To be honest, the cops SHOULD be afraid of the public. That doesn't create more red tape for them or make it less likely for them to get their jobs done, it just makes it more likely to keep them from harassing citizens that shouldn't be harassed.
If anything, making them focus on taking down REAL criminals makes it MORE likely for them to get their job done. I, for one, want to be protected by the police, not harassed. I don't know about you though, you may be fine with having the police wrongly seize your stuff and push false or unjust charges on you, just because they don't like you.
If he's wrongfully insulting the police department (spreading lies, etc) it's libel. They can charge him on that, and do things the right way.
In this case, the cops knew that they probably wouldn't successfully charge him with libel, acted like babies, and confiscated things that shouldn't have been confiscated, made abundantly clear by taking legal files against them.
Freedom of speech is around exactly for shit like this. It's so that people can speak out the government without fear of retaliation. It's nice that you seem to think otherwise - you're allowed your opinion - but as you've already admitted, they took his equipment because he was practicing his freedom of speech, making them pretty much entirely at fault.
The bill might not even be put in front of him. You know how much proposed legislation gets passed by congress? Next to none.
Although I agree that the bill is terrible, the time to be worried is when it comes out of each half of congress with the worst parts unchanged.
If and only if the bill passes the Senate should anyone really even begin to be concerned about the bill. Although it's horrid legislation, it has about as much power sitting in committee as the weaker half of my ass.
Why are we blaming the whole of congress for an entirely un-passed bill?
I'll be angry when it gets past either the House or the Senate. Until then, I suggest you direct your hate toward the dumbass congressmen that proposed the bill; in this case, Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) according to TFA.
I highly doubt that either Yahoo or Microsoft could handle that much of a traffic leap Unannounced without going down in flames after the first few minutes or so.
Now that I think about it, actually, that would make a very effective legal DOS attack on the two for Google.
All of it. VLC player is the swiss army knife of the media gods.
Seriously, not only can it be used to save streaming files to the hard drive, but I've actually video chatted with it at several points in time when there were no other options available at the time.
I'll admit that it's GUI is more than a bit wonky at times, but I've gotten used to it, and even like it for some purposes, even if it is hard to get used to. It used to be a deal breaker for me, I'll admit, but I've warmed up to it.
You'll note that a high powered telescope are not attached to most people's faces.
Also, on a related note, police are bound by pretty much those rules exactly. That's why you can get arrested for sex in the back seat of your car, but not in your house. If it's accessible to the public, it's searchable without warrant, although the exact limitations do vary every now and then.
I see no reason why it would be significantly different for the public.
However we never agreed to allow our property to be systematically photographed and geotagged for inclusion in some corporations for profit database, and for it to be indexed and published online. That's an abuse of our tolerance.
Huh? I agreed to it. Or, rather, I agree to it. I find the service useful and amusing, as do many others.
Not only is it fun to look go down random roads in places I've never been to, but it's useful for looking at places I intend to travel to or live. For instance, when looking at colleges, streetview helped me get a significantly better idea of the size, relative wealth, and amenities offered in a city than the satellite view.
It's nice that you think that google photographing your house from the street is an invasion of privacy, but unless you can do something about it, tough beans. There's a street evangelist that visits my College on a regular basis and yells out the word of god to everyone standing nearby. Although I find his actions annoying, and I'd prefer it if he weren't there (especially as he always seems to hang out by the bus stop I'm currently waiting at) I respect his right to freedom of speech, as well as the fact that many other people probably approve of what he's doing.
We all have to make sacrifices for the well being of others. This is yours.
It's nice that you're considerate, but, at the same time, you can't run a government like that. If you did, the most uptight citizens would dictate what was legal with no respect to the majority.
In such a state, profanity, artistic nudity, even many opinions about religion, the government, and so on would be illegal.
Your idea is noble in theory, but in practice, it's foolish. Any country held up to that ideal would quickly be labeled fascist or a nanny state.
If you're trying to look in through someone's blinds, there's a pretty clear intent there, and that's probably to see someone nekkid.
If you're google, however, it's so that others can see what the a street looks like from ground level, rather than however many hundred feet up, so that they don't have to travel absurd distances to look at a neighborhood they're planning to live in, or see their friend's house, or whatever other reason someone may have for using streetview.
Although a line may have to be drawn at some point in the future, for now, there really isn't any question as to what side of the line this is on. There's no ill intent, it's for the good of the public, and it takes all photos from a viewpoint accessible to anyone in the public at any time (a car).
How many unidentified cars drive past your house a day? How many of these get an infinitely better idea of how to break into a house than a picture? I can kind of understand the concern, except that it's based in ignorance and a complete lack of thought put into the issue.
Truth is, a picture is a really bad way to decide on which house to break into. There aren't many visual clues as to when a person is or isn't home, what kind of security system they may be using, whether they regularly lock their doors, etc.
In the end, the concern over the issue far outweighs the benefit. It's like the people are protesting a free upgrade from 56k to dsl or cable because it keeps them connected to the internet all the time, which increases the chance that a virus could get onto their computer. Not only is it not a legitimate concern, but it's depriving them of a free service, except in this case, they're screwing everyone else out of a small part of that service as well.
They jumped all over these people and called them idiots because... umm... they are.
Perceived personal rights don't trump actual public rights. Just because Google's a corporation doesn't mean they miss out on rights that everyone else gets, especially involving the use of public roads, and ESPECIALLY without legislation specifically revoking this right.
The revocation of others' rights to aid you is the same route that led to slavery, war, and countless other atrocities. It's nice that you have a preference, but now you remember that the world does not, in fact, revolve around you.
your bunker? Try in your house.... or behind your fence.... or, really, anywhere not visible from the PUBLIC street.
Hell, you could drape a sheet over your house and people can do shit to see what's behind it.
It's the same thing as exposing yourself in public. If you do it where someone can see you - even if it's in your own yard - you can expect to be arrested, because ANYONE can legally see you.
Also, I don't know why your problem seems to be with the scale. You're not that important - your house will be right up there with the billions of other houses visible on google. If anything, you're protected by the relative anonymity and by the crowd of other, equally boring images surrounding you.
This is, of course, thinking that people are inherently looking at YOUR house for YOU. In the big picture, however, nobody really cares. Sure, there are likely people that will see your house, but to them, your house will be nothing more than another house against the background.
It's nice that you care about privacy, but at the same time, you have to take into account that these pictures are being taken on a massive scale. Your house is one of millions to be archived, and though anyone can see them, your house isn't any more interesting than any other house in the big scheme of things.
And again, this is all done from a position that ANYBODY can see from. If you're doing something you don't want other people to see whenever they want, you shouldn't be doing it in view of the public. To be honest, if it's bad enough, you should really be more concerned about the millions of citizens wandering around with camera phones than the google-mobile that will show up maybe once every 4 or 5 years.
That's like being angry about having sex in a car, and then getting angry when the cops try to arrest you, even though you think it's a violation of your sense of privacy.
Although you are legally granted privacy, it doesn't extend to things you can see from public streets, or other public areas. Expecting rights that you aren't explicitly granted just because you want them is foolish and stupid, even if your neighbor shares your sentiment.
This is ignoring the fact that the reasons given for driving google out is stupid as well. Nobody's going to rob your house just because it was posted on google maps. Thinking otherwise is is more than worthy of ire.
Besides, do you honestly think that anyone in Blizzard's fanbase is NOT going to buy whatever they put out? Seriously, I'm pretty sure that, had Diablo 3 been released the day after the controversial pics were released, it still would have sold faster than the Bible in Alabama after a terrorist attack and the introduction of a gay marriage bill in congress.
Although I agree that the larger parties are corrupt and far worse than many independent candidates, it's not worth wasting a vote, especially when you hurt the second best candidate's chances at winning an election at the same time.
Yeah, it was more like putting a cannon IN a horse.
Except without the "se".
Anyway, although the videos are rather impressive, Blizzard needs to put some more work in to the believability of their April Fools jokes.
For instance, a joke about how they're abandoning SC II because of bloating development costs and numerous unforeseen delays, or that Diablo III will cost $80 instead of the normal price due to the extended re-playability worked into the game would be gold.
This, however, will only get amusing responses from only the dimmest of readers, especially with that first announcement. It kind of ruins the point of April Fools day if everyone gets the joke right away. For it to be amusing, there has to be at least some potential change in emotion for readers once you reveal that it's a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, the cops SHOULD be afraid of the public. That doesn't create more red tape for them or make it less likely for them to get their jobs done, it just makes it more likely to keep them from harassing citizens that shouldn't be harassed.
If anything, making them focus on taking down REAL criminals makes it MORE likely for them to get their job done. I, for one, want to be protected by the police, not harassed. I don't know about you though, you may be fine with having the police wrongly seize your stuff and push false or unjust charges on you, just because they don't like you.
If he's wrongfully insulting the police department (spreading lies, etc) it's libel. They can charge him on that, and do things the right way.
In this case, the cops knew that they probably wouldn't successfully charge him with libel, acted like babies, and confiscated things that shouldn't have been confiscated, made abundantly clear by taking legal files against them.
Freedom of speech is around exactly for shit like this. It's so that people can speak out the government without fear of retaliation. It's nice that you seem to think otherwise - you're allowed your opinion - but as you've already admitted, they took his equipment because he was practicing his freedom of speech, making them pretty much entirely at fault.
The bill might not even be put in front of him. You know how much proposed legislation gets passed by congress? Next to none.
Although I agree that the bill is terrible, the time to be worried is when it comes out of each half of congress with the worst parts unchanged.
If and only if the bill passes the Senate should anyone really even begin to be concerned about the bill. Although it's horrid legislation, it has about as much power sitting in committee as the weaker half of my ass.
Probably less, now that I think about it.
Why are we blaming the whole of congress for an entirely un-passed bill?
I'll be angry when it gets past either the House or the Senate. Until then, I suggest you direct your hate toward the dumbass congressmen that proposed the bill; in this case, Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) according to TFA.
Until their servers fail from the strain.
I highly doubt that either Yahoo or Microsoft could handle that much of a traffic leap Unannounced without going down in flames after the first few minutes or so.
Now that I think about it, actually, that would make a very effective legal DOS attack on the two for Google.
All of it. VLC player is the swiss army knife of the media gods.
Seriously, not only can it be used to save streaming files to the hard drive, but I've actually video chatted with it at several points in time when there were no other options available at the time.
I'll admit that it's GUI is more than a bit wonky at times, but I've gotten used to it, and even like it for some purposes, even if it is hard to get used to. It used to be a deal breaker for me, I'll admit, but I've warmed up to it.
That's why the word plainly was included.
You'll note that a high powered telescope are not attached to most people's faces.
Also, on a related note, police are bound by pretty much those rules exactly. That's why you can get arrested for sex in the back seat of your car, but not in your house. If it's accessible to the public, it's searchable without warrant, although the exact limitations do vary every now and then.
I see no reason why it would be significantly different for the public.
However we never agreed to allow our property to be systematically photographed and geotagged for inclusion in some corporations for profit database, and for it to be indexed and published online. That's an abuse of our tolerance.
Huh? I agreed to it. Or, rather, I agree to it. I find the service useful and amusing, as do many others.
Not only is it fun to look go down random roads in places I've never been to, but it's useful for looking at places I intend to travel to or live. For instance, when looking at colleges, streetview helped me get a significantly better idea of the size, relative wealth, and amenities offered in a city than the satellite view.
It's nice that you think that google photographing your house from the street is an invasion of privacy, but unless you can do something about it, tough beans. There's a street evangelist that visits my College on a regular basis and yells out the word of god to everyone standing nearby. Although I find his actions annoying, and I'd prefer it if he weren't there (especially as he always seems to hang out by the bus stop I'm currently waiting at) I respect his right to freedom of speech, as well as the fact that many other people probably approve of what he's doing.
We all have to make sacrifices for the well being of others. This is yours.
that is the considerate thing to do.
It's nice that you're considerate, but, at the same time, you can't run a government like that. If you did, the most uptight citizens would dictate what was legal with no respect to the majority.
In such a state, profanity, artistic nudity, even many opinions about religion, the government, and so on would be illegal.
Your idea is noble in theory, but in practice, it's foolish. Any country held up to that ideal would quickly be labeled fascist or a nanny state.
Well, one place to start would be intent.
If you're trying to look in through someone's blinds, there's a pretty clear intent there, and that's probably to see someone nekkid.
If you're google, however, it's so that others can see what the a street looks like from ground level, rather than however many hundred feet up, so that they don't have to travel absurd distances to look at a neighborhood they're planning to live in, or see their friend's house, or whatever other reason someone may have for using streetview.
Although a line may have to be drawn at some point in the future, for now, there really isn't any question as to what side of the line this is on. There's no ill intent, it's for the good of the public, and it takes all photos from a viewpoint accessible to anyone in the public at any time (a car).
True, but those can see what's going on behind closed doors. Normal cameras see the same thing everyone else sees from the street.
Umm.... I'm pretty sure you'll only be getting a very pretty view of their floor if you try that one.
Nice try, though.
If you have valuables on your garden in plain view, you should be protecting them in some way anyway.
They will get stolen eventually, it's just a matter of time.
How many unidentified cars drive past your house a day? How many of these get an infinitely better idea of how to break into a house than a picture? I can kind of understand the concern, except that it's based in ignorance and a complete lack of thought put into the issue.
Truth is, a picture is a really bad way to decide on which house to break into. There aren't many visual clues as to when a person is or isn't home, what kind of security system they may be using, whether they regularly lock their doors, etc.
In the end, the concern over the issue far outweighs the benefit. It's like the people are protesting a free upgrade from 56k to dsl or cable because it keeps them connected to the internet all the time, which increases the chance that a virus could get onto their computer. Not only is it not a legitimate concern, but it's depriving them of a free service, except in this case, they're screwing everyone else out of a small part of that service as well.
They jumped all over these people and called them idiots because... umm... they are.
Perceived personal rights don't trump actual public rights. Just because Google's a corporation doesn't mean they miss out on rights that everyone else gets, especially involving the use of public roads, and ESPECIALLY without legislation specifically revoking this right.
The revocation of others' rights to aid you is the same route that led to slavery, war, and countless other atrocities. It's nice that you have a preference, but now you remember that the world does not, in fact, revolve around you.
your bunker? Try in your house.... or behind your fence.... or, really, anywhere not visible from the PUBLIC street.
Hell, you could drape a sheet over your house and people can do shit to see what's behind it.
It's the same thing as exposing yourself in public. If you do it where someone can see you - even if it's in your own yard - you can expect to be arrested, because ANYONE can legally see you.
Also, I don't know why your problem seems to be with the scale. You're not that important - your house will be right up there with the billions of other houses visible on google. If anything, you're protected by the relative anonymity and by the crowd of other, equally boring images surrounding you.
This is, of course, thinking that people are inherently looking at YOUR house for YOU. In the big picture, however, nobody really cares. Sure, there are likely people that will see your house, but to them, your house will be nothing more than another house against the background.
It's nice that you care about privacy, but at the same time, you have to take into account that these pictures are being taken on a massive scale. Your house is one of millions to be archived, and though anyone can see them, your house isn't any more interesting than any other house in the big scheme of things.
And again, this is all done from a position that ANYBODY can see from. If you're doing something you don't want other people to see whenever they want, you shouldn't be doing it in view of the public. To be honest, if it's bad enough, you should really be more concerned about the millions of citizens wandering around with camera phones than the google-mobile that will show up maybe once every 4 or 5 years.
That's like being angry about having sex in a car, and then getting angry when the cops try to arrest you, even though you think it's a violation of your sense of privacy.
Although you are legally granted privacy, it doesn't extend to things you can see from public streets, or other public areas. Expecting rights that you aren't explicitly granted just because you want them is foolish and stupid, even if your neighbor shares your sentiment.
This is ignoring the fact that the reasons given for driving google out is stupid as well. Nobody's going to rob your house just because it was posted on google maps. Thinking otherwise is is more than worthy of ire.
So we shouldn't protest unjust laws?
Should we have encouraged the citizens of the early United States to go without protest because the unjust taxation was law?
Should we have encouraged blacks to end their boycotts and civil disobedience because the police told them to?
There is no better way to protest an unjust law than to not follow it.
Until we find out that the page is really just a sick joke, and that loading the page really installs conflicker on your machine.
Well, it's fun for the rest of us.
Besides, do you honestly think that anyone in Blizzard's fanbase is NOT going to buy whatever they put out? Seriously, I'm pretty sure that, had Diablo 3 been released the day after the controversial pics were released, it still would have sold faster than the Bible in Alabama after a terrorist attack and the introduction of a gay marriage bill in congress.
Noon?
Even I think that's a bit harsh. Many days, I'm still sleeping at such an early hour.
You mean all except the painfully small minority?
Wow, that's democracy in action right there.
Although I agree that the larger parties are corrupt and far worse than many independent candidates, it's not worth wasting a vote, especially when you hurt the second best candidate's chances at winning an election at the same time.
Yeah, it was more like putting a cannon IN a horse.
Except without the "se".
Anyway, although the videos are rather impressive, Blizzard needs to put some more work in to the believability of their April Fools jokes.
For instance, a joke about how they're abandoning SC II because of bloating development costs and numerous unforeseen delays, or that Diablo III will cost $80 instead of the normal price due to the extended re-playability worked into the game would be gold.
This, however, will only get amusing responses from only the dimmest of readers, especially with that first announcement. It kind of ruins the point of April Fools day if everyone gets the joke right away. For it to be amusing, there has to be at least some potential change in emotion for readers once you reveal that it's a joke.
Ummmm.... Hitler IS a goddamn laugh riot.
The Internet was pretty much built off of Hitler jokes.