we really need to scrap 90% of the distributions out there, there are way too many, and out of the mainstream ones, we only need a few (less than a dozen, if not even less)
Why? Just because another distro comes out, do you expect the whole world to fall apart, and to have to get used to another new distro? Stick to the one you like. Nobody is forcing you to change, and nobody is forcing newbies to have any specific distro either. The beauty is choice. Test the new ones out if you want. The ones that have been around for a long time have proven their worth in the OSS community, and thus have better status with the masses. If you want stability, use one of those. If you're curious, use some of the newer ones. But don't ask things like "Will it be around in a few years?" or "Should I switch?" If you want those kinds of answers, go to a palm reader.
You are advocating that anyone should be allowed to access any camera whenever they want. As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's a burglar's or a mugger's (or a stalker's or a paedophile's) paradise.
You just don't get my point.
How about this: I give you full access to my house, to take anything you want. I won't shoot you, I won't even be there. Of course, I will tell you that I have webcams trained on all of the rooms in the house, which are streaming to a realtime website, and which are also archiving the video streams to an offsite server. If I gave you FULL ACCESS to take anything you wanted to from my house, including my computer, my PS2, my guns, my money, and anything else you might want, would you? Knowing that if I had video proof of you taking it, I'd submit that to the police, and they'd arrest you? THINK ABOUT IT. And stop thinking "I wouldn't do that in the first place", because in this scenario, YOU are the burgular.
And if you can't see how that's worse than access limited to people that have at least passed through several background checks and are already in positions of responsibility then you really just don't get it.
Ha! I laugh in your face. Look at the United State's wonderful President Bush. "Background checks" and "positions of responsibility" mean precicely nill to me.
Giving everyone access to this footage makes about as much sense as giving everyone access to FBI, CIA and NSA files.
So what if people had access to FBI, CIA and NSA files from the very inception of these government entities? Maybe we'd have a lot more honesty and point-checks within those organizations, and less corruption.
So you take the tiny odds that someone is trying to break in at the same time you're watching your apartment - assuming that the camera is pointing right in the direction of your front door at the time they choose to break in - and you multiply that by, say, 50. And then you hope that one of the 50 people around your neighbourhood that also looks at the camera can tell the difference between a guy who's just walked up to your front door and is forcing the lock and a friend of yours who's having difficulty with his key.
Please, please tell me how having multiple people and the police monitoring the cameras is any WORSE than having just the police officer monitoring the camera.
Yeah, that really improves your chances of catching someone in the act so much. No, really, it does.
The likelyhood of you catching someone in the act are low: you're not suggesting that you'd have access to and the time to watch a CCTV feed 24/7 when you're out of the house, are you?
No, but me, the other people around my neighborhood, the police, and anyone else who cares to watch seems to be a much better ratio than me alone. I never said that the police wouldn't have access to the cameras as well. Duh. It's pretty damn logical that the more people that are watching means there is a better chance of SOMEONE seeing it happen.
The police will get what they want from the film regardless of whether eeveryone else can access it or not.
Of course they will. I never said they wouldn't. Ever heard of a TV show called "America's Most Wanted"? Care to think about the parralel's to this msg thread?
And you called me a fool? Ever looked in the mirror lately?
You're such a savage. I applaud your cunning use of comebacks. What are you, a 6th grader?
Just out of interest, if you're that paranoid about being caught on camera
?! Huh? Where did I ever imply that I was paranoid about being caught on camera? I could care less whether I'm "caught" on camera or not. I just think that the ability to see the same things as the police do would put to rest a lot of the privacy concerns I (and many others) have about it.
Ever see "Enemy of the State"? Think about it like a circle - The "monitors" monitor you, but you can also "monitor the monitors". Seems to be a lot less invasive to me.
You could also make sure the police controlling the cameras aren't constantly zooming in on girls cleavage, and the like. Very easy to spot abuse of the cameras by the authorities if we can see what they're doing.
The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously.
And if you think about it from the burgular's point of view, he/she will be thinking about all of the possible people watching HIM as he/she breaks into the house. Fool.
God, you really can't think things through, can you?
Actually, it seems as though you're the one not seeing the situation from all perspectives. I see two sides to everything:
What's the bad side to everyone accessing the cameras? Everyone can access the cameras.
What's the good side? EVERYONE CAN ACCESS THE CAMERAS.
The good thing about everyone being able to view these cameras is that you get the comfort of knowing you have access to the same information as the departments who put them up. There is no 1984-effect, because EVERYONE can see the same things. People monitor the people (a REAL democracy), not just a small subset of authorities, who can abuse the system just like anyone else. Some $8.50 nutjob that gets bored staring at monitors all day long can propose to make his job more profitable by breaking into the houses he monitors, having the comfort of knowing that nobody else can see him through his cameras.
The bad side to a subset of "authorities" accessing the cameras only is that the authorities get the holier-than-thou mentality, and a subset of the public gets enraged that they are being monitored by holier-than-thou "authorities". The others might feel safer knowing people are watching them, but this sounds a f*ck of a lot like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc... But think about this: what about all of the places (banks, convinience stores, resteraunts, etc.) that ALREADY USE CAMERAS - They sure do still get robbed, don't they? What good will cameras do on the streets? Might as well allow the public to see through them as well, you get a much broader range of monitoring, and you will eliminate the 1984-effect.
Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
What's the difference in watching this through a camera as opposed to watching you watch from a van accross the street? Maybe you'd actually be able to catch him if you looked at the same camera once you got to work and saw a couple of hooded people carrying your Macintosh from your house.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with cameras in public places, as long as EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THEM. Think about it - if you could see what "they" could see, then it would take away a lot of the privacy concerns. Not all of them, of course, but at least the people being monitored would have access to the same information that "they" do.
...Because of the same reason why action movies/video games usually make more money. Fighting and violence are part of humans' / any other creatures' nature, and it's the most exciting to watch. It's like watching a game of golf to a game of UFC - it just appeals more to the masses.
..Can't the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone else just realize that there is an efficient medium for distributing music, movies, and any other digital/converted to digital media, and WORK WITH IT? They're barking up a dying tree here. People will find better, more secure ways to transfer music/movies over the net, these associations need to embrace these technological advances and come up with an updated business model for them to profit off of.
Yesterday I was working on my mom's boyfriend's computer, which I installed a fresh copy of XP on a couple days prior. Already, there were bluescreens during shutdown/reboot (due to IRQ conflicts with our precious plug-n-play system), Adaptec CD-Creator wouldn't print labels (but everything else would print fine), and right-clicking on My Computer to go to properties would yield a cryptic registry-based error before opening properties. He had AOL 9.0 installed as his only Internet connection. I was using that to download drivers, and search for other things (such as "workarounds" for the ever annoying XP Activation), and IE would hang at just about every other website I would go to, rendering everything else I was doing on the computer useless until it freed it's resources. I found myself getting completely frustrated after about 10 minutes of working on this hunk of *$&#, because I couldn't even browse the web to fix the original problems. I installed FireFox, and that helped a lot with the browsing issues.
All I want to say, is that I've been using Debian Linux for about 5 years now, and just switched from using the "ultra-elite" Fluxbox WM to Gnome 2.6 since it got uploaded to Unstable, and I have had absolutely 0 problems. It JUST WORKS. It's easy enough for my mom's boyfriend to figure out. Even the horridly cryptic "gconf-editor" is easier to get around than regedit. I don't see why anybody in their right mind would still fend for Windows when they have a completely usable, prettier, faster alternative with 99% of applications able to do what Windows apps can already do.
governments planning to use it will damage their own economies
...And governments using MS products aren't damaging their own economies by exposing themselves to 31337 h4x0rz, virii, spyware, seineewerasreenigneepacsten style backdoors, and other closed source, proprietary crap that only Microsoft can spoonfeed to us?
*rubs index finger and thumb together* This is the worlds smallest violin, playing a sad, sad song for you, Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, Valarie! No probalo!
"You are not running a Windows operating system. Therefore, you are a pirate. Please click [Ok] to send us money anyway."
And I just switched a coworkers todays toos! He had 10-11 different spywares on his computers toos! Wows!
1) Drink beer. ...
2)
3) Profit!
I'm really sorry... I need sleep.
we really need to scrap 90% of the distributions out there, there are way too many, and out of the mainstream ones, we only need a few (less than a dozen, if not even less)
Why? Just because another distro comes out, do you expect the whole world to fall apart, and to have to get used to another new distro? Stick to the one you like. Nobody is forcing you to change, and nobody is forcing newbies to have any specific distro either. The beauty is choice. Test the new ones out if you want. The ones that have been around for a long time have proven their worth in the OSS community, and thus have better status with the masses. If you want stability, use one of those. If you're curious, use some of the newer ones. But don't ask things like "Will it be around in a few years?" or "Should I switch?" If you want those kinds of answers, go to a palm reader.
You are advocating that anyone should be allowed to access any camera whenever they want. As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's a burglar's or a mugger's (or a stalker's or a paedophile's) paradise.
You just don't get my point.
How about this: I give you full access to my house, to take anything you want. I won't shoot you, I won't even be there. Of course, I will tell you that I have webcams trained on all of the rooms in the house, which are streaming to a realtime website, and which are also archiving the video streams to an offsite server. If I gave you FULL ACCESS to take anything you wanted to from my house, including my computer, my PS2, my guns, my money, and anything else you might want, would you? Knowing that if I had video proof of you taking it, I'd submit that to the police, and they'd arrest you? THINK ABOUT IT. And stop thinking "I wouldn't do that in the first place", because in this scenario, YOU are the burgular.
And if you can't see how that's worse than access limited to people that have at least passed through several background checks and are already in positions of responsibility then you really just don't get it.
Ha! I laugh in your face. Look at the United State's wonderful President Bush. "Background checks" and "positions of responsibility" mean precicely nill to me.
Giving everyone access to this footage makes about as much sense as giving everyone access to FBI, CIA and NSA files.
So what if people had access to FBI, CIA and NSA files from the very inception of these government entities? Maybe we'd have a lot more honesty and point-checks within those organizations, and less corruption.
So you take the tiny odds that someone is trying to break in at the same time you're watching your apartment - assuming that the camera is pointing right in the direction of your front door at the time they choose to break in - and you multiply that by, say, 50. And then you hope that one of the 50 people around your neighbourhood that also looks at the camera can tell the difference between a guy who's just walked up to your front door and is forcing the lock and a friend of yours who's having difficulty with his key.
Please, please tell me how having multiple people and the police monitoring the cameras is any WORSE than having just the police officer monitoring the camera.
Yeah, that really improves your chances of catching someone in the act so much. No, really, it does.
See, at least you're starting to think logically.
*sigh*
The likelyhood of you catching someone in the act are low: you're not suggesting that you'd have access to and the time to watch a CCTV feed 24/7 when you're out of the house, are you?
No, but me, the other people around my neighborhood, the police, and anyone else who cares to watch seems to be a much better ratio than me alone. I never said that the police wouldn't have access to the cameras as well. Duh. It's pretty damn logical that the more people that are watching means there is a better chance of SOMEONE seeing it happen.
The police will get what they want from the film regardless of whether eeveryone else can access it or not.
Of course they will. I never said they wouldn't. Ever heard of a TV show called "America's Most Wanted"? Care to think about the parralel's to this msg thread?
And you called me a fool? Ever looked in the mirror lately?
You're such a savage. I applaud your cunning use of comebacks. What are you, a 6th grader?
Just out of interest, if you're that paranoid about being caught on camera
?! Huh? Where did I ever imply that I was paranoid about being caught on camera? I could care less whether I'm "caught" on camera or not. I just think that the ability to see the same things as the police do would put to rest a lot of the privacy concerns I (and many others) have about it.
Ever see "Enemy of the State"? Think about it like a circle - The "monitors" monitor you, but you can also "monitor the monitors". Seems to be a lot less invasive to me.
You could also make sure the police controlling the cameras aren't constantly zooming in on girls cleavage, and the like. Very easy to spot abuse of the cameras by the authorities if we can see what they're doing.
The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously.
And if you think about it from the burgular's point of view, he/she will be thinking about all of the possible people watching HIM as he/she breaks into the house. Fool.
God, you really can't think things through, can you?
Actually, it seems as though you're the one not seeing the situation from all perspectives. I see two sides to everything:
What's the bad side to everyone accessing the cameras? Everyone can access the cameras.
What's the good side? EVERYONE CAN ACCESS THE CAMERAS.
The good thing about everyone being able to view these cameras is that you get the comfort of knowing you have access to the same information as the departments who put them up. There is no 1984-effect, because EVERYONE can see the same things. People monitor the people (a REAL democracy), not just a small subset of authorities, who can abuse the system just like anyone else. Some $8.50 nutjob that gets bored staring at monitors all day long can propose to make his job more profitable by breaking into the houses he monitors, having the comfort of knowing that nobody else can see him through his cameras.
The bad side to a subset of "authorities" accessing the cameras only is that the authorities get the holier-than-thou mentality, and a subset of the public gets enraged that they are being monitored by holier-than-thou "authorities". The others might feel safer knowing people are watching them, but this sounds a f*ck of a lot like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc... But think about this: what about all of the places (banks, convinience stores, resteraunts, etc.) that ALREADY USE CAMERAS - They sure do still get robbed, don't they? What good will cameras do on the streets? Might as well allow the public to see through them as well, you get a much broader range of monitoring, and you will eliminate the 1984-effect.
Yeah, I'd really love it if anyone, including burglars casing my house, could see to the minute when I'd left my house and when I'd got to work. I'd also love it muggers could see when I'd just visited an ATM and taken out a large chunk.
What's the difference in watching this through a camera as opposed to watching you watch from a van accross the street? Maybe you'd actually be able to catch him if you looked at the same camera once you got to work and saw a couple of hooded people carrying your Macintosh from your house.
It works both ways.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with cameras in public places, as long as EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THEM. Think about it - if you could see what "they" could see, then it would take away a lot of the privacy concerns. Not all of them, of course, but at least the people being monitored would have access to the same information that "they" do.
Well, instead of corporate "donations" and state "recounts", we'll have these insecure voting machines to blame for rigged elections. Great.
USE
OPEN
SOURCE
SOFTWARE
The octopus wants to eat the keyboard cord.
Is that the people participating actually leave their houses on the weekends...
: Bathroomn : Bedroom
Dodgeball_SMS(7:30p)Slashdotter_Location: Bedroom
Dodgeball_SMS(8:00p)Slashdotter_Location
Dodgeball_SMS(8:30p)Slashdotter_Locatio
...Because of the same reason why action movies/video games usually make more money. Fighting and violence are part of humans' / any other creatures' nature, and it's the most exciting to watch. It's like watching a game of golf to a game of UFC - it just appeals more to the masses.
"Come on. Bend." -Captin Murphy, Sealab 2021
The Cosby Show (1st version) when the kids were still young enough to be entertaining instead of annoying.
JELLO PUDDIN' POPS!!!
Sorry, I had to...
Because they have far too much invested in producing and shipping plastic disks.
Oh no, and how did they possibly get through the whole tape to CD evolution? They sure look like they're struggling now!
..Can't the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone else just realize that there is an efficient medium for distributing music, movies, and any other digital/converted to digital media, and WORK WITH IT? They're barking up a dying tree here. People will find better, more secure ways to transfer music/movies over the net, these associations need to embrace these technological advances and come up with an updated business model for them to profit off of.
SWITCH TO LINUX!!
mmm, why switch if i had your mom?
Maybe a new flavor of Linux should be introduced... Momix! All the power of Linux, with the creamy, juicy boobs of YOUR MOM!
Yesterday I was working on my mom's boyfriend's computer, which I installed a fresh copy of XP on a couple days prior. Already, there were bluescreens during shutdown/reboot (due to IRQ conflicts with our precious plug-n-play system), Adaptec CD-Creator wouldn't print labels (but everything else would print fine), and right-clicking on My Computer to go to properties would yield a cryptic registry-based error before opening properties. He had AOL 9.0 installed as his only Internet connection. I was using that to download drivers, and search for other things (such as "workarounds" for the ever annoying XP Activation), and IE would hang at just about every other website I would go to, rendering everything else I was doing on the computer useless until it freed it's resources. I found myself getting completely frustrated after about 10 minutes of working on this hunk of *$&#, because I couldn't even browse the web to fix the original problems. I installed FireFox, and that helped a lot with the browsing issues.
All I want to say, is that I've been using Debian Linux for about 5 years now, and just switched from using the "ultra-elite" Fluxbox WM to Gnome 2.6 since it got uploaded to Unstable, and I have had absolutely 0 problems. It JUST WORKS. It's easy enough for my mom's boyfriend to figure out. Even the horridly cryptic "gconf-editor" is easier to get around than regedit. I don't see why anybody in their right mind would still fend for Windows when they have a completely usable, prettier, faster alternative with 99% of applications able to do what Windows apps can already do.
SWITCH TO LINUX!!
Can I hear you now? Wait, did I load the kernel module? Hello? DAMN IT!
It would definately suit the entire invisibility cloak idea...
Several weeks ago, unconfirmed reports from Germany said the author of the Phatbot Trojan worm was also involved in the theft.
Wow, a trojan worm?! I gotta re-take history class...
A beowulf cluster of these things!!
No, seriously!! We could...uhh....
*runs*
governments planning to use it will damage their own economies
...And governments using MS products aren't damaging their own economies by exposing themselves to 31337 h4x0rz, virii, spyware, seineewerasreenigneepacsten style backdoors, and other closed source, proprietary crap that only Microsoft can spoonfeed to us?
*rubs index finger and thumb together* This is the worlds smallest violin, playing a sad, sad song for you, Microsoft.