Comment should have used a different tone (Score 1) 225
If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.
+1 Excellent use of pre-emptive after-the-fact diplomacy!
If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.
+1 Excellent use of pre-emptive after-the-fact diplomacy!
I didn't mention the robot-to-dinosaur or robot-to-city transfolk because they are sparkless abominations.
Which makes perfect sense. Sadly, unsparkless* robot-to-star* folk have a tendency to suffer fatal short circuits and are generally not long-lived. But we digress...
* beware technical jargon in the above
That is in all honesty a very good name for a shoulder-mounted gadget such as this.
What a brain fart. Thank you.
Pi is exactly 1, if your numbering system uses base pi.
Even for intra-European flights, I've been asked to take off my shoes and belt (and my pocket watch) and waddle through the metal detector gate while I hold up my pants with my hands. It's embarrasing, and certainly seems ineffective.
Ah, but there's your problem: step #3.
You cannot expect private interests to be respected in a commercial undertaking.
With that clarified: I thought that some of the distributed social networking projects offered exactly that (superb privacy capabilities). Regardless, Google+ seems to be a step in the right direction. Maybe not what everyone wants or needs, but a decent start.
I couldn't agree more. But we're not the press, so we're not allowed to form independent opinion. Or at least, that's what I've been told
Will anyone ever create a social network firmly rooted in personal privacy? Are the two mutually exclusive?
Yes, and no. But there are other forces at work. In fact, there are a number of such projects ongoing already, and have been for years (because they can't commit the resources for a Google-style development pace, but that's another matter).
The most important point is this:
For Facebook, and just as well for Google, the users are not the customers. The users are the product.
As long as this remains the case, you can pretty much forget everything about personal privacy -- they need access to your information in order to sell it. There. It really is that simple.
That is why it is possible for an underbrush of open source projects to build a true social network --one that respects the individual-- because for these projects, ideology trumps profit. No wait, don't go away! It's a cliché, I know, but in this case it's very very important, as I'm sure you can understand if you consider it for just a moment.
lead paint eating retards [...] using it makes you seem like a twat.
As does this, you.
Have a fine day.
This.
As a fellow non-USian, one would think they'd post that information somewhere up-front, that it's not very useful outside their borders. One is left to wonder if they are designing such "user experiences" on purpose, or if they really are that dumb. Not that I am a huge Amazon customer, but still, it's plainly bad business.
In practice, what part of that sentence is true today?
How about this?
The right of the people
I kid, I kid. I'm far away and not really knowledgeable about these things.
That's gotta be the longest
I'm pretty sure I really can't follow how the topology of t-shirts relates to phreaking smart cards. I mean, I understand what you say about "what is a hole", in a topological sense, and also the impressiveness about us still talking to good ole Voyager, but I think it's fundamentally different from wirelessly reading an unpowered chip that is not designed for contactless transaction. Do you have a reference for this? That would be interesting. Sure, it's possible to trick everything from parking meters to voting machines, and obviously RFID and other meant-for-wireless devices, but I would expect a smart card reader to require physical contact with the pads of the chip, or at least be powered up for the duration of the "steal" -- phreaking, as it were.
On the topic of "hey customer, use this *new* tech, it's so much *easier* for you"
As for the CVV code, I actually make a point of memorizing it and scraping it off the card, exactly so that the pimply service attendand can't duplicate my card with a mere pencil and snippet of gum wrapper -- I've actually had store personnel tell me they "require" this information. Hilarity ensued, but I ended up walking out of the store with my desired purchase.
Thank you for your well-written posts.
I fully understand your motivation, and wish your solution (AmEx dumb-card) would be an option where I live. I just have one question: what do you do for online purchases? I'm guessing it's the usual card-number-and-expiration-date-and-three-digit-code thing, and if so, do you trust that?
Also, I'm curious about the "remote hole" and the "concept of surface area" topic, which I don't understand. How is the non-RFID chip of a standard "smart card" vulnerable? No really, I'm not playing dumb or trolling -- I'd like to learn.
I'm sorry, but this is one occasion I cannot pass up.
"The Neverhood", by Microsoft, is a hilarious and not too challenging point and click adventure which requires almost no language skills (save for a few very specific bits of knowledge, such as the meaning of "bobby"). It may me a bit hard to come by, though.
Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous
