I know many my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad Nintendo people and their opinions on how this system is just derivative drivel. That argument is a loss despite being valid. The real prize here is that a company that both MAKES things and owns the means of production to ENTERTAIN people with that is throwing their hat into the ring. Does Nintendo make a better game system? Probably, although the final judgement is horribly subjective.
Realize this device for what it is and not what refined old implementations it competes with now. This is a bona fide mobile communications/entertainment platform that also happens to play games. They made the screen giant and saw fit to include just one. Why? Look at the screen in the future and you will see.
I am impressed with this from a company direction standpoint. This direction doesn't and shouldn't ever suit Nintendo. I believe they should focus on games and the marketing thereof. Sony on the other hand has albums to record, movies to shoot and entire mobile media platforms to leverage under one roof. This stuff is off the hook!
So will they then prosecute the induction of the oldest p2p on the Internet, IP? Really this whole thing gets back to that pesky DARPA and those hippie liberals in the UC system with their LSD and BSD.
IP is what allow us to connect to nodes quasi-directly and initiate peered transactions at higher levels. Guess they will just have to sue themselves into oblivion after this is passed. If only there was someone to sue over the electron. Could we finally stop this Digital/Intel/Xerox abuse with that pesky Ethernet allowing people all over to connect machines as peers on a network?
This whole thing stinks; all that is coming is more anti-capitalist market control and corporate welfare. Only supermodel P2P systems will actually feel the cut of this knife in a stupid fracas of greed. Oh well preach -> choir and maybe a little pot - kettle = black too in this post.
Playstation portable is supposed to allow viewing of DVD via a half-sized copy you make. Sony is very powerful on the AV format front. What they say pretty much goes w/r/t how people are allowed to watch DVD.
That is funny. I even prepared a report on Maulchy and Eckert for a physics class and I didn't know that today is the day. Guess that is because this is my birthday! I'm only 25 though.
The answer is the *ONLY* format that captures three dimensional picture information; Holograms. Holograms are still the only method apart from our own senses that will record a three-dimensional image. You could make a sculpture or image scan an object and have a mill make you a copy, but it still isn't a truly 3 dimensional image. All other methods involve a slicing of two-dimensional segments or a combination of paralax images to create false depth. Things look like cardboard cutouts placed at various distances.
Holography accomplishes 3-dimensions utilizing one apature of light as it reflects off an object as compared to before it hit the object. When you apply the reference light or something close to the developed image it converts the light and plays out the 3-d distortion of the light as if it was still leaving the object captured. The detail is only limited, practically speaking, to the wavelength of the light you are using.
Industry uses holograms of parts to examine stress because the image is so exact that when you overlay it on the original subjected to a stress you can see distortions in the surface 1/4 the wavelength of light used. Red is around 650nm, so imagine seeing something move 162.5nm and being able to count those steps like rings on a tree.
All this "3d" stuff is just a hack to pass time and hopefully build interest until someone invents something more integral and actually 3 dimensional like a silver halide reflection hologram. Unless they utilize the interference patterns of holography they are basically producing something that is 3-d-like. Similar to UNIX-like it can be good and sometimes better for what you want to do, but it is still not UNIX.
Check out holography. It is cheap and fun while also time consuming and unforgiving. Perfect for/.ers! It can also get some men/women to consider what very accurate 3-d reproductions of various *personal* items might look like. Unless you have a real expensive setup that involves laying on hands and making a plaster cast of that item, but I'm not promising anything. Your mileage may vary.
You are correct in this assertion. The infinite limit of this approach is a hologram. True holograms play out the 3-dimensional wavefront of light as reflected by the 3-dimensional object. Frames taken with a 2-dimensional camera are just that 2-d.
I interned at Holographic Studios with Jason Sapan in New York City. We would construct images like these using 16mm film frames and a cylinder of holographic film. This is similar to the technique in Logan's Run, but I don't think Jason did that one. This image type is called integral since it is an integral model of a 3-dimensional image kinda like sticking cheese wedges together to make a wheel of cheese. The wheel is round when you slap it together, but it is still an approximation and not a whole wheel. This design seems even worse than the cylinder hologram, because at least the cylinder can play out multiple angle truly at the same time.
As an experiment you can use a stereo pair of 2-d images and a real object. When you look at one of the stereo pair images with one eye you will see that it is flat. This is due to the scanning of a single eye as it looks at the scene. When you look at the real object with one eye you will see the foeveoal (center) scan of depth from the real object. That is why stereoscopy != depth. Reference "Practical Holography" by Graham Saxby for a more eloquent explanation.
The guy is right. Everyones' shit stinks; the more shit there is, the bigger the stink. Any other assertion about Mac/Windows x86/PPC is mere conjecture or fabrication. Wouldn't be the first or last time in either camp.
Don't agree? Read the bit about the iPod and learn.
In other news: Will Steve please register his SPEC scores with SPEC so I don't have to go to two sites to see that the g5 is 30% slower than a comparable Opteron config.
"I have no clear memory of that" seems to work fine for this crowd. Par for the course really. It is one thing to not publish something, but another thing entirely to place the grey tape over the issue and make it an un-article. Guess we started to take access to information for granted......enter the Ministry of Information!
Any discussion of certificate authority isn't complete without a review of Schneier's view on security certificates.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9904.html He goes into further detail in "Secrets and Lies," but the essential message is the same, need for a top-level authority basically debunks the notion.
This is evident in the legal mumbo-jumbo of the cert authorities and e-commerce in general. No one is selling non-repudiation with a certificate. The only way to achieve a truly legally-binding non-repudable(sp?) connection is to escrow it to a third-party. All the third party does is run the risks and shoulder the liability in case of a fraud. Thought this was straight crack the first time I looked at it, but my boss explained it very well, "encryption keys and trust chains have been broken."
Guess it would be nice to have a cheaper solution for matching certs to names, but I guess for me that is to self-sign the damn thing and tell my users to deal with it.
...in a long sequence of events that will lead to the MPAA and RIAA losing in the long run. Laws are only valid when they are accepted by those they police, no matter what the consequences. My friends don't really know anything about copyright and the DMCA or the trojans various p2p systems have installed on their machines. All they know is that they can get music for free without having to tune a radio or visit the Mecca of copyright abuse, the library.
But when the big kids start subopenaing(sp?) their personal info, because of excessive p2p transactions, they will realize big brother is watching. You can bet some serious fall-out would happen if average people were subjected to that scrutiny.
In a way this verdict is a good thing, but only if the collusion factorys are dumb and aggressive enough to actually abuse it. In the end some arbitrary penalty will exist and once in a while you will see an example made, but everyone will just go on getting what they want while the law looks the other way.
Spend Money! Support Terrorism! Freedom for Nick and Bart!
"Only higher-end firewall products, ie: the cisco PIX, attempt to mangle the ISN generation as they translate hosts. Most of the simple products do not, and certianly none of the $100 DSL routers do."
That is a little more complex than hello world, and as far as I know nobody has collected. Need an OS? Try OpenBSD or NetBSD.
Re:SETI is not a waste of resources
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry that your system cannot produce threads fast enough to handle a background process running at the *lowest* priority level. I think it is a virtually non-existant price to pay in order to participate in the expansion of human knowledge. The client helps a research project do with $500k what it takes the government millions to accomplish.
I have seen many horror stories over the years regarding $cientology and I am a complete opponent of their organization. The thing that I haven't really seen come up in all this is any real fact-based (with references) pro-$cientoloy position. Is this because nothing pro-scientology exists? Are the people at the "church" only capable of threats and not responding to some of these criticisms? If so, why? I'm not saying that every religion must justify itself, but when it gets to the point of threats and other manipulations of people... the whole thing seems to just beg the question.
If you need a cult, check out subgenius (I'm not a memeber, just an observer). At least they have a guarantee on your money!
Re:Twofold problem
on
Video with Depth
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
May I correct some common misconceptions about 3-dimensional optics vs. stereoscopic. 3-Dimensional light is based on a wave of photons traveling through a volume of space. Outside of holography this wavefront of light is only achieveable in the real world. Stereoscopic images consist of seperate left and right images that when combined give the *illusion* of depth due to various parts of your brain that gauge distance, but not depth since they are based on a 2-dimensional sampling.
It may seem that I am splitting hairs here, but I get very frustrated when people think that having one eye covered eliminates all depth perception. That is a catagorically wrong assertion since the retina in each eye occupies a three-dimensional space. People who have lost an eye encounter problems with depth preception, but do not lack the *ability* to precieve depth.
If you pay close attention to any stereoscopic image, whether it is a "magic eye" or a viewmaster you will notice that things are collected into two-dimensional sheets that appear to have depth relative to eachother. A similar situation in real life would be if everything was either a backdrop or a cardboard cutout.
By contrast the image displayed in a hologram presents an integral depth of the surface that is preceptible by a single human eye. It looks *real* becuase it is exactly the same 3-dimensional wavefront that existed when light was bouncing off the object to record the hologram.
It is all a little confusing, but a little thought and casual observation will reveal these things to you. In my case I spent three-months interning in a holograpy studio in NYC, so I got to hear many interesting discussions on this and various other strange concepts of reality.
So please peole, paralax does not mean the same thing as depth. If anything, please take that away from this thread.
This really is sad, I sent them email. My own mother used to sing me Peter Paul and Mary Leaving on a Jetplane/Puff the Magic Dragon when I couldn't sleep or was ill. So sad to see that in the name of such a tradgedy we feel justified to commit insanity.
I'm not really sure how you can believe knowing what everyone does in public at all times really makes the streets safer. All I can see is that is passes a greater amount of control into a smaller set of hands than ever before. If history is any indication of what will happen once too much control is concentrated too heavily I don't see happy things is store for us unless you like pain and suffering.
The best tool that the police/law enforcement could ever have in their fight against crime is the trust and support of the people at large. Using technology to track our every move in public is not the solid foundation of trust and will not serve to further their interests. It must also be remembered that all non-contiguous private space is sparated by either other's private space or public space. Basically this means that all your movements could be tracked between occupying personal private spaces under your standard. Barring some type of teleport device you would have no choice but to be tracked and monitored.
Another way to look at it is this: how would you feel if you started seeing someone romantically only to find out that they were having you watched. The surveilence was only performed when you were in public spaces or *cooperative* private spaces such as your work or a members-only gym. The results of this surveilance is that they know every where you went and all that you did/said in these places even all the names and total monitored histories of everyone you talked to. Now. Do you still have nothing to hide, even though you are a good person and do nothing wrong?
If you think that sounds bad now imagine instead of a romance it is a total stranger. We have a word for that in our newspapers, it is called stalking. Predators stalk prey, even if they fail to attack and kill. With a ubiquitous predator looking over my shoulder I feel far from safe, especially when it is one fly-swat away from confusing me with Harry Tuttle.
There is a logical departure in the comparison of using a finger print database in a crime lab as opposed to using a survielence system to identify faces. The essential thing that is needed to make the difference is a matter of context and to understand the difference between man and machine.
In the case of the fingerprints the police are dealing with evidence of a crime or some other police matter that they are trying to solve (e.g. a murder where the ciminal had already left the scene or a kidnapping.) Fingerprints are carefully taken from the scene and analyzed to determine facts that may lead to solving the case. This is a reactive measure in response to crime.
In the case of facial recognition systems evidence is being gathered for a crime that hasn't yet been comitted. Instead of working towards solving a case the information is being used to model an everyday situation where possibly no crimes are ever comitted.
A human is not a machine and a machine is not a human, they are two mutually exclusive wholes though they may share idosyncratic similarities. Human security gaurds working with cameras would never go to the trouble of even noticing every person who is in the store. Instead the human mind is drawn towards cues that focus the attention where it is needed so that a task (spotting criminals or criminal activity) can be performed. These cues can come from a wide varitey of sources; from the dream leaving their mind when they awoke in the morning to the past experience of working the job and having trained for years. The analog nature of these cues and how they play together is far from perfect, but the integral and wholistic foundation they rest on gives them a chance of nearing perfection.
The machine is decidedly different, as is its nature being merely a tool that extends human motive. No distinction is made between criminal activity and normal activity at any level in the system since it has to at least begin scanning every person as per its function. There is not a cue in the machine instead that is replaced with an event. The main difference being that an event exists unto itself and does not contain anything more than the sum of its parts. A good example of the difference between and event and a cue would be the event of someone blowing into your ear. As an event it is a simple set of actions, but as a cue to a human it represents a infinite set of integral properties.
The digital nature of the machine creates a vast departure from perfection. Perfection isn't even an issue when all you have is black and white since no integral whole can ever be aquired in such a harsh dialectic system.
So the end result, the difference is that we change from attempting to spot criminals and criminal activity in a system that can achieve near perfection to a system that merely identifies everyone and turns everyone into a suspect. This is contrary to humanity since our entire existence must be based on trust. Tools are only as good as those who use them, but humans strive for perfection out of instinct independent of their environment. It may seem that some individuals aren't perfect, but resemblance isn't the point. The fact that we take this infinte energy source of reality and derive more than 1's and 0's is.
To quote the movie Metroplois:
"Without the heart there can be no understanding between the hand and the mind"
Technology applied unabated crushes the heart. I hope that we can all come together and apply these new tools properly so that I may offer up a better tomorrow for my children.
Slashdot Mirror
I know many my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad Nintendo people and their opinions on how this system is just derivative drivel. That argument is a loss despite being valid. The real prize here is that a company that both MAKES things and owns the means of production to ENTERTAIN people with that is throwing their hat into the ring. Does Nintendo make a better game system? Probably, although the final judgement is horribly subjective.
Realize this device for what it is and not what refined old implementations it competes with now. This is a bona fide mobile communications/entertainment platform that also happens to play games. They made the screen giant and saw fit to include just one. Why? Look at the screen in the future and you will see.
I am impressed with this from a company direction standpoint. This direction doesn't and shouldn't ever suit Nintendo. I believe they should focus on games and the marketing thereof. Sony on the other hand has albums to record, movies to shoot and entire mobile media platforms to leverage under one roof. This stuff is off the hook!
May you live in interesting times.
It must be called Skynet in honor of the "Governor." I'm sure CA can get a liscense if there is a copyright issue on the term.
So will they then prosecute the induction of the oldest p2p on the Internet, IP? Really this whole thing gets back to that pesky DARPA and those hippie liberals in the UC system with their LSD and BSD.
IP is what allow us to connect to nodes quasi-directly and initiate peered transactions at higher levels. Guess they will just have to sue themselves into oblivion after this is passed. If only there was someone to sue over the electron. Could we finally stop this Digital/Intel/Xerox abuse with that pesky Ethernet allowing people all over to connect machines as peers on a network?
This whole thing stinks; all that is coming is more anti-capitalist market control and corporate welfare. Only supermodel P2P systems will actually feel the cut of this knife in a stupid fracas of greed. Oh well preach -> choir and maybe a little pot - kettle = black too in this post.
Playstation portable is supposed to allow viewing of DVD via a half-sized copy you make. Sony is very powerful on the AV format front. What they say pretty much goes w/r/t how people are allowed to watch DVD.
That is funny. I even prepared a report on Maulchy and Eckert for a physics class and I didn't know that today is the day. Guess that is because this is my birthday! I'm only 25 though.
The answer is the *ONLY* format that captures three dimensional picture information; Holograms. Holograms are still the only method apart from our own senses that will record a three-dimensional image. You could make a sculpture or image scan an object and have a mill make you a copy, but it still isn't a truly 3 dimensional image. All other methods involve a slicing of two-dimensional segments or a combination of paralax images to create false depth. Things look like cardboard cutouts placed at various distances.
/.ers! It can also get some men/women to consider what very accurate 3-d reproductions of various *personal* items might look like. Unless you have a real expensive setup that involves laying on hands and making a plaster cast of that item, but I'm not promising anything. Your mileage may vary.
Holography accomplishes 3-dimensions utilizing one apature of light as it reflects off an object as compared to before it hit the object. When you apply the reference light or something close to the developed image it converts the light and plays out the 3-d distortion of the light as if it was still leaving the object captured. The detail is only limited, practically speaking, to the wavelength of the light you are using.
Industry uses holograms of parts to examine stress because the image is so exact that when you overlay it on the original subjected to a stress you can see distortions in the surface 1/4 the wavelength of light used. Red is around 650nm, so imagine seeing something move 162.5nm and being able to count those steps like rings on a tree.
All this "3d" stuff is just a hack to pass time and hopefully build interest until someone invents something more integral and actually 3 dimensional like a silver halide reflection hologram. Unless they utilize the interference patterns of holography they are basically producing something that is 3-d-like. Similar to UNIX-like it can be good and sometimes better for what you want to do, but it is still not UNIX.
Check out holography. It is cheap and fun while also time consuming and unforgiving. Perfect for
You are correct in this assertion. The infinite limit of this approach is a hologram. True holograms play out the 3-dimensional wavefront of light as reflected by the 3-dimensional object. Frames taken with a 2-dimensional camera are just that 2-d.
I interned at Holographic Studios with Jason Sapan in New York City. We would construct images like these using 16mm film frames and a cylinder of holographic film. This is similar to the technique in Logan's Run, but I don't think Jason did that one. This image type is called integral since it is an integral model of a 3-dimensional image kinda like sticking cheese wedges together to make a wheel of cheese. The wheel is round when you slap it together, but it is still an approximation and not a whole wheel. This design seems even worse than the cylinder hologram, because at least the cylinder can play out multiple angle truly at the same time.
As an experiment you can use a stereo pair of 2-d images and a real object. When you look at one of the stereo pair images with one eye you will see that it is flat. This is due to the scanning of a single eye as it looks at the scene. When you look at the real object with one eye you will see the foeveoal (center) scan of depth from the real object. That is why stereoscopy != depth. Reference "Practical Holography" by Graham Saxby for a more eloquent explanation.
Djbdns is sadly absent from your list of accomplishments. Take a look at it and never look back.
This boy need to do less of die cocaine and stop leaving da server lying round.
The guy is right. Everyones' shit stinks; the more shit there is, the bigger the stink. Any other assertion about Mac/Windows x86/PPC is mere conjecture or fabrication. Wouldn't be the first or last time in either camp.
Don't agree? Read the bit about the iPod and learn.
In other news: Will Steve please register his SPEC scores with SPEC so I don't have to go to two sites to see that the g5 is 30% slower than a comparable Opteron config.
"I have no clear memory of that" seems to work fine for this crowd. Par for the course really. It is one thing to not publish something, but another thing entirely to place the grey tape over the issue and make it an un-article. Guess we started to take access to information for granted... ...enter the Ministry of Information!
Any discussion of certificate authority isn't complete without a review of Schneier's view on security certificates.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9904.html
He goes into further detail in "Secrets and Lies," but the essential message is the same, need for a top-level authority basically debunks the notion.
This is evident in the legal mumbo-jumbo of the cert authorities and e-commerce in general. No one is selling non-repudiation with a certificate. The only way to achieve a truly legally-binding non-repudable(sp?) connection is to escrow it to a third-party. All the third party does is run the risks and shoulder the liability in case of a fraud. Thought this was straight crack the first time I looked at it, but my boss explained it very well, "encryption keys and trust chains have been broken."
Guess it would be nice to have a cheaper solution for matching certs to names, but I guess for me that is to self-sign the damn thing and tell my users to deal with it.
...in a long sequence of events that will lead to the MPAA and RIAA losing in the long run. Laws are only valid when they are accepted by those they police, no matter what the consequences. My friends don't really know anything about copyright and the DMCA or the trojans various p2p systems have installed on their machines. All they know is that they can get music for free without having to tune a radio or visit the Mecca of copyright abuse, the library.
But when the big kids start subopenaing(sp?) their personal info, because of excessive p2p transactions, they will realize big brother is watching. You can bet some serious fall-out would happen if average people were subjected to that scrutiny.
In a way this verdict is a good thing, but only if the collusion factorys are dumb and aggressive enough to actually abuse it. In the end some arbitrary penalty will exist and once in a while you will see an example made, but everyone will just go on getting what they want while the law looks the other way.
Spend Money! Support Terrorism! Freedom for Nick and Bart!
Simple free products like OpenBSD with pf/nat do.
bug-free-like software?
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/guarantee.html
That is a little more complex than hello world, and as far as I know nobody has collected. Need an OS? Try OpenBSD or NetBSD.
I'm sorry that your system cannot produce threads fast enough to handle a background process running at the *lowest* priority level. I think it is a virtually non-existant price to pay in order to participate in the expansion of human knowledge. The client helps a research project do with $500k what it takes the government millions to accomplish.
I have seen many horror stories over the years regarding $cientology and I am a complete opponent of their organization. The thing that I haven't really seen come up in all this is any real fact-based (with references) pro-$cientoloy position. Is this because nothing pro-scientology exists? Are the people at the "church" only capable of threats and not responding to some of these criticisms? If so, why? I'm not saying that every religion must justify itself, but when it gets to the point of threats and other manipulations of people... the whole thing seems to just beg the question.
If you need a cult, check out subgenius (I'm not a memeber, just an observer). At least they have a guarantee on your money!
May I correct some common misconceptions about 3-dimensional optics vs. stereoscopic. 3-Dimensional light is based on a wave of photons traveling through a volume of space. Outside of holography this wavefront of light is only achieveable in the real world. Stereoscopic images consist of seperate left and right images that when combined give the *illusion* of depth due to various parts of your brain that gauge distance, but not depth since they are based on a 2-dimensional sampling.
It may seem that I am splitting hairs here, but I get very frustrated when people think that having one eye covered eliminates all depth perception. That is a catagorically wrong assertion since the retina in each eye occupies a three-dimensional space. People who have lost an eye encounter problems with depth preception, but do not lack the *ability* to precieve depth.
If you pay close attention to any stereoscopic image, whether it is a "magic eye" or a viewmaster you will notice that things are collected into two-dimensional sheets that appear to have depth relative to eachother. A similar situation in real life would be if everything was either a backdrop or a cardboard cutout.
By contrast the image displayed in a hologram presents an integral depth of the surface that is preceptible by a single human eye. It looks *real* becuase it is exactly the same 3-dimensional wavefront that existed when light was bouncing off the object to record the hologram.
It is all a little confusing, but a little thought and casual observation will reveal these things to you. In my case I spent three-months interning in a holograpy studio in NYC, so I got to hear many interesting discussions on this and various other strange concepts of reality.
So please peole, paralax does not mean the same thing as depth. If anything, please take that away from this thread.
This really is sad, I sent them email. My own mother used to sing me Peter Paul and Mary Leaving on a Jetplane/Puff the Magic Dragon when I couldn't sleep or was ill. So sad to see that in the name of such a tradgedy we feel justified to commit insanity.
a poor programmer always blames his tools
I'm not really sure how you can believe knowing what everyone does in public at all times really makes the streets safer. All I can see is that is passes a greater amount of control into a smaller set of hands than ever before. If history is any indication of what will happen once too much control is concentrated too heavily I don't see happy things is store for us unless you like pain and suffering.
The best tool that the police/law enforcement could ever have in their fight against crime is the trust and support of the people at large. Using technology to track our every move in public is not the solid foundation of trust and will not serve to further their interests. It must also be remembered that all non-contiguous private space is sparated by either other's private space or public space. Basically this means that all your movements could be tracked between occupying personal private spaces under your standard. Barring some type of teleport device you would have no choice but to be tracked and monitored.
Another way to look at it is this: how would you feel if you started seeing someone romantically only to find out that they were having you watched. The surveilence was only performed when you were in public spaces or *cooperative* private spaces such as your work or a members-only gym. The results of this surveilance is that they know every where you went and all that you did/said in these places even all the names and total monitored histories of everyone you talked to. Now. Do you still have nothing to hide, even though you are a good person and do nothing wrong?
If you think that sounds bad now imagine instead of a romance it is a total stranger. We have a word for that in our newspapers, it is called stalking. Predators stalk prey, even if they fail to attack and kill. With a ubiquitous predator looking over my shoulder I feel far from safe, especially when it is one fly-swat away from confusing me with Harry Tuttle.
There is a logical departure in the comparison of using a finger print database in a crime lab as opposed to using a survielence system to identify faces. The essential thing that is needed to make the difference is a matter of context and to understand the difference between man and machine.
In the case of the fingerprints the police are dealing with evidence of a crime or some other police matter that they are trying to solve (e.g. a murder where the ciminal had already left the scene or a kidnapping.) Fingerprints are carefully taken from the scene and analyzed to determine facts that may lead to solving the case. This is a reactive measure in response to crime.
In the case of facial recognition systems evidence is being gathered for a crime that hasn't yet been comitted. Instead of working towards solving a case the information is being used to model an everyday situation where possibly no crimes are ever comitted.
A human is not a machine and a machine is not a human, they are two mutually exclusive wholes though they may share idosyncratic similarities. Human security gaurds working with cameras would never go to the trouble of even noticing every person who is in the store. Instead the human mind is drawn towards cues that focus the attention where it is needed so that a task (spotting criminals or criminal activity) can be performed. These cues can come from a wide varitey of sources; from the dream leaving their mind when they awoke in the morning to the past experience of working the job and having trained for years. The analog nature of these cues and how they play together is far from perfect, but the integral and wholistic foundation they rest on gives them a chance of nearing perfection.
The machine is decidedly different, as is its nature being merely a tool that extends human motive. No distinction is made between criminal activity and normal activity at any level in the system since it has to at least begin scanning every person as per its function. There is not a cue in the machine instead that is replaced with an event. The main difference being that an event exists unto itself and does not contain anything more than the sum of its parts. A good example of the difference between and event and a cue would be the event of someone blowing into your ear. As an event it is a simple set of actions, but as a cue to a human it represents a infinite set of integral properties.
The digital nature of the machine creates a vast departure from perfection. Perfection isn't even an issue when all you have is black and white since no integral whole can ever be aquired in such a harsh dialectic system.
So the end result, the difference is that we change from attempting to spot criminals and criminal activity in a system that can achieve near perfection to a system that merely identifies everyone and turns everyone into a suspect. This is contrary to humanity since our entire existence must be based on trust. Tools are only as good as those who use them, but humans strive for perfection out of instinct independent of their environment. It may seem that some individuals aren't perfect, but resemblance isn't the point. The fact that we take this infinte energy source of reality and derive more than 1's and 0's is.
To quote the movie Metroplois:
"Without the heart there can be no understanding between the hand and the mind"
Technology applied unabated crushes the heart. I hope that we can all come together and apply these new tools properly so that I may offer up a better tomorrow for my children.