What's particularly shocking about this report, is that everyone presumed that a bunch of hand picked insiders would come back with an "it's all good" report. That even the most NSA friendly review group possible is criticizing the NSA, actually is pretty surprising. Things must be really really bad.
The thing is, everyone makes their phones as thin and dense as possible. Which means they sink like a stone. A couple months ago, I watched a person pull a stocking hat out of his coat pocket
Exactly how many bars of service do you get under any significant depth of water? How garbled is the voice stream?
Randomly googling, check out the third response:
Your's is an annoying attitude for a couple reasons. First, if a person is going to have a really deep technological sophistication, it will be limited to a very narrow area -- each discrete component in a computer probably requires intense all consuming years long study -- that's why you end up with people who focus on one single thing and the person who is fully expert on video drivers may be really inept regarding hard drive technology. Honestly, I think anyone who believes they fully understand every aspect of a laptop is just setting himself up to get totally hosed.
Secondly, it is not a sign if being unintelligent for a person to have a vague understanding of computers. If everyone had a deep understanding of computers, nobody would have the time to become dentists, mechanics, veterinarians, etc. etc. Seriously, pick some random difficult topic about which you know nothing -- does your lack of knowledge in that area make you stupid? Of course not. Because it is not possible to know everything there is to know.
When I first learned about this, I was totally shocked. It's really kind of sickening.
This video, "The History of Money" is pretty interesting without being yet another return to gold standard video. There some interesting ideas for modernizing money creation at the end (in part 4).
These price fluctuations are not the mark of money -- bitcoin seems more likely a wildly volatile commodity.
except without French money guns and ships, there would not likely be a USA at all. Under your logic, you might as well say Washington, Jefferson, etc., are totally irrelevant to America too.
You might want to google Lafayette. Without the French, their fleet, money, and other support, GB might well have been the victor in the Revolutionary War. In that light, the French jokes aren't really all that funny.
It's really hard to know how universally safe tor is. Maybe it protects you against Chile but not the NSA. Obviously, the Feds have a lot of money and can deploy a lot of tor systems. Shifting the discussion a little bit, from anonymity to privacy, I'm basically skeptical of all technological means at maintaining privacy, for several reasons: 1) it's super easy to screw up and leak information (this bomb hoax being a prime example). 2) Encryption acts more as temporary barrier because inevitably, it is cracked or technology makes brute force trivial (and before someone says "one time pad," figure out how that's going to work for everyday stuff). 3) It leads to rampant paranoia, for example, the people behind tor are probably good privacy minded people and not some NSA pricks -- but I don't know. Not knowing whether a system is safe or not has a chilling effect on free expression. Of course, Greenwald and Snowden suggest tor, but I'm sure that's just one stage of a multilevel system.
I'm not advocating abandoning encryption etc., but I think that without strong legal protections which make privacy violations a serious crime, even if done by the Feds, we will never really have privacy (which is a necessary component of freedom). Instead, we'll have technological systems that people trust for a time until someone gets burned and then we'll shift to other systems. But that's not a real solution and it will suck mightily for those sacrificial lambs who get roasted.
You spent a lot of effort on this post, but you need to study tor a bit more. It's a collection of services and protocols. You might as well as talk about sending a subpoena to email. There is no email entity -- it's a collection of services and protocols. There are developers who write the programs that people can use either themselves or more commonly through a third party provider of email services (that third party is not "email" in an entity sense however). When you connect and use such services, it leaves obvious traces on the network. But you can't drive up to email's corporate offices -- they don't exist.
That's what happened to this guy, he used tor on the Harvard network, and the FBI probably just went and interviewed everyone who was using tor around the time of the emails. He was given a Miranda warning, ignored it, and then he caved. Case closed.
I think the main takeaway here is that sometimes, being anonymous makes you stick out like a sore thumb.
Lesson 4, avoiding video surveillance in the Starbucks. The cops could certainly question the handful of people using a computer after figuring out who they are from the pictures. They'd probably want to focus on the person seen using a CD or USB stick with that live distro.
So do it from outside the store --- but that looks even more odd and there are cameras everywhere.
When you buy food in your city store, you are accessing a myriad government incentive programs designed to ensure that every time you go to the store, it is stocked with food rather than empty because farmers went broke, or bridges washed out, or whatnot.
I'm not so sure. Maybe you're hearing the whooshing sound because the only thing AC complained about, was "irregardless" -- which though nonstandard, was actually spelled correctly and used as it normally is used. This distinguishes it from the other terms which were phonetic misuses of familiar phrases. So maybe it was a subtle riff on the previous joke. If so, it was deep. Then again, maybe not. It's pretty hard to tell here.
Don't worry about it -- it's a mute point.
I just get the internet without TV.
The reason I gave up any sort of connection originally was because I'd wake up on a weekend, and then mindlessly flip channels never finding anything I wanted to watch, and feeling frustrated. I wasted a lot of beautiful days in this fashion. Kind of like how a heroin addict has to give it up completely, I decided I didn't want to waste my life watching stuff that was bad to begin with, and worse, interspersed with commercials.
So anyway, yes, I pay a little more for my internet but I only watch what I actually want to watch, and I watch it on my schedule. The few extra bucks are worth it to me because like any hardcore drug addict, if I had TV I'd watch it, hate it, waste time, feel frustrated, and not be able to stop. I'm simply not able to be a casual watcher -- even when I go to friends' places, if they have the TV on, I just get totally sucked in and mesmerized by it. For people who can use it reasonably, it makes a lot of sense to save a few bucks. For me though, that would be a disaster.