Re:For everyone saying "There should be a law..."
on
Recording the Police
·
· Score: 1
You're thinking of an elected dictator. In the US system it takes many more people like the one you described before a bill becomes law. I fear the day a lone man can do it all.
Sorry, left out a critical detail: the amount of disk space that those specs fill up in 3 days. This is all on a single logical drive using LVM to combine multiple physical drives. The total space for storing the events is about 2.5 terabytes. Yes, ZM can be a total whore. But hard drives are SO cheap...
While ZoneMinder CAN record ridiculous amounts of video, it is heavily dependent on a few things: framerate, resolution, and amount of JPEG compression. In 1 production system I maintain, with 6 cameras at between 5-20 FPS, and 320x240 to 640x480 with minimal compression; I get about 3 day's worth of recording. It all depends on your needs. If you don't need high framerates, then you're good. However, what makes it a great system is that you can set it to motion detection. So that way when something DOES happen, it records at a high rate (ex: 30 FPS) while making sure not to waste disk space when there's no motion.
FINALLY someone mentions ZoneMinder. It's an amazing system that's highly underrated in my opinion. I've been deploying ZoneMinder based security systems for a few years now. It's versatile, very complex, and because it's free and open source, your only costs are hardware. It's the best solution for small/home businesses on a budget. However, I'd have to say that it's major caveat is that it takes someone with Linux and systems building experience to get working optimally. If you just want some random camera hooked up to your home server then it's a simple install. However, if you want an n-camera setup recording in various ways, then you'll at least need to know how to put together a beefy enough system and monitor the load to optimize ZoneMinder. For example, if your disk array is being reamed, then you might want to lower the framerate you're recording at, etc.
For personal use I plan on setting up a webcam pointed at my birdfeeder w/ ZoneMinder running on my home server. It's a neat thing to do. And if my work lets me, I'll install a camera in our kitchen. Soon enough the milk pilfering culprit will be caught!
Someone can follow the adds, and not know the party and be a more informed voter than a party loyalist too.
I'd like to sit down and have a talk with anyone whose political knowledge stems from campaign ads...
You need to rethink the concept of means tests for voting. Just because it was applied as thinly veiled racism decades ago doesn't mean we can't get it right this time around.
This idea of a handicapped key is not new. My jetski has this. It's a great way to make sure your friend doesn't destroy $10K worth of toy his first time riding it.
I think what you're describing is fraud? If that's the case, then that's not an argument against greed. Because without fraud, greed can exist to benefit us in a free society as I pointed out.
As for "equal greed" I'm not sure how to interpret that. It doesn't matter if one of the parties in a 2 party transaction is more or less greedy than the other party. They both have to agree before making an exchange which indicates they both benefit; even if one wishes he benefited more. How would you explain different levels of greed? Excessive greed could lead to someone committing theft or fraud, that's true. But then that's not greed, that's theft or fraud. No matter what the cause is.
greed and selfishness are the opposite of this, they are concerned with the good of the individual, at the expense of society.
There's so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin. I hope I can do Libertarianism and Ayn Rand justice and not butcher up the following argument.
How exactly is greed at the expense of society? In a free society, greed does no harm to others. In fact, people act in their own self interest to the benefit of society. I don't care about my fellow man, only myself. However, in order to benefit myself, I must benefit my fellow man. I'll provide a concrete example.
The cattle ranch owner needs money. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Now, in order to make money, he sells beef. The wholesale beef buyer doesn't care about the cattle ranch owner. However, if they exchange money for beef, it is a mutually beneficial exchange performed by both parties in their own self interest. The trucker transporting the beef doesn't care about me, the cattle rancher, the beef buyer, or anyone else. But in order to earn a living he transports the beef. The owner of the restaurant I'll eat the steak at doesn't care about me. But in order to earn my business he has to provide a good product/service to me. And on and on it goes.
So from source to destination, start to finish, everyone is greedy and acting in their own self interest. The cattle rancher doesn't care about me nor do I care about him. But because of his greed and mine, I get to eat a steak tonight.
AYN RAND, Atlas Shrugged
So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal wlth one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
That's not "an abstract example of a common principle in society". That's Game Theory. And your example in no way reflects reality. I bet you think of wealth as one big pie of fixed size; and that it's up to each of us to see who gets how much of the pie. ?
In reality there is no fixed amount of wealth to be distributed. Over the centuries the amount of total wealth of nations has INCREASED. There's no fixed amount to be split up.
Interesting for the big boys, but not so much for the amateur or even professional freelance photographer.
How does this NOT help the small photographers? It's exactly those guys who don't have the resources to find people using their content.
What are you going to do if someone ripped your pics from Flickr and claims them? Exactly -- not much.
Are you saying then when someone steals your image you have no recourse available? With this site you can find who's using it. What you do about it is up to you. And content owners do have recourse. They can contact whoever's using their content and let them know they're in trouble, then offer to work out a solution.
For example, a small food service business asks a printing company to make them a menu. The printing company steals images and uses them. The business owner doesn't know anything about this. Now, if the content owner finds out he can contact the printing company and demand either back payment or that they cease using the image. As a copyright owner the photographer can also send legal threats. Most of these are clear cut cases. And if the only place your images are online are on your portfolio sites, then thieves have no excuse by saying "Well, we tried to identify the owner, but couldn't".
Yeah seriously. Why was I modded 0 Redundant? My tone was definitely derisive; as it should be. I get so tired of reading 3 pages of/. "IANAL, but..." comments when all it takes is a link to some more authoritative resource. Then finally everyone's on the same page.
Print it out and keep it in your photography bag. There's a 4 page Photographer's Rights booklet I have at home that's more comprehensive and includes some common scenarios. I can't think of the name of it though. If someone can, please post it.
Yeah, but Actuaries are Applied Math, as is Computer Science. Theoretical Math is where the fun's at... if you enjoy a hopeless subsistence working in academia.
Apparently you're not familiar with insurgencies? First of all, relating to our own war for independence, the colonists won against a world-class, superior fighting force. Another example would be the War in Iraq. Our soldiers are getting taken out one by one by inferior weapons. In Vietnam, we *technically* (in a narrow sense) "won the war". We tried attrition, but even then the opposing force was endless in numbers.
Remember, not all warfare is traditional, land based, who-has-the-best-toys warfare.
And no, I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.
I'm sorry, but truecrypt volumes have no header....
Sorry, but TC volumes DO have a header. If you read through the documentation there's a section on backups. In it it states that you should backup your volume headers. Heck, even the GUI in KDE Linux for TC has an option to export or import a volume header.
They have that. It's called Stop Loss insurance. Basically, you pay for your own medical care up to a point. After that threshold has been reached, insurance takes care of the rest. It's not a complete solution like you're proposing, but it's an option.
The permitting process is understandable. My question is how do you go from simple licensing, to multi-year DOJ and FCC approval for what's essentially a business transaction? That's overstepping the bounds.
Am I missing something? Exactly what business is it of the government's that these 2 companies are merging?
So let me get this story straight: 2 companies create a market where one previously did not exist. They are giving consumers yet another audio listening option. They're creating choice. Then for business reasons they decide to merge. Now explain to me where the government has any right to get involved?
Granted, it's satellite so there's a "public airwaves" argument to be made. However, with homesteading rights the government should only be concerned with who owns the frequencies and not how the owners are running their businesses. We can wax poetic all day long about whether this merger is a benefit to consumers or not. That's fine. But to involve the force of the Federal government in a business transaction seems unjustified to me.
and the US election system having been completely privatized
Exactly how is our entire election system privatized? Are you referring to the volunteers and government workers at the polling stations? According to you they work for Coca-Cola... or Halliburton? The county employees counting the votes? They must be working for Ford I guess.
If you're referring to the voting machines then yes. Those are privately manufactured and sold to the local governments. And aside from the Deibold machines, they're not built to easily allow rigging of elections. That is, unless you have idiots in Florida that can't punch a hole in a piece of paper. Damn those hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads!
"At the moment, I have some democratic rights that theoretically affect my government. I have a lot less control over what billion dollar companies do."
Wrong. With a "billion dollar company" you have a strong individual right to do business with it or not. If you don't like its services, you can cancel your account. You're right in that you don't have direct control over what it does. Same with government. You don't control either, but at least you can control your relationship with a company more directly.
With government, your democratic rights are not individual rights (2 different things anyways). With democracy you need a majority. So as a lone individual, if you don't like a government policy, you don't get to opt-out unless most other people want to opt-out as well.
I can opt-out of Netflix. I can't opt-out of Social Security. SS is a ponzi scheme that any private individual would be sent to jail for selling. As others have noted, a private, opt-in system is best because you choose the censorship you want. It's voluntary. With government, good luck with that.
"One day, we might actually get a responsive government. Why should a corporation do the right or popular thing if there is more money in something else?"
Because blatant cronyism and nepotism doesn't exist in government? At least private corporations mess around with their own money, government does it with my paycheck.
"Why should a corporation do the right or popular thing if there is more money in something else?"
Sorry for trotting out and oversimplifying Ayn Rand, but as she would put it: in order to get people to voluntarily hand their money over to a company, it HAS to benefit them (customers) in some way. So by earning money, it's "doing the right thing". Of course, in practice this gets a lot murkier, especially in heavily regulated environments. In those environments large, established, companies push government for more regulation because it harms the smaller less dominant competitors. It's interesting that corporations actually tend to be hostile towards the free market, but it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking of an elected dictator. In the US system it takes many more people like the one you described before a bill becomes law. I fear the day a lone man can do it all.
"Of course proxy everything through the pc you left on at your own home." Not if the hunters DDoS your home PC. Goodbye home services.
Sorry, left out a critical detail: the amount of disk space that those specs fill up in 3 days. This is all on a single logical drive using LVM to combine multiple physical drives. The total space for storing the events is about 2.5 terabytes. Yes, ZM can be a total whore. But hard drives are SO cheap...
While ZoneMinder CAN record ridiculous amounts of video, it is heavily dependent on a few things: framerate, resolution, and amount of JPEG compression. In 1 production system I maintain, with 6 cameras at between 5-20 FPS, and 320x240 to 640x480 with minimal compression; I get about 3 day's worth of recording. It all depends on your needs. If you don't need high framerates, then you're good. However, what makes it a great system is that you can set it to motion detection. So that way when something DOES happen, it records at a high rate (ex: 30 FPS) while making sure not to waste disk space when there's no motion.
FINALLY someone mentions ZoneMinder. It's an amazing system that's highly underrated in my opinion. I've been deploying ZoneMinder based security systems for a few years now. It's versatile, very complex, and because it's free and open source, your only costs are hardware. It's the best solution for small/home businesses on a budget. However, I'd have to say that it's major caveat is that it takes someone with Linux and systems building experience to get working optimally. If you just want some random camera hooked up to your home server then it's a simple install. However, if you want an n-camera setup recording in various ways, then you'll at least need to know how to put together a beefy enough system and monitor the load to optimize ZoneMinder. For example, if your disk array is being reamed, then you might want to lower the framerate you're recording at, etc.
For personal use I plan on setting up a webcam pointed at my birdfeeder w/ ZoneMinder running on my home server. It's a neat thing to do. And if my work lets me, I'll install a camera in our kitchen. Soon enough the milk pilfering culprit will be caught!
To be fair, isn't a slow cooker the best way to cook oats? That's about 8 hours or so.
Someone can follow the adds, and not know the party and be a more informed voter than a party loyalist too.
I'd like to sit down and have a talk with anyone whose political knowledge stems from campaign ads...
You need to rethink the concept of means tests for voting. Just because it was applied as thinly veiled racism decades ago doesn't mean we can't get it right this time around.
Not being able to send out their tweets would be damaging to their vanity.
I see you listen to TWIT and Leo Laporte...
This idea of a handicapped key is not new. My jetski has this. It's a great way to make sure your friend doesn't destroy $10K worth of toy his first time riding it.
I think what you're describing is fraud? If that's the case, then that's not an argument against greed. Because without fraud, greed can exist to benefit us in a free society as I pointed out.
As for "equal greed" I'm not sure how to interpret that. It doesn't matter if one of the parties in a 2 party transaction is more or less greedy than the other party. They both have to agree before making an exchange which indicates they both benefit; even if one wishes he benefited more. How would you explain different levels of greed? Excessive greed could lead to someone committing theft or fraud, that's true. But then that's not greed, that's theft or fraud. No matter what the cause is.
greed and selfishness are the opposite of this, they are concerned with the good of the individual, at the expense of society.
There's so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin. I hope I can do Libertarianism and Ayn Rand justice and not butcher up the following argument.
How exactly is greed at the expense of society? In a free society, greed does no harm to others. In fact, people act in their own self interest to the benefit of society. I don't care about my fellow man, only myself. However, in order to benefit myself, I must benefit my fellow man. I'll provide a concrete example.
The cattle ranch owner needs money. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Now, in order to make money, he sells beef. The wholesale beef buyer doesn't care about the cattle ranch owner. However, if they exchange money for beef, it is a mutually beneficial exchange performed by both parties in their own self interest. The trucker transporting the beef doesn't care about me, the cattle rancher, the beef buyer, or anyone else. But in order to earn a living he transports the beef. The owner of the restaurant I'll eat the steak at doesn't care about me. But in order to earn my business he has to provide a good product/service to me. And on and on it goes.
So from source to destination, start to finish, everyone is greedy and acting in their own self interest. The cattle rancher doesn't care about me nor do I care about him. But because of his greed and mine, I get to eat a steak tonight.
AYN RAND, Atlas Shrugged
So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal wlth one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
That's not "an abstract example of a common principle in society". That's Game Theory. And your example in no way reflects reality. I bet you think of wealth as one big pie of fixed size; and that it's up to each of us to see who gets how much of the pie. ?
In reality there is no fixed amount of wealth to be distributed. Over the centuries the amount of total wealth of nations has INCREASED. There's no fixed amount to be split up.
The chance of having a single server run through a year is much, much higher than winning the lottery.
You have a point. My own home Linux server could easily stay up all year if it weren't for the rare power outage that lasts longer than my UPS.
Interesting for the big boys, but not so much for the amateur or even professional freelance photographer.
How does this NOT help the small photographers? It's exactly those guys who don't have the resources to find people using their content.
What are you going to do if someone ripped your pics from Flickr and claims them? Exactly -- not much.
Are you saying then when someone steals your image you have no recourse available? With this site you can find who's using it. What you do about it is up to you. And content owners do have recourse. They can contact whoever's using their content and let them know they're in trouble, then offer to work out a solution.
For example, a small food service business asks a printing company to make them a menu. The printing company steals images and uses them. The business owner doesn't know anything about this. Now, if the content owner finds out he can contact the printing company and demand either back payment or that they cease using the image. As a copyright owner the photographer can also send legal threats. Most of these are clear cut cases. And if the only place your images are online are on your portfolio sites, then thieves have no excuse by saying "Well, we tried to identify the owner, but couldn't".
Yeah seriously. Why was I modded 0 Redundant? My tone was definitely derisive; as it should be. I get so tired of reading 3 pages of /. "IANAL, but..." comments when all it takes is a link to some more authoritative resource. Then finally everyone's on the same page.
Here are some legal guidelines anyone can follow. Save the "I think you can..." for yourselves and stay away from the IANAL comments.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
And here's a direct link to the 1 page PDF: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Print it out and keep it in your photography bag. There's a 4 page Photographer's Rights booklet I have at home that's more comprehensive and includes some common scenarios. I can't think of the name of it though. If someone can, please post it.
Yeah, but Actuaries are Applied Math, as is Computer Science. Theoretical Math is where the fun's at ... if you enjoy a hopeless subsistence working in academia.
Apparently you're not familiar with insurgencies? First of all, relating to our own war for independence, the colonists won against a world-class, superior fighting force. Another example would be the War in Iraq. Our soldiers are getting taken out one by one by inferior weapons. In Vietnam, we *technically* (in a narrow sense) "won the war". We tried attrition, but even then the opposing force was endless in numbers.
Remember, not all warfare is traditional, land based, who-has-the-best-toys warfare.
And no, I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.
I'm sorry, but truecrypt volumes have no header....
Sorry, but TC volumes DO have a header. If you read through the documentation there's a section on backups. In it it states that you should backup your volume headers. Heck, even the GUI in KDE Linux for TC has an option to export or import a volume header.
Here's the link to the documentation on backing up volume headers: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=backing-up-volumes-and-headers
They have that. It's called Stop Loss insurance. Basically, you pay for your own medical care up to a point. After that threshold has been reached, insurance takes care of the rest. It's not a complete solution like you're proposing, but it's an option.
The permitting process is understandable. My question is how do you go from simple licensing, to multi-year DOJ and FCC approval for what's essentially a business transaction? That's overstepping the bounds.
Am I missing something? Exactly what business is it of the government's that these 2 companies are merging?
So let me get this story straight: 2 companies create a market where one previously did not exist. They are giving consumers yet another audio listening option. They're creating choice. Then for business reasons they decide to merge. Now explain to me where the government has any right to get involved?
Granted, it's satellite so there's a "public airwaves" argument to be made. However, with homesteading rights the government should only be concerned with who owns the frequencies and not how the owners are running their businesses. We can wax poetic all day long about whether this merger is a benefit to consumers or not. That's fine. But to involve the force of the Federal government in a business transaction seems unjustified to me.
From Republican politicians to large corporations like Wal-Mart
Wow. Somebody's making their political point of view rather obvious. Yeah, because only right-wingers abuse Wikipedia...
Whereas left-leaning editors have never been impartial when leaving out facts on the pages of Bill Clinton and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.
I find it rather difficult to believe that only one political spectrum or the other abuses Wikipedia.
and the US election system having been completely privatized
Exactly how is our entire election system privatized? Are you referring to the volunteers and government workers at the polling stations? According to you they work for Coca-Cola... or Halliburton? The county employees counting the votes? They must be working for Ford I guess.
If you're referring to the voting machines then yes. Those are privately manufactured and sold to the local governments. And aside from the Deibold machines, they're not built to easily allow rigging of elections. That is, unless you have idiots in Florida that can't punch a hole in a piece of paper. Damn those hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads!
"At the moment, I have some democratic rights that theoretically affect my government. I have a lot less control over what billion dollar companies do."
Wrong. With a "billion dollar company" you have a strong individual right to do business with it or not. If you don't like its services, you can cancel your account. You're right in that you don't have direct control over what it does. Same with government. You don't control either, but at least you can control your relationship with a company more directly.
With government, your democratic rights are not individual rights (2 different things anyways). With democracy you need a majority. So as a lone individual, if you don't like a government policy, you don't get to opt-out unless most other people want to opt-out as well.
I can opt-out of Netflix. I can't opt-out of Social Security. SS is a ponzi scheme that any private individual would be sent to jail for selling. As others have noted, a private, opt-in system is best because you choose the censorship you want. It's voluntary. With government, good luck with that.
"One day, we might actually get a responsive government. Why should a corporation do the right or popular thing if there is more money in something else?"
Because blatant cronyism and nepotism doesn't exist in government? At least private corporations mess around with their own money, government does it with my paycheck.
"Why should a corporation do the right or popular thing if there is more money in something else?"
Sorry for trotting out and oversimplifying Ayn Rand, but as she would put it: in order to get people to voluntarily hand their money over to a company, it HAS to benefit them (customers) in some way. So by earning money, it's "doing the right thing". Of course, in practice this gets a lot murkier, especially in heavily regulated environments. In those environments large, established, companies push government for more regulation because it harms the smaller less dominant competitors. It's interesting that corporations actually tend to be hostile towards the free market, but it's true.