let me put on my tin foil hat for a second here

what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

let me take off the tin foil here. now this is clearly pushing it but if we say that drones are ok then it is possible - nay probable that they will work on something along the lines of my tinhattary.

I don't know about "should be required", who's going to require them, Congress? DOJ?

However the smarter ones do just what you described, out of their own self interest. My hosting company contacted me once about a vulnerable Mambo extension they found.

because i shouldnt have to do any of that to play a single play game by myself. Cell signal in the place i tend to be when im gaming is non existent even if i thought that was a "real" answer, which i dont.

Everything you use to justify using GIT is an example of doing it wrong.

If your going to make an OSS router, you start with FreeBSD, which has been the fastest routing stack on the planet and has been for over 10 years.

Starting with Linux tells you they didn't engineer the project, they buzz word managed it.

At no point does using Microsoft * make sense for infrastructure

beer beach and tacos is always a good idea

oh great, so when i go to see the shuttle on the intrepid you mean when i push the button for the video to pop up im just going to get a BSOD??!?!!

this is one of the worst microshills i think i have ever read

why add new errors? if you can correct the entire book, then you just release a clean version knowing they dont have a clean version out there.

We identify things by both their characteristics and their context.

For example, if something looks like a duck we are tempted to say that it's a duck, and without regard to context that's the most likely explanation.

But then consider the context: If the context doesn't match, we change our assessment accordingly. If it's on top of a mountain, we think it's a rock that resembles a duck. In a store window, we think it's a stuffed-doll resembling a duck. If it's in the MIT swimming pool, we think it's a robot resembling a duck.

Absent any context, Sweden's request for extradition is innocent and benign - how could he possibly refuse such a simple legal request?

But the context surrounding the extradition does not match. There's a number of contextual inconsistencies with the situation, all of which indicate that this is not an extradition, it's something different.

It is abundantly clear that we're not seeing an actual duck. You can argue the probability in various ways, but it's not 100%.

You might next consider "so what?" What's so bad about being extradited to the US?

Consider the risk/reward equation. Julian probably carries around in his head contact information for informants and associates which the US does not know about, and activities of various people which the US would consider evidence of espionage. Once on US soil, it would be nigh impossible to keep this information from the US authorities. He would be forced(*) to give up not only his own freedom, but the freedom of people who put their trust in him. (Not to mention the chilling effect this would have on future whistle-blowers.)

It's likely that the value of this information is so high that even a tiny risk of extradition multiplied by the value potentially lost results in a negative payout. Taking the chance is too risky, it's not a good bet.

See previous link, or google for yourself. Plenty of evidence, you are stating an untruth.

(*)Ref: Bradley Manning's treatment

You won't have to. If this becomes popular, you'll just have to get all your ebooks from p2p.

Like most DRM schemes, it's only the legitimate customers who will lose access to the higher quality content. This is essentially what happened with audiobooks. If you want a high quality audiobook, you don't get it from Audible (which purposefully degrades their quality), or even if you do end up getting an audiobook from Audible, you end up downloading the very same title from p2p because what you find on p2p in the category of audiobooks is usually of much higher quality and of a higher bitrate (than what they're trying to sell online).

Most people do not encrypt their phone (unless their job requires them to), encryption-down-to-the-hardware is a drain on the battery, it heats up your phone, and it makes everything you do on your phone slower (this usually means that the person with an encrypted phone will usually be carrying two phones, one for the job that's encrypted and one that's personal and unencrypted). Most likely, the police will just plug in your personal unencrypted phone into one of their devices, and copy everything there is on it in less than two minutes.

The same reasoning that says you could have been talking on your phone while driving, or texting, could be used to justify that they check that you were not chatting through other applications, tweeting, checking facebook, checking email, inputting/querying a new address into the gps, or taking pictures of the scenery, etc. so the reasoning will go that they might as well just copy everything on your phone since it's definitely easier to do that than having to manually thumb through your phone and check every possibility from the side of a road.

This is an example of a "natural monopoly", where a limited community resource is owned as property by a corporation. In this case it's the easements and permission needed to run the phone lines, and the RF spectrum for cell-phone service.

If you treat the resource as property, you get the situation we have now: high fees for access and discouraged use. Phone service has high monthly fees (access) as well as data caps, fixed monthly "minutes", and roaming charges (discouraged use). Similarly for internet: high monthly fees (access), data caps, throttling, kicking off high-usage users, and so on (discouraged use).

As an alternative, take the revenues from the carriers and divide by the total minutes of service. I don't know what that figure actually is, but for purposes of discussion let's say it's 5 cents a minute. A similar calculation can be done per gigabyte of internet data.

Suppose the government mandated that carriers could only charge that amount or less, with no other restrictions. Any phone could be used with any carrier, and you choose a carrier at call time by scanning the available carriers like we scan wireless access points. (You wouldn't explicitly scan for each call. Most likely you choose one carrier as default, like we now do with wireless access points.)

Now instead of making money by getting people to sign up and not use the service, carriers make money the more people use the service. They have to encourage more people to use it, and for longer periods. They have an interest in putting unused capacity to work, and promoting innovative new uses. If a channel is overallocated, they have an interest in building out more capacity.

The reasoning can be applied to cable TV, internet, and phone service. If the cable company can only charge 15 cents per hour of viewing/downloading (whatever the fee structure works out as), then they will encourage more usage rather than throttling.

If this change is made, the existing players will make the same profit as now: initially the profits are the same, and no workers need be laid off. Their bottom line doesn't change, only their focus of service.

It's game theory: change the rules so that the outcome is more desirable.