I was trying to point out that in the area of public surveillance, there are greater concerns than a few billboard cameras. If you've waited this long to scream MINORITY REPORT just because of billboard cameras, you are a little behind the curve. Comparing it to murder was a nice touch though; inflammatory, yet not quite in the realm of Godwin's law.
So once the first person put up the first camera, he thus granted license for 24x7 surveillance of the entire populace?
Last time I checked, you have the right to record anything you want in a public place, or private, if you own it, and review the recordings all you want, unless you are doing it specifically to violate some party's privacy (e.g. up-skirt camera phone, photos of Fort Knox), without need for any license.
If someone is unethical, pointing out that other people are also unethical should NOT be a justification.
Right, too bad I never tried to justify public surveillance; I only noted how there are easier and more common ways to record the public.
I think you may be giving too much credit too politicians. The most likely scenario is one in which they shoot themselves in the foot by unknowingly being caught doing something illegal by one of these things, and then have to face the press and their own LEA. The information from these cameras would also be a double-edged sword; just as they could use the information to target individuals they themselves can wind up on the target list.
I don't really understand how these are a big issue though, as there are plenty of street cameras, traffic cameras, and store cameras in most major cities that billboard cameras would just be a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to public surveillance.
That's funny, and I always thought the International Court of Justice was a part of the UN, and based in the Netherlands! Also, didn't the United States withdraw from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, meaning they can't even use it except on a case-to-case basis?
"It seems like suspending iTunes is punishment for iTunes, but really it doesn't hurt iTunes, it hurts us," said a note on Chinese Apple fan site macfans.com.cn, according to the AP.
Do Chinese leaders actually think what they are doing punishes iTunes? Mayhaps, a more devious conclusion; like the applications to protest in the "authorized protest zone", they are trying to incite outrage among hidden dissidents to... strengthen their unpaid labor force.
Or maybe its just the technologically incompetent trying to rule the unruly propaganda machine that is technology with an iron (outdated; see steel) fist. Or both?
Wow. Apparently "reason" and "acting on intelligence" are beyond your comprehension. That you bring up bombing apartments also demonstrates how little you actually know about the subject. Official US policy dictates that civilian occupied apartments are subject to ground-based raids, not aerial bombardment. Same goes for hospitals, schools, etc etc. In fact, they pretty much wont bomb anything without seemingly viable intelligence that the target is hostile.
What makes you think that bombing civilian occupied apartment complexes ANYWHERE is OK?
Today I shall remember forever as the day I was trolled by Hurricane78, who possibly just fooled a/. editor. Would have been more epic if the links were spoofs, too. However, I still humbly applaud and bow before your master trollery.
Are you serious? Are you just doing this for the attention? Your arguments are getting less and less logical.
There's a difference between collateral damage and negligent homicide. It's called reason.
Too complicated? Let me break it down for you:
Acting on intelligence, using precision-guided bombs to eliminate (perceived) terrorist threat: OK.
Bombing an apartment building where a suspected mafia boss is, without evacuating residents: NOT OK.
What set you off anyways?
See: criminally negligent homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_negligent And attempted murder for trying to kill the boss.What they did is inexcusable, and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but its not like the courts in ANY country are perfect. So, did you lose someone, or are you just a sensationalist attention addict, a bleeding heart, or a troll?
tldr:
Arguing that the laws are broken in concept is stupid (in this case), argue against corrupt judges and defense lawyers.
One of our members is even cultivating an enormous jumping bean which, when saddled and heated by a laser, will propel a human for great distances.
As an aspiring entrepreneur, where can one find one of these awesome plants to purchase and grow?
Airports and airplanes are for the gullible. Little do "plane" passengers realize that they are merely boarding Greyhound buses with wings, and that while aboard these winged buses, given the illusion of flight when cloud like scenery is moved past their windows by stagehands in a very expensive theatrical performance.
I must have boarded one fast greyhound when I "flew" out to Colorado last week. Actually, I'd be more impressed if they just let me watch without any sort of theatrics. 300+ mph on the ground,in a (nearly) strait line would be insanely impressive for any sort of mass transit.
P.S. society of trolls, internet is serious business, etc, etc.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort.
So basically, you think that deliberate slaughter of civilians is somehow morally equivalent to accidentally slaughtering civilians. So it fallows that you think manslaughter is just as bad as premeditated murder?
If they have no reasonable grounds for suing, then their lawsuit will be rejected by the courts. If they do have a reasonable grounds for suing then the courts will hear their case.
Yeah, because the courts are completely infallible. Silly, frivolous lawsuits are never heard, much less win.
The V-chip is criticized for being an infringement on basic human rights. Many people argue that it is not the governmentâ(TM)s right to monitor or censor what viewers watch on television. According to this argument, because the government regulates the rating system, it is also regulating much of parents' decision making processes on their children's viewing habits.
$550 million was spent to educate parents on the V-chip, but they are no more aware of the technology or the ways in which it can be put to use now than they were before the funds were spent.
So it will basically be an unknown, unutilized government foot-in-the-door style morality control that no one will know or care about even if you spend half a billion on advertising? Where is the up side?
Slashdots' concurrent point on this is that it all could be avoided by just spending the whole five seconds it takes to look at what your kid is playing.
That's like saying Rolls Royce is no more expensive than the equivalently specced $OTHER_BRAND.
When you include the maple wood trim, leather seats, huge engine,... it all works out about the same.
Except that it doesn't. Much of what you are paying when you pay for a Rolls is the name, and the status that comes with that name. Compared to MUCH less expensive, similarly equipped cars, such as the Bentley Arnage or Merc E class (decked out with options) it seems kind of pretentious. Which is exactly how some people view Macs.
You expect honor in politics? AND you remember all the way back to the sixties? Isn't the the opposite of insightful?
maybe I'm just becoming obsolete. More knowledge makes a person less useful?
From TFA
Rivals allege that Intel is unfairly asking the committee members to withhold data about the host controller until Intel gets its own chip sets with the technology into the market. They allege, therefore, that Intel is illegally restraining trade to give itself a lead in the market. Intel says that its design for the host controller isn't done yet and it would be irresponsible to release the design early. Well which is it, irresponsible to release it early, or an unfair advantage to not? It seems the two are mutually exclusive, and from what I gather, withholding a standard spec. so you can be the sole manufacturer for said standard upon market release seems, well, scumbag-ish. I could be wrong, but I think that's the technical term.
But, based on interviews with industry sources, it's clear that Nvidia isn't mollified by Intel's explanation of its behavior. It has now gotten together with Advanced Micro Devices, SiS, and Via Technologies to come up with a rival standard. Two standards means twice the development cost which means we lose. Hooray for Intel [gag].
Intel contends that it has no interest in withholding data from its competitors. For one, it's against the law in some cases. For another, Intel would risk hurting itself. It might gain a temporary advantage in selling the $10 to $20 chip sets for computers if it holds back the host controller design from rivals. However, it would run the risk of not having enough chip sets to supply the entire market. If that happened, then Intel would have trouble selling its $100 to $1,500 microprocessors. It would, essentially, shoot itself in the foot. Which is not what they're doing right now?
Well, based on that, why wouldn't they just release it?
Intel says it has put a "gazillion" hours of its own engineering work into the host controller design and is under no obligation to release that early. Gazillion, another technical term, I suppose.
But wait, there's more.
Sources say that the group of rivals can come up with their own design proposal within a month. I honestly don't know what to say.
Nvidia, however, could wind up being a year late with its own chip set if it doesn't get timely access to the USB 3.0 host controller data. Intel vs. Intel vs. everyone else. We all lose, but its still hilarious. Sort of.
Great idea! Why don't you start by leaving your door open and welcoming whomever wants in. After all, who are you to deny shelter, kitchen, and bathroom privileges to the homeless? Some would argue that treating shelter, food, and bathroom services as privileges would be a cold, inhumane thing to do. I'm not advocating a free lunch, but as a former homeless person, I do actually know how it feels to have lost it all. Does that make me a communist? No. But I would like to see some people treated as humans, instead of human garbage But I digress.
I wasn't so much advocating "free land for all", so much as making informed decision based on actual facts of the situation.
Now I keep bees in my off time, and I don't want to have to lock all my tools and other belongings up to keep them, so no trespassing on my land. Because, as we all know, trespassers are only out to swipe your bee-keeping tools, not neck with their girlfriends or anything innocuous like that... But I would be pissed too, if someone was fishing in my pond.
To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room? I'd most likely offer you a beer, and ask if you were part of the local Geo hashing group, unless, of course, you weren't some unarmed, scrawny looking nerdish person (like myself). But then again, comparing breaking and entering to mere trespassing isn't really fair. Although, I do sometimes wake up on the front lawn, but that's another story.
I find the whole "trespassing is illegal" law mostly dumb, not many people are out to rustle your cattle anymore. I'm sure you have your own reasons for wanting those kids to get off your lawn, but we all live on this planet, why not share? Why not join them?
Update: Supreme Court ruling cripples Guantanamo trials.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4123181.ece
I'm so sick of hearing the glass houses argument. It's simply bad logic; If we were to never criticize what we perceived as wrong unless we, ourselves were perfect, no one would criticize anyone, and complacency toward our own misgivings would set in. Remember, isolation and nationalism can lead to the worst atrocities imaginable.
Abu Ghraib! Guantanamo! They messed up worse over the pond, so nothing to see here! Point the finger to distract and grab those mod points!
Ugh...
In other words, glass-house-dwellers, throw no stones... What if I'm Canadian? Or just not from the U.S.? I can't criticize injustice simply because of where I live? Somehow my location implies I agree with my government?
Slashdot Mirror
So once the first person put up the first camera, he thus granted license for 24x7 surveillance of the entire populace?
Last time I checked, you have the right to record anything you want in a public place, or private, if you own it, and review the recordings all you want, unless you are doing it specifically to violate some party's privacy (e.g. up-skirt camera phone, photos of Fort Knox), without need for any license.
If someone is unethical, pointing out that other people are also unethical should NOT be a justification.
Right, too bad I never tried to justify public surveillance; I only noted how there are easier and more common ways to record the public.
I think you may be giving too much credit too politicians. The most likely scenario is one in which they shoot themselves in the foot by unknowingly being caught doing something illegal by one of these things, and then have to face the press and their own LEA. The information from these cameras would also be a double-edged sword; just as they could use the information to target individuals they themselves can wind up on the target list.
I don't really understand how these are a big issue though, as there are plenty of street cameras, traffic cameras, and store cameras in most major cities that billboard cameras would just be a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to public surveillance.
This is why I send all my blackmail from my neighbor's WEP-enabled wireless.
That's funny, and I always thought the International Court of Justice was a part of the UN, and based in the Netherlands! Also, didn't the United States withdraw from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, meaning they can't even use it except on a case-to-case basis?
"It seems like suspending iTunes is punishment for iTunes, but really it doesn't hurt iTunes, it hurts us," said a note on Chinese Apple fan site macfans.com.cn, according to the AP.
Do Chinese leaders actually think what they are doing punishes iTunes? Mayhaps, a more devious conclusion; like the applications to protest in the "authorized protest zone", they are trying to incite outrage among hidden dissidents to... strengthen their unpaid labor force.
Or maybe its just the technologically incompetent trying to rule the unruly propaganda machine that is technology with an iron (outdated; see steel) fist. Or both?
Wow. Apparently "reason" and "acting on intelligence" are beyond your comprehension. That you bring up bombing apartments also demonstrates how little you actually know about the subject.
Official US policy dictates that civilian occupied apartments are subject to ground-based raids, not aerial bombardment. Same goes for hospitals, schools, etc etc. In fact, they pretty much wont bomb anything without seemingly viable intelligence that the target is hostile.
What makes you think that bombing civilian occupied apartment complexes ANYWHERE is OK?
fps, badsummary, wrongsummary, !dukenukemforever, kdawsonsucks (tagging beta)
Best. Tags. Ever.
Today I shall remember forever as the day I was trolled by Hurricane78, who possibly just fooled a /. editor. Would have been more epic if the links were spoofs, too. However, I still humbly applaud and bow before your master trollery.
Are you serious? Are you just doing this for the attention? Your arguments are getting less and less logical.
There's a difference between collateral damage and negligent homicide. It's called reason.
Too complicated? Let me break it down for you:
Acting on intelligence, using precision-guided bombs to eliminate (perceived) terrorist threat: OK.
Bombing an apartment building where a suspected mafia boss is, without evacuating residents: NOT OK.
What set you off anyways?
See: criminally negligent homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_negligent
And attempted murder for trying to kill the boss.What they did is inexcusable, and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but its not like the courts in ANY country are perfect. So, did you lose someone, or are you just a sensationalist attention addict, a bleeding heart, or a troll?
tldr: Arguing that the laws are broken in concept is stupid (in this case), argue against corrupt judges and defense lawyers.
Too bad that it lops off that end AFTER they reproduce far more than the other end of the curve.
Perhaps not accidental, but definitely unintentional. Nice try, though.
One of our members is even cultivating an enormous jumping bean which, when saddled and heated by a laser, will propel a human for great distances.
As an aspiring entrepreneur, where can one find one of these awesome plants to purchase and grow?
Airports and airplanes are for the gullible. Little do "plane" passengers realize that they are merely boarding Greyhound buses with wings, and that while aboard these winged buses, given the illusion of flight when cloud like scenery is moved past their windows by stagehands in a very expensive theatrical performance.
I must have boarded one fast greyhound when I "flew" out to Colorado last week. Actually, I'd be more impressed if they just let me watch without any sort of theatrics. 300+ mph on the ground,in a (nearly) strait line would be insanely impressive for any sort of mass transit.
P.S. society of trolls, internet is serious business, etc, etc.
If you think the high-altitude bombing of civilians especially of a nation that never overtly or covertly attacked us is some how morally superior to ramming planes into buildings, then you are a moral relativist of the worst sort.
So basically, you think that deliberate slaughter of civilians is somehow morally equivalent to accidentally slaughtering civilians. So it fallows that you think manslaughter is just as bad as premeditated murder?
If they have no reasonable grounds for suing, then their lawsuit will be rejected by the courts. If they do have a reasonable grounds for suing then the courts will hear their case.
Yeah, because the courts are completely infallible. Silly, frivolous lawsuits are never heard, much less win.
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article11331.html
So a VChip for consoles. No more censorship than the TV VChip and will be uses about as much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
The V-chip is criticized for being an infringement on basic human rights. Many people argue that it is not the governmentâ(TM)s right to monitor or censor what viewers watch on television. According to this argument, because the government regulates the rating system, it is also regulating much of parents' decision making processes on their children's viewing habits.
$550 million was spent to educate parents on the V-chip, but they are no more aware of the technology or the ways in which it can be put to use now than they were before the funds were spent.
So it will basically be an unknown, unutilized government foot-in-the-door style morality control that no one will know or care about even if you spend half a billion on advertising? Where is the up side?
Slashdots' concurrent point on this is that it all could be avoided by just spending the whole five seconds it takes to look at what your kid is playing.
That's like saying Rolls Royce is no more expensive than the equivalently specced $OTHER_BRAND.
... it all works out about the same.
When you include the maple wood trim, leather seats, huge engine,
Except that it doesn't. Much of what you are paying when you pay for a Rolls is the name, and the status that comes with that name. Compared to MUCH less expensive, similarly equipped cars, such as the Bentley Arnage or Merc E class (decked out with options) it seems kind of pretentious. Which is exactly how some people view Macs.
...and she can spend more time worrying about them while waiting for her AOL homepage to load.
Irony points if she worries about wasting what little time she has left on this Earth.
Well, I am old enough to remember the sixties Google bombing is so far one of the most benign, ineffective forms of "stooping" I've ever seen either side resort to. Especially since it is doomed to fail: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp
You expect honor in politics? AND you remember all the way back to the sixties? Isn't the the opposite of insightful? maybe I'm just becoming obsolete. More knowledge makes a person less useful?
welcome our post-apocalyptic... wait, no I don't. Giant scorpions and mutant commando's are so '90s.
I wasn't so much advocating "free land for all", so much as making informed decision based on actual facts of the situation. Now I keep bees in my off time, and I don't want to have to lock all my tools and other belongings up to keep them, so no trespassing on my land. Because, as we all know, trespassers are only out to swipe your bee-keeping tools, not neck with their girlfriends or anything innocuous like that... But I would be pissed too, if someone was fishing in my pond.
Update: Supreme Court ruling cripples Guantanamo trials. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4123181.ece I'm so sick of hearing the glass houses argument. It's simply bad logic; If we were to never criticize what we perceived as wrong unless we, ourselves were perfect, no one would criticize anyone, and complacency toward our own misgivings would set in. Remember, isolation and nationalism can lead to the worst atrocities imaginable.