I've done 90mph in the left lane on I-10 through Houston before when traffic is light and the conditions are good, since, as you said, it really is built for high speeds along most of that stretch (i.e. great lines of sight, gradual curves, wide lanes, well marked), rather than the 60mph it's marked as. That said, I was driving back home last night and was heading out of town on 290 West, a bit outside Beltway 8 on the north side of Houston, and nearly had a very painful reminder of why tailgating is such a bad idea.

As I was coming up to the crest of an overpass, everyone was doing the standard "we're all braking because there's a hill" thing that Texans do, and I was braking as early and gradually as possible because I wanted to give the guy who had been tailing me too closely for the last five minutes every opportunity to slow down (he instead used it as an opportunity to close the distance between us even further), when I realized that the car three ahead of me had suddenly gone from gradually slowing down to slamming on their brakes for a reason I couldn't see. I managed to pump my brakes once or twice in an attempt to warn the car behind me that we were about to brake hard, before I had no choice but to slam on my own brakes since otherwise I would've rammed the car in front of me, but the car behind me still couldn't stop in time. Thankfully, that stretch of 290 West is no longer under construction, so we had a shoulder there that he was able to yank the wheel to get into, but he ended up 2-3 cars ahead of me by the time he managed to come to a screeching stop, and the car that had been behind him ended up next to me by the time it could stop.

(Near as I can tell, what had happened is that a car somewhere ahead of me and in my lane hadn't been paying attention when everyone else did the "Texas hill braking" and rear-ended the car in front of them. Unfortunately, they did it just barely over the crest of the hill where we no one could see them until the last moment, and then they didn't clear their vehicle out of traffic, so it was sitting there in a horrible spot where people didn't have much time to react, which was what led to all of the slamming on of brakes.)

All of which is to say, I'm totally in favor of higher speed limits since the roads are built for them already, but first we need to make/enforce laws regarding tailgating and then do the same for people occupying the passing lane without passing. The cops started enforcing the latter along parts of SH-6 towards Bryan/College Station after signs regarding it went up a few years back, and it's really helped to improve the flow of traffic through there while reducing the number of accidents I've seen. Without them, you get a crowded situation rather quickly, which significantly increases the risk of an accident occurring. With them, you have less accidents and faster speeds.

Doesn't the FOSS movement fill this need when it comes to programming? Unlike engineers, who may need to go into remote areas in order to help build wells or other pieces of infrastructure that are necessary for survival, most of a programmer's work (though admittedly not all) either can't be done on-site or simply needn't be done on-site. Rather, you're more dependent on the people having reached some minimum threshold already (e.g. have a computer, have an Internet connection, etc.), at which point providing free and open source software would mean not only allowing them to benefit from your efforts, but could also potentially benefit others in similar circumstances.

I'm not even a big FOSS proponent (i.e. never contributed anything to an OSS project, still don't have a github account, work for a consulting company that does custom applications mostly for oil and gas clients), but to me that seems like the obvious question to ask. When it comes to technology, the borders aren't there, so you don't need a group in order to reach people halfway around the world.

When I was in grad school, my research group had a round robin seminar each week, in which we'd take turns presenting conference papers that had just come out in our field (Computer Science). Given that we were all busy with other things, we mostly just skimmed through the list of recent publications, looked for interesting titles, read through a few abstracts (maybe some introductions too), and then picked a paper to present based on those facts alone.

I recall picking one that sounded extremely interesting based on the title, and its abstract and introduction promised some great, new techniques with solid results, so I e-mailed my research group the paper I'd be presenting, then proceeded to actually read it. It was authored by a professor at an Indian university, a PhD candidate, and a Masters candidate, and had recently been published in a local IEEE conference's proceedings.

The only problem? It had a blank spot where the methodology was supposed to be. And another blank spot in the paper where the results were supposed to be. Not just that it was light on details. It was wholly empty. Nothing. I managed to find a revised version of the paper on their website that had a paragraph in each section, but it was, as you'd imagine, rather light on any useful detail. But the conclusion stated very conclusively that their results were extremely good, and the introduction made it clear they had done something great. And it was published!

That was the last time any of us in that research group (several of whom were Indian) bothered looking at papers published in Indian conference proceedings. And I never lived down the fact that I hadn't noticed it was entirely blank under the headings for those two sections.

It's unfortunate that anyone needs to experience incarceration, but we live in a world where people continue to cause criminal harm, and as such, incarceration or some other form of consequence/reform program is necessary. Someone violating the rights of others should expect to have their own rights abridged in order to ensure that they will not continue in their criminal behavior. From your own bio, it sounds as if incarceration was an appropriate response to your criminal activity, and the only thing unfortunate was that you engaged in the behavior to begin with:

That said, none of that is intended as a slam, but merely as a statement of fact regarding the state of our society and your specific case. It does sound as if you are trying to take responsibility for your actions and provide restitution to your victims, though, understandably, some will doubt your motives or question your methods.

You're arguing a technicality. 30 seconds of Googling turned up a 2012 article on the NFL's own website with the subheading How the iPad is revolutionizing playbooks for NFL players and coaches .

While it's true that this is the first year they're allowed on the sidelines, suggesting they weren't using iPads before is patently false and doesn't address the previous commenter's assertion that they'd be using iPads if they could. iPads have been in use in the locker room and training facilities for quite awhile, not to mention the announcers, officials, and others who have been using them during the game, both on-air and off. The iPad was announced in 2010. Between the 2011 and 2012 seasons, the league went from having two teams using iPads in place of paper playbooks to having 14 teams using them, with the prediction being that all teams would have switched to iPads by last season (I haven't found confirmation one way or the other for if it actually happened).

All of which is to say, it's a bit silly to refute a "[g]iven a choice, they'd still be using iPads" argument by suggesting that because they couldn't use them for 3 hours each week "[t]hey weren't using iPads", while failing to acknowledge that they were using them for the other 165 hours of the week.

Fair enough on Paywave and Paypass. I had forgotten about those.

But I guess I just don't understand the rest of your points. It seems like you're moving the goalposts a bit.

Why is the inability to change a fingerprint in any way relevant to this discussion? A PIN is much easier to compromise than a fingerprint, and even if my fingerprint is compromised, it only because a threat to me if the thief has the sophisticated means necessary to lift and reproduce my fingerprint, whereas anyone at all can reproduce my PIN with the greatest of ease.

Moreover, my inability to change my fingerprint only becomes a problem if the same thief targets me multiple times. By the time they'd manage to reproduce my fingerprint after stealing my device the first time, I'd have de-authorized the device for making transactions, meaning that the only way those fingerprints they potentially acquired would ever be useful would be if they targeted me again and stole a second device that I had configured in the same way. But at that point, we're talking about someone who not only has some pretty sophisticated techniques, but is also engaging in some pretty sophisticated attacks. It's not something that 99.9999% of us will ever have to deal with, and for those among us who do have to deal with those sorts of attacks, chip-and-PIN would fare even worse at protecting you, since you'd be immediately compromised after the first theft if they had merely looked over your shoulder at the store.

I'll admit, I should have phrased that differently. I've since then clarified and explained the distinction in another comment and provided quotes from the 1966 Supreme Court case that established precedent in this area, so I'll refer you there. The gist of it is that one act—providing a passcode—is communicative in nature, whereas the other—providing your fingerprint when requested—is not.

Nope. The distinction here is that one act is communicative, while the other is not.

Let's go back to the 1966 Supreme Court case that established case law on these sorts of issues. That case dealt with a person involved in a car accident who was suspected of drunk driving. A police officer could smell the alcohol on his breath, so when the man was in the hospital after the accident, he directed a doctor to take a blood sample over the suspect's objections. In other words, his own blood was being used to incriminate him.

Some relevant passages:

Basically, they're saying that the 5th Amendment only protects evidence of a "testimonial or communicative nature". More on that below.

They're quoting an earlier case here, but basically they're saying that a person's body can be used to incriminate them, without it violating the Fifth Amendment. Without that being true, you'd get all sorts of nonsensical rules, like the one they cited, where the mere act of allowing the jury to see the defendant would mean violating his right against self-incrimination, since then they could compare him against a photo taken of the suspect at the crime scene. Hell, even witnesses wouldn't be able to see defendants, since they'd be able to recognize them, potentially. Clearly the Fifth was not intended to protect against such ridiculousness.

I.e. While compulsion was indeed involved, A) that it was compelled didn't change anything, B) there was no testimony or communication involved at all, C) the compulsion didn't relate to testimony or communication.

All of this ties back in with fingerprint locks, since your fingerprint is just another form of physical evidence, like any other that you may be asked to provide, and all three of those apply here as well. Whether it's compelled or not doesn't change anything, and it, in and of itself, does not communicate anything. By providing your fingerprint, you aren't acknowledging your guilt. You aren't testifying that you did it. You aren't indicating an awareness of anything at all. You're merely providing your fingerprint...in this case on a device they have in evidence, rather than on a piece of paper. That your fingerprint's ability to unlock the device can be used to incriminate you does not mean that your rights are being violated. It merely means that "the glove fit", so to speak.

The same is not true of something like a passcode, which is, by its very nature, communicative.

IANAL. I'm just a guy who responded with a knee-jerk reaction that of course this was wrong of them to do, gave it some more thought, found a contrary view that actually made a great deal of sense, and decided to go look up some of the case history on the subject to find out what the real answer was since I found the topic fascinating.

They can't demand that you incriminate yourself by providing the passphrase (i.e. demonstrating a knowledge and awareness of potentially criminal activity), but if they happen to know what the passphrase is, they can provide it to you and then demand that you read it back to them. Which is to say, they can demand your voice from you, but not your knowledge of the passphrase.

I'd agree, actually. I brought that example up to illustrate the fault in the AC's reasoning.

The issue here is what the Constitution protects us from. The AC's assertion was that because being compelled to provide a passcode is unconstitutional, and because providing a fingerprint gives them the same access, it must be unconstitutional as well. The problem with his assertion is that it doesn't take into account why being compelled to provide a passcode is unconstitutional.

I was pointing out that being compelled to provide a passcode is unconstitutional for reasons that have nothing at all to do with their gaining access, and everything to do with the fact that it compels you to self-incriminate. And one of the ways I illustrated that fact was by pointing out examples we're familiar with in which police officers gain access to things through alternative methods, such as the one you quoted.

Which is to say, I completely agree that it isn't what's under discussion...except that it's what the AC brought up when trying to suggest this was unconstitutional.

Care to cite what part of the Constitution this gets around? Because near as I can tell, the constitution does not protect you from reasonable search and seizure. It never has. Police with a warrant can open doors, break chains, crack safes, pick locks, take your keys, or do pretty much anything else they want to do to get access to your private information. That's been true for as long as any of us can likely remember. That's the whole point of investigations and detective work. Did you think they just went, "Aww shucks!" every time they came across a locked door, or did you realize that if they needed to get in, they'd either find the keys or break it in?

The reason you can refrain from providing a passcode is because the 5th Amendment protects you against self-incrimination, and the very act of providing the passcode may in itself be incriminating, since it demonstrates that you have an awareness and knowledge of the device and the means to unlock it. Which is to say, while the police may have the authority (when authorized by a proper warrant) to search your phone, they do not have the authority to compel you to give up your own rights by providing a passcode.

But their authority to search your phone doesn't suddenly die just because they can't get your passcode. If an alternative method for accessing that data exists that does not involve trampling your rights, they are welcome to use it, whether it be decrypting the phone, tricking you into providing the passcode, or, yes, using your fingerprint.

As per the usual, the headline is more sensational than the actual press release. What they actually said was the following:

I.e. Google Glass isn't banned. You just have to turn it off and put it away, the same as smartphones or other devices that can be used for recording.

But in those cases you're talking about an NFC signal that auto-authenticates a transaction with no interaction from the user. I haven't used Google Wallet or Apple Pay yet, but it's my understanding that neither of them operates that way. Apple Pay requires that you first authorize the purchase with the use of your fingerprint, while Google Wallet, I believe, requires that you unlock your phone and confirm on-screen your intent to use your phone for a purchase.

In theory, yes, your attack would work...assuming that the protections that actually do exist didn't exist.

The only reason I know how much I use is because I'm frequently bumping up against my ISP's bandwidth cap (and thus getting stern warnings from them as I approach it), despite being on their highest-tier residential plan (i.e. the one with the highest cap) and despite not engaging in any illegal downloading (really!). They instituted it about a year back after placing some fine print (that I didn't see until afterwards) in one of my monthly statements, and I was immediately forced to upgrade my plan to a higher one since the cap they instituted on the plan I was using was roughly equal to my average monthly consumption at that point.

But between cloud backups, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, audio streaming, automatic app updates across many of my devices and services (e.g. iDevices, Steam, game consoles, etc.), video chatting, Dropbox/Box/iCloud syncing, and any number of other perfectly normal and entirely legal uses for an Internet connection, I regularly have to start rationing my daily usage to ensure that I won't go past the cap by the end of the month. At this point, I'm seriously considering a switch to commercial service, which would come without a cap, despite the fact that the connection would be nearly an order of magnitude slower.

I'm dealing with it right now, in fact, what with it being the end of the month. As of yesterday, I have 5GB left to go for the month, so I've had to turn off most of my services and have been unplugging my connection while out of the house just to make sure that something like Steam updating a game doesn't put me over the limit.

Yeah, I was noticing that. Strange how they come out of the woodwork at the oddest times. Maybe the merchants are coming to a realization that this thing is blowing up in their faces and are trying to get a handle on it. I doubt it though.