I would be pretty certain at an event such as that, that the area would be under surveillance. I would expect it. However, surveillance does not mean that they take my picture, then try to determine if I look like a criminal. Basically, it's putting me in a criminal line-up, without my knowledge. The article stated that this was done in secret, with the attendees not knowing about it until after the fact. The fact that it was kept secret makes me suspect that it had very little to do with surveillance or stopping crime, and more to do with gathering data on people, law-abiding or not.
Ask yourself this, "Do I want to be scrutinized wherever I go to see if I bear any resemblance to a criminal? Do I want to be an unwilling, unknowing participant in a criminal lineup at each public affair I attend? Does having an unwarranted, lacking even probable cause, FBI/police/$LawEnforcementEntity wiretap/surveillance tracking my actions at any or all places outside my door make me uncomfortable? I know I am not a criminal, so have no fear that I'll be identified as such, so I think it's OK for the FBI/police/$LawEnforcementEntity to treat me like a criminal?"
Be honest with yourself, and remember that what happened at the Super Bowl is just another step in a process that has been going on for a long time, and will keep going on for a long time. What seems fairly minor now, and possibly even a good idea to some now, is another step towards the future George Orwell painted so terrifyingly all those many years ago.
It's not the fact that they're doing something like this, it's the fact that they decided that telling the attendees that it was happening that bothers me. TELL ME UP FRONT that you're filming me, and for what reason. Even then, it might make me rethink attending. Why do they need to take MY picture, and run a criminal history check on it? The very thought of it would make me feel suspected of committing a crime. Personally, I'd like to see a full, public audit done by a respectable firm to make sure ALL pictures taken by the police are destroyed; hardcopy burned, drives zapped, etc. Even better a signed Affidavit of Probable Cause by the officer taking the picture, and the entire incident video-taped, with my full knowledge of when, where and how it's being done. The best solution from a freedom and Constitutional perspective would be a warrant for survelliance for each individual that is photographed and run through the mill. This system sounds as if it was put into place because the NFL and the government belived that the patrons were criminals, and could be there to commit crimes. This was not set up to be a security measure, but a law-enforcement measure.
The above is MY opinion. I make no claim that it is fact, other than I believe it is fact. The following quote is not mine, but Benjamin Franklins, and I fully agree with it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As stated in the article, you can't expect to walk around in public, much less a major event such as the Super Bowl, and not have your picture taken. However, you should not have to worry about the cops taking pictures of you and "seeing if you look like a criminal."
That would have to be a seriously tough LCD screen to stand up to a gamer. How many here have beaten the keys harder and harder because that OBVIOUSLY will make the computer respond faster, the other guy move slower, me not get fragged, etc.? I broke a cheap joystick playing "X-Wing" because of that very reason. Cracked the handle right off the stick.
how is someone else going to *easily* take control of the aircraft
Offhand, I'd suggest that every crewer capable of flying the plane would be fitted with their own "neural device" prior to take off, with either the onboard computer calibrated for each pilot, or a calibration-on-a-chip type of thing, where the pilots neural patterns are stored in the armband, and activated when plugged in. Then it would be a simple matter of plugging the lead from the "device" into the computer, flicking a switch and away you go.
I saw "made from exercise tights," and immediately thought, "Son, there's a panty in your head."
What about the physical resistance to movements a control stick offers? Having never flown a 757, I can't comment first hand, but isn't the "feel" of the stick one way in which a pilot is able to keep aware of the condition/movement of the plane? On the other hand, perhaps this sort of thing would give better control to the pilot, who could concentrate less on just holding on to the controls, and more on controlling the plane in an emergency. Perhaps a dual system? Physical stick and neural armband, each as a back-up to the other, pilots choice on which to use as primary control device?
Not Linux, but UNIX is being used to master/duplicate their distro CDs, for a very specific reason. AFAIK, Hotmail runs their web servers on BSD, and uses Solaris for the email handling.
People my sophomore year in high school started calling me "Sharkey". It took me a awhile to find out why, a combination of being a swimmer, having a vaguely shark-like look and spending a few weeks perfecting a flat, discomfort-causing stare. Since I'm a LOTR fan, I kind of liked it. Ahhh, memories.
You can use ipchains to control the filters, NAT, etc., I believe, but iptables is the new user-space tool du jour. The page for the project is http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/. I can't make a personal testimonial yet, I haven't had much chance to play with iptables/netfilter/2.4.x firewalling.
Those books fill the niche occupied by "Dummies Who Aren't Man/Woman Enough To Admit Their Own Dumminess", but still need the code snippets to cut'n'paste and then fill in the blanks with their own values.
True, they weren't quite what I was expecting. Did anyone else notice that the cameras were not all in sync? On the coaches challenge in the fourth, concerning the close call on the touchdown, it seemed that one or two cameras were a frame nehind the others. The players (Was it Dilfer?) right hand came off the ball and moved behind it, then on the next rotation stop, it was back on again.
Not anywhere near the Matrix, but definitely a HUGE step in terms of proof-of-concept. Anything which let's us get better/more angles on the action is a plus in my book, and connecting them in this way made it a whole lot easier to relate each angle to the others. Definitely a good start.
OT - Did you notice that they either broadcasted the introduction of the starters in real-time, or the censors were real slow on the button? Siragusa's "F***!" came through very clearly in Indy, and another Raven followed his example. I guess they didn't expect NFL milionaires to swear?
Usually I have to request a page 3 times before slashdot will return it. First try I usually get a "connecting to..." status for 30 seconds +, then I re-request and get a "making request..." status for a while, then on my third try Slashdot will actually handle the page request.
--
Re:Another great article about 2.4
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 1
Just off the top of my head, but 38 connections should not do much to affect the stability of a Linux box. My little Samba box handles more than 100 SMB connections simultaneouly for most of the day without complaint, running kernel 2.2.13. 2.4.x networking should be able to handle well over 38 connections.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be pretty certain at an event such as that, that the area would be under surveillance. I would expect it. However, surveillance does not mean that they take my picture, then try to determine if I look like a criminal. Basically, it's putting me in a criminal line-up, without my knowledge. The article stated that this was done in secret, with the attendees not knowing about it until after the fact. The fact that it was kept secret makes me suspect that it had very little to do with surveillance or stopping crime, and more to do with gathering data on people, law-abiding or not.
Ask yourself this, "Do I want to be scrutinized wherever I go to see if I bear any resemblance to a criminal? Do I want to be an unwilling, unknowing participant in a criminal lineup at each public affair I attend? Does having an unwarranted, lacking even probable cause, FBI/police/$LawEnforcementEntity wiretap/surveillance tracking my actions at any or all places outside my door make me uncomfortable? I know I am not a criminal, so have no fear that I'll be identified as such, so I think it's OK for the FBI/police/$LawEnforcementEntity to treat me like a criminal?"
Be honest with yourself, and remember that what happened at the Super Bowl is just another step in a process that has been going on for a long time, and will keep going on for a long time. What seems fairly minor now, and possibly even a good idea to some now, is another step towards the future George Orwell painted so terrifyingly all those many years ago.
--
That sounds like a rather long oxymoron.
--
How about "A community-accepted open source license" instead?
--
It's not the fact that they're doing something like this, it's the fact that they decided that telling the attendees that it was happening that bothers me. TELL ME UP FRONT that you're filming me, and for what reason. Even then, it might make me rethink attending. Why do they need to take MY picture, and run a criminal history check on it? The very thought of it would make me feel suspected of committing a crime. Personally, I'd like to see a full, public audit done by a respectable firm to make sure ALL pictures taken by the police are destroyed; hardcopy burned, drives zapped, etc. Even better a signed Affidavit of Probable Cause by the officer taking the picture, and the entire incident video-taped, with my full knowledge of when, where and how it's being done. The best solution from a freedom and Constitutional perspective would be a warrant for survelliance for each individual that is photographed and run through the mill. This system sounds as if it was put into place because the NFL and the government belived that the patrons were criminals, and could be there to commit crimes. This was not set up to be a security measure, but a law-enforcement measure.
The above is MY opinion. I make no claim that it is fact, other than I believe it is fact. The following quote is not mine, but Benjamin Franklins, and I fully agree with it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As stated in the article, you can't expect to walk around in public, much less a major event such as the Super Bowl, and not have your picture taken. However, you should not have to worry about the cops taking pictures of you and "seeing if you look like a criminal."
--
That would have to be a seriously tough LCD screen to stand up to a gamer. How many here have beaten the keys harder and harder because that OBVIOUSLY will make the computer respond faster, the other guy move slower, me not get fragged, etc.? I broke a cheap joystick playing "X-Wing" because of that very reason. Cracked the handle right off the stick.
--
This was posted by satirewire, not Microsoft.
--
how is someone else going to *easily* take control of the aircraft
Offhand, I'd suggest that every crewer capable of flying the plane would be fitted with their own "neural device" prior to take off, with either the onboard computer calibrated for each pilot, or a calibration-on-a-chip type of thing, where the pilots neural patterns are stored in the armband, and activated when plugged in. Then it would be a simple matter of plugging the lead from the "device" into the computer, flicking a switch and away you go.
--
I saw "made from exercise tights," and immediately thought, "Son, there's a panty in your head."
What about the physical resistance to movements a control stick offers? Having never flown a 757, I can't comment first hand, but isn't the "feel" of the stick one way in which a pilot is able to keep aware of the condition/movement of the plane? On the other hand, perhaps this sort of thing would give better control to the pilot, who could concentrate less on just holding on to the controls, and more on controlling the plane in an emergency. Perhaps a dual system? Physical stick and neural armband, each as a back-up to the other, pilots choice on which to use as primary control device?
--
"I'll be GNU!"
"Hasta, la vista, NT!"
--
Bad, bad, bad memories. Lynyrd Skynyrd even wrote a song about it, called "Working For MCA".
--
Game console? Huh. Here I thought PS/2 was created just to piss me off, by making me reboot every time I kicked my mouse cable out.
--
Q80520 - How Microsoft Ensures Virus-Free Software
Not Linux, but UNIX is being used to master/duplicate their distro CDs, for a very specific reason. AFAIK, Hotmail runs their web servers on BSD, and uses Solaris for the email handling.
--
People my sophomore year in high school started calling me "Sharkey". It took me a awhile to find out why, a combination of being a swimmer, having a vaguely shark-like look and spending a few weeks perfecting a flat, discomfort-causing stare. Since I'm a LOTR fan, I kind of liked it. Ahhh, memories.
--
"Extreme Programmings Wildest Bug Chases!!!"
LISTEN to Bill Gates tell a customer to upgrade to the next version of MS Office!!!
WATCH as Linus Torvalds and colleagues code around yet another Intel processor bug!!!
SEE Outlook Express proclaiming it's love for its user, and melting mail servers worldwide!!!
--
2.4.x uses netfilter for packet mangling. Here is the relevant portion of the FAQ: http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/netfilter-faq-1.h tml#ss1.4.
You can use ipchains to control the filters, NAT, etc., I believe, but iptables is the new user-space tool du jour. The page for the project is http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/. I can't make a personal testimonial yet, I haven't had much chance to play with iptables/netfilter/2.4.x firewalling.
--
Those books fill the niche occupied by "Dummies Who Aren't Man/Woman Enough To Admit Their Own Dumminess", but still need the code snippets to cut'n'paste and then fill in the blanks with their own values.
Sorry, couldn't resist that, either.
--
C hash. I like that, makes me think of shrimp, crab, tuna and swordfish all chopped up and stewed in a thick broth, served over bread.
.NET."
"What are you doing tonight?"
"I whipping up a batch of sea hash for
--
I rather enjoyed the low-cut shirt, too. Too bad the silicone makes them too hard to bounce out :<(
Trademark Notice: Nig-nosed unhappy-man emoticon is mine, MINE I tell you. Now, don't use him. So there.
--
True, they weren't quite what I was expecting. Did anyone else notice that the cameras were not all in sync? On the coaches challenge in the fourth, concerning the close call on the touchdown, it seemed that one or two cameras were a frame nehind the others. The players (Was it Dilfer?) right hand came off the ball and moved behind it, then on the next rotation stop, it was back on again.
Not anywhere near the Matrix, but definitely a HUGE step in terms of proof-of-concept. Anything which let's us get better/more angles on the action is a plus in my book, and connecting them in this way made it a whole lot easier to relate each angle to the others. Definitely a good start.
OT - Did you notice that they either broadcasted the introduction of the starters in real-time, or the censors were real slow on the button? Siragusa's "F***!" came through very clearly in Indy, and another Raven followed his example. I guess they didn't expect NFL milionaires to swear?
--
And Uranus is just one big mass of gas?
--
You left out Earth. As denizens of a non-existant planet, the Earthlings really have no need to care what their mother is feeding them.
--
Reporters? Morals? Ethics?
Huh, what? You lost me. They just don't mix, at least not in Indianapolis.
--
I'm not normally a spelling flamer
So what kind of flamer are you? Haha.
Seriously, his spelling and grammar are much improved in this post. Perhaps the drubbing he got in this quickies story convinced him to pay attention?
--
Usually I have to request a page 3 times before slashdot will return it. First try I usually get a "connecting to..." status for 30 seconds +, then I re-request and get a "making request..." status for a while, then on my third try Slashdot will actually handle the page request.
--
Just off the top of my head, but 38 connections should not do much to affect the stability of a Linux box. My little Samba box handles more than 100 SMB connections simultaneouly for most of the day without complaint, running kernel 2.2.13. 2.4.x networking should be able to handle well over 38 connections.
--