Shoulder-mounted cameras are uncommon and easily identifiable. I haven't bothered looking at the Glass images available, so I don't know if I'll easily recognize such hardware. Google glasses may become common and thus not a distinction of a journalist as you're apparently describing. In addition, a person who is carrying a shoulder-mounted studio camera will normally identify him/herself and ask for permission before putting you on camera and chances are the footage of you won't be used anyway. Data from Glasses will likely be recorded and uploaded indiscriminately and in whole, without my permission. That enough of a difference for you?
If someone walked up and started what I perceived as an unwelcome conversation about my wireless habits and then punched me in the nose, I'd be very worried about this person's next move, ergo I could start to feel my life was in danger. Any kind of physical assault to me seems to be life threatening. I'm not a violent person and I'm not accustomed to using violence. Physical violence in and of itself to me is a very serious threat. So "Stand Your Ground" to me seems to indicate that any punch directed at me is reason enough to use lethal force. How do I know when a stranger punching me is just a guy who wants to punch me and not a stranger who wants to kill me?
Conservatives aren't happy to have a country of hapless consumers. They want downright stupid consumers. I guess that will make it easier for them to finally push the big brother government and corporate state they so desperately crave.
I wonder kind of criminal charges the people who carried out and planned these events will get? Events that affect(ed) the financial well-being of millions of people.
In the meantime, deface a website or DDOS one and get threatened with very long prison sentences.
Unrelated, I have no idea about the manufacture or recycling/destruction of plastic: are there some risks related to toxins? For example, would there be poisonous fumes to worry about with printing or the unprinting? Just curious.
Just saying "You are wrong as wrong can be" does not make any sort of argument at all. If that person is wrong, it shouldn't be hard to point to a few real facts making the point.
You make an interesting point with "... less critical infrastructure...". I'm not saying you're wrong, but by applying what you're saying, the TSA (thus the Feds?) considers a sports arena a critical infrastructure? Sounds like the perfect way for the security theater apparatus to claim just about anything critical infrastructure in order to apply their mission creep and extend their tentacles into everything else around.
Geez, when is the security bullshit gonna stop piling up?
I don't know that the average consumer is gonna care whether they license or own a media product. Who resells an mp3? They're cheap and I doubt people buy them and worry about what they'll be able to resell the mp3. I just searched for "used mp3" and none of the results I saw had anything to do with reselling mp3s. DVDs are cheap too. I mention both of these because they are popular media products.
If the media companies start offering these products even more cheaply if you buy a license, most consumers who just want to consume and don't care about their rights for secondary markets aren't gonna make a fuss. They get their music or movie cheaper than before. Lack of ownership? They'll probably think they're simplifying their lives by "owning less" or something.
Do I think that licensing is a good idea? No. Maybe, if it gives the licensee the right to remix/reproduce the product, but odds of the media including that in a cheap license price? Not high.
The level of paranoia as alluded to in the summary struck me as ridiculous. Does that mean the girl who spends the day writing a boy's name on her notebook is a stalker?
I realize there has been a mass shooting and people are worried now. I suppose being completely paranoid that 'everyone else is out to get you' is the price we pay for the freedom to keep military grade weapons for recreation?
The transition from a network created by scientists and populated by nerds for geeky entertainment to a coveted network for commercialization and popular entertainment should probably have come as a surprise to no one.
Or maybe it should have? Any useful technology seems to eventually be coopted for expanded uses not foreseen by the creators or early adopters.
One of the few thing saving us is that the Congress has become so uncooperative and gridlocked, it's almost hard to see them passing something like SOPA.
I don't know much about the deliberative process in the U.N. or how they enforce their decisions. Are the decisions of the U.N. even binding? It might almost be better if they do get "control" of the Internet. Goodness knows that there will be a few Security Council or other members who oppose proposals from other members. That should do plenty to protect what freedom still exists on the Internet.
What would stop the U.S. government from running roughshod over the networks and servers in the U.S.? As another/. story from today noted, even E.U. cloud services companies aren't safe from the PATRIOT ACT. What keeps the U.S. from claiming domain over those networks as well and doing as it sees fit? Seems pretty unlimited to me in that light.
That could be correct for now. But as an unforeseen and calamitous event like 9/11 imbued the president with all sorts of new powers, especially creating a whole Dept. to advance the security theater, something not even as notable as those terrorist attacks could spur the Congress to pass laws giving itself or the president more or new powers to control the Internet.
What if the pilots were required to distinguish between obvious non-targets, such as children, and people with weapons or else face a stiff punishment, such as time in the jail? Oh, what, you're not interested in being a pilot now that a mistake leading to "collateral damage" is now actually more than you losing points in your game?
Oh, that's right, everyone the drone hits is a enemy combatant. So, I guess there is no motivation to worry about what one shoots at.
Probably one of the main cues that this is NOT an "excellent piece" is the author's use of "cyber attack". But I'm not a journalist, so maybe I'm misinformed.
I think by mentioning that the list was already in the Greek govt's hands for a couple of years means this guy was acting as a kind of whistleblower, or possibly working with a whistleblower. IF that was the point, then acting out of a moral obligation to reveal evaders when the govt can't support itself makes this arrest appear immoral, perhaps somewhat despicable.
Just conjecture on my part. Honestly, I don't know why this particular "journalist arrested" story made it to/. Maybe though it's the fault of the summary to given enough detail that would really elicit attention.
Given that the U.S.'s Gulf wars against weaker countries were to protect access to petroleum and the importance of these resources to all of our tech, I wonder how cavalier the government would be to take on China for access to these resources?
I just wish Texas would secede and keep their whole other level of assholery to themselves. Then they can elect Bush (or Perry or whatever asshat they prefer) president for life and demonstrate how well a small government approach works when all their petroleum is gone and everything's been covered in pollution and the schools are all run by churches.
This article mentions that other experts are arrested under similar circumstance, i.e. giving expert testimony that opposes prosecutors. Do prosecutors have experts arrested when the experts give testimony that doesn't completely support the prosecutors case as well? This kind of corruption is astounding.
In this case, it seems like the prosecutors made this woman an accessory after the fact. This particular example defies logic. How does a person become an accessory to an alleged crime when that person is only present in the trial and had no other knowledge of the alleged crime before the trial?
It would seem that Russia's legal system needs some major reforms. At least some kind of rule or law that keeps expert witnesses from being arrested for simply being a witness. What's the point of a trial if there is no testimony? Of course, the general state of corruption is famous there as well, so I guess reforms are needed in all aspects of government.
Not sure who decided to use the term "weapon" with "crowd-control" intentions, but doesn't the combination of the two words seem wrong? Merriam-Webster or whomever might define weapon definitely, but when I think of weapon, I think something intended to injure or kill. If you're attempting to control a crowd, especially of mostly non-violent protesters, injury or death is not the goal.
Of course those in power get to decide the terms of the engagement and seem to think an excess of force is the most appropriate response most of the time. From their point of view, I suppose weapon is the correct term.
I just found out about an alternative hypothesis to the cause of autism: inflammation in the pregnant mother. Apparently an immune disorder in a mother will affect the unborn child.
I didn't read any further on the topic, but the article does reference at least one researcher, so one could see what kind of study has been performed to support this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Shoulder-mounted cameras are uncommon and easily identifiable. I haven't bothered looking at the Glass images available, so I don't know if I'll easily recognize such hardware. Google glasses may become common and thus not a distinction of a journalist as you're apparently describing. In addition, a person who is carrying a shoulder-mounted studio camera will normally identify him/herself and ask for permission before putting you on camera and chances are the footage of you won't be used anyway. Data from Glasses will likely be recorded and uploaded indiscriminately and in whole, without my permission. That enough of a difference for you?
If it's medically necessary why does it have to mandated by law then?
If someone walked up and started what I perceived as an unwelcome conversation about my wireless habits and then punched me in the nose, I'd be very worried about this person's next move, ergo I could start to feel my life was in danger. Any kind of physical assault to me seems to be life threatening. I'm not a violent person and I'm not accustomed to using violence. Physical violence in and of itself to me is a very serious threat. So "Stand Your Ground" to me seems to indicate that any punch directed at me is reason enough to use lethal force. How do I know when a stranger punching me is just a guy who wants to punch me and not a stranger who wants to kill me?
Conservatives aren't happy to have a country of hapless consumers. They want downright stupid consumers. I guess that will make it easier for them to finally push the big brother government and corporate state they so desperately crave.
I wonder kind of criminal charges the people who carried out and planned these events will get? Events that affect(ed) the financial well-being of millions of people.
In the meantime, deface a website or DDOS one and get threatened with very long prison sentences.
Do you need that much energy?
Unrelated, I have no idea about the manufacture or recycling/destruction of plastic: are there some risks related to toxins? For example, would there be poisonous fumes to worry about with printing or the unprinting? Just curious.
Just saying "You are wrong as wrong can be" does not make any sort of argument at all. If that person is wrong, it shouldn't be hard to point to a few real facts making the point.
You make an interesting point with "... less critical infrastructure ...". I'm not saying you're wrong, but by applying what you're saying, the TSA (thus the Feds?) considers a sports arena a critical infrastructure? Sounds like the perfect way for the security theater apparatus to claim just about anything critical infrastructure in order to apply their mission creep and extend their tentacles into everything else around.
Geez, when is the security bullshit gonna stop piling up?
I don't know that the average consumer is gonna care whether they license or own a media product. Who resells an mp3? They're cheap and I doubt people buy them and worry about what they'll be able to resell the mp3. I just searched for "used mp3" and none of the results I saw had anything to do with reselling mp3s. DVDs are cheap too. I mention both of these because they are popular media products.
If the media companies start offering these products even more cheaply if you buy a license, most consumers who just want to consume and don't care about their rights for secondary markets aren't gonna make a fuss. They get their music or movie cheaper than before. Lack of ownership? They'll probably think they're simplifying their lives by "owning less" or something.
Do I think that licensing is a good idea? No. Maybe, if it gives the licensee the right to remix/reproduce the product, but odds of the media including that in a cheap license price? Not high.
The level of paranoia as alluded to in the summary struck me as ridiculous. Does that mean the girl who spends the day writing a boy's name on her notebook is a stalker?
I realize there has been a mass shooting and people are worried now. I suppose being completely paranoid that 'everyone else is out to get you' is the price we pay for the freedom to keep military grade weapons for recreation?
The transition from a network created by scientists and populated by nerds for geeky entertainment to a coveted network for commercialization and popular entertainment should probably have come as a surprise to no one.
Or maybe it should have? Any useful technology seems to eventually be coopted for expanded uses not foreseen by the creators or early adopters.
'... and either way, you will not receive credit or compensation for our use of your photos.'
Makes me glad I don't use Instagram or Facebook. Fuck 'em.
One of the few thing saving us is that the Congress has become so uncooperative and gridlocked, it's almost hard to see them passing something like SOPA.
I don't know much about the deliberative process in the U.N. or how they enforce their decisions. Are the decisions of the U.N. even binding? It might almost be better if they do get "control" of the Internet. Goodness knows that there will be a few Security Council or other members who oppose proposals from other members. That should do plenty to protect what freedom still exists on the Internet.
What would stop the U.S. government from running roughshod over the networks and servers in the U.S.? As another /. story from today noted, even E.U. cloud services companies aren't safe from the PATRIOT ACT. What keeps the U.S. from claiming domain over those networks as well and doing as it sees fit? Seems pretty unlimited to me in that light.
That could be correct for now. But as an unforeseen and calamitous event like 9/11 imbued the president with all sorts of new powers, especially creating a whole Dept. to advance the security theater, something not even as notable as those terrorist attacks could spur the Congress to pass laws giving itself or the president more or new powers to control the Internet.
What if the pilots were required to distinguish between obvious non-targets, such as children, and people with weapons or else face a stiff punishment, such as time in the jail? Oh, what, you're not interested in being a pilot now that a mistake leading to "collateral damage" is now actually more than you losing points in your game?
Oh, that's right, everyone the drone hits is a enemy combatant. So, I guess there is no motivation to worry about what one shoots at.
Probably one of the main cues that this is NOT an "excellent piece" is the author's use of "cyber attack". But I'm not a journalist, so maybe I'm misinformed.
"fuck no"? I know Lucas can be a bit of a putz, but this is definitely crossing over to the Dark Side.
Can researchers just stop creating applications and systems that enable further surveillance and control of our society?
I think by mentioning that the list was already in the Greek govt's hands for a couple of years means this guy was acting as a kind of whistleblower, or possibly working with a whistleblower. IF that was the point, then acting out of a moral obligation to reveal evaders when the govt can't support itself makes this arrest appear immoral, perhaps somewhat despicable.
Just conjecture on my part. Honestly, I don't know why this particular "journalist arrested" story made it to /. Maybe though it's the fault of the summary to given enough detail that would really elicit attention.
Given that the U.S.'s Gulf wars against weaker countries were to protect access to petroleum and the importance of these resources to all of our tech, I wonder how cavalier the government would be to take on China for access to these resources?
I just wish Texas would secede and keep their whole other level of assholery to themselves. Then they can elect Bush (or Perry or whatever asshat they prefer) president for life and demonstrate how well a small government approach works when all their petroleum is gone and everything's been covered in pollution and the schools are all run by churches.
This article mentions that other experts are arrested under similar circumstance, i.e. giving expert testimony that opposes prosecutors. Do prosecutors have experts arrested when the experts give testimony that doesn't completely support the prosecutors case as well? This kind of corruption is astounding.
In this case, it seems like the prosecutors made this woman an accessory after the fact. This particular example defies logic. How does a person become an accessory to an alleged crime when that person is only present in the trial and had no other knowledge of the alleged crime before the trial?
It would seem that Russia's legal system needs some major reforms. At least some kind of rule or law that keeps expert witnesses from being arrested for simply being a witness. What's the point of a trial if there is no testimony? Of course, the general state of corruption is famous there as well, so I guess reforms are needed in all aspects of government.
Not sure who decided to use the term "weapon" with "crowd-control" intentions, but doesn't the combination of the two words seem wrong? Merriam-Webster or whomever might define weapon definitely, but when I think of weapon, I think something intended to injure or kill. If you're attempting to control a crowd, especially of mostly non-violent protesters, injury or death is not the goal.
Of course those in power get to decide the terms of the engagement and seem to think an excess of force is the most appropriate response most of the time. From their point of view, I suppose weapon is the correct term.
I just found out about an alternative hypothesis to the cause of autism: inflammation in the pregnant mother. Apparently an immune disorder in a mother will affect the unborn child.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/immune-disorders-and-autism.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
I didn't read any further on the topic, but the article does reference at least one researcher, so one could see what kind of study has been performed to support this idea.