Comment Re:yet if we did it (Score 1) 463
Cyclists might, since he was run down while cycling.
Cyclists might, since he was run down while cycling.
With a billion credentials, they certainly haven't had the chance to exploit them all yet. It's too late for 0.01% of the victims, but not too late for the rest of us.
I like pumped storage:
o Lovely water recreation areas - swimmable, boatable, fishable
o So while it costs land, it returns most of that land for public use
o Fish and other aquacritter habitat
o excellent control of recovery rate
o doesn't significantly wear out (and if you were to make it underground, won't even evaporate... expensive, but...)
o easy maintenance
o highly scenic
o No red-hot nothing, no batteries, works fine unless it freezes (so in higher latitudes... not good.)
I *also* like this idea for pumped transport:
Imagine a C shape that is almost closed -- just a few feet short of meeting at the ends. It's an almost circular canal. From one end of the C, you pump water into the other end of the C (and add any replacement volume required by evaporation.) This creates a current that operates the entire length of the C. Now, put two of these next to each other. Pump the second one in the opposite direction. Put cranes (or locks) at the ends, so that transport platforms can be moved from one direction to the other. Cost? Initially, Pumps, cranes, canal, transport platforms. In operation: pump energy (solar, please) and evaporation refill. Unless you roof it.
Air pressure. Gravity. Water. Make it work for us.
Readers of this story will have noticed the links to four of the major social media sites, including Facebook.
Since the earliest days of USENET and IRC Chat, the geek has a flawless record of making one-on-one communication over the Internet as painful a process as possible for the non-technical user.
It took the commercial services like Sype to break the spell.
Stupid opinions based on violent fairy tale books, at that.
If the geek were honest about the thing, he would that he has built his own language and culture from bits and pieces scavenged from pop cultural icons like Star Trek --- whose stories were in turn drawn from familiar sacred and secular texts, myths, legends, and fairy tales,
The government confiscating all your cash in a time of financial turmoil however... that's pretty much guaranteed to happen.
If they had wanted to be truly innovative... the card would not be a Mastercard, but a Bitcoin hardware wallet, where the user would have to program it with their Public/Private key pair, and each citizen would be given at least three... one pair of e-cards primary/backup, and a paper document that could be used to prove ID in order to replace documents in case the other two were lost, so they could carry the first, lockup the second someplace safe, and put the third in a safety deposit vault.
> If you cannot even trust the platform, then how does your logic work?
The logic works fine. Platforms can work fine too. Society, however, doesn't. So that part is up to you.
> Can't trust cell phone cameras. By definition it's a camera attached to a communications device. It's designed to share that photo.
Exactly right. Buy a DSLR if you require discretion in photography. Ensure it does not have network connectivity (some do... Canon 6D, for instance.) If you take an image with a cellphone camera, be aware before you ever shoot it that you can have no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever. It goes further than that, too. When using a smartphone, again be aware you have no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever with regard to texts, voice conversations, video conversations, email, your location, billing, logging and so one for every service the phone provides you (or others) with.
> Can't trust storing it on a PC as PCs are connected to the Internet in the overwhelming majority of instances.
No. If you want to store something that requires discretion, then you require a non-network connected PC. There's no inherent need to connect a PC to a network. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. Nor is there a need to construct a PC with bluetooth, wifi and so on. Nor is there a need to leave a PC in a generally accessible location and/or condition. These are all user choices. Make them wrongly, and your security is compromised. But they are not inevitabilities. There's a lesson here: just because others do something in some particular manner does not mean that you have to do so.
> Then there's the whole point of a picture, looking it at it. Typically that means more than just the picture-taker looking at it
Again, no. This is also user choice. You are responsible for the consequences of your choices, and for knowing the things you need to know to make those choices well. The key here is to be informed enough to make the most correct choices. "It's typical" is not a metric that binds anyone in any way. If you embrace such a thing, you either choose to do so or you are so ignorant that you know no better, in which case anyone who trusts you with data that requires discretion is making a serious mistake.
The images I have taken or otherwise created that I have *decided* you may see are here. The ones I have *decided* you may not have access to, you will never, ever see, barring use of military levels of force. These conditions were quite literally trivial to instantiate and maintain. Think, choose, easy implementation, all done.
> For all we know, none of these women's accounts were compromised. Their boyfriends, husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends accounts could have been, or those people could have shared the photos with others, and their accounts were compromised.
The issue isn't account centric. It is behavior centric. You must identify data that needs protection; you must identify the trustworthy in regard to both persons and systems; you must control distribution; you must employ discretion and ensure that your knowledge is up to the task of seeing all these things through. If you cannot do these things, you are (at the very least) a potential victim of your own limitations. And you should probably fix that.
No, it is still the lowest forms of argumentation, not because of the factuality of the ties of a speaker with the technology or industry they are defending, but because they attack the speaker instead of the arguments they present
But the son was not presenting an argument. He was putting words in his dead father's mouth.
In any case, whatever he meant, it was a rhetoric statement, torn completely out of context and expressing a personal sentiment, not the official stance of the atomic energy program.
At least you're tacitly admitting that saving consumers money was never part of the nuclear fission story.
Some soap and water will take care of that.
To be fair, there's the good Cloud and the bad Cloud.
No. There isn't. There's good use of cloud and bad use of cloud. If it's not a problem for random people, business entities, criminals and governments to have access to your data, then cloud storage can be convenient and harmless. Using cloud for storage of anything personal, proprietary, secret or dangerous is outright stupid. Marketing bullshit aside, you are putting your data in multiple-someone-else's hands and you have *zero* control over where it goes from there. There is no assurance of security whatsoever. There never has been. It is extremely unlikely there ever will be.
These truths extend to your own use of storage. Storing information on your boot drive can expose it to others if the machine ever needs repair and you cannot do the work yourself and you let the machine out the door with the boot drive and/or backup drives still installed. Connecting a machine with information on any attached storage device to the Internet creates a risk constructed of a very long list of possible errors whose genesis can be traced to the author(s) of your operating system and/or your own security procedures. Allowing others physical access to your machine can expose your data. Even the possibility of physical access to your machine, regardless of your authorization, can do so.
Most people don't understand security, and have not learned to be discrete, and are very poor evaluators of who, and what, are actually trustworthy. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where the gullible fall into the trap set by marketers claiming things like cloud storage are "safe." We can't fix this without specific education on the matter, and with a school system that can't even graduate people who can read and write well, the required understanding of secure data handling will almost certainly remain in the realm of the sophisticated technical person. And the clouds will continue to precipitate data the owners wanted to remain undistributed to many places it wasn't expected to go.
What it comes down to is, if you don't want naked pictures of yourself to end up for all the world to see, don't take naked pictures of yourself. Famous or not, just don't do it.
No. What it comes down to is who, and what, are trustworthy. Cloud services are not trustworthy. Some people are not trustworthy. This doesn't just apply to images; it applies to financial information (banks are not trustworthy), to your behavior in public (those other people at parties are not trustworthy) and so on.
There's no need to give up intimate entertainment. You just need to learn to be discrete, and this means very carefully evaluating who, and what, are trustworthy. I will grant that in the face of all the cloud propaganda, the social networking tsunami, the government's drive to list everyone and everything, and people's innate tendency to gossip, this may no longer be obvious, but discretion is, in fact, one of the key characteristics of a mature and healthy personality.
If you don't want something repeated, don't say it. If you don't want it shared, don't share it. But you can still do it. From there, the advisability of "doing it" becomes a question of one's morals and ethics -- and perhaps the law. While the law is often completely wrongheaded, we must always remember the amount of power in the system's hands.
Discretion: That's what is at the core of all of this. Not self-censorship.
If the Passenger Pigeon has been extinct for this long, it's safe to say that ecosystems have adjusted to their demise. Let's not see what the consequences of re-introducing them are.
AFAIK there wasn't any dramatic changes when the PP went extinct, so whatever function they had, some other species took over - in engineering terms, the ecosystem switched to using Backup Pigeon System. If so, then re-introducing Passenger Pigeon is analogous to getting primary system back online, which is a good thing both because it re-introduces a layer of redundancy, as well as allows the ecosystem to return to the balance its species have evolved into (and haven't have time to evolve out of), thus giving much-needed stress reduction on a system already facing enough challenges.
And since that person is apparently now dead, how can they just somehow arbitrarily decide that charges should be dropped?
Because dead men tell no tales. Which rises a question of what incentive does any officer have to ensure that the merely wounded survive? Delay calling help a little and there won't be any confusion over conflicting testimonies.
You don't need to take photos using an iDevice to have them end up in iCloud. All you need to do is use a Mac.
If you use a Mac to download pictures off your camera - including cell phones that aren't iPhones and therefore behave like standard cameras and don't require Apple-specific software - by default, your pictures will end up in iCloud. It's part of the "Photo Stream" thing to allow users to stream pictures to the Apple TV that clearly every Mac owner has.
Ultimately he is the only one who can determine if the environment is safe for him to operate that computer and drive. He failed. It cost a life. He needs to pay a price for that.
Alternatively, we could decide that the blame resides partially - probably mostly - on the police department and current social climate as a whole. After all, the latter has all but declared police to be above law or even the very concept of accountability, while the former certainly took advantage of it. People planted into a poisonous cultural atmosphere cannot help but internalize and treat it as a baseline for what's "normal", and can individually only decide whether they're better or worse than that. And assigning all the blame on that individual lets the system that spawned them off the hook, thus ensuring the same thing will happen again, and again, and again.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
