Re:By your silly definition, Mr. Editor,
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
However. If I write software, with my time, and my effort, then nobody is going to tell ME under what terms I may let someone else use it. Period.
This is a pretty selfish attitude and actually opposite to the original values of copyright law. Copyright assumes that art (for want of a better term), once released to the public, becomes the property of society as a whole and not the creator. The creatior is awarded a very limited monopoly as a reward for adding to the collective culture. Its only corporate influence that has pushed it the other way
Shut yer fat pusshole or Uncle Jed'll give yer a whoopin'.
Don't yer never forget that we is the crud that got thrown outer that there Yoorup due to us bein' so fat and stoopit... or to put it another way - One mans Pilgrim Fathers are another mans unwanted religions nutters.
I think you'll find that only one of the majors is actually American. BMG and EMI are European, Vivendi Universal is European (although Universal was American at one point, I guess), Sony is Japanese and you're left with AOL Time Warner as the only American owned record company (majors that is). There's irony in there somewhere.
I believe that the figure of 99.99% accuracy is under "perfect" conditions, so it could be a lot worse. Having said that, assuming that the percentage of False Negatives is the same, 99.99% accurate. Then 4,115 terrorists and criminals could have passed through Portland Airport in just four months last year without being caught.
Which works out very roughly as two false alarms every hour. And since the average rate is not 1 in 1000 but 1 in 3 I'm not even going to bother working out how often they would be going off. First Day At Work
"What's that constant whining noise Bob"
"Oh, don't worry about that, its just our terrorist detector. After a couple of days it'll fade into the background, in the meantime you can borrow my old earplugs"
Its 1 in 3 in laboratory conditions with controlled lighting and camera settings I wish people would stop quoting the figures from the first article as if they were somehow true. He made them up to prove his point - the real figures are even more ridiculous and if he knew them he wouldn't even have to have bothered with his article. "to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any security system could be built around this kind of performance," - The Register
Especially once you read The Register article
which quotes proper figures
"to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any security system could be built around this kind of performance,"
But the point is that the terrorist aren't supposed to know they are on the 'known' list. Otherwise they can just select their operatives by seeing who's NOT on the FBI list.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a pretty selfish attitude and actually opposite to the original values of copyright law. Copyright assumes that art (for want of a better term), once released to the public, becomes the property of society as a whole and not the creator. The creatior is awarded a very limited monopoly as a reward for adding to the collective culture.
Its only corporate influence that has pushed it the other way
Shut yer fat pusshole or Uncle Jed'll give yer a whoopin'. ... or to put it another way - One mans Pilgrim Fathers are another mans unwanted religions nutters.
Don't yer never forget that we is the crud that got thrown outer that there Yoorup due to us bein' so fat and stoopit
Won't somebody think of the children!!
I think you'll find that only one of the majors is actually American. BMG and EMI are European, Vivendi Universal is European (although Universal was American at one point, I guess), Sony is Japanese and you're left with AOL Time Warner as the only American owned record company (majors that is).
There's irony in there somewhere.
Is this an example you're proud of?
I believe that the figure of 99.99% accuracy is under "perfect" conditions, so it could be a lot worse. Having said that, assuming that the percentage of False Negatives is the same, 99.99% accurate. Then 4,115 terrorists and criminals could have passed through Portland Airport in just four months last year without being caught.
Which works out very roughly as two false alarms every hour. And since the average rate is not 1 in 1000 but 1 in 3 I'm not even going to bother working out how often they would be going off.
First Day At Work
"What's that constant whining noise Bob"
"Oh, don't worry about that, its just our terrorist detector. After a couple of days it'll fade into the background, in the meantime you can borrow my old earplugs"
Its 1 in 3 in laboratory conditions with controlled lighting and camera settings
I wish people would stop quoting the figures from the first article as if they were somehow true. He made them up to prove his point - the real figures are even more ridiculous and if he knew them he wouldn't even have to have bothered with his article.
"to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any security system could be built around this kind of performance," - The Register
Especially once you read The Register article which quotes proper figures
"to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any security system could be built around this kind of performance,"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21916.html
this is where the actual working rate of 1 in 3 comes from.
But the point is that the terrorist aren't supposed to know they are on the 'known' list. Otherwise they can just select their operatives by seeing who's NOT on the FBI list.
Must be your rose tinted spectacles.