\Interesting to think that if an individual were to take pictures, they would be questioned by the police, but if Google takes high-resolution pictures from a car, that is not a problem.
Not very interesting at all, actually. It's a question of motive. Google is going to a hell of an expense just to capture those pics of kids, so that's likely not their motive. Hell, a guy taking random photos with a digital camera as he drives isn't really suspicious either.
>Real rich people have security and that typically chases away 90% of the burglars
Hell, real rich people live in houses you can't see from the street! I think the number one indicator that these are just upper middle class social climbers is the fact that streetview even shows anything.
IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private....if I set up my high powered telescope...
bzzzt. Telescope does not meet the definition of plainly viewable.
Look into regulations for shooting movies in certain cities for example.
bzzzt. Strike two. The lion's share of film permit regulations are about parking and the blocking of traffic, placement and use of lighting, and general disruption of ordinary folk's lives. Very little of the regs have anything to do with the actual shooting of film, and it's widely acknowledged by legal authorities that what regulations some cities have on filming itself wouldn't pass constitutional muster if they were challenged in court. If you don't need eight trucks full of rigging and four score of lazy overpaid techs, you can film whatever the fuck you want without a permit. The reason no one ever challenges this stuff is that paying for a permit gets the film made, while fighting it in court gets you nothing but a sense of satisfaction at the unemployment office.
It's amusing that you assume your thought processes mirror what the ignorant "dense" public would think, if only they were knowing and understanding...
They were only taking picture of light that was over the public road. Cameras don't reach out and take things.
By that logic, standing in a bucket truck filming the children changing for bed between the slats in their blinds with a telephoto lens and uploading it to the internet isn't at all an invasion of privacy either.
No, you're torturing that logic to concoct an extreme case. You have to apply the general logic used by the courts. Basically, you can't use technological means that significantly exceed the capabilities of a normal person wandering down the sidewalk. Telephoto lenses, boom trucks, parabolic mikes, and infrared cameras fail the test.
Or perhaps we could develop a social contract that balances things private and public so that I don't have to hide my stuff in a bunker in order to insure you don't feel you have a right to put pictures of it on the internet in a massive geo-tagged database you make available for your private commercial gain.
We already have that balance. It's built into the legal definitions of "public" and "private". Your problem is that you think you ought to have free and unfettered view of public areas from your house, but the the public should be severely limited in the reciprocal. Sounds more like you need a fence than a new social contract.
Why can't we reach an understanding where its perfectly ok to take a few private photographs, but completely unacceptable to systematically photograph everyone/everthing and upload it into a for profit geo-tagged database?
Because you're describing two ends of a continuum, not a characteristic that exists as a binary condition. Banning the latter doesn't stop someone like (say) Wikipedia from collecting such a database (non profit). And it doesn't allow me to sell a panoramic photo from an airplane I took if you decide to be an asshat about your house appearing as fourteen murky pixels in the lower left corner. It also gives every dirtbag corporation a tool to keep for-profit news agencies from filming news spots featuring any part of their property. Whoops! You've just tripped over the first amendment there!
Really, this is the same thing as saying "there ought to be free speech, but not if it's something I and my neighbors object to" and then going on to silence a group of inbred fucktards who want to wear nazi regalia and shout "white power". If the edge case is not protected, then none of it is protected. Living in a free society means some people have the freedom to be dicks. Suck it up and plant a 6' hedge.
I am intrigued at the idea of a battery as the power supply. This means you can use a smaller inverter
err...no. An inverter is used to convert DC to AC. If the computer is backed by an internal 12V battery, it feeds the system directly. The entire advantage of the internal battery over external UPS is that you don't need an inverter.
The only positive thing I can say about today is that it's better than it was a a year or two ago, when every fucking story was a joke, and not a single one of them was even the slightest bit clever or believable. This one story at least has the obfuscation of assembly language to make it look plausible, and we have a real blurb about conficker, so we're already ahead.
Or possibly that autism causes pre-emtive vinyl flooring
Heh, don't dismiss that so easily. There could have been a popular book about autist kids raising that would suggest that carpets floor are bad for them
Cripes, the summary even tells you the vinyl flooring comes years before the onset of autism. What kind of weirdo reads books about autism when they don't know their kid is going to have it?
Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's the ignorance of folks like you that opponents of the Bill of Rights were afraid of. They feared people would think the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list of our rights, even if one of them explicitly stated it wasn't (i.e. the 9th). The US Constitution protects all rights, even ones not explicitly enumerated therein. The Bill of Rights was essentially a "Top 10 List" they felt were especially important. If the Supreme Court says that the right to privacy is a basic right, they don't have to justify it as an extension of the 4th. They originally did (which I think was a mistake) but they really needed only cite the 9th.
So, if you find out a secret that someone is making money off, you can't tell anyone by law? That seems ridiculous. Surely, you are only obliged to keep someone's secret if they have entrusted you with it in some way. If you've discovered it yourself then it's your decision.
Indeed, Trade Secret law is a way of punishing the crap out of you if you release information you have been entrusted with. The person you tell it to (e.g. a business competitor) is free to use the information however they like.
Sure. Until said mexican priest takes his UK court-ordered judgment and comes to the USA, and sues me for collection of said debt.
Geting such a UK judgement of libel recognised in the US, particularly in the "mexican goes to UK to sue US resident" hypothetical, is a losing proposition. Might as well be suing in US court to have a Yemeni fatwa against women attending sporting events enforced.
That's just another variation of the hair-splitting Christians do when they say "we don't hate the sinner, just the sin", when really, they hate fags. I hate Christianity, and also those that perpetuate it. There's really no splitting the two apart. There would be no religion without followers.
>But the Soviets also managed to outproduce the Germans. And the Soviets were at the receiving end of the world's largest, most destructive invasion ever.
They moved all the production facilities to the Urals and eastwards. Untouchable, just like the US.
while the Germans were slow to put their economy into war footing
It was more that Germany did not have a large enough economy (nor enough resources) to sustain a protracted war. Their plan was to win quickly, and use captured territory to expand their industrial base.
and suffered greatly from uncontested strategic bombing by the USA and Britain.
Actually, they suffered quite minimally. The lie that strategic bombing brought them to their knees (rather than running out of resources) comes from the likes of Curtis leMay, founder of the US Air Force. It is still, to this day, taught in the US Air Force Academy that strategic bombing crippled German ball bearing manufacturing, which greatly helped reduce their output. This was even the linch-pin argument in favor of separating the US Air Force into its own service, separate from the Army. Many years after being taught this, an Air Force officer asked Albert Speer, the production minister for Nazi Germany, about this crippling of the ball-bearing factories. His reply was priceless: "they were targeting the ball bearing factories? We had no idea." In reality, production was crippled by lack of resources. The vast majority of allied bombs missed their targets, if the navigators could even successfully reach and identify them correctly.
No, the success of the strategic bombing campaign in WW2 is one of the biggest lies in military history. It was a colossal waste of lives and material for negligible gain.
Yeah, as I have pointed out to "think of the children" types in the past: seeing sex on TV is not going to make your teenager a sex crazed monster full of uncontrollable hormones--- he or she is already that regardless of what they watch.
Alan Moore was hoping to spark a change in comic books... He blames comics today on his bad mood all those years ago...
Yeah, but really, Alan Moore is just a little bit full of himself. Comics were already heading to a dark place before issue 1 of Watchmen even hit the stands. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, the first of the much more twisted Frank Miller Batman comics, was out a full 6 months before Watchmen. Moore himself even jumped on the Batman bandwagon with The Killing Joke a couple years later. Moore likes to think of himself as the instigator of all this, but really he ought to learn to apply Hanlon's Razor: most likely, the dark comics and his bad mood were both simply a sign of the times.
Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.
Bullshit. I'd love to hear you explain how this might possibly be the case. Give my a plausible hypothetical situation.
In reality, people capable of sophisticated intelligent thought can't stand driving around in a car mostly doing nothing for 8 hours a day. They're trying to hire people that are less likely to quit.
The sad thing is that people who lie on the test (and are consistent about it) are the ones that are going to get hired.
MMPI-2 isn't something given by HR people, and the answers to the questions aren't analyzed one-by-one anyway. Furthermore, one of the axes it measures is truthfulness in answering the questions, and this in turn affects the scores on other axes.
Basically, you're looking too closely at the individual questions. This is a psychiatric test for rough clinical diagnosis.
You might be asked to take the MMPI-2 if you are going to work with classified information in the military, but the hiring manager at Spud Corp isn't likely to know enough about the DSM IV to even understand the results.
All of that science investigating free will is problematic because free will lies outside of the underlying assumptions of the scientific methods researchers use to study free will.
What you're saying is that free will is premised upon the existence of an unprovable mechanism outside our universe, such as an immortal soul? Trouble is even that bullshit cop out doesn't get you out of the conceptual bind. In what way is the action of some imaginary immortal soul making a "free-will" decision not influenced by information from our material world? Surely you are not suggesting that the soul is just a random number generator, ignoring outside input. Even this "ghost" is deterministic in its supposed decision. Even if you attempt to escape the known world and appeal to an imaginary actor, you run into the "turtles all the way down" problem.
If you don't want to see a religious discussion, don't go into a forum discussing free will. As the GP poster states, the "free will problem" only exists as an artifact of religion. Trying to keep religion out of free-will philosophy is like trying to keep religion out of a discussion of the Bible. Any noteworthy aspect of either is going to be related to religion.
There is too much randomness involved for anyone to have a "fated destiny". Free will and complete determinism are not the only two choices.
What are you yammering on about? Everything is deterministic, even so-called "randomness". The distinction is purely perceptual, an artifact of the limitations of our senses.
That sounds a whole lot like "random," which (it seems to me) must surely mean "not subject to cause and effect."
There is no such thing as "random" in that sense. "Random" is just a way of saying something lies outside the perceptual/computational capacity of the brain. Everything in the universe is basically deterministic.
Slashdot Mirror
\Interesting to think that if an individual were to take pictures, they would be questioned by the police, but if Google takes high-resolution pictures from a car, that is not a problem.
Not very interesting at all, actually. It's a question of motive. Google is going to a hell of an expense just to capture those pics of kids, so that's likely not their motive. Hell, a guy taking random photos with a digital camera as he drives isn't really suspicious either.
>Real rich people have security and that typically chases away 90% of the burglars
Hell, real rich people live in houses you can't see from the street! I think the number one indicator that these are just upper middle class social climbers is the fact that streetview even shows anything.
IANAL, but anything plainly viewable from public property is not considered private. ...if I set up my high powered telescope...
bzzzt. Telescope does not meet the definition of plainly viewable.
Look into regulations for shooting movies in certain cities for example.
bzzzt. Strike two. The lion's share of film permit regulations are about parking and the blocking of traffic, placement and use of lighting, and general disruption of ordinary folk's lives. Very little of the regs have anything to do with the actual shooting of film, and it's widely acknowledged by legal authorities that what regulations some cities have on filming itself wouldn't pass constitutional muster if they were challenged in court. If you don't need eight trucks full of rigging and four score of lazy overpaid techs, you can film whatever the fuck you want without a permit. The reason no one ever challenges this stuff is that paying for a permit gets the film made, while fighting it in court gets you nothing but a sense of satisfaction at the unemployment office.
It's amusing that you assume your thought processes mirror what the ignorant "dense" public would think, if only they were knowing and understanding...
They were only taking picture of light that was over the public road. Cameras don't reach out and take things.
By that logic, standing in a bucket truck filming the children changing for bed between the slats in their blinds with a telephoto lens and uploading it to the internet isn't at all an invasion of privacy either.
No, you're torturing that logic to concoct an extreme case. You have to apply the general logic used by the courts. Basically, you can't use technological means that significantly exceed the capabilities of a normal person wandering down the sidewalk. Telephoto lenses, boom trucks, parabolic mikes, and infrared cameras fail the test.
Or perhaps we could develop a social contract that balances things private and public so that I don't have to hide my stuff in a bunker in order to insure you don't feel you have a right to put pictures of it on the internet in a massive geo-tagged database you make available for your private commercial gain.
We already have that balance. It's built into the legal definitions of "public" and "private". Your problem is that you think you ought to have free and unfettered view of public areas from your house, but the the public should be severely limited in the reciprocal. Sounds more like you need a fence than a new social contract.
Why can't we reach an understanding where its perfectly ok to take a few private photographs, but completely unacceptable to systematically photograph everyone/everthing and upload it into a for profit geo-tagged database?
Because you're describing two ends of a continuum, not a characteristic that exists as a binary condition. Banning the latter doesn't stop someone like (say) Wikipedia from collecting such a database (non profit). And it doesn't allow me to sell a panoramic photo from an airplane I took if you decide to be an asshat about your house appearing as fourteen murky pixels in the lower left corner. It also gives every dirtbag corporation a tool to keep for-profit news agencies from filming news spots featuring any part of their property. Whoops! You've just tripped over the first amendment there!
Really, this is the same thing as saying "there ought to be free speech, but not if it's something I and my neighbors object to" and then going on to silence a group of inbred fucktards who want to wear nazi regalia and shout "white power". If the edge case is not protected, then none of it is protected. Living in a free society means some people have the freedom to be dicks. Suck it up and plant a 6' hedge.
I am intrigued at the idea of a battery as the power supply. This means you can use a smaller inverter
err...no. An inverter is used to convert DC to AC. If the computer is backed by an internal 12V battery, it feeds the system directly. The entire advantage of the internal battery over external UPS is that you don't need an inverter.
The only positive thing I can say about today is that it's better than it was a a year or two ago, when every fucking story was a joke, and not a single one of them was even the slightest bit clever or believable. This one story at least has the obfuscation of assembly language to make it look plausible, and we have a real blurb about conficker, so we're already ahead.
A pregnant mother who smokes poisons her baby.
Nonsense! My mother smoked and I have no mental problems, you inanimate object that exists only for my amusement!
Or possibly that autism causes pre-emtive vinyl flooring
Heh, don't dismiss that so easily. There could have been a popular book about autist kids raising that would suggest that carpets floor are bad for them
Cripes, the summary even tells you the vinyl flooring comes years before the onset of autism. What kind of weirdo reads books about autism when they don't know their kid is going to have it?
There is no constitutional right to privacy.
Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's the ignorance of folks like you that opponents of the Bill of Rights were afraid of. They feared people would think the Bill of Rights was an exhaustive list of our rights, even if one of them explicitly stated it wasn't (i.e. the 9th). The US Constitution protects all rights, even ones not explicitly enumerated therein. The Bill of Rights was essentially a "Top 10 List" they felt were especially important. If the Supreme Court says that the right to privacy is a basic right, they don't have to justify it as an extension of the 4th. They originally did (which I think was a mistake) but they really needed only cite the 9th.
So, if you find out a secret that someone is making money off, you can't tell anyone by law? That seems ridiculous. Surely, you are only obliged to keep someone's secret if they have entrusted you with it in some way. If you've discovered it yourself then it's your decision.
Indeed, Trade Secret law is a way of punishing the crap out of you if you release information you have been entrusted with. The person you tell it to (e.g. a business competitor) is free to use the information however they like.
Sure. Until said mexican priest takes his UK court-ordered judgment and comes to the USA, and sues me for collection of said debt.
Geting such a UK judgement of libel recognised in the US, particularly in the "mexican goes to UK to sue US resident" hypothetical, is a losing proposition. Might as well be suing in US court to have a Yemeni fatwa against women attending sporting events enforced.
That's just another variation of the hair-splitting Christians do when they say "we don't hate the sinner, just the sin", when really, they hate fags. I hate Christianity, and also those that perpetuate it. There's really no splitting the two apart. There would be no religion without followers.
>But the Soviets also managed to outproduce the Germans. And the Soviets were at the receiving end of the world's largest, most destructive invasion ever.
They moved all the production facilities to the Urals and eastwards. Untouchable, just like the US.
while the Germans were slow to put their economy into war footing
It was more that Germany did not have a large enough economy (nor enough resources) to sustain a protracted war. Their plan was to win quickly, and use captured territory to expand their industrial base.
and suffered greatly from uncontested strategic bombing by the USA and Britain.
Actually, they suffered quite minimally. The lie that strategic bombing brought them to their knees (rather than running out of resources) comes from the likes of Curtis leMay, founder of the US Air Force. It is still, to this day, taught in the US Air Force Academy that strategic bombing crippled German ball bearing manufacturing, which greatly helped reduce their output. This was even the linch-pin argument in favor of separating the US Air Force into its own service, separate from the Army. Many years after being taught this, an Air Force officer asked Albert Speer, the production minister for Nazi Germany, about this crippling of the ball-bearing factories. His reply was priceless: "they were targeting the ball bearing factories? We had no idea." In reality, production was crippled by lack of resources. The vast majority of allied bombs missed their targets, if the navigators could even successfully reach and identify them correctly.
No, the success of the strategic bombing campaign in WW2 is one of the biggest lies in military history. It was a colossal waste of lives and material for negligible gain.
Yeah, as I have pointed out to "think of the children" types in the past: seeing sex on TV is not going to make your teenager a sex crazed monster full of uncontrollable hormones--- he or she is already that regardless of what they watch.
Alan Moore was hoping to spark a change in comic books... He blames comics today on his bad mood all those years ago...
Yeah, but really, Alan Moore is just a little bit full of himself. Comics were already heading to a dark place before issue 1 of Watchmen even hit the stands. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, the first of the much more twisted Frank Miller Batman comics, was out a full 6 months before Watchmen. Moore himself even jumped on the Batman bandwagon with The Killing Joke a couple years later. Moore likes to think of himself as the instigator of all this, but really he ought to learn to apply Hanlon's Razor: most likely, the dark comics and his bad mood were both simply a sign of the times.
Another surefire indicator is when they post unsupported assertions as AC.
Having a tendency to come up with bright ideas under pressure is simply a liability in the world of street level law enforcement.
Bullshit. I'd love to hear you explain how this might possibly be the case. Give my a plausible hypothetical situation.
In reality, people capable of sophisticated intelligent thought can't stand driving around in a car mostly doing nothing for 8 hours a day. They're trying to hire people that are less likely to quit.
Precedence is falled back on all the time
Precedent is fallen back on all the time
The sad thing is that people who lie on the test (and are consistent about it) are the ones that are going to get hired.
MMPI-2 isn't something given by HR people, and the answers to the questions aren't analyzed one-by-one anyway. Furthermore, one of the axes it measures is truthfulness in answering the questions, and this in turn affects the scores on other axes.
Basically, you're looking too closely at the individual questions. This is a psychiatric test for rough clinical diagnosis.
You might be asked to take the MMPI-2 if you are going to work with classified information in the military, but the hiring manager at Spud Corp isn't likely to know enough about the DSM IV to even understand the results.
All of that science investigating free will is problematic because free will lies outside of the underlying assumptions of the scientific methods researchers use to study free will.
What you're saying is that free will is premised upon the existence of an unprovable mechanism outside our universe, such as an immortal soul? Trouble is even that bullshit cop out doesn't get you out of the conceptual bind. In what way is the action of some imaginary immortal soul making a "free-will" decision not influenced by information from our material world? Surely you are not suggesting that the soul is just a random number generator, ignoring outside input. Even this "ghost" is deterministic in its supposed decision. Even if you attempt to escape the known world and appeal to an imaginary actor, you run into the "turtles all the way down" problem.
If you don't want to see a religious discussion, don't go into a forum discussing free will. As the GP poster states, the "free will problem" only exists as an artifact of religion. Trying to keep religion out of free-will philosophy is like trying to keep religion out of a discussion of the Bible. Any noteworthy aspect of either is going to be related to religion.
There is too much randomness involved for anyone to have a "fated destiny". Free will and complete determinism are not the only two choices.
What are you yammering on about? Everything is deterministic, even so-called "randomness". The distinction is purely perceptual, an artifact of the limitations of our senses.
That sounds a whole lot like "random," which (it seems to me) must surely mean "not subject to cause and effect."
There is no such thing as "random" in that sense. "Random" is just a way of saying something lies outside the perceptual/computational capacity of the brain. Everything in the universe is basically deterministic.