"From right in the city park, where I left them. I figured why take them home every night, then back to the park the next day, so I just left them there. But when I came back, they were gone."
"Here's an idea. You should not leave your stuff in a public park where its free for anyone to access. People won't know whether it's public property, private, a freebie, and eventually some person will surely just take it. Next time, take your toys home, and put them inside your house. Then, lock your house."
"Wow. That's easy to do. Thanks for the great advice."
The LA Times reporter stated some truth, but you and many others misinterpret it because the reporter wasn't clear enough:
"But the Google equipment also gathered and stored data from unencrypted networks, including personal emails, usernames, passwords, videos and documents."
What that really means is:
But the Google equipment also captured the bits that happened to be transmitted in the few seconds as they were driving by. If those networks were not locked, that means Google would capture bits that represented parts of emails, web pages, or whatever content the WiFi network was broadcasting openly at the time.
You see, the way the reporter positioned it, and the way you read it, it makes it look like Google went poking around INSIDE the "victim's" LAN network, snooping into PCs and programs to take documents, emails, etc. They did not. They just stored what was being transmitted freely into the streets, as they briefly drove by.
You want security for your documents and emails (from Google), don't broadcast them, unencrypted into the street. Not when Google drives by...or not really ever. Easy to achieve.
Not a bad argument, but there is a serious difference between fields and emissions your body emanates involuntarily, and those that require a deliberate effort.
IR heat signatures are totally involuntary, and we have no option to stop transmitting. Wi-Fi is completely deliberate, and requires effort to openly broadcast a signal (since the defaults are secured).
Once again, my main counter-argument is: how do people who WANT to share do so, if courts consider the technological equivalent of broadcasting an invitation as NOT an invitation. My side of this debate has given a clear answer as how people can signal that they don't want to share, but the opposition has not shown a way we can signal a share, given that signaling "I am open for connections" means not that.
Secured WPA WiFi with encrypted data is like a vault in your home. The contents of the vault are expected to be invulnerable.
- It would be disastrous if someone got access.
Secured WiFi is like a locked home. The contents of your house are expected to be relatively safe.
- You wouldn't want anyone to break in, and have taken measures against it.
Unsecured WiFi is like offering a connection to anyone. It's like leaving the contents of your house in a park with a "Free, take me" sign.
- This is a useful tool for coffee shops, marketers, people hoping that users can easily get on the network.
Our problem with government agencies is hardly that they are snooping on our open WiFi networks. I would care as little about that as I do about Google's mapping war drives. This discussion is soooo far away from what the government does, it's hard to see how you connected them.
You don't *want* to broadcast your WiFi transmissions? Turn on security. Most routers have defaulted to this for almost 5 years. It should be considered a conscious choice if someone leaves their WiFi fully open.
In fact, the very "openness" of the WiFi signal is the only indication I have as to whether you want your signal to be open or not.
So, if you don't want people to snoop on your open WiFi...secure it. But that still won't stop the gov't from seeing your shit.
If you think Nokia wasn't in a tailspin when they brought Elop in, you're ill-informed.
"[MSFT is] buying a few pieces of Nokia that are still valuable"
Really? You think the handset business is more valuable than the Intellectual Property? Sadly, I think that's up for debate. But more importantly, you seem to think the handset business is more important than the cellular infrastructure business?
"[MSFT bought Nokia] much lower than what they were looking at buying Nokia for a few years ago"
Well, yeah. That's what happens when the stock goes down. In fact, generally, it's when a stock goes way down that a company becomes a M&A target, so, duh? Also, you seem to be suggesting that MSFT strategically wanted Nokia to fail so they could buy them. On the surface, today, that even seems plausible. But that implies that MSFT didn't want to sell lots of Windows Phone devices starting in 2011. Do you really think that? It's nonsense. Of course, MSFT would be better off if Nokia had succeeded - they would have some mobile market share, and the MSFT market cap would be substantially higher.
"Does this all seem just a little bit too convenient to anyone else?"
You are seeing patterns that are obvious, but are not actually correct.
On one hand, I could back out the argument by saying "Well, I did say it was crazy.", but instead, I'll take the bait...
Sure, baby eating is a bad use of babies. But similarly, the TIGER database could have been used to plan bombing missions against the USA, or optimal drug dealer escape routes. The fact is, the data could be used for beneficial or malevolent uses, why do you exclusively focus on the negative? If so, please stop using a knife and fork, because they are frequenly used in baby eating, and should thus be banned.
The publicly funded research that produces useful drugs can also be used, in some instances, to produce chemical and biological weapons, therefore, you would also advocate against releasing that research, I suppose?
You see, pointing out that something CAN be used for evil really does nothing to educate the discussion of whether it should be done. The fact is, we ALREADY have the NSA data, it pretty much IS already being used for evil, why not make it also useful for something good?
Your position is more akin to saying: "Knives and forks are already used to eat babies, therefore, we should not try to find beneficial uses for knives and forks.
Hey, Baby. I DIDN'T Cheat 710,000,000 More Times Than I Did
Honey, I know I cheated with 5 women. But, baby, think of how good I've been. The world has about 7.1 Billion people, half of them women. And I didn't cheat with 3.55 Billion of them. I couldn't even dream of it, because I was just thinking of you.
And if you add in Pomosexuality, I didn't cheat with 7,999,999,995 people.
Math don't lie, baby. I am almost totally straight with you, and insignificantly a cheater.
University publicly funded research is often published openly, and is frequently used by free market enterprises as a basis for their products, say, drugs.
The GPS you use every day has proprietary map data at it's core, probably from Google, NavTeq, or Telenav. However, all of those cartography companies started their geo data using the TIGER database provided by the federal government. TIGER is old, but it gave everyone a pretty high platform as a starting point.
Crazy as the idea is, the NSA data exists. It's ours. It could be useful. And as a tremendous starting point platform, it would create a more competitive environment for the technology/web/advertising industry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, shift from "compete with free" to "at a reasonable price"!
Apparently, going to the store and buying a case of water, carrying it to the car, carrying it out of the car into the home, opening the plastic, then carrying an individual bottle...is more convenient than getting a cup and turning a tap.
No, sir. I use the tap over bottle water, mostly for the additional convenience.
Are you physically unable to say anything correct?
Each of those technologies reproduces the phone screen on a big display. And they are included in hundreds of phone models...including this one by Canonical. Hey, I love the concept of convergence with the desktop (done well). But it's not a missing feature, nor significantly innovative compared to the competition.
Disclosure: I have consulted for MHL as an evangelist.
One of the problems they are going to face is a lack of low-hanging fruit.
In 2006, the cellular industry had languished since the turn of the century with slow phone innovation. Carriers blocked improvements because they cost an additional 30 cents, or because they threatened their stranglehold on industry control.
I worked for a Korean cellular company, and we tried selling our 3G solutions to US carriers that were still on 2G networks. One of our humble improvements was color on the phone LCD. I was in talks with the senior people at a top US phone company, and my favorite quote remains:
"We're not sure the US consumer wants color in their phone."
That was 2001. After that, the US was treated to a number of years of Motorola Razr, where the best innovations involved a new color each year. If, on occasion, a phone maker made a better phone, like 2005's Nokia N95, then carriers would not subsidize it because it cost too much. The market was not competitive, but it was "locked down" by carriers.
That left all kinds of low-hanging fruit for a new entrant able to upset the apple cart and give consumers a decent product. So, we all know what happened -- Apple did just that. Capactive touch screens and a good UI that respects the user were not new ideas...it's just that it took Apple to commit to use it. The challenge around Shuttleworth's efforts today are, the market looks completely different.
Today, cellular phones are tremendously competitive and I would argue almost as good as they can be. There is competition at the high, mid, and low tiers, but the greatest competition in the market is for the so-called flagship phones. The hero phones, or the halo phones that make the entire brand look cool. So HTC, Motorola, LG, Nokia, Samsung, Sony et al compete to put out the best device. When they don't push it far enough, Google puts out a Nexus model to nudge things forward. On the OS side, Apple and Android are doing a good job of giving the consumer features they want in a good UI. If they hesitate to improve, they know Windows Phone, BlackberryOS, Tizen or others will eat their lunch.
In technology, there is often an unseen missing feature, or some better way of doing things that a newcomer can use as a doorway in. But at this juncture, there are several big players already trying to find those doors to claw their way back against Samsung. The market simply lacks the low-hanging fruit. So good luck to Canonical, I'll cheer for the underdog, but I'm not putting my money on this bet.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In a rational rule system the locking of phones should be illegal. It is tantamount to Ford selling you a car, but not giving you the keys.
There are other countries where SIM locks are illegal, such as Belgium. If carriers want to pursue a subsidy model, which is a good idea, then they need to protect their investment in ways that don't cripple the hardware the consumer purchases.
Make no mistake. The consumer does purchase the phone, subsidy or not. If you breach your carrier contract, you pay the ETF and keep your phone...they don't ask for the phone back, do they? Is that an option? NO. And after the 2-year contract, the phone still belongs to the customer. It seems clear that the phone is the customer's -- so why is it not illegal for the carrier to booby-trap your phone?
Forget making consumer unlocking legal. The People should be demanding that the locking of phones be made illegal.