I've never been groped by an agent, but I feel the anxiety of that and other abuses by the 'all powerful' every time I fly. So far it's just a terrible possibility in my mind and has never happened, but living under that fear should not be a necessity of a reasonably safe flying experience.
Plant more trees. They harvest huge amounts of carbon over their lifetime, require no maintenance, and even reproduce by themselves. The only problem is that solution can't make someone rich.
They certainly won't share their methods of interpreting the driving data, so it would be an easy excuse to charge you more money. "Mr. Mahoney, according to your driving data you will be charged a 5% premium over the standard rate. Better luck next time."
It's interesting but if they aren't correlating the data with red lights, traffic signs, and impact on other drivers, it's of limited use. Unless you're one of those people who habitually drive 50 over the speed limit.
If you're just using RAID to make a bunch of disks look like a single logical unit, consider mhddfs. It's a FUSE filesystem which makes a bunch of disks look like a single unit. I've used it for storing backups - it works as advertised.
IIRC there were one or two caveats like a lack of hard link support so make sure you try all your use cases before relying on it.
some people need to make up stories to be ok with this absurd concept. they can't deal with the fact that an 80 year process just simply loses its power, all data is destroyed and that is that. the universe does not 'care'. there is no one there to care. all your work for your lifetime is ruined, destroyed, forgotton. you and I don't matter. none of us matters.
When a process dies, all the work it has accomplished remains. Same with a human.
I could counter your belittling of people who use these "bedtime stories" with this: those who have no belief in the possibility of a greater being are uncomfortable with the thought of something being inexplicable - ever.
Yes, something has to be done. Unfortunately, many of the 'gutter' commenters probably don't care whether people know their name or not.
What happened to online reputation as a solution? It works, for the most part, on slashdot. I would have high hopes that investment by Google could make such a system even more effective.
YouTube is a smart vehicle to choose to make people more comfortable with using their real name online. This is likely an Internet-culture shift that Google wants, and it has the online presence needed to try and muscle it in.
It's all fun and games today - we can drop our social networking sites or choose not to participate and it's no big deal.
I'm waiting for the day when insurance companies get in on the game and give you discounts or increase your rates depending on data mining of your social profile. If you want those discounts, you hand them the social data (like how people give up their purchasing data with store loyalty cards).
If you refuse to provide that data, you get the"standard" (read: expensive) rate.
I am fairly certain it's only a matter of time before this happens, if we let it.
Yes, because memory is a lossy medium and you need to decide whether you believe what the witness is saying. Obviously, having a recording of an accident can be extremely useful and I agree with that. However, that on its own is not a justification for wearable recording devices.
Has anyone studied the psychological effects of being recorded 24x7? Looking inward, I think that would be a horrible way to live. Do I second-guess everything I say and do to make sure it is appropriate for a global audience, as opposed to just the people I can see around me? Maybe I want to goof off in my friend's back yard - I don't need everyone recording what I'm doing. Another point is that when I do something in public, I see who's around me and know that in general, only they are seeing what I am doing. Most people will think nothing of it - I'll just blend in the background and fade from memory. How can that continue to be true once whatever I do is in digital form? What are the social ramifications and has anyone done research on this?
The "little expectation of privacy" statement is a little too convenient sounding for my liking. Just the social issues alone is worth more thought. Also, assuming that recording will only be done in public places is a bit presumptuous. Will people take their glasses off before coming into my yard to visit, deliver a parcel, etc..? Look at how movie stars live in the public eye everywhere they go, including their own property sometimes - I'd never want that. Anyway, I encourage you to do your own thinking.
You can do all the things you said using a cell phone camera.
Sure, we record everything we see in our brain. But our brains aren't interconnected with everyone else on the planet. Look up "self policing society" and think about a world where everyone has a device that records everything around them.
And yes, I now understand this particular device only saves images in certain circumstances, but thinking that future devices will not save everything is incredibly naive.
Do you (and several other commenters) really expect all implementations of wearable recording devices to behave the same? Wait till the devices hit a critical mass of users... permanent recording is inevitable.
Cool - I missed that part. However, there is no guarantee that other devices will work the same way. However, all you need is one competing device maker to say "save *everything* you see with our model!" and others will be forced to follow suit. Not to mention, once word gets out, you'll have attackers force-removing the device from your head to take away your evidence whether it's screwed to your skull or not.
I'm not condoning physical violence, but I think wearable recording devices _should_ be resisted by the general public.
I would have sided with the victim except for the fact that he has presented these (crystal clear) images that he saved onto the device. His defense is that the device is for improved vision, yet improved vision does not require images to be retained. Retaining images is the part I am against. Of course, with a wearable device like that nobody can tell whether you're "saving for later" or not, so an outright ban isn't out of the question.
Thought exercise: Two leaders in a room each have hand grenades and a dozen countrymen. Either leader can choose to detonate their hand grenades, but they know they will kill most or all of the people in the room by doing so. One leader continually beats and otherwise abuses the other leader's people, escalating in atrocity and brazenness as time goes on. At what point will the other leader decide enough is enough and detonate one or more grenades?
My point: MAD has its limits, and you don't necessarily have to be crazy to want to use a nuke even if the other side also has them, too.
"As nice as it is that someone at the FSF says they would not, we have to plan for a world where leaders change and institutional priorities change. The FSF wrote a licence that would give them the rights to take specific actions, and it's hard for them to argue they never would!'"
It should be made into a plaque. Assuming that an advantage will be abused eventually is a safe and reasonable position to take. Keep this in mind when giving any person or organization power and plan accordingly.
They could replace the slide-to-unlock graphic with a piece of paper on one side and a garbage can on the other. Drag-and-drop to unlock would be exactly the same motion. All that's different is the graphic.
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
How about crowd-sourced lawsuits. Law firms pay people to review questionable footage and file lawsuits against those that are deemed money-makers. Same could be said for tabloid writers: crowd-source your celebrity footage and pick the juiciest clips.
That's the answer for some, but I don't want all that. Keep me out of the rat race and it's high-density living and high-density transportation. Not everyone wants or is suited for that lifestyle.
Let people telecommute and live wherever the hell you want.
Why do so many people equate "protecting kids online" with "preventing access to pornographic material"?
That is ignoring the volumes of hate speech, malware, scams, predators, etc. Kids don't always know better to not click on that type of stuff, and once you do it's too late (you're infected or have some disturbing image in your mind that you can never "unsee"). Advertisers are really tricky, too, making their ads look like download links.
Good parenting is important, but if an Internet filter can help keep the worst content out of the way then it's a useful tool. Just like anti-virus software and common-sense go hand in hand: either one is good, but having both is better.
No matter what the release frequency, you need to carefully choose what goes into a release, and it doesn't sound like that's happening here. It doesn't matter what your release timeline is - you can still run over the deadline if you don't plan carefully or if you allow scope creep. I don't think lengthening the release timeline in SuSE's case would necessarily help anything. In fact, shortening it would likely be more effective. Each time you do a small release, you can refine your estimation skills and get better at choosing what goes into a release. On a long-lived project, this is probably harder. I'd also caution against an unspecified release date - SuSE needs to stay fresh and relevant. Waiting 2 or 3 years for an upgrade will not cut it for a lot of users.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been groped by an agent, but I feel the anxiety of that and other abuses by the 'all powerful' every time I fly. So far it's just a terrible possibility in my mind and has never happened, but living under that fear should not be a necessity of a reasonably safe flying experience.
I thought Internet access was already "taxed" in the form of ad banners and being spied upon by various government and corporate entities.
Also, that people already pay for more faster access and higher bandwidth caps.
Plant more trees. They harvest huge amounts of carbon over their lifetime, require no maintenance, and even reproduce by themselves. The only problem is that solution can't make someone rich.
They certainly won't share their methods of interpreting the driving data, so it would be an easy excuse to charge you more money. "Mr. Mahoney, according to your driving data you will be charged a 5% premium over the standard rate. Better luck next time."
It's interesting but if they aren't correlating the data with red lights, traffic signs, and impact on other drivers, it's of limited use. Unless you're one of those people who habitually drive 50 over the speed limit.
If you're just using RAID to make a bunch of disks look like a single logical unit, consider mhddfs. It's a FUSE filesystem which makes a bunch of disks look like a single unit. I've used it for storing backups - it works as advertised.
IIRC there were one or two caveats like a lack of hard link support so make sure you try all your use cases before relying on it.
A quick search turned up this: Cell Phone Hazards Part I and Part II.
TL;DR: the current standards are insufficient because they are not measuring all the right things.
When a process dies, all the work it has accomplished remains. Same with a human.
I could counter your belittling of people who use these "bedtime stories" with this: those who have no belief in the possibility of a greater being are uncomfortable with the thought of something being inexplicable - ever.
Yes, something has to be done. Unfortunately, many of the 'gutter' commenters probably don't care whether people know their name or not.
What happened to online reputation as a solution? It works, for the most part, on slashdot. I would have high hopes that investment by Google could make such a system even more effective.
YouTube is a smart vehicle to choose to make people more comfortable with using their real name online. This is likely an Internet-culture shift that Google wants, and it has the online presence needed to try and muscle it in.
If he is directly responsible for keeping a company afloat which keeps 10,000 people employed, what is that worth?
It's all fun and games today - we can drop our social networking sites or choose not to participate and it's no big deal.
I'm waiting for the day when insurance companies get in on the game and give you discounts or increase your rates depending on data mining of your social profile. If you want those discounts, you hand them the social data (like how people give up their purchasing data with store loyalty cards). If you refuse to provide that data, you get the"standard" (read: expensive) rate.
I am fairly certain it's only a matter of time before this happens, if we let it.
Yes, because memory is a lossy medium and you need to decide whether you believe what the witness is saying. Obviously, having a recording of an accident can be extremely useful and I agree with that. However, that on its own is not a justification for wearable recording devices.
Has anyone studied the psychological effects of being recorded 24x7? Looking inward, I think that would be a horrible way to live. Do I second-guess everything I say and do to make sure it is appropriate for a global audience, as opposed to just the people I can see around me? Maybe I want to goof off in my friend's back yard - I don't need everyone recording what I'm doing. Another point is that when I do something in public, I see who's around me and know that in general, only they are seeing what I am doing. Most people will think nothing of it - I'll just blend in the background and fade from memory. How can that continue to be true once whatever I do is in digital form? What are the social ramifications and has anyone done research on this?
The "little expectation of privacy" statement is a little too convenient sounding for my liking. Just the social issues alone is worth more thought. Also, assuming that recording will only be done in public places is a bit presumptuous. Will people take their glasses off before coming into my yard to visit, deliver a parcel, etc..? Look at how movie stars live in the public eye everywhere they go, including their own property sometimes - I'd never want that. Anyway, I encourage you to do your own thinking.
You can do all the things you said using a cell phone camera. Sure, we record everything we see in our brain. But our brains aren't interconnected with everyone else on the planet. Look up "self policing society" and think about a world where everyone has a device that records everything around them. And yes, I now understand this particular device only saves images in certain circumstances, but thinking that future devices will not save everything is incredibly naive.
Do you (and several other commenters) really expect all implementations of wearable recording devices to behave the same? Wait till the devices hit a critical mass of users... permanent recording is inevitable.
Cool - I missed that part. However, there is no guarantee that other devices will work the same way. However, all you need is one competing device maker to say "save *everything* you see with our model!" and others will be forced to follow suit. Not to mention, once word gets out, you'll have attackers force-removing the device from your head to take away your evidence whether it's screwed to your skull or not.
I'm not condoning physical violence, but I think wearable recording devices _should_ be resisted by the general public. I would have sided with the victim except for the fact that he has presented these (crystal clear) images that he saved onto the device. His defense is that the device is for improved vision, yet improved vision does not require images to be retained. Retaining images is the part I am against. Of course, with a wearable device like that nobody can tell whether you're "saving for later" or not, so an outright ban isn't out of the question.
Thought exercise: Two leaders in a room each have hand grenades and a dozen countrymen. Either leader can choose to detonate their hand grenades, but they know they will kill most or all of the people in the room by doing so. One leader continually beats and otherwise abuses the other leader's people, escalating in atrocity and brazenness as time goes on. At what point will the other leader decide enough is enough and detonate one or more grenades?
My point: MAD has its limits, and you don't necessarily have to be crazy to want to use a nuke even if the other side also has them, too.
Yes, I love this quote:
It should be made into a plaque. Assuming that an advantage will be abused eventually is a safe and reasonable position to take. Keep this in mind when giving any person or organization power and plan accordingly.
They could replace the slide-to-unlock graphic with a piece of paper on one side and a garbage can on the other. Drag-and-drop to unlock would be exactly the same motion. All that's different is the graphic.
Jobs sounded like a dictator with good instincts.
As much as I'd like to believe that, that is the most naive thing I've heard in a long time. Just look at human history.
How about crowd-sourced lawsuits. Law firms pay people to review questionable footage and file lawsuits against those that are deemed money-makers. Same could be said for tabloid writers: crowd-source your celebrity footage and pick the juiciest clips.
Heh, exactly. The sword cuts both ways. That's why it pays to be forgiving of others: someday, you will appreciate that forgiveness being returned.
Let people telecommute and live wherever the hell you want.
That is ignoring the volumes of hate speech, malware, scams, predators, etc. Kids don't always know better to not click on that type of stuff, and once you do it's too late (you're infected or have some disturbing image in your mind that you can never "unsee"). Advertisers are really tricky, too, making their ads look like download links.
Good parenting is important, but if an Internet filter can help keep the worst content out of the way then it's a useful tool. Just like anti-virus software and common-sense go hand in hand: either one is good, but having both is better.
No matter what the release frequency, you need to carefully choose what goes into a release, and it doesn't sound like that's happening here. It doesn't matter what your release timeline is - you can still run over the deadline if you don't plan carefully or if you allow scope creep. I don't think lengthening the release timeline in SuSE's case would necessarily help anything. In fact, shortening it would likely be more effective. Each time you do a small release, you can refine your estimation skills and get better at choosing what goes into a release. On a long-lived project, this is probably harder. I'd also caution against an unspecified release date - SuSE needs to stay fresh and relevant. Waiting 2 or 3 years for an upgrade will not cut it for a lot of users.