If you're an Orange customer then you can get a free cinema ticket every Wednesday (two for the price of one) just by sending a text (SMS) to or calling 241. The free ticket is sent to your phone by text (SMS) as a short (~10 digit) number, which is inputted by the cashier at the cinema when you get your tickets.
It's simple and it works. And if it works for cinema tickets then it will work for concerts, sports, the theatre, planes, trains, etc.
I agree that this is hypocritical, but look at it this way:
1. Real getting into the iPod market provides an immediate benefit for Real (and its customers), as it lets Real reach a very significant percentage of current and future MP3 owners.
Clearly this is good for Real's bottom line.
2. Real entering the Apple market by supporting OSX (or other MacOS) customers is not as immediate a benefit for Real, as making a significant ROI would be like trying to push water uphill.
There are several reasons for this, including the relative size of the OSX market to the Windows market, the competition, the resources it would divert from other projects, etc. In other words, the number of sales that Real could hope to get from the small minority of potential customers that own Macs, want to buy music online, and are willing to shift allegiances from iTMS to Rhapsody is probably minimal compared to the cost of going after those customers.
Clearly this isn't as good for Real's bottom line. In fact, it would probably lose them money and, as Real isn't a deep-pocket monster like Microsoft, it can't afford to invest in projects that have little or no chance of showing a return.
Ironically, the best thing that Mac owners who would like to be able to use Rhapsody can do is hope that/encourage Apple to let Real into the iPod market that it wants, because once Real is able to service iPod owners it is more likely to go the whole hog and support Mac customers too, if for no reason other than a large percentage of iPod owners also own Macs and it's their Macs that they would use to buy music for their iPods.
Unfortunately for Real, they need Apple's cooperation and support far more than Apple needs them, so don't expect anything to come out of this: it's just not in Apple's interest to open the doors to the iPod/Mac music download market to Real or anyone else.
At first glance, you might think, "Yeah! Serves 'em right! Delete their home dir!" The thing is, it's akin to setting up a trap in your car or home for burglars that hurts or kills them (although deleting ~user shouldn't be physically harmful, at least directly). In short, going on the offensive in an equally or more sinister way doesn't always make it the right thing to do.
Uh, isn't that the American way? Shoot anyone who tresspasses on your property?
I'm British, and, beyond the effect it has on the geopolitical landscape, I don't give a shit whether the man in the Oval Office is a Republican or a Democrat. So that blows your assessment of my beliefs, and why I oppose the invasion of Iraq, out of the water, doesn't it?
And I thought that the US Marine Corps taught their officers to use their intelligence and make decisions based upon information not innuendo. Perhaps they still do and that's why you're no longer in the Corps?
And the will of the majority of international community, including much of the UN Security Council, was opposed to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Where's the Bush administration's compliance there?
Maybe you should 1) realise that posting that as an Anonymous Coward is so ironic, because you don't even have the guts to stand up for what you believe in; and 2) appreciate that what I was saying is that this so-called "War On Terror" isn't really targetted at those who actually commit terrorist attacks as some people would like you to think.
Quit my fucking whining? Oh, I'm sorry, I guess free speech must only be for the sheep who bleat whatever they are told.
Untill I see a nice satellite image, or photo of the cloud or something concrete, I'm skeptical.
So a generic photo of a mushroom cloud would make you happy that it is for real?
Wow, I hope Dubya and co use better judgement than that and demand a bit more proof than some picture pulled from a photo library before deciding to get all gung-ho about "nu-cu-lar" weapons.
I really appreciate you going through my comments related to this story and then picking stupid holes in them but this is ridiculous.
If you don't believe me (nice, subtle way of calling me a liar, by the way) then why not read the fucking article that I provided you with a link to? And if you're too damn lazy to do that, then that's your own damn fault, but don't come out with bullshit like "Ah, the old 'the change in police recording practices' excuse", (emphasis mine).
I go to the trouble of providing a link to an article that's full of the relevant information and there's still someone like you who prefers anecdotal rather than hard evidence and who comes out with crap like "Look, it may be true, I don't really know". Well, if you don't really know, and you aren't willing to educate yourself by reading a news story packed with all the relevant information, and a story that I've practically put in your damn lap at that, then stop fucking being an idiot.
God, could you be a bigger troll? You have the facts before you but yet you still prefer to call them "excuses" and come out with bullshit like that.
Of course they don't stop crime, but they do reduce the amount that takes place. Some criminals are smart enough not to break the law where they'll be caught on camera but there will always be those who are dumb enough to do it or who think that they can beat the system and never get caught.
There's real evidence that cameras act as a deterrent against pre-meditated criminal activity, from minor offenses, such as spraying grafitti, to major ones, such as terrorism.
Yes, I did say terrorism. The IRA's attacks in London's financial district diminished after the "ring of steel", a mult-layered defence against terrorism that included CCTV cameras, was installed. Not all terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives in suicide attacks, and those that aren't, such as the IRA, don't like to be caught.
So that blows your "cameras will not stop crime" argument out of the water. Oh, and by the way, who said that installing cameras would necessarily mean less police on the streets? It is possible to have one without diminishing the other.
1. You continually hold the flawed belief that any such network of cameras would be so comprehensive as to cover every spot continuously and have zero blind spots. Even if such a network was possible in an urban environment, don't you think it would be impractical to implement from a cost point of view? (There are other places local government funds can be spent too, you know.) Given that, the chances of catching and tracking a thief from A to Z aren't as high as you seem to assume.
2. Hmmm, who would I rather is given the potential to spy on me and everyone else in my city? A small number of cops/trained operatives that have been properly screened or anyone and everyone, that includes every hood, psycho and sicko out there? Gee, I wonder.
3. If everyone had access to FBI, CIA and NSA files, those organisations would scream about how they've been compromised and how this gives the bad guys (crooks, spies, terrorists) a hand in the cookie jar.
The CIA, which had "undeniable proof from multiple sources" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the field and ready to be used refused to release any of the information it had gathered to the UN, citing that it would potentially compromise its sources. As it turns out, the proof and the multiple sources all turned out to be a bunch of bull, but it's indicative of the level of secrecy involved with such organisations that even when it comes to trying to prove a case for war, they value their secrecy first and everything else second.
What does this show? Well, it just reinforces what I've been saying, that giving everyone access to everything is a bad idea because "everyone" includes the bad guys, be they big or small.
Please, please tell me how having multiple people and the police monitoring the cameras is any WORSE than having just the police officer monitoring the camera.
You are advocating that anyone should be allowed to access any camera whenever they want. As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's a burglar's or a mugger's (or a stalker's or a paedophile's) paradise.
And if you can't see how that's worse than access limited to people that have at least passed through several background checks and are already in positions of responsibility then you really just don't get it.
See, at least you're starting to think logically.
No, I've been thinking about this logically from the start. Giving everyone access to this footage makes about as much sense as giving everyone access to FBI, CIA and NSA files.
You're assuming that CCTVs catch everything, and in perfect detail, all the time.
Tell me, how many cameras do you think that there will be looking at any one location simultaneously? One? Two? And how many of those cameras do you think will catch the 15 seconds that it takes you to get mugged or pickpocketed?
I find it fucking hilarious that people here actually believe that such a comprehensive network of cameras covers the UK ("saturation coverage" is how one person here describes it, even though that's totally not true), yet you won't look at the crime statistics and work out for yourself that not every crime is caught on camera and not every criminal is eventually caught.
Airports in the US have lots of CCTVs in them. You don't think that people get robbed (pickpocketed, luggage stolen) at all in airports? That's so funny.
No, but me, the other people around my neighborhood, the police, and anyone else who cares to watch seems to be a much better ratio than me alone. I never said that the police wouldn't have access to the cameras as well. Duh. It's pretty damn logical that the more people that are watching means there is a better chance of SOMEONE seeing it happen.
So you take the tiny odds that someone is trying to break in at the same time you're watching your apartment - assuming that the camera is pointing right in the direction of your front door at the time they choose to break in - and you multiply that by, say, 50. And then you hope that one of the 50 people around your neighbourhood that also looks at the camera can tell the difference between a guy who's just walked up to your front door and is forcing the lock and a friend of yours who's having difficulty with his key.
Yeah, that really improves your chances of catching someone in the act so much. No, really, it does.
This is complete and utter rubbish. Violent crime has risen in the UK principally because the definition of what constitutes a violent crime has changed to include a lot of offenses that previously were categorised differently and which certainly don't fall under the banner of violent crime elsewhere.
For example if they make a complaint against you, pushing someone, even without causing them any injury, is now classed as a violent crime. As is spitting at them. Now, in the US and elsewhere, such things wouldn't be classed the same way.
As this recent BBC News article shows, the chances of someone being a victim of any crime in the UK have fallen dramatically since 1995, and burglary and vehicle theft have halved since then.
The article states:
While the BCS [British Crime Survey] suggested violent crime had fallen by 3%, police records of violent crime increased by 12%.
The Home Office attributed this difference to a change in police recording practices, a record number of police officers to register crimes, and an increasing willingness by the public to report crime.
Over half of all crimes now counted as violent do not involve any injury to the victim.
Violent crime such as common assault includes pushing and shoving, with little or no physical injury to the victim.
So, half of all violent crimes in the UK don't involve any real harm to anyone whatsoever. Something to remember when people start spouting rubbish about how violent crime in Britain is soaring.
And if you think about it from the burgular's point of view, he/she will be thinking about all of the possible people watching HIM as he/she breaks into the house. Fool.
YOU are calling ME a fool? You're the fool here. The likelyhood of you catching someone in the act are low: you're not suggesting that you'd have access to and the time to watch a CCTV feed 24/7 when you're out of the house, are you?
So aside from the deterrent factor, the benefit of the cameras comes in being able to review the footage and get a description of the perpetrator, his means of entry, exit and escape, etc and you being granted access to that footage doesn't help any after the fact. The police will get what they want from the film regardless of whether eeveryone else can access it or not.
Duh.
And you called me a fool? Ever looked in the mirror lately?
As for your 1984-type scenario, well do what we do here in Britain. Anyone who has footage of you has to produce it for a minimal fee (maximum of £10, which is ~$15).
Just out of interest, if you're that paranoid about being caught on camera, what do you do when you go shopping or to the bank? Or catch a bus, train or plane? Or visit a government building? Do you magically turn invisible then?
The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously.
You're suggesting that there's no difference between "a van accross [sic] the street" and a network of CCTVs available to anyone who wants to use them, which would allow someone to watch when I left my house, when I got to my bus, when I got to my office, etc, so that they could time a break-in for when I was an hour away, and when you knew my neighbours were also an hour away.
And, while you're casing me, you can also be casing 20 other people who live all over the city too, all from the comfort of your own home, a library or an internet cafe.
God, you really can't think things through, can you?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're an Orange customer then you can get a free cinema ticket every Wednesday (two for the price of one) just by sending a text (SMS) to or calling 241. The free ticket is sent to your phone by text (SMS) as a short (~10 digit) number, which is inputted by the cashier at the cinema when you get your tickets.
It's simple and it works. And if it works for cinema tickets then it will work for concerts, sports, the theatre, planes, trains, etc.
I agree that this is hypocritical, but look at it this way:
1. Real getting into the iPod market provides an immediate benefit for Real (and its customers), as it lets Real reach a very significant percentage of current and future MP3 owners.
Clearly this is good for Real's bottom line.
2. Real entering the Apple market by supporting OSX (or other MacOS) customers is not as immediate a benefit for Real, as making a significant ROI would be like trying to push water uphill.
There are several reasons for this, including the relative size of the OSX market to the Windows market, the competition, the resources it would divert from other projects, etc. In other words, the number of sales that Real could hope to get from the small minority of potential customers that own Macs, want to buy music online, and are willing to shift allegiances from iTMS to Rhapsody is probably minimal compared to the cost of going after those customers.
Clearly this isn't as good for Real's bottom line. In fact, it would probably lose them money and, as Real isn't a deep-pocket monster like Microsoft, it can't afford to invest in projects that have little or no chance of showing a return.
Ironically, the best thing that Mac owners who would like to be able to use Rhapsody can do is hope that/encourage Apple to let Real into the iPod market that it wants, because once Real is able to service iPod owners it is more likely to go the whole hog and support Mac customers too, if for no reason other than a large percentage of iPod owners also own Macs and it's their Macs that they would use to buy music for their iPods.
Unfortunately for Real, they need Apple's cooperation and support far more than Apple needs them, so don't expect anything to come out of this: it's just not in Apple's interest to open the doors to the iPod/Mac music download market to Real or anyone else.
Yeah, it's a repeat. I'm getting tired of them. Any chance we could have some "all new" stories?
Well, maybe if she drank a little milk she wouldn't have gotten freaking cancer.
Vegetarians. Worthless anti-evolutionary bleeding hearts.
Yeah, because you never hear of any non-vegetarians getting cancer, do you? Moron.
Well, maybe if she drank a little milk her bones wouldn't have been so fucking brittle.
Vegetarians. Worthless anti-evolutionary bleeding hearts.
Yo, dick, grow a brain. This is Heather McCartney we're talking about, Paul's current wife, not Linda McCartney, his previous one who died of cancer.
If you're going to post dumb AC comments at least try not to be so dumb that you can't get the basic facts straight.
That's just sick, bro.
For those of you who don't know, Mrs McCartney only has one leg. She lost one after being hit by a speeding police car.
At first glance, you might think, "Yeah! Serves 'em right! Delete their home dir!" The thing is, it's akin to setting up a trap in your car or home for burglars that hurts or kills them (although deleting ~user shouldn't be physically harmful, at least directly). In short, going on the offensive in an equally or more sinister way doesn't always make it the right thing to do.
Uh, isn't that the American way? Shoot anyone who tresspasses on your property?
I'm British, and, beyond the effect it has on the geopolitical landscape, I don't give a shit whether the man in the Oval Office is a Republican or a Democrat. So that blows your assessment of my beliefs, and why I oppose the invasion of Iraq, out of the water, doesn't it?
And I thought that the US Marine Corps taught their officers to use their intelligence and make decisions based upon information not innuendo. Perhaps they still do and that's why you're no longer in the Corps?
And the will of the majority of international community, including much of the UN Security Council, was opposed to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Where's the Bush administration's compliance there?
No, it doesn't. The two numbers have nothing to do with one another...
That's my point exactly. One has to do with fighting terrorism, the other has to do with settling a personal vendetta and securing Iraqi oil reserves.
Hey, asshole:
Maybe you should 1) realise that posting that as an Anonymous Coward is so ironic, because you don't even have the guts to stand up for what you believe in; and 2) appreciate that what I was saying is that this so-called "War On Terror" isn't really targetted at those who actually commit terrorist attacks as some people would like you to think.
Quit my fucking whining? Oh, I'm sorry, I guess free speech must only be for the sheep who bleat whatever they are told.
You can only fit so many fucking troops into the mountains of afghanistan to play hide and seek.
Evidently, "so many" is more than 17,900, because somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, Osama and co are evading capture pretty well.
134,000: Number of US troops sent to Iraq, to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, which had nothing to do with September 11th.
17,900: Number of US troops sent to Afghanistan, to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the people responsible for September 11th and other terrorist attacks against the US.
That give you an indication of what the Bush adminstrations priorities have been?
Untill I see a nice satellite image, or photo of the cloud or something concrete, I'm skeptical.
So a generic photo of a mushroom cloud would make you happy that it is for real?
Wow, I hope Dubya and co use better judgement than that and demand a bit more proof than some picture pulled from a photo library before deciding to get all gung-ho about "nu-cu-lar" weapons.
No, military action is only to be used against countries that have huge oil reserves.
I really appreciate you going through my comments related to this story and then picking stupid holes in them but this is ridiculous.
If you don't believe me (nice, subtle way of calling me a liar, by the way) then why not read the fucking article that I provided you with a link to? And if you're too damn lazy to do that, then that's your own damn fault, but don't come out with bullshit like "Ah, the old 'the change in police recording practices' excuse", (emphasis mine).
I go to the trouble of providing a link to an article that's full of the relevant information and there's still someone like you who prefers anecdotal rather than hard evidence and who comes out with crap like "Look, it may be true, I don't really know". Well, if you don't really know, and you aren't willing to educate yourself by reading a news story packed with all the relevant information, and a story that I've practically put in your damn lap at that, then stop fucking being an idiot.
God, could you be a bigger troll? You have the facts before you but yet you still prefer to call them "excuses" and come out with bullshit like that.
Of course they don't stop crime, but they do reduce the amount that takes place. Some criminals are smart enough not to break the law where they'll be caught on camera but there will always be those who are dumb enough to do it or who think that they can beat the system and never get caught.
There's real evidence that cameras act as a deterrent against pre-meditated criminal activity, from minor offenses, such as spraying grafitti, to major ones, such as terrorism.
Yes, I did say terrorism. The IRA's attacks in London's financial district diminished after the "ring of steel", a mult-layered defence against terrorism that included CCTV cameras, was installed. Not all terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives in suicide attacks, and those that aren't, such as the IRA, don't like to be caught.
So that blows your "cameras will not stop crime" argument out of the water. Oh, and by the way, who said that installing cameras would necessarily mean less police on the streets? It is possible to have one without diminishing the other.
1. You continually hold the flawed belief that any such network of cameras would be so comprehensive as to cover every spot continuously and have zero blind spots. Even if such a network was possible in an urban environment, don't you think it would be impractical to implement from a cost point of view? (There are other places local government funds can be spent too, you know.) Given that, the chances of catching and tracking a thief from A to Z aren't as high as you seem to assume.
2. Hmmm, who would I rather is given the potential to spy on me and everyone else in my city? A small number of cops/trained operatives that have been properly screened or anyone and everyone, that includes every hood, psycho and sicko out there? Gee, I wonder.
3. If everyone had access to FBI, CIA and NSA files, those organisations would scream about how they've been compromised and how this gives the bad guys (crooks, spies, terrorists) a hand in the cookie jar.
The CIA, which had "undeniable proof from multiple sources" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the field and ready to be used refused to release any of the information it had gathered to the UN, citing that it would potentially compromise its sources. As it turns out, the proof and the multiple sources all turned out to be a bunch of bull, but it's indicative of the level of secrecy involved with such organisations that even when it comes to trying to prove a case for war, they value their secrecy first and everything else second.
What does this show? Well, it just reinforces what I've been saying, that giving everyone access to everything is a bad idea because "everyone" includes the bad guys, be they big or small.
Please, please tell me how having multiple people and the police monitoring the cameras is any WORSE than having just the police officer monitoring the camera.
You are advocating that anyone should be allowed to access any camera whenever they want. As I've pointed out repeatedly, that's a burglar's or a mugger's (or a stalker's or a paedophile's) paradise.
And if you can't see how that's worse than access limited to people that have at least passed through several background checks and are already in positions of responsibility then you really just don't get it.
See, at least you're starting to think logically.
No, I've been thinking about this logically from the start. Giving everyone access to this footage makes about as much sense as giving everyone access to FBI, CIA and NSA files.
You're assuming that CCTVs catch everything, and in perfect detail, all the time.
Tell me, how many cameras do you think that there will be looking at any one location simultaneously? One? Two? And how many of those cameras do you think will catch the 15 seconds that it takes you to get mugged or pickpocketed?
I find it fucking hilarious that people here actually believe that such a comprehensive network of cameras covers the UK ("saturation coverage" is how one person here describes it, even though that's totally not true), yet you won't look at the crime statistics and work out for yourself that not every crime is caught on camera and not every criminal is eventually caught.
Airports in the US have lots of CCTVs in them. You don't think that people get robbed (pickpocketed, luggage stolen) at all in airports? That's so funny.
No, but me, the other people around my neighborhood, the police, and anyone else who cares to watch seems to be a much better ratio than me alone. I never said that the police wouldn't have access to the cameras as well. Duh. It's pretty damn logical that the more people that are watching means there is a better chance of SOMEONE seeing it happen.
So you take the tiny odds that someone is trying to break in at the same time you're watching your apartment - assuming that the camera is pointing right in the direction of your front door at the time they choose to break in - and you multiply that by, say, 50. And then you hope that one of the 50 people around your neighbourhood that also looks at the camera can tell the difference between a guy who's just walked up to your front door and is forcing the lock and a friend of yours who's having difficulty with his key.
Yeah, that really improves your chances of catching someone in the act so much. No, really, it does.
Ever heard the phrase "clutching at straws"?
For example if they make a complaint against you, pushing someone, even without causing them any injury, is now classed as a violent crime. As is spitting at them. Now, in the US and elsewhere, such things wouldn't be classed the same way.
As this recent BBC News article shows, the chances of someone being a victim of any crime in the UK have fallen dramatically since 1995, and burglary and vehicle theft have halved since then.
The article states:So, half of all violent crimes in the UK don't involve any real harm to anyone whatsoever. Something to remember when people start spouting rubbish about how violent crime in Britain is soaring.
And if you think about it from the burgular's point of view, he/she will be thinking about all of the possible people watching HIM as he/she breaks into the house. Fool.
YOU are calling ME a fool? You're the fool here. The likelyhood of you catching someone in the act are low: you're not suggesting that you'd have access to and the time to watch a CCTV feed 24/7 when you're out of the house, are you?
So aside from the deterrent factor, the benefit of the cameras comes in being able to review the footage and get a description of the perpetrator, his means of entry, exit and escape, etc and you being granted access to that footage doesn't help any after the fact. The police will get what they want from the film regardless of whether eeveryone else can access it or not.
Duh.
And you called me a fool? Ever looked in the mirror lately?
As for your 1984-type scenario, well do what we do here in Britain. Anyone who has footage of you has to produce it for a minimal fee (maximum of £10, which is ~$15).
Just out of interest, if you're that paranoid about being caught on camera, what do you do when you go shopping or to the bank? Or catch a bus, train or plane? Or visit a government building? Do you magically turn invisible then?
The difference, fool, is that one guy can be watching me and everyone else in my neighbourhood simultaneously.
You're suggesting that there's no difference between "a van accross [sic] the street" and a network of CCTVs available to anyone who wants to use them, which would allow someone to watch when I left my house, when I got to my bus, when I got to my office, etc, so that they could time a break-in for when I was an hour away, and when you knew my neighbours were also an hour away.
And, while you're casing me, you can also be casing 20 other people who live all over the city too, all from the comfort of your own home, a library or an internet cafe.
God, you really can't think things through, can you?