alan_cx

UK too.

Simply scroll down and:

"How Does It Work? NexDock is a laptop that runs on your smartphone, tablet or mini PC. Use NexDock with the latest Windows 10 mobile devices (such as the Lumia 950) and take advantage of the new Continuum feature, which allows smartphones and tablets to switch between touch and desktop modes. iPhone and Android users can utilize of the mini HDMI port or wireless adapter for a substantial screen size and productivity upgrad

Me too, and I still miss it.

No idea about research, but my youngest first started playing with a smart phone at about 9 months. Yes, really.

After about a month he could unlock it and launch games. Soon progressed to finding YouTube videos of preschool songs for the alphabet, colours, shapes, etc. He is now 5, and can happily search google for things like mine craft hacks, which he can easily apply, and his current hobby is installing old skool operating systems on Oracle VM. His current favorite sound is the Win 95 start up sound....

He has now got a reading age of about 13, so for example he can read a broadsheet newspaper with out help, he can type anything, but is only just learning to write with a pen. But even that is now happening super quick. He started learning to write 9 months ago and had caught up with his class.

Just by my experience, I'd give them devices as soon as possible, but perhaps remember to get them writing as well.

Why didnt we take care of making sure he could also write? Frankly piss poor parenting on our part.

No. Its everything to do with common human empathy. Does that has nothing to do with the US?

Oh, just workers rights, human rights, safety regulations, that sort of thing...

If that were to happen, I would suggest that an artificial "soul" could or would be created. Once you have that on your hands, things being to get interesting. Ethics, religion law, and so on will have one hell of a job on their hands. Especially when you consider that there would be immediate and obvious military applications.

Reading your initial comment, its very hard to believe that. It reads like someone who only believes one side of the narrative.

Why? Its an angry comment, but its what very many think. Don't we listen in order to understand that which we don't understand? Is only one view allowed?

15 years of this war on terror, and we have this. Something isn't working, something needs to change. I'd suggest that flagging people we don't like the sound of is one of those things we need to change.

And there is a link to the site: http://www.megaprocessor.com/index.html

Why is this down voted? Its what most people who use ad-blockers think. Its probably the most honest comment in this thread. HN members might not like it, but so what?

I believe that Mercedes and BMW have reasonable suspicion cast on them too.

Perhaps the attacks on our fundamental values helps to prevent the silent majority taking them for granted? Im not talking violent terror type attacks, more the freedom to argue against them.

I'm in the UK, no idea where you are. I don't trust my government one bit with my data, or any one elses. The US so called justice system literally scares the hell out of me. From a UK perspective, its terrifying. Unfortunately for UK subjects, the UK government willingly hands our data over to the US government, and equally willingly allows us to be extradited on little more than a request. Being a European Citizen offers us in the UK very little protection from the US.

As others have said, I have very little problem with the likes of google and MS having a lot of data on me, as long as they use it fairly and reasonably, and Im kept informed. Of course we do have the problem of government access to that data.

Are users of sites which use facebook authentication included?

Dunno about the US, but here in the UK, if someone were to die in a car equipped with a button labeled "insane", for our tabloid press, that button would be the main focus and the car manufacturer would be hauled over the coals based on that alone. It would be sold to readers that having such a button encouraged insanity on the roads, and the manufacturer would be claimed to be irresponsible for having such a button. Oh, that would be true, even if the manufacturer could prove that the button was never used.

Absolutely. I take the view that if one needs very high security, you steer well clear of anything electronic and go back to the old ways. The idea of secure electronic communications is well and truly dead. If one's life depends on it, why even begin to trust IT? Over the last few years just about every aspect of IT has been exposed as a risk. I'm sorry, but its game over. Personally, I'd use the hell out of IT creating a nice normal profile for the spies, then go completely off piste for anything I absolutely needed to be secure.

What I'd like to know is why people though it was ever fully secure in the first place. It really never was.

Im not sure about your first sentence, but Im kinda with you. Seems to me, at the very least, the majority of people aren't that bothered by what our governments are up to. I think it somewhat trite for people who are against these things simply just snap to a position that says these governments are essentially omnipotent and rule regardless of our concerns. If the mass public were outraged enough, it would stop. In a democracy we cannot divorce ourselves form what our governments doing in out name. Its a cheap lazy cop out.

You have just described how politics and media work these days.

The title alone is misleading. It presupposes that its wrong to have something to hide. I have plenty I'd prefer to be hidden, none of it illegal.

Whats so damned wrong with having things to hide? Discretion used to be a virtue. What happened?

"The attack represents the first known case of corporate espionage in which a professional sports team has hacked the network of another team."

Im pretty sure that in F1 one team hacked another for design details. That said, I cant find a source. IIRC, it was Renault hacking Ferrari, but Im not sure.

I don't understand the story. From what I can tell, Snowden had information taken from the US which could compromise its apparently closest ally's spy networks. But didn't tell the UK that? More over, the UK had no idea that the US has such info? I would like to believe that as soon as the Snowden breach happened, the US told the UK, and the UK took measures to mitigate it. I would also like to think that the UK assumed it anyway. Or did the UK leave its networks vulnerable for all this time? Or did the US assure the UK that its encryption couldn't be broken?

Perhaps, the UK moved its spies some time ago, and decided to keep it quiet until the Russians and Chinese broke the encryption.

I have great difficulty taking this story at face value.

General thought...

Two things strike me about these issues. Firstly there is a disconnect between a lot of citizens and those who are supposed to be there to protect those citizens; and second, we need to decide how much risk we are prepared to accept for freedom.

The FBI, MI5, and their ilk are there to protect the people. Yet an awful lot of the people talk about the likes of the FBI as thought they are just doing what they do because it pleases them, and them alone. But Im pretty sure the FBI believe that they are there to protect the people. To that end, I believe the people who work in the FBI are sincere. Somehow this must be reconciled.

As must freedom v's risk. I think there needs to be a rational debate about how much risk we are prepared to accept for an agreed amount of freedom. We simply cant have freedom with out risk. The only way to eliminate risk, is to eliminate freedom.

People need to address these two issues fairly soon, other wise, I think we are all in a while lot of trouble.

Am I to take from this that are we getting excited that privacy is a premium item that you have to pay for?

She/He never said it was. It is being suggested that, er, enthusiastic anti pedophile groups think that. I think that its implied that its a dubious argument at best. None of us can answer for the flawed logic of campaigners with tunnel vision.

It rhymes with......

I would suggest that a .rocks type domain would be redundant because the official .com or whatever is usually where all the positivity is. Often the owners of the .com try to manage negativity, and ensure their domain is a positive place, so another place is needed for free criticism. Im not sure many would trust a .rocks as independent.

Also, I can imagine something like an fabproduct.rocks would be a magnet for troll types and quickly descend in to a general bun fight arena.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've got this AM radio and I cant get DAB.....

Add Instructables.com to that.

In fact, I'd respectfully suggest that HN is not even slightly the best place for this sort of thing.

Just writers?

I'd suggest that many people putting their thoughts and opinions in any sort of permanent, record-able, store-able, searchable medium are self censoring to some degree, or at least considering it. In the last few years, I'm saying less and less, let alone writing it down. Im conscious that, for example, anything I write on the internet could be used against me in the future, in ways I cant know about now. Anything I say on the phone is vulnerable too. Its bad enough worrying about the present, but who knows what attitudes will be in the future.