That's the point. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private.
Feeling private does not mean having privacy.
You absolutely do need for people not to see in order to have privacy. That reality-TV celebrity and that Asian family do not have privacy, only the illusion thereof. That illusion has some psychological value, but not nearly as much as the real thing. As for the guy in the bathroom and the couple in the room with the tie on the door, you don't know what they're actually doing at all, and it is for that reason that they have privacy.
People will always have secrets, they will always find ways to keep them, and they will always have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Your own use of a pseudonym is implicit but irrevocable agreement with that latter fact.
That illusion is what you have now, and have had for a very long time. Try to understand that. You don't have secrets. You really don't. Your secrets are known by a select group of people that you don't know, and they are for sale. That is the status quo you are defending. That is the status quo I am opposed to. I am not speaking in favour of putting cameras in your bedroom. I am speaking in favour of expanding the "select group that is in the know" to include you.
Once you have "an ecosystem of roads" as you suggest which is maintained by road fees and requires public access so you can get to all places you want to go, you have just reimplemented government owned public infrastructure under a different name
Nonsense. In the libertarian utopia, the network of roads is a monopoly owned by someone else with no accountability or democratic input. Hooray!
I believe all Galaxy devices are capable of connecting to 2G towers. So assuming the message can be transmitted via 2GSM, the sophisticated hacker (I assume) would need to spoof such a tower at a time when the targetted phone would need to avoid 3G for some reason (say, lack of signal or too poor a signal)
In Japan, MtGox is not liable because bitcoins aren't money
Couldn't one say the same about most any fiat currency
No. One couldn't. You see, a fiat currency, that is, a currency by fiat, is money by law. In fact, "currency by fiat" and "money by law" consist of a sequence "X by Y" where X is represented by synonyms of the same concept ("money", "currency") and Y is represented by synonyms of the same concept ("fiat", "law")
That's the point. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private. You just need to not be forced to acknowledge them. As illustrated by the people going to the bathroom, the people hanging the tie on the door, the reality television stars finding privacy while on camera and the Asian who finds privacy behind a translucent sheet of paper. When push comes to shove, it doesn't matter that they can see, as long as you don't have to acknowledge them.
I consider the current situation where we're working as a culture to create new taboo's to cope with "cyber-bullying" as the beginning of the process.
Timed tests are common with many subjects. You'd have to make some radical changes to education to eliminate them.
Can you run a desalination plant using a power source where the output varies at random? That's always been the fundermental issue with wind power.
Let me understand this correctly. You found Comcast's DNS isn't perfect and doesn't resolve some names. It does not appear to be malicious in any way, as the two domains you find affected are a foreign furniture store, and your friend's brand new website. It's fairly obviously a bug.
So: you call Comcast Tech support, demand to talk to the Boss of Comcast, and then write a 10,000 word article (I didn't count) about it on Slashdot where you know 90% of the readers will take "Websites inaccessible on Comcast" as meaning "OUT OF CONTROL MEGACORP MONOPOLIST COMCAST IS CENSORING WEBSITES!!!"
This makes sense to you? This is what you do? Really? Really?
Just curious, but that time you got a duff cable modem and had to send it back, did you write a 60,000 article on how Comcast has banned you from the Internet, and did you demand to speak to the PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNET? When it rained that one time and you attempted to tune in the cable TV, only to find many of your channels were inaccessible, did you write a 75,000 word article on how COMCAST IS DROPPING CHANNELS and did you call tech support demanding to talk to THE LORD HIGH RULER OF TV?
I think I've found an article where the discussion would be likely improved for once if the Betoddlers spammed it with anti-Beta comments.
Which is, if you think about it, is rather evil.
I think the bar for being "evil" seems to have been lowered quite remarkably in that case. It used to involve, at the very least, cruelty and malice. Now, apparently, it's posting some terms and conditions about the use of your services when those services are pretty much optional and when the terms and conditions are more about protecting consumers from brand confusion ("Oh, I'll just buy this Google Play tablet. (One hour later, at home, after cash spent) Wait, it doesn't run half my apps because it's actually just a "compatible" Android-like operating system rather than the real deal?") than they are about Google making money.
Points to note:
- Android is still FOSS
- Google Play is optional. Sure, Google are doing everything they can to encourage you to use it and encourage developers to build stuff on it, but it's not necessary
- Google does not sell Google Mobile Services. And the chump-change it makes in terms of compatibility testing barely pays for the services it covers.
- While Google makes some money from the various stores they sell, between bandwidth costs, transaction processing, etc, nobody out there believes it's a significant source of revenue.
- Finally, until GMS, people were screaming at Google about "Fragmentation". Even today, Android bashers still insist on posting highly misleading pie-charts showing how many different versions of Android are still in use vs iOS.
We can scream at Google when they insist that versions of Android bundled with GMS must no longer allow users to install apps via third parties. Until then, faced with a choice between "Google are doing this because they want control of teh users", and "Google are doing this because they want manufacturers to stop fucking up", we'll go with the former.
Just to make it clear, I'm in favor of omnipresent surveillance. I'm opposed to the surveillance being restricted to the few. I believe the capacity for each of us to see what has happened and is happening anywhere on the Earth is magnificent, and that is what I fear we will lose. I hope we can develop the decorum that we will need to allow the human race to blossom into creatures who spend their entire lives taking it for granted that they can see anything and everything, and still have privacy despite there being no secrets, anywhere.
Nah, PHP still is used for those things. It shouldn't. The fucking language should DIE. But it's still there. It spreads like a virus, people get exposed to it because they're forced to hack their Wordpress distribution, and the next thing you know they're thinking it's "pretty cool".
Visual Basic was never this bad.
And just do this for 20 different passwords, because you should never reuse one.
Good luck memorizing.
Firstly: Which do you think is harder to memorize... a strong password, or a sentence?
Secondly: You can safely write it down. So, you don't need to memorize.
Finally: You shouldn't reuse your banking password, or the password for your laptop or office computer, obviously. When you're talking about things like web forums, it's not really that important.
Seriously, it's time to rethink passwords because if you don't like that I write all this shit down in a spreadsheet that I print out and stuff in a binder, well, it beats the other guys post-its on their monitors.
NOT ON THE COMPUTER!
For work passwords, WRITE them down (pen) on a piece of paper and keep that piece of paper in your wallet.
For home passwords, WRITE them down and then that piece of paper like any other important piece of paper for your home.
If you do it on the computer you do not know that the system has not saved it to a temp file or something that a cracker will find.
People who will physically break into your house and steal your computer are a different threat than people who will break into your computer via the Internet. Protections against one will not help against the other.
A better technique is to come up with a sentence and make your password the first letter of each word. Then, come up with a system of your own for adding a number that is derived from the sentence. Then it's safe to write down the sentence.
This is the sentence I write down: "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers"
So, the first part of my password is "Iaaaisittsgh"
As for the rest... hmm... I like money. I'm going to use $ as my non-alphanumeric character from now on.
And we need a number... I'm going standardize on using the number of words in the sentence.
So, my sentence derived password is "Iaaaisittsgh$12"
But the only clue you're going to get is a post-it note with the phrase "I'm an author and i say it's time to stop glorifying hackers" written on it
Good luck guessing that sucker