Surveillance is useful after-the-fact. You look at the tapes to catch the bad guy. It's a deterrent for people who don't want to be caught. The people they're trying to stop are going to be dead at the end and they know it. They want cameras. They want as many people as possible to see the carnage and be afraid.
How does a camera have any hope of stopping someone who walks in with a suitcase bomb and a trigger on the handle? Even if they saw that the guy was acting funny, all they could do is approach him, because you sure as hell can't shoot him on suspicion. And so they go up to him, and bonus for him, 'cause now he gets to kill some cops, too.
We're all about as expert as anybody in terrorism surveillance, because it's only existed for three years, and we think about it as much as anyone.
Without a 4-inch-thick steel building with a security checkpoint that lets no one in who is wearing clothing, you'll never be safe. As long as you can bring in a can of hairspray or a laptop, any security measures are pointless. The only thing you can defend against are dirty and nuclear weapons, and you don't need cameras and transcriptions of everyone's phone calls to do it.
Stupid people will say lots of annoying things. When they tell you you didn't do enough, you ignore them. If you're in power and it happens, then that sucks, but somebody else gets your job because stupid people are allowed to vote, and there's nothing you can do about it without becoming Bush.
Surveillance might start to be acceptable when it has any chance of being beneficial. It's a placebo, and it's horribly intrusive. If you tried, it would take you five seconds to find a way to kill a bunch of people their despite the precautions.
He's not saying the GPL is communist. He's saying people using PHP don't give a crap what license it's distributed under. They go to work, do some coding, and go home to have sex. You read far too much into it.
Because sex feels good. Kids don't see violence and immediately want to kill. They see sex, they do immediately want to have sex. And that makes parents cry.
I had a roommate in college named Dimethylsulfoniopropionate.
Sometimes I get the feeling all of chemistry is just a put-on to see who can get people to say the silliest word. I mean, how would we know? That, "It's too small to see," stuff seems awfully convenient.
Of course they will. There'll be something else that carries 100 gigs for 10 cents. But he probably means he thinks spinning things will get replaced by tiny, cheap USB (or whatever there is in ten years) drives. Which seems plausible and would be okay with me.
I wouldn't worry too much. There are about 100,000 of us in the world that even know about this. When non-techie folks find out what it means, the industry will suddenly tank and content producers will demand that the broadcast flag go away.
The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there.
Yes. Thank God somebody else finally realized the awful privacy implications of projectors. Now that I have backup, I'm going to go burn down my local AMC theaters. 30 screens, twenty feet wide! Can you imagine the privacy they've been invading all this time? Well, I'll teach them to spy on me.
You're right. And I'm not anti-javascript. It does do useful things, and if you're going to use it for those things, then groovy. But it tends to be used when it's not necessary (like where an HTML form would be fine or when sites give you a page that says, "You have to have javascript enabled to read this article about monkeys," or when it's used to open new windows when all the browsers have very easy methods of manually doing that if you want to [those are the other features that I was referring to, sorry if it sounded like I meant all of them, which I'm sure it did]), and I wish web developers would be more picky about when to use things that bring annoyances like pop-ups with them.
Not anti-javascript. Angry about bad javascript use.
Why does anyone leave Javascript on? Its main feature is the ability to have pop-ups thrown at you, and its other features are about as useless and annoying.
But people insist on requiring it to use their buttons on their sites sometimes, so instead of putting so much effort into detecting when a pop-up is coming, I'd much prefer it if there was an easy way to turn scripting on or off. Like a tiny toolbar with two little radio buttons.
Anybody know off the top of their heads if that's do-able without waiting for Microsoft to do it?
Like it's not hard enough commuting and having the radio occasionally cut out to the Brittany Spears song.2 MHz off, now I have to be interrupted every fifteen feet by hundreds of 13 year olds with transmitters and their own call-in show listened to only by their next door neighbor playing their "All-Rancid-and-Green Day Morning, OMG WTF LOL!!!" on my way to work.
You didn't quite work it out then did you? You don't know the scope of i, so for all you know i may be altered in initDevice() or writeToLog().
I assumed it was an error and not massive retardation, and there's no need to be an asshole.
"The cat jumped over the fence," is unreadable if you're really bad at reading. Though the guy a few replies down is right. It's obfuscation, not optimization, and it really serves no purpose. Not arguing with you that it couldn't be better. I'm just saying it's not that bad.
So my phone rings, and then I attach six electrodes to my face, put the handset around both of my ears for directional sound, point the camera at my face, stick the smellers and the tasters in my nose and mouth respectively, hit the "talk" button, and I'm good to go?
Okay, great, but is it also a walkie-talkie? I'm told life is better when your phone is a walkie-talkie.
Then make it a bunch of little rocks falling down a hill in front of a great big rock. Or a flooded road. If we're just talking cruise control and there's still a driver that can hit the brakes, then fine. If we're talking about an autonomous vehicle, then I still don't want to have to sit there and watch the garbage can on the side of the road as the wind gets ready to blow it in front of me without being able to do anything about it no matter how improved traffic would be.
Okay, the garbage can thing wouldn't be so bad, but there's other stuff that would really suck.
Human reaction time can be negative. A computer probably won't be making any decisions regarding the guy who's swerving in and out of lanes six cars up who might run someone off the road until the guy one car up has already started braking like crazy. Probably.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. I apologize for my wrongness. Isreal's going to be a lot better at stopping terrorism than anyone here.
It's going great, too.
Wow. That's a new low. Intensely evil and still not going to do anything to stop a prepared terrorist.
Okay, but I'm not sure why it had to be said to me. I agree with you. But that would only help if any of this had anything to do with saving lives.
Surveillance is useful after-the-fact. You look at the tapes to catch the bad guy. It's a deterrent for people who don't want to be caught. The people they're trying to stop are going to be dead at the end and they know it. They want cameras. They want as many people as possible to see the carnage and be afraid.
How does a camera have any hope of stopping someone who walks in with a suitcase bomb and a trigger on the handle? Even if they saw that the guy was acting funny, all they could do is approach him, because you sure as hell can't shoot him on suspicion. And so they go up to him, and bonus for him, 'cause now he gets to kill some cops, too.
We're all about as expert as anybody in terrorism surveillance, because it's only existed for three years, and we think about it as much as anyone.
Without a 4-inch-thick steel building with a security checkpoint that lets no one in who is wearing clothing, you'll never be safe. As long as you can bring in a can of hairspray or a laptop, any security measures are pointless. The only thing you can defend against are dirty and nuclear weapons, and you don't need cameras and transcriptions of everyone's phone calls to do it.
Stupid people will say lots of annoying things. When they tell you you didn't do enough, you ignore them. If you're in power and it happens, then that sucks, but somebody else gets your job because stupid people are allowed to vote, and there's nothing you can do about it without becoming Bush.
Surveillance might start to be acceptable when it has any chance of being beneficial. It's a placebo, and it's horribly intrusive. If you tried, it would take you five seconds to find a way to kill a bunch of people their despite the precautions.
No, it means they're making Mexicans be the ones to run at the moving car and hit the off button.
"secure communications and the ability to decode encrypted conversations by terrorists and others"
Why does every article about anything have to have the word "terrorist" in it, these days?
He's not saying the GPL is communist. He's saying people using PHP don't give a crap what license it's distributed under. They go to work, do some coding, and go home to have sex. You read far too much into it.
Maybe I missed the point, but this seems to be an article that says, "This is the problem we all know about. The solution is to fix the problem."
Because sex feels good. Kids don't see violence and immediately want to kill. They see sex, they do immediately want to have sex. And that makes parents cry.
I had a roommate in college named Dimethylsulfoniopropionate.
Sometimes I get the feeling all of chemistry is just a put-on to see who can get people to say the silliest word. I mean, how would we know? That, "It's too small to see," stuff seems awfully convenient.
Of course they will. There'll be something else that carries 100 gigs for 10 cents. But he probably means he thinks spinning things will get replaced by tiny, cheap USB (or whatever there is in ten years) drives. Which seems plausible and would be okay with me.
I wouldn't worry too much. There are about 100,000 of us in the world that even know about this. When non-techie folks find out what it means, the industry will suddenly tank and content producers will demand that the broadcast flag go away.
I hope.
Wait, we can just do that now? Sweet! I rule only I have jurisdiction over wire mesh screens! Or did somebody else already call that?
The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there.
Yes. Thank God somebody else finally realized the awful privacy implications of projectors. Now that I have backup, I'm going to go burn down my local AMC theaters. 30 screens, twenty feet wide! Can you imagine the privacy they've been invading all this time? Well, I'll teach them to spy on me.
Dream inducers? Great. Like I don't already have enough pairs of Lightspeed Briefs.
"Dump him, Marge. He's a loser. I travelled the world / and the seven seas. / I am watching / you through a camera."
You're right. And I'm not anti-javascript. It does do useful things, and if you're going to use it for those things, then groovy. But it tends to be used when it's not necessary (like where an HTML form would be fine or when sites give you a page that says, "You have to have javascript enabled to read this article about monkeys," or when it's used to open new windows when all the browsers have very easy methods of manually doing that if you want to [those are the other features that I was referring to, sorry if it sounded like I meant all of them, which I'm sure it did]), and I wish web developers would be more picky about when to use things that bring annoyances like pop-ups with them.
Not anti-javascript. Angry about bad javascript use.
Why does anyone leave Javascript on? Its main feature is the ability to have pop-ups thrown at you, and its other features are about as useless and annoying.
But people insist on requiring it to use their buttons on their sites sometimes, so instead of putting so much effort into detecting when a pop-up is coming, I'd much prefer it if there was an easy way to turn scripting on or off. Like a tiny toolbar with two little radio buttons.
Anybody know off the top of their heads if that's do-able without waiting for Microsoft to do it?
Like it's not hard enough commuting and having the radio occasionally cut out to the Brittany Spears song .2 MHz off, now I have to be interrupted every fifteen feet by hundreds of 13 year olds with transmitters and their own call-in show listened to only by their next door neighbor playing their "All-Rancid-and-Green Day Morning, OMG WTF LOL!!!" on my way to work.
You didn't quite work it out then did you? You don't know the scope of i, so for all you know i may be altered in initDevice() or writeToLog().
I assumed it was an error and not massive retardation, and there's no need to be an asshole.
"The cat jumped over the fence," is unreadable if you're really bad at reading. Though the guy a few replies down is right. It's obfuscation, not optimization, and it really serves no purpose. Not arguing with you that it couldn't be better. I'm just saying it's not that bad.
Why not? If it takes you more than a second to read that and figure out what it does, you're in the wrong business.
Why are you using i to compare initDevice(j) to 0?
And to preempt the likely response, yes, I am in the wrong business.
So my phone rings, and then I attach six electrodes to my face, put the handset around both of my ears for directional sound, point the camera at my face, stick the smellers and the tasters in my nose and mouth respectively, hit the "talk" button, and I'm good to go?
Okay, great, but is it also a walkie-talkie? I'm told life is better when your phone is a walkie-talkie.
Then make it a bunch of little rocks falling down a hill in front of a great big rock. Or a flooded road. If we're just talking cruise control and there's still a driver that can hit the brakes, then fine. If we're talking about an autonomous vehicle, then I still don't want to have to sit there and watch the garbage can on the side of the road as the wind gets ready to blow it in front of me without being able to do anything about it no matter how improved traffic would be.
Okay, the garbage can thing wouldn't be so bad, but there's other stuff that would really suck.
Human reaction time can be negative. A computer probably won't be making any decisions regarding the guy who's swerving in and out of lanes six cars up who might run someone off the road until the guy one car up has already started braking like crazy. Probably.