reginaldjcooper

Why share it with 3rd parties? Because that's the typical method of creating an account and managing it in case you forget your password and they will typically claim that they aren't going to share it with anyone and the cost of finding an anonymous mail that they will accept is quite a bit of time. (I typically do not use my email to sign up for anything.)

Why not public? I guess it's fine if everyone knows it assuming a perfect spam filter (they aren't perfect btw) but I don't want it to be public knowledge what websites I use and what I say on those sites. Non-sinster example; I could be publicly discussing a sexual encounter and just not want the whole world to know (non-psuedonymously) that I did that.

Would the US actually be able to enforce a court decision beyond injunction against a foreign business located abroad?

"FAT patent invalidation reduces Android OEM costs by $3.4 billion globally"

Let's wait for the appeal before we declare any crushing defeats, but you aren't wrong that software patents are killing innovation.

I think if you're a startup and you don't plan to do VC funding, don't incorporate in the US. I guess the US courts could enforce an injunction against your company if you sell to their citizens, though.

I only knew there was the /r/jailbait that got removed. A pro-suicide forum is an unsavory thing. Thanks for clarifying.

Looks like Fisk and Gould were relatively unaffected by it, the country at large suffered a great loss, and nobody was punished for it.

My word, history does repeat itself, they were just shy a government handout and a multi-million dollar skiing trip.

What like cyberbullying? Genuinely curious.

Yes I actually feel the same, they look like they are plotting something (for lack of a better description). Locking down the OS would be a strong indicator for a future walled garden scheme and if it comes to that I am definitely done with them just like I am with Apple.

Why not everyone go buy a Nexus 5? It looks open as phones go, you can just root it with adb[0]. As long as you can root the phone and swap in your own OS I think Google's phone is as good as any other.

[0] http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Install_CM_for_hammerhead

Edit: I didn't read your post carefully enough. Yes, it would be wise to assume that Google will eventually become malicious and try to future-proof by supporting entities making comparably liberated phones.

I just got my Android phone and I agree. I shall never again pay someone for the "privilege" of programming my own device.

> Remember that the cables that they use were paid for with public tax money. The private companies are selling back to us the infrastructure that we already paid to build.

Actually unless I was misinformed, they are selling back the unimproved infrastructure that we paid them to improve. The whole situation makes me so furious and there's nothing I can do. Mesh networks, I guess. I need to make some friends along a line from here to a backbone.

If preventing deaths was anywhere close to the primary goal they'd be funneling money towards stopping traffic accidents.

Terrorism is a convenient trope to get people to willingly relinquish their liberties, just like "for the children" but with the goal of deploying ubiquitous scanners, drones, and microphones instead of censorship schemes.

> You could implement a weighted trust system where you're more trusted the more people trust you, and consequently if you "issue" trust it's counted as more trustworthy than issuing trust to yourself.

Nice try, but now write up your defense against a Sybil attack. Someone could play a long con, gain a lot of trust, and then cause a lot of damage.

Ultimately I think we need something like the blockchain publicly associating a domain with a private key. Namecoins I guess.

Seriously. There are reasons US prisoners keep going back in and part of it is the focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation. Haven't the US a whole amendment dedicated to not using beatings or shankings as a punishment? I wish more people would reflect on why that was considered a good idea back in the day.

No there's always a few posters that can't stop themselves from referencing tulips or pyramids. And humans remember unpleasant things better in the short term. So there you have it, the GP isn't irrational, but possibly hasn't done a statistical survey.

I guess you can download the LLVM source but that has nothing to do with Apple.

> that I can code for by spending like $100

Odd that you think that's freedom, because I can put my own apps on my own phone for actual free. I can put other people's apps on my own phone without signing up for an app store and without a third party's permission. I can send my apps to anyone I want and charge them via my own payment processor if I want.

I agree we now have a "handheld mobile OS with unprecedented capabilities" and that iOS and the App Store were incredibly innovative a few years ago. But the problem is not whether or not I am allowed to develop an app, the problem is whether or not I am allowed to use my device on my terms. I couldn't even add a caller blacklist on iOS.

Also let's say I without any argument accept the idea that the past was less free. That still doesn't make what Apple are doing now free in any shape or form, that's just a flat-out logical fallacy. If you have to appeal to a worse past to explain how you are relatively free you have basically conceded the argument.

that's right, I had a momentary lapse in judgement, sorry

I would be very happy if there was bitcoin shorting. It would become less volatile so we could actually use it for stuff without guessing if we are getting a 10% discount or 10% haircut compared to the next day. If there were a reputable market that did bitcoin futures I would take a very long position in bitcoin because that would make it useful for commerce and therefore incredibly valuable.

A government with resources like the US or China could easily to a 51% attack on bitcoin and reject any transactions they didn't like. They could "take it over" and the cost to do so would be little more than a rounding error for them. How would you make a new standard if, say, Russia keeps jumping in and 51%ing your transactions? You would have to centralize the mining to be safe from them. This kills the bitcoin.

Seriously, in these threads there's hardly any middle ground between, "eventually these young fools will see they are standing at the foot of a pyramid of tulips," and, "fuck the police fuck fiat currency eventually dollars will be obsolete." Both sides are ignorant IMO.

That's not true, there could be multiple buyers and the punchline would just be, "to whom? there's only the three of you."

I have been thinking about this also and I concluded I would either account for the bitcoin volatility risk in my BTC price or by raising the dollar price.

Nice observation. Yes bitcoins are exactly like tulips but moreso. In fact, in the future, bitcoin prices will drop below zero and these idiots will have to pay others to get rid of them. I'm looking forward to the expressions on their dumb faces when they realize they are in a pyramid scheme balanced on top of a bubble resting on top of a bridge over some swampland in Florida.

IMO both of you have good points.

I would expect 23andMe to be doing some shady Facebook-esqe bullshit because of the profit motive and that is why I have never used them even though I am curious. I expect the state to be doing some shady Facebook-esqe bullshit because of "terrists" but I didn't have the option to not.

So I can both be "at least as concerned about the State of California" and also be 100% against sending a swab to 23andMe. I trust neither more but with one of them I have control over their collection of my DNA.

That's not a sad thing to be, at least recently. Apple is one of the major enemies of personal computing freedom.

This is a good real-world example and the response is an armchair programmer informing you that you are doing it wrong. The internet is rife with know-it-alls. "Just do X." Well, I cannot because I am contractually obligated to write the software as specified and not cowboy up and do whatever I like.

Maybe someone decided 100 characters was a reasonable cutoff and that field is not important enough to reject (read: increase bounce rate) on if someone manages to send too much.

Maybe the 100 characters is a short string generated from an unrestricted long string and cached on a separate server.

The scanner isn't effective enough to warrant the additional delay and invasion of privacy, it's just that the former head of Homeland Security is now a lobbyist for that company. Has TSA caught a single terrorist yet?

The idea of NSA surveillance is not to increase safety with only a marginal decrease in freedom. Otherwise they wouldn't have unconstitutionally fingered targets for the DEA to parallel construct evidence for.

Thanks for a false dichotomy between scanners and nothing, by the way. If there were an airport near me that did metal detectors again (and another on the return leg) I'd use that exclusively. Anyone able to get a truly dangerous weapon through a metal detector without being nailed by the FBI or CIA first could easily get one through the full-body scanner also. So yes I would prefer to not support an unethical jerk and I would prefer to have my privacy back.

The greater violation of liberty is preventing many entities from using an idea rather than a single entity losing the opportunity to profit from an idea.

Especially because a fire inventor being deprived of profit is not what is happening. What is happening is someone uses a broken system to register their idea of cooking rabbits after watching other people cook different animals. He is then given exclusive rights to cook rabbits, and he goes directly to extort shells and shiny rocks from the guy two caves down who has been cooking and trading rabbits for years now.

If we cannot have patents without "scan-to-email" extortionists we should not have patents. Creating an incentive to do no B2C business because it is more profitable to sue other companies for using obvious ideas is contrary to the intended purpose of the patent system anyway. Either get patent examiners that can do it properly, make it dirt cheap to challenge a patent, or shut it all down.

realtime means your algorithm is guaranteed within a certain window of time, even accounting for delays talking to memory, caches, etc. If it's okay to "drop frames" it is referred to as "soft real time", otherwise it is referred to as "hard real time".

Soft example: Video decoding.

Hard example: Mars rover.

If the copyright enthusiasts can misuse legal terminology to refer to copyright infringement as actual theft, I say let's go ahead and call this a theft as well. We'd be closer to the truth.