Stop being so harsh, she's obviously speaking in metaphor. Let me spell it out for you:
An intimate knowledge of electrical interworkings coupled with the proper tools for using this knowledge is like a "batter" that is baked into success. Simply applying this "batter" to everyday working applications is much like printing your own money or "pushing currency down the wire."
The prose is actually quite beautiful, if you think about it.
Except he isn't punching you for giving out copies of his own flute recordings, he is punching you for giving out copies of any recordings, whether they are your business or not.
The worst part is that he's not all that bright, so a lot of times he'll punch you for no good reason at all and then expect you to apologize.
MS-DOS 1.0 was released in '81 and work on the OS2/NT project started in '85. Are you telling me that you are completely sure that none of the code from one project was recycled into a project that was started four years later?
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that if they shared any coders, there's got to be some recycling on some level, no matter how unimportant. Avoiding reinvention of the wheel is not a new concept.
I personally don't care one way or another, it's just that you seem to be awfully arrogant about your position here, you don't have any proof to back it up, but you're still being an asshole about it. Your whole argument that it "ran on non-x86 processors" is a complete logical non-sequitur. What does one have to do with the other? You do realize that these two things are not related, right?
No. I've already dealt with the facts that you're pretending I left out. GSV is so inefficient that whether or not you're using the flash interface, you could easily make up the difference in "time until started".
This is compounded by your own admission that any houses that look good on GSV would have to be checked out in real life. If you're already going to be driving there whether you're using GSV or not, why waste your time using something so inefficient?
So before you go accusing me of distorting the facts to validate my own conclusion, you might want to read your own arguments to date and ask yourself why they've changed so much.
You realize that your argument started out being that GSV would make it easy to case endless scores of houses instantly, and since then you've come to a point where you're trying to argue that it might be able to keep up with driving, right? You have stopped arguing your original point that GSV was superior, and instead you are now arguing that it should be considered at least as efficient as the alternative. What happened to the bold assertions that GSV would allow you to get several days of criminal work done in half of a day?
And now you're grasping at straws trying to tell me that the reason GSV is better is that driving 15mph in a residential zone is dangerous? Are you really going to base your argument on that?
No, I can't drive to a neighborhood instantly. I can, however, outpace GSV by great enough strides that after a half of a day, I'll have collected much, much more information than somebody who tries to use it for criminal purposes. My information will not only come quicker and easier, it will also be time-relevant and not based on distorted, low-resolution images.
As for the video of better interfaces, I don't really see what that's supposed to prove other than the fact that GSV is slowly making strides towards almost being good enough to be compared to driving down a street (limited only by the resolution of the pictures and the fact that everything is distorted and two dimensional.) If you want to chalk that up as a win for your argument, you go right ahead. It's nothing I'd get too excited about if I were you, though.
Actually, I just timed it. It took me a minute to traverse a little less than a half mile, looking only at one side of the road. I clicked the button to advance to the next image as soon as an image loaded. I did not dick around on any of the images. I didn't resize, pan, or zoom any of them. I just advanced to the next one whether or not I could see anything helpful in the one I was on or not.
This means that you could theoretically look at both sides of a street at an aggregate speed of 15mph. As soon as you take any time whatsoever to pan or zoom any of the images to look for helpful information, your speed would go down considerably. Most residential zones have a speed limit of 25mph, or 10mph faster than you'd get from GSV. Do you consider 25mph "dangerously fast for residential streets?" Because I don't. If you want, I'll start driving at 20mph (for the safety of the children!) and still keep up a better pace than GSV.
Furthermore, you're going to obviously get a lot more information driving down the road in real life than you would trying to pan and zoom your way through a bunch of static images in a web based interface. As an added bonus, you'll get that information faster since you don't have to mouse around to move your focus from the car parked on the street to the windows of the house.
In case you're wondering, I timed the same half mile, panning the view to bring each house along the way into focus. I didn't even have time to really look at the details of any house, just enough to be able to see the entire front face of every house along the way. 1 minute 52 seconds. That's 16mph per side of the road. Once again, halve that if you want to get an aggregate speed to see both sides of the road and you end up with 8mph. I guess in your book, driving 10mph is "dangerously fast for residential streets."
Perhaps you should try using GSV before you talk about it in the future.
Tell me anything about this neighborhood (or any of the surrounding neighborhoods, really) that, from pictures you get off of street view, tell you which houses you should rob. Specifically, tell me what information you get from GSV that isn't easier to get elsewhere.
Remember, it takes less time to drive down a street than it does to navigate a street on GSV.
That sounds like a misapplication of technology right there. It's like the old ads for CD-ROM "multimedia encyclopedias" that tried to sell you on the idea that watching a 10 second clip of an eagle flying whilst hearing an 8bit/22khz wav of a bird sound effect was a more helpful learning tool than reading the fucking text.
Face it, it is actually way more efficient to go driving down the road looking for houses to rob than it is to go looking for them on Google Street View. The fact that you're probably going to get a good score of false-positives based on the limited information and context you are provided with from what is little more than an undated collection of 2d images, and the fact that it takes less time to drive down a street than it does to navigate down a street on GSV means that your position is baseless.
On top of that, all of the things that you mentioned above are nothing more than ignorant assumptions based on no supporting evidence, and even worse, they are assumptions that would have to be made with old and time-sensitive data.
I know you're trying to look hip using your hamburglar lingo, but seriously, you just look like a paranoid wackjob that doesn't understand what you're talking about.
"Which houses have burglar bars?"
Wasn't the original argument that this would somehow make crime easier? Do you really think that the hamburglar, armed with a list of houses with no visible security, is going to be any less inconvenienced by all of the things that can't be determined by google street view? Like, say, whether people are home, whether they have an army of pitbulls, whether or not they have a security system, safety glass,.45, 9mm, etc? So in the end, he'd have to come and "case" the house anyway?
At that point, what makes using google street view any different than randomly driving through neighborhoods?
If you can come up with one way that anybody could use google street view to make crime easier, please share it with the rest of us. And no vague FUD horseshit like "casing" or "finding marks."
Considering the fact that the pictures are neither real time or regularly updated, I don't see how they'd be helpful for anything other than getting a general idea of what a street looks like, let alone how they could possibly help people commit crimes.
It must be fun living in your world, where you honestly believe that life works like a high-budget Hollywood action film.
Interior, bad guy hideout. It is dimly lit except for the light of a computer screen. Behind the computer, two men in black and white striped shirts with zorro masks sit, studying the screen. On the screen is Google Street View.
Robber #1: Who'da thunk it? There's a bank in the next town over.
Robber #2: Look, it also has an awning that has the name of the bank on it. I think we should rob this one.
Robber #1: Luckily we have Google Street view to assist us with our crime. How else would we have known that at some time in the last year or so, there was some guy in a lime green polo shirt, holding something like a hot dog or something, I don't know it's kinda fuzzy, walking by the doors of this bank?
Robber #2:...and if a guy in a shirt can walk by, that must mean the sidewalks aren't made of hot lava! Google had no idea that we'd be using their technology to plan crimes!
Robber #1: Look, it seems that the exterior walls of the bank are made of something transparent such as semi-reflective glass. There seems to be a sign saying "50% OFF" of something...but I cannot read the rest of the sign. Curses.
Robber #2: But how will we ever know where the walls start and where the doors begin? We will need to know this if we are going to get in and out quickly!
Robber #1: Well, using this technology we will be able to study this photo in advance to be able to figure out where the front door to the bank is... Look! I believe I have located it just under the awning you noticed earlier.
Robber #2: THIS WILL BE THE EASIEST JOB EVER THANKS TO GOOGLE STREET VIEW!
Holy shit I just found that you can go into most any gas station and (for just a couple bucks) buy what con artists, shady contractors, and burglars call a "map" which will show you a detailed listing of all of the residential areas nearby. Using this "map," you can pretty efficiently loot and plunder your way through a small town without ever having to suspiciously ask the locals for directions.
How are you going to case a house from street view? You realize the photos are not realtime, or even regularly updated for that matter, right? What are you going to do, look at a picture of a house and decide that since there was no car parked in front of a house and nobody was standing in the windows for at least one split-second of time between the moment google launched street view and the present, 859 Sycamore Ln (Address approximate) is probably ripe for the plucking?
Overgeneralize much? I for one get a kick out of seeing my house on street view and am kind of upset that I recently moved to a place that hasn't been added yet.
Why shouldn't photographs taken from public places be put on the internet? Is it because google has the capacity to take a lot of pictures in public ares and put them on the internet? How many pictures do you need to be able to take in a day before you stop being a benign Japanese tourist and become an evil empire?
a) People walking up to me and randomly taking my picture
b) Getting caught on camera by a car that is putting together a large, impersonal collection of photographs
I would choose the latter option every time.
You know, maps tell you a lot of information about where you live too. Do we see maps as invasion of privacy? Does this mean that Rand McNally is selling my life for profit?
It's not like google engineers sneak into my bedroom while I'm sleeping a couple times a month, smack my ass and then photograph the reaction for the whole world to see. They're putting together a collection of photographs of views from public places. It's okay. You'll live.
A pretty sharp political blog that has been updating its content pretty regularly. One of its many points is that political parties are to blame for the USA's current political issues.
Yeah, I linked this above too, but then I realized that I ballsed up the link.
http://http//feeds.feedburner.com/Http/ablankpapercom A Blank Paper: A political blog written by a guy who believes (amongst other things) that political parties are the problem with the American political system.
If your religion arbitrarily hates people and treats them like second class citizens, you will find that all of my speech about them will be hate speech.
And why is referring to religion as mythology hate speech?
Right. Because there's no way to give children an experience as positive as the one BSA provides without enrolling them in an organization based on the idea that religion and sexuality define moral character.
Give me a fucking break. The BSA leadership is disgustingly and irrationally intolerant, and as such there's no reason to support it. I'd prefer that the message my children receive is that morality is based on how you treat your fellow man, not the arbitrary temper tantrums of the backwardsly intolerant.
Atheists and gays are specifically banned from being members or volunteers within BSA, yet the government gives them special treatment and taxpayer money.
How about helping with a Scout troop or camp or activity or become a merit badge counselor. I will do no such thing. I will not associate with an organization which is openly, arrogantly, and spitefully intolerant of other people for completely arbitrary bullshit like religion or sexual orientation.
If certain BSA troops don't agree with BSA, they should sever all ties with BSA, or they will never see any support from me. Why would I support an organization that goes out of its way to discriminate against me?
Slashdot Mirror
Stop being so harsh, she's obviously speaking in metaphor. Let me spell it out for you:
An intimate knowledge of electrical interworkings coupled with the proper tools for using this knowledge is like a "batter" that is baked into success. Simply applying this "batter" to everyday working applications is much like printing your own money or "pushing currency down the wire."
The prose is actually quite beautiful, if you think about it.
I don't get it. Your post is totally condescending like you think you're proving him wrong but every part of your post agrees with what he said.
Except he isn't punching you for giving out copies of his own flute recordings, he is punching you for giving out copies of any recordings, whether they are your business or not.
The worst part is that he's not all that bright, so a lot of times he'll punch you for no good reason at all and then expect you to apologize.
MS-DOS 1.0 was released in '81 and work on the OS2/NT project started in '85. Are you telling me that you are completely sure that none of the code from one project was recycled into a project that was started four years later?
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that if they shared any coders, there's got to be some recycling on some level, no matter how unimportant. Avoiding reinvention of the wheel is not a new concept.
I personally don't care one way or another, it's just that you seem to be awfully arrogant about your position here, you don't have any proof to back it up, but you're still being an asshole about it. Your whole argument that it "ran on non-x86 processors" is a complete logical non-sequitur. What does one have to do with the other? You do realize that these two things are not related, right?
No. I've already dealt with the facts that you're pretending I left out. GSV is so inefficient that whether or not you're using the flash interface, you could easily make up the difference in "time until started".
This is compounded by your own admission that any houses that look good on GSV would have to be checked out in real life. If you're already going to be driving there whether you're using GSV or not, why waste your time using something so inefficient?
So before you go accusing me of distorting the facts to validate my own conclusion, you might want to read your own arguments to date and ask yourself why they've changed so much.
You realize that your argument started out being that GSV would make it easy to case endless scores of houses instantly, and since then you've come to a point where you're trying to argue that it might be able to keep up with driving, right? You have stopped arguing your original point that GSV was superior, and instead you are now arguing that it should be considered at least as efficient as the alternative. What happened to the bold assertions that GSV would allow you to get several days of criminal work done in half of a day?
And now you're grasping at straws trying to tell me that the reason GSV is better is that driving 15mph in a residential zone is dangerous? Are you really going to base your argument on that?
No, I can't drive to a neighborhood instantly. I can, however, outpace GSV by great enough strides that after a half of a day, I'll have collected much, much more information than somebody who tries to use it for criminal purposes. My information will not only come quicker and easier, it will also be time-relevant and not based on distorted, low-resolution images.
As for the video of better interfaces, I don't really see what that's supposed to prove other than the fact that GSV is slowly making strides towards almost being good enough to be compared to driving down a street (limited only by the resolution of the pictures and the fact that everything is distorted and two dimensional.) If you want to chalk that up as a win for your argument, you go right ahead. It's nothing I'd get too excited about if I were you, though.
Actually, I just timed it. It took me a minute to traverse a little less than a half mile, looking only at one side of the road. I clicked the button to advance to the next image as soon as an image loaded. I did not dick around on any of the images. I didn't resize, pan, or zoom any of them. I just advanced to the next one whether or not I could see anything helpful in the one I was on or not.
This means that you could theoretically look at both sides of a street at an aggregate speed of 15mph. As soon as you take any time whatsoever to pan or zoom any of the images to look for helpful information, your speed would go down considerably. Most residential zones have a speed limit of 25mph, or 10mph faster than you'd get from GSV. Do you consider 25mph "dangerously fast for residential streets?" Because I don't. If you want, I'll start driving at 20mph (for the safety of the children!) and still keep up a better pace than GSV.
Furthermore, you're going to obviously get a lot more information driving down the road in real life than you would trying to pan and zoom your way through a bunch of static images in a web based interface. As an added bonus, you'll get that information faster since you don't have to mouse around to move your focus from the car parked on the street to the windows of the house.
In case you're wondering, I timed the same half mile, panning the view to bring each house along the way into focus. I didn't even have time to really look at the details of any house, just enough to be able to see the entire front face of every house along the way. 1 minute 52 seconds. That's 16mph per side of the road. Once again, halve that if you want to get an aggregate speed to see both sides of the road and you end up with 8mph. I guess in your book, driving 10mph is "dangerously fast for residential streets."
Perhaps you should try using GSV before you talk about it in the future.
610 Sebring Ave Pittsburgh PA 15216
Tell me anything about this neighborhood (or any of the surrounding neighborhoods, really) that, from pictures you get off of street view, tell you which houses you should rob. Specifically, tell me what information you get from GSV that isn't easier to get elsewhere.
Remember, it takes less time to drive down a street than it does to navigate a street on GSV.
That sounds like a misapplication of technology right there. It's like the old ads for CD-ROM "multimedia encyclopedias" that tried to sell you on the idea that watching a 10 second clip of an eagle flying whilst hearing an 8bit/22khz wav of a bird sound effect was a more helpful learning tool than reading the fucking text.
Face it, it is actually way more efficient to go driving down the road looking for houses to rob than it is to go looking for them on Google Street View. The fact that you're probably going to get a good score of false-positives based on the limited information and context you are provided with from what is little more than an undated collection of 2d images, and the fact that it takes less time to drive down a street than it does to navigate down a street on GSV means that your position is baseless.
On top of that, all of the things that you mentioned above are nothing more than ignorant assumptions based on no supporting evidence, and even worse, they are assumptions that would have to be made with old and time-sensitive data.
I know you're trying to look hip using your hamburglar lingo, but seriously, you just look like a paranoid wackjob that doesn't understand what you're talking about.
"Which houses have burglar bars?" Wasn't the original argument that this would somehow make crime easier? Do you really think that the hamburglar, armed with a list of houses with no visible security, is going to be any less inconvenienced by all of the things that can't be determined by google street view? Like, say, whether people are home, whether they have an army of pitbulls, whether or not they have a security system, safety glass, .45, 9mm, etc? So in the end, he'd have to come and "case" the house anyway?
At that point, what makes using google street view any different than randomly driving through neighborhoods?
If you can come up with one way that anybody could use google street view to make crime easier, please share it with the rest of us. And no vague FUD horseshit like "casing" or "finding marks." Considering the fact that the pictures are neither real time or regularly updated, I don't see how they'd be helpful for anything other than getting a general idea of what a street looks like, let alone how they could possibly help people commit crimes.
It must be fun living in your world, where you honestly believe that life works like a high-budget Hollywood action film.
Interior, bad guy hideout. It is dimly lit except for the light of a computer screen. Behind the computer, two men in black and white striped shirts with zorro masks sit, studying the screen. On the screen is Google Street View.
Robber #1: Who'da thunk it? There's a bank in the next town over.
Robber #2: Look, it also has an awning that has the name of the bank on it. I think we should rob this one.
Robber #1: Luckily we have Google Street view to assist us with our crime. How else would we have known that at some time in the last year or so, there was some guy in a lime green polo shirt, holding something like a hot dog or something, I don't know it's kinda fuzzy, walking by the doors of this bank?
Robber #2: ...and if a guy in a shirt can walk by, that must mean the sidewalks aren't made of hot lava! Google had no idea that we'd be using their technology to plan crimes!
Robber #1: Look, it seems that the exterior walls of the bank are made of something transparent such as semi-reflective glass. There seems to be a sign saying "50% OFF" of something...but I cannot read the rest of the sign. Curses.
Robber #2: But how will we ever know where the walls start and where the doors begin? We will need to know this if we are going to get in and out quickly!
Robber #1: Well, using this technology we will be able to study this photo in advance to be able to figure out where the front door to the bank is... Look! I believe I have located it just under the awning you noticed earlier.
Robber #2: THIS WILL BE THE EASIEST JOB EVER THANKS TO GOOGLE STREET VIEW!
FIN!
Holy shit I just found that you can go into most any gas station and (for just a couple bucks) buy what con artists, shady contractors, and burglars call a "map" which will show you a detailed listing of all of the residential areas nearby. Using this "map," you can pretty efficiently loot and plunder your way through a small town without ever having to suspiciously ask the locals for directions.
FUCK YOU RAND MCNALLY.
How are you going to case a house from street view? You realize the photos are not realtime, or even regularly updated for that matter, right? What are you going to do, look at a picture of a house and decide that since there was no car parked in front of a house and nobody was standing in the windows for at least one split-second of time between the moment google launched street view and the present, 859 Sycamore Ln (Address approximate) is probably ripe for the plucking?
Are you high?
Overgeneralize much? I for one get a kick out of seeing my house on street view and am kind of upset that I recently moved to a place that hasn't been added yet.
Why shouldn't photographs taken from public places be put on the internet? Is it because google has the capacity to take a lot of pictures in public ares and put them on the internet? How many pictures do you need to be able to take in a day before you stop being a benign Japanese tourist and become an evil empire?
If I ever had to choose between
a) People walking up to me and randomly taking my picture
b) Getting caught on camera by a car that is putting together a large, impersonal collection of photographs
I would choose the latter option every time.
You know, maps tell you a lot of information about where you live too. Do we see maps as invasion of privacy? Does this mean that Rand McNally is selling my life for profit?
It's not like google engineers sneak into my bedroom while I'm sleeping a couple times a month, smack my ass and then photograph the reaction for the whole world to see. They're putting together a collection of photographs of views from public places. It's okay. You'll live.
http//feeds.feedburner.com/Http/ablankpapercom
A pretty sharp political blog that has been updating its content pretty regularly. One of its many points is that political parties are to blame for the USA's current political issues.
Yeah, I linked this above too, but then I realized that I ballsed up the link.
http://truth.gooberbear.com/rss.xml
An ongoing series of arguments against Intelligent Design
http://http//feeds.feedburner.com/Http/ablankpapercom
A Blank Paper: A political blog written by a guy who believes (amongst other things) that political parties are the problem with the American political system.
I just realized that I can't spell Schipol. Nads.
Yes, because compassion for your fellow man is terribly immature.
If your religion arbitrarily hates people and treats them like second class citizens, you will find that all of my speech about them will be hate speech.
And why is referring to religion as mythology hate speech?
Right. Because there's no way to give children an experience as positive as the one BSA provides without enrolling them in an organization based on the idea that religion and sexuality define moral character.
Give me a fucking break. The BSA leadership is disgustingly and irrationally intolerant, and as such there's no reason to support it. I'd prefer that the message my children receive is that morality is based on how you treat your fellow man, not the arbitrary temper tantrums of the backwardsly intolerant.
Parent was not flamebait, parent was fact.
Atheists and gays are specifically banned from being members or volunteers within BSA, yet the government gives them special treatment and taxpayer money.
They can fuck off, seriously.
If certain BSA troops don't agree with BSA, they should sever all ties with BSA, or they will never see any support from me. Why would I support an organization that goes out of its way to discriminate against me?