I was purely playing devil's advocate; honestly, I agree, it seems that there are plenty of safeguards against this sort of thing. Usually the topic comes up in the context of entire corrupt departments, IIRC.

Everyone likes accountability when they have control over it. The cops would have control over the tapes, right? So they get to choose which parts to show and which parts to "inconveniently lose." Every other time this topic has come up on Slashdot, there's been quite a cynical kerfuffle about precisely this.

but... I thought we were never supposed to talk to the cops?

Damn. I wish my wife would let me do that. My 3yo girl can scream loud enough to make ears bleed. And my eldest is a question a second. I should just hand him the phone, and say, "hey, this guy wants you to tell him all about Minecraft, Rainbow Loom, and Pokemon!!"

I had a Nigerian coworker who was stunned (nearly offended) to find out that the rest of the world refers to it as a 419 scam. She then showed me a video of a crowd of people stoning an accused thief to death, while the police watched unable to stop it. So.... I guess she didn't call HR on me. :-)

Not to be confused with the furniture, which has far more shrubberies in it.

Except the Stasi would not have had the capability to sift through 8 billion records, much less 850B. That's what's even scarier, they can search through this stuff so fast. In all the shit I've written over the years, I'm sure there's something to indict me on. And I'm a pretty clean-cut guy.

'Sheriff flyneye, this is special agent Fredricks wanting to verify your login credentials for ICREACH. Our database shows that you still have the default password of "Password1" which should be changed immediately. ... Oh, OK. ... "kitty69"? ... Yes, that's acceptable. Sorry for the confusion.'

While I don't agree with you, I think it's improper that you have been modded troll. It is not trolling to expound an unpopular idea. You have some valid concerns that some of the arguments made in favor of NN could later be used to legitimize a second round of SOPA/PIPA style legislation. They've tried it before, and if we do not remain vigilant, they will certainly try again.

But I believe that the risks of gatekeepers like Comcast intentionally dicking with who gets to see what how fast. If we had true competition, I could get behind the libertarian ideals of "don't regulate companies too much." But in this instance, you get only one, maybe two if you're lucky, providers of high-speed DSL in an area. And in many areas, these guys are also the cable providers. Hell, mine even has it in the name: Consolidated. They are intentionally consolidating services. They claim it is to improve customer experience, but it's pretty obvious that their goal is jacking up rates as high as they can get away with.

Internet access (like the airwaves) is clearly an area where the risks of not regulating enough outweigh the risks of over-regulation. I think that corporations in America have proven time and again that they are worthy of even LESS trust than the bozos in DC. Especially in the case of an open and free Internet. It's not "What could go wrong?" It's "What is already going wrong?" Just look at the whole Netflix/Comcast protection racket if you have any doubts.

I'm not sure where you misunderstood me. I said "virtual frame buffer" and VNC. The virtual frame buffer is a software-only framebuffer, separate from the one that drives the screen. It can have anything on it - simplified UI controls, or rather, with android, you would add settings to the app manifest to specify it uses that VFB and people would lay out for in-car use accordingly.

The automobile is a challenging acoustic environment for sure, but there are several improvements that can be made to improve this:
A unidirectional mic in the steering wheel, with noise cancelling. A prompt button that turns down the stereo system for a brief time.

I'm not surprised it is as bad as it is with current equipment. In fact I'm surprised it is as good as it is.

The tactile controls are there for cost. Very cheap, but very limiting. I have proper climate control that maintains a set point, and I never have to touch anything more than a defroster button. In fact the only button I touch frequently is the stereo knob.

So wait... it's OK if it blows up in Phoenix, but not in San Diego? Not sure I understand the logic of rerouting the flight.

I don't see why it shouldn't.

How complicated of gestures do you need on a screen while driving? As far as I am concerned it should all be voice interface anyway. As someone who uses a docked phone while driving (or rather attempts to) the bumps in the road combined with the reach distance conspire against virtual buttons due to lack of tactile feedback. You can't feel for the 3rd button down, or if you landed your finger on the gap between two buttons.

Each mobile platform (iOS, Android, WP?) should just have a virtual frame buffer which is connected to via VNC. There's not any reason to make it more integrated than that, unless they try to differentiate themselves, and in that case we all lose because of fractured standards. I really cringe when Google and Apple don;t back the same standard.

If you need audio, use Bluetooth, of course.

We're not going to come to any absolute decision or agreement. Which is fine. The world and morals aren't experienced in terms of absolutes.

It depends on what "weapon" means. An amalgamation of steel resembling an AK-47 is a weapon. Heck even a chunk of iron ore is a weapon. It's not the weapon that is bad it is the use. And weapons and software are used in both moral and amoral contexts. It's not the lines of code or parts of the machine. It becomes moral only when a person picks it up and carries out their intent.

By applying a morality clause, I limit the intents that the software can be used in. Importantly, I create a barrier to entry as someone would have to recreate the software to accomplish an intent. This additional effort is then is a signal of software with a malicious intent. It would allow us to ask the questions of "Why can't this software use a moral license?" Maybe it is decided that the intent is valid, and immoral software should be used because the intent is that important. But we would know it. The current state of OSS licenses makes no distinction.

Finally, as you point out "people with weapons cause suffering and need to be stopped by other people with weapons". The US has supported various rebel groups who were allies, only to have them turn around and become enemies or terrorist groups. What gets accomplished there is just killing... on both sides. One has to question if these behaviors that lead to killing on both sides is a smart idea. The idea here are allegiances are fleeting, death is permanent.

Fundamentally, I want my work or portion of my work to be used in killing someone. I'm sure there are others. And I'm not entirely a pacifist. I just want to limit the applications of my open source work to moral causes.