Emphasis on "THEIR" establishments. It's their property. Same way that I could record anyone in my house or on MY property. Doesn't mean that it can't bother me when someone's gratuitously obvious about it.

Am I in that geek's house, or on their property? When I'm in a store or a bank, I'm on their property, and they have an interest in recording me that I understand. Same with the cop; he's doing something comparatively dangerous in the execution of his duties. He's a public servant. A private citizen in a public place recording me for unknown purposes? That's unsettling. Personally, I wouldn't ask them to stop, but I'd be appreciative of a business that forbid its patrons to film other patrons without their permission.

An 802.11-compliant device that receives a deauthentication message is required to terminate its connection to the base station. As such, if you transmit a deauth, you didn't just "express an idea", you gave a command to a device that's required to obey it. It's like saying "I'm not responsible for the damage caused by hitting the self-destruct button; whoever wired the button to the explosives is". When YOUR actions cause something to happen that wouldn't have happened if you didn't do anything, then YOU are completely at fault.

Whoever selected wifi is negligent, but that doesn't fully absolve the deauthenticator of responsibility.

Deauthentication messages work outside wifi encryption. It's a common wifi attack to broadcast deauth messages, then record the reauthentication of clients as they reconnect to the wireless access point. For encryption with known weaknesses (like WEP), reauthentication attempts can be analyzed to discover the network key. This attack is similar, but without the goal of discovering the key.

Apparently, the 802.11 standard states "Deauthentication is not a request; it is a notification. Deauthentication shall not be refused by either party." If the device is standards-compliant, then spamming a deauthentication message should continually knock it offline.

Of course, but what's easier and simultaneously more desirable for more people? A rule asking that the one or two people likely to wear Glass take them off, or asking all the people in the area to pay attention to the little light, if they're bothered by the idea of being recorded?

As a form factor, perhaps that's true. As a platform, I like Android enough that it overcomes the downsides. My phone's as much of a tech toy as it is a practical device.

That salary sounds low, depending on living expenses for your area. For that level of experience and that specialization of knowledge, I'd expect the number to be well into 6 figures, if they were working here.

About the same time that they get over the fixation on specific college degrees. I was hired as a C++ developer, but I've touched code in half a dozen languages besides that, and I didn't know a few of those before I had to use them.

The Nausicaan dom-jot cheaters are strangely absent, as well.

The safe level varies based on the patient's physical activity at the time. Imagine that they're out swimming and someone uses their smartphone to set their heart to "going to bed" flow rate. And if the heart has a safety feature where it can read the neural signals for heartbeat speed, then why would it need to be externally controllable anyhow? Wireless access just seems like an unnecessary complication to the system.

I'm not a giant Apple fan, but one thing that I actually liked about their strategy up to this point was keeping their phones smaller. I've had a 4.7" phone, and that was almost too large for my (admittedly small) hands. I've got a 5" screen now, and it's notably difficult for me to use. I'm pessimistic about my future upgrade options at this point, if even Apple is jumping on the mega-sized-phone bandwagon.

I've had 4 such flights this year, 2 of which were 11 hours long. I don't see enough benefit in reclining my seat 15 degrees to inconvenience the person behind me.

All of Slashdot can use the AC account, while only a subset of Slashdot (often only one person) can use any given named account. People leak information when they type, and if the same person or small group of people can be identified by an anonymized identifier like a username, then you can glean information about whoever's using that name.

It's like the databases of "anonymized" information. Gather enough information, and eventually you'll have enough data points to uniquely identify an individual. That's pretty far off from "just as anonymous", provided someone wants to actually do the work to datamine someone else's old /. posts.

Why not Royal Crown spiked with Crown Royal?

One of my recently replaced cards is chip and signature, and I think that's what most US-issued smart cards are using. Security-wise, it's kind of a half measure, but at least it's a step forward from complete reliance on the magstripe.