This is a serious endeavor, not to be confused with Linux World Domination and Zero Wing and Ridiculous Liberal Myths.
Thanking our military for putting their lives on the line is not taking this action seriously? I assure you, I take this issue very seriously.
I'm not in the military, but if I can do my part to counter the ridiculous pacifist bleatings, then I feel I am contributing something to the effort. No one wants war, but there are those of us who recognize that at certain points in history, war is required against those how would destabilize the world to enhance their own power.
It's worth pointing out that not one bomb needs to be dropped. All the Taliban had to do was renounce terrorism and allow all the terrorist camps to be shut down. They made their choice.
There are times when bad people are just determined to be bad, and the only response is eliminate them.
I can't imagine that the Taliban is all that popular in China when they went around blowing up ancient Buddhas. I would worry more about China using this as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, or some other mischief.
I want to convey my good wishes and thankfulness to all members of the US military and our allies as they embark on this great mission to preserve my freedom, and the freedom of the world.
Do you really think insurance companies are so stupid as to give a 15% discount for totally worthless equipment? I think their statistics on the subject are probably better than yours.
First it substitutes 'criminals', when the discussion is clearly about 'terrorists.'
The article was specifically about how well cameras worked for criminals. But in any case, I highly doubt that the average rank-and-file terrorist is highly intelligent. Certainly the people who planned it were, but the guys who implement it are not going to be super-criminals. For proof, look at all the evidence these guys left around. They are most likely a lot like cult members -- low intelligence and easy susceptibility to strong personalities and religious doctrine.
We shouldn't underestimate these people, but we shouldn't overestimate them, either. This is not some comic book world where everyone is masters of disguise.
Finally, it ignores the fact (yes-siree this is a honest and true bonafide fact guy) that the potential for abuse of this system far outweighs the advantage(s) it affords.
I don't buy into "slippery slope" and "potential abuse" arguments. If it requires protections against abuse, then implement those protections. But "potential for abuse" is not an argument against anything.
had been riding only about 80 miles/week prior to the injury (I was a grad student, not racing, but riding for fitness).
I have a question about something related to biking that I've never understood. What, for god's sake, is up with those biking outfits? Do those people who wear more ads than a Nascar driver really think it makes them look cool? Biking has by FAR the most ridiculous looking gear of any sport. Even golf plus-fours look better than bright yellow ass-huggers with some French company plastered on the butt.
I'll bet the bike clothing industry chortles at every industry report about how much they make in advertising revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent massive dollars to somehow convince people that wearing advertising is somehow hip.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering this. If you can shed any light on the subject, please give us the straight scoop.
I've seen this "easy to defeat" argument, and it doesn't hold water. First of all, the matching system use bone structure.
But second, and most significantly, these things don't have to be perfect to be useful. Why do we look for and collect fingerprints? It's trivial to defeat fingerprint detection... just wear gloves. Even easier than than theatrical makeup. Yet, fingerprints identify criminals every day.
I think a lot of people forget that -- almost by definition -- criminals are stupid. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will do something. And being able to create a believable disguise requires a much higher talent level than just wearing gloves.
There is absolutely no reason for them if they aren't working.
That is certainly true. If you have crap cameras, there is certainly no reason to have them. But proving that bad cameras don't catch criminals has nothing to do with whether good cameras would catch criminals.
Obviously (I hope), good cameras WOULD catch criminals. Why do we have cameras in banks? Is it just a phony sense of security and a total waste of money for banks to invest in cameras?
What he's saying, ass, is that there CAN NOT be enough cameras to do any good! There will always be a hiding spot for foul deeds.
Bullshit. In this case, there were enough cameras to do the job. The problem wasn't coverage, the problem was a bad camera. And whether they have 100% coverage or not is totally irrelevent. The question is whether you can give enough coverage for people to have zones of safety. Just because you don't have every back alley covered doesn't mean you can't keep the streets safe.
Oh wait, it's Reality Master 101, I've been trolled.
Ah yes, the oh-so-intelligent debate tactic of the Slashdotter. When in doubt, accuse the poster of trolling.
The damn cameras (which where on that street) didn't pick up anything useful that the police could use to find the person that did it.
On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals. What I see in these complaints (and the ones in the article) is that putting phony crap cameras doesn't do any good. Well, duh.
If you're going to put in cameras, make sure they are very good ones that can do some good.
You basically said what I was going to say, except I'll put it a little differently: Why are you [compiler dude] asking Slashdot? Why don't you do some market research on your potential customers and see what the market size is?
It's not complicated. If the return on investment is greater than the return on things you can otherwise use your time or resources on, then do it. Otherwise, don't.
Believe it or not, there was a place in Las Vegas in the mid 80s that did that. They turned a jet engine up in the air and you could fly around in this chamber. I think the place was called "Fly Away" (?).
They would put several people in at a time, and everyone wore these "flying suits" which had pockets for the air to catch in. Only one person would fly around at time, because they had to adjust the air flow to match your weight. There was a cricle of cushions that lined the chamber that everyone waited on.
Smaller people seemed to do better than bigger people. My buddy who was maybe 5'6", weighing 130 tops flew around easily. My being 6' 2" about 200 pounds required a lot more air power.:) When you have that much wind power, any small adjustment that you make in your "control surfaces" (i.e., arms and legs) makes a huge difference in how fast you move around. I made the mistake of cocking one leg slightly out and the other leg slightly in, and caused myself to spin around at great speed.:)
It was a lot of fun, but it was very expensive. It eventually died. Probably cost too much, and I'm sure the insurance was insane, even though they made you sign a monster disclaimer that you understood that you might die from the experience.
BUT REMEMBER THIS IS A COMPUTER, not a fucking building, and specifically its a simple replaced index file with no wipes or anything by a 12 year old KoRN fan giving props to his IRC friends,
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about your retionalizations. It's my goddamn computer, just like it's my house, stay the hell out of it.
This isn't someones property, its holes that go ignored by microsoft ('nix fixes) so people bring awareness to it.
Bullshit. If I leave my house unlocked, that does NOT give you the right to come in and spray paint graffiti on the walls to "bring awareness to it".
If you wanna throw these kids in jail I'll be sure to drop in on your 802.11 network and do some remote attacks, which will land your dumb ass in jail for life. How would you like that?
I am TOTALLY in favor of throwing people in jail for breaking into computers. But I have to (frustratingly) repeat: No one has EVER suggested throwing people in jail for life for an act of defacing a web page. And frankly I'm amazed that anyone would believe it who has half a brain.
As for how I would like it if someone framed me for a computer attack, I wouldn't like it. Just like I wouldn't like it if someone framed for breaking into someone's house. But that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of not throwing people in jail for breaking into a house.
Bad analogy. A website defacer is more akin to graffiti.
No, because you have to break into a computer to do the graffiti. If you break into my house and deface the walls, it's breaking and entering, not graffiti.
There are already laws on the books that cover killing someone whatever means you use.
Indeed, and there are already laws on the books that cover murder by terrorists lobbing bombs. But the point of terrorism laws are to go beyond the simple act of murder to cover the societal damage that terrorism produces. In other words, it's one thing to kill someone by robbing them, and it's another thing to leave a bag containing a bomb that randomly kills someone.
The new laws are simply covering the current reality that hacking may have terrorist implications. Paranoid delusions that the government is looking to jail for life anyone who defaces a website is just absurd foolishness.
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA.
First of all, a website defacer is MUCH more serious than jaywalking. It is more akin to breaking and entering. Most burglers are not sentenced to life, but if you break and enter a house and kill someone, then you are eligible for life imprisonment -- just like if you break into a computer and cause someone's death, you deserve at least life imprisonment.
Or do you think that if a hacker caused people's deaths, it should just be a "jaywalking" crime?
not thinking ahead makes you look like a naive idiot. i'd rather look like a knee-jerk crackpot myself, if it helps keep me out of jail.
No one is saying that we shouldn't think ahead. But when you look like a paranoid fool, all you do is cause legislators to roll their eyes and assume there is absolutely nothing there. Not to mention that offending people by assuming all they want to do is install a military state is not the best way to accomplish things.
Sending in paranoid crap is WORSE than doing nothing at all.
I've just emailed my representatives regarding the "hacking is terrorism" nonsense that's being looked at...
And people wonder why Politicians ignore them. No one -- EVER -- has proposed defining all hackers as terrorists. What has been proposed is recognizing that hackers can be terrorists. Obviously if a hacker hacked into the right computer system, havoc could be wreaked.
Rule number 1 of writing to your representatives is having a clue of what you're talking about, and not look like a knee-jerk crackpot.
Slashdot Mirror
I said "Barbarians", not "Afghans". Maybe you should examine your own racism, rather than question mine.
This is a serious endeavor, not to be confused with Linux World Domination and Zero Wing and Ridiculous Liberal Myths.
Thanking our military for putting their lives on the line is not taking this action seriously? I assure you, I take this issue very seriously.
I'm not in the military, but if I can do my part to counter the ridiculous pacifist bleatings, then I feel I am contributing something to the effort. No one wants war, but there are those of us who recognize that at certain points in history, war is required against those how would destabilize the world to enhance their own power.
Maybe you, and people like you, should try and see through the pacifist propaganda you are being bombarded with.
When jumbo jets are flying into skyscrapers, then you know that certain groups have gotten too powerful. They must be destroyed.
Funny how much freedom was preserved once we took away the freedom of the Nazis.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.
The barbarians must be destroyed.
It's worth pointing out that not one bomb needs to be dropped. All the Taliban had to do was renounce terrorism and allow all the terrorist camps to be shut down. They made their choice.
There are times when bad people are just determined to be bad, and the only response is eliminate them.
Yeah, that's a great idea... why don't we let criminals form their own judges and jury, and try themselves! Brilliant! That's the way to solve crime.
I don't think that's what a "jury of their peers" means.
I can't imagine that the Taliban is all that popular in China when they went around blowing up ancient Buddhas. I would worry more about China using this as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, or some other mischief.
I want to convey my good wishes and thankfulness to all members of the US military and our allies as they embark on this great mission to preserve my freedom, and the freedom of the world.
Thank you.
Sheesh, what crap. This is only the first page of a google search of "bank robber caught surveillance camera":
http://www.wtcosaka.com/market/item/s_camera.htmlhttp://www.trinidadco.com/stories2000/news/02/15/
http://www.newsherald.com/archive/local/lc082198.
And here are some stories where people were released after tapes showed they were innocent (an interesting twist I would say)...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/robber01.htm
http://www.thezephyr.com/archives/sornbergers.htm
Do you really think insurance companies are so stupid as to give a 15% discount for totally worthless equipment? I think their statistics on the subject are probably better than yours.
First it substitutes 'criminals', when the discussion is clearly about 'terrorists.'
The article was specifically about how well cameras worked for criminals. But in any case, I highly doubt that the average rank-and-file terrorist is highly intelligent. Certainly the people who planned it were, but the guys who implement it are not going to be super-criminals. For proof, look at all the evidence these guys left around. They are most likely a lot like cult members -- low intelligence and easy susceptibility to strong personalities and religious doctrine.
We shouldn't underestimate these people, but we shouldn't overestimate them, either. This is not some comic book world where everyone is masters of disguise.
Finally, it ignores the fact (yes-siree this is a honest and true bonafide fact guy) that the potential for abuse of this system far outweighs the advantage(s) it affords.
I don't buy into "slippery slope" and "potential abuse" arguments. If it requires protections against abuse, then implement those protections. But "potential for abuse" is not an argument against anything.
had been riding only about 80 miles/week prior to the injury (I was a grad student, not racing, but riding for fitness).
I have a question about something related to biking that I've never understood. What, for god's sake, is up with those biking outfits? Do those people who wear more ads than a Nascar driver really think it makes them look cool? Biking has by FAR the most ridiculous looking gear of any sport. Even golf plus-fours look better than bright yellow ass-huggers with some French company plastered on the butt.
I'll bet the bike clothing industry chortles at every industry report about how much they make in advertising revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent massive dollars to somehow convince people that wearing advertising is somehow hip.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering this. If you can shed any light on the subject, please give us the straight scoop.
I've seen this "easy to defeat" argument, and it doesn't hold water. First of all, the matching system use bone structure.
But second, and most significantly, these things don't have to be perfect to be useful. Why do we look for and collect fingerprints? It's trivial to defeat fingerprint detection... just wear gloves. Even easier than than theatrical makeup. Yet, fingerprints identify criminals every day.
I think a lot of people forget that -- almost by definition -- criminals are stupid. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will do something. And being able to create a believable disguise requires a much higher talent level than just wearing gloves.
There is absolutely no reason for them if they aren't working.
That is certainly true. If you have crap cameras, there is certainly no reason to have them. But proving that bad cameras don't catch criminals has nothing to do with whether good cameras would catch criminals.
Obviously (I hope), good cameras WOULD catch criminals. Why do we have cameras in banks? Is it just a phony sense of security and a total waste of money for banks to invest in cameras?
What he's saying, ass, is that there CAN NOT be enough cameras to do any good! There will always be a hiding spot for foul deeds.
Bullshit. In this case, there were enough cameras to do the job. The problem wasn't coverage, the problem was a bad camera. And whether they have 100% coverage or not is totally irrelevent. The question is whether you can give enough coverage for people to have zones of safety. Just because you don't have every back alley covered doesn't mean you can't keep the streets safe.
Oh wait, it's Reality Master 101, I've been trolled.
Ah yes, the oh-so-intelligent debate tactic of the Slashdotter. When in doubt, accuse the poster of trolling.
The damn cameras (which where on that street) didn't pick up anything useful that the police could use to find the person that did it.
On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals. What I see in these complaints (and the ones in the article) is that putting phony crap cameras doesn't do any good. Well, duh.
If you're going to put in cameras, make sure they are very good ones that can do some good.
You basically said what I was going to say, except I'll put it a little differently: Why are you [compiler dude] asking Slashdot? Why don't you do some market research on your potential customers and see what the market size is?
It's not complicated. If the return on investment is greater than the return on things you can otherwise use your time or resources on, then do it. Otherwise, don't.
better link...
Whoa -- I guess I spoke too soon about them being dead. Here they are.
Believe it or not, there was a place in Las Vegas in the mid 80s that did that. They turned a jet engine up in the air and you could fly around in this chamber. I think the place was called "Fly Away" (?).
They would put several people in at a time, and everyone wore these "flying suits" which had pockets for the air to catch in. Only one person would fly around at time, because they had to adjust the air flow to match your weight. There was a cricle of cushions that lined the chamber that everyone waited on.
Smaller people seemed to do better than bigger people. My buddy who was maybe 5'6", weighing 130 tops flew around easily. My being 6' 2" about 200 pounds required a lot more air power. :) When you have that much wind power, any small adjustment that you make in your "control surfaces" (i.e., arms and legs) makes a huge difference in how fast you move around. I made the mistake of cocking one leg slightly out and the other leg slightly in, and caused myself to spin around at great speed. :)
It was a lot of fun, but it was very expensive. It eventually died. Probably cost too much, and I'm sure the insurance was insane, even though they made you sign a monster disclaimer that you understood that you might die from the experience.
BUT REMEMBER THIS IS A COMPUTER, not a fucking building, and specifically its a simple replaced index file with no wipes or anything by a 12 year old KoRN fan giving props to his IRC friends,
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about your retionalizations. It's my goddamn computer, just like it's my house, stay the hell out of it.
This isn't someones property, its holes that go ignored by microsoft ('nix fixes) so people bring awareness to it.
Bullshit. If I leave my house unlocked, that does NOT give you the right to come in and spray paint graffiti on the walls to "bring awareness to it".
If you wanna throw these kids in jail I'll be sure to drop in on your 802.11 network and do some remote attacks, which will land your dumb ass in jail for life. How would you like that?
I am TOTALLY in favor of throwing people in jail for breaking into computers. But I have to (frustratingly) repeat: No one has EVER suggested throwing people in jail for life for an act of defacing a web page. And frankly I'm amazed that anyone would believe it who has half a brain.
As for how I would like it if someone framed me for a computer attack, I wouldn't like it. Just like I wouldn't like it if someone framed for breaking into someone's house. But that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of not throwing people in jail for breaking into a house.
Bad analogy. A website defacer is more akin to graffiti.
No, because you have to break into a computer to do the graffiti. If you break into my house and deface the walls, it's breaking and entering, not graffiti.
There are already laws on the books that cover killing someone whatever means you use.
Indeed, and there are already laws on the books that cover murder by terrorists lobbing bombs. But the point of terrorism laws are to go beyond the simple act of murder to cover the societal damage that terrorism produces. In other words, it's one thing to kill someone by robbing them, and it's another thing to leave a bag containing a bomb that randomly kills someone.
The new laws are simply covering the current reality that hacking may have terrorist implications. Paranoid delusions that the government is looking to jail for life anyone who defaces a website is just absurd foolishness.
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA.
First of all, a website defacer is MUCH more serious than jaywalking. It is more akin to breaking and entering. Most burglers are not sentenced to life, but if you break and enter a house and kill someone, then you are eligible for life imprisonment -- just like if you break into a computer and cause someone's death, you deserve at least life imprisonment.
Or do you think that if a hacker caused people's deaths, it should just be a "jaywalking" crime?
not thinking ahead makes you look like a naive idiot. i'd rather look like a knee-jerk crackpot myself, if it helps keep me out of jail.
No one is saying that we shouldn't think ahead. But when you look like a paranoid fool, all you do is cause legislators to roll their eyes and assume there is absolutely nothing there. Not to mention that offending people by assuming all they want to do is install a military state is not the best way to accomplish things.
Sending in paranoid crap is WORSE than doing nothing at all.
I've just emailed my representatives regarding the "hacking is terrorism" nonsense that's being looked at...
And people wonder why Politicians ignore them. No one -- EVER -- has proposed defining all hackers as terrorists. What has been proposed is recognizing that hackers can be terrorists. Obviously if a hacker hacked into the right computer system, havoc could be wreaked.
Rule number 1 of writing to your representatives is having a clue of what you're talking about, and not look like a knee-jerk crackpot.