11. The seconds you take to pull out and put away your phone, not to mention having to pause whatever you're doing to do it really add up in the long run.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by FourthBase » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:01 am
11. The seconds you take to pull out and put away your phone, not to mention having to pause whatever you're doing to do it really add up in the long run.
by Laodicean » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:21 am
by brekin » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:56 pm
DrEvil wrote:All police officers should be required by law to wear a camera and a microphone. Everything they do on the job should be recorded and uploaded to a secure server where it will be stored for at least 6 months. Any equipment glitches will require a thorough review. It should be enough of a pain in the ass to discourage tampering, and any intentional tampering should be a firing offense.
fourth base wrote:
AMEN.
by 82_28 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:14 am
A remarkable shift is taking place right under our noses. The universe of electronic devices in our homes and offices has stopped expanding, and has in fact begun to shrink. At the same time, our productivity continues to rise and our information, entertainment, and learning options keep exploding. In other words, we’re getting more stuff done—using less actual stuff.
For the graphic proof, check out the two pictures above, showing my own array of digital gadgets. The first one was taken in May 2005. The second was taken yesterday.
The idea behind both photos was to document every object I own that contains a microchip. Compared to the 2013 photo, the 2005 photo is positively cluttered with electronic paraphernalia. But it’s not as if I’ve adopted a Spartan existence or stopped doing all the things I used to do. I’m just doing them using fewer devices—and I bet you are too.
Exactly how this consolidation has come about, and which devices have emerged as today’s workhorses, is a question I’ll come back to in a moment. First, a bit of backstory on the two photographs.
by elfismiles » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:56 am
by Joe Hillshoist » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:09 am
82_28 wrote:Where Have All the Gadgets Gone?A remarkable shift is taking place right under our noses. The universe of electronic devices in our homes and offices has stopped expanding, and has in fact begun to shrink. At the same time, our productivity continues to rise and our information, entertainment, and learning options keep exploding. In other words, we’re getting more stuff done—using less actual stuff.
For the graphic proof, check out the two pictures above, showing my own array of digital gadgets. The first one was taken in May 2005. The second was taken yesterday.
The idea behind both photos was to document every object I own that contains a microchip. Compared to the 2013 photo, the 2005 photo is positively cluttered with electronic paraphernalia. But it’s not as if I’ve adopted a Spartan existence or stopped doing all the things I used to do. I’m just doing them using fewer devices—and I bet you are too.
Exactly how this consolidation has come about, and which devices have emerged as today’s workhorses, is a question I’ll come back to in a moment. First, a bit of backstory on the two photographs.
The rest and photos at link:
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2013/03 ... gets-gone/
by justdrew » Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:22 pm
“Not to hide it, exactly,” Fay protested, “but just so the others won’t be jealous. I wouldn’t feel comfortable parading a free-scanning decision-capable Mark 6 tickler in front of people who can’t buy it—until it goes on open sale at twenty-two fifteen tonight. Lot of shelterfolk won’t be sleeping tonight. They’ll be queued up to trade in their old tickler for a Mark 6..."
by brekin » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:32 pm
Google is barring anyone deemed worthy of a pair of its $1,500 Google Glass computer eyewear from selling or even loaning out the highly coveted gadget.
The company’s terms of service on the limited-edition wearable computer specifically states, “you may not resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person. If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google’s authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty.”
Welcome to the New World, one in which companies are retaining control of their products even after consumers purchase them.
It was bound to happen. Strange as it may sound, you don’t actually own much of the software you buy today. You essentially rent it under strict end-user agreements that have withstood judicial scrutiny. Google appears to be among the first to apply such draconian rules to consumer electronics.
“If it takes off like iPhones did, this is going to be part of people’s everyday activity, and now we are starting down this path that is going to be completely controlled,” said Corynne McSherry, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s intellectual property coordinator. “It’s not clear to me what they are doing is unlawful. It’s a contract issue.”
The company knows if the eyewear was transferred because each device is registered under the buyer’s Google account.
For the moment, not just anybody can buy the eyewear.
Google has created the Silicon Valley equivalent of a velvet rope under its so-called Google Glass Explorers program. If Google liked what you posted on social media under the hashtag #ifihadglassand, Google grants you the opportunity to fork out $1,500 for the Explorer edition of the headset.
Google declined comment. Google also isn’t saying when it would lift its velvet rope and whether the same Draconian terms of service would apply when it does lift the velvet rope.
Google’s tight rein over the gadget came to light today when one of the first would-be owners of the device abruptly halted an eBay auction because he feared reprisals from Google.
“After getting a message on Twitter from Google saying I had been selected as part of the program a couple weeks ago, it just came to mind if they are giving out to a limited number of people, I could put it out there on eBay and sell it for a lot more than $1,500,” said Ed, a Philadelphia man who halted his auction Wednesday. (Wired agreed not to publish his last name as a condition of him telling his story.)
Because the only correspondence Ed has had with Google is the initial tweet about his acceptance into the program, he had no idea he wasn’t allowed to sell his Google Glass, which he had been authorized to purchase for $1,500 in the coming weeks. Instead, he found out via the Glass Explorers Google+ group.
He also discovered that some were upset that he had the audacity to sell his Google Glass headset.
“People were acting like I had did something sacrilegious,” he said.
Once Ed learned of the terms of service, he ended the auction — which began at $5,000 and ballooned to more than $90,000. No one from Google or eBay had contacted him about the auction, he said. He still wants his Google Glass Explorer headset and hopes that Google doesn’t hold it against him for trying to sell the device.
“I’m willing to fork up the $1,500 for it,” he said.
The tech world, including Google, won an approval-of-sorts to control its stream of commerce in 2010, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said licensing language controls resales.
The case concerned a dispute about whether a California man could resell Autodesk software on eBay. Autodesk prevailed in a lawsuit, and the San Francisco-based appeals court pointed out that the shrink-wrap agreement between its customers forbade the resale of it.
The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members include Google, Adobe, McAfee, Oracle and dozens of others, urged the court to rule as it did. The Motion Picture Association of America also sided with Autodesk.
Federal regulators cited that decision last year (.pdf) when it blocked mobile-phone owners from lawfully unlocking their phones to run on a compatible carrier of choice, saying the ruling was “controlling precedent.” That’s because people don’t own the software on their phones that controls access to carrier networks, regulators said.
For Ed, it’s all a lost opportunity to cash in on being one of the first selected to buy Google Glass.
It would have been “exciting,” he said, “to get $100,000 for something that only costs $1,500.”
by DrEvil » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:08 pm
brekin wrote:DrEvil wrote:All police officers should be required by law to wear a camera and a microphone. Everything they do on the job should be recorded and uploaded to a secure server where it will be stored for at least 6 months. Any equipment glitches will require a thorough review. It should be enough of a pain in the ass to discourage tampering, and any intentional tampering should be a firing offense.
fourth base wrote:
AMEN.
Right on...or maybe not. Because once you open that door...
All __________ should be required by law to wear a camera and a microphone. Everything they do on the job should be recorded and uploaded to a secure server where it will be stored for at least 6 months. Any equipment glitches will require a thorough review. It should be enough of a pain in the ass to discourage tampering, and any intentional tampering should be a firing offense.
) and anyone else working with children. Did I miss anyone?
by brekin » Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:35 pm
DrEvil wrote:
All police officers should be required by law to wear a camera and a microphone. Everything they do on the job should be recorded and uploaded to a secure server where it will be stored for at least 6 months. Any equipment glitches will require a thorough review. It should be enough of a pain in the ass to discourage tampering, and any intentional tampering should be a firing offense.
fourth base wrote:
AMEN.
brekin wrote:
Right on...or maybe not. Because once you open that door...
All __________ should be required by law to wear a camera and a microphone. Everything they do on the job should be recorded and uploaded to a secure server where it will be stored for at least 6 months. Any equipment glitches will require a thorough review. It should be enough of a pain in the ass to discourage tampering, and any intentional tampering should be a firing offense.
Dr. Evil wrote:
Let's see.. All politicians, military personnel, lobbyists, bankers, lawyers, oil-execs, gun owners (or just mandate a built-in camera in every gun), catholic clergy (again, a mandated built-in camera might do the trick
Ordinary people don't really have to worry. They're already doing it voluntarily on facebook and youtube.
If you're worried about your privacy you're about twenty years late to the party.
In 1993, when I started taking computer science classes, our text-book made a big number out of the fact that, on average, every person was registered in 300 different databases.
PS! Read Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge for a really good take on where this might all end up 20 years from now.
by justdrew » Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:51 pm
by brekin » Wed May 01, 2013 9:30 pm
(CNN) -- Imagine a world in which every major company in America flew hundreds of thousands of drones overhead, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, collecting data on what Americans were doing down below. It's a chilling thought that would engender howls of outrage.
Now imagine that millions of Americans walk around each day wearing the equivalent of a drone on their head: a device capable of capturing video and audio recordings of everything that happens around them. And imagine that these devices upload the data to large-scale commercial enterprises that are able to collect the recordings from each and every American and integrate them together to form a minute-by-minute tracking of the activities of millions.
That is almost precisely the vision of the future that lies directly ahead of us. Not, of course, with wearable drones but with wearable Internet-connected equipment. This new technology -- whether in the form of glasses or watches -- may unobtrusively capture video data in real time, store it in the cloud and allow for it to be analyzed.
Some will say these new devices are no different than existing technology, like handheld video cameras or iPhones with audio recording functions. But there's a huge distinction.
The emerging new technology is not designed with significant storage capacity. Instead, its default mode is for all data to be automatically uploaded to cloud servers, where aggregation and back-end analytic capacity resides.
So, who owns and what happens to the user's data? Can the entire database be mined and analyzed for commercial purposes? What rules will apply when law enforcement seeks access to the data for a criminal or national security investigation? For how long will the data be retained?
As some members of the Supreme Court recognized last year when they considered the use of only a single stream of data -- GPS location -- creating a life stream of data points paints a mosaic picture of a person's actions and habits. Who owns that mosaic?
Service providers may argue that the terms of service approved by customers will set limitations on how their collected data can be used. But even if customers can truly make informed decisions about the storage and handling of such data, they have no right to consent to the use of data that is collected about passersbys whom they record, intentionally or not.
Snap a photo by winking your eye?
Ubiquitous street video streaming will capture images of many people who haven't volunteered to have their images collected, collated and analyzed. Even those who might be willing to forgo some degree of privacy to enhance national security should be concerned about a corporate America that will have an unrestricted continuous video record of millions.
What is to prevent a corporation from targeting a particular individual, using face recognition technology to assemble all uploaded videos in which he appears, and effectively constructing a surveillance record that can be used to analyze his life?
Concerns like this have motivated at least one bar owner to ban Google Glass from the premises. The proprietor thinks that continuous observation of patrons in the bar will strip them of their anonymity and put a damper on their spontaneity. In other words, why go to a bar when someone there is wearing a device that may be recording your every bad joke after you've had too many drinks?
Maybe the market can take care of this problem. But the likely pervasiveness of this type of technology convinces me that government must play a regulatory role.
Before we get too far down this road of ubiquitous surveillance, real-time upload and comprehensive analytics by cloud providers, we should pause to consider the implications. We need to consider what rights consumers have, and what rights nonparticipant third parties should have.
We need to be judicious in how to balance innovation with privacy. The Federal Trade Commission and Congress need to take a look at this new technology before it becomes common. The new data collection platforms right in front of us are much more likely to affect our lives than is the prospect of drones overhead surveilling American citizens.
by DrEvil » Fri May 03, 2013 1:02 am
brekin wrote:DrEvil wrote:
...Stuff...
fourth base wrote:
AMEN.
brekin wrote:
...yeah, but stuff...
Dr. Evil wrote:
...you shouldn't worry about stuff...
Dr. Evil (I love I'm writing to a Dr. Evil) Shouldn't we worry (us ordinary people) because so much has already been lost privacy wise?
In technocratic America we like to think technology is the driver of all this, when police states with just paper and pencil 60 years ago showed the world what was possible. Orwell wrote 1984 not as a "what if" but as a "this is what's happening" in Russia, Spain, etc Other than the videophone and a few other little gizmos in the book this is just the same old corporate/government/social movement to create a constant surveillance police state. The desire to watch everyone all the time will turn the world into a prison. By trying to remove all risk and catch every bad person in the act we will create a God of old testament proportions over everyone that will be sending lighting bolts down by drone. But if for some reason the majority of people think this calamity is inevitable, a total loss of freedom (that is what privacy is, a freedom from constant scrutiny and critique) then I guess we as a people are too soft to deserve our autonomy.
by Freitag » Fri May 03, 2013 2:40 am
justdrew wrote:Check it out. Not a very long read either...
and hey, it's GOOD for ya...
...
here -> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23164/23164-h/23164-h.htm
by justdrew » Fri May 03, 2013 2:51 am
Freitag wrote:justdrew wrote:Check it out. Not a very long read either...
and hey, it's GOOD for ya...
...
here -> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23164/23164-h/23164-h.htm
Putting it on my ereader now, thanks for the recommendation.
(I believe it was you who also recommended another scifi Gutenberg book on some old, long-buried thread, which I found to be very good. I forget the title but it was about people being possessed by invisible aliens. Just wanted to say I enjoyed it (coulda been someone else who linked it though - I'm not sure.)).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests