Well this certainly sheds some light on Google's decision to try to force SSL encryption by factoring that into their page ranking algorithm(s). Among the speculation was the idea that it was a way of flipping off the NSA, and like-agencies, by making their job harder by encouraging others to encrypt their traffic. In my opinion, this speculation now has more sturdy ground to stand on.
It's a shame that we're reduced to posting our outrage on the internet and left with no real actionable moves on the issue. We can fight it by working towards encrypting our data/traffic, but we can't force a public conversation on the issue that would result in stopping the all-out effort to collect an analyze the actual data. We'll forever be in a cat-and-mouse game over the issue. With the people involved in this having a significant leg up over the global community and always being one step ahead.
I get that this sort of thing can, and likely is, used to protect the general public from nefarious actors. What's a shame is that at this point we assume it's also used against the general public, an assumption that comes with good reason.
The rush to judgement in situations like this is just sickening. And that goes for both sides.
No investigation by anyone has revealed anything about either side. I can't figure out what's worse anymore - the media's complete dive into yellow journalism or the fact that so many people on the USA fuel the yellow journalism.
You know, it's quite possible that no amount of investigation will ever reveal definitively what happened beyond the basics of the matter, which appears to be that a cop shot an unarmed kid 35 feet away from the vehicle.
It's possible to start thinking and talking about that before some investigation supposedly reveals all, weeks later.
I'm sure you feel pretty clever, deciding that the real issue here is the State Of Journalism, and the Rush To Judgement, and you're welcome to your chin-stroking and your neutral principles. However, you'll just have to cope with the fact that much of the rest of the country has other things on their mind. Like: "why do cops keep shooting unarmed black people"?
No, but I can blame them for going after headlines instead of reporting responsibly; which they do far too often.
I can also blame the people that fall for it every time as well, as they're equally part of the problem.
The other side isn't saying much because there is an investigation going on. Too many people are not willing to wait for it. They'd rather make assumptions and draw their own conclusions then chastise those that refuse to accept them prematurely.
The rush to judgement that the officer did something wrong is no more correct than the rush to judgement that Mr. Brown was a criminal (or at best a future criminal) who did something wrong. Both sides are equally irresponsible at this time, which is something that used to be worth a chuckle but more and more has just become sad.
It is that what they are saying makes very little sense.
The information from St. Louis County Police Chief is that an unarmed Michael Brown died 35 feet away from a police car, from being shot several times, due to an altercation inside that car.
And that to know anything further will take 6 weeks of toxicology.
edit - in answer to the further point below:
I see it as a problem when there are supposedly no facts in a case of someone being shot multiple times in broad daylight with several witnesses, followed up almost immediately by a large team of police who are fully able to cordon off and investigate the scene, who then claim that they cannot say anything because they want 6 weeks to do toxicology.
The police chief gave a brief press conference following the event which was an admitted restatement of the officer's view of what happened, with everything qualified with the word allegedly. Since then his department has lost jurisdiction over the investigation and the FBI has yet to issue a statement.
Neither of which is 'one side' saying anything of any importance. The media has convinced tons of people that they have, but that doesn't actually mean that they have.
People are going nuts over something with no facts in the case. They have the officer's statements via the police chief, witness statements via the media, and a bunch of publicity seeking individuals with no clue what actually happened riling everyone up.
Yes, testimony matters, it absolutely does. But not the testimony the media shows us. Ascribing legitimacy to The Court of Public Opinion is dangerous.
>Like others, I find the title of this thread problematic. I also find your apparent refusal to understand _why_ it is problematic, even more problematic. You could have said parents instead of mom. Think about why you didn't.
Hah. So it's ok to be ageist but not sexist? Think about why you don't see 'parents' as ageist...
This is the problem with today's politically correct climate - it's not about what the person is intending to say anymore, it's about how people perceive what is said. And if a group perceives it as offensive then look out, because it doesn't matter what your intentions were anymore because your intentions are now being decided by others for you. Any hypocrisy in those people's stances is obviously to be ignored.
It's an interesting dynamic to watch. It's a shame you have to tip toe so much, it almost seems to take away from the actual issues these days.
Cmon, its easy to avoid most of the offenses; just read what you wrote before hitting 'reply'.
As for ageist, that actually strikes at the heart of the topic. Web facility is absolutely correlated with age. Its defensible to talk about generations and technology frankly.
It's easy as long as you're taking everyone's sensitivities into account all the time.
My point is that the person that has a problem with what they consider obvious stereotyping that's a problem with discrimination has easily overlooked something others would consider an obvious stereotype that leads to discrimination...
If we're going to lambast the OP for being sexist, then this commenter should be lambasted for being ageist. Yet I bet if you ask the commenter they'll say they don't behave like an ageist and would rather not be called such...
yet said commenter doesn't bother affording the OP the same level of discourse or benefit of the doubt.
today's political correctness is full of this sort of hypocrisy.
in my opinion the better option is for people to stop being so sensitive and to look for actual discrimination instead of perceiving it from people they know nothing about based on one line on the internet...
Exactly. And obviously there are exceptions (many of them), but studies have conclusively shown both in usage and proficiency that younger generations are more comfortable with "the web" than generations that came before them. If you look at Pew's studies and others like it, you can see that the comfort level/usage patterns for the web (and smartphones, though not cellphones) mirror the age break points between the Baby Boomers and Gen X (defining Gen X as 1965-1980, which is how most socialists say culture has determined that generation) perfectly.
I'm not even saying its a good tagline, I'm simply saying the gendered aspect is unnecessary because if we're dealing with stereotypes, old[1] people get confused by the Internet is far more valid than the inference that it's just older women who are uncomfortable. That's the distinction.
[1] to be clear, I'm not saying anyone not born in Gen X or Gen Y is "old" or less comfortable online.
Yeah, right. It's like this since 5th century BC at least. Haven't you ever heard about rhetoric? About Sophists?
Go read transcripts of some ancient (and I mean ancient, like 2k years ancient) public speeches, from politicians and philosophers. Tip toeing? Yeah, sometimes; sometimes exactly the opposite, but always well chosen words for conveying a particular thing to a specific target audience. It was considered an art and was widely taught until 19th century. The difference today is that there are many more poor, unprepared speakers (and writers), not that it's harder to convince people or harder not to piss them off.
Using a HUD to read/write texts/tweets? It seems like the creators missed all the studies about the dangers of distracted driving.
And pilots use HUD's so this must be safe? That would potentially hold water, if the pilots were using huds to tweet, text, and select music while landing... instead they're using huds to display important information...
I like the technology, I just don't like the suggested use cases for it...
Precisely. I've long wanted to build a HUD that could project on all the glass surfaces of my car. If I were building a HUD, it should be giving me a "heads up."
The windshield would have navigational aids, but any surface in the car could be used to display hazards!
I want my car to identify if a pedestrian is present (highlighted in yellow) or if they appear to be crossing my heading (highlighted in red.)
I want my car to tell me if there is cross-traffic that is about to run a red light. I'd like to see speed and distance indicators for other vehicles on the road.
I'd love to see the speed of traffic I'm merging into. When I glance over my shoulder to check traffic I can see: !! 64MPH | 72MPH !! in yellow, indicating I should merge faster if I'm able.
If my car detects emergency vehicles or construction vehicles the HUD could draw attention to it in my windows or mirrors.
---
Perhaps my HUD could identify vehicles occupied by "Tweeters" so I can be sure to avoid them?
We're making self-driving cars... there are countless ways to apply that same technology to human-driven cars that would make the roads safer for everyone. If the best they can come up with is song selection and social media: I think their priorities are a bit misaligned.
I am all for HUDs, if not most instrumentation, simply telling me what is wrong. When driving all I really want to know is, my speed and the speed limit. I could care less about the rest.
Yet I am a still a gear head at heart and having the option to see engine temperature, oil pressure (provided its a real reading), fuel, and such, would be nice I do not need it in my field of view. Perhaps the items I want to really know can be designated to pop up when I stop.
So, nav dream state.
default, speed and limit.
Navigation if I am following a route
Ability to designate selected other values to display all the time, at stop, when near threshold.
I agree with your opinion. More data, even if relevant and not tweets, doesn't always mean better. The purpose of displayed information should be to augment decision making. If something is irrelevant to making a call, like engine temperature being in proper range, it should be out of sight because otherwise it's a (mild) distraction.
But I already have all that information. And I dont have any HUD or other displays anywhere.
I can see the speed of traffic Im merging into, pedestrians, change of speed/flow of traffic ahead of me, and if a pedestrian appears to be willing to cross infront of me.
Without even having to think about it, I can just notice when there is emergency vehicles around or construction vehicles or any other danger-sign on the road. I can be talking to my passangers, listening to music or day-dreaming but would not miss any signs - its in the automated system already.
For me, having those kind of HUD stuff would just be even more redundant information to learn to automatically filter out/make judgements on.
In fact, I think such a heads-up-displays everywhere with color information, would just confuse drivers more and lead to more accidents - now you not only have to keep eyes on the road/let brain handle the information and do its thing - but also interpret and learn the various displays and what they mean, but also to confirm what they display to the sorrounding. More info to process - more error prone decisions.
Where are you residing? I am sure the rest of the world could learn from crash-free place you live in.
In my 18's I though the same, why all those precautions? I can write SMS and not kill anyone! Truth is, I was lucky not to run into emergency situation while being distracted by mobile.
There is very little risk in regular circumstances, but when unlikely events overlap bad things happen. Blown tire on a motorway, cyclist falling to the middle of a road, uncontrolled vehicle approaching you, and other infinitely many rare possibilities.
P.S. highlighting pedestrians might be life-saving during minimal vision weather.
Im residing in one of the best places for traffic safety after decades of work towards "0 traffic deaths per year goal".
I dont fiddle with my phone when in the car - there is a holder for it on the dashboard so I can see and hear it clearly when GPS/GoogleMaps is on.
Running into an emergency situation and having different color lights or other information on any windshield would be disaster.
Ive been in emergency situations many times, in other countries and one which I believe has the most unsafe roads in the world. Escaped many though situations.
And Ive also hardly survived a frontal crash with another car (in the safe country), I was going 70km/h and other one was equal or faster. I wouldnt recommend adding more information than already present for a human brain to take decisions on. That information can be fed to a computer to take decisions when cars become self-driving.
But yeah HUD is cool. I would use it to show the speedometer higher up than it is right now.
You must have a magical car that has absolutely no blind spots! Which one is it? I'd like to consider purchasing one as my next car.
My current car will give warnings if it sees cross traffic approaching when in reverse. It has warned me a few times when someone is driving way too quickly through a parking lot and my view has been blocked by parked cars.
Things like this are REALLY useful. You just don't realize how useful they are because you haven't used the technology yet.
Out of curiosity what car is that? I've seen a lot of blind spot/collision avoidance stuff but I don't think I've seen any sort of "cross traffic" detection yet.
Just the other day my friend drove past someone who was actively backing out a big SUV.
As we drive past our car is well below the level of the SUVs rear window. I just thought to myself: "he's incredibly lucky the SUV even saw him."
I have a 2010 Chrysler Town and Country that has such a feature. It's an extension of the "blind-spot" feature that is only active during reverse. It's saved me a couple of times in crowded parking lots with impatient and fast drivers.
In this case, it was a Ford Escape. It has proximity sensors all around -- it'll also tell you when someone is in your blind spot in a neighboring lane.
The very first image at the top of the page just sends chills down my spine. "Check out this rad video!" while I'm about to drive past a row of parked cars in a busy urban area.
To be honest this is sort of how I felt when I got my first iPhone.
I was downtown in a very busy urban center that I absolutely hate navigating. I was so happy to have an iPhone that was aiding me through the maze of one-way streets; for once I wouldn't be late for my rendezvous.
Just then: the person I was picking up decided to call me.
iOS decided that a phone call was more important than driving, so it displayed a full screen alert which closed my navigation session.
As a result I of course missed the turn and ended up in a rather stressful situation.
Now this was before iOS had built in turn-by-turn navigation; so I don't think it's fair to say that Apple intended it to be used as a replacement for a navigation aid; but the incident still sends chills down my spine.
---
The iPhone is no longer with me: but that was the point where I decided two things. (1) my iPhone would always be jailbroken. (2) The "CallBar" app in the Cydia store was well worth the pocket change I paid for it.
---
I can't stand the notion that social interaction is somehow more important than driving.
When you're driving: your utmost attention is the one and only social obligation you should be expected to fulfill.
For most of us, I think it's primarily a pocket computer. If you really just want a phone, you are massively overpaying if you get an iphone. I mean, sure, it has phone functionality as well, and that's handy, but just because we still call it a phone, don't think that most of us use smartphones primarily for audio communication.
Upset that a smartphone behaves like a single-purpose landline? Certainly. I believe a fullscreen dialer is terrible UX.
Smartphones are very rarely marketed _as phones._
They are marketed based on differentiating features: everyone knows that the flagship Androids and the iPhone are plenty good at making calls.
This leads you to sell the device based on it's lifestyle features: like Siri, or Google Now. Often they are touted for their entertainment capabilities, or marketed as portable media players.
These devices are sold as though _they're more than a phone._
So I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to expect the dialer to be designed to cooperate with other apps.
---
My phone has more CPU cores, more RAM, and more storage than many netbooks. So I find it a bit strange that Skype on my netbook doesn't demand my full attention, but Skype on my phone not only demands it, _ but commands it._
Why is that so absurd? The only reason these things are called "phones" anymore is tradition and inertia. The "phone" app on my "phone" is one of the least frequently used.
I'm too. I'm upset that my phone behaves as a phone when I'm driving, and late at night. It doesn't need to (and it can ask me the important numbers that can call me at night).
Additionally, pilots rarely need second-by-second reactions. There are times when you do, and you want to maintain awareness, but the odds of crashing because you took 15 seconds to look at a map are extremely low. The odds of crashing because you're focusing on details and forget to keep track of where you are or how much fuel you have or other long-term items are much higher. The requirements for awareness in a car are completely different, where a brief lapse in attention can easily get you killed, but the long-term picture is rarely critical.
Well, taking changes is not the point. There are two pilots, at least one of them should be looking out all the time, doing scanning. It's unfortunate when two airliners collide, because nobody was watching where they're flying. It has been happening. Even in situations when both planes have been already warned about the precense of other planes.
Problem with planes is really high speed, so the plane can be just a pinhead, even if there's good visibility and in the following 15 seconds you're doing something else, is enough to collide.
It comes down to probabilities. While driving, stare at a map for 15 seconds. What are the odds that you crash? Probably quite high. Better than 50/50, I'd say. Now, when flying, stare at a map for 15 seconds. What are the odds that you crash? It's not zero, but it's close.
This should be banned. Really. I don't want this on the same road as my loved ones. When you are driving, you are driving. Not reading/tweeting.
Even more, mounting "something" to the front window is illegal in a lot of places in the world [1]. At least Netherlands and U.S. In The Netherlands operating a phone while driving (voice operated carkit exempt) gives you a ~$250 fine.
Furthermore, obstructing part of your window is dangerous. You could miss something. And it's distracting (our eyes focus on motion).
>In The Netherlands operating a phone while driving (voice operated carkit exempt) gives you a ~$250 fine.
Sadly you're wrong. Holding a phone is illegal, operating it while in a car kit is officially nog prohibited.
>Artikel 61a
Het is degene die een motorvoertuig, bromfiets, snorfiets of gehandicaptenvoertuig dat is uitgerust met een motor bestuurt verboden tijdens het rijden een mobiele telefoon vast te houden.
Actually, it's not only legal in California, the state recently banned devices that get stuck to the windshield and mandates that such devices need to be placed and secured on the dashboard.
Obviously, the law doesn't say anything about HUDs, and it will probably take a few years for legislation to catch up with technology in that area.
I totally agree with your comments. Before Navdy, the stuff that distracts you are out of your focus. With Navdy, it bring the distractions right in your view, making it easier and faster to be distracted.
To be fair, they do claim you can disable alerts on a per-application basis. Plus, given that many drivers are going to check their messages anyway, I'd say a HUD is safer than looking at your phone
Plus, given that many drivers are going to check their messages anyway, I'd say a HUD is safer than looking at your phone
People die because other people drive while distracted. There are no excuses for being severely and unnecessarily distracted while behind the wheel just so you can check your messages. It really is as simple as that.
The answer isn't letting people who think it's OK to drive like this be a bit less distracted with a HUD. The answer is imposing penalties equivalent to what they'd get if, say, they fired a loaded gun in a random direction from the middle of a crowded shopping mall.
It's warranted for navigation, or possibly things like virtual mirrors. I wouldn't want to see text messages. Why not just use audio if it's so damned important to get the text?
My Moto X actually attempts to figure out if you're driving, and it is capable of reading texts aloud and it even allows for reply-by-voice.
My jaw hit the floor the first time it went off. My jaw also hit the floor when it read a rather private message while I was a _passenger_ in someone else's car.
I can't speak for this product, but the Boeing HUDs do exactly this: to see the display clearly you need to focus at infinity. That is why they are so useful.
CALEA was enacted in 1994, well before the recent issues with the NSA.
I don't like what the NSA is doing either, but companies like Sprint are obligated to provide these sorts of things to law enforcement for other reasons than just NSA spying. It's also for other legal investigation using warrants.
They shouldn't be abusing it by collecting more than they're due, regardless of how anyone feels about the NSA.
Insofar as you take as premise that the arrangement was good in the first place, it doesn't really follow that it's abusive for the telecoms to continue to bill for infrastructure costs associated with maintaining and building their ability to tap to meet government demands. It's not as if there has been 0 infrastructure buildout since 1994.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's abusive. Rather, the 1994 law seems quite abusive.
Yeah, he was right, people that design software no longer had to worry about Microsoft.
Except that it's 2014 and Microsoft is still relevant. The techy bubble on the west coast may all be using Mac's but microsoft products can still be found throughout the rest of the world.
I like PG, and love his essays, but this one was just bad. I'm not even talking about his prediction, just the way he puts it out there. It's just a very pathetic read.
For ~20 years Microsoft was a bully and received much criticism for it. Now they're just another tech company that's successful at the end of the day and has a lot of products out there being used by a lot of people. Now they're dead?
Give me a break. The whole Microsoft-hate bandwagon is absolutely pathetic to watch. It's just like the Apple-hate bandwagon.
How are they still relevant exactly? They're doing some interesting things, but I know dozens of people that rarely if ever touch an MS operating system every day, unthinkable a decade ago, and they're missing out on nothing. I can't think of a must use piece of software that launched on an MS platform (outside Xbox) in the last 5 years. That puts them pretty low on the relevance totem pole.
> They're doing some interesting things, but I know dozens of people that rarely if ever touch an MS operating system every day, unthinkable a decade ago, and they're missing out on nothing.
I knew plenty of Mac users in 2004. They didn't feel like they were missing out on anything back then.
The recent past does not represent the normal state of affairs. Microsoft was not going to retain a monopoly forever, any more than IBM could've retained a monopoly. Yet IBM is larger today than it ever was as a monopoly.
Markets grow, and new markets open up. Microsoft doesn't need a monopoly in every market. What it needs is something that it doesn't yet have in the various consumer markets -- 20-30% share. Large enough to matter.
Your comment is the exact same as PG's - because you don't see it with your own two eyes it must not exist.
There are millions of people that are working off of microsoft exchange servers, using websites hosted by microsoft IIS, involved in environments managed using active directory, work collaboratively with others using sharepoint (there's lots of job opportunities as a shairpoint dev, by the way), .NET developers, people working with Azure and Office 365, use SQL server databases, using microsoft office products, having their traffic pass through UAG systems, and so and so on. In addition they're one of the leading tech companies when it comes to helping fight spam and cyber crime activity (when I say one of the leading tech companies I mean one of the leading tech companies that's mission statement isn't to mainly fight spam and cyber crime.)
Hyper-v, file shares, remote desktop gateway and services, the list of services microsoft has its hands in is very, very long. Microsoft does a whole hell of a lot more than just produce an office suite and an operating system.
Just because you're personally surrounded by linux and mac users doesn't mean microsoft is irrelevant. It just means your scope on the world is narrow enough that it's out of your personal bubble.
There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize it for what it is - your own little world that is not a perfect representation of the real world.
If the premise is that Microsoft no longer has a death grip on the technology sector, with the ability to throw its weight in whatever direction it pleases whenever it pleases, then I would agree with that.
Dead? Not even close.
(But they may be dead in the not too distant future. i do not have a crystal ball. but right now they're hardly dead, 7 years after PG's essay.)
Crimes. Plural, not singular. Three strikes laws exist for a reason.
Does stealing a wallet justify sitting in jail for life? No.
Does getting caught committing your third burglary? Well, that's a much more interesting question and everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinions. But no one is entitled to completely twist the facts and then demand everyone agree with them or feel sorry for their own positions on it.
The point of the justice system is to adequately determine punishments for crimes committed.
The point of prisons is to provide a place to isolate people from society that have been deemed not fit for society (permanently or temporary.)
Neither one is there to reduce crime. They're reactive not proactive systems. Society uses them as examples to deter future crime, but that does not make that their job.
Wait, are we actually supposed to get worked up over this? The ACLU so clearly tip toed while writing the descriptions of these cases as to clearly walk a line between lying about the case and giving us the context needed to understand why these people are in jail for life.
"Patrick had no violent criminal history and had never served a single day in a Department of Corrections facility" - Right, but he obviously had a drug problem since he did NA in prison and probably got in trouble previously, just not enough to go to the Department Of Corrections facility (what his crimes and punishments were are left as an exercise to the reader)
The other stories have similar issues. Blame it on the abusive and threatening boyfriend, not the previous drug convictions and a three strikes law. Life in prison for borrowing a truck from a friend that accidentally reported it stolen?
Look, innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do. Not innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do, but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the other things that they did do. It's an unfortunate part of the system and I'm all for things that minimize overcharging and punishing innocent people.
But anyone who can't read between the lines on these is either a sap or just believing what they want to. They even led into it with a statistic about race to soften you up. There are three strikes laws for a reason. There's massive amounts of context missing from these. It's a shame, I generally like the ACLU and what they do, but this is awful.
Three strikes on drug convictions is unfair - especially given the disparity in sentencing for crack cocain vs. other drugs. Do you have any idea how many privileged celebrities would be in jail (some for life) if drug crimes were enforced fairly and uniformly?
So for drug convictions it's unfair? possession or distribution? what about manufacturing? is the crime for possession change depending on amount? what about the type of drug?
i think the way our country approaches the issue of drugs is not only pointless but down right dumb. about as dumb as breaking the law 3 times when you know that there's a three strikes rule on the books. i just don't have sympathy for people that can't learn from their mistakes. these laws are in place for a reason, these people knew they were in place, and now we're all supposed to feel bad for them about their decisions making? sorry, i don't buy it.
as for celebrities, i don't think we can really model the entire country around how they're treated. i'd prefer they be treated like everyone else too, but money buys lawyers and not all lawyers are created equally.
Let's stick with drug possession. Up until 2007, first time conviction on possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a drug supposedly used predominantly by blacks (supposedly, but not really), would result in a mandatory sentencing of 5 years [1]. If you were lucky and got caught with powder cocaine instead, you would have to have 500 grams in your possession to suffer a similar fate. This was the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity that was reduced to 18:1 in 2010 [2].
That's not all. Roughly 80% of those convicted for possession of crack cocaine are black, only 10% are white [3][4]. Yet crack cocaine usage within both races is about the same [5].
If you analyse conviction rates vs use for different classes (rich vs poor), I bet you'll find similarly outrageous numbers.
It's a shame that we're reduced to posting our outrage on the internet and left with no real actionable moves on the issue. We can fight it by working towards encrypting our data/traffic, but we can't force a public conversation on the issue that would result in stopping the all-out effort to collect an analyze the actual data. We'll forever be in a cat-and-mouse game over the issue. With the people involved in this having a significant leg up over the global community and always being one step ahead.
I get that this sort of thing can, and likely is, used to protect the general public from nefarious actors. What's a shame is that at this point we assume it's also used against the general public, an assumption that comes with good reason.