> Can you imagine the sparring room scene with father and son matched against each other?
That would be really cool, but I think (given both still being alive) that would not happen, as at least Bruce might object to digitally altering the fighting. I know I would rather see Bruce doing real moves instead of Matrix moves -- they impress me a lot more.
> This is bull shit, but I guess I'll take the bait
Hey! Don't you know it's not very nice to tell the truth? Well, maybe the real problem is that it's not very nice to hear the truth, especially when that truth is about you & not what fits into your oppressed picture. (not, you, marklar... you, the guy who posted the orig.)
> > UK analogue TV is now almost entirely broadcast in 14:9 > when they switch off analogue anyway
Unless there is currently a similar push in the UK, his analog cable won't be switched off -- that's an American idea which, IMO, is really stupid. I say, give the customers what they want. If they want regular old cheap cable, let them have it. THe government should not be able to tell the cable companies that they HAVE to turn off nondigital signals in 20xx (replace 'xx' wityh whatever year that has to be done by -- I dunno).
>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/conlaw.h tm > You can find information about many rulings regarding the right to privacy on various issues.
Okay, that's a good link, but do you have any links that have cases that aren't about sexual privacy, as that is all that was there related to privacy. Those cases all appear to be "privacy of information," such as homosexuality & contraceptives -- basically keeping your personal life to yourself. These have little to do with "property privacy," ie not being spied on.
> My turn signal bulb may be covered under my cars warranty, but who wants to drive across town for a free bulb when it's $.99 at O-Reilly's on the corner?
Okay, I'll concede that that's a good point. I don't think it's that hard to find the right song, but I guess that's not the point.
I was looking at the pictures on the article and it looks like it has 3 PCI slots. Are there not Mac PCI Video cards? Or is it not as simple to upgrade as a PC?
If I had such awesome powers I would... Of course, those awesome powers would have to include bringing him back to life... Then he might become a Senator (or was he a Rep?) again, and that would screw everything up.
> The right to privacy has been affirmed, and was essentially created by (afaik) the Supreme Court.
But do you have anything to back that up? Any names of people involved? I don't need case #s or anything, I can find that myself if I have a little info. I believe that we SHOULD have the right to privacy, but what we should have and what we DO have are entirely different.
Please excuse my shortsightedness, it's just that when people talk about rights they have or think they have, they are usually talking about laws.
We then get into an even stickier situation, as I don't believe there is any absolute moral truth. I believe, given certain circumstances, that bringing about the end of a human life can be moral, probably even a "good thing." There are many, many, people that would disagree.
But of course, that is off the subject, so I leave it at that.
> ridicule directed towards non-conformists and oddballs are widespread and actually encouraged (through toleration and turning a blind eye) by teachers and school administrations across the country.
Like I said before, I suggest you go somewhere else. And just because YOUR part of the country is like that doesn't mean that everyone's is. I went to school in West Virginia. If someone didn't know ohterwise, they might think that would be one of the most likely places to find severe discrimination. I found very little, except for the old, "mature" people (read: crabby old bats who'll find anything to complain about) who think that just because they are old they are right.
What may be the problem here is that we are considering two different levels of hate/fear/ridicule. If someone is different because they choose to be different, I have every right to treat them differently, but only so much as their chosen differences go. If I think spikey green hair is stupid looking, I will say so. That doesn't mean I'll claim they are any less of a person, just that they made a stupid mistake. I use that example because I have a lot of close Punk friends and I know they aren't really treated differently, although a few of them think that they are.
>Witness the fact that DVD-ROM players and DVD writers all work with CD-ROM
But considering the speed of technology, won't computers shrink to a size where a CD/DVD would be considered too large to be a real storage medium? I agree with you for the most part, just trying to think out all the facts.
> We are taught in school to ridicule and/or fear people who are different
If that is the case, I suggest you send your children to a different school, because no one in my family, or anyone I have ever met, AFAIK has ever been taught anything like that in school. Or, perhaps, are you lieing to make your point seem more valuable.
> maybe if the system was assisted by motion detection
Oh my god, you are fucking stupid. IT IS ASSISTED BY MOTION DETECTION, dolt.
The only thing that gets sent is an image, if it changes sufficiently from the image 10 seconds before it. Guess what that's called? MOTION DETECTION. Stupidity amazes me sometimes.
> 'unsophisticated users' watching [...] people who have been training in the desert for the past 5 years on how to AVOID being detected.
Well, for one, if they are so good at being undetected, they will never get viewed. RTFA, images will only be sent if there is a change from the previous one. That image then gets sent to at least 3 people, 10 if it looks slightly suspicious. It's not just some luser staring at a single camera feed all day.
> RTFA, people. [...] perimiter of sensitive facilities like power plants,
Finally, someone who can READ!!! But seriously, it is obvious that you RTFA yourself, but while I was R-ing TFA (hehe) I immediately knew that no one else would and the majority of posts would be "I don't want some schmoe watching me in the bathtub."
Maybe the country's problem isn't terrorism, but ignorance & stupidity. Actually, Brash Ignorance mioght be a better phrase.
> I'd rather not have Joe Blog watching me step out of my house...
Unless you live in a nuclear power plant, or some other place where there are not supposed to be any people walking around... Read the fucking article, the cameras would be in places where there should be no peolpe, not in front of your damned house. Come on, the Gov has more important things to do than watching your every move.
> This smacks of 1930s/40s Germany, where you were asked to basically spy on your neighbor
This would only be accurate if all your neighbors lived in nuclear power plants or chemicals factories. Otherwise, I can tell you didn't read the friggin article. Next time, know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
No it isn't. Cite the part of the constitution that says "We have the right to privacy wherever we go." Hell, find the one that even says we have any right to privacy in our own home.
> ripped everything else from my CD to MP3, then purchased the two missing tracks from Apple Music Store
Well, assuming that you had purchased the copy to begin with, you shouldn't even have had to pay for the two songs. You had the original, so you should have the "right" (depending upon interpretation) to download those two tracks for free.
> We would not have to foot the bill for the extra days the ship was at sea
I didn't realize the ship was staying out at sea just for him to arrive. So did the crew disembark for home immediately after the Prez was there? If not, we aren't footing the bill for it. As for wasting fuel on the plane... Well, you are right. I can't argue that.
What is an S-3B? I'm not a military equipment enthusiast. I'm assuming that's a really big jet plane. Yes, a helicopter would have worked; I wonder what the cost difference would be if he had used one.
> The appearance walks a dangerous line that portrays the President as a militarist
Presidents always appear with the military, it "shows that they care," whether or not they really do. I can't comment on the "smacks of fascism" remark as I don't think it's very appropriate or even comes close to reality, but that is my opinion, I respect you for at least having yours (which is more than I can say for about %99 of the rest of the people).
> Democrats have their campaign lapses of judgment, but Republicans are shameless
Okay, please stop being so one-sided. Both major parties (and I'm not stupid -- all of them, if there were more than 2 major ones) are shameless. I have seen only a few elected officials who I believe are doing what they really think is best. They are about equal (in number) on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, one of them was the one who died in that plane accident last year (or has it been almost 2 years?).:(
> spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a mere bagatelle considering that Enron allowed Governor Bush to use its jet for his campaign
I'm may not be taking my own advice here about one-sidedness, but my thoughts on this are that the Lincoln Bedroom "belongs to the people," even though we can't just walk into it, so Clinton was making money from the "people's possessions" and as for the Enron jet, I would prefer he used a jet that was loaned to him instead of using taxpayer money to pay for the jet he already has. While I agree that that may appear to be quite a conflict of interests, that was before the "Enron debacle." Both sides take private campaign donations in many forms. Enron also gave a good bit of money to the Democrats as well. Dems also received much more from Lawyers than was given to Reps. That's the nature of politics.
> Well, Bush spent *our* money to land on an aircraft carrier [...] Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty
Well, assuming that was the ONLY reason he landed on the carrier, and that by landing on that carrier he was spending more tax money than if he would have landed somewhere else (The President has the right to use Air Force One at his leisure), then you are correct, I don't agree with it either.
But I don't think it "Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty" at all. Bush may have landed on a carrier to get photos, but he wasn't renting out a room to get MONEY for his campaign. Basically, Clinton was renting out a room on a per-night basis that wasn't his to rent out. Bush, being commander-in-chief of our military, has the right to land on an Aircraft Carrier.
> What are you trying to say? You're loosing me here.
The post I replied to said that Americans only have the way of life we do because of the value of the dollar. I said that in reality the value of the dollar depends on how Americans feel about their way of life.
Slashdot Mirror
> Can you imagine the sparring room scene with father and son matched against each other?
That would be really cool, but I think (given both still being alive) that would not happen, as at least Bruce might object to digitally altering the fighting. I know I would rather see Bruce doing real moves instead of Matrix moves -- they impress me a lot more.
> This is bull shit, but I guess I'll take the bait
Hey! Don't you know it's not very nice to tell the truth? Well, maybe the real problem is that it's not very nice to hear the truth, especially when that truth is about you & not what fits into your oppressed picture. (not, you, marklar... you, the guy who posted the orig.)
> Hey, I liked Bill & Ted. He was perfect for that role.
Yes, Ewan MacGregor was perfect for that role, unfortunately Keanu turned out to be the better performer.
Yes, it was stupid, but I haven't posted 25 times yet today.
> > UK analogue TV is now almost entirely broadcast in 14:9
> when they switch off analogue anyway
Unless there is currently a similar push in the UK, his analog cable won't be switched off -- that's an American idea which, IMO, is really stupid. I say, give the customers what they want. If they want regular old cheap cable, let them have it. THe government should not be able to tell the cable companies that they HAVE to turn off nondigital signals in 20xx (replace 'xx' wityh whatever year that has to be done by -- I dunno).
>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/conlaw.h tm
> You can find information about many rulings regarding the right to privacy on various issues.
Okay, that's a good link, but do you have any links that have cases that aren't about sexual privacy, as that is all that was there related to privacy. Those cases all appear to be "privacy of information," such as homosexuality & contraceptives -- basically keeping your personal life to yourself. These have little to do with "property privacy," ie not being spied on.
> My turn signal bulb may be covered under my cars warranty, but who wants to drive across town for a free bulb when it's $.99 at O-Reilly's on the corner?
Okay, I'll concede that that's a good point. I don't think it's that hard to find the right song, but I guess that's not the point.
> You need a slot to put a second card in.
I was looking at the pictures on the article and it looks like it has 3 PCI slots. Are there not Mac PCI Video cards? Or is it not as simple to upgrade as a PC?
> you can't run a split desktop on dual monitors
What is limiting that? Is it the computer itself, or can it not handle two video cards for some reason? I know you can do that on regular Macs...
> DAMN SONNY BONO!
If I had such awesome powers I would... Of course, those awesome powers would have to include bringing him back to life... Then he might become a Senator (or was he a Rep?) again, and that would screw everything up.
> The right to privacy has been affirmed, and was essentially created by (afaik) the Supreme Court.
But do you have anything to back that up? Any names of people involved? I don't need case #s or anything, I can find that myself if I have a little info. I believe that we SHOULD have the right to privacy, but what we should have and what we DO have are entirely different.
> I'm talking about your moral rights
Please excuse my shortsightedness, it's just that when people talk about rights they have or think they have, they are usually talking about laws.
We then get into an even stickier situation, as I don't believe there is any absolute moral truth. I believe, given certain circumstances, that bringing about the end of a human life can be moral, probably even a "good thing." There are many, many, people that would disagree.
But of course, that is off the subject, so I leave it at that.
> ridicule directed towards non-conformists and oddballs are widespread and actually encouraged (through toleration and turning a blind eye) by teachers and school administrations across the country.
Like I said before, I suggest you go somewhere else. And just because YOUR part of the country is like that doesn't mean that everyone's is. I went to school in West Virginia. If someone didn't know ohterwise, they might think that would be one of the most likely places to find severe discrimination. I found very little, except for the old, "mature" people (read: crabby old bats who'll find anything to complain about) who think that just because they are old they are right.
What may be the problem here is that we are considering two different levels of hate/fear/ridicule. If someone is different because they choose to be different, I have every right to treat them differently, but only so much as their chosen differences go. If I think spikey green hair is stupid looking, I will say so. That doesn't mean I'll claim they are any less of a person, just that they made a stupid mistake. I use that example because I have a lot of close Punk friends and I know they aren't really treated differently, although a few of them think that they are.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to use motion detectors where there's not supposed to be any movement?
I'm trying to stay reasonable, but do you know what RTFA means?
There isn't supposed to BE any movement where these cameras are/will be. Therefore, when there is motion, it means something may be wrong.
>It sounds like a more efficient system would be motion detector/camera pairs
That's exactly what they are trying to do.
>Witness the fact that DVD-ROM players and DVD writers all work with CD-ROM
But considering the speed of technology, won't computers shrink to a size where a CD/DVD would be considered too large to be a real storage medium? I agree with you for the most part, just trying to think out all the facts.
> We are taught in school to ridicule and/or fear people who are different
If that is the case, I suggest you send your children to a different school, because no one in my family, or anyone I have ever met, AFAIK has ever been taught anything like that in school. Or, perhaps, are you lieing to make your point seem more valuable.
> maybe if the system was assisted by motion detection
Oh my god, you are fucking stupid. IT IS ASSISTED BY MOTION DETECTION, dolt.
The only thing that gets sent is an image, if it changes sufficiently from the image 10 seconds before it. Guess what that's called? MOTION DETECTION. Stupidity amazes me sometimes.
> 'unsophisticated users' watching [...] people who have been training in the desert for the past 5 years on how to AVOID being detected.
Well, for one, if they are so good at being undetected, they will never get viewed. RTFA, images will only be sent if there is a change from the previous one. That image then gets sent to at least 3 people, 10 if it looks slightly suspicious. It's not just some luser staring at a single camera feed all day.
> RTFA, people. [...] perimiter of sensitive facilities like power plants,
Finally, someone who can READ!!! But seriously, it is obvious that you RTFA yourself, but while I was R-ing TFA (hehe) I immediately knew that no one else would and the majority of posts would be "I don't want some schmoe watching me in the bathtub."
Maybe the country's problem isn't terrorism, but ignorance & stupidity. Actually, Brash Ignorance mioght be a better phrase.
> I'd rather not have Joe Blog watching me step out of my house...
Unless you live in a nuclear power plant, or some other place where there are not supposed to be any people walking around... Read the fucking article, the cameras would be in places where there should be no peolpe, not in front of your damned house. Come on, the Gov has more important things to do than watching your every move.
> This smacks of 1930s/40s Germany, where you were asked to basically spy on your neighbor
This would only be accurate if all your neighbors lived in nuclear power plants or chemicals factories. Otherwise, I can tell you didn't read the friggin article. Next time, know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
> Privacy is a right
No it isn't. Cite the part of the constitution that says "We have the right to privacy wherever we go." Hell, find the one that even says we have any right to privacy in our own home.
> ripped everything else from my CD to MP3, then purchased the two missing tracks from Apple Music Store
Well, assuming that you had purchased the copy to begin with, you shouldn't even have had to pay for the two songs. You had the original, so you should have the "right" (depending upon interpretation) to download those two tracks for free.
> We would not have to foot the bill for the extra days the ship was at sea
:(
I didn't realize the ship was staying out at sea just for him to arrive. So did the crew disembark for home immediately after the Prez was there? If not, we aren't footing the bill for it. As for wasting fuel on the plane... Well, you are right. I can't argue that.
What is an S-3B? I'm not a military equipment enthusiast. I'm assuming that's a really big jet plane. Yes, a helicopter would have worked; I wonder what the cost difference would be if he had used one.
> The appearance walks a dangerous line that portrays the President as a militarist
Presidents always appear with the military, it "shows that they care," whether or not they really do. I can't comment on the "smacks of fascism" remark as I don't think it's very appropriate or even comes close to reality, but that is my opinion, I respect you for at least having yours (which is more than I can say for about %99 of the rest of the people).
> Democrats have their campaign lapses of judgment, but Republicans are shameless
Okay, please stop being so one-sided. Both major parties (and I'm not stupid -- all of them, if there were more than 2 major ones) are shameless. I have seen only a few elected officials who I believe are doing what they really think is best. They are about equal (in number) on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, one of them was the one who died in that plane accident last year (or has it been almost 2 years?).
> spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom is a mere bagatelle considering that Enron allowed Governor Bush to use its jet for his campaign
I'm may not be taking my own advice here about one-sidedness, but my thoughts on this are that the Lincoln Bedroom "belongs to the people," even though we can't just walk into it, so Clinton was making money from the "people's possessions" and as for the Enron jet, I would prefer he used a jet that was loaned to him instead of using taxpayer money to pay for the jet he already has. While I agree that that may appear to be quite a conflict of interests, that was before the "Enron debacle." Both sides take private campaign donations in many forms. Enron also gave a good bit of money to the Democrats as well. Dems also received much more from Lawyers than was given to Reps. That's the nature of politics.
> Well, Bush spent *our* money to land on an aircraft carrier [...] Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty
Well, assuming that was the ONLY reason he landed on the carrier, and that by landing on that carrier he was spending more tax money than if he would have landed somewhere else (The President has the right to use Air Force One at his leisure), then you are correct, I don't agree with it either.
But I don't think it "Makes the whole Lincoln Bedroom thing look kinda petty" at all. Bush may have landed on a carrier to get photos, but he wasn't renting out a room to get MONEY for his campaign. Basically, Clinton was renting out a room on a per-night basis that wasn't his to rent out. Bush, being commander-in-chief of our military, has the right to land on an Aircraft Carrier.
> What are you trying to say? You're loosing me here.
The post I replied to said that Americans only have the way of life we do because of the value of the dollar. I said that in reality the value of the dollar depends on how Americans feel about their way of life.