Cameras don't track political opposition. People would, if it were done at all. The Soviet Union did it without CCTVs, as did Saddam's Iraq. Cameras by themselves are useless since they don't actually "track" anything. They just record events in front of them. If a murder later happened, the tapes can be pulled and reviewed. But if you were the political incumbent and wanted to "track" political opposition, CCTVs would probably be the last thing you'd use.
If you know of a specific mechanism by which CCTVs are used to do this, please post it. Otherwise, this is just another wild conspiracy theory.
Except I'm telling you NOT to buy cameras. I think we already have more data than we know what to do with, so accumulating more won't help. If the CCTVs aren't working, try something else. My "just use more" line was what is sometimes called sarcasm, though I forgot to use the html tags. My bad.
...just use more. Sort of like code, explosives, alcohol, etc. I doubt they'll dismantle something they spent so much money building, though I think it's a step in the right direction. And coming from someone who works in the intelligence community, I think that's saying a lot.
Agreed. Cool furniture and light fixtures do not a great workplace make. The best jobs I ever had were working in ramshackle offices in condemned buildings. It was working with fellow Marines that made the job great, not the office space. Even in the movie, it wasn't the cubicles that made it a terrible job, it was the boring routines, pointless memos, and having 8 clueless bosses. EIGHT, Bob.
OTOH, having some color other than battleship gray on the walls, some windows here and there, and clean offices and restrooms will go a long way to improve morale.
Most of those office spaces look cool and hip, but not very comfortable, productive, or private. Sitting in a windowsill with a laptop looks like fun for about 5 minutes.
Using "hacker" when they mean "criminal". Dictionary.com provides the following definition of hacker:
1. a person or thing that hacks.
2. Slang. a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill: weekend hackers on the golf course.
3. Computer Slang.
a. a computer enthusiast.
b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems.
It seems both the author and editor used the word correctly, or at least how the rest of the English-speaking world outside of/. uses it. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a typo. Granted, definitions 3a and 3b group those who break the law with computers and those who just like computers, but there are many words in English and other languages that similarly create confusion. Perhaps instead of trying to get the rest of the world to use a different word for def 3b, why don't you just start using a different word to decribe 3a?
So what was the typo again? Not using the word you just made up?
If a hacker is someone who writes quick and dirty code, then the people described in the article would be a kind of hacker. Sorry you don't like being associated with them, but that's hardly a typo.
Vista is the 2nd most used OS in the world for desktop PCs and laptops Well, when you go to buy a new computer these days, it's the only thing you can get. Aside from/.ers, most casual users are not going to buy a new machine and load their own OS. I just bought a laptop for my wife with Vista on it. Not because I wanted to; they didn't have an XP downgrade and she didn't want to try Ubuntu.
Vista may be selling well, but has any other OS been sold with as many free downgrades?
Re:You didn't read the article
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You don't need to RTFA, because after all, you are the 2006 Time Person of the Year.
And you think a jackboot on your neck involves the intelligence community? I'm talking about the ability to collect information on you, track your movements, correlate data from multiple source and build a profile on you, not what the operators do when they get the intelligence. I wish I could go into details on the capabilities we have, but it might interfere with some of my life-long dreams, specifically the one about not going to prison.
I'm glad that you're upset with this piddly shit. It's nice to know that when the capabilities we don't yet admit to having are levied on the American people, there will be some people fighting it.
THESE ARE the big steps into destroying privacy. You think someone remotely reading some of your unencrypted email is a big step? You have no idea what the intelligence community is capable of, and what we routinely do to our enemies so you can sleep peacefully at night. This is nothing.
You're absolutely right. I once downloaded an illegal MP3 and was never caught. I remember it well; it was back in the early days of P2P networks and I wanted to experiment in the heady underworld of digital piracy. I downloaded Oops I Did it Again, and I know what everyone says; listening to it is punishment enough. But the memory of that transgression has haunted me every night since then.
It's that 'They' can string together information taken out of context and make you look guilty of almost anything. Yeah, that's another big problem. I teach several analytical tools including Link Analysis. I see many analysts use the sloppiest excuse for analysis in these link diagrams. They will start with a person of interest, connect him to known associates (and we only know bad guys, so that's a problem right there), add connections from those people, etc, then marvel at how their person is at the center of the network! Well, no screamin' eagle shit! You put him there! If I had a dime for every time I saw that, well, I'd have about a dollar, but still.
What I've been trying to do is add some rigor to these products with stuff like Social Network Analysis. For the most part, it's been well-received, but it's quite an uphill battle to change something that's always been done in one particular way.
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that is the minority opinion in my workplace, the intelligence community. Most of my coworkers seriously believe that wiretapping and this kind of internet monitoring are fine, since they're not doing anything wrong. And as a rule, they really aren't. To work in the intelligence community, and I'm sure to a similar degree in the law enforcement community, you need a clean background to get a clearance. Most of us, myself included, have absolutely no criminal background, no history of drug use, no financial problems, no foreign contacts, etc. For these types of people, intrusion on their lily-white lifestyles doesn't seem that big a deal, and I felt the same way for a while.
But it's the slippery slope that bothers me. When we put up no fight for these small losses of privacy, what will we do when the larger ones come along? How de we roll back the intrusions once they're made?
Sounds like America. Which America is that? Would that be in the Blue States or the Red States?
We have a very diverse range of political beliefs in the States, which is exactly how it should be. As someone else pointed out, there is also lot of apathy when it comes to politics, which is a shame. But how could anyone confuse diversity and apathy with indoctrination?
You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics.
And in what country is that not true?
Words are worth their weight in gold. The best thing to do is give Russia a pat on the head, a hug, and a wad of cash
Pats on the head and hugs are worth their weight in gold too. And giving money to dictatorships that do what we want tends to look pretty bad in the eyes of other countries. Either we support dictatorships, use empty words to decry them, let them continue their crimes unabated, or force their demise. We've done them all, and been hated no matter what.
We've already shown that people typically DECIDE something like a second prior to when they THINK they decide. Matching up brain activity to verbal responses as to when a subject said he/she made a decision reveals the brain activity associated with making said decision occurs BEFORE they were consciously aware of it.
If some specific mental machinery leading up to that were to be shown to lead to errors, it seems plausible that errors could be predicted.
A 110lb satellite is hardly on par with a nut or a pair of gloves. If we can replace aging satellites with much smaller ones, I would think it would greatly improve the neighborhood up there. If, OTOH, they were planning on putting up a thousand tiny ones to do the job of one big one, that's a horse of a different color.
In any case, my big question is how many nuts are orbiting Uranus?
Slashdot Mirror
Cameras don't track political opposition. People would, if it were done at all. The Soviet Union did it without CCTVs, as did Saddam's Iraq. Cameras by themselves are useless since they don't actually "track" anything. They just record events in front of them. If a murder later happened, the tapes can be pulled and reviewed. But if you were the political incumbent and wanted to "track" political opposition, CCTVs would probably be the last thing you'd use.
If you know of a specific mechanism by which CCTVs are used to do this, please post it. Otherwise, this is just another wild conspiracy theory.
Except I'm telling you NOT to buy cameras. I think we already have more data than we know what to do with, so accumulating more won't help. If the CCTVs aren't working, try something else. My "just use more" line was what is sometimes called sarcasm, though I forgot to use the html tags. My bad.
...just use more. Sort of like code, explosives, alcohol, etc. I doubt they'll dismantle something they spent so much money building, though I think it's a step in the right direction. And coming from someone who works in the intelligence community, I think that's saying a lot.
Agreed. Cool furniture and light fixtures do not a great workplace make. The best jobs I ever had were working in ramshackle offices in condemned buildings. It was working with fellow Marines that made the job great, not the office space. Even in the movie, it wasn't the cubicles that made it a terrible job, it was the boring routines, pointless memos, and having 8 clueless bosses. EIGHT, Bob. OTOH, having some color other than battleship gray on the walls, some windows here and there, and clean offices and restrooms will go a long way to improve morale.
Most of those office spaces look cool and hip, but not very comfortable, productive, or private. Sitting in a windowsill with a laptop looks like fun for about 5 minutes.
1. a person or thing that hacks.
2. Slang. a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill: weekend hackers on the golf course.
3. Computer Slang.
a. a computer enthusiast.
b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems.
It seems both the author and editor used the word correctly, or at least how the rest of the English-speaking world outside of
It's evolved into news for nerds
Well, that IS the tagline. Maybe YOU'RE the one on the wrong site.
So what was the typo again? Not using the word you just made up?
If a hacker is someone who writes quick and dirty code, then the people described in the article would be a kind of hacker. Sorry you don't like being associated with them, but that's hardly a typo.
Vista may be selling well, but has any other OS been sold with as many free downgrades?
You don't need to RTFA, because after all, you are the 2006 Time Person of the Year.
It's conceivable some could have satellite connections. Granted, China could just shoot those down though.
That's how I felt when I read it. The most pertinent thing I can think to say is :In Soviet Russia, ray traces YOU!
And you think a jackboot on your neck involves the intelligence community? I'm talking about the ability to collect information on you, track your movements, correlate data from multiple source and build a profile on you, not what the operators do when they get the intelligence. I wish I could go into details on the capabilities we have, but it might interfere with some of my life-long dreams, specifically the one about not going to prison.
I'm glad that you're upset with this piddly shit. It's nice to know that when the capabilities we don't yet admit to having are levied on the American people, there will be some people fighting it.
You're absolutely right. I once downloaded an illegal MP3 and was never caught. I remember it well; it was back in the early days of P2P networks and I wanted to experiment in the heady underworld of digital piracy. I downloaded Oops I Did it Again, and I know what everyone says; listening to it is punishment enough. But the memory of that transgression has haunted me every night since then.
What I've been trying to do is add some rigor to these products with stuff like Social Network Analysis. For the most part, it's been well-received, but it's quite an uphill battle to change something that's always been done in one particular way.
As opposed to the original kind of mambo, where one person lays down and the other one stands on him?
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that is the minority opinion in my workplace, the intelligence community. Most of my coworkers seriously believe that wiretapping and this kind of internet monitoring are fine, since they're not doing anything wrong. And as a rule, they really aren't. To work in the intelligence community, and I'm sure to a similar degree in the law enforcement community, you need a clean background to get a clearance. Most of us, myself included, have absolutely no criminal background, no history of drug use, no financial problems, no foreign contacts, etc. For these types of people, intrusion on their lily-white lifestyles doesn't seem that big a deal, and I felt the same way for a while.
But it's the slippery slope that bothers me. When we put up no fight for these small losses of privacy, what will we do when the larger ones come along? How de we roll back the intrusions once they're made?
We have a very diverse range of political beliefs in the States, which is exactly how it should be. As someone else pointed out, there is also lot of apathy when it comes to politics, which is a shame. But how could anyone confuse diversity and apathy with indoctrination?
You can't have a discussion about much with a large percentage of people about certain topics.
And in what country is that not true?
Pats on the head and hugs are worth their weight in gold too. And giving money to dictatorships that do what we want tends to look pretty bad in the eyes of other countries. Either we support dictatorships, use empty words to decry them, let them continue their crimes unabated, or force their demise. We've done them all, and been hated no matter what.
We've already shown that people typically DECIDE something like a second prior to when they THINK they decide. Matching up brain activity to verbal responses as to when a subject said he/she made a decision reveals the brain activity associated with making said decision occurs BEFORE they were consciously aware of it.
If some specific mental machinery leading up to that were to be shown to lead to errors, it seems plausible that errors could be predicted.
If I recall correctly, I read that in Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. I don't have it with me, otherwise I'd look it up.
A 110lb satellite is hardly on par with a nut or a pair of gloves. If we can replace aging satellites with much smaller ones, I would think it would greatly improve the neighborhood up there. If, OTOH, they were planning on putting up a thousand tiny ones to do the job of one big one, that's a horse of a different color.
In any case, my big question is how many nuts are orbiting Uranus?