Hope there aren't any cities in the rockets path.
The RBTH has some more footage: http://rbth.ru/news/2013/07/02/proton-m_rocket_with_glonass_...
Is the specific impulse much higher?
Edit: It's not, it's actually lower than kerosene. It's simply easier to ignite - that seems like a really bad reason to use it.
Check out their efforts here: http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Google_Reader
Yeah, Reader held back the development of the robot car, glasses, floating balloon internet and the brazilian social site...
It inspired me to finally look past Google for the web based services I use daily (search, mail, rss, analytics, calendar, video hosting etc). Google's wants to know as much about me as possible. Putting all of my eggs in their basket seems like horrible idea. I've now come quite far in my exodus. Yesterday I found https://www.startpage.com/ uses Google) which gives good results (roughly same as Swedish Google but not filter bubbled). DDG (uses different sources, but seems to weight Bing) is downright terrible when not using English as search language.
Back in the day, they were a sort of informal auditing system and definitely helped me land advertisers for my blog (simply because I could "prove" I had 20,000 readers or whatever).
Thankfully I ditched the Web and moved to e-mail and know exactly how many subscribers I had, but this was certainly more luck and not any great piece of foresight on my part ;-)
It's a different take on RSS, that intelligently gives you fewer articles to read. A friend and I built it over a few months, and we'd love any feedback you have.
You can import and export your feeds, so no need to worry about having data locked in.
Apart from that, it's really nice. I never used any social features of the Reader, just the aggregation. That's why I couldn't care less if they implement RSS support or a recommendation engine in G+.
And that means I get to feel smugly superior to everyone else in this discussion.
Still, it is a sad day for RSS in general.
Google, this will not help me use G+.
The most polished alternative I've seen is Feedly. I wrote to the founder about this many moons ago explaining that in trying to be 'innovative' with the UI, for me the whole user experience detracts so badly from the functionality I want from the app that I don't want to use it.
Where is the alternative, with the polish, without the 'innovation'. Perhaps I should build one...
I'll get my coat.
Where do you stand on this?
-> Focus (1...10) Keeping the product
Im a bit conflicted.. on one hand they lost user confidence by discontinuing Reader, on the other I completely get the approach to focus on a few things and really do them well.
We posted it to HN a few days ago, and since then have had over 600 signups and processed over 1.5 million feed items!
We've made a ton of tiny improvements since then, with many more to come.
Links posted on Hacker News and Twitter allow me to find something interesting to read when I need it, without making any kind of commitment. For the very rare thing that I don't want to miss, I subscribe by email.
It now includes the additions mentioned in the comments and the countries where the service is hosted for those that are concerned by Prism.
In other news: EasyRSS has been open sourced: https://github.com/davidsun/EasyRSS
has been chewed over and over. here and everywhere.
yet, get the top position at HN.
What does this means?
Oh well, more free time.
and before you ask no I have never used GMail
I've switched to Feedly and it's pretty decent. Something feels a little off, but it does most of what I want.
RIP for GReader.....
By rejecting these terms Snowden shows character - but he is now in a really bad situation. Requesting asylum in Poland (where one of the secret CIA prisons was located) was an act of desperation.
This title strongly implies that he seeks to harm the US. Let the media marauding begin. I really don't feel that Snowden looked to harm the US, but rather hold the country he was serving accountable for what it was and still may be doing.
- @JPBarlow https://twitter.com/jpbarlow/status/351937848217317380
I am trying to imagine what leverage we have over Russia.
If a product is generating revenue then why switch it to a free model? To encourage buy-in for the upcoming product or something similar?
Just seems like a really odd business decision as I would have gladly paid for the app...
Anyone know if there are plans on providing source in the future? Not that I really want to look at it, I've enough code to write. But, It's nice to have it so I can make sure I'm safe for the future.
Also, does anyone know if this decision was brought by the design changes in iOS 7?
We've raised $3.8M from Accel Partners to expand Pixate's products and servicesToday we're announcing our Series A round, and we're super excited about it!
- `The spoofing was irrelevant; Spitler would have gotten the same email addresses if he had manually inputted the URLs on an iPad rather than a spoofed desktop browser.`, the spoofing is incredibly relevant, it's an important technical detail. Sure he could have sat and put each string in in a long laborious process, but they circumvented that and went straight to the faster option. Once they'd established there was a hole they could have stopped rather than going for the motherlode. - `if theres no technical barrier...`, there was a technical barrier, it was just very, very small.
He certainly didn't deserve the ridiculous amount of time that he got, but he's not an innocent in this example by any stretch of the imagination.
Defending free speech means standing up for people who have controversial views - no matter how unease you personally are with these views.
If you're already familiar with the background of the case, for the meat of the argument on appeal, skip to p. 15 (26th page of the PDF), starting with "Summary of Argument". That section lays out the five objections being raised on appeal, and is then followed by five sections making the detailed arguments.
edit: direct link, https://www.eff.org/file/37297#page/26/mode/1up
If you're elsewhere, find the nearest event on the Rt4 homepage: http://www.restorethefourth.net/
(Edit to add a shameless plug) If you're a dev interested in creating campaigns like this, sign up here: http://sina.is/task-force
Hope to see any fellow Austinites there. Starts at 11AM at the capital building, which has seen plenty of protest in the past few days given Governor Rick Infinite-Special-Sessions Perry's latest call to special session on a controversial abortion bill. Judging by the Austin subreddit, it seems many are in support and plan on being there for Restore the Fourth since it's in the morning and won't interfere with evening celebration plans with family and friends.
In the meantime keep protesting (to be seen and heard) and use technology to thwart said surveillance.
Don't listen to the "if you use encryption they'll definitely watch you" logic. Your messages are still encrypted until they brute-force their way through (a very long process compounded by how many people are using encryption).
If you don't use encryption they might not watch now you but when they do they'll see everything guaranteed.
Privacy is a basic human right that cannot be granted or taken away by any institution, be it government or other.
We're expecting a much larger crowd than the FB page would indicate; we've been doing a lot of offline outreach in the community, and obviously not everyone's comfortable signing up on FB nowadays :)
Stand up with technology and not just policy.
I'd like to create or join a working technical organization for the creation and distribution of existing of liberating technology, such as distributed social networks with strong perfect forward secrecy encryption, alternative currency systems etc.
RestoreTheFourth protests will be a great place to find more like minded techies, so let's organize before the 4th and spread the word during the protest.
Please join me, `fourthtech` on cryptocat, or see you in front of the Civic Center.
Authors should realize that a good article stands on its own merits, and tabloid-driven drama just lowers its value.
The PL geek in me really likes this nice demonstration of the power of higher order functions, as opposed to C-style for loops, when it comes to getting things done.
HP & the MoR is one of the most compulsive and intelligent reading experiences out there. Comparable to the late Iain M Banks in compulsion, imho, and half again as clever and witty.
(I loved the Harry Potter series and I love Nassim Talebs works if that matters)
I'm going to have to ration my reading of this...
Frankly, I don't think any of these questions matter, and the speculation without evidence is not useful. We should be discussing the leaks, not Snowden's motivation in leaking, his background, his girlfriend, how much he understands of what he leaked etc. The motivation of a source in journalism is not really important, what is important is discovering the truth about what is happening in the world and our true relations with our government.
What's more, Snowden apparently thought the entire set of slides should be revealed to the world. I'd like to know what changed his mind.
Snowden gave the documents to journalists so that they could fact-check, start asking questions, and release what they thought was appropriate. According to Greenwald he specifically mentioned that he didn't want to dump all this data, and I can see good reasons why he wouldn't want to - there are probably things in the documents that would be very damaging (and not just to reputations) if released, some documents have been redacted before release, and they require explanation and context - none of that comes with a simple dump of the documents.
There are also sound tactical reasons for allowing the administration to tangle itself in its own lies, and to prevent the story simply being buried so I completely understand why they do this. Of course the newspapers and journalists involved have their own opinions, but trying to reduce those opinions to left wing or libertarian or whatever other labels you care to apply does nothing to elucidate how they have affected the presentation of the information. On the contrary, it just allows people to dismiss the information without bothering to address its implications. Greenwald for example has been labelled extreme left-wing, libertarian, extreme right-wing and everything in between, but I think he's really interested in privacy and surveillance, not joining the left-wing or right-wing club and hating the other side. The Guardian has not pursued an agenda here that I can discern aside from trying to sell more newspapers or get more hits - they've printed stories from all over the political spectrum, and they are not the only newspaper releasing stories - the most important recent leak of 4 slides was from the Washington Post, which is also in possession of this material, papers in Hong Kong and Germany have also been given some information. Snowden was also interviewed in Hong Kong by veteran diplomatic reporter Ewan MacAskill who seemed impressed with his credentials and honesty so he's not completely opaque. I'd recommend any who haven't to watch this interview with the Guardian editors explaining the process in a bit more detail.
I find the disturbing allegations of unregulated, widespread, and deep surveillance used for economic and political ends far more important than Snowden's role in all of this, and I think he'd agree with that. While it's tempting to get obsessed with Snowden, his character, his job, why he leaked etc, and create grand conspiracy theories surrounding it, it's more healthy to discuss the facts we do know and their implications for how we use the internet. More information will come to light in time, and the information we do know raises serious questions about just how far state surveillance should be allowed to go.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz...
Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to themselves.
an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world.
Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the computers hard drives or shut down the phone system.
So basically he was a professional hacker. That takes a fair bit of intelligence, knowledge and experience, and is a fair bit beyond the job of a sysadmin, which is what everyone was assuming based on the title.
I guess it made sense. Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something neutral like "Situation Specialists"...
Doesn't that describe most of us on HN? ;-)
I suspect Greenwald would say he hasn't done this because he thinks that Snowden isn't important to "the story", yet he still happily tweets snarky things about Snowden and what other journalists write/think:
We don't know. That's the nature of jobs with security clearances doing work for Secret Government Spy Agencies.
> The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I'd certainly like to know more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Did he actively search out vulnerabilities in other networks that NSA could exploit? Did he do this only at Booz Hamilton, or did he have basically the same job previously when he worked directly for the NSA? Exactly how much does he know about the NSA programs he's been revealing to the world?
There are two issues here.
1) How can we organize effective oversight of secret spy agencies?
2) How can we trust whistleblowers? How knowledgeable are those whistleblowers?
For 1) we have to create strong law. We then give a small independant group oversight powers. We then have to trust the spies, and the people overseeing them, to obey the law. We have to be careful about crafting the laws, because these people want to push the boundaries of what they can do.
For 2) I guess we just have to accept that people tend not to whistleblow unless they feel strongly about something. He's been called a traitor for revealing this much. Imagine what happens if he reveals even more.
> Or, at the very least, I'd like to know why I can't know.
There are several guesses we can make here. i: The slides reveal information that put people's lives at risk. ii: The slides reveal information that give too much information to the enemy; or cut off information to the US. iii: The slides are not particularly relevant to the prism story. iv: The slides contradict the prism story, and giving the whole context ruins the story, and the journalists are sensationalising scumbags. v:etc.
Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible.
Add to this the emphasis by all parties on Snowden and his shenanigans, and I'm just left confused.
I started using it because I was on a slow connection and back then, Opera was a 10 MB internet package. It had email, download manager, chat and everything.
I am not sure about these features but size is 29.7 MB! Curious, did it increase just because of brink?
Where is this bleeding edge Opera Developer version that they mention in the post available for download, so I can at least see if the little things that have kept me on Opera for 9 years are in the pipeline?
I think it shows the Opera team is motivated and tackles the engine switch fiercely.
And while they didn't add native bookmark support (they really seem to want to push this) they have released an official bookmark extension which is also a work in progress. You can get it here: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/bookmarks-man...
Wow. I'm sure they have the data to back that up. I guess most people now get the news from their Facebook stream perhaps.
Remember it's now magically legal to kill US citizens without a trial.
What makes me ill is that there would be a number of people arguing on both conservative and liberal networks that this is acceptable.
Currently, Snowden is denied entry to Russia, and is stuck in the "Transportation Zone" of a Russian airport, unable to enter the country. Snowden was in discussions for asylum with Russia (who would issue papers allowing him in if granted), but Snowden has reconsidered this option and is seeking asylum elsewhere.
I bet other browsers have different performance profiles if this even works...
Then people wonder the "nothing to hide" well, you might not, but will everyone you know be bothered you are sending their e-mails around to intelligence agencies?
In all fairness, it seems that the implementation uses a middle server (pretty common in big companies where good engineering isn't a requirement) where log in data is sent, is stored in the users' profile and where timelines and other content is parsed before being sent back to the user's device, in a "dumb" format that the BLUR system can understand.
Nokia has a bit of the same for their low-end phones (understandably) and BlackBerry used to do much of the same. Yet, in those days, and in an Android phone that can easily connect to social networks on its own, this seems like a very unfortunate techncial decision.
In other words: the official Gmail app, Twitter or Facebook apps are unlikely to be "compromised".
D/CheckinProvider( 507): insertEvents Process tag not allowed: XMPPConnection I/XMPPConnection( 772): Preparing to connect user XXXXXXXXXXX to service: jabber1.cloud2.sdc100.blurdev.com on host: jabber-cloud2-sdc100.blurdev.com and port: 5222 E/PacketReader( 772): at org.jivesoftware.smack.PacketReader.parseXMPPPacket(PacketReader.java:503) D/CheckinProvider( 507): insertEvents Process tag not allowed: XMPPConnection I/XMPPConnection( 772): Shutting down connection for user XXXXXXXXXXX to host jabber-cloud2-sdc100.blurdev.com W/System.err( 772): at org.jivesoftware.smack.PacketReader.parseXMPPPacket(PacketReader.java:503) E/XMPPConnectionManager( 772): Failed to connect user 'XXXXXXXXXXX' to host 'jabber-cloud2-sdc100.blurdev.com on port 5222: Connection failed. No response from server.:
With that said I bet this is all for their social networking integration, some engineer thinking it would be cool for them to aggregate all your social data in the cloud, with no concept of the privacy implications.
Furthermore, if this report is true: why aren't there more tools out there so that there are more eyes watching this stuff? Or is everyone just too busy being "social" ??
Anyway Cyanogen solved problem on my Defy.
Just curious, were these devices manufactured before or after Google acquisition?
Lucky you. I can't remove, for example, my NFL application (which came installed by default), without rooting the phone. I do enough Linux stuff everyday that I really don't want to bother with it on my phone.
Honestly, this kind of stuff makes me want to get as far away from engineering as possible. I simply do not want to make complete shit and sell it to people for a living. I'm very thankful that Steve Jobs showed us that there are still people who want to make beautiful products.
* sigh *
Well, if I must...
Wait, isn't Motorola owned by Google now???
Does anyone know if this is a part of the Android Kernel? If it is it means they've modified the source code and they're obligated to share their changes.
*" I was using my personal phone at work to do some testing related to Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync. In order to monitor the traffic, I had configured my phone to proxy all HTTP and HTTPS traffic through Burp Suite Professional - an intercepting proxy that we use for penetration testing - so that I could easily view the contents of the ActiveSync communication. Looking through the proxy history, I saw frequent HTTP connections to ws-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com mixed in with the expected ActiveSync connections."*
Since I made a conscious effort (years ago) to remove all Microsoft products from my life, ActiveSync is another app which I have never used.
Who needs it?
When my wife and I were first dating, for religious and cultural reasons her parents didn't know. Her parents are conservative Muslims and mine conservative Christians. She had a picture of the two of us as her profile picture, and it was set to private (that existed once). More importantly in the picture she wasn't wearing the hijab (the head scarf).
One day Facebook removed the ability to have private profile pictures - automatically converting every profile picture to public. Her sister saw the picture and long story short that was the last time she talked to her parents. That was 2+ years ago. Facebook can't be blamed for the cultural and relationship issues at play here, but they can be blamed for how they went about this. And we can be blamed for trusting them.
I still use facebook. I don't blame them for trying new things, pushing the boundaries, etc. I have however learned that no matter what that data isn't mine. It's facebooks. And whenever facebook decides to innovate they will do whatever they want with their data to try doing it.
As a 20-something living in SF, it's a daily thing now: I don't get invited to parties, I don't know about birthdays, I don't see my friends' photos, I don't have any contact with anyone from high school or college anymore.
There is a real social cost for someone in my situation to not be on FB. I struggle to quantify the harm, but it's there. I struggle too to explain to my friends why I'm not on FB. And yet I still think I'm better off without it.
The whole situation contributes to the isolation I already experience as an introvert and someone who doesn't much care for bars, clubs, or alcohol -- though I suppose I don't need to remind this audience that being alone != loneliness.
I guess it doesn't matter much anyway, since FB is still collecting information on me (and other 'shadow profiles' of users not on FB).
It's simple folks. If you still trust FB with anything at this point you're going to get hurt. If you do trust them with something and they burn you then it's your fault.
> That is why I may delete my Facebook account. And that is why you should too.
"May". In spite of this pretty egregious behavior/bug, it's still a "may delete my Facebook account". That alone says something about the longevity of the business.
If you happen to have any more details about specific stories that reappeared, Id love to try and figure out exactly what happened. Admittedly, that may be difficult now that several months have passed.
As one of the other commenters mentioned, your Activity Log is a better place to get a full list of your activity and delete it item-by-item. It also shows posts that Timeline omits and includes other types of content such as likes and comments. This help page may be useful https://www.facebook.com/help/activitylog and you can find your Activity Log at https://www.facebook.com/me/allactivity?privacy_source=activ...
I couldnt tell from your description, but one possibility is that you only saw and deleted the stories rendered on your Timeline, which is just a summary of your activity.
No, we shouldn't trust facebook. But no, we also shouldn't pretend that the word delete means the same thing on your personal computer as it does on a shared resource like facebook. It's way more complicated than that. It should be simple, but it isn't, at least not yet.
Also, not upvoting this because of the eye-rollingly overdone "merriam-webster defines..." line. God, I can't stand that!
Nothing is deleted from Facebook, ever.
Facebook has made it unnecessarily hard to delete accounts and instead pushes the _deactivate_ option in a very psychologically manipulative way. Even after using the delete option, I'm sure that they're going to retain my data for as long as they like. I still did it for my own sake, prevent myself from using it at all.
I really wish there was an auto-delete items older than X months. Most of the value of facebook goes away after a month, anything older than that is usually negative history digging and stalking by others.
I'm afraid it would not work, though. Probably they delete the recent content, leave the rest online, and refuse me to log in...
Did anyone try?
This is just another case of user misunderstanding/error which gets blamed on facebook.
I said this previously in another Facebook related thread:
Facebook don't properly delete content that you choose to delete. Photos, check-ins and posts are just archived. I've been through and deleted everything manually on my timeline back to 2007. I noted that certain pages still showed the "counts" of content that had long been deleted: - http://i.imgur.com/zdwTl.png - http://i.imgur.com/27RFG.png
I don't think Facebook are playing fair. Delete means delete, and I want to delete it permanently.
If they archive the data instead of deleting it, then they should say 'archive' on the damn button.
I also no longer trust Facebook at all. I don't post on it, and keep the account only for OAuth testing purposes (and lurking).
If my deleted posts mysteriously appear again I plan on updating every single one to gibberish. Maybe quoting loremgibson.com or 1984.
There is a social networks for some stuff that you don't want known (for example, sexual fetishes, or gay stuff, or anti-government stuff, and so on).
I know a case where someone (that was never found out who, although there are some suspects) in one of those social networks started to attack some other people there. Until things started to get out of hand, with the person finding the Facebook profiles of those involved (even if they had completely fake profiles) and posting on that network, and then getting their profile in that network and posting back on Facebook...
Then the attacker posted on the niche social network the Facebook profiles of children of the victims, stuff escalated to the point of people hiring private investigators and professional assassins (some of the victims were soldiers and/or military police shock troops, and were not amused at all at threats toward their family... and happily supported plans for a assassination).
Happily the attacker suddenly gave up, and things de-escalated... But it made me much more aware that social networks can be VERY dangerous...
Of course (considering the tone of social networks here, professions of those involved, and that people wanted to do illegal stuff) I cannot explain better or give more information.
But I'm surprised people think entity like Facebook, Google and any other web businesses delete records permanently. It's not worth it on so many level:
- People that actually want to retrieve their stuff,
- It's harder to implement a full delete than it is to add a flag,
- They would have to give up on data-mining assets.
I don't endorse, but I understand.
Once you delete your FB account your profile remains visible for another two weeks, provided you don't login during the interim.
Today I can happily say that I am no longer on the publicly-available Facebook site, but who knows if FB maintains an LEO version of the site for use by the fascists (spies) and other government entities...
Had to LOL at this comment
I did that once, there's a Firefox extension (the name escapes me at the moment sorry) you can use to create macros. Sure it's useless in a way, but it's also fun in a way :D If it pops back, it's macro time again -- better than nothing, right?
Facebook can and will do whatever it wants to abuse this fact, and as long as they provide the most convenient way to communicate with other people, there is nothing we can do about it, period.
So rant away, my Internet friends, it's all we can do anyway.
Within a matter of hours, I lost over 150 facebook friends. Somehow, it was also tied into instagram and I unfollowed all my friends. Not sure how this happened. But you could imagine that it's embarrassing to have to re-friend people on facebook and explain that you didn't do it on purpose. I'm sure there are some people I forgot to refriend who think that I just de-friended them for personal reasons. This just ties into the fact that whatever happens to you on facebook will be broadcast to your entire social network.
The same happen to me but with yahoo, I had an old account that was long unused, because I didn't want to lose any contact that could happen I redirected it to another email, then, after a couple of years, I decided to delete the account because only spams were being redirected. A year later I notice that emails started to come from this "deleted" account again and so I tried to login and for my surprise it was active.
So don't expect to "delete" anything, and I think we shouldn't expect to have our rights respected, these companies provide a service that is not really for us.
They own you.
They couldn't possibly manage the data if you could remove pieces, since everything on facebook is intertwined (likes, comments, shares, etc).
aka this doesn't surprise me.
Leaving facebook removed a distraction I did not realize I was weary of. At risk of sounding dramatic, it felt like I got a few minutes a day of my life back.
I deleted my twitter profile picture as well as account in 2008. I had a url of the profile image saved. After five years the the link works and image is still there.
I don't trust FB, but I do need it for certain things. Keeping in touch with friends/family is definitely not one of them
I hope mark zuckerberg ends up broke doing LAMP consulting.
I do not want to mull over a social media monetizing idea and wonder if Facebook has already figured it out. I just need to be there and know it myself.
Sad reason, but that's the way it is.
I thought I had deleted my account in 2009, but I was curious when I saw this. It turns out I can still log in. Curious...
Do you really think it's still necessary to state that you should not trust a company that works with the NSA?
Does anybody do any thinking after reading the news?
What exactly do you need to wake up?
EDIT: :-D just keep downvoting and burry your heads deep in the sand...
Need I remind everyone that Zuckerberg himself said people were "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data?
We should also do something that you're not even certain you're going to do yourself?
I admit that after some mishaps Facebook has greatly improved the privacy controls on the site and allowed user to more easily control what they share and with whom, but I guess pretty much everyone would agree that it's not enough yet. We need the ability to delete the very content that we create, everyone has the right to be forgotten should he decide so.
If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from.
AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.
I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.
I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities:
1. Obtained illegally or through fraud
2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')
3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled
4. Non-payment of child support
5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan
6. Persons convicted of sex tourism
7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking
8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer)
Interestingly enough, 22 USC 2721 states that:
> A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum.
However, there is 22 USC 217a:
>A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation.
So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.
Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice?
Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?
[edit: formatting failure on my part]
Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history.
His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.
The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts.
For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1...
He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to seek asylum. But that's nothing new.
A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else.
The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked  . Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of , it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html .
Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".
The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?
In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.
The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry.
What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.
The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.
So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys.
The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ).
Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories.
The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.
As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights.
As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine).
Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339
Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and have extradited?
Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts?
I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially one you have admitted to.
It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane.
Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride back to Venezuela.
I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong.
Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying:
I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.
Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again? Only way I can think is to invade every citizen's privacy of every nation, as they have done.
It seems for us the US there is no win win and with human nature there never is. If another 9/11 happens we'd be crying why didnt the govt. do more though the govt. is doing more and now we are crying what the hell are they doing?
Humans..we're never satisfied!
And, ironically, this terrible decision of the US government, ultimately is responsible for Snowden having to stay in Moscow and probably having to tell the Russian everything he knows, even the parts he never intented to reveal. The US government just did a classical "shot yourself in the foot", I'd say.
IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad form.
I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.
Maybe he should tell Russian state media to tone it down a bit then. From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowde... :
"In several rapidly-aired shows on state-run TV, Snowden was flattered as 'a soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, on the side of Russia'."
As far as Russia is concerned Snowden isn't fighting for some pan-national ideal; he's fighting on the side of Russia
Also, I find it hard to swallow those who are up in arms about NSA spying on non-US citizens... seriously??? What do they think the NSA was formed to do??? That should not be a surprise...
I do worry that Wikileaks is pretty much hijacking his agenda and substituting their own...
Okay, so this guy keeps saying some pretty strange things. If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. He is putting himself into an extralegal position. I think it's probably the best thing for him to do at this point, but to say that the government has in any way forced him out of the legal system is pretty silly.
From my understanding people submit content to Wikileaks which then decides what and when to publish. But I guess this depends on if you believe Assange pushed Mannings to release documents.
Want the "cheapest car insurance"? Google is zero help. It sends you to Geico or a bunch of lead-gen sites, and no matter what, you will end up at an insurance company that makes the biggest margins.
If you really want the cheapest car insurance, you need to find a company that doesn't advertise, and is non-profit, that way your premium is spent buying insurance, not TV ads and Berkshire Hathaway's stock appreciation.
Whenever I see a SERP full of ads, I search for something different. When there is nothing but ads, Google is sending you to high-margin crap.
At Blekko we built a search engine (crawler, extractor, ranker, fetcher, the whole stack) and let people know exactly how we rank things, for users who created an account and logged in they could turn off everything except organic results. We have been moderately successful (we were the first to use a 'masked results' option  to show how much better our results were than Google's in contested searches) but there isn't enough outrage about that yet to build a business yet.
Most of our business (people who pay us money) comes from folks who either want to figure out how to game Google's results, or want some organic results to create a 'search like experience' much as Google does. When you think about it with only 7% of the page dedicated to organic results that is like 2 or maybe 3 actual search results and the rest of the page is a carefully crafted advertising vehicle. Sort of like a free 'newspaper' which has one article of editorial content and the rest are all ads. You can serve that market quite effectively with a relatively small index (a couple of billion URLs).
If you look at Google's financial performance over the years you can see how this evolution has affected their bottom line. Today you see it in declining revenue per click sorts of things. It feels to me as it did when banner ads went from this massive cash cow into something less useful.
One thing is true though, the world is changing yet again.
Now, you can be against Google ever making a UI change, or even against Google showing different results for "Italian restaurants" in New York and Chicago, but this doesn't really have anything to do with "organic" search results.
If the above is true, Google is dedicating way more real estate to organic than ever. It's just a different form of organic.
It's rather simple.
When you type terms into the search box, just imagine the words, "Please show me advertisements for " in front of it.
First, the author factored the screen space taken up by the google search bar into his calculations. Really? You want to press the back button each time you want a new search? And don't get me started on the fact that the author factored in the goddamn page margins as part of his percentage.
Secondly: the 7% of the page that is taken up by a map? Yeah, those are also organic results. In fact, they are probably more helpful to most people than the author's version of organic results (just links to websites).
Thirdly: after you scroll down (takes about 0.1 seconds) the percentages change significantly, as the entire box of sponsored results is no longer there.
So. If we eliminate the search bar and the margins, and we include the map in our percentage, and we scroll down a tad so that the sponsored ads disappear, you're looking at a page that is about 70% organic results.
FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY. Google did not become popular because it showed the highest PERCENTAGE of organic search results per page. It won the search wars because IT'S RESULTS ARE MORE RELEVANT THAN OTHER SEARCH ENGINES. Percentages DO NOT affect the relevance of google's results. It's all about relevance.
It's like full circle back to Yahoo.
Maybe this is a result of listening to the data too much, and not depending on the greater vision enough. Or maybe it's the future and you're gonna love it.
A paid result can be a useful thing and might even be better than an organic result in many cases, but both have their pitfalls and it's not surprising for them to keep going this route more and more.
Google is a company, not a nonprofit. They are in it for the money. Why is anyone surprised?
I actually don't mind this on mobile (but I also generally use something else for finding restaurants) since the majority of restaurant websites are basically impossible to navigate on mobile and all I really need to know is 1) where are they 2) what's their phone number. How organic that database is, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to be showing specifically paid placements.
I think its almost taken for granted that all search is interactive. If the first try is not precise, refine the query and try again. Its not correct to compare the Google of today with the "organic" search engines of a decade ago. The world, and the web have changed tremendously since. It can be argued that Google is trying to help the consumer by showing multi-faceted search for vague queries (which can potentially narrow search requirements) or provide cues about forming the next query -- and if a company can make money doing that, whats wrong in it?
> 7% is all thats left for the entrepreneurs and restaurantuers who believed Google over the years when they were told that good business with well structured pages would be able to get in front of potential customers searching the internet.
I'm really curious how the author would propose to fix this. Even with all of the other stuff cut away, there are only still 10 blue links to give.
That said, the implication with Google results is that the higher up on the page the link is, the more relevant that link is to a user's search. In my experience, very few people ever get to the second page of Google Search results. I'm all but certain that if we looked at heatmaps of clicks across all Google search pages, we would see this quite clearly. It's the entire reason that SEO has been an industry at all.
It gets more troubling with products like Google Cars (3)(4). It is literally another layer of PPC results specific to cars. I've got to think that other car retailers (including manufacturers) can't be too happy about this.
(1) http://iampaddy.com/lifebelow600/(2) http://blog.kissmetrics.com/why-the-fold-is-a-myth/(3) http://www.drivingsales.com/blogs/InvestigativeReporting/201...(4) http://searchengineland.com/google-tests-new-car-leads-produ...
Also the ads on the right side are delineated very liberally - one could argue that the actual area is half as wide.
Now I find myself longing for a new company and a new disruption of what is essentially Google monopoly.
If you think the ratio is off, then write an article about it... but this is hardly "killing organic search".
1) Google has steadily moved away from optimally presenting search results which they possess.
2) In being this connecting point, ads increasingly have taken over the space where organic results are published, much like ad space is sold first in a newspaper and articles are squeezed in around it.
Everything changes, or does it? Content is king, except finding content is a new king.
3) Google generally has the content we seek - in the form of search results. The results are squeezed around ads. This creates a cognitive cost to separate ads from results, instead of just finding what we need, which was the original promise of Google. This implies, at some point we're giving into reading the ads like they were the results?
Users have only ever been interested in search results from a search engine, not ads. In a way, good search results was a promise shared by AltaVista and Google. Being able to easily access them is what is changing.
Last year I was irritated enough to build my own search interface, focused on presenting results how I wanted to see them.
4) The cognitive cost had added up to be too much to scan Google constantly to find the one weather, or movie link I have looked at for the last 10 years, and becoming increasingly harder and harder to find.
My thoughts come back to the announced shuttering of AltaVista, in wondering whether we really ended up ahead. Google certainly has done things no one else has, getting search so good, and now finding what we want is a little more work.
5) Google is a business, and need a financial engine. As much as advertising currently seems to pay for the internet, I wonder if a day is coming where we're more willing to put our money where our mouth is.
It may take some time, for the majority of internet users to have 10+ years of online experience of doing the same searches and finding them harder to find.
What to do? I feel like brushing up my custom search interface and use it a little more.
You would think that bing would be trying to win the popularity contest by actually providing more relevant searches in the short term and then expanding ads in the future...
However, there's an important point here to be made, which has been said in numerous antitrust arguments against Google, and that is, "what if the product in No. 1, Google's, is in fact preferred by consumers and therefore is, to use language of the tutorspree authors 'organic'?".
It's an interesting question. I find much of the article interesting and of course the screen space dedicated to search is a hot topic, and Google's minimal style still remains in my favor, I just wanted to briefly object to the claim that somehow showing a non-ad Zagat page is "0%" (in the author's numbers) organic search.
Example: http://imgur.com/AJtOPkf this is zoomed down to 65% to capture all of it....)
They need to remember that there are alternatives just a click away, and serving too many ads degrades the entire internet.
Nowadays you're supposed to buy ads to stay competitive. Google grew so much that it's now a monopolist behemoth, and that's why they're swimming in money. But because they keep all the nerds in love with them, they manage to get zero flak for it.
Even with the shrinking organic screen space, the first three results still capture the vast majority of the clicks, so results 4-10 receive fewer clicks regardless of the amount of space given to organic results.
I'd like to see a study where organic results 1-10 all appear on the page above the fold, giving users the ability to see all the results without having to scroll and measure click through rates at that time.
Good luck finding that business model, and being able to reap the profits from it.
My guess would be that some sort of rating site that better answers questions like "what car to buy?" should benefit from Google removing organic results from searches like that.
I guess adblock and not living in US has some advantages.
People can use Yelp to find Italian restaurants in San Francisco but try typing the same in Wikipedia.
Is there any personalized search engine which lets you choose Yelp/Zagat/Tripadvisor when you type in that keyword? and maybe pull down Google map so Google doesnt feel left out ;)
You can turn on verbatim mode on the search results page. Click on the Search Tools menu, then look in the All Results menu for the Verbatim option.
The verbatim option tells Google to use all your search terms, as-is, and (at least at present) the search results are much less cluttered.
To always use verbatim mode, remove the search terms from the URL in the address bar (leaving intact the other parameters that turn on verbatim mode) and create a bookmark.
Don't tell Google about this feature... I depend on it!
Even when I !g to see google results, I see 100% organic results because I have Adblock Plus plugin installed on firefox. Problem Solved.
Make sure you have 'Hide placeholders of blocked elements' option enabled, otherwise AdBlock will show a blank rectangle where the ads used to be.
A few years ago this was the style http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screen...
Before that http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_...
Some of those keywords are worth tens of dollars per click so no wonder,the colors have been A/B optmized to get the most clicks from people not knowing they are ads.
Google: #fff7ecBing: #f9fcf7Yahoo: #fafaffDuckDuckGo: (255,212,0,0.18)
Not to say that Bing, Yahoo etc. are much better but I expect more from the "Do No Evil" Google rather than increasing the next quarter's earnings instead of targeting older people and people with bad monitors and hurting people who did a lot of good work to come in the first few in organic results but don't and/or can't pay Google for expensive ads. Also, Bing and the rest continue to mostly lose money and they can't afford to separate ads while the big guy continues to reduce the difference between ads and search results.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphol...
>I take privacy quite seriously. You notice that we use HTTPS on the site because we feel your privacy is important.
>Lastly, I'm saddened by the fact that you didn't abide by the Motorola Feedback Network Non Disclosure agreement you agreed to upon joining the Motorola Feedback Network. Discussing MFN activities outside designated areas is strictly prohibited. Provided this thread excludes MFN related activities here on out it will remain open. Further violation of the NDA will result in closure of this thread. If you(cythrawl) would like to discuss MFN activities further please email me at email@example.com.
What! You revealed that we spy on you? That's under NDA!
"IT IS YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION... Look at the permissions, they could read pretty much EVERYTHING you do with the phone and track WHERE you was when you did it, and WHO you did it with.. There is NO REASON why its in there, none at all. And last I checked Motorola Corporation was NOT a Government entity, and if it WAS a Government trying to do this very thing the outrage would be extensive (unless you lived in a Country like North Korea)."
I'm guessing the firmware update downloader sends some sort of hardware identifier, plus a firmware flash counter, to the update server. This would be the obvious way to prevent re-updating a device that reset itself or was manually reset after a firmware update hosed the system, which would trap the user in a loop. A (device id,firmware revision,reset count) table somewhere in the motosphere isn't exactly PRISM.
Outside a tiny number of hardcore custom ROM tweakers, 21 resets almost certainly indicates some sort of problem.
This is the kind of eccentricity I think we should be lauding.
So this is what happens when you are "unemployed" with $200 million in the bank.
I've actually listened to this album and, uhh, yeah. This took some chutzpah. I'll give him that.
That's sort of an awkward statement to make as the creator.
Is this Zepplin, Pink Floyd or Beatles? No but it's not trying to be. Would I want to buy it and listen to it? No, but I'm not in the target market and this music style bores me but musically, I cannot fault it.
(Here's a shameless plug for my new record, FWIW. http://music.lukehoward.com. I have also worked as a coffee-making intern in a studio. And written some software. Perhaps this isn't that uncommon...)
Striking similarities to Facebook's current position.
Funny how brainwashed you get. Nowadays Google seems like the perfect name.
Of course, it still isn't #1, since that spot is universally reserved for Wikipedia... something that I suppose would've been unthinkable in 1998!
Imagine in 100 years time, they become the major political party, forming government. It could possibly be something entirely different.
Why doesn't it actually show the individual establishments adding heat to the map? I realize I could just search for it on their site, but I don't know if the measure of relevance would be the same. I'm really curious what's causing all that bacon heat.
This is awesome though. Nice one, Yelp :)
But, I think it would be 'really freaking cool' to do this while accessing the entire database of places and reviews with any keywords you want. I know that would require more development and server resources. It would probably be rather challenging to do this efficiently on the fly rather than using preprocessed data from a limited geographic range, I'm sure there is a yelp engineer or two that would like to take on the challenge though.
Pity it doesn't go down the peninsula.
I'm just getting really, really tired of living in the 6th largest city in the US, not even including the very large suburbs, and always being excluded from these kinds of things.
Hackers take note, this is how you get value out of your growing datasets.
if this was nyc, you'd see williamsburg with big solid red dots.
Figuring out where you live and work, to a reasonable accuracy, is quite easy; you simply look at where the most outgoing calls/SMS originate from at certain hours of the day over an extended period.
We built up our own social graph. You treat calls and text messages as directed edges and phone numbers as nodes. These were fascinating to look at.
You can even try to guess when someone gets off a plane. When a plane lands you'll suddenly see lots of incoming undelivered text messages as people turn their phones back on. If a node was last seen in a far away cell, but then reappears in this group, you can cross-correlate with arrival times and make a reasonable guess.
My physical location in the real world I consider way more private in matters of wide scale tracking than what I write or say.
For instance, I hardly ever let my browser determine my location and send it to some site, it's none of their business where I am, and if I want the local weather they can get the name of the city I'm at.
But I was hoping this article would be about another, way more dangerous, because way more information-rich type of "metadata": Social graphs and contact lists. The problem with this is, humans underestimate the depth of this kind of data because we're not really well-equipped to reason about them.
If you have a table that consists of (time, location) records, it's pretty easy to envision what sort of information could be extracted from this data. Add a few more fields, and it becomes harder, maybe you need some creativity and statistics, but it's all basic detective work.
A free form directed graph (such as a social graph or collection of contact lists) doesn't look like a table at all (well, you can represent it as a table, but that won't make you much wiser). It's in fact a very high-dimensional object.
The older generation out here, may remember when they first encountered the WWW, when you could only navigate it by clicking links. I got this sense of vastness, perhaps even helplessness. They don't call it hypertext for nothing. The sense of vastness comes because clicking and navigating those links gives an idea of moving through a space. Except this space is in some sense "larger" than our usual 3D space. Every door (link) can open into every room, regardless of whether it would be possible in a physical space.
This is why those "graph of (part of) the Internet" pictures you sometimes see are generally always a tangled clutter of strings, usually vaguely ball-shaped. This is because there is no sensible representation of this type of inter-connected data. You can't make a hierarchy or a map, at least, not in the general case (and the thing you want to reason about is the general case, most of those graphs are exponential small-world graphs, highly inter-connected).
Same thing for social / contact list graphs. Except they usually don't have web-rings or directories (you can sometimes make them like FB does, but they aren't generally available, again the general case).
So okay we're not really good at keeping large graph networks of "friends of friends of friends" and other relationships in our heads and reason about them. We're really not. What you think you can reason about those graphs is just scratching the surface.
Computers, however, and Big Data Machine Learning algorithms in particular, have no problems at all with this type of data. An algorithm never lived in a 3D space, it doesn't care if a dataset makes no sense as a physical configuration of nodes, in order to navigate it and extract information from it.
Another important distinction is, people tend to think of these social graphs as labeled nodes with edges between them. Which is correct, in a sense. But it gives the impression that the labels are more important than they actually are. This may sound weird, in the building/room analogy, if you have millions of rooms, and every room is directly connected to 50-200 other rooms, somehow the shape of the paths between the nodes and way they are connected becomes a vastly more information-rich data source than the actual values of the labels of the nodes themselves.
They don't need your name or your photo, the local shape of your social graph is a highly unique fingerprint of whoever you are.
And you can delete Facebook, but on the next social network you sign up for (or any of the other social graphs you're generating, email/IM contact lists, etc), this fingerprint will echo, and in many cases be similar enough to clearly indicate this is the exact same person. No names necessary. (this may be a bit harder if you have a strictly separate business persona and social persona, but there are still some unexpected artifacts to pick up for a ML algo even in these cases) If you're not on a network at all, your presence can be extrapolated from the "hole" in the graph you left (all your friends are there, with their particular local graph shapes, but one node is missing), that is even if you have nothing to hide, you will be leaking info about those who do.
Does call meta-data give the government a lot of information? Yes. Does it give the government too much information? Quite possibly. But arguing shrilly about how collecting call meta-data is "illegal" is counter-productive. Maybe it should be illegal, but you can't start the process of making it so by proceeding from an incorrect premise. And you can't dismiss the goal of making it illegal, by arguing that the government is already ignoring the law, with reference to activity where the government is clearly attempting to stay within the law, even if it is pushing the boundaries as much as it can.
The same person being talked about above wrote this article in NYTimes yesterday:
Also, I don't believe that it has been shown that location information has been collected. That claim is conjecture only. We've seen a lot of conjecture related to these leaks that has been taken for fact. Sometimes it is hard to tell them apart.
What if the NSA considers not only IP source & destination as "metadata" but also anything down to the application layer that is not strictly content? Like the HTTP GET line or HTTP headers.
From what I can tell I need to collect:
- List of all incoming and outgoing calls and SMS
- Get my location data and match them to the timestamp (?) of the calls and SMS's
- Display this on a map.
Any suggestions on how to do this?
I rarely receive calls on my mobile - and only really carry one just in case I need to make a call.
Make that, they called and visited her office repeatedly over the course of many months to emphasize the quid pro quo established by previous political donations. If any corner store had made a similar ruckus for a one-time chalk-on-sidewalk "incident", the store owner would have been cited for interfering with the duties of the City Attorney.
I look forward to voting for Mayor Filner when he runs for higher office. I'm also glad the jury saw fit to correct the judge's egregious Constitutional error.
Wait... you're telling me this was chalk like my kids use on my driveway nearly every weekend? The same stuff that takes about 2 seconds to hose off? No shit he's not guilty of vandalism. SMH
Jail time for writing in chalk is absurd, but surely he deserved some reasonable punishment for doing this 13 times. A small fine and/or community service seems appropriate.
I said it before when this trended on HN, that I hoped he would go to trial and not take a deal. I don't care if BOFA showed video of him doing it, he had chalk on his hands, and posted pictures up online on FB or Twitter...if I was on the jury, I would've said he wasn't guilty.
Ridiculous lobbying of resources and obvious oppression by BOFA!
Now can we please jail those responsible for the illegal foreclosures?
I heard they were trying to put him away for 13 years. That is gross abuse by the justice system. If I were on the jury, I would also declare him not guilty, even though he is.
P.S. You do not have a first amendment right to write on public property. People who are too stupid to understand that, don't actually deserve first amendment rights (though I will still defend their rights, anyway).
"a 40-year-old man" "He was a civil rights activist in the 1960s"
doesn't really add up.
He must also really really love his space and company, nowadays when companies are flipped in 43 weeks, he is going on for 43 years. Wow, that's some dedication and calls for a very difficult temperament and set of skills.
There are plenty of business models that aren't viable without lots of capital early on. Tesla and SpaceX are good examples of companies that could not be bootstrapped as they need lots of capital to actually build things and to build the factories that build those things.
At various point they seemed to be obsessed with concepts like rooms and how important they are for dividing up a house or walls and how useful they are for putting furniture against, directional lighting in the kitchen, etc. All these obvious things that come standard with a standard house and most people don't think about were discoveries to them. They started by rejecting everything until they begrudgingly let some of the things in or found workarounds. The result was pretty cool.
We end up with big lists of rules about things, whether we are aware of them or not. You can call them rules of thumbs or call them cargo cults. Either way, there is value to be had from rejecting standards and then rediscovering for yourself the ones that demand to be discovered. It's like a cleanup process.
He is a humble go getter just like you would imagine Steve Wozniak. He doesn't seem to talk about his money nor does he really care. What I have taken away from our few talks is that he actually does care about the customer and thats why I believe he keeps winning.
The software at version 1 was poorly written and sadly still poorly maintained. But since 2005 or so, its been improving ever since.
Ps. They are hiring folks of all types in the DC area.
There's something to be said for uninterrupted focus, whether its an individual coding solo, or a business focused on steady growth.
They make their money off people who can't "afford" open source (ie. institutions & gov).