That's what slashdot is for.
Hm, brings new meaning to the term "pair programming."
I am a programmer, and I find working with other programmers nearby to be very valuable. Having randoms wander into the office is not so good, but there's a good synergy to over-the-cube-wall conversation when you are coding in a team. Having worked from home for the past decade, this is the primary thing that I miss. The commute, not so much...
It would be absolutely awesome of Samtrans or Muni provided a service similar to what the Google buses provide, but they don't, and they have actively worked to avoid doing so. So the activists really have no leg to stand on here. They should be trying to fix public transit in the bay area, not prevent people from working around its brokenness.
Actually if your TLS implementation is solid, there is no way for the ISP to do this to you. They don't have access to the keys. They can prevent you from using HTTPS, but if they do you will stop using them, because you won't be able to do online shopping or online banking, or even log in to Facebook.
Also, TLS and HTTP are "IETF crap." Whereas the document Weinstein is up in arms about is not—it's a document that's been proposed as work in the IETF by a couple of people, but it is not work the IETF has adopted.
Did you read the draft? He's articulated quite accurately what's being proposed. Maybe that's not what the authors intend to be proposing, but that's what the document currently does in fact propose. (I say "authors" because the IETF has not adopted this work, so it's not accurate to say that the IETF is doing this work—the IETF is explicitly not doing this work at the moment.)
What proxy would you trust with your banking details? Because this spec will let them see your private conversations with third parties including banks. Weinstein is correct to be worried about this proposal. However, this is not an IETF document. The IETF isn't trying to do anything here. This is a document some people have floated in the IETF. As written, I don't see it getting traction, because it's in violation of existing IETF policy.
That's what the draft says. But it's NOT A BLOODY IETF STANDARD. It's an individual submission to the IETF. The IETF isn't working on this. Some IETF participants are. The IETF has a formal policy excluding work on lawful intercept technology or even allowing for it in our protocol specifications.
To paraphrase, "people allow themselves to be misinformed, and suffer as a consequence." I agree. That's why I'm engaging in zealotry!
My Nexus 5 has excellent build quality. Motorola was deliberately locking bootloaders—this was common knowledge four years ago. Verizon is a poor choice of provider, precisely because they have such draconian policies about handsets.
What you're saying is that you want open, but you aren't willing to punish vendors who give you closed. That's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. If you want open, that has to be your priority, because it is _very_ hard to get. And yes, you will pay extra for it. It absolutely sucks that this is the case, but it is a fact of life, and the cell phone manufacturers and providers frankly could give a fuck if we don't like it, because the "we" who don't like it isn't voting with our feet.
BTW, to all the nice folks who modded my previous post "flamebait," I guess that's your prerogative, but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here. And it doesn't look like bondsbw thinks I am either, or he would either have flamed me, rather than responding seriously, or ignored me. But whatever. Slashdot moderation, etc.
Yeah, whatever, I can never keep the various euphemisms straight, but the point is that you wanted to be able to install your own firmware, and you bought a phone made by a manufacturer that didn't want you to do that, when you could have bought a phone from a manufacturer who was happy to let you do that. Effectively, you rewarded Motorola for screwing you over. My reason for asking is that I honestly don't get why people who want to mod their phones buy phones that the manufacturer doesn't intend to allow you to mod. Even if you can get around it, why bother? If we reward manufacturers who allow us to mod our phones, and carriers that will let us use those phones, the market will punish manufacturers and carriers who don't, to everybody's benefit. It really saddens me to see people shooting themselves in the foot like this, because it's not just your foot you're shooting.
Jolla? You know you wanna.
That really sucks—sorry!
Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted? And why are you blaming Google? I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but seriously, I don't get it. I don't buy iPhones because they are a closed system. I don't buy locked Android phones because they are hard to update. What led you to decide to buy a locked phone when unlocked phones were readily available?
As for the App issue, it's actually extensively rebutted in the comments to the article. Bottom line: Ars Technica clickbait.
New York City uses garbage trucks as snowplows. There are ways of making it work.
Hurricane Irene trashed half the bridges in Vermont two years ago, washed entire houses off their foundations, and washed away many miles of road. By the time the ski season started, all the roads had been rebuilt, sometimes involving adding sixteen feet tall fill for miles. The bridges hadn't been rebuilt, but we'd put in temporary bridges so traffic could pass. The big problem was and remains housing, but local government has done a lot to ameliorate the situation.
There was a pretty good article recently about the fiasco in Atlanta; apparently part of the problem there is that there are so many different local governments who don't coordinate with each other that it's very difficult to address problems caused by weather.
None of that negates the point that ice all over the roads is damned hard to deal with if you don't have enough sand trucks and salt piles. But we have that problem in Vermont too, and a big part of every town's budget and the state's budget is allocated to dealing with it when winter comes. Cold weather happens in the South too, and it can be planned for, but doing it costs money. I suspect that's the biggest part of the problem. In Vermont, we have no choice—these events happen _every_ winter, so elected officials who don't plan for it aren't around the following winter. In Atlanta, the feedback loop is much weaker.