department.
For example with alexa I use an app called "big sky" to get detailed weather information like "what will the humidity be at 3AM tomorrow?
I've yet to even find a section to add apps to the google home IIUC all commands are available all the time you just need know the name to invoke it even then the list seems to be just a small fraction of the apps that alexa supports.
AFAIK there aren't any trading cryptocurrencies that are practical to mine with CPU.
Also IIUC due to the difficulty you can pretty much only mine with the very latest generation of equipment and it be profitable due to the cost of power and equipment efficiency.
So yes you technically could mine by hand but it wouldn't not be cost (money/time) effective.
How? They don't have the spectrum to do a simulcast like they did with analog. For them to run both they would have to pretty much halve the number of sub channels and no one wants to do that.
I just love it when I pay $25 for a dvd to be treated to 10 minutes of why I wouldn't steal a car so I shouldn't buy dvds and then advertising for all the other crap movies the company made that I don't want to watch./s
Why doesn't netflix treat me like a criminal when I watch a movie online? (ignoring vpn usage for the comments sake)
As for libraries thats a great tip although you will find most libraries have an online library offering ebooks with a much larger selection.
They aren't going to be able to support a OTA premium channel lineup with 3.0 as the market for that and the market for broadcast tv doesn't really have any overlap.
If you have a ton of disposable income you pay $150/mo get premium cable and be done with it.
Everyone else just puts up with whatever they can get with broadcast and if they aren't on the very low end internet.
As it is it doesn't look like the atsc 3.0 switchover will even happen as when they switched to digital they were allowed to run both analog and digital at the same time.
However with atsc 3.0 it's to be all or nothing.
Once they switch to atsc 3.0 they will lose a lot of their viewers (broadcast television paid for by advertising based on estimated viewer numbers) as newer equipment will be able to tune both 1.0 and 3.0 but older equipment (everything in existence today) will only be able to view 1.0 without yet another converter box or tv upgrade.
So it's better for them to do nothing than it is for them to upgrade.
Engineer:Sir I think we should cut our viewership numbers to 1/3 Station owner:Are you CRAZY?! If we do that we will only get 1/3 as much money from advertisers why on earth would I want too do that? Engineer:The picture will be better sir. Station owner:Screw picture quality I have a yacht to pay off.
That's not what it is tho. Additional features will be available to internet connected devices like smart tvs but internet is not going to be required for basic reception.
Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of us even having a broadcast television network.
What they want is accurate viewer numbers but what they are going to find is they are only going to be able to get reports from homes with both internet and a smart tv.
Sunk cost fallacy. You've already spent the money for the house and the time to move in. You would have to write that off to move into a cheaper or free house.
Dude there are entire companies that will scan files for you without reporting them to check if any AV can detect your leet new ransomware virus. I can't imagine that the NSA wouldn't have a similar setup to see if any of their tools have been compromised.
Most people get the choice of what av they run (if at all).
What the American public thinks of the NSA doesn't matter we have no meaningful way to express our opinions on the matter and even if we could its unlikely most would even care.
After all you can't fight safety people will vote for even the illusion of safety even when it can be shown it vastly to their own detriment.
Well considering that they have admitted that their software did actually collect said files in 2015 and never announced that their network had been breached (by both russia and Israel) they are at least one of the two. They must either be untrustworthy (if they knew and said nothing) or incompetent (they didn't know two diffrent nation states were running about their networks.)
Both of which should be unacceptable for a security company.
Back before HTTPS was a big thing they ran a MITM proxy and compressed images on web pages. More recently they started injecting a tracking identifier into all outgoing http traffic to help advertisers (X-UIDH). They restrict the video quality by limiting the bandwidth to their servers 10Mbps on tablets 3.8Mbps on phones for IIRC 1080P and 480P for phones.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct this would be used along side the existing cellular networks. However as was pointed out to me what I was thinking of already exists as one way pagers but not as a combined device. You could recive texts directly via a one way pager along with notice of attempted incoming calls then if you needed further information and weren't somewhere you you needs your location protected you could switch the cellular side of your phone on and continue like today.
It wouldn't fully eliminate tracking but it would knock it down to only when you were transmitting which is a big step IMHO from being tracked 24/7 without the loss of the ability to be contacted at any time.
Yes I should have been more clear In my post so it wasn't so ambiguous.
Oh your right I did. Neat!
Which also means that even without the ability to scale it still has enough capacity to be viable.
The network would still be centrally managed so every tower would recive and broadcast the message every 10 minutes 4x or so and then give up never knowing if the message was actually received.
It won't scale which is why it wasn't done in the first place.
But it would still likely handle everyone that would be interested in a allways on communications network that only tracked you when you were transmitting. Eg when you called someone, sent a message or browsed the web.
Would make it so your location isn't revealed without your consent while still allowing you to be contacted at any time.
You misunderstand it's just broadcasted to all cells assuming your phone might be on and listening.
As a result its going to have limitations like a limit to rebroadcasts and a time interval between them.
Still it wouldn't scale well but would probably scale plenty well enough for the number of people that I think would actually be interested in this.
A while back I suggested using a passive alert system.
Your phone could listen for its ID and receive text messages without revealing it's location. Making calls or sending messages would however reveal your location to your carrier.
IIRC there are 4 names available Alexa, Echo, Amazon & Computer.
Alexa is getting to where developers can customise their apps based on whose voice invokes it.
Google home has a feature where you can set a shortcut to any command that also takes the invokers voice into account.
So you can actually set it up to give different answers to different people.
So for example you could set it so if you asked "what's the weather" it could tell you the weather in cincinnati but if someone else asked it could tell them the weather in orlando.
Considering you can combine it with the repeat after me function you can have quite a bit of fun with it.
However it's not as versatile as alexa is in the app department.
For example with alexa I use an app called "big sky" to get detailed weather information like "what will the humidity be at 3AM tomorrow?
I've yet to even find a section to add apps to the google home IIUC all commands are available all the time you just need know the name to invoke it even then the list seems to be just a small fraction of the apps that alexa supports.
AFAIK there aren't any trading cryptocurrencies that are practical to mine with CPU.
Also IIUC due to the difficulty you can pretty much only mine with the very latest generation of equipment and it be profitable due to the cost of power and equipment efficiency.
So yes you technically could mine by hand but it wouldn't not be cost (money/time) effective.
It wasn't blocked because of piracy concerns it was blocked because it was their largest consumer of bandwidth by far.
Netflix has long since taken that crown....oh wait they made them pay to upgrade their peering.
Funny coincidence there ain't it?
If they had gotten away with blocking BT they would have just blocked netflix outright too.
How? They don't have the spectrum to do a simulcast like they did with analog. For them to run both they would have to pretty much halve the number of sub channels and no one wants to do that.
Well sure if your using a computer but if you are using any commercially available DVD/bluray player as the person I replied to suggested it sucks.
I just love it when I pay $25 for a dvd to be treated to 10 minutes of why I wouldn't steal a car so I shouldn't buy dvds and then advertising for all the other crap movies the company made that I don't want to watch. /s
Why doesn't netflix treat me like a criminal when I watch a movie online? (ignoring vpn usage for the comments sake)
As for libraries thats a great tip although you will find most libraries have an online library offering ebooks with a much larger selection.
So roughly the same as now then? /s
They aren't going to be able to support a OTA premium channel lineup with 3.0 as the market for that and the market for broadcast tv doesn't really have any overlap.
If you have a ton of disposable income you pay $150/mo get premium cable and be done with it.
Everyone else just puts up with whatever they can get with broadcast and if they aren't on the very low end internet.
As it is it doesn't look like the atsc 3.0 switchover will even happen as when they switched to digital they were allowed to run both analog and digital at the same time.
However with atsc 3.0 it's to be all or nothing.
Once they switch to atsc 3.0 they will lose a lot of their viewers (broadcast television paid for by advertising based on estimated viewer numbers) as newer equipment will be able to tune both 1.0 and 3.0 but older equipment (everything in existence today) will only be able to view 1.0 without yet another converter box or tv upgrade.
So it's better for them to do nothing than it is for them to upgrade.
Engineer:Sir I think we should cut our viewership numbers to 1/3
Station owner:Are you CRAZY?! If we do that we will only get 1/3 as much money from advertisers why on earth would I want too do that?
Engineer:The picture will be better sir.
Station owner:Screw picture quality I have a yacht to pay off.
That's not what it is tho.
Additional features will be available to internet connected devices like smart tvs but internet is not going to be required for basic reception.
Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of us even having a broadcast television network.
What they want is accurate viewer numbers but what they are going to find is they are only going to be able to get reports from homes with both internet and a smart tv.
Tell me about this service that gets stuff from places that don't deliver.
Sunk cost fallacy. You've already spent the money for the house and the time to move in. You would have to write that off to move into a cheaper or free house.
Afaik they are only intending to apply it to physical products like toasters, cars, trucks and tractors.
But yeah it would be nice if it was legal to keep software you and others bought running after the company decides to no longer support it.
This one? https://www.amazon.com/Large-F...
How so? Israel was one of the countries that compromised kasperkey's network and they share intel with the United States.
Dude there are entire companies that will scan files for you without reporting them to check if any AV can detect your leet new ransomware virus. I can't imagine that the NSA wouldn't have a similar setup to see if any of their tools have been compromised.
No I don't but I defiantly would not use a AV that has almost certainly been compromised by at least two nation states.
There are at least a few dozen other antivirus programs out there that aren't all but compromised why not use one of those?
Sure they might also be compromised but that's not the point.
It's like saying my house is on fire but I don't want to leave because everyone else's house is probably on fire too.
Most people get the choice of what av they run (if at all).
What the American public thinks of the NSA doesn't matter we have no meaningful way to express our opinions on the matter and even if we could its unlikely most would even care.
After all you can't fight safety people will vote for even the illusion of safety even when it can be shown it vastly to their own detriment.
Well considering that they have admitted that their software did actually collect said files in 2015 and never announced that their network had been breached (by both russia and Israel) they are at least one of the two.
They must either be untrustworthy (if they knew and said nothing) or incompetent (they didn't know two diffrent nation states were running about their networks.)
Both of which should be unacceptable for a security company.
The company is either corrupt (complicit in the hacking) or incompetent (unable to protect their own stuff).
Both are extremely good reasons not to use their software.
Back before HTTPS was a big thing they ran a MITM proxy and compressed images on web pages. More recently they started injecting a tracking identifier into all outgoing http traffic to help advertisers (X-UIDH). They restrict the video quality by limiting the bandwidth to their servers 10Mbps on tablets 3.8Mbps on phones for IIRC 1080P and 480P for phones.
Well since it's android you can probably sideload kodi on the stock version.