The problem I find is, we both agree that upskirt cammers who deal on the internet are scum, but neither of us can then find a way to deal with them in particular that wouldn't likely set a bad legal precedent for other cases with legal sleazy motives?
Sure. I think that the best solution to the problem isn't necissarily legal, because the law would have to either be so narrow that somebody would find a way around it, to broad such that it would harm innocent people, or people would just start doing something else reprehensible. I think that the correct solution is to cover things that you don't want photographed.
BTW, At dinner last night I asked my Fiancee what she would think if she found out somebody had an up-skirt photo on their web site that was taken of her while she was in public, and she said "I would find it funny that somebody would want to look at me like that."
Or perhaps you're just far too stupid to imagine yourself in that situation, perhaps wearing a kilt one day and finding out the next that someone you don't know has posted pictures of your face, your body, and your underwear on the Internet for all and sundry to view. Can you take a moment to really imagine what it would feel like, or do you quickly toss out, "I wouldn't care," while you jack off to yet another skirtcam site?
I hate to sling petty insults, but I'll make an exception because I'm going to use your own words.
Perhaps you're just to stupid to realize that somebody might have a different opinion then you about what should and should not be socially acceptable. I can honestly say that if somebody did something like that to me I would find it humorous and shrug it of. Oh, and no, I don't enjoy visiting skirt cam sites on the internet. I do, however, enjoy seeing attractive women in public with all their clothes on, and I don't think that this is any more unacceptable then me enjoying the "scenery". I also respect your right to disagree with me, and I only think you're stupid becuase you apparently don't allow that right to others. If the majority of public opinion is on your side, then the laws will favor your view point and I do obey the law, but I'm not going to change my views just becuase the majority may think differently. I am not them, I'm me.
You may be an exhibitionist and so you can give your permission to have your underwear photographed. Others of us aren't exhibitionists; we prefer privacy rules along the lines of: deny=all, allow=these.
That's fine, but I still assert that if you don't want some part of you (or some piece of your clothing) photographed, then you should cover it up in public. I'm not saying you have to let people take pictures of you in your underwear, I'm saying that if you expose your underwear in public, then it may get photographed. I am not an exhibitionist; I wear pants.
I have been doing dualhead myself for about a year I'd say -- but I just recently switched from a pair of non-flat-front CRT's to 2 LCD's. 20" LCD's @ 1600x1200 makes me wonder how i ever did anything before.
I'm personally a fan of CRTs, just because they're faster and higher resolution. The second problem is going away quickly. When the update speed of LCD displays increases, and the price comes down, I'll give some serious thought into picking some up. I currently use 21" Flat front trinitron monitors with dark tinted glass. I run them at 1600x1200 @ 120hz refresh.
Update speed is important for when you want to read text while it's scrolling, and for when you're done working for the day and want to play some games!
I have a standard routine that I like very much. My current setup has two monitors, but this will mostly work with just one...
I have 2 monitors side by side facing in about 10 degrees from parallel (flat fronts are key). When it's possible I use electronic documentation on the right screen and code on the left. When hard copy is all that's available I slide the right hand monitor back about 4 inches and lean the book up against it. I've also been known to photocopy a frequently used page/diagram and tape it to the monitor. I believe your perl networking book is available as PDF. You should look into it.
I think the key is that I never have to turn my head very far in either direction, which I would have to do if one monitor was directly in front of me.
This assumes that you're only using the book for reference. If you're actually reading it I recommend finding a more comfortable place to read than in a desk chair (Yes, even if it's an Aeron), and an electronic copy is unacceptable.
Read my responce to other comments saying what you just said. Overall margins take the spending on faiure into account, and the margins are still quite high.
Ok, and if every drug tried worked like this, you might have a point. The problem is, the vast majority of drug studies lead nowhere. Just doing the basic research to find a potential drug to fix a problem takes years and years (ok, 10 in your example). Many of the initial studies lead nowhere and the projects get cancelled (several years thrown away, move folks to a new project). Eventually you get to one that leads to a potential drug. Then you go spend a few million on clinical testing and find out that the side effects on humans outweigh the benifits. Throw those millions away and start over again....
This doesn't change the facts. The bottom line for many of these companies is WAY in the black. That's even after you subtract their research budget. When you factor in what this article says about growing profits and shrinking research budgets, you have to start questioning wether the business is as expensive as they've gotten you to beileve. It's obvious that the story they give the public (the one you just repeated to me) isn't quite as true as it used to be.
The "vast majority" of failures are more than made up for by the ones that work out big time.
That's the problem. Toss on the fact that even after you overcome the huge odds and make a new drug, the investors in the company actually expect to make a profit off it.
Hey, I'm all for profit, but how much money are you willing to give them? I'm only willing to give them the minimum amount necissary to keep them doing research. Similarly, I shop at the stores that offer the best prices. It's all about capitalism, and these guys are granted a little exception to the rule when we give them a patent. If they're not living up to their end of the implied bargain, maybe the rules need to be changed.
It's unfortunate. If this bill had been justified as a consumer protetction law to protect people from offshore casinos that don't pay out even though they collect then he may have had a point, but justifying this law with a claim that something doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society, he's lost the argument. (Well, IMHO. There are people in congress that matter infinately more than me because they get to vote on this thing, and they may be just as brain dead.)
What else doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society? Homeless people? We don't need them, they have no purpose. I guess he thinks we should deport them. Other forms of entertainment (Obviously purposeless, since casinos are entertainment, and they have no purpose)? Music, Movies, Playing cards? Well, I guess we don't need DRM laws or extended copyright, because entertainment is illegitimate, and only entertainment companies are pushing for these things.
The hype takes advantage of the fact that you don't do the math. lets say you have a team of 10 making $100k per year (really doesn't happen that often, the researchers are grossly underpaid usually) for 10 years. That's 10 million dollars. Lets say they needed $100 million in equipment, and that all the equipment is single use. For shits and giggles, lets toss another $100 million in expenses in there. That's $210 million, and probably quite generous, because alot of research and equipment will be reuseable for other drugs in the future.
Now, lets say that each year, 1 million people need to take one pill a day for 1 month. That's 30 million pills sold per year. 150 million pills sold in 5 years. Say it costs $1 per pill to make, package and market. If they charge $3 a pill then they've got $300 million in profit.
In reality, you get pills that cost tens of dollars a piece, and people take them every day for the rest of their lives.
It's no secret that these companies make vast profits and rediculous margins. You don't even have to do that little though exersise. Just look at the data and you'll see that their prices could come down significantly and they'd still make a profit. They're publicly traded, and they have to reveal that kind of stuff. If they're not doing any new research, then where is the money really going? Marketing, lawyers, and executives. Now, the US is a free country, and these companies are certainly allowed to profiteer, but the public grants these companies this ability at their own cost. We need to ask ourselves every once in a while just who benifits from our policy, and wether it's still in our best interest.
So no, it's not a tragedy because it doesn't affect students coming from the US, only those dirty foreigners.
Two points:
1. There are plenty of good schools for CS outside the US. People can apply to schools in their own country. Who said 'foreigner' meant "Not from the US"? If somebody doesn't have a good school in their country they'll have to wait a year which is not such a big deal.
2. I know it's a popular stereotype to portray people from the US as 'anti' anything that's not from the US, however the US is hardly the place to go if you're looking for an example population that hates foreigners. How many countries in the EU have recently had an election with popular candidates running on an anti-immigraton platform?
Selfishness is human nature, and you'll find selfish people in any country. Don't be so quick to label an entire countries worth of people because of what this one guy said.
Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.
It is you, sir, that avoid the point. The illegality of the practice has nothing to do with the intents of the viewers. You were trying to imply that up-skirt photography was worse because of the intents of the consumers of the pictures. (At least that's what it seemed like you meant.)
If could also be turned around. What if the intent was a marketing study to see what types of underwear women wear with skirts? Would that make it less wrong than if it were for use as porno?
Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!
Then we are arguing about different things. My comment was in regards to hidden cameras and as a response to somebody else's comment, not about the situation from the story. There is more involved than just a photo if somebody is physically getting that close to you with a camera. It's boredering on assult. If somebody got that close to my fiancee without her permission, his ass would be being kicked before I found out he was even trying to take a picture up her skirt. (I don't kick in the testicles, though. There are some things that nobody deserves:)
As for the hidden camera scenario, which is what I thought we were discussing, I'll ask her tonight and let you know. My guess is that she'll share my opinion.
Even though I've been arguing with you about this all day, I do think that people who take and publicise up-skirt photos with a hidden camera are despicable scum, but there are many things that I personally don't aprove of that I think should not be regualted by law.
There are people who distribute views down people's shirts taken with standard issue security cameras, and I think that is worse than an up skirt picture, because it get's your face too. I certainly am not against security cameras. If you're in public you should have an expectation that you will be video taped or photographed, because you are everyday. If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.
I guess that depends on whether you think QuickTime competes with RealPlayer. I'd say it does, but clearly Apple considers it an internal part of the OS. It's a fine line, isn't it?
Nobody has shown that Quicktime uses API calls that are undocumented and unavailable to Real. The only APIs that were mentioned as undocumented are the ones for changing the functionality of the OS interface.
Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?
What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive.
The concept of a thought crime is wrong. Period. I don't care what your thought is. For that reason, it should be the method that such a picture is created or obtained that is regulated, not what it's intended use is. Similarly, I consider any argument as to the legality of "hidden camera" pictures invalid if it is based on such reasoning.
Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?
Yes, I have a Fiancee, and I would not feel violated in such a case, in fact it would be unlikely that I would ever know of such a picture, and you wouldn't be able to convince me it was actually of her if there were truely no identifiable features.
I would be displeased if somebody tried to be a "look alike" and posed for explicit photos, but it would not change my opinion that such a practice should be legal outside of the standard libel laws.
There is a reason people wear clothes in public, there is a reason we cover our genitalia.
People wearing clothes are not going to have their genatalia photographed. It's just not practical. You still get just as much privacy as your clothes have always provided.
It's implied in society that we have a right not to have our genetalia or undergarments photographed.
Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.
Somebody else may have said: "It's implied in society that women should have to keep their faces hidden in public." It depends on where and when you are.
Common sense unfortunately is often overruled by one law blanketing the lack of specifics in another.
Aside from comments about laws and rights, I still assert that it's irrational to consider a photograph of somebody's undergament a violation of said person's privacy. It is not anymore a violation of privacy than somebody dressing up like somebody else and getting a picture taken up that skirt. If you can't tell who the picture is of, then the person in the picture has maintained their privacy.
If somebody has a right to photograph up my wife's skirt, I should have a right to kick him in the testicles
If the wind blows your wife's skirt up, do you want to kick everybody who looks too?
I've never yet called somebody an idiot on slashdot, but now I think I will. You sir, are an idiot.
The (apparently) revised definition of idiot:
Idiot \Id"i*ot\, n. Any person that you have a difference of opinion with regarding what should be socially acceptable.
If you want to call me a barbarian, or something similarly based on a subjective viewpoint, than you are entitled to your opinions. There are a vast number of negative nouns that could be acurately used in regards to me, but I dare say that 'idiot' isn't one of them. Perhaps we should just say that your idea of 'Common Sense' is different than mine for whatever reason.
Can you say "double standard"? When Microsoft has undocumented, private, internal APIs, everyone cries "Foul!" and accuses them of hiding these APIs from developers.
You're right, you don't get it. The difference is that Microsoft uses undocumented APIs in their products that are sold outside of windows, while other application vendors don't get the benifit of those APIs. Apple's undocumented APIs are internal to the OS, and they don't use them in software that they sell in competition with third party application vendors. If an API is undocumented because it's internal to the OS it's OK, but if it's undocumented to give you an edge over other application vendors then it's wrong.
So it's OK to violate somebody's rights and violate their privacy so long as the violation is being done on an unidentified basis?
You're missing the point. It's silly to consider something a violation of privacy if the person is unidentifiable. Furthemore, you don't have a right to privacy in public. Where you do have a right to privacy, any violation is unacceptable.
They can't tell it's you from your IP address, so what difference does it make?
You're example isn't analogous with the situation we're discussing. They can tell that it's me from my IP address, and there are places where people can reasonably expect privacy. If it was a public access terminal it would be a valid comparison, and similarly I wouldn't care.
My TiVo sends data about what I do back to TiVo for them to sell, or do whatever with. They don't associate any identification with the data, so I don't care what they do with it.
If somebody has a picture of you, and it's impossible to tell it's you from the picture, then it may as well be a picture of somebody else, and it's not worth worrying about. Context is important, though. If the picture was taken without authorization in a place where you can reasonably (or leagally for practicality) expect privacy, then there is a problem with it, but the problem isn't the picture - it's the circumstances. While that person is taking said picture, you do not have privacy.
With glass floors, the person walking on them is aware that someone underneath them can look up, and makes a choice.
Then people can easily make the assumption that somebody can be looking up in any public place where they are not explicitly guaranteed privacy. I still assert that it would be irrational to be upset about somebody getting a picture of you this way. They can't tell it's you from the picture, so who cares?
I can't imagine that the image quality would be anything to write home about through one way glass.
The short-term effect is that more women are wearing pants in public.
I don't understand the big deal. So, perhaps somebody sees your underwear (or lack thereof). They can't tell it's you from that angle, so what difference does it make? I don't think that an image, or data of any sort for that matter, should be considered a violation of privacy unless it's attributable to somebody.
What happens when people with skirts on walk on glass floors? Are glass floors going to be illegal too?
Windows installer is fatally flawed + Tangent
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2
Tanget first: The thing that pisses me off the most about windows installers is that they insist on going full screen and requiring you to close or ignore background applications while they are running. I don't want my machine to be useless during an install. Let me start the installer and then do something else while it's doing whatever rediculous crap installers have to do on windows.
One good thing about Windows Installer is that the install is an atomic procedure. That is, if it fails for any reason (file missing, user cancel, etc.), then it will completely roll-back and not leave bits of a partially installed application.
I call bullshit. First, if the installer crashes the system then you're still left with a mess, so it's hardly an atomic process; It only appears atomic if it ends cleanly. Everything else you're describing is handled by any decent installer (including RPM, and dpkg), so it's not something that is nice about the MS installer in particular. Worse, Windows doesn't properly handle unused shared libraries when handling dependancies. Since they are part of an application package they can't be easily uninstalled seperate from the application, but the default behavior is to not delete libraries marked as shared even if their usage count is zero. You need to pick one or the other: delete the libraries when no one needs them anymore, or package them seperately so that they can be cleanly uninstalled. This is one of the most broken parts of Windows.
My point is, is that while it's possible to use different front-end installers, they all use the same back-end, unlike the different Linux package systems.
Each distribution has it's own package management system. On a particular distribution, there is a common installation back-end that is for managing uninstaller applications (usually scripts since administrative tasks are easily scriptable on linux, unlike windows) and dependancies. Stop trying to spew FUD. It's a moot point anyway, because a typical linux distribution is not hampered by a monolithic configuration database, so there is no need or benifit to a unified installer backend in the form you're describing about windows.
To me it suggests that they've got the AOL client running under Wine, and there's not AOL for linux or AOL/Lindows connection at all. That graphic from that page was probably made by lindows.com.
Every single time square wavers from the RPG genre the result is a game that really sucks.
I'm sorry, but youre wrong. Bushido Blade was amazing, and Einhander is the best sidescrolling space shooter ever
As for RPGs, FF8 sucked, bu FF9 and FFX were both very good, and very different (albiet not plot wise) from other games in the series. Squaresoft's other RPGs are also very good, and are typically completely different from each other. They often have a unique combination of the classic Square RPG with some action gaming added in. Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve are perfect examples.
And what's wrong with RPGs anyway? They happen to be my favorite type of game.
I predict that FFXI will be a failure
I personally agree about FFXI, but not for the reasons you mention. Online gaming just isn't as popular as all the hype. Most gamers like to play games alone or with friends that are there with them. The majority of gamers aren't the type you see in internet forums, they're at home playing EA's Madden 2002 with their buddies on the couch. I'll personally be avoiding it because online RPGs require you do dedicate WAY too much of your life to them to be any good at it, and I have other things I like to do besides play video games, and other games I like to play.
FFXI doesn't require the hard drive, and the PS2 network adapter and software are only $30. That's chepaer then what you need to buy to get online with any other console, including the Xbox with it's already builtin interface. I don't think that either of those two things are going to be a factor in FFXI acceptance.
Square was one of those companies that used to be cool. Now however, it's just producing sub-stanard games with revolting storylines who's sales are driven by the memory of what Square once was.
Sounds to me like somebody's making excuses and kicking themselves because they bought an Xbox instead of a PS2.:)
Yeah, it's the only thing keeping me from buying it. It looks like loads of fun, too. I'll probably just borrow it from a friend when he's done playing it...
Multiple hundred GHz transistors aren't necissarily that meaningful. It's multiple hundred GHz ICs that are at issue (Even if this article includes this irrelevant quotation). Hell, 20GHz transistors have been commercially available for many years and are used in things like logic analysers and RF transmitters. They're not all that tiny, and not particularly more susceptable to ESD. Just because IBM can run a transistor at 200 GHz doesn't mean that they're anywhere near running ICs at that speed.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem I find is, we both agree that upskirt cammers who deal on the internet are scum, but neither of us can then find a way to deal with them in particular that wouldn't likely set a bad legal precedent for other cases with legal sleazy motives?
Sure. I think that the best solution to the problem isn't necissarily legal, because the law would have to either be so narrow that somebody would find a way around it, to broad such that it would harm innocent people, or people would just start doing something else reprehensible. I think that the correct solution is to cover things that you don't want photographed.
BTW, At dinner last night I asked my Fiancee what she would think if she found out somebody had an up-skirt photo on their web site that was taken of her while she was in public, and she said "I would find it funny that somebody would want to look at me like that."
Or perhaps you're just far too stupid to imagine yourself in that situation, perhaps wearing a kilt one day and finding out the next that someone you don't know has posted pictures of your face, your body, and your underwear on the Internet for all and sundry to view. Can you take a moment to really imagine what it would feel like, or do you quickly toss out, "I wouldn't care," while you jack off to yet another skirtcam site?
I hate to sling petty insults, but I'll make an exception because I'm going to use your own words.
Perhaps you're just to stupid to realize that somebody might have a different opinion then you about what should and should not be socially acceptable. I can honestly say that if somebody did something like that to me I would find it humorous and shrug it of. Oh, and no, I don't enjoy visiting skirt cam sites on the internet. I do, however, enjoy seeing attractive women in public with all their clothes on, and I don't think that this is any more unacceptable then me enjoying the "scenery". I also respect your right to disagree with me, and I only think you're stupid becuase you apparently don't allow that right to others. If the majority of public opinion is on your side, then the laws will favor your view point and I do obey the law, but I'm not going to change my views just becuase the majority may think differently. I am not them, I'm me.
You may be an exhibitionist and so you can give your permission to have your underwear photographed. Others of us aren't exhibitionists; we prefer privacy rules along the lines of: deny=all, allow=these.
That's fine, but I still assert that if you don't want some part of you (or some piece of your clothing) photographed, then you should cover it up in public. I'm not saying you have to let people take pictures of you in your underwear, I'm saying that if you expose your underwear in public, then it may get photographed. I am not an exhibitionist; I wear pants.
I have been doing dualhead myself for about a year I'd say -- but I just recently switched from a pair of non-flat-front CRT's to 2 LCD's. 20" LCD's @ 1600x1200 makes me wonder how i ever did anything before.
I'm personally a fan of CRTs, just because they're faster and higher resolution. The second problem is going away quickly. When the update speed of LCD displays increases, and the price comes down, I'll give some serious thought into picking some up. I currently use 21" Flat front trinitron monitors with dark tinted glass. I run them at 1600x1200 @ 120hz refresh.
Update speed is important for when you want to read text while it's scrolling, and for when you're done working for the day and want to play some games!
I have a standard routine that I like very much. My current setup has two monitors, but this will mostly work with just one...
I have 2 monitors side by side facing in about 10 degrees from parallel (flat fronts are key). When it's possible I use electronic documentation on the right screen and code on the left. When hard copy is all that's available I slide the right hand monitor back about 4 inches and lean the book up against it. I've also been known to photocopy a frequently used page/diagram and tape it to the monitor. I believe your perl networking book is available as PDF. You should look into it.
I think the key is that I never have to turn my head very far in either direction, which I would have to do if one monitor was directly in front of me.
This assumes that you're only using the book for reference. If you're actually reading it I recommend finding a more comfortable place to read than in a desk chair (Yes, even if it's an Aeron), and an electronic copy is unacceptable.
Read my responce to other comments saying what you just said. Overall margins take the spending on faiure into account, and the margins are still quite high.
Ok, and if every drug tried worked like this, you might have a point. The problem is, the vast majority of drug studies lead nowhere. Just doing the basic research to find a potential drug to fix a problem takes years and years (ok, 10 in your example). Many of the initial studies lead nowhere and the projects get cancelled (several years thrown away, move folks to a new project). Eventually you get to one that leads to a potential drug. Then you go spend a few million on clinical testing and find out that the side effects on humans outweigh the benifits. Throw those millions away and start over again....
This doesn't change the facts. The bottom line for many of these companies is WAY in the black. That's even after you subtract their research budget. When you factor in what this article says about growing profits and shrinking research budgets, you have to start questioning wether the business is as expensive as they've gotten you to beileve. It's obvious that the story they give the public (the one you just repeated to me) isn't quite as true as it used to be.
The "vast majority" of failures are more than made up for by the ones that work out big time.
That's the problem. Toss on the fact that even after you overcome the huge odds and make a new drug, the investors in the company actually expect to make a profit off it.
Hey, I'm all for profit, but how much money are you willing to give them? I'm only willing to give them the minimum amount necissary to keep them doing research. Similarly, I shop at the stores that offer the best prices. It's all about capitalism, and these guys are granted a little exception to the rule when we give them a patent. If they're not living up to their end of the implied bargain, maybe the rules need to be changed.
It's unfortunate. If this bill had been justified as a consumer protetction law to protect people from offshore casinos that don't pay out even though they collect then he may have had a point, but justifying this law with a claim that something doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society, he's lost the argument. (Well, IMHO. There are people in congress that matter infinately more than me because they get to vote on this thing, and they may be just as brain dead.)
What else doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society? Homeless people? We don't need them, they have no purpose. I guess he thinks we should deport them. Other forms of entertainment (Obviously purposeless, since casinos are entertainment, and they have no purpose)? Music, Movies, Playing cards? Well, I guess we don't need DRM laws or extended copyright, because entertainment is illegitimate, and only entertainment companies are pushing for these things.
Ah, the hypocrisy.
The hype takes advantage of the fact that you don't do the math. lets say you have a team of 10 making $100k per year (really doesn't happen that often, the researchers are grossly underpaid usually) for 10 years. That's 10 million dollars. Lets say they needed $100 million in equipment, and that all the equipment is single use. For shits and giggles, lets toss another $100 million in expenses in there. That's $210 million, and probably quite generous, because alot of research and equipment will be reuseable for other drugs in the future.
Now, lets say that each year, 1 million people need to take one pill a day for 1 month. That's 30 million pills sold per year. 150 million pills sold in 5 years. Say it costs $1 per pill to make, package and market. If they charge $3 a pill then they've got $300 million in profit.
In reality, you get pills that cost tens of dollars a piece, and people take them every day for the rest of their lives.
It's no secret that these companies make vast profits and rediculous margins. You don't even have to do that little though exersise. Just look at the data and you'll see that their prices could come down significantly and they'd still make a profit. They're publicly traded, and they have to reveal that kind of stuff. If they're not doing any new research, then where is the money really going? Marketing, lawyers, and executives. Now, the US is a free country, and these companies are certainly allowed to profiteer, but the public grants these companies this ability at their own cost. We need to ask ourselves every once in a while just who benifits from our policy, and wether it's still in our best interest.
So no, it's not a tragedy because it doesn't affect students coming from the US, only those dirty foreigners.
Two points:
1. There are plenty of good schools for CS outside the US. People can apply to schools in their own country. Who said 'foreigner' meant "Not from the US"? If somebody doesn't have a good school in their country they'll have to wait a year which is not such a big deal.
2. I know it's a popular stereotype to portray people from the US as 'anti' anything that's not from the US, however the US is hardly the place to go if you're looking for an example population that hates foreigners. How many countries in the EU have recently had an election with popular candidates running on an anti-immigraton platform?
Selfishness is human nature, and you'll find selfish people in any country. Don't be so quick to label an entire countries worth of people because of what this one guy said.
Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.
:)
It is you, sir, that avoid the point. The illegality of the practice has nothing to do with the intents of the viewers. You were trying to imply that up-skirt photography was worse because of the intents of the consumers of the pictures. (At least that's what it seemed like you meant.)
If could also be turned around. What if the intent was a marketing study to see what types of underwear women wear with skirts? Would that make it less wrong than if it were for use as porno?
Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!
Then we are arguing about different things. My comment was in regards to hidden cameras and as a response to somebody else's comment, not about the situation from the story. There is more involved than just a photo if somebody is physically getting that close to you with a camera. It's boredering on assult. If somebody got that close to my fiancee without her permission, his ass would be being kicked before I found out he was even trying to take a picture up her skirt. (I don't kick in the testicles, though. There are some things that nobody deserves
As for the hidden camera scenario, which is what I thought we were discussing, I'll ask her tonight and let you know. My guess is that she'll share my opinion.
Even though I've been arguing with you about this all day, I do think that people who take and publicise up-skirt photos with a hidden camera are despicable scum, but there are many things that I personally don't aprove of that I think should not be regualted by law.
There are people who distribute views down people's shirts taken with standard issue security cameras, and I think that is worse than an up skirt picture, because it get's your face too. I certainly am not against security cameras. If you're in public you should have an expectation that you will be video taped or photographed, because you are everyday. If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.
I guess that depends on whether you think QuickTime competes with RealPlayer. I'd say it does, but clearly Apple considers it an internal part of the OS. It's a fine line, isn't it?
Nobody has shown that Quicktime uses API calls that are undocumented and unavailable to Real. The only APIs that were mentioned as undocumented are the ones for changing the functionality of the OS interface.
Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?
What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive.
The concept of a thought crime is wrong. Period. I don't care what your thought is. For that reason, it should be the method that such a picture is created or obtained that is regulated, not what it's intended use is. Similarly, I consider any argument as to the legality of "hidden camera" pictures invalid if it is based on such reasoning.
Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?
Yes, I have a Fiancee, and I would not feel violated in such a case, in fact it would be unlikely that I would ever know of such a picture, and you wouldn't be able to convince me it was actually of her if there were truely no identifiable features.
I would be displeased if somebody tried to be a "look alike" and posed for explicit photos, but it would not change my opinion that such a practice should be legal outside of the standard libel laws.
There is a reason people wear clothes in public, there is a reason we cover our genitalia.
People wearing clothes are not going to have their genatalia photographed. It's just not practical. You still get just as much privacy as your clothes have always provided.
It's implied in society that we have a right not to have our genetalia or undergarments photographed.
Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.
Somebody else may have said: "It's implied in society that women should have to keep their faces hidden in public." It depends on where and when you are.
Common sense unfortunately is often overruled by one law blanketing the lack of specifics in another.
Aside from comments about laws and rights, I still assert that it's irrational to consider a photograph of somebody's undergament a violation of said person's privacy. It is not anymore a violation of privacy than somebody dressing up like somebody else and getting a picture taken up that skirt. If you can't tell who the picture is of, then the person in the picture has maintained their privacy.
If somebody has a right to photograph up my wife's skirt, I should have a right to kick him in the testicles
If the wind blows your wife's skirt up, do you want to kick everybody who looks too?
I've never yet called somebody an idiot on slashdot, but now I think I will. You sir, are an idiot.
The (apparently) revised definition of idiot:
Idiot \Id"i*ot\, n. Any person that you have a difference of opinion with regarding what should be socially acceptable.
If you want to call me a barbarian, or something similarly based on a subjective viewpoint, than you are entitled to your opinions. There are a vast number of negative nouns that could be acurately used in regards to me, but I dare say that 'idiot' isn't one of them. Perhaps we should just say that your idea of 'Common Sense' is different than mine for whatever reason.
Can you say "double standard"? When Microsoft has undocumented, private, internal APIs, everyone cries "Foul!" and accuses them of hiding these APIs from developers.
You're right, you don't get it. The difference is that Microsoft uses undocumented APIs in their products that are sold outside of windows, while other application vendors don't get the benifit of those APIs. Apple's undocumented APIs are internal to the OS, and they don't use them in software that they sell in competition with third party application vendors. If an API is undocumented because it's internal to the OS it's OK, but if it's undocumented to give you an edge over other application vendors then it's wrong.
So it's OK to violate somebody's rights and violate their privacy so long as the violation is being done on an unidentified basis?
You're missing the point. It's silly to consider something a violation of privacy if the person is unidentifiable. Furthemore, you don't have a right to privacy in public. Where you do have a right to privacy, any violation is unacceptable.
They can't tell it's you from your IP address, so what difference does it make?
You're example isn't analogous with the situation we're discussing. They can tell that it's me from my IP address, and there are places where people can reasonably expect privacy. If it was a public access terminal it would be a valid comparison, and similarly I wouldn't care.
My TiVo sends data about what I do back to TiVo for them to sell, or do whatever with. They don't associate any identification with the data, so I don't care what they do with it.
If somebody has a picture of you, and it's impossible to tell it's you from the picture, then it may as well be a picture of somebody else, and it's not worth worrying about. Context is important, though. If the picture was taken without authorization in a place where you can reasonably (or leagally for practicality) expect privacy, then there is a problem with it, but the problem isn't the picture - it's the circumstances. While that person is taking said picture, you do not have privacy.
With glass floors, the person walking on them is aware that someone underneath them can look up, and makes a choice.
Then people can easily make the assumption that somebody can be looking up in any public place where they are not explicitly guaranteed privacy. I still assert that it would be irrational to be upset about somebody getting a picture of you this way. They can't tell it's you from the picture, so who cares?
I can't imagine that the image quality would be anything to write home about through one way glass.
The short-term effect is that more women are wearing pants in public.
I don't understand the big deal. So, perhaps somebody sees your underwear (or lack thereof). They can't tell it's you from that angle, so what difference does it make? I don't think that an image, or data of any sort for that matter, should be considered a violation of privacy unless it's attributable to somebody.
What happens when people with skirts on walk on glass floors? Are glass floors going to be illegal too?
Tanget first: The thing that pisses me off the most about windows installers is that they insist on going full screen and requiring you to close or ignore background applications while they are running. I don't want my machine to be useless during an install. Let me start the installer and then do something else while it's doing whatever rediculous crap installers have to do on windows.
One good thing about Windows Installer is that the install is an atomic procedure. That is, if it fails for any reason (file missing, user cancel, etc.), then it will completely roll-back and not leave bits of a partially installed application.
I call bullshit. First, if the installer crashes the system then you're still left with a mess, so it's hardly an atomic process; It only appears atomic if it ends cleanly. Everything else you're describing is handled by any decent installer (including RPM, and dpkg), so it's not something that is nice about the MS installer in particular. Worse, Windows doesn't properly handle unused shared libraries when handling dependancies. Since they are part of an application package they can't be easily uninstalled seperate from the application, but the default behavior is to not delete libraries marked as shared even if their usage count is zero. You need to pick one or the other: delete the libraries when no one needs them anymore, or package them seperately so that they can be cleanly uninstalled. This is one of the most broken parts of Windows.
My point is, is that while it's possible to use different front-end installers, they all use the same back-end, unlike the different Linux package systems.
Each distribution has it's own package management system. On a particular distribution, there is a common installation back-end that is for managing uninstaller applications (usually scripts since administrative tasks are easily scriptable on linux, unlike windows) and dependancies. Stop trying to spew FUD. It's a moot point anyway, because a typical linux distribution is not hampered by a monolithic configuration database, so there is no need or benifit to a unified installer backend in the form you're describing about windows.
To me it suggests that they've got the AOL client running under Wine, and there's not AOL for linux or AOL/Lindows connection at all. That graphic from that page was probably made by lindows.com.
Lindows is such a dumb name.
My guess is that you can't see a geosyncronous sattelite from another hemisphere :)
Every single time square wavers from the RPG genre the result is a game that really sucks.
:)
I'm sorry, but youre wrong. Bushido Blade was amazing, and Einhander is the best sidescrolling space shooter ever
As for RPGs, FF8 sucked, bu FF9 and FFX were both very good, and very different (albiet not plot wise) from other games in the series. Squaresoft's other RPGs are also very good, and are typically completely different from each other. They often have a unique combination of the classic Square RPG with some action gaming added in. Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve are perfect examples.
And what's wrong with RPGs anyway? They happen to be my favorite type of game.
I predict that FFXI will be a failure
I personally agree about FFXI, but not for the reasons you mention. Online gaming just isn't as popular as all the hype. Most gamers like to play games alone or with friends that are there with them. The majority of gamers aren't the type you see in internet forums, they're at home playing EA's Madden 2002 with their buddies on the couch. I'll personally be avoiding it because online RPGs require you do dedicate WAY too much of your life to them to be any good at it, and I have other things I like to do besides play video games, and other games I like to play.
FFXI doesn't require the hard drive, and the PS2 network adapter and software are only $30. That's chepaer then what you need to buy to get online with any other console, including the Xbox with it's already builtin interface. I don't think that either of those two things are going to be a factor in FFXI acceptance.
Square was one of those companies that used to be cool. Now however, it's just producing sub-stanard games with revolting storylines who's sales are driven by the memory of what Square once was.
Sounds to me like somebody's making excuses and kicking themselves because they bought an Xbox instead of a PS2.
More like "I Got You Babe" [everything2.com].
Yeah, it's the only thing keeping me from buying it. It looks like loads of fun, too. I'll probably just borrow it from a friend when he's done playing it...
Damn Disney...
Did you hear they're kicking Eisner out?
Why can't square move on from the Final Fantasy name?
Bushido Blade
Einhander
Ehrgeiz
Vagrant Story
Xenogears
Parasite Eve
Chrono Trigger/Cross
Driving Emotion Type S
The Bouncer
Kingdom Hearts
I think that Square pumps out the quality non Final Fantasy titles, and you're just not paying attention.
Multiple hundred GHz transistors aren't necissarily that meaningful. It's multiple hundred GHz ICs that are at issue (Even if this article includes this irrelevant quotation). Hell, 20GHz transistors have been commercially available for many years and are used in things like logic analysers and RF transmitters. They're not all that tiny, and not particularly more susceptable to ESD. Just because IBM can run a transistor at 200 GHz doesn't mean that they're anywhere near running ICs at that speed.