Ninja’s Techdirt Profile
|
|
About Ninja
Not as politically engaged as I would like. I'm quite glad the Internet provided me with forms of activism and political participation while allowing me to develop my daily activities. I do believe we are going through convoluted times but I see light in the end. Other than that I'm a technology enthusiast and I'd love to spend much more money trying new stuff!
|
Ninja has not submitted any stories.
Submit a story now.
Re: Re: Re:
Amen. But we need to raise awareness for it to backlash heavily.
(untitled comment)
Forgive me but the cynic in me says too much interests to side with transparency now... Still I hop I'll bite my tongue.
(untitled comment)
The implications are rather simple. A backdoor would need some sort of lvl0 security hash or something. Eventually those things will be broken and inevitably before it can be patched when it's broken some ill-willed individuals will use it to take control of the current iteration of the software before the company can hope to patch the hole generating masses of zombie computers.
Now imagine if those ill-willed people are the Chinese military...
They should be VERY afraid of giving anyone the key to build a cyber-nuke.
(untitled comment)
The level of freakout from these giant companies over helping the blind is really quite incredible.
You wouldn't believe the level of hatred this is generating when people get aware of those actions against the blind. A simple way to nullify these morons is to rise awareness. The backlash will do the rest.
(untitled comment)
Ah Nintendo.. Ironically the ONLY reason I bought their console was because I could easily squeeze shitloads of games in an HDD and play them at will (aka piracy). So far I've found one or two that would really be worthy buying but really... Nintendo. I'll not buy next console though. In fact I think I'm done with locked up consoles and server based DRM.
Re:
Ultimately who is the ending point of everything? The consumer human beings. If this catastrophic scenario comes to fruition there will be no humans left to buy what is being produced because there will be no income. Which means that at some point the cost of automation will not be paid and it will not be conducted. It's a very simple equation. Total automation may be feasible in the future but it's not desirable by anyone. What we will have to do is to adapt the increasing automating.
We'll need to review our working policies and our societal norms regarding work. Today a person that wishes to work less is considered some sort of hobo/vagabond or whatever is the word in English. This will have to change. And there will always be demand for human beings from other humans.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that many planes now have usb ports to plug your devices makes all the issue even sillier...
(untitled comment)
MUST HAVE WINDCATCHER! *RAWR*
Most useful invention EVER.
Ahem. Nuplug seems awesome too but I projected my outlets to fit my needs and to be smart at home. So it's not really usefull for me. As for the design... It's an outlet.. I just think it should be available in other colors.
Re: Re: The new Socrates
A million times this. Back when people lived off the earth one would need to respect mother nature timing to do the working. You'd have to wake up early to work while the sun is bearable. Then you'd stop for a long lunch. Between cooking and eating the harsher sun times would be gone and you'd be able to work more till sunset. Then with no electricity you'd be back for a small refreshment in a pond or something then prepare for dinner. You'd sleep early usually and wake up at dawn (biologically we aren't supposed to sleep 8 hours straight but have a small 1-2h pause as science discovered recently) and people would spend that time productively chatting with their mates/family, reading a book with a candle (depending on where and the job) and have plenty of sex. You see, no such thing as 8h of work daily.
And honestly, how much time anybody effectively works without having to take a break? Becomes pretty obvious.
In America, we have this sick Calivinist notion of "earning a living", as if the only acceptable life is a life spent toiling 70% of your waking hours to make someone in the economic elite richer.
It's not America only. And we need to find balance. Instead of profiting several billions large companies could be satisfied with only a few billion or even less. The root of the problem is Capitalism itself. And human greed.
(untitled comment)
Still, it's nice to see that EA isn't above experimenting with better gaming business models, even if they did so in this case with an older game in which they had very little to lose. Here's hoping the company translates this success into a wider philosophy.
How is the anomaly count again for copyright? I think we can add this one. /lol
Re: Oh, Nina again
Well, if I could rise the money she already did with some artistic work I'd be thrilled... What is a popular artist to you? 100k fans? 1M fans? 100M fans? The one that earns enough to live of his/her work? The one who earn shitloads?
I'll tell what's a popular artist for me. My Industrial Projects teacher had a band and he had recorded a few CDs by the time I attended College. He used to give CDs for free at the Campus and many students liked his artistic works. Many of us went to his shows and yet what he made from his musical career wasn't even close to his wages as a teacher. For me this is being popular. Sure he has just a few thousand fans and doesn't make a lot of money. But he is popular.
And really, who are you to judge if she's smart? Are you capable of living from your artistic work? No? You may be good in your field but again... Who are you to judge?
(untitled comment)
Hah. People use aggregators like they breathe nowadays. If you aren't there it's not a problem, there are others that are. The real question news outfits should be asking is how to make their content be relevant to the people using those aggregators so they'll choose to give higher priority to your content.
It's about time they move completely online (leaving some higher price printed version for those who are willing to pay for it) and monetize on eyeballs and pre/freemium content.
Re: Re:
Then don't have any photos online that are tagged as such.
Your friends will take care of that for you. Can be sort of annoying. But inevitable.. As John said above you need to be extra careful.
Re: Re: Re:
That. But this:
Only the entities that I specifically and actively select to have it.
I think this is virtually impossible nowadays. Companies share your data for money. However even then you can fool the system if you want to keep unknown.
Re:
I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?
I'd find it useful (a global open wi-fi map) and it could help tons on places where gps signal is obscured by buildings or if you are indoors. What is the problem of Governments having such data? How can it be misused? And how do you think such mapping could be stopped if these wi-fi are open?
There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached. So it's that your camera is spying on me. It gives Google access to information I would never give them. Cool, right?
I've searched for my name on Google already. Have you tried? I found only stuff that should be public anyway (or I purposely released in a public manner). Also, Facebook auto tags pictures sent (it also offers to tag strangers caught in your pics). What's the difference? A legitimate worry would be the GOVERNMENT using facial recognition software with their database (along with things they know like your driver license, your id and much more there are the secret services illegal espionages). Glass is not a problem. Your Govt wanting to install backdoors everywhere and turn everything in a surveillance system is.
The point here is that it's my photo on Facebook telling everybody what you did last week Friday when your family thought you were fishing.
Already happens. There are plenty of cases where ppl lost jobs and stuff because of others posting pics of that groundbreaking party on Facebook. What can be done about it? If it's a small group you can ask them to wait and post afterwards or something but on large public groups? Well, what are you expecting?
If I post in on my blog no one will ever notice it. Posting the same photo to a central server with automatic face recognition is a complete different story.
And what stops the blog server from using such technology? And what it has to do with Glass alone? I could do that with a mobile phone. Or not, just take a pic of you randomly and not post at all. Same with glass.
But Google (and others) will use it to collect even more data from us via cloudified apps.
How is it any different from now? I understand your worries and they seem legit but take Glass out of the equation. It's a general worry. And this disproportionate focus on Glass is one of the main criticism of this article it seems.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy
Oh I see now. You are right, I just checked it. The thing is, it was not clear neither to me not to this friend of mine that had all his stuff uploaded to his G+ account. I never enabled it because I don't feel like insta uploading anything but he found it useful. However both of us thought from reading the thing that only new content would be uploaded.
A little chat can clarify a lot! Thanks!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That. Some level of surveillance in public places may be ok and that's a big MAY since it may become a very slippery slope very quickly... But we are not talking about a surveillance device anyway...
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you failed in transmitting your message? So far I have yet to see one legitimate issue from you. Indeed there seem to be some sane, reasonable, valid points concerning Glass (and yet they are misguided and should be pointed more generally and not only to Glass itself). Please elaborate your concerns here. I'll post it again:
Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent.
How different is it from what we have nowadays? Tons of people publish photos of mine on Facebook and the likes without my consent. What can I do about it? Nothing. First because I allowed some of those to be taken and second because if it was taken in a public place I have no control or right over it. If it's being used in some defamatory way I may use the current legal routes to get the person that is putting it to such usage (and face Ms Streisand) but I can't pretend I'll have any expectation of privacy in public places.
You can stop people from entering your home with the gadget though. It's your right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even read the letter? Almost every paragraph is footnoted. The questions are based on what has been published. If something stated in those publications was erroneous, this is an excellent opportunity for Google to set the record straight.
There are sane, legitimate points indeed. But most of the reactions are pure hysteria. Yours included. And I'll point where it became evident:
Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent. The fact that they could do so by other means is irrelevant.
It happens EVERY TIME. I just browsed through some pics in my phone right now and found over 20 different people that are clearly caught in the pictures that I've never seen. It's very easy to take a picture of someone while pretending to take a picture of something else. Facebook even asks you to tag those strangers.
A meaningless utterance, but I have noted during my time here you are always more than willing to stoke any flame within reach.
I'm not the one going nuts over some trivial technology that's been around for years...
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
I would agree in principle...if we weren't simultaneously talking about a country that's blocking Twitter.
I'm generalizing. I think monarchy is inherently bad in the long run. But a good monarch may be better than a pseudo-democracy or representative form of govt that has been rigged by the powers.
Also, people don't always know what's good for them or what they want.
And who are you to determine what's good for whoever? In fact, NOBODY is in position of deciding that in and impose their views onto people.
While us Americans love freedom, it may not always be best.
Freedom is always the best. The difference is that when you step into the rights of others you'll face the consequences based on laws that are socially accepted. Dictators would agree with you though.