Of course we did. Some time ago, it was mandated by law that emergency calls from cell networks include location information. The automatic switch-on of gps during emergency calls is there for a very practical reason.
Ripping an mp3 from a cd and posting it to the internet is illegal. Downloading an mp3 is not.
The Supreme Court ruled that the recipient of copyrighted material cannot be prosecuted, only the original IP thief can be.
Most people, in ordinary circumstances, don't regard the ability to have private communications as a crime.
In these extraordinary circumstances, a different view has emerged. But the fact that people can communicate privately is not what brought down the World Trade Center. No one has shown this to be the case, and even if planning and execution via the global network could be shown, why would this make privacy itself at fault? Privacy is available through any number of means. Do you wish to ban privacy altogether, because people may be saying bad things about you, and about our country?
If that's what you feel, what do you think the USA is about, anyway?
The "U" is needed for long- and medium- term storage. For day-to-day work that does not require extended storage, like buffering video for editing/conversion, a huge RAM drive is very sweet. Considering that a low-cost device for such purposes could be designed, it's frustrating that it's not out there.
But then there's the complication of programs that will reclaim filetypes on launch by default, while others will not.
A friend of mine, who is actually an experienced, working, audio-visual tech, was convinced that real audio had taken over all his media and nothing could be done about it, until I showed him how to stop Real from reclaiming filetypes.
The article's author suggested a wizard or configurator app that allows you to choose default programs for various tasks. Despite another poster's claim that a re-jig of FAT32 is required, it would be quite simple for such a wizard to be included with windows. And for the majority of users, it would show then that there are choices available in many areas that they never suspected. The article's writer is correct, in that this would diminish MS's ability to "embrace, extend, and assimilate."
It would indeed be useful, especially if you have file extension matched with a description (program, etc).
OTOH, if he just collects the extensions themselves without any discriminating information, the man is an obsessive loon, and the database is as valuable as the output of a random character generator.
We are aware of it. I am an LA resident. Dressing like a gangster invites hassles, no doubt. But 1,000 people dressed like gangsters versus 10 still divides their attention a bit, n'est pas?
Technically, the English is fine. The construction is probably too complex, but the writer was emulating a certain mode of speech. Essentially it's a compound of two sentences, "they would have 'rescheduled' their disaster response three times," and "we'd have an appointment for early November." The balance of the sentences consists of qualifying clauses.
It might have been clearer to you had the post's author used the term "for example" instead of the vernacular "say."
Out of curiousity: did they teach you to diagram sentences when you were a lad?
1) He states that he saw "cameras on the backs of buses to record people who crossed into the wrong traffic lane". I have NEVER seen these cameras. Think he made this one up!
Well his name is on the article, so he is more accountable than you. He mentions several cities that he travelled to in the course of writing the article. You've been to the same cities?
2) "biometric surveillance is being used to keep punks out of shopping malls". Has anyone seen a punk in the UK since the 80s? Didn't think so.
Maybe you won't see so many safety pins, but rainbow hair and tats are very much with us here in the states, and many of the neo-punk bands popular here are British. Problem here may be differing definitions of the word "punk."
3) "And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid." - if it's not illegal, someone watching the camera output may see the "lack of conformity", but no-one will act - how can they? And others see these people when they're in the camera areas anyway, so what's the difference?
The author makes it quite clear how this mechanism works, weren't you reading? Gay couples are less likely to show affection, even in an "empty" street, is the main example offered, but I doubt if people would be as inclined to distribute political leaflets, for instance, if political activism in public became a "trackable" item.
4) "The license plate that set off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was 8670amc" - these aren't even in a valid UK license plate format! Good accuracy!
Interesting, and possibly so. Can you cite a place on the web that documents what plate formats are valid? You aren't just talking about a missing hyphen are you?
5) "database that would include not only terrorists but also all British citizens whose faces were registered with the national driver's license bureau" - unlike in the USA (oh my how much privacy there is there), most drivers licenses in the UK don't even have photos on them! They're not used for identity. We don't have to show ID to have a casual drink at a bar or buy cigs. Talk about lack of privacy...
I agree with you here, a good point. Too bad it's diluted by the rest of your post.
6) "Ditton notes that the cameras can sometimes be useful in investigating terrorist attacks -- like the Brixton nail-bomber case in 1999 -- but there is no evidence that they prevent terrorism or other serious crime. " - so if they don't *prevent* it, they're worthless? If you catch the people that did it, you prevent them at least from doing it again and can bring them to "justice". This is what happened in the Brixton nail-bombing.
The point is not "are they worthless." the point is, "are they worth the sacrifice of some privacy." Therefore one must look at what they can and cannot do. You are not disagreeing with the author on his facts here. You are misapprehending his purpose.
What makes you so in love with the cameras to prompt this flurry of flimsy criticisms?
7) "They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their opportunities." - so you ban vandals and troublemakers from harassing people in malls. And this is bad, how?
The article covers this quite well.
8) "But Britain's experience in the fight against terrorism suggests that people may give up liberties without experiencing a corresponding increase in security." - thieves and muggers are being caught by this system (and others). That certainly increases my security.
A "corresponding" increase in security means a measurable change that occurs with the increase of the number of cameras. The author talks a little bit about stats that seem to support his position. You may "feel" more secure. If you feel you are more secure thanks to surveillance systems, you will have to provide stats to prove that.
9) "transparent society -- one where neighbors can peer into each other's windows using the joysticks on their laptops. " - is ANYONE talking about this? Didn't think so! This guy needs to read his own article.
The author is talking about the "slippery slope" here, perhaps you can't see it. At any rate, I at least know my next door neighbor. I don't know the guy in the monitoring station.
I'll grant, you do seem to love them cameras! Flimsy criticisms, though.
It doesn't matter if they can't see the faces, all they have to do is have plainclothes people follow "anonymous hooded dodgy type" for a few days, then jump on them with 20 cops and lo...!
In my youth, sunglasses at night used to be a dead tip-off that you were dealing with a junkie, but then it became a bohemian trend. Since most kids nowadays want to look like gangsters, the hood-plus-baseball-cap look, if it becomes sufficiently popular, will both foil the cameras and make for good camo. A trend worth encouraging; the more innocents who adopt this dress style, the better.
He's right. For instance, in movie copyright cases, the hard part is not proving points of similarity; it's proving that the studio or creators of a film's screenplay were exposed to the earlier work.
Besides, if you were to sing the entire works of the Beatles to a friend over the phone, that's not a public performance so no licensing is required. When you dial a touch-tone number, you may be "performing" the work, but your audience is zero...again, not a public performance.
If you need a little lovin'
Call on me all right
If you want a little huggin'
Call on me baby, mmmmmm
Oh I'll be right here at home
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
If you need a little huggin'
Call on me
That's all you got to do now
If you want some kissin'
Call on me baby, all right
No more lonely nights
Will you be alone
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
Oh I'll be right there
Just as soon as I can
And if I be a little bit late now
I hope that you'll understand
Oh yeah all right
mmmmmmmm
If you need a little lovin'
Call on me
Lord have mercy
If you want some kissin'
Call on me baby
That's all you got to do now
No more lonely nights
Will you be alone
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
"He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail."
So, is he planning to list the spammERS or the spammEES? Or both? Or is the CNN correspondent just stupid? If he's listing the Spammers, will we finally have a workable Universal Killfile?
Slashdot Mirror
We all knew this was going to happen.
Of course we did. Some time ago, it was mandated by law that emergency calls from cell networks include location information. The automatic switch-on of gps during emergency calls is there for a very practical reason.
Ripping an mp3 from a cd and posting it to the internet is illegal. Downloading an mp3 is not.
The Supreme Court ruled that the recipient of copyrighted material cannot be prosecuted, only the original IP thief can be.
Most people, in ordinary circumstances, don't regard the ability to have private communications as a crime. In these extraordinary circumstances, a different view has emerged. But the fact that people can communicate privately is not what brought down the World Trade Center. No one has shown this to be the case, and even if planning and execution via the global network could be shown, why would this make privacy itself at fault? Privacy is available through any number of means. Do you wish to ban privacy altogether, because people may be saying bad things about you, and about our country? If that's what you feel, what do you think the USA is about, anyway?
I'd have to buy (expensive) 1-gig sticks to have enough RAM to be really helpful for video. An array of small-cheap SDRAMS would be much nicer.
The "U" is needed for long- and medium- term storage. For day-to-day work that does not require extended storage, like buffering video for editing/conversion, a huge RAM drive is very sweet. Considering that a low-cost device for such purposes could be designed, it's frustrating that it's not out there.
But then there's the complication of programs that will reclaim filetypes on launch by default, while others will not.
A friend of mine, who is actually an experienced, working, audio-visual tech, was convinced that real audio had taken over all his media and nothing could be done about it, until I showed him how to stop Real from reclaiming filetypes.
The article's author suggested a wizard or configurator app that allows you to choose default programs for various tasks. Despite another poster's claim that a re-jig of FAT32 is required, it would be quite simple for such a wizard to be included with windows. And for the majority of users, it would show then that there are choices available in many areas that they never suspected. The article's writer is correct, in that this would diminish MS's ability to "embrace, extend, and assimilate."
That would indeed be useful, there are some databases presently available (like this one), but none I know of are as broad/deep as you've described.
It would indeed be useful, especially if you have file extension matched with a description (program, etc).
OTOH, if he just collects the extensions themselves without any discriminating information, the man is an obsessive loon, and the database is as valuable as the output of a random character generator.
feeling left out, are we?
We are aware of it. I am an LA resident. Dressing like a gangster invites hassles, no doubt. But 1,000 people dressed like gangsters versus 10 still divides their attention a bit, n'est pas?
Technically, the English is fine. The construction is probably too complex, but the writer was emulating a certain mode of speech. Essentially it's a compound of two sentences, "they would have 'rescheduled' their disaster response three times," and "we'd have an appointment for early November." The balance of the sentences consists of qualifying clauses.
It might have been clearer to you had the post's author used the term "for example" instead of the vernacular "say."
Out of curiousity: did they teach you to diagram sentences when you were a lad?
Go ahead, get the micromachine emplants. Then when the nanomachine emplants come out, we'll be pointing and larfing.
The original poster said "theatrical" makeup.
Using latex, wax and other materials to alter the lines of cheeks and jaws is a standard (and not even difficult) technique in stage and film makeup.
2) "biometric surveillance is being used to keep punks out of shopping malls". Has anyone seen a punk in the UK since the 80s? Didn't think so.
3) "And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid." - if it's not illegal, someone watching the camera output may see the "lack of conformity", but no-one will act - how can they? And others see these people when they're in the camera areas anyway, so what's the difference?
4) "The license plate that set off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was 8670amc" - these aren't even in a valid UK license plate format! Good accuracy!
5) "database that would include not only terrorists but also all British citizens whose faces were registered with the national driver's license bureau" - unlike in the USA (oh my how much privacy there is there), most drivers licenses in the UK don't even have photos on them! They're not used for identity. We don't have to show ID to have a casual drink at a bar or buy cigs. Talk about lack of privacy...
6) "Ditton notes that the cameras can sometimes be useful in investigating terrorist attacks -- like the Brixton nail-bomber case in 1999 -- but there is no evidence that they prevent terrorism or other serious crime. " - so if they don't *prevent* it, they're worthless? If you catch the people that did it, you prevent them at least from doing it again and can bring them to "justice". This is what happened in the Brixton nail-bombing.
What makes you so in love with the cameras to prompt this flurry of flimsy criticisms?
7) "They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their opportunities." - so you ban vandals and troublemakers from harassing people in malls. And this is bad, how?
8) "But Britain's experience in the fight against terrorism suggests that people may give up liberties without experiencing a corresponding increase in security." - thieves and muggers are being caught by this system (and others). That certainly increases my security.
9) "transparent society -- one where neighbors can peer into each other's windows using the joysticks on their laptops. " - is ANYONE talking about this? Didn't think so! This guy needs to read his own article.
I'll grant, you do seem to love them cameras! Flimsy criticisms, though.
In my youth, sunglasses at night used to be a dead tip-off that you were dealing with a junkie, but then it became a bohemian trend. Since most kids nowadays want to look like gangsters, the hood-plus-baseball-cap look, if it becomes sufficiently popular, will both foil the cameras and make for good camo. A trend worth encouraging; the more innocents who adopt this dress style, the better.
But don't be a Black, Asian, or God-Forbid Arab prole.
Both this post, and the moderator, are wrong.
Please read up before more nonproductive moderating and posting.
"Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form."
Copyright for Computer Authors
© 1996-9 Franklin Pierce Law Center
Thomas G. Field, Jr.
Moderators, please move the mod points from grandparent (interesting? do you mean for thickness?) to parent (funny!).
Thank You.
He's right. For instance, in movie copyright cases, the hard part is not proving points of similarity; it's proving that the studio or creators of a film's screenplay were exposed to the earlier work.
Besides, if you were to sing the entire works of the Beatles to a friend over the phone, that's not a public performance so no licensing is required. When you dial a touch-tone number, you may be "performing" the work, but your audience is zero...again, not a public performance.
Tommy Tutone, fooey. Wilson Pickett!!!
If you need a little lovin'
Call on me all right
If you want a little huggin'
Call on me baby, mmmmmm
Oh I'll be right here at home
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
If you need a little huggin'
Call on me
That's all you got to do now
If you want some kissin'
Call on me baby, all right
No more lonely nights
Will you be alone
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
Oh I'll be right there
Just as soon as I can
And if I be a little bit late now
I hope that you'll understand
Oh yeah all right
mmmmmmmm
If you need a little lovin'
Call on me
Lord have mercy
If you want some kissin'
Call on me baby
That's all you got to do now
No more lonely nights
Will you be alone
All you got to do is
Pick up your telephone
And dial 634-5789
(What's my number)
634-5789
That's what the Times says. CNN says:
"He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail."
So, is he planning to list the spammERS or the spammEES? Or both? Or is the CNN correspondent just stupid? If he's listing the Spammers, will we finally have a workable Universal Killfile?
"it's incumbent on Microsoft, being in the leadership position we're in, to help drive forward the industry in this area"
(Our products? A security problem? Don't be silly, it is "the industry." We will fix the industry.)
"We can't just sit back and think about Microsoft."
(It's not a Microsoft problem...but we will do the charitable thing and help, anyway.)
Weirdest spin I've seen in a long time....
If 2151 is still a time of military rule, why does the song sound so frickin' 1980s?
It's being postd over and over and over in newsgroups, in mpeg and in divx formats.
Try alt.binaries multimedia