Why get upset that they're making the entire process cheaper?
Because it's making it worse and more accurate. Drones also make it easier to selectively harass people.
If they didn't already have this capability in the form of CCTV, satellites, helicopters, and traffic cams
I don't think they should be spying on people with any of those, either.
I really wish people would stop replying to me with something to the effect of, "It's bad already, so let's allow the government to make it worse! Why do you care!? It's bad already! What's the harm in it getting a bit worse?" Such lovely logic.
Which boils down to pretty much what I just said in practice. "Stop spending so much time doing X!" If they're having fun, what is the problem? You have no objective basis (and the DSM does not make opinions about subjective matters objectively correct) to say that it is 'bad'.
Your problem is that you like something more than I would like you to. You need to listen to what I say and spend exactly as much time on your hobbies as I tell you to. If you don't listen to whatever I say, then you're objectively wrong.
It just happens to be a business model that you don't agree with.
For reasons I've already explained. I don't know... something about not having any evidence that they'd all fail without patents and copyrights, property rights, and various other problems that come with such government-enforced monopolies.
Can you come up with a business model that overcomes the advantage of not needing to do R&D to make new products?
It's as if you didn't read my comment.
The "Find a better business model" statement sounds a lot like a famous quote from Marie Antoinette when told that the people had no bread to eat. She is purported to have said "Let them eat cake".
So you see good in the freedom of one person to make money of of the time and investment of another person?
I see good in the ability of people to do what they will with their own property and not be sued because of it. I see good in the absence of government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures.
Actually there is evidence that the ability to recoup investment has a major effect on what is researched.
But what there isn't evidence of is that the lack of patents and copyrights would render businesses unable to find a working business model; all there is is speculation and questions of what such a business model would look like, but I believe it's those trying to restrict others with laws that must provide the evidence.
It comes down to the basic fact that most people with money do things to make money. If there is no possibility to make money they don't do it.
Then they can find a business model or fail. I don't want to know my government enforces monopolies for people who couldn't otherwise come up with a viable business model; I don't think they deserve it.
We would have fewer companies spending money on R&D if there was no chance of recouping it.
Even if that were true, I believe freedom is more important than such nonsense.
But really, I have not seen any evidence that that is true. We've had patents and copyright for a very long time now and yet there does not seem to be any evidence that they are truly beneficial or that companies would not find other business models. We have enacted laws and stripped people of some of their freedoms without any evidence that doing so is beneficial.
Without that policy Monsanto would have a year to recoup their investment in research and development as subsequent crops would be planted with saved seeds. That would remove any incentive to create the resistant seeds as the investment would never be recouped.
Yes, what would we ever do without government-enforced monopolies? Businesses might have to... find business models that work themselves! The horror!
You would be shocked at how far away a small plane, with special equipment, can track you non stop.
Well, I'm opposed to spying on people in general, not just if it's done with drones. However, some methods of collecting footage are better at collecting large amounts of footage on large amounts of people than others (drones aren't everywhere at the moment, though).
I personally have no problems with exaggerations most of the time, and I do not have a problem with the way I used the word. Something can indeed seem to be ubiquitous even without literally being present everywhere.
Sometimes I do have problems when people say things they don't literally mean or use a word in a certain way just because there's a definition in the dictionary that tells them it's okay to use it that way, but that's generally only in cases where I believe it could cause (or is causing) genuine confusion.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better.
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
Unless you can prove there are other flaws, this is meaningless.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc.
Which is exactly what I fear: drones being used for everything you can imagine.
You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
But there are degrees of privacy even in public places, and I fully expect the government to not have cameras and drones everywhere to spy on my every move even in public places. I have some expectation of privacy in public places, and some other countries recognize this, but apparently you're dead set on there not being any privacy whatsoever just because you're in a public place. Courts can rule whatever they please, but I am under no obligation to agree with them.
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes.
I merely used your own logic against you; that is, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? It does not matter whether we're talking about public or private places; your logic should apply to either. You can commit crimes in private places too, remember?
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces
There is some degree of privacy even in public places. Some European countries seem to understand this.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals.
We can (and have) easily go without drones, but a police force (or one that's allowed to use certain basic tools to apprehend criminals who sometimes are heavily armed) would be much more difficult to go without.
I would not mind drones being used in very, very select circumstances, but I do not want to see them constantly flying over my house. That is not a current problem, but one that I can foresee being a problem. I was merely warning against surveillance.
My own government (the US government) molests people who want to get on a plane. I don't place a lot of trust in them to use tools responsibly, so I'm rather wary of letting them have shiny new toys.
I think that truly smart people who are given the chance to learn will choose to learn a lot of facts.
And I think that truly smart people can decide for themselves what is a waste of time and what isn't.
Therefore there is some correlation between knowing raw facts and being intelligent, even if the correlation is not always true one hundred percent of the time.
Assuming that what you said is true, of course.
Therefore there is some correlation between knowing raw facts and being intelligent, even if the correlation is not always true one hundred percent of the time.
Where did the "therefore" come from?
If somebody doesn't even know how to write without making errors
That's not necessarily the case with that person.
However, in the real world (not the theoretical hypothetical world)
I suppose we live in different worlds, then.
Still, if you saw how bad I was at basic math, you would not be insane for thinking I am probably bad at math in general, the burden would be on me to prove otherwise.
I think it's up to anyone who says they know anything for a fact.
1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view.
The government has far more power to ruin lives than a citizen, and (under the pretense of security) has been shown that it is more than willing to do so.
2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization.
It doesn't need to be.
To use drones en masse will take a lot of money
Right now, yes. I was thinking of the future. At this point, I'm more concerned about the government installing surveillance cameras everywhere in public places than I am unmanned drones, but that doesn't mean that I can't be concerned with how drones would be used in the future.
There is a lot of truth in that statement.
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear? The government is made up of perfect angels who would never hurt anyone, abuse their power, or make a mistake.
Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person?
I did not say that drones should be banned or any other such thing. I just warned that they could be abused and that they likely will be (just like ubiquitous surveillance cameras likely would be).
Some technologies are more open to abuse than others, and I believe those are what we must watch out for. Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
That has never worked. The government openly violates the constitution and nothing happens.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
No, I do. After the silly little Boston bombings, a number of people started demanding we put government cameras everywhere in public places. As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).
Slashdot Mirror
Whether the Patriot Act is a little vague and far-reaching is a different question entirely.
A little? I'd say it needs to be scrapped entirely.
Why get upset that they're making the entire process cheaper?
Because it's making it worse and more accurate. Drones also make it easier to selectively harass people.
If they didn't already have this capability in the form of CCTV, satellites, helicopters, and traffic cams
I don't think they should be spying on people with any of those, either.
I really wish people would stop replying to me with something to the effect of, "It's bad already, so let's allow the government to make it worse! Why do you care!? It's bad already! What's the harm in it getting a bit worse?" Such lovely logic.
Google is required to remove offensive autocompletes when notified
Why would anyone think there's a right to not be offended?
This is pretty much how copyright violations work.
Which I believe is garbage as well.
My pointing out that obcessive behavior
Looks like you're a bit obsessive yourself. Maybe you have a mental illness? You've posted on Slashdot more than I'd like you to.
There is no way you can prove that something is objectively bad (that I see).
I consider that causing harm.
I consider your posts to be causing 'harm'.
Which boils down to pretty much what I just said in practice. "Stop spending so much time doing X!" If they're having fun, what is the problem? You have no objective basis (and the DSM does not make opinions about subjective matters objectively correct) to say that it is 'bad'.
Stop enjoying things that I don't enjoy! The magical opinion fairy says you're objectively wrong for doing so!
It's entirely another to do it "every night".
Oh, is it? I think you've been posting on Slashdot more than I would like you to; you must have a mental problem.
Your problem is that you like something more than I would like you to. You need to listen to what I say and spend exactly as much time on your hobbies as I tell you to. If you don't listen to whatever I say, then you're objectively wrong.
I find hiking disturbing.
It just happens to be a business model that you don't agree with.
For reasons I've already explained. I don't know... something about not having any evidence that they'd all fail without patents and copyrights, property rights, and various other problems that come with such government-enforced monopolies.
Can you come up with a business model that overcomes the advantage of not needing to do R&D to make new products?
It's as if you didn't read my comment.
The "Find a better business model" statement sounds a lot like a famous quote from Marie Antoinette when told that the people had no bread to eat. She is purported to have said "Let them eat cake".
It's not my responsibility to find one for them.
So you see good in the freedom of one person to make money of of the time and investment of another person?
I see good in the ability of people to do what they will with their own property and not be sued because of it. I see good in the absence of government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures.
Actually there is evidence that the ability to recoup investment has a major effect on what is researched.
But what there isn't evidence of is that the lack of patents and copyrights would render businesses unable to find a working business model; all there is is speculation and questions of what such a business model would look like, but I believe it's those trying to restrict others with laws that must provide the evidence.
It comes down to the basic fact that most people with money do things to make money. If there is no possibility to make money they don't do it.
Then they can find a business model or fail. I don't want to know my government enforces monopolies for people who couldn't otherwise come up with a viable business model; I don't think they deserve it.
We would have fewer companies spending money on R&D if there was no chance of recouping it.
Even if that were true, I believe freedom is more important than such nonsense.
But really, I have not seen any evidence that that is true. We've had patents and copyright for a very long time now and yet there does not seem to be any evidence that they are truly beneficial or that companies would not find other business models. We have enacted laws and stripped people of some of their freedoms without any evidence that doing so is beneficial.
Without that policy Monsanto would have a year to recoup their investment in research and development as subsequent crops would be planted with saved seeds. That would remove any incentive to create the resistant seeds as the investment would never be recouped.
Yes, what would we ever do without government-enforced monopolies? Businesses might have to... find business models that work themselves! The horror!
I think it should've expired the day they claimed it, and that all the other patents should have done the same.
You would be shocked at how far away a small plane, with special equipment, can track you non stop.
Well, I'm opposed to spying on people in general, not just if it's done with drones. However, some methods of collecting footage are better at collecting large amounts of footage on large amounts of people than others (drones aren't everywhere at the moment, though).
I am in no way "confused".
I did not say you were confused.
Using the word "ubiquitous" is an exaggeration
I personally have no problems with exaggerations most of the time, and I do not have a problem with the way I used the word. Something can indeed seem to be ubiquitous even without literally being present everywhere.
Sometimes I do have problems when people say things they don't literally mean or use a word in a certain way just because there's a definition in the dictionary that tells them it's okay to use it that way, but that's generally only in cases where I believe it could cause (or is causing) genuine confusion.
They don't even necessarily have loads of book knowledge. Or intelligence, for that matter.
College is the right place for people who are smart
Then you'd better tell a majority of college students that they're not in the right place.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better.
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
Unless you can prove there are other flaws, this is meaningless.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc.
Which is exactly what I fear: drones being used for everything you can imagine.
You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
But there are degrees of privacy even in public places, and I fully expect the government to not have cameras and drones everywhere to spy on my every move even in public places. I have some expectation of privacy in public places, and some other countries recognize this, but apparently you're dead set on there not being any privacy whatsoever just because you're in a public place. Courts can rule whatever they please, but I am under no obligation to agree with them.
Ubiquitous is an absolute term and means "everywhere, all the time".
If you want to take it literally, almost nothing is ubiquitous.
So there are days of video in storage that no one ever looks at.
The same is true for government-owned cameras placed in public places. Very nice for selective abuse, yes?
If they need to look through them to find a bomber I say go for it.
Ah, yes... security is all that matters. Maybe fewer people will try to bomb planes if we molest people at airports.
I'd much rather risk being killed by an almost nonexistent threat that have cameras or drones everywhere.
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes.
I merely used your own logic against you; that is, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? It does not matter whether we're talking about public or private places; your logic should apply to either. You can commit crimes in private places too, remember?
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces
There is some degree of privacy even in public places. Some European countries seem to understand this.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals.
We can (and have) easily go without drones, but a police force (or one that's allowed to use certain basic tools to apprehend criminals who sometimes are heavily armed) would be much more difficult to go without.
I would not mind drones being used in very, very select circumstances, but I do not want to see them constantly flying over my house. That is not a current problem, but one that I can foresee being a problem. I was merely warning against surveillance.
My own government (the US government) molests people who want to get on a plane. I don't place a lot of trust in them to use tools responsibly, so I'm rather wary of letting them have shiny new toys.
You seem to think they are the same.
Nothing I said indicates that.
I think that truly smart people who are given the chance to learn will choose to learn a lot of facts.
And I think that truly smart people can decide for themselves what is a waste of time and what isn't.
Therefore there is some correlation between knowing raw facts and being intelligent, even if the correlation is not always true one hundred percent of the time.
Assuming that what you said is true, of course.
Therefore there is some correlation between knowing raw facts and being intelligent, even if the correlation is not always true one hundred percent of the time.
Where did the "therefore" come from?
If somebody doesn't even know how to write without making errors
That's not necessarily the case with that person.
However, in the real world (not the theoretical hypothetical world)
I suppose we live in different worlds, then.
Still, if you saw how bad I was at basic math, you would not be insane for thinking I am probably bad at math in general, the burden would be on me to prove otherwise.
I think it's up to anyone who says they know anything for a fact.
1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view.
The government has far more power to ruin lives than a citizen, and (under the pretense of security) has been shown that it is more than willing to do so.
2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization.
It doesn't need to be.
To use drones en masse will take a lot of money
Right now, yes. I was thinking of the future. At this point, I'm more concerned about the government installing surveillance cameras everywhere in public places than I am unmanned drones, but that doesn't mean that I can't be concerned with how drones would be used in the future.
There is a lot of truth in that statement.
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear? The government is made up of perfect angels who would never hurt anyone, abuse their power, or make a mistake.
Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person?
I did not say that drones should be banned or any other such thing. I just warned that they could be abused and that they likely will be (just like ubiquitous surveillance cameras likely would be).
Some technologies are more open to abuse than others, and I believe those are what we must watch out for. Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
That has never worked. The government openly violates the constitution and nothing happens.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
No, I do. After the silly little Boston bombings, a number of people started demanding we put government cameras everywhere in public places. As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).