That would be great! Been using a widescreen laptop for a few years and for as long I've been crying out for a halt to the constant stacking stuff on top of each other. We need vertical space!
Well, as far as your first point is concerned, I believe you have the same right in the US as you do in Sweden, namely challenge your speeding ticket, parking ticket, penalty ticket for not paying commuting fees and so on, in court.
Second, the thing with cameras is a big deal in Sweden at the moment. Why? Their numbers are exploding! Why? Speed is decreasing. As you say, it's problematic to define "too [keke] fast". On the other hand, it's no secret that lower speeds equals less pollution and less accidents. And speeds on Swedish roads has decreased by 8 percent, speeders by 40 percent since cameras came up according to the Swedish "road department".
As far as drunk driving goes I agree with you. But cameras doesn't require police resources, drunk driving does. Thus, cameras = less drunk driving.
Can someone explain to me what the difficulty in creating a computer chess master? Wouldn't it just be to create a function that outputs the move that provides the most possible ways of winning, then repeat that function until check mate?
Obviously not. But why? I suck at chess.
Never been to Manhattan and I hear what you're saying. However, taking photos of people driving to make sure they're not driving to fast, thus saving lives, or, taking photos of cars to tax them for driving in a city thus reducing pollution are good things (maybe not on Manhattan, but generally speaking). To make these systems convenient and safe for the individual, data storage is required. As of today, this data is protected (in the example from Sweden) and a warrant is required for the police to gain access to the data so in that sense, there is no privacy concern. It is also comparable to the information that your ISP has about you from browsing the web.
The real concern would be that no one knows what happens in the future, I mean, the data IS there, and some change in opinion or some wacko in government or whatever might change this, slowly or rapidly. Thus, the real concern must be how to make life convenient through computerization without risking future abuse of law enforcement ruin the fun for us all. This of course applies to all aspects of computerization, I use a card with RFID to commute to work. The bus company thus has full access to how I move about every day and this is data, just as you say, I would like to keep for myself and disclose as I please. But it is soooo convenient! What I want is a guarantee that this private company under close to no circumstances can use this data for _anything_ without a police warrant, and that warrant better need a damn good reason for the bus company to give up the info.
Sweden has quite a lot of this actually. There is the speeding cameras along side dangerous stretches of roads that automagically takes a photo of every speeding car, sends a copy to some poor fella who compares the photo of the driver to the photo in the passport registry, and if they match, send a bill by mail. The police are pushing to allow the cameras to take photos of every car so one can measure the average speed between cameras, but this is still illegal since you can't put non-criminals (i.e. people you don't know are speeding) in such a registry even temporarily.
Besides this, there is the car tax in Stockholm where every car who enters or departs from the city is photographed and billed. All data about the car from the car registry register (!) is stored together with date, time, unt so weiter, although images are cropped to only include plates.
Both very much privacy invoking but the thing is both systems works great. People don't die due to speeding as they used to, Stockholm traffic isn't jammed every god damned day and the environment is happy happy which also means lives saved in the long run. Doesn't that hold any value when compared to privacy?
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I would like to know that as well. It would seem to be an issue with all Google account services, perhaps?
On the other hand, Google wont let you login from an unsecure page, so your login info isn't "hackable" in this sense. So, the only thing someone could see from hacking you iGoogle is the subject line and sender of your last five emails. Which doesn't mean it's not an issue, just that it doesn't matter much.
Indeed they are. But then again, running a massive site like TPB (and the many other sites they run) isn't free. And say what you like, they really are putting their necks on the lines so I can download as much music as I like. Profit or not, they give me exactly what I want and they do it in great style but definitely not without risk.
That being said, the status of the economics surrounding TPB is of importance.
What about recounting and/or validating e-votes and still maintaining absolute secrecy about who voted for who? In the shadow of security, this was the main question that I believe went unanswered when Estonia (or whatever it was) went through with this. Seems to me e-voting requires an impossible amount of trust in the system.
By attacking The Pirate Bay with child porn allegation and threat of censor, the Swedish police a few weeks ago proved that censorship is impossible to implement in a society which aims to be democratic. It's really as close as you can get to a mathematical valid proof of a societal matter, the experiment goes like this: You limit yourself to censoring the absolutely most horrific thing in society. You wait one year. If The Pirate Bay is still not mentioned in the context of the filter, you might have something that works. If The Pirate bay is mentioned, censorship doesn't work and it never can work. It didn't work.
One of few things I remember from studying mediaographics is that yellow text on black is the highest possible contrast. But gray on black is probably easier on the eyes. And the environment.
Reminds me off Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. When it was founder back in the 1830s, it was an important contributor to limiting the power of the Swedish monarchy and enforcing democracy. Since this of course wasn't appreciated by the king and government, the tabloid was banned - only to be respawned as "the Second Aftonbladet". When that was banned, along came "the Third Aftonbladet" and so on until we had proper democracy. Fresh!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet
With the exception of alcohol and other drugs (though I guess they very much are "devices intended to aid gambling and prostitution") I would say your statement about SL economy matches FW very much. Only difference - until now - is that in FW, it's illegal.
Judging from the comments, this story does seem to be bull, but then again, it reminds me of two things. First, how Microsoft has had the unseen audacity to actually censor transfers of mp3-files etc. over MSN/Windows Live Messenger (censor as in allowing the file to be transfered just to delete it and popup a warning about harmful files as you click "open file..."). Second, the lovely spam filter which is about as accurate as a drunk butcher with a blunt cleaver during spring break.
In this case, not even the police had checked the actual content of the torrents. To name something as if it were child porn is tasteless at best, but it isn't illegal.
Why the links were removed? My guess is some admin simply lost his nerves. Embarrassing for The Pirate Bay, no doubt, but as has been mentioned again and again: when someone wields the sword of child porn accusations, everyone around stops thinking and if you don't duck, you're gonna lose all your backup in no time, and since The Pirate Bay would be nothing without its extensive backup (especially from Swedish users), they ducked.
Your logic doesn't make sense. How could all those sorry bastards battle child porn if they couldn't download it first to check if it really is child porn? The thing with The Pirate Bay seems to be that some jerkoffs had described torrents as containing child porn, when in fact, they did not. That the police acted on this without verifying - downloading - the material is totally unacceptable and I hope they will get their fare share of kicks in the groin for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe in a "democracy", it's not illegal to publish stuff you hear about.
Not robots, Oompa-Loompas!
That would be great! Been using a widescreen laptop for a few years and for as long I've been crying out for a halt to the constant stacking stuff on top of each other. We need vertical space!
No, you'd have to be a fool not to be outraged when such things take place, no matter how 'standard' it is.
Obviously. It's not three fractured machines that needed an ambulance.
Well, as far as your first point is concerned, I believe you have the same right in the US as you do in Sweden, namely challenge your speeding ticket, parking ticket, penalty ticket for not paying commuting fees and so on, in court.
Second, the thing with cameras is a big deal in Sweden at the moment. Why? Their numbers are exploding! Why? Speed is decreasing. As you say, it's problematic to define "too [keke] fast". On the other hand, it's no secret that lower speeds equals less pollution and less accidents. And speeds on Swedish roads has decreased by 8 percent, speeders by 40 percent since cameras came up according to the Swedish "road department".
As far as drunk driving goes I agree with you. But cameras doesn't require police resources, drunk driving does. Thus, cameras = less drunk driving.
Can someone explain to me what the difficulty in creating a computer chess master? Wouldn't it just be to create a function that outputs the move that provides the most possible ways of winning, then repeat that function until check mate? Obviously not. But why? I suck at chess.
Never been to Manhattan and I hear what you're saying. However, taking photos of people driving to make sure they're not driving to fast, thus saving lives, or, taking photos of cars to tax them for driving in a city thus reducing pollution are good things (maybe not on Manhattan, but generally speaking). To make these systems convenient and safe for the individual, data storage is required. As of today, this data is protected (in the example from Sweden) and a warrant is required for the police to gain access to the data so in that sense, there is no privacy concern. It is also comparable to the information that your ISP has about you from browsing the web.
The real concern would be that no one knows what happens in the future, I mean, the data IS there, and some change in opinion or some wacko in government or whatever might change this, slowly or rapidly. Thus, the real concern must be how to make life convenient through computerization without risking future abuse of law enforcement ruin the fun for us all. This of course applies to all aspects of computerization, I use a card with RFID to commute to work. The bus company thus has full access to how I move about every day and this is data, just as you say, I would like to keep for myself and disclose as I please. But it is soooo convenient! What I want is a guarantee that this private company under close to no circumstances can use this data for _anything_ without a police warrant, and that warrant better need a damn good reason for the bus company to give up the info.
Sweden has quite a lot of this actually. There is the speeding cameras along side dangerous stretches of roads that automagically takes a photo of every speeding car, sends a copy to some poor fella who compares the photo of the driver to the photo in the passport registry, and if they match, send a bill by mail. The police are pushing to allow the cameras to take photos of every car so one can measure the average speed between cameras, but this is still illegal since you can't put non-criminals (i.e. people you don't know are speeding) in such a registry even temporarily. Besides this, there is the car tax in Stockholm where every car who enters or departs from the city is photographed and billed. All data about the car from the car registry register (!) is stored together with date, time, unt so weiter, although images are cropped to only include plates. Both very much privacy invoking but the thing is both systems works great. People don't die due to speeding as they used to, Stockholm traffic isn't jammed every god damned day and the environment is happy happy which also means lives saved in the long run. Doesn't that hold any value when compared to privacy?
I hear Google tried that. They failed miserably.
But can is possibly blend?
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I would like to know that as well. It would seem to be an issue with all Google account services, perhaps? On the other hand, Google wont let you login from an unsecure page, so your login info isn't "hackable" in this sense. So, the only thing someone could see from hacking you iGoogle is the subject line and sender of your last five emails. Which doesn't mean it's not an issue, just that it doesn't matter much.
Why isn't this default?
Indeed they are. But then again, running a massive site like TPB (and the many other sites they run) isn't free. And say what you like, they really are putting their necks on the lines so I can download as much music as I like. Profit or not, they give me exactly what I want and they do it in great style but definitely not without risk. That being said, the status of the economics surrounding TPB is of importance.
I believe porn has been available in hi-res picture format for quite some time. I don't see the difference as far as detail level is concerned.
I hope they are successful so I can witness a fair fight to the death between man (Wikia) and machine (Google). My bet is machine.
What about recounting and/or validating e-votes and still maintaining absolute secrecy about who voted for who? In the shadow of security, this was the main question that I believe went unanswered when Estonia (or whatever it was) went through with this. Seems to me e-voting requires an impossible amount of trust in the system.
By attacking The Pirate Bay with child porn allegation and threat of censor, the Swedish police a few weeks ago proved that censorship is impossible to implement in a society which aims to be democratic. It's really as close as you can get to a mathematical valid proof of a societal matter, the experiment goes like this: You limit yourself to censoring the absolutely most horrific thing in society. You wait one year. If The Pirate Bay is still not mentioned in the context of the filter, you might have something that works. If The Pirate bay is mentioned, censorship doesn't work and it never can work. It didn't work.
I'm sorry, but who the fuck cares if it's racist? It simply proves he's an idiot. Again, who the fuck cares?
One of few things I remember from studying mediaographics is that yellow text on black is the highest possible contrast. But gray on black is probably easier on the eyes. And the environment.
Reminds me off Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet. When it was founder back in the 1830s, it was an important contributor to limiting the power of the Swedish monarchy and enforcing democracy. Since this of course wasn't appreciated by the king and government, the tabloid was banned - only to be respawned as "the Second Aftonbladet". When that was banned, along came "the Third Aftonbladet" and so on until we had proper democracy. Fresh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet
With the exception of alcohol and other drugs (though I guess they very much are "devices intended to aid gambling and prostitution") I would say your statement about SL economy matches FW very much. Only difference - until now - is that in FW, it's illegal.
Judging from the comments, this story does seem to be bull, but then again, it reminds me of two things. First, how Microsoft has had the unseen audacity to actually censor transfers of mp3-files etc. over MSN/Windows Live Messenger (censor as in allowing the file to be transfered just to delete it and popup a warning about harmful files as you click "open file..."). Second, the lovely spam filter which is about as accurate as a drunk butcher with a blunt cleaver during spring break.
In this case, not even the police had checked the actual content of the torrents. To name something as if it were child porn is tasteless at best, but it isn't illegal.
Why the links were removed? My guess is some admin simply lost his nerves. Embarrassing for The Pirate Bay, no doubt, but as has been mentioned again and again: when someone wields the sword of child porn accusations, everyone around stops thinking and if you don't duck, you're gonna lose all your backup in no time, and since The Pirate Bay would be nothing without its extensive backup (especially from Swedish users), they ducked.
Your logic doesn't make sense. How could all those sorry bastards battle child porn if they couldn't download it first to check if it really is child porn? The thing with The Pirate Bay seems to be that some jerkoffs had described torrents as containing child porn, when in fact, they did not. That the police acted on this without verifying - downloading - the material is totally unacceptable and I hope they will get their fare share of kicks in the groin for it.