They're quite common. Many laptops have TPM modules, popular SoCs (like nVidia Tegra) have them too, and most modern motherboards at least have a socket for one. Yet, the only use of them I've ever seen is validating the boot chain's integrity.
Also, USB tokens are not common in users' possession, but if necessary I believe you could get one within a day.
It just need a little push from software vendors. Imagine your OS or browser says "Hey, do you want to secure your credentials? Here's how...". Or just start with an option "use hardware security token" somewhere under settings - while of less impact than active suggestion, it will still strike users curiosity and start things moving bit by bit.
Well, it's a rim. If you wear eye glasses, you have your regular "I need these to see things" lenses mounted into your fancy-ass $1500 rim. You'd need them to see the damn movie, even if you weren't recording.
So if you're going to go through the trouble and expense of getting prescription lenses mounted onto this thing, then maybe it's also worth your while to get a second pair?
You know, to avoid situations like this?
We've seen people get into trouble with stuff like this before [0]. This is a new, socially unproven device meant for developers. As an early adopter, you should expect to run into occasional resistance until the general public and law enforcement become more familiar with devices like this.
Expecting everybody to automatically be on the same page as you regarding what is and isn't reasonable with this device is pretty naive. You are the public image of this technology. Behave appropriately.
Yes! Anybody who has been victimized by the security apparatus automatically should have known better and spent any sum of money to avoid targeting.
Nobody could possibly expect businesses or sworn officers of the law to treat innocent citizens like human beings, to know anything about technology that is directly relevant to their jobs, or to think for five seconds.
> Nobody could possibly expect businesses or sworn officers of the law to treat innocent citizens like human beings, to know anything about technology that is directly relevant to their jobs, or to think for five seconds.
You're obviously being sarcastic, but I really don't think it's prudent to expect this.
I'm not trying to brush off the behavior of the FBI in this case, but I am trying to be realistic. Yes, in a perfect world your rights would never be violated, but law enforcement groups in this country have a long history of behaving poorly in situations like this... why on earth would you expect them to behave any differently when it happens to you?
I was just trying to point out that your actions don't exist in a vacuum, and people don't take the time to figure out what's actually going on before they react. When you behave in a certain way, people make judgements and decisions based on the context they have for that behavior. If you're not fully aware of the social context surrounding a particular behavior, you're likely to get yourself into all sorts of trouble.
If you're trying to provoke authority figures and make a statement about rights or privacy or whatever, then fine, you probably understand what you're doing and should do the opposite of what I suggested.
But it sounded to me like the author had no idea what he did wrong. The thing he did wrong was to fail to understand that walking into a theater with a camera bolted onto your glasses is a colossally stupid thing to do, given the context of piracy, the MPAA, and the FBI.
And the thing you're doing wrong is promoting the view that unless you're paying a great deal of attention to the obscure behaviors of the rich and powerful and automatically genuflecting to their obscure interests, then you're colossally stupid.
It's absurd. Citizens should have the right to go about their business, living reasonable lives generally unmolested. This guy wasn't doing anything sneaky; he talked with the theater company staff about Glass not just on this occasion, but previous ones. It is not his job to know what theater company executives might think, or what relationship they have with mysterious unnamed federal law enforcement groups. It is their job, quite literally, to be clear about any expectations they have for their patrons.
The guy wasn't stupid. He was being perfectly reasonable. Your victim-blaming here is horseshit, a way for you to feel smart and superior. And, as a side effect, to justify the excesses of the powerful by shifting blame away from them. Knock it off.
That's not at all what was said, don't blow it out of proportion.
Think of it this way. I carry a pocket knife at all times. When I know I'm going to get on a plane and go through security, I leave it at home. Obviously this is not exactly the same because no one is getting shanked by google glass, but the point remains. If you know you're going to a movie where they really don't like you filming, don't point a camera at the screen. Even if it's off.
I don't think "socially unproven" should excuse the behaviour written up in this story.
As the writer noted, they could have demonstrated very quickly that they weren't filming anything if the police weren't willing to take their word for it.
I never said anything about the glasses themselves.
You don't have a right to wear a camera into a private establishment just because you mounted them on your prescription glasses. How 'fancy' the rims are is immaterial to the camera you mount on them.
I've had git hooks do this for me for years. I have my hook check for pushes to a branch called "production", export the code (git archive | tar), run some unit tests, and then do whatever it takes to get the code to its destination and restart what needs to be restarted.
Git supports cloning over http, ssh, local file path. You can also create patch sets with `git diff` and share them however you want, obviously including email.
You can also mess with what you merge and what not via `git rebase -i` and `git cherry-pick`.
I don't see anything where darcs would be superior to git. It's just a matter of taste. Nothing to see here.
This scares me a bit because of what they're doing to essentially drop dependency information that's preserved in normal git commit order.
If you ignore commit order, individual lines have no way of really conveying what they've been tested with, nor what they will break if added or omitted, independent of commit time.
You get a lot of that stored automatically with git, by forcing people to define changes in terms of what was there before the change takes place.
You also have the ability to reposition this information with git rebase, and to safely walk it through change conflicts to make sure you affirm what is happening.
With this in mind, I think an algorithm like darcs' history looks like it would be much more suitable in text/block based editing, rather than programming. Something like tracking history in XML or following a Microsoft Word document.
As far as I can tell, there's no purpose behind the hashing, besides block generation. Miners maintain the shared ledger by forging blocks which contain transactions.
The reason it is hard to do, and increases in difficulty as more and more people mine is that it protects the transaction record. If the difficulty keeps up with the current computing power it makes it effectively impossible to forge transactions. Typically 6 blocks or about an hour is when transactions are considered rock solid. No one could have enough computing power to change a transaction 1 hour in the past.
Org mode... The only reason I keep coming back to emacs, despite my love of Vim. I've tried the vim "alternatives", and they just don't go anywhere close to good old org mode.
The one thing that I'd really like to see, is a properly made, polished mobile companion app.
