We know that PACCOM made the initial request, but one thing I always find lacking in these sensationalized news stories is the lack of investigative work that would help us understand the decision making process.
The reason that I ask, is because I remember when I was deployed with an Infantry Battalion, we more or less managed our own usage internally, but everything above the Battalion level (brigade or god-forbid base wide) seemed to have been handled by outside consultants who when I look back now, weren't all that great.
Also, Google hasn't told me what the process was, before any LMGTFY comments come up...
I would like to say that it bothers me that you were marked down to -1 Flamebait for an opinion that you expressed in a forum that supposedly promotes open discussion. I wish I had the points to mod you up.
Full disclosure: I'm a huge privacy advocate - I'm just genuinely curious:
What would your alternative have been, exactly? To the extent of my knowledge in the surrounding events, the FBI has yet to disclose why they were tracking him. Maybe they will never divulge that information, or maybe they will after they actually go to legally pursue an individual or group as a result of the investigation. Now - if you'll agree, I think that their intention remains the major defining variable in this case.
In one scenario (and I'll agree it seems the more plausible), this was part of a wider dragnet cast out and this guy was just one of many picked up in an overarching shouldn't-be-legal-but-is investigation because he had some connection to an estranged relative or associate who was legitimately under suspicions (which is key... this was !legal!, whether those laws violate the constitution or not, it's not for me to decide, I suspect if I was a Justice of the Supreme Court I'd lay the legal smackdown on this bull, but that's another long winded post).
In another scenario, he just happened to buy the wrong things in the wrong order at a grocery store and got flagged. And again, the FBI used the tools that were !legally! available to them to track him and verify their suspicions.
The point I'm trying to make is this: yes I know it's an egregious invasion of privacy - but that's what an INVESTIGATION is. They assumed they needed that information, so they set about attaining it. What would have been the "acceptable" level of invasion of privacy to ensure that this guy isn't some jerk in a sleeper cell? I don't have the answer. I know that this isn't right, but I can't think of a better way to deal with it that would be acceptable to both me, and the fox news watching segment of the population (which seems oddly active in this thread, btw.)
That is one of the simplest and yet most poignant comments I've ever read on Slashdot. I wish I had mod points for you.
I do have to say though, I agree with the sentiment that you need everything up as fast as possible generally speaking - if it's not up, you're losing money/work/time and that's something most employers are not okay with. That being said, if you don't have the luxury of working for a company that can afford a lot of redundancy - say a non-profit, then I'd say that curing becomes more of a necessity.
In the end, all I'm trying to say I guess is - different situations require different solutions and a in my opinion at least, that is large part of what defines your abilities as a sysadmin, finding the best solution - regardless of technical expertise required.
Two infra-red sources bounce invisible light off the user's retinas. The reflected light is picked up by two cameras and the data used to calculate exactly where the user is looking.
That's from a different, albeit shorter article. That being said, I can't confirm it from Tobii's actual website.
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a Disney fanboy (just have young nieces) and what I think they do with it is ridiculous, but to say that they're not still actively producing new works with Mickey himself is uninformed at best.
Now if we could just get them to stop being so douchey about things that they shouldn't be, such as sending a cease and desist to a local Chuck-E-Cheese here for having the employees wear mouse ears.
Thank you for that link! That was pretty neat. I especially like that they mail you a sensor for $50 USD. It's a bit beyond what most people would spend for an idle gizmo, but I imagine that having one in a classroom environment (especially in California) would be really interesting.
You say "they" as if the people who run the government are an entirely different species than everyone else. In the USA, "they" derive their power from the consent (albeit a rather apathetic consent) of the people "they" govern.
I apologize in advance for being that guy that invokes Godwin's Law, but I think that the same result of governance-through-apathy could be shown to be a major part of mostantagonists of human rights.
I just wanted to point this out in the defense of other Americans like the OP, to show that it's nothing the Americans have done differently or worse - in fact I might argue that it's human nature. It doesn't detract from your point at all, I completely agree with you - but it's unrealistic at this point in history to be surprised by the apathy of the majority of any group of peoples.
I think that you're right but I can't help but think that once it hits that point that the corporations will back off just enough to make it acceptable. At that point I imagine people being so used to the overly-draconian DRM that 'slightly-draconian' seems an acceptable alternative.
I can attest to this, and can back it up with the Capcom forum for BC2. This is one of the first posts complaining about DRM usage and there are immediately people defending it implying that if you don't like it - you're a pirate.
I think it boils down to this: The people who only have a cursory inference of what DRM is or how it would work (i.e. Joe AverageConsumer) are 'buying' what the companies are feeding them - "We're hurting because of pirates and we only do this because we have to!"
Until we change that, nothing else will change IMHO. Below is the link to the forum...
First of all, this is Slashdot, please don't dilute the term "hack" any further than it already has been.
Second, I don't see how this violates my privacy in any way, shape or form. That honestly may be my own fault, but if you wouldn't mind - please explain it to me.
Third, no, you don't have to use it online. That analogy is complete garbage despite it being automotive. My PS3 still plays games perfectly fine when I'm offline. Now - when new games start doing checks for firmware versions, that's another story - but it's not what's being discussed here.
All of that makes me wonder though... what exactly did I agree to when I bought the thing? What do you think you agreed to? You feel cheated, I get that. Believe me, I understand it. Right now I can't take my PS3 online because I refuse to update - I like having Yellowdog on there. But if you had actually read the "agreement" that you had in your box when you bought the PS3 you would know that they told you - at purchase - you are required to keep it up to date to take it online.
I just want to say again, I think it's stupid, and without serious reparations from Sony - I don't think that I'd be caught dead buying another thing from them but realistically the kind of incorrect and inflammatory comments you're making do nothing to help the cause. What helps is not buying another Sony product. What helps is when you explain to someone that the reason you're not buying something from them is because they make shady advertisements that promote aspects of their products that they'll later modify as their needs change.
That's faulty logic. You can do whatever you damn well please with your hardware. All that Sony is saying is that if you connect to their network that you have to abide by their rules. What makes you think that because you bought that little black box that you're entitled to their (keyword) free PSN service? Is it because it advertised it on the box? Yeah, that's a good point. But that's more a case of false or at least exaggerated advertising (if not a very good one) and a far cry from why people are leveling at Sony.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Sony is moronic too - but if they're going to provide their (keyword again) FREE service why is wrong for them to stipulate what you can run on it? It's similar to saying that you're not allowed on a network without AV installed, which here of all places I would expect people to understand.
My father is a teacher in the district. At this point there's still no solid evidence that this wasn't a picture that the kid took of himself and saved to a documents folder that synced with the school's network drive. The picture is of him eating Mike and Ike's and you can infer that he's pretending they're pills (god knows why, I did worse at that age so who cares.)
That being said, there's a difference between benefit of the doubt and innocent until proven guilty, the VP of the school did in fact say that she herself had used the tool to check up on students before. Even if that's not what happened in this case, there's going to be hell to pay for that. I don't know if I agree with such an extreme penalty though.
I really think that the issue here should be intent - do you really think they did this to just be self-satisfying perverts or does it seem more reasonable to assume that they just had no common sense?
To answer the general question everyone asked about what would happen if this mission had been about Americans I'll refer you to Six Days in Fallujah. One of the severely downplayed (though not the biggest) reasons that game was shelved was due to the amount of civilian casualties caused by Americans in their hunt for insurgents.
That being said, I realize that the situations are only relatively similar but they clearly favor the argument stating that such a game made about America wouldn't make it financially speaking. As for it being outright banned or recalled, doubtful.
Slashdot Mirror
We know that PACCOM made the initial request, but one thing I always find lacking in these sensationalized news stories is the lack of investigative work that would help us understand the decision making process.
The reason that I ask, is because I remember when I was deployed with an Infantry Battalion, we more or less managed our own usage internally, but everything above the Battalion level (brigade or god-forbid base wide) seemed to have been handled by outside consultants who when I look back now, weren't all that great.
Also, Google hasn't told me what the process was, before any LMGTFY comments come up...
That's illegal in most states.
Well sir, I would say to you that the average Slashdot reader is experiencing the shortage...
/ducks
Couldn't resist.
I would like to say that it bothers me that you were marked down to -1 Flamebait for an opinion that you expressed in a forum that supposedly promotes open discussion. I wish I had the points to mod you up.
It is news - no one (I hope) will disagree with you on that point...
But is this specifically "News for Nerds," I think is what he was getting at.
Full disclosure: I'm a huge privacy advocate - I'm just genuinely curious:
What would your alternative have been, exactly? To the extent of my knowledge in the surrounding events, the FBI has yet to disclose why they were tracking him. Maybe they will never divulge that information, or maybe they will after they actually go to legally pursue an individual or group as a result of the investigation. Now - if you'll agree, I think that their intention remains the major defining variable in this case.
In one scenario (and I'll agree it seems the more plausible), this was part of a wider dragnet cast out and this guy was just one of many picked up in an overarching shouldn't-be-legal-but-is investigation because he had some connection to an estranged relative or associate who was legitimately under suspicions (which is key... this was !legal!, whether those laws violate the constitution or not, it's not for me to decide, I suspect if I was a Justice of the Supreme Court I'd lay the legal smackdown on this bull, but that's another long winded post).
In another scenario, he just happened to buy the wrong things in the wrong order at a grocery store and got flagged. And again, the FBI used the tools that were !legally! available to them to track him and verify their suspicions.
The point I'm trying to make is this: yes I know it's an egregious invasion of privacy - but that's what an INVESTIGATION is. They assumed they needed that information, so they set about attaining it. What would have been the "acceptable" level of invasion of privacy to ensure that this guy isn't some jerk in a sleeper cell? I don't have the answer. I know that this isn't right, but I can't think of a better way to deal with it that would be acceptable to both me, and the fox news watching segment of the population (which seems oddly active in this thread, btw.)
That is one of the simplest and yet most poignant comments I've ever read on Slashdot. I wish I had mod points for you.
I do have to say though, I agree with the sentiment that you need everything up as fast as possible generally speaking - if it's not up, you're losing money/work/time and that's something most employers are not okay with. That being said, if you don't have the luxury of working for a company that can afford a lot of redundancy - say a non-profit, then I'd say that curing becomes more of a necessity.
In the end, all I'm trying to say I guess is - different situations require different solutions and a in my opinion at least, that is large part of what defines your abilities as a sysadmin, finding the best solution - regardless of technical expertise required.
Two infra-red sources bounce invisible light off the user's retinas. The reflected light is picked up by two cameras and the data used to calculate exactly where the user is looking.
That's from a different, albeit shorter article. That being said, I can't confirm it from Tobii's actual website.
here's the link, just in case.
http://www.tobii.com/en/eye-tracking-integration/global/">and of course, Tobii themselves.
You may not have seen any Mickey Mouse cartoons, but I'm sure you've heard of some little things called:
Kingdom Hearts
House of Mouse
Disney on Ice
Epic Mickey
Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a Disney fanboy (just have young nieces) and what I think they do with it is ridiculous, but to say that they're not still actively producing new works with Mickey himself is uninformed at best.
Now if we could just get them to stop being so douchey about things that they shouldn't be, such as sending a cease and desist to a local Chuck-E-Cheese here for having the employees wear mouse ears.
I'd settle for it finding these two droids I've been looking for.
Yeah, that's true, but I've got my board and nail at the ready.
Thank you for that link! That was pretty neat. I especially like that they mail you a sensor for $50 USD. It's a bit beyond what most people would spend for an idle gizmo, but I imagine that having one in a classroom environment (especially in California) would be really interesting.
You say "they" as if the people who run the government are an entirely different species than everyone else. In the USA, "they" derive their power from the consent (albeit a rather apathetic consent) of the people "they" govern.
I apologize in advance for being that guy that invokes Godwin's Law, but I think that the same result of governance-through-apathy could be shown to be a major part of most antagonists of human rights.
I just wanted to point this out in the defense of other Americans like the OP, to show that it's nothing the Americans have done differently or worse - in fact I might argue that it's human nature. It doesn't detract from your point at all, I completely agree with you - but it's unrealistic at this point in history to be surprised by the apathy of the majority of any group of peoples.
I have it on good authority that entering 'Google' as a search term breaks the internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQUWUfmR_I
... our hearts are extended to the 17 recent victims of internet fraud.
http://bash.org/?434593
I think that you're right but I can't help but think that once it hits that point that the corporations will back off just enough to make it acceptable. At that point I imagine people being so used to the overly-draconian DRM that 'slightly-draconian' seems an acceptable alternative.
Time will tell, for sure.
I can attest to this, and can back it up with the Capcom forum for BC2. This is one of the first posts complaining about DRM usage and there are immediately people defending it implying that if you don't like it - you're a pirate.
I think it boils down to this: The people who only have a cursory inference of what DRM is or how it would work (i.e. Joe AverageConsumer) are 'buying' what the companies are feeding them - "We're hurting because of pirates and we only do this because we have to!"
Until we change that, nothing else will change IMHO. Below is the link to the forum...
http://www.capcom-unity.com/bionic_commando/go/thread/view/102981/26821089/PSN_login_required&pg=last
This is some kind of absurd bureaucratic witch hunt.
Here's the form that you use to report on people suspected of practicing engineering without a license in N.C.
http://www.ncbels.org/forms/ComplaintForm.pdf
What say you that we flood them with complaints about ineptitude?
First of all, this is Slashdot, please don't dilute the term "hack" any further than it already has been.
Second, I don't see how this violates my privacy in any way, shape or form. That honestly may be my own fault, but if you wouldn't mind - please explain it to me.
Third, no, you don't have to use it online. That analogy is complete garbage despite it being automotive. My PS3 still plays games perfectly fine when I'm offline. Now - when new games start doing checks for firmware versions, that's another story - but it's not what's being discussed here.
All of that makes me wonder though... what exactly did I agree to when I bought the thing? What do you think you agreed to? You feel cheated, I get that. Believe me, I understand it. Right now I can't take my PS3 online because I refuse to update - I like having Yellowdog on there. But if you had actually read the "agreement" that you had in your box when you bought the PS3 you would know that they told you - at purchase - you are required to keep it up to date to take it online.
I just want to say again, I think it's stupid, and without serious reparations from Sony - I don't think that I'd be caught dead buying another thing from them but realistically the kind of incorrect and inflammatory comments you're making do nothing to help the cause. What helps is not buying another Sony product. What helps is when you explain to someone that the reason you're not buying something from them is because they make shady advertisements that promote aspects of their products that they'll later modify as their needs change.
That's faulty logic. You can do whatever you damn well please with your hardware. All that Sony is saying is that if you connect to their network that you have to abide by their rules. What makes you think that because you bought that little black box that you're entitled to their (keyword) free PSN service? Is it because it advertised it on the box? Yeah, that's a good point. But that's more a case of false or at least exaggerated advertising (if not a very good one) and a far cry from why people are leveling at Sony. Don't get me wrong, I think that Sony is moronic too - but if they're going to provide their (keyword again) FREE service why is wrong for them to stipulate what you can run on it? It's similar to saying that you're not allowed on a network without AV installed, which here of all places I would expect people to understand.
I don't have any points, but I'd just like to go on record and say that this should be modded Insightful. Not funny.
My father is a teacher in the district. At this point there's still no solid evidence that this wasn't a picture that the kid took of himself and saved to a documents folder that synced with the school's network drive. The picture is of him eating Mike and Ike's and you can infer that he's pretending they're pills (god knows why, I did worse at that age so who cares.) That being said, there's a difference between benefit of the doubt and innocent until proven guilty, the VP of the school did in fact say that she herself had used the tool to check up on students before. Even if that's not what happened in this case, there's going to be hell to pay for that. I don't know if I agree with such an extreme penalty though. I really think that the issue here should be intent - do you really think they did this to just be self-satisfying perverts or does it seem more reasonable to assume that they just had no common sense?
To answer the general question everyone asked about what would happen if this mission had been about Americans I'll refer you to Six Days in Fallujah. One of the severely downplayed (though not the biggest) reasons that game was shelved was due to the amount of civilian casualties caused by Americans in their hunt for insurgents.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/fallujahkonamicancel.html
"Reports claim that up to 6000 civilians died throughout the operation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
That being said, I realize that the situations are only relatively similar but they clearly favor the argument stating that such a game made about America wouldn't make it financially speaking. As for it being outright banned or recalled, doubtful.