There should be another ruling. 3 letter agencies should also need a warrant to track cell phones too.
Basically, this ruling means nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are being tracked without our permission & the police can probably get as much info from the US government agencies by just asking for it.
I love this. I love the movie. It's geeky and I went on a date to see this movie with a female friend of mine at the time (we weren't girl/boy friend at that time). Now she is my wife of almost 20 years (2017). IT was playing at the Midway Theater in Forest Hills NY.
Do not buy this product. You don't need it. Wait until holographic tech. is implemented without a VR headset.
OR you could block specific outgoing traffic that is related to VR software on your router.
This may be one of the reasons Google invented Go (language). I wouldn't be surprised to see if future versions of their platforms are Go-lang only. Make Java obsolete
Go is entirely pointless as a GUI language - it has a niche it tries to fit well.
Dart is much much better as a Java replacement and efforts like flutter are really promising for cross language dev - IPC architecture behind it and chrome (Mojo) is how Android should have been implemented, then it doesn't matter what languages you use they are trivial to swap because IDL defined interfaces can be reimplemented transparently and client API can be generated automatically. Instead you are locked in to their JVM
interesting to see that the highly-supported VM platforms are spawning ecosystems of languages that target other languages. javascript is the best example but JVM is a close second (clojure, scala, kotlin).
the trade-off here is accepting build slowness & complexity in exchange for escaping the negatives of the default language for your platform.
I think we won't get off this trend until we figure out a bytecode format that balances sandboxing and portability. WASM?
I agree but I don't understand how that relates to Dart (has a standalone VM of decent quality) or Mojo (IPC API language - basically abstracts stuff on a OS process level - cross language/VM/process interop being transparent)
Both great products with great technology but neither is ubiquitous. JVM & javascript have pentrated their target audience enough that 'building on top' saves your users some installation work.
I'd be happy with golang for Android -- but if Google is interested in that, they seriously have the project understaffed. Seems like just a few engineers on the go mobile project. It's been alpha stage for almost a year.
Isn't Dart for browsers? And it looks like WebAssembly might overtake Dart there. Maybe that would work for Chrome Web Apps on Android, I haven't tried.
For native apps, I think it's still mainly Java, tho JetBrains is promoting Kotlin as an alternative.
The way I remember it dart was released to replace javascript as an actual viable sane language for apps, which means it could double as a longterm replacement for smartphone apps as well.
Mozilla resisted dart in the browser and focused heavily on improving javascript which left dart dead in the water.
Judging from the mess that cross compiling binary to Android is (compared to iOS), it seems that Google is not seriously offering that as an option.
Weird to me, as it is the best way to ensure every one can do what every they like on your platform (and possible re-use large portions of code on other platforms).
No clue why you are being downvoted as this is an important point: Android's Java forcefeed is negative in more ways than one. We need multiple alternatives (yes yes Kotlin I know but more). Many programmers dislike Java and will do anything to avoid having to use it.
Yes. But the people who run the institutions will mostly reflect the majority and hence protect their kind.
When the society was mostly anti-gay the government machinery was used to hurt these target homosexual groups. Now that society is pro-gay we see government forcing bakers to bake cake for gay weddings.
I will not be surprised if the surveillance mechanism would be used to hurt Libertarians and anti-government people.
That's an interesting premise, do you think that the heads of e.g. the KGB were representative of the majority of Soviets? It was my impression that there was a large class distinction between the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the proverbial average Joe.
Note: I selected the USSR/KGB not for any particular resemblance to current Western intelligence agencies (much more human intelligence and shotgun mics back then) but rather because they seem to me to be the textbook case of the effects of mass, pervasive surveillance over a long time.
To give a growth hacking analogy, becoming KGB head is the final step in the funnel. To be a KGB head you should probably have qualities that 99.99% of the people do not posses. But it is wrong to say he does not represent the majority of soviets because the entry to the system and almost every other step in the funnel is highly biased towards those who conform to majority opinion.
For example when I say Donald Trump is representative of majority of conservative base I do not mean majority of conservative base is narcissist and billionaire. I basically mean Trump is pro-Gun, pro-Life, pro-Christian, anti-Gay. Because without those criteria he would not have entered the funnel in first place.
Conservatives or Liberals the current trend among American politicians is "trust us", "bend before authority", I am 100% sure no person can rise to top in American government if he does not conform to these ideas.
I haven't studied the period, but my impression was that it was very much possible for a brilliant person from humble origins to rise to the top on the basis of their skills. Though becoming outright head would probably require networking/corruption as in any large organization.
Look at Xi Jinping's regime. Lots of party officials, members of the politburo, etc. who while they support the party itself may not support Mr. Xi, or vice versa.
Even strong (executive power) leaders like Mr Xi or Mr Putin do not rule over a monolith.
That seems a little too simplistic; the parent example of McCarthyism was used to drive people out of the government so the "power/no power" binary doesn't seem adequate.
It's not necessary: it's just convenient or more profitable. There's guards, link encryptors, authenticated networking, and OSS knockoffs of above to either reduce risk of or probably prevent malice from hitting on-site computers.
They're just not applied by most because people paying don't give a shit. Any high-security engineer doing SCADA or site-to-site for big companies will probably tell you so.
After they share the data within, they will begin to sell the data to private corporations, or offer the data to them for next to nothing & as long as they share the output of their processing results.
The Public - Private partnership will be in full swing in a few years.
Why are we analyzing this? Why aren't we telling our representatives that this is wrong & it must stop?
What you are describing is inevitable, unless we fight for better laws in America. For instance, accessing email older than 180 days currently doesn't require a warrant.
I helped Demand Progress build a website to promote a fix, the Email Privacy Act. The act actually has 310 cosponsors, which is more than any other bill in the House! The website goes into greater detail: https://savethefourth.net/
My data point on this is Aldrich Ames who living way beyond his means for a full decade. All the CIA did was send to agents around to tell him to 'cool it'
What this says to me is that people at his level in the CIA and NSA, etc at the time and probably still are trading classified information to friendly governments and large corporate clients. What the CIA didn't expect was that Ames was so utterly stupid as to be selling information to the Soviets instead of say the French Government, or the someone at a hedge fund, or a VP of sales at Boeing.
Private corporations already have the data. Did you see the list of companies supporting Apple?
Nobody is worried about this. We think that companies have the right to keep dossiers on people, as long as they make a scout's promise that it's only for advertising. And selling to each other. But don't give data to the government, that would be unethical.
More think of you're bidding on a contract with General Electric and the guy across the table has been listening in on all of your conference calls and reading all of your confidential documents courtesy of your competitors mole at the FBI. And so he knows what your go no go point is to the penny.
Basically, this ruling means nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are being tracked without our permission & the police can probably get as much info from the US government agencies by just asking for it.