Maybe he isn't into texting and other shit, and in an alternate universe without Pokemon Go he would be paying attention to the road while driving?
If we're going into alternate universes, then I like this one the best: someone else struck the pedestrian, and he was playing an ambulance game where you drive to injured people and give them medical attention. In that universe, playing the game while driving caused him to save a life!
Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot.
If I proposed an idea that's wrong more than half the time, the last thing I'd expect anyone to call me, is "smart." That simply isn't the right word for this idea.
Fast movement doesn't imply driving. I'll grant that if you can determine the vehicle is a bicycle or motorcycle, chances are over 50% that the driver is playing. (Motorcycle passengers are unlikely to have free hands.) But if it's basically any other type of vehicle (or if no vehicle is involved at all), you're throwing babies out more often than you're throwing out bathwater! Why would you use a word like "smart" for this?!?
One of the problems we face today, is that some people are, believe it or not, still using Facebook. I think this will help.
Mr Wozniak said he would probably use the adaptor to connect his existing earphones to his next iPhone, and said that, like many other users he is attached to the accessories that he uses alongside the phone.
Anyone else spot the problem here? "His next iPhone." The guy has already made up his mind, independent of whether it's good or bad. This is the economic equivalent of someone who votes party line.
He doesn't give a single fuck, so there is no reason Apple (or anyone else) should listen to him. He has announced his irrelevancy. I'm not projecting that onto him; he's saying it!
All the funnier that he's "attached" to his nonstandard accessories. The guy is a classic lock-in victim, except with the bonus that's he's already sworn to never do anything about it.
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa