>You can be restricted from doing all sorts of things in the venues (or any other private property) that are perfectly legal elsewhere.
True. But what if you set up a wireless AP in a nearby building - one of the blocks of flats which overlook the venues - with a large enough antenna. Would that work for regular devices sending and receiving a signal in the venues?
That's the template used by NBC for their CORPORATE emails. Replace "first.last" with the name of any exec and that's the amazingly private super-secret personal details the journalist had his account killed for.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with most aspects of mass surveillance, but that's mostly because of the disparity between the power the state has and what a citizen has, and also the Intrusiveness that's frequently involved, but facial recognition doesn't seem to be the same.
For one, these recordings are in public, where there can't be any expectations of privacy or anonymity, and secondly this is really little different from passing 'round a photo of someone and asking if they recognise the subject. That's generally difficult in large populations, which makes me think that the real effect of this technology is in returning us to the small village in a sense, where everyone knew everyone.
That might be a bad thing and it might also have certain advantages, but I suspect they're largely to do with HOW the tech is used. I think if anything, there's a case for making it available to EVERYONE, if it's going to be available to anyone, so that power abuses by the state can be countered. That's where I see the real threat from this technology.
>As a side-note, a simple web search turned out this french newspaper article [20minutes.fr] about the director of this particular restaurant, Khader Aissani, who happens to look closely like the "perpetrator 1" identified in the original article's photos.
Nah - the dude has sticky-out ears. The perpetrator 1 guy doesn't.
>In both the UK and the US, they handed out free decoders during the digital switch.
Free decoders in the UK? Nope. They have a Digital UK switchover scheme, but it'll cost a person £40 minimum to get the worst option form them (a cheap decoder).
You can be considered eligible to use the scheme but ineligible for a free decoder: the limitations on it screen out almost everybody - for insatnce once you're considered eligible - basically over 75 and/or certain types of disabled you then ALSO have to be in receipt of certain state benefits to get a free decoder.
Most of the Switchover scheme is just an operation in selling cheap and not-so-cheap decoders and PVRs - in competition with electrical stores and supermarkets.
Regardless of whatever credo, religion, belief system, philosophy or culture, mankind will find one reason or another to give way to his baser, violent urges and go on mass murdering sprees.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is mankind.
I feel certain all persons considering robbing banks will study this statistical data and after due and sober consideration, be dissuaded from such high-risk, low-reward enterprise.
I see another way that Facebook could implode: poor performance to give a return on the investments made. This creates demands for Facebook to do stuff to exploit its users data in a more ruthless and abusive manner, creating a death spiral of people leaving -> more exploitation of data -> people leave -> more exploitation...
Just look at internet advertising. The more abusive it became, the more people installed pop-up blockers and adblockers and the more the advertisers tried to circumvent those things, the better the adblockers became.
Facebook has already proved it's just as dissolute as any regular internet advertiser now, with their numerous opt-out privacy changes. I think it's only going to get worse and I don't think the money men will be able to restrain themselves from making things worse.
I already bought it earlier in the year (otherwise I would have jumped on this) and it's funny, inventive, crazy and a delight to play. A top-notch game, one of my favourites of all time.
>So...why can't he answer the questions from the UK - as he's offered to do since the very beginning?
Because once he's in Sweden, the US can get him shipped out to the Land of the Free, no questions asked.
"Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures."
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/15/how-to-build-a-wifi-biquad-dish-antenna/
Yup, looks do-able.
Now you only need some motivated people in the area who dislike BT. That last part should be easiest of all! :)
>You can be restricted from doing all sorts of things in the venues (or any other private property) that are perfectly legal elsewhere.
True. But what if you set up a wireless AP in a nearby building - one of the blocks of flats which overlook the venues - with a large enough antenna. Would that work for regular devices sending and receiving a signal in the venues?
There wouldn't be any trespassing involved.
first.last@nbcuni.com
That's the template used by NBC for their CORPORATE emails. Replace "first.last" with the name of any exec and that's the amazingly private super-secret personal details the journalist had his account killed for.
The NBC executive was called Gary Zenkel.
This post would be a violation of Twitters TOS!
Facebook®: Membership Guarantees Citizenship
It's not really $50 for 8 gig, though.
It's just that the 8GB version is sold without a retailer margin - that's why it's not sold anywhere other than the Play store.
The 16GB version is sold in retail outlets, because that $50 is their profit on the device - not hyper-inflated storage costs (ala Apple).
I'm sorry, but forcing peopl to use their real names would kill wonderful things, like Adam Buxton's BUG.
Google really has turned evil, I guess.
(or sutin)
Even if you work at a poultry farm and you're describing an over-sized obese male chicken?
I'm pretty uncomfortable with most aspects of mass surveillance, but that's mostly because of the disparity between the power the state has and what a citizen has, and also the Intrusiveness that's frequently involved, but facial recognition doesn't seem to be the same.
For one, these recordings are in public, where there can't be any expectations of privacy or anonymity, and secondly this is really little different from passing 'round a photo of someone and asking if they recognise the subject. That's generally difficult in large populations, which makes me think that the real effect of this technology is in returning us to the small village in a sense, where everyone knew everyone.
That might be a bad thing and it might also have certain advantages, but I suspect they're largely to do with HOW the tech is used. I think if anything, there's a case for making it available to EVERYONE, if it's going to be available to anyone, so that power abuses by the state can be countered. That's where I see the real threat from this technology.
>And from where exactly do they propose we get these girlfriends for the crackers?
Service guarantees citizenship?
Well, that might be the case, however if this incident is anything to go by, people in resaurants need to be filmed.
>As a side-note, a simple web search turned out this french newspaper article [20minutes.fr] about the director of this particular restaurant, Khader Aissani, who happens to look closely like the "perpetrator 1" identified in the original article's photos.
Nah - the dude has sticky-out ears. The perpetrator 1 guy doesn't.
>In both the UK and the US, they handed out free decoders during the digital switch.
Free decoders in the UK? Nope. They have a Digital UK switchover scheme, but it'll cost a person £40 minimum to get the worst option form them (a cheap decoder).
You can be considered eligible to use the scheme but ineligible for a free decoder: the limitations on it screen out almost everybody - for insatnce once you're considered eligible - basically over 75 and/or certain types of disabled you then ALSO have to be in receipt of certain state benefits to get a free decoder.
Most of the Switchover scheme is just an operation in selling cheap and not-so-cheap decoders and PVRs - in competition with electrical stores and supermarkets.
Youtube link please
Can't we all just agree to getalongoly?
Capitalism: subverting and undermining Democracy, one dollar at a time.
Regardless of whatever credo, religion, belief system, philosophy or culture, mankind will find one reason or another to give way to his baser, violent urges and go on mass murdering sprees.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is mankind.
You're thinking of the Sony Google TV box. This Q thing is different.
Just who I came to recommend. And Douglas Adams too (thought there are fewer of his works in existence, in this dimension).
They say "no current plans" not "no current intentions".
They have the intention of using it, they just haven't got around to drawing up the plans yet.
Politicians lie. Even when they're telling the truth.
I feel certain all persons considering robbing banks will study this statistical data and after due and sober consideration, be dissuaded from such high-risk, low-reward enterprise.
Fortunately, he'd already spent hundreds of pounds on the hardware device that ran the app.
I see another way that Facebook could implode: poor performance to give a return on the investments made. This creates demands for Facebook to do stuff to exploit its users data in a more ruthless and abusive manner, creating a death spiral of people leaving -> more exploitation of data -> people leave -> more exploitation ...
Just look at internet advertising. The more abusive it became, the more people installed pop-up blockers and adblockers and the more the advertisers tried to circumvent those things, the better the adblockers became.
Facebook has already proved it's just as dissolute as any regular internet advertiser now, with their numerous opt-out privacy changes. I think it's only going to get worse and I don't think the money men will be able to restrain themselves from making things worse.
Spot on.
Absolutely. Buy it just for Psychonaughts!
I already bought it earlier in the year (otherwise I would have jumped on this) and it's funny, inventive, crazy and a delight to play. A top-notch game, one of my favourites of all time.
>So...why can't he answer the questions from the UK - as he's offered to do since the very beginning?
Because once he's in Sweden, the US can get him shipped out to the Land of the Free, no questions asked.
"Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy ’extradition’ procedures."
There be shenanigans afoot!