> I consider vision to be a drug -- an addiction. People can get into the horrible habbit of depending on their vision instead of on their brain. IMHO looking at things is a tool of last resort. Once you have exhausted every other avenue of diagnosis, and have given very careful thought to just trying to do the action again, then you may need to open your eyes.
Coding without a debugger is like walking with your eyes closed or driving at night with no headlights. Sure, it may be possible, but you are purposefully limiting your information in order to not become "dependant" on something.
Tooling will always be a compromise of utility vs reliance but there is a reason we don't, for example, build cars by hand any more.
My experience is the EDI and debugger depedent programmers have a very hard time when those things are taken away or unavailable. The reverse is not true.
We are trending towards a world where individuals are becoming more omniscient and more omnipotent. Where any motivated US citizen can purchase a drone, look up how to build a bomb or plant a GPS tracker.
Regulation to prevent access to these capabilities feels like throwing rocks into a river; it may slow some things down, but it seems an inevitability that the capabilities of technologically augmented citizens will continue to grow - we as a society need to work out how to adapt to deal with this future in a meaningful way, avoiding knee-jerk policies like drone registration that inconvenience the masses and serve as no real barrier to the malicious.
Universal Basic Income and decriminalization of drugs and single payer universal healthcare would go a long way towards making the whole criminality arms race dry up and disappear. Desperation, as a constant social background hum, would largely stop.
Poverty, social misery and drug addiction no doubt leads to lots of petty crime but hostage takings and illegal immigration is not going to get solved with UBI.
Decriminalisation of drugs (Portugal) would not negate the need of going after importers and large scale dealers.
i like this idea, but i can not quite see how the US constitution's system of individual rights would allow the government to "put" anyone to work. the most it could do is offer someone a job.
and that someone would be free to reject such an offer because it wasn't profitable enough, or because criminal friends and acquaintances might prove to be very threatening to someone if someone were to accept such a job.
I should clarify, I don't mean putting them to work. Like a punitive or job placement type of thing.
These are smart people motivated by risk and reward. And they can plan and think and follow through. They just need easy pathways to jobs and lifestyles that can let them do that.
We as a Society need to stop playing in to the fears and come to understand that (in the US anyway) violence is at a all time low and we are not in danger
We also need to stop criminalizing voluntary activity of adult and only criminalize things that injure or harm people involuntarily (i.e legalize drugs, prostitution, etc)
You have to understand that statists, many in government don't want citizens to be omniscient, omnipotent or anything else that gives individuals more power.
Oh no siree bob...that must be stopped with only government authorities to have these abilities
Strongly agree. I feel very strongly that the state needs to be investing into how to use drones to defend against drones. At the end of the day there is no real way to prevent a malicious actor from building an autonomous kill bot, so we need to have the capability to react to this sort of threat.
You are going to have to do a better job of backing that claim up. It certainly seems to be an obvious breach of intellectual property law at the very least. Citing that some lawyers do this does not automatically make it legal.
My initial claim is perhaps a bit too strong. Case law is basically that the unique portions of a T&C or other contract are protected by copyright law, but boilerplate terms that have appeared in lots of different firms' documents are considered public domain.
That's only through section 4, but so far every clause is legal boilerplate except for the first paragraph of section 4, which is unique to ShareKit (and ThreadRadar, another product by the same entrepreneur).
It seems like not accepting any user interaction within the first 500ms for popup dialogues / notifications like this would be a better solution than crushing the notification into the middle of the screen.
It will be a hard road to walk, but if something like this can be pulled off in the way that Wales envisions, it could be a great resource.
My major concern is how you prevent a motivated entity willing to throw resources at skewing certain types of stories a certain way, from outweighing the larger, but more apathetic with group of general contributors.
Please explain. I was under the impression the reason why slippery slope arguments are unacceptable is because events do not necessarily cause more extreme events to occur.
Yeah, I've always found it "curious" (as in, bullshit) that Slippery Slope arguments are invalid, but arguments that invoke the Overton Window are perfectly fine.
They're the same concept. And that concept is also in physics. "Things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an external force".
Not really. "Slippery Slope"-type arguments are fallacious when there is no evidence provided to support the slope. The fallacy is arguing that the closeness of each "step" in the slope necessarily means that these steps will likely happen, but not providing evidence to support that these steps will occur. If one provides evidence which support that certain steps will likely occur, then it's not a fallacy.
As an aside, there is something called the "fallacy fallacy" wherein pointing out a fallacy in someone else's argument doesn't necessarily mean that the argument's conclusion is false.
With that said, I'm not making an assessment of the above poster's reasoning.
Ok I'll rephrase. Given the events of last year (the part with message hashes and public keys changing), what gives you faith in wikileaks and Assange?
Take this as a fairly baseless comment but my reading of analyses around the original incident seemed to be saying that it was closer to microwaves than sonic waves. The side effect of the exposure was that targets had the illusion of hearing sound.
As someone with a company in the ISP space, this is awesome news.
One of the biggest problems in marketing that our team has come across, particularly in consumer broadband, is that as a company attempting to be open and honest about speeds and pricing, it can be hard to compete with the older players using bamboozling pricing and inflated speed claims to trick consumers thinking that they are giving a better deal.
These restrictions will level the playing field in the right direction for a more informed and better served consumer.
At a time of some very bad calls around internet legislation in the UK, this is finally a decision I think we can all applaud.
Yes, that sounds like a very good idea for both sides. It's annoying as hell when as an informed consumer, you have essentially no chance to figure out what the products even are that are competing for your money. How the hell am I supposed to decide between products that only guarantee that they won't provide more than a certain level of service with no lower limit? Just imagine supermarkets filled with "up to" products ... WTF?
It's a disgustingly unhealthy market when the only possible way to find the best product for you is to buy service from each available option for over a year (in order to get the true, not stupid introductory price)
That is a pretty misleading headline - this isn't asking to see their text messages or something like that; It's just tracking when and where a MAC address is seen in order to work out traffic trends. In fact some of the data looks really interesting: https://imgur.com/Hx6mDSm.jpg (credit to bcraven for the link)
Most large public WiFi deploys come with this capability already included (albeit normally with an additional license required), whether or not the owners of the system are aware of the capability / are utilising it. Punishing TFL with sensationalist journalism for being open about this application will only make such use in future more hidden and isn't constructive.
The article does seem to be blowing up a relatively small issue.
However, if the intent is to work out traffic trends, it can be done much cleaner. For example, one can only track addresses within a single commute (it should not be difficult to guess from data). That is, use different hashes for the same MAC at different trips.
Also, IMO any general purpose data the government collects for the public benefit that it does not declare sensitive should be public. That is, quickly posted for public to see, use, check, etc. My 2c.
100% agree. And it's unfortunate that articles like this end up being the ones discussed, it actually hurts privacy discussions by moving the conversation away from your "This data could be better anonymized and published" to "the transportation bureau is tracking your every movement".
At least on iOS it is only randomized while scanning, not while connecting to networks you have used before. Which is kind of obvious because otherwise your login won't persist.
Yes, but this is easy to opt-out from. Naturally, this is not what they are doing:
> At the end of 2016, TfL ran a pilot which tracked the Wi-Fi signals from 5.6 million phones as people moved around the London Underground, even if they weren't connected to a Wi-Fi network.
I can't imagine people getting as mad at it as the news article wants them to be. I'm picturing a world where the super aggregate data* is available via an API so I can have an app that says something like "For a faster journey today use line xyz via station abc"
* in the image's case, those percentages would do it
Doesn't google maps already do that if you request transit directions? It will route you the fastest predicted way. Worked for me on my trip to London.
Have no idea, I'll have to give it a go. Honestly being from a small town who commutes to London sometimes I'd never even considered maps for that sort of thing - Here it works as basically just a map
All this stuff is tracked all the time anyway through cell towers, it's way past where the regularization point is for "state intrusion" in the UK.
That might seem weird to an outsider but that's just a culture difference. We're just as weirded out that anyone can own even a handgun in the US, let alone walk down the street with one.
I'm personally far more weirded out by the idea that a private company can track and use this data than the fact the state can.
While London does have a lot more surveillance than the rest of the UK, anywhere in the UK has a lot more surveillance than most other comparable countries.
Except they’re not storing any device IDs at all, they’re hashing the IDs with a salt that they rotate and dispose of daily. They can only infer movement of a device through the system, they can’t tie that back to any device after the fact, and can’t even tie the same device’s movements together over the course of more than one day.
They already have, e.g. adverts that run in parts down escalators. If you know plenty of people go from one corridor to another, you could extend such segmentation across corridors.
I imagine they can also do differential pricing of adverts across more of the stations with a better idea of footfall (though simple point footfall figures can be got in simpler ways), and indeed that is apparently part of what they're doing.
The 'sensationalism' is not at the technical detail, but TFL being opaque about their motives.
TFL's intention to "dynamically trade advertising space" is far more interesting though.
Once that's in place it doesn't matter if TFL track you or not - Facebook and Google will just repurpose their existing technology, making things a step closer to the advertising in minority report.
This will likely result in a strong pressure to reduce the friction of everyone using the wifi - expect the 'paywall' to drop.
Coding without a debugger is like walking with your eyes closed or driving at night with no headlights. Sure, it may be possible, but you are purposefully limiting your information in order to not become "dependant" on something.
Tooling will always be a compromise of utility vs reliance but there is a reason we don't, for example, build cars by hand any more.