How can you be guilty before you have actually done anything. And the article itself does state there are exceptions to the patterns that the computer is looking for.
The article doesn't talk at all about "guilty" or "innocent". All what is happening is computer aid for people trying to prevent certain things to happen: car theft, suicide, congestion, losing luggage. The company developing this isn't pretending to be a judge or a justice system.
This puts an entirely new spin on "Guilty until proven innocent".
Uhm, no it doesn't, and that's not at all what the article is about. If your country has laws against suspect behaviour, you have more problems than computer assistent survelance cameras. If you don't have such laws, the camera's aren't going to chance them.
But I guess the slashdotter that can actually read and understand an article is extremely rare.
Someone looking for his/her car doesn't walk slowly past cars. They might hesitate on an intersection, but I quickly walk past most of the cars looking for my pink Porche.
The security guard watches the computer. The guards boss watches the guard. The manager watches the boss. The company watches the manager. The police watches the company. The justice system watches the police. The government watches the justice system. The voters watch the government.
Soooo, if you're old enough, eventually you.
Or are you suggesting that the computers sneak off and secretly beat the crap out of someone?
There must be 1,000's of people like me who would run around like a maniac doing things we're "not supposed to" but that aren't illegal just to make security freak out.
You act as if security camera's are the new thing. Let me tell you a secret: the camera's have been out there for decades. Scary, isn't? Why don't you go run around like a maniac right now? What's stopping you? What makes computer flashing a light so much different from a human doing the same?
Scaring away a thief doesn't prevent crime, it simply relocates it.
Only partially. Theft follows the same market princibles as everything else. Relocating means the cost of theft goes up. If the cost of theft goes up, the price for stolen goods goes up. If the price goes up, less will be sold, and hence there will be less demand.
BTW, do you think that locking your front door means crime goes down? Or do you settle for relocation of the crime?
The day that the people can be stopped and questioned for simply deviating from our ruts in life is the day we have no more freedom.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with the article? The article is about a computer system to help monitoring systems already in place.
If your country allows you being stopped and questioned for simply deviation of your ruts, you've got other things to worry about than automated camera's.
I spent $%!# 2 hours wandering around London one night trying to get a !%#% taxi.
I once got stopped by a police officer while looking for a cab in London. He politely explained why (looking for potential bombers), didn't ask for a name or ID. Just asking why I was walking through "the city" (financial district) at 2 am on a Sunday morning (duh, the subway doesn't run after midnight, and "the city" is dead outside of office hours, so no cabs before getting to Fleet street) and whether he could have a quick look in my backpack.
Did I feel that my privacy was invaded? No, not at all. It would be pretty naieve to assume bombings don't happen (cause they do), and how is the officer suppose to know I'm not carrying a bomb? Of course, he doesn't assume I'm a criminal - he just has to make checks. And, after all, less bombings is better for my safety.
How much would you like to spend an hours or more being interogated because of abnormal behavior?
Who said anything about being hold and interrogated fro several hours? Does your country allow security guards to hold people and interrogate them for abnormal behaviour? If so, you've got a lot more to worry about than automated camera's.
But the article talks about sending guards down to intercept the guy before he nicks the car. So now you've intercepted a guy because a computer thinks that the guy is thinking about stealing a car!
"intercepting" doesn't have to be anything more than getting near the guy and make sure he knows you saw him. Only a very stupid thief would attempt to steal a car under the nose of some security guard. If he didn't want to steal the car, but he's actually the owner, he gets confirmed that his property is being watched. If he did want to steal the car, and now doesn't, all parties win (well, except the thief perhaps). If he was just some random stranger walking around parking lots, well, no real damage done, was there? He might still be watched, but then, a parking lot is either someone elses private place, or public, so there isn't any right in being alone anyway.
This is a worrying trend that they look to label people before they do wrong.
You mean, you've never walk on the other side of an otherwise empty street because you didn't like the looks of some biker people late at night? You just shrug your shoulders and turn around if a pale individual with hollow eyes and needle marks looks through the windows of your parked car? It's cool to cry murder now, but isn't this what most, if not all, of us are doing every day?
our normal day to day habits are so strange we would always be getting arrested and hasseled.
You may use, modify, distribute, and sell this program in any way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same.
you have summed up the GPL
No, he hasn't. The above license was written because the GPL isn't free enough. It specifically allows you to distribute a closed source form of it. That's what the "in any way you wish" means. You may even take the unmodified source, compile it, and sell it. What you cannot do is preventing someone else from taking the same source, and give it away for free.
And before you ask "how do you know that that's the intend" - I wrote it, and you can find it on some of the programs I made available. (I've now switched to the X style license, which basically grants you the same rights, but it has more familiar wording, and includes a disclaimer).
Now if Linux was released under Artistic License or BSD, they could just take the Linux code, close it up hack it to hell and back and sell it as their own proprietary version with their own API's. Fortunately they cannot do that!
Fortunally? Does the (Linux) community have something to lose if Windows 2003 was based on a (closed source) Linux? It certainly wouldn't make it more difficult to port applications from Windows to Linux; perhaps a lot easier. And doesn't everyone always complain about all those applications and games that are available for Windows and not Linux?
I don't think Microsoft would take Linux and produce a proprietary version, even if they could, but I cannot see any drawbacks if they would.
The answer struck me: port IE to Linux, close the source, throw on a few bells, and sell an MS distro.
The only pitfall is the "viral" property of the GPL, under which much (all?) of Linux's code is licensed.
GPL doesn't prevent a ported IE from being closed source anymore than it prevented Oracle and Sybase to remain closed source. And while IE is considered by M$ to be part of the OS, it's not, and will not, in Unix land.
In the unlikely event M$ wants to use Linux as a base for their products, they would have to open source any kernel modifications they make. But they could still keep their GUI and APIs closed source.
I think one reason may be that Larry Wall (and the Perl community in general) don't seem to focus on the license.
It should also be pointed out that Perl isn't licensed under the Artistics license *instead* of the GPL; it's released *also* under the Artistic license. If you prefer GPL, than by all means, use Perl under the conditions of the GPL. Unlike most software projects, Perl gives the user a choice.
As a USER, it's no good to me that the 1991 shoddy version of FooX was BSD licensed, I can't use that now (bit rot), and the user community is supporting MS proprietary FooX which was forked in 1992.
Sure. And, do you think MS would have helped developing a GPLed FooX instead of writing their propriatary variant?
I like the GPL because it is the only license that says the code I write and give to the community, shall always be free to the community.
That's not true. Code you write and release under the BSD, X, Artistic or any other open source license remains free to the community as well. While other licenses sometimes allow to take the source and place it in a proprietary product, none of those licenses grants you the permission to *remove* the existing license from the code. Just because someone makes a derived product doesn't mean what you wrote disappeared.
I prefer X and BSD style licenses because of the "no strings" attached. And what I release under an X or BSD style license will be free as well. However, it grants someone the right to put it in a proprietary product. Does that mean it's worse for "the community" than say GPL? I don't think so - it gives more freedom to the user - and hence it's better. You can do everything that GPL allows you to do - and then some.
At our school we teach the functional language Haskell in our first course, then C. Java, C++, and even a little Prolog and Assembler are taught along the way through.
I'm always surprised schools waste that much time teaching languages. When I went to university to do my CS degree, we got one course to learn a language: Pascal. Except that the first month or so we only got pseudo-code. (We didn't get to touch a computer the first 6 weeks). After that, all we got were language concepts: assembler, object-oriented, functional, logical, set-algebraic, etc. If you had to write a program in some language for an assignment: RTFM, that's what manuals are for.
Well, that isn't quite Pythonic. Algol, C, and Perl all have the
if CONDITION then STATEMENT else STATEMENT
construct, only varying in syntactical details.
But Algol and Perl can do the mentioned trick on the left hand side as well:
Algol:
if a then b else c:= if d then e else f; Perl: ($a ? $b : $c) = ($d ? $e : $f);
Perhaps Python can, but I don't have a manual here to check. And before anyone complains it's ugly and unmaintable: you only think it's ugly and unmaintable because you aren't familiar with the construct. But if you think the ?: operator is ok to use on the right hand side of an assignment, why would it be ugly or unmaintable on the left hand side? Would you also restrict yourself to use ?: on the right hand side of a +?
So, what happens if I have eggs/spam? Is that integer division, or floating point division? Or do I have the trace the source to find out what's stored in eggs and spam? Does that make for more "maintainable" code?
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't talk at all about "guilty" or "innocent". All what is happening is computer aid for people trying to prevent certain things to happen: car theft, suicide, congestion, losing luggage. The company developing this isn't pretending to be a judge or a justice system.
-- Abigail
Uhm, no it doesn't, and that's not at all what the article is about. If your country has laws against suspect behaviour, you have more problems than computer assistent survelance cameras. If you don't have such laws, the camera's aren't going to chance them.
But I guess the slashdotter that can actually read and understand an article is extremely rare.
-- Abigail
Someone looking for his/her car doesn't walk slowly past cars. They might hesitate on an intersection, but I quickly walk past most of the cars looking for my pink Porche.
-- Abigail
The security guard watches the computer. The guards boss watches the guard. The manager watches the boss. The company watches the manager. The police watches the company. The justice system watches the police. The government watches the justice system. The voters watch the government.
Soooo, if you're old enough, eventually you.
Or are you suggesting that the computers sneak off and secretly beat the crap out of someone?
-- Abigail
You act as if security camera's are the new thing. Let me tell you a secret: the camera's have been out there for decades. Scary, isn't? Why don't you go run around like a maniac right now? What's stopping you? What makes computer flashing a light so much different from a human doing the same?
-- Abigail
Only partially. Theft follows the same market princibles as everything else. Relocating means the cost of theft goes up. If the cost of theft goes up, the price for stolen goods goes up. If the price goes up, less will be sold, and hence there will be less demand.
BTW, do you think that locking your front door means crime goes down? Or do you settle for relocation of the crime?
-- Abigail
Yeah, but what does that have to do with the article? The article is about a computer system to help monitoring systems already in place.
If your country allows you being stopped and questioned for simply deviation of your ruts, you've got other things to worry about than automated camera's.
-- Abigail
I once got stopped by a police officer while looking for a cab in London. He politely explained why (looking for potential bombers), didn't ask for a name or ID. Just asking why I was walking through "the city" (financial district) at 2 am on a Sunday morning (duh, the subway doesn't run after midnight, and "the city" is dead outside of office hours, so no cabs before getting to Fleet street) and whether he could have a quick look in my backpack.
Did I feel that my privacy was invaded? No, not at all. It would be pretty naieve to assume bombings don't happen (cause they do), and how is the officer suppose to know I'm not carrying a bomb? Of course, he doesn't assume I'm a criminal - he just has to make checks. And, after all, less bombings is better for my safety.
-- Abigail
Who said anything about being hold and interrogated fro several hours? Does your country allow security guards to hold people and interrogate them for abnormal behaviour? If so, you've got a lot more to worry about than automated camera's.
-- Abigail
"intercepting" doesn't have to be anything more than getting near the guy and make sure he knows you saw him. Only a very stupid thief would attempt to steal a car under the nose of some security guard. If he didn't want to steal the car, but he's actually the owner, he gets confirmed that his property is being watched. If he did want to steal the car, and now doesn't, all parties win (well, except the thief perhaps). If he was just some random stranger walking around parking lots, well, no real damage done, was there? He might still be watched, but then, a parking lot is either someone elses private place, or public, so there isn't any right in being alone anyway.
-- Abigail
You mean, you've never walk on the other side of an otherwise empty street because you didn't like the looks of some biker people late at night? You just shrug your shoulders and turn around if a pale individual with hollow eyes and needle marks looks through the windows of your parked car? It's cool to cry murder now, but isn't this what most, if not all, of us are doing every day?
our normal day to day habits are so strange we would always be getting arrested and hasseled.
Watching isn't arresting.
-- Abigail
That's not a misinterpretation. That's exactly what it means.
Uhm, no. The GPL puts restrictions on any modifications, while I don't want to put any restrictions on modifications.
-- Abigail
Yes.
Is Perl itself GPLed, then?
That's up to you to decide.
-- Abigail
So am I. However, I do not want to achieve that by restricting the rights, and be prepared to sue if the rights aren't met.
I give others as much rights as possible. I hope to get as many rights back - but I leave that choice to them, I don't want to wave contracts.
-- Abigail
you have summed up the GPL
No, he hasn't. The above license was written because the GPL isn't free enough. It specifically allows you to distribute a closed source form of it. That's what the "in any way you wish" means. You may even take the unmodified source, compile it, and sell it. What you cannot do is preventing someone else from taking the same source, and give it away for free.
And before you ask "how do you know that that's the intend" - I wrote it, and you can find it on some of the programs I made available. (I've now switched to the X style license, which basically grants you the same rights, but it has more familiar wording, and includes a disclaimer).
-- Abigail
Fortunally? Does the (Linux) community have something to lose if Windows 2003 was based on a (closed source) Linux? It certainly wouldn't make it more difficult to port applications from Windows to Linux; perhaps a lot easier. And doesn't everyone always complain about all those applications and games that are available for Windows and not Linux?
I don't think Microsoft would take Linux and produce a proprietary version, even if they could, but I cannot see any drawbacks if they would.
-- Abigail
The only pitfall is the "viral" property of the GPL, under which much (all?) of Linux's code is licensed.
GPL doesn't prevent a ported IE from being closed source anymore than it prevented Oracle and Sybase to remain closed source. And while IE is considered by M$ to be part of the OS, it's not, and will not, in Unix land.
In the unlikely event M$ wants to use Linux as a base for their products, they would have to open source any kernel modifications they make. But they could still keep their GUI and APIs closed source.
-- Abigail
It should also be pointed out that Perl isn't licensed under the Artistics license *instead* of the GPL; it's released *also* under the Artistic license. If you prefer GPL, than by all means, use Perl under the conditions of the GPL. Unlike most software projects, Perl gives the user a choice.
-- Abigail
Sure. And, do you think MS would have helped developing a GPLed FooX instead of writing their propriatary variant?
-- Abigail
That's not true. Code you write and release under the BSD, X, Artistic or any other open source license remains free to the community as well. While other licenses sometimes allow to take the source and place it in a proprietary product, none of those licenses grants you the permission to *remove* the existing license from the code. Just because someone makes a derived product doesn't mean what you wrote disappeared.
I prefer X and BSD style licenses because of the "no strings" attached. And what I release under an X or BSD style license will be free as well. However, it grants someone the right to put it in a proprietary product. Does that mean it's worse for "the community" than say GPL? I don't think so - it gives more freedom to the user - and hence it's better. You can do everything that GPL allows you to do - and then some.
-- Abigail
I'm always surprised schools waste that much time teaching languages. When I went to university to do my CS degree, we got one course to learn a language: Pascal. Except that the first month or so we only got pseudo-code. (We didn't get to touch a computer the first 6 weeks). After that, all we got were language concepts: assembler, object-oriented, functional, logical, set-algebraic, etc. If you had to write a program in some language for an assignment: RTFM, that's what manuals are for.
-- Abigail
It's the best Perl related thing you can buy. Buy it, it's worth every penny you pay for it - and then some.
-- Abigail
if b: a=c
else: a=d
Well, that isn't quite Pythonic. Algol, C, and Perl all have the
construct, only varying in syntactical details.But Algol and Perl can do the mentioned trick on the left hand side as well:
Perhaps Python can, but I don't have a manual here to check. And before anyone complains it's ugly and unmaintable: you only think it's ugly and unmaintable because you aren't familiar with the construct. But if you think the ?: operator is ok to use on the right hand side of an assignment, why would it be ugly or unmaintable on the left hand side? Would you also restrict yourself to use ?: on the right hand side of a +?
-- Abigail
Uhm, no. Perl will *compile* the statements as you type them. It won't run them untill you type eof, __END__ or __DATA__.
-- Abigail
So, what happens if I have eggs/spam? Is that integer division, or floating point division? Or do I have the trace the source to find out what's stored in eggs and spam? Does that make for more "maintainable" code?
-- Abigail