Mine has been in airplane mode from day 1, with wifi on. I've seen where others have problems keeping wifi on when airplane is also on, but I haven't. Perhaps the fact that the SIM card is still in the original box, never inserted, has something to do with this. I bought an unlocked phone, and have never given it a chance to lock itself.
Whether your goal is avoiding tracking by marketers, ensuring your personal safety or protecting yourself from government surveillance, there are steps you can take to minimize your exposure both online and off, these professionals say."
As ChunderDownUnder reminds me, I forgot to mention that this phone has never been out of airplane mode, in addition to never having a SIM card plugged in. Flashing out of T-Mobile software was also one of the first things I did, and the other night I flashed CyanogenMod 11 M4. (Of course some of the guys on IRC suggest that even that is too commercial, and that I should go to snapshots over on xda-developers, to be safer.)
I keep my tinfoil hat handy, just like I tend to channel RMS and ESR. But there are practical limits...
So if I'm using my no-contract Samsung Galaxy phone as a wifi-only device, and have never inserted the SIM card at all, I believe I'm safe from this particular vulnerability.
Tin-hatters, am I wrong on that?
No, the sensible thing would have been to have gotten rid of them ALL on BOTH SIDES in the heady years right after the Wall fell. Now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has passed, all because some people refused to let go of the Cold War. Now we're stuck with the fucking things, and more and more countries are desperate to get them because they see them as their only defense against a U.S. or Russian attack.
Oh, please. It shouldn't really be possible for someone to be that idealistic.
The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be rid of all nuclear weapons everywhere was gone the moment physicists realized that maybe such a thing would be possible. From that point forward, somebody was going to figure out how to make one and invest the money, because it's too good of an advantage to have. After the cold war ended, if everyone had agreed to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the game would be to either figure out how to hide a few without the other side knowing, or how to build new ones in secret. It's simply not feasible to prevent this from happening, the policing power isn't there. it's the equivalent to software piracy in the torrent age. You can make it illegal all you want, you can have several people who either agree with the law or want to avoid punishment, but you really can't ensure that NOBODY will do it. Because you can't monitor everything and everyone all the time.
Another thing to consider is that nuclear weapons have probably brought more peace and stability than they've done damage. MAD actually works, and if it weren't for nuclear weapons being invented the cold war wouldn't have been just a bunch of proxy wars everywhere. It would have turned into World War III in the middle of Europe. The existence of nukes made the cost far too high, which actually promotes peace. The last time nukes were used where in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when there was no threat of retaliation. Get over it, it will never be used again, and the only reason it will never be used again is because multiple people still have them, so it's not just a question of who can rebuild their arsenal quicker.
If you are about to die (or your country is about to dissolve), what would stop you from trying to get a parting shot off at the enemy who is destroying you?
The knowledge that there's a difference between a government and a people. That even if your government is about to be dissolved, and your territory taken by a foreign enemy, the people living there will largely survive...unless you do a dumbass thing like an attack which won't actually win the war for you, but will cause retaliation which will kill those people who would have survived the invasion otherwise. Those people include your family and friends.
You don't use a nuclear weapon if you're not assured that you'll destroy their retaliation capabilities. It doesn't make any sense, it doesn't win you anything. It doesn't even win you the satisfaction of making them suffer, because you're going to be responsible for the suffering of your own people in that mix.
I feel I have every right to know what my lovely little government thugs are doing.
Is your point of view that there should be no such thing as classified information, and that every single thing the government does and knows should be public domain and easily accessible to everyone?
If so I disagree with you, but find your position internally consistent and wouldn't argue with it. It's just a matter of opinion, and I don't share yours as I find that secrets are sometimes necessary and unavoidable. If, however, you see the benefit in the government keeping some secrets, then you must expect people who are in position to have access to these secrets to exercise a high level of caution and discreteness when they find it necessary to overrule the system in place that decides what is classified and what is public. When necessary to stop illegal behavior, you disclose what it is absolutely necessary and not a single thing more.
They're paid for by your taxes. I'd say you have a right to see whether they're doing their job or whether your money is being squandered on frivolous crap like an "advice column".
Managing employees is hard. If you just crack the whip and make them do nothing but focus non-stop on the task at hand, they're going to be much less productive and waste much more of your money than if you actually invest a bit of money on keeping morale high and put out the small fires in human interaction that happens when not everyone in your team is socially compatible.
The NSA would be no different in this than a private company. You take a tremendously successful company like Google, and they're spending money on play rooms and free food for their employees. If that makes them more productive by causing some of them to not have a problem staying in the office longer to work on a problem and others to get a burst of creativity that you only get when you quit thinking about the problem for a bit and free your mind, then that investment is worth every penny. If that advice column is helping your team deal with problems they encounter in an effective way and thus making them able to work together more effectively, it's far from "frivolous crap."
If, on the other hand, it was a leak about the NSA giving every project manager a free Ferrari, you'd have a point.
Is there any reason this should have been leaked? Yeah, we can poke fun at the irony of NSA co-workers concerned about their office gossip being spied upon and how they consider that an intrusion of their privacy. Does it constitute information a whistleblower should disseminate? The point isn't that this is damaging to national security, it's an advice column, but it was happening inside their intranet and not cleared for public scrutiny.
My problem with Snowden isn't that he leaked info about NSA unconstitutional activities. If you see your employers doing something blatenly illegal, it's your duty to do something about. My problem is that his leaks are completely indiscrimate. He didn't just deliver the documents that contained information on what he considered were illegal activities by the NSA. He took everything he could get his hands on and turned it in to journalists. I don't know how he could possibly justify that.
No cable, so my TV is used for playing video games and watching Netflix/Amazon videos.
So, it comes to less than 5 hours a week -- usually, I watch an occasional movie or an episode or two of some of my favorite shows.
With a full time job that entails travel, wife and a newborn baby, and school part-time, I am lucky if I get more than a couple of hours a week of "down time".
The only known cure is to spend years in a basement alone eating cheetos, while insulting others' trivial math and lingual mistakes.
Mistakes in math and language or mathematical and lingual mistakes.
I have always wondered why puzzles were never included in any educational system. Logical puzzles, spatial manipulation, patterns, and lateral thinking challenges go a long way towards improving general intelligence and learning abilities. Much more so than, say, memorizing multiplication tables. It also helps them with those complex ideas that you spoke of.
Instead, kids are taught to hate math and hate puzzles, and standardized tests are a joke.
My grandfather was a mathematician and he taught me that geometry and algebra were essentially the same when I was about 7. So, as I grew up, I could "visualize" every equation and that improved my problem solving ability. I cannot help but feel that teaching multiple complex ideas earlier will help children's creativity as they learn to combine them (i.e. spatially visualize a problem to look for patterns and use that to solve it as an algebraic equation).
Examines government use of a truth drug.
Bonus: Wikipedia links to a full digital English translation
If it's going up, you've got some serious issues.
Shit always floats!