Or is it just the general public they are concerned with?
Primarily, people they think are threats to the government. This includes, of course, political activists, and probably even people they think might someday become activists.
Remember how Pol Pot used to kill people with glasses, because anyone with learning was a threat to his regime? The NSA will have people just like that working for them; in any organization that large, it's guaranteed. And some will eventually come into positions of power, if they haven't already.
Do you really want a mini-Pol Pot having full access to anything you've ever said electronically to anyone?
Actually, the rules are set up so that the government can set up a wiretap instantly. Once upon a time, they could get permission from a court retroactively, but they're not even bothering with that anymore.
Well, I'd say they own the phone outright, period. But they also have an financial obligation they must fulfill. The carriers can already make their life super-difficult for not paying the $250 fee, or whatever it is. There is a huge, nasty industry in the US devoted to collecting debt.
I'd say that's enough. Once they sign the paperwork, the phone belongs to them, and they can do any damn thing they want with it. They're already on the hook if they break it, so they've got the responsibilities of ownership. They should also get the benefits.
And then if they try to cheat their phone provider, well, there are tons of legal remedies available.
My unlocking story: I spent $600 on a phone (a Galaxy Nexus, imported from Europe) that would work on any GSM carrier, and would allow me to run whatever I want. (in other words, it's unlocked at two levels; it's both compatible with all GSM frequencies in use, and also offers me full control over the user-visible software running on the phone.)
I thought this was a fairly ridiculous price, and a law requiring that phones be fully unlocked would have meant I could have spent far less.
Now, it's gotten better since I bought my Galaxy Nexus, as you can now get equivalent unlocked phones for $400 direct from Google, but that's still about $200 or $250 too much. Even cheapies should be easily portable. Note that I do NOT mean subsidized phones; those only look cheap. I mean the actual cheapies, the ones you can buy for $100 to $150, should be usable with any carrier using that technology.
Note that simply allowing unlocks is not enough, because at least with AT&T and T-Mobile, the phones they sell themselves will be deliberately crippled, so as not to work well on their competitors' frequencies. I'm not sure this legislation can be modified to fix that problem, but if it's in scope, it's something Congress should be thinking about.
and they remove the right to sell or swap or loan downloaded games.
I don't think they really have an option there. If the console isn't checking in routinely, then you can't be sure that only one copy is in use per license. So they're planning to handle digital sales like Steam does; they're permanent and non-transferable, but once you've bought something, you can keep the console offline for extended periods.
If trading/selling is important to you, then you'd want to stick with disc-based versions. Considering how easy they are to get, I don't personally see that as much of an impediment.
Are you sure it works that way? Can't you just take the disc from one machine and play it on the other? Or are they locking disks down to consoles, even though they say the Xbone is now just like the 360?
jameshogg: Also, I expect very gradual creeping-in of the DRM. Everything might be okay for now, but I strongly suspect the DRM software will be on the Xbox One just waiting.
Yeah, I think this is exactly right. For this to even work, there would need to be unique serial numbers encoded on each and every disc, and those serial numbers are still going to be there. This means that Microsoft can, at will, return to their 'vision for connected consoles' or whatever that day's marketroid drivel happens to be. Since the hardware capabilities are still going to be there. I would suggest just avoiding the console completely.
The PS4 looks like a stronger machine anyway, it's $100 cheaper, and you don't have to deal with that stupid Kinect.
The only thing I don't like (at present) about the PS4 is that you have to pay Sony an ongoing royalty to play online. I don't play console games online, so that's not really a problem for me, but I think it would be entirely legitimate to complain about that fiercely.
There are very few modern people with the mental discipline and fortitude to read and write as well as people did in 1871. People back then carried around enormous amounts of information in their heads, and had an incredible ability to concentrate.
Modern people have outsourced all that, and most of us are largely reliant on technological devices to function as memory, organizational tools, and instant research assistants.
Is this better than what we were doing before? I don't know. I think the jury is kind of out on this one.
But I guarantee you that those writers from the 19th and early 20th century would absolutely amaze you with their mental prowess. Perhaps it's like comparing muscle power with a steam engine, but those folks had mental muscles like Charles Atlas had physical ones.
The vast majority of us, who think we're so very strong/clever, are actually flabby and weak compared to our predecessors.
Yeah, these sponsored posts seem to be doing the lead balloon thing. I have no particular beef with either Insightly or with you guys, but trying to force geeks to talk about things that benefit a sponsor is just not going to work. I've seen two of these posts, and in neither one did any useful conversation happen.
You'd probably raise more actual revenue if you came up with better price tiering. I wanted to give you $50/year, but that wasn't easy to do; it was either $15 once or $10/mo. So you got $15 from me instead of $50.
I think you're falling away from your own major drives, the ones that got me to sign up in the first place... engaging your users and giving them something excellent. Looking for ways to make it easier for your primary revenue source to grow, like better tiering, and maybe attractive little perks to go with the tiers, strikes me as much more likely to increase revenue than by cannibalizing your user base to chase sponsor money. From where I'm sitting, that looks very inconsistent with your stated business model.
And don't get me wrong, I'd love it if you were wealthier than Croesus. I don't mind you making money, and I hope you make a lot of it. But these sponsor posts really put a bad taste in my mouth.
Talk about Insight.ly because they are interesting, not because they pay you.
Remember, Mike, they legally must lie if they say anything at all, so they're remaining silent.
Silence speaks volumes no more than speech does. You can't trust anything that anyone is saying, because if they don't lie about the existence of classified programs, they can be put in jail for a long, long time.
You're still in the mode of thinking that people are telling you basically the truth when they stand up on those podiums (podia?), but they can't. They just can't.
Mr. Masnick, there's one thing you absolutely must remember, whenever you're writing these articles.
Google, and any other civilian entity, is legally required to lie about its involvement in these programs.
Their execs can be jailed for long periods if they come clean and tell the truth about classified projects.
You can't take anyone at their word here. You can't. You have to see the physical evidence, or you have to just assume that it's exactly the way it says it is on the slides.
The slides are a form of evidence, truth telling within the agency. All other verbal communication to non-privileged participants (ie, us) should automatically be assumed untrue. It HAS to be untrue, by law.
It's not a matter of if they are lying, but where.
I haven't seen an independent data source to verify the claim, but a poster on Ars Technica wrote that bandwidth costs have been dropping by about half every nine months, or about double the speed of Moore's Law in transistors.
My ISP, EPB in southern Tennessee, is able to give me 250 megabit bidirectional service for $140/mo, which strikes me as an absolute refutation of the idea that an exaflood is about to happen -- especially when you consider that they upgraded me, for free, from the 100 megabit service I originally signed up for.
You can get colocated servers now with 100tb of monthly bandwidth, non-Cogent, for $200/mo. A hundred terabytes: $200. That's still unusually low, but it won't be for long.
Bandwidth is astonishingly cheap, at scale. Network routing is able to avoid saturated areas, routing around congestion; this is a problem that can be inherently parallelized, as every packet is a separate computational problem. This means that global bandwidth can scale to degrees that mere mortals will have trouble imagining.
Gigabit to every house in the country would be easily possible with present technology, though the buildout would be expensive. I see no fundamental reason why it couldn't someday be terabit.
Considering that there always seem to be arms dealers, no matter what horrors are inflicted, I figure Moxie is pretty much pissing in the wind. It's a damn shame, and I wish it weren't so.
But, if you are a security researcher, and you are selling exploits to governments, don't kid yourself. You are a modern arms dealer, and you are probably going to be getting people killed, very possibly people you would like.
Going off on a bit of a tangent: this is another reason why I get so frustrated with the Linux kernel devs for treating security with such a cavalier attitude, actively going out of their way to hide security problems in the kernel. In the modern world, people's lives depend on the security their systems claim to provide.
I can't help but wonder if someone's deliberately vague commit has ended up causing people to be imprisoned, tortured, or even killed, because the bad guys figured out the security implication, but the good guys didn't.
No, but you can tell it to run offline and never have the requirement to connect to Steam again
I don't think that's true -- I'm nearly sure that Steam requires a login about once a month.
There was a really long period where the Mac client could stay disconnected; I had my Mac laptop in offline mode for, man, six months or more. But from comments I've seen since, that was a bug, and it has been fixed. You have to go online about once a month.
I have not, however, actually seen this myself; this is from sources that I trust, but it is not observed fact. I almost never run Steam on my Mac.