...that these moves are feints, made to be fighted against and to distract from the more serious oppressions. No other "sensical" explanation comes to mind.
Please explain me what would be the point of that. If you want to break the arbitrary 2 hours limit in a Marathon, you should run the course between Marathon and Athens, with no water except what you can get from streams, and alone. That should be something, perhaps, specially if you drop dead in the end, proving you really had given your all.
If you are allowed to changing the route and having helpers, both in route and as water-offering minions, you can choose a route that slowly descends for most of the course (ideas?), or where winds are always favorable.
I'd say security in the future will converge on three lines:
a) Sandboxed browsers/apps: Different browsers for mail access, general browsing and sensitive browsing (banking, using credit card, etc). All browsers revert to base state after closing, or allowing just a limited set of changes (bookmarks, cookies). The browsers are possibly stored in a USB stick with a physical write protection switch for part of the storage.
b) Trust structure: The OS will only execute programs with a certain signature, based in a chain of trust. You can choose who to trust or not.
c) Closed devices: (See Apple iPhone and iPad, but with paranoid-mode).
Well implemented, these strategies can reduce the malware threat, and they are implementable with current technology. I really don't see the anti-virus surviving much. It's an after-the-fact tech that was born as a patch for systems unprepared for a new threat. The playing board is now set and the structure of the systems must change to reflect that.
Which editor should we use?
If a robot killed arbitrarily, it would be difficult to hold anyone accountable.
Not like now, when every time that an Afghan peasant is killed in error, heads roll.
There is always the possibility that one of these tribes will have a sickness that will wipe out the rest of the world. Or at least 80% of it.
What BitCoin is, is a money laundering vehicle. You buy bitcoins electronically with funds in a country, you sell them two seconds later in other country, for more or less the same price. You have not only extracted the money from the country, but deleted most traces of property. You probably have made a payment without looking like that, just with an e-mail.
The wild changes of valuation help you explain your sudden wealth, which is a problem when you get money from drugs or bribery. Hint: most bitcoin millionaires are really money launderers at big scale, their wealth suddenly legal by way of the bitcoin wizardry. They are taking advantage of the computer illiteracy in governments, but as the scheme is used by more and more people, the loophole is being slowly closed.
As for the closed exchanges, they most likely are stealing the bitcoins themselves, safe in the difficulty of anybody proving anything within such convoluted software schemes, specially when the damages are to people of so many different countries, with their own reasons not to raise too big a fuss about it.
Try Threema. Fully encrypted. But not free. And nobody you know will have it, most likely.
In any case I wonder at so much money paid for an app to which the telecom operators can put an end to in 2 weeks, just by dropping to 0 the price of messaging. Risky, I'd say.
I mean, a Designer that watches what you do, and is very interested in your behavior. Has set some rules that you must obey, but won't communicate with you. It's everywhere, can see the past and the future as a single continuum, can change reality, it's omnipotent but has chosen to limit It's own power.
No, nothing seems to check.
I'm curious. I've always thought that encrypting a lot of files individually (as opposed to as a block) would open you to attacks based on the content of well known files (example configuration files, etc.) that you may add to the lot. That is, if the attacker has knowledge of the content of a couple of files, could he derive the keys for unencrypting the rest?
I wish for a mounted Death Ray, or better, a Disintegrator, or better, (as both of them could be too silent for my taste) some sort of space-time-cruncher that throws everything ahead of me into a vortex of doom. For the rush hour.
Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy
That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.
You could try the Samsung Note tablet, with pencil. In the Notes app you can write formulae (although mainly math, which can be even resolved), squares, etc, and be recognized (mostly) by the software. Probably it won't be yet useful for you, but perhaps you want to keep an eye on it.
I used to think like you. Then I thought about what the Pharma industry would do if drugs were free ("Buy Kudkerless, won't cure your cancer, but sure will make you forget about it"), and now I'm for prohibition. I've thought about a middle ground and cannot find it. If you legalize, billions of research dollars would go to devise ways of addicting us to some chemical. You have to put the line somewhere or face a dystopian future.
Fuel efficiency tests are for comparison purposes. If all makers cheat equally, comparisons are still meaningful. When legislators set an standard, they'll probably take that into account and make the standard a bit tighter.