I know that.

This thread/discussion is about using GPS to figure out which network connection(s) to look for and connect to, so this statement, while true, is not even remotely applicable to the topic.

Also true. However, most people have apps installed on their Android phone. Too many Android apps request fine location permission for no legitimate reason. I assume a lot of the free ones that display ads want location so they only display ads for brick and mortar businesses that are geographically relevant. Even for this, though, the coarse, network-based location service would be much more accurate than necessary.

See my response to your sibling post, as well.

Because way too many programs on Android request fine location permission. Yes, this is a problem with the programs themselves, but that's why I said "potentially." However, every time your phone turned on the GPS momentarily to determine location and therefore which probes to send, any or all of these programs, if installed, would be able to snag your exact location, and send it off to the developer on the next network connection.

How does "hide the user's identity" == "evading the law"?

Guten Tag, mate.

So your solution to traffic accident deaths is to reduce the speed at which the accident occurs, thereby improving the chances of the people involved of surviving?
Wouldn't a better solution be to prevent the accident altogether? Since death can occur at speeds as low as 7-8 mph (a friend of mine was a cop, and saw it happen more than once - broken neck.), that means at best, reducing speeds will prevent some deaths, but not all. Not to mention the damage to vehicles that must be repaired, damage to the environment from leaking automotive fluids, etc.etc.

How about this: Get the complete morons who shouldn't be put behind the wheel of a golf cart off the road, and we'll have far fewer accidents, regardless of what the speed limit is.
I know, I know....study after study shows that accident rates increase when speed limits increase. Well, there's a very subtle, but massive selection bias in every single one of those studies. They only select people who've been in accidents. What they actually prove is that people who are likely to get into an accident are more likely to get into one at a higher speed. They don't include the guy who's been driving at 35 over the limit for a 40 mile trip to work and back for 40 years, and never been in an accident.

Have you seen those "<Country>'s Worst Driver" shows? Have you ever stopped to think that every incompetent, useless driver on every one of those shows has passed a driver's test? What is wrong with this picture? The problem isn't speed limits. It starts WAAAAY before we ever get there. The problem is, practically worldwide, we're letting complete incompetents behind the wheel of a car.

Here's another thing: Have an at fault accident in most jurisdictions, and you'll get fined. Have an accident that kills someone, and you'll probably still just get fined. Have another one 6 months later, and you'll get fined again. Barring your being drunk at the time, though, the chances of you losing your licence are slim to none.
However, if you fail to pay a $35 parking ticket, when you try to renew your licence, you won't be able to.
Road safety isn't important to the powers that be. They just want to make sure they get their money from you, that's all. Which is exactly the same thing as the GP claims, with law enforcement using speed traps as revenue generators.

So, your solution to leaking location data by WiFi is to automatically turn on the potentially even more intrusive GPS locator?

You mean just beta? Or /. in general?

I've never agreed with it. A gun enthusiast is no different from a racing enthusiast. A talk radio listener is no different from a /. visitor. An 'other' is no different from you or I. For the government to tag any of these as "extremists" or "needs closer monitoring" or anything else, is just wrong.

And this kind of insightful eloquence (from an AC, no less) is the reason I still come to /., despite Dice's best efforts at killing it.

This, of course, assumes that speed limits in North America are rational. There are some pretty strong arguments against this.....

Uh, no. Because Microsoft's security team didn't put the ex-parte petition together. Microsoft's legal team did. And Microsoft's legal team most definitely gives a big, massive shit about copyright infringement.

MS Legal may have used a lot of information from the security team for their reasoning, but to say it's got nothing to do with copyright infringement because the security team doesn't care about it is incredibly naive.

MS should be glad CISPA hasn't been passed and come into effect. They are definitely, no question, making information "less available" with this action, which means Microsoft, and possibly even the court, would be classed as cyber threats.

I'm guessing that MS intentionally used vague wording for this, with the intent of misleading the judge, but without definitely being at fault for doing it. "No-IP domains are used 93 percent of the time" could mean either "93 percent of all No-IP domains are used for these infections," or it could mean "Out of all the domains used for these infections, 93% of them are No-IP domains." I'm willing to bet that the second is true, but the first is what MS wanted the judge to read into it, and of course, the 93% of malware No-IP domains could be only 0.01% of total No-IP domains.

I'm also willing to bet that MS wanted to do this because of the fact that various Windows KMS servers are set up on No-IP.com hosts, allowing unofficial activation of volume licenced versions of Windows without paying MS a cent.

If I'm right, I really hope the truth comes out in court, and Microsoft gets slapped, HARD, fined by the court, is required to issue a very loud public apology to No-IP, and give them a bundle of cash for damaging their business.

I bet it's nothing to do with malware.
It's because there are instructions like this on Facebook, as well as other places.....

Once again, content providers and piracy take precedence over all other interests, business or otherwise.

GP stated figures for the last 60 million years. Your graph covers less than 2.5% of that range, so it doesn't have anywhere near enough data to refute the GP's claim.

However, if you look at the graph of the last 65 million years, you'll see that we are, quite literally, the coldest we've been during that entire period.