Uhm, phones give your GPS data now. Cars will not be a dramatic shift in potential privacy issues.

All the data that they are afraid cars will give out are already given out by people's phones.

So, basically exactly the same situation that we already have.

War, what is it good for?

Decreasing excess human population. That's what is good for.

And we have quite a few potential human population decreases being set up right now - ISIS and Russia are just waiting to decrease some extra human population.

You have several choices here. 1) Sue, claiming that the government can neither force you to design your software differently, nor require them to sell a specific software. It is a very different thing than the existing system where people are required to provide access to existing backdoors, rather than being required to create backdoors.

2) Move your corporate headquarters off shore. Then tell them they have no authority over you, but if they want to sue your country or publicly demand you stop selling your product in the US, they can do it - but your warrant requiring secrecy does not affect them in any way shape or form.

3) Separate the hardware and software, using different sub-companies to produce each one. Then have the software company declare it is hereby closed, and will provide no more updates. Tell the government that they can't force you to be in business anymore. Hire a new company to provide software and REPEAT.

They do that already. But they get so much that they still have to burn it off

I have been desperate before. I would still never fall for this kind of stupidity.

In America, they use a similar technique to get desperate people, it's a variation on the "Multi Level Marketing Scheme".

Here they make you buy 'samples' to sell to your customers. No. If the company is real, they provide all samples and tools you need.

People that buy the samples are desperate. But paying a head hunter to send you to another country, that is not desperate, that is stupid.

So true. If it's a real job, then you NEVER have to pay any amount of cash to get it. The employer should be paying the headhunter, not you.

Why? Mainly because of the exact kind of crap that they are describing here. The employer has the money, which he demonstrates by paying the headhunter. If he can't afford to pay the headhunter, he can't afford to pay you.

Also note they use the payment as a filter. That is, they don't want smart people working for these crap jobs.The smart people refuse to give up their passport and call the police after you bring them to your country. So they make sure to only 'hire' less smart people by giving you an intelligence test - if you are unwise enough to bribe the broker to get a job they promise is 'good', then you are unwise enough to give them your passport and not call the police.

But I can easily see a small scale usage for it.

Primary examples would be installed on sea installations, like say oil drilling platforms. Why ship in fuel to an oil drilling platform, when you can simply install a wavepower generator to provide the power. Then, once you find oil, you don't have to get rid of the wave power generator. Keep it and use wave power to get the oil, rather than burning oil just to get more oil.

Also, I could easily see a small scale wave power generator designed for boats, particularly house boats.

Once Russians lived in a world where they KNEW communism would last forever.

Your cynicism reflects poorly on yourself, not on my hope for a better world.

Truecrypt is the perfect example proving you wrong. It is fairly obvious that the NSA came to them with a court order not to talk about the court order. They choose to close down as opposed to following that order.

If Truecrypt could do it, then other foundations can do it. In fact, so can a company.

The fact that you wallow in the filth of today's society and can not see a greater future does not prevent me and others like me from working toward that future.

The consumers are not aware what they are doing with their money. They know what they are doing with their money, so the responsibility is theirs.

Now, if we passed a law that required all meet raised with antibiotics to be labelled as such, then the consumers would either stop buying it or bear the responsibility for their actions.

People that buy technology, particularly the innovators that buy the new products like their privacy. You want to wire my home and be the company that sets the standard?

Make my personal privacy your priority.

Because honestly, that is my primary concern. I don't want to put a camera or microphone in my home and have ANY concern that someone else might look at it.

So you need to convince me that not only can I set up the password, but that I can trust your company not to put in a back door. That means convincing me that you will go BEYOND what I consider to be necessary. I need to believe that you will stand up to the NSA and close the company down if they come knocking on your door with a court order to not even talk about you getting the court order.

Otherwise, I would rather buy the equipment myself and pick the software myself. That way I know the software is not customized to open back doors on the hardware.

Because I am perfectly willing to give up the functionality you so loudly proclaim is helpful if I can't trust you.

The real problem here is that ranchers and ranching conglomerates INSIST on using antibiotics as 'growth enhancements'.

That is, they give it to livestock not because the livestock is sick, but because it makes the livestock larger - with more muscles.

As a direct result, the livestock develop antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Congress keeps letting them do this because the companies that sell it give them lots of money.

No, I thought everything I said through. You ignored reality and substituted rather bad fiction about what the law is.

Large corporations are owned by these things called shareholders. It takes a LOT of work to make a company so multi-national that it's stock will not be 50% held by one country.

Secondly my law is NOT blocked by the first amendment, unless you are claiming that the US first amendment applies to non-citizens? Because I hate to tell you it doesn't work that way. The 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act proved that.

It is perfectly legal for the US to tell other countries, their citizens and therefore corporations that are registered in another countries they can not lobby American congressmen. Doing so can be .

Also, when people pay lobbyists, it is generally recognized as an agent of the original person, so NO you can't just pay someone else to do that, as your payment to the lobbyist is itself illegal, under my scheme.

Simply pass two laws:

1) If a country is owned by more than 50% by citizens of X country, then it must pay taxes on all it's profits of the entire world, under Country X's laws.

2) (This one I really like) If a company is not incorporated and paying the majority of it's taxes within a country, than it can not under any circumstance: A) lobby in that country, or in any way attempt to affect legislation or rules of that country B) nor can it t make any political - monetarily or directly - on any political subject for the 8 months preceding any primary or general election.

I have a poli-sci degree, but years of experience. It also helped that I had a certificate saying I had some perl training, if not a comp sci degree.

Basically, if you have the knowledge - and can demonstrate it, then your degree will not matter all that much.

Unless of course, you are trying for an extremely competitive position, being choosen by non-tech people.

That is, the idea they want is total bullcrap.

But it could be re-worked to act like this:

1) Build out infrastructure to give all customers speeds of 500 MBPS

2) Sell service to customers for speeds upto 300 MBPS. Make it clear that is what you are offering, at that price. You never advertise any speeds higher than 300 MBPS.

3) If however people are using content from approved fast lanes, you enable speeds upto 500 MBPS for content from those people.

4) Make a rule that if they ever choose to adverise speeds of over 300, they can no longer get paid for their fast lane service (and must pro-rate the money back if it was pre-paid).

THAT is something that most people would accept. Among other things, it would let the company upgrade their service much quicker if competition started coming around.

Of course, it would end up costing the ISP's a LOT more money than they make on the 'fast lanes', as actually have to BUILD the fast lane into their entire network, something they don't do and don't plan on doing.