When a government begins placing us in a situation in which plotting against them in case they become tyrannical becomes impossible, they have removed our most precious liberty (the liberty to choose our leaders).
So, you are going to hold your plotting sessions in a public place, eh? I am sure there will be no witnesses to such a thing. And, I am sure no police officers will walk up during your meeting.
One thing you forget is that the only plotting against the government that is illegal is that which involves the use of arms. If it has come to the point where the use of arms is needed to overthrow the government, I am pretty sure the resistance will not be meeting in public.
If the police wish to use video from a camera as evidence, they must provide the video to the defense. Technically and legally, the prosecution must disclose all evidence to be used against a defendant. If one knew where one was and new there was a police camera that video taped the area one was at during the crime, one could get a subpoena for the tape of that area as proof. The police would have no choice in the matter as a subpoena is a legal order from a judge.
Now, please explain how a camera in a public space would prove one is in one's private residence?
Apparently, you do not know the difference between public and private.
When one is in a space that is not open to the public, one is in private and has some expectation of privacy. If the space is controlled by someone other than oneself, then one has a diminished expectation of privacy, after all who knows what the other person has done. There may be cameras in the ceiling. If one is in a space controlled by oneself, then one has an expectation of total privacy.
When one is in a public space, one is in public. One has no expectation of privacy in a public space. By definition, being in public prevents having privacy. There may be civilians with video cameras and other civilian video surveillance. That is no different than police officers and police cameras.
Is there a difference between a police camera on a pole and a camera mounted on the dash of a police car if they are both pointed at the same piece of public property?
In other words, it's not the camera or database. It is one's location.
And with all that footage of you, it would be a simple matter to fabricate video "evidence" of you being some place you were not.
You say that like it is hard to do. People have been doing such things for years. Now, it is pretty easy to add and subtract people from video and one does not need a lot of video to do it.
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. If one is in public, one can not say one's privacy was invaded because, by definition, one can not have a privacy in a public location.
The way this article is worded, it is obvious they are talking about servers. It will barely make a dent in MS's overall installed base. It might make a meaningful increase in Linux's total installed base, but I doubt it.
Only when the Linux developers and community take the desktop seriously and start to make Linux more accessable to Joe Average Luser will Linux gain an appreciable market share.
No, fuckwit, it is the attitude of the FLOSS community that free is more important than quality, usability, or user experience that holds back Linux and the other FLOSS.
If you are so fucking concerned about DRM, maybe you should start respecting other people's copyright so there is no need for DRM. Bet you didn't think about that did you, dumbass. It is people like you that are the cause of DRM.
Tell me, why shouldn't I or anyone else profit from their creation, be it hardware, software, music, or video? Why should I not be able to say "I worked hard making this. It cost me lots of time and I want to get paid for it. I will selling it to you, but you can not make copies and give those copies away to other people."? Come on, tell me why you have the right to take the product of my work and give it away against my wishes. Everyone knows that is someone tried to take GPLed code and put it in proprietary code, you and the rest of your ilk would cry foul.
Face it, dipshit, you are just a hypocrite.
By the way, real Free software is under public domain, not the GPL. The GPL restricts freedom, public domain doesn't.
Fuck you and your stupid ideology. You are the cause of the Orwellian future you so fear.
I have been using Linux on and off since about 1995. I currently have Linux loaded on my dual processor machine and dual booting on laptop. I use Windows because my job requires it. I know a thing or two about Linux and Windows. Most people I know prefer Windows or OS X over Linux. That is because both of them are better at interacting with the user. Linux has all those wonderful choices and very little in the way of standards. Even the LSB is optional.
I remember when the jokes were about DLL hell. You don't hear them much anymore. I wonder if that is because of dependency hell in Linux.
Most of the businesses I deal with want MS Office, and Open Office does not cut it for them. Most home users I deal with want to be able to buy something, install some software and have it work. That includes hooking up digital cameras, video cameras, and every weird piece of equipment you can name.
Most users want things to look good and work well, and they don't want to have to go to a command line. They are willing to sacrifice some security to get the easy of use and flash. And if you want proof of that, just look at KDE and GNOME. Both are copying the look and feel of Windows, right down to the Fischer-Price GUI in XP.
The only way to unseat Microsoft will be to make better software. If you will not make the software better and more user-friendly, do not complain when people will not use it.
Yeah, I know, but Java does not run on every cell phone and PDA. The software being developed was supposed to run on every computer, cell phone, and PDA. I don't think Java ME actually supports some of the things the app in the movie was supposed to do.
Those are plot elements, not depictions of computers. The most unrealistic depiction of computers in that movie was the way they were writing a cross-platform application that would run on everything from desktops to cellphones. It was able to be pushed to all the devices. Other than that, the depiction of the computers was pretty spot on.
They are MOVIES! They don't have to be 100% correct. Let's disect some of these whines.
1) Hello?!? Try walking up to 1000 random computers and see what is running on them. Chances are it will be Windows or something Windows-like. This article assumes that the "hero" has never used a computer or an application like the one that needs to be used.
2) It is reasonable to assume that UIs will get easier to use as technology matures. That is the way things have been so far. But, more importantly, I have never seen a time traveler from the past go to the future and use a computer. Time travelers from the future know when they are going and have a chance to learn the technology of the period.
3) Of course, if one has been using a 3D interface from childhood, it would not be difficult because one would be used to having one's hands up like that. There is also no prohibtion from putting one's hands down and resting for a few minutes. And, as the article pointed out, it LOOKS better. Don't forget movies are a VISUAL medium.
4) The author glosses over two important facts. The first is that just because something is not shown happening, there is no proof it didn't happen. The data conversion could occur behind the scene. Second is that no one wants to watch a character sit around waiting for a file to down load. Remember, we are talking entertainment here.
5) Once again, reality is sacrificed for entertainment. People go to the movies to see things and audiances like those big flashing signs.
6) See #5
7) 10 years ago voice recognition technology was crap. Today, anyone can call into a voice activated menu that does a good job of understanding most people. I can believe there will be a voice based computer interface.
8) see #5 but substitute "big flashing signs" with "impossible action sequeces".
9) My mail filter does a good job of pulling out the important stuff. I also filter my mail into separate folders. I don't have the problems you are describing.
10) Meh. I don't really remember this scene.
What irritates me about this column, and other like it, is that the column insists on 100% accuracy, when the point of the movies in question is Fantasy. Don't complain that tech is not accurant in a movie about aliens, or dinosaurs or superspies. Just enjoy the fun and/or STFU.
The CIO or whomever makes the IT policies should be the one to say who "owns" the deployments. That is what management is for, making these kinds of decisions. In a way, the person who should "own" the deployment is the Project Manager.
This decision should be enforced by the Project Managers (PMs) overseeing the projects. If your company doesn't have PMs overseeing the projects, then it may want to start assigning them.
The PMs are the ones who are supposed to be keeping the changes on track, on time, and on budget and that the application does not experience problems. They are the ones that are supposed to be letting people know about the changes. They should also be making sure there is proper documentation for the deployment and the software. They should make sure that IT and Admin can understand the documentation and that what is in the documentation can be implemented. The PMs should be meeting and let each other know the status of the various projects so that information can be passed down to whomever needs.
For the who needs to know problem, go to those who think they need to know and get a list when they think they should be notified about something and make them justify it. And, "Because I want to know" is only valid if that person is one's superior.
By the way, I work as production support in my company and I own the deployments for my application. My job is making sure the application stays up. That is my primary concern. Next comes what the users want and then what the developers want. Unless I approve, or a director demands it, the deployment does not happen.
There has been very little innovation in computer and information technology in the last 10 years. Lost of smoke and very little fire. Lots of light but little actual heat.
Vista is XP with some minor changes and a cpu/gpu hungry graphics engine. XP is 98 with some minor security improvements and Playskool theme.
The two major changes at Apple have been the move to intel and the move to a *nix based OS.
Linux has been more of the same. Adding in functionality seen in other *nixes, more distros, more hardware support, more crappy half-finished applications.
The biggest changes in the IT world have been "Web 2.0" and multicore processors.
Could be many of these sales are people who waited to buy a console gambling they would get a PS3. Now they are realizing that the PS3 is not worth the money and are buying a PS2 and a PSP with the money they had saved up.
It could also be people replacing the old PS2 systems they sold to get money to get a PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are going to hold your plotting sessions in a public place, eh? I am sure there will be no witnesses to such a thing. And, I am sure no police officers will walk up during your meeting.
One thing you forget is that the only plotting against the government that is illegal is that which involves the use of arms. If it has come to the point where the use of arms is needed to overthrow the government, I am pretty sure the resistance will not be meeting in public.
If the police wish to use video from a camera as evidence, they must provide the video to the defense.
Technically and legally, the prosecution must disclose all evidence to be used against a defendant. If one knew where one was and new there was a police camera that video taped the area one was at during the crime, one could get a subpoena for the tape of that area as proof. The police would have no choice in the matter as a subpoena is a legal order from a judge.
Now, please explain how a camera in a public space would prove one is in one's private residence?
Apparently, you do not know the difference between public and private.
When one is in a space that is not open to the public, one is in private and has some expectation of privacy. If the space is controlled by someone other than oneself, then one has a diminished expectation of privacy, after all who knows what the other person has done. There may be cameras in the ceiling. If one is in a space controlled by oneself, then one has an expectation of total privacy.
When one is in a public space, one is in public. One has no expectation of privacy in a public space. By definition, being in public prevents having privacy. There may be civilians with video cameras and other civilian video surveillance. That is no different than police officers and police cameras.
Is there a difference between a police camera on a pole and a camera mounted on the dash of a police car if they are both pointed at the same piece of public property?
In other words, it's not the camera or database. It is one's location.
The article you reference fails to show a causal link between cameras and car accidents.
How are cameras in public spaces, where you could be seen by anyone including police officers, equal to spying on citizens?
Is it spying when a police officer sees a crime committed in public?
Exactly how are you being punished?
You say that like it is hard to do. People have been doing such things for years. Now, it is pretty easy to add and subtract people from video and one does not need a lot of video to do it.
Now, answer me this, why do it?
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. If one is in public, one can not say one's privacy was invaded because, by definition, one can not have a privacy in a public location.
Why not answer his question?
He asked a valid question. What liberty is being sacrificed by having cameras in a public place?
Answer that instead of being a dumbass and trying to use hyperbole and slippery slope to support your argument.
The way this article is worded, it is obvious they are talking about servers. It will barely make a dent in MS's overall installed base. It might make a meaningful increase in Linux's total installed base, but I doubt it.
Only when the Linux developers and community take the desktop seriously and start to make Linux more accessable to Joe Average Luser will Linux gain an appreciable market share.
No, fuckwit, it is the attitude of the FLOSS community that free is more important than quality, usability, or user experience that holds back Linux and the other FLOSS.
If you are so fucking concerned about DRM, maybe you should start respecting other people's copyright so there is no need for DRM. Bet you didn't think about that did you, dumbass. It is people like you that are the cause of DRM.
Tell me, why shouldn't I or anyone else profit from their creation, be it hardware, software, music, or video? Why should I not be able to say "I worked hard making this. It cost me lots of time and I want to get paid for it. I will selling it to you, but you can not make copies and give those copies away to other people."? Come on, tell me why you have the right to take the product of my work and give it away against my wishes. Everyone knows that is someone tried to take GPLed code and put it in proprietary code, you and the rest of your ilk would cry foul.
Face it, dipshit, you are just a hypocrite.
By the way, real Free software is under public domain, not the GPL. The GPL restricts freedom, public domain doesn't.
Fuck you and your stupid ideology. You are the cause of the Orwellian future you so fear.
I have been using Linux on and off since about 1995. I currently have Linux loaded on my dual processor machine and dual booting on laptop. I use Windows because my job requires it. I know a thing or two about Linux and Windows. Most people I know prefer Windows or OS X over Linux. That is because both of them are better at interacting with the user. Linux has all those wonderful choices and very little in the way of standards. Even the LSB is optional.
I remember when the jokes were about DLL hell. You don't hear them much anymore. I wonder if that is because of dependency hell in Linux.
Most of the businesses I deal with want MS Office, and Open Office does not cut it for them. Most home users I deal with want to be able to buy something, install some software and have it work. That includes hooking up digital cameras, video cameras, and every weird piece of equipment you can name.
Most users want things to look good and work well, and they don't want to have to go to a command line. They are willing to sacrifice some security to get the easy of use and flash. And if you want proof of that, just look at KDE and GNOME. Both are copying the look and feel of Windows, right down to the Fischer-Price GUI in XP.
The only way to unseat Microsoft will be to make better software. If you will not make the software better and more user-friendly, do not complain when people will not use it.
One's product can't be profitable unless one's product is seen as "better".
Why use something that doesn't work well if you can afford to use something better, or can't afford to use something that doesn't work well?
Your statement is pretty stupid actually, seeing as MS has about 90% of the desktop market. Try living in the real world.
That statement sums up why Ubuntu, and probably Linux, will never be a suitable replacement OS on most desktop systems.
Yeah, I know, but Java does not run on every cell phone and PDA. The software being developed was supposed to run on every computer, cell phone, and PDA. I don't think Java ME actually supports some of the things the app in the movie was supposed to do.
Those are plot elements, not depictions of computers. The most unrealistic depiction of computers in that movie was the way they were writing a cross-platform application that would run on everything from desktops to cellphones. It was able to be pushed to all the devices. Other than that, the depiction of the computers was pretty spot on.
They are MOVIES! They don't have to be 100% correct. Let's disect some of these whines.
1) Hello?!? Try walking up to 1000 random computers and see what is running on them. Chances are it will be Windows or something Windows-like. This article assumes that the "hero" has never used a computer or an application like the one that needs to be used.
2) It is reasonable to assume that UIs will get easier to use as technology matures. That is the way things have been so far. But, more importantly, I have never seen a time traveler from the past go to the future and use a computer. Time travelers from the future know when they are going and have a chance to learn the technology of the period.
3) Of course, if one has been using a 3D interface from childhood, it would not be difficult because one would be used to having one's hands up like that. There is also no prohibtion from putting one's hands down and resting for a few minutes. And, as the article pointed out, it LOOKS better. Don't forget movies are a VISUAL medium.
4) The author glosses over two important facts. The first is that just because something is not shown happening, there is no proof it didn't happen. The data conversion could occur behind the scene. Second is that no one wants to watch a character sit around waiting for a file to down load. Remember, we are talking entertainment here.
5) Once again, reality is sacrificed for entertainment. People go to the movies to see things and audiances like those big flashing signs.
6) See #5
7) 10 years ago voice recognition technology was crap. Today, anyone can call into a voice activated menu that does a good job of understanding most people. I can believe there will be a voice based computer interface.
8) see #5 but substitute "big flashing signs" with "impossible action sequeces".
9) My mail filter does a good job of pulling out the important stuff. I also filter my mail into separate folders. I don't have the problems you are describing.
10) Meh. I don't really remember this scene.
What irritates me about this column, and other like it, is that the column insists on 100% accuracy, when the point of the movies in question is Fantasy. Don't complain that tech is not accurant in a movie about aliens, or dinosaurs or superspies. Just enjoy the fun and/or STFU.
Never happened before? Better tell that to the archeologists who are studying ancient civilizations whose ruins have been, and still are, flooded.
Sea level has been rising, on and off, for thousands of years.
Linus didn't name Linux, the community did. It was to honor the fact that he started it all.
Perhaps you should actually learn the history of Linux before you open your mouth and prove your ignorance to the world.
The CIO or whomever makes the IT policies should be the one to say who "owns" the deployments. That is what management is for, making these kinds of decisions. In a way, the person who should "own" the deployment is the Project Manager.
This decision should be enforced by the Project Managers (PMs) overseeing the projects. If your company doesn't have PMs overseeing the projects, then it may want to start assigning them.
The PMs are the ones who are supposed to be keeping the changes on track, on time, and on budget and that the application does not experience problems. They are the ones that are supposed to be letting people know about the changes. They should also be making sure there is proper documentation for the deployment and the software. They should make sure that IT and Admin can understand the documentation and that what is in the documentation can be implemented. The PMs should be meeting and let each other know the status of the various projects so that information can be passed down to whomever needs.
For the who needs to know problem, go to those who think they need to know and get a list when they think they should be notified about something and make them justify it. And, "Because I want to know" is only valid if that person is one's superior.
By the way, I work as production support in my company and I own the deployments for my application. My job is making sure the application stays up. That is my primary concern. Next comes what the users want and then what the developers want. Unless I approve, or a director demands it, the deployment does not happen.
Yep, JC was specific about that until he laid the smackdown on the moneychangers.
No! Because it is way too easy to compromise the system
There has been very little innovation in computer and information technology in the last 10 years. Lost of smoke and very little fire. Lots of light but little actual heat.
Vista is XP with some minor changes and a cpu/gpu hungry graphics engine. XP is 98 with some minor security improvements and Playskool theme.
The two major changes at Apple have been the move to intel and the move to a *nix based OS.
Linux has been more of the same. Adding in functionality seen in other *nixes, more distros, more hardware support, more crappy half-finished applications.
The biggest changes in the IT world have been "Web 2.0" and multicore processors.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Could be many of these sales are people who waited to buy a console gambling they would get a PS3. Now they are realizing that the PS3 is not worth the money and are buying a PS2 and a PSP with the money they had saved up.
It could also be people replacing the old PS2 systems they sold to get money to get a PS3.