No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD. Cite something for that false claim. Go on, try.
Oh no! Accompanying a policeman to the station! The horror! Seriously, there are lots of cases in one's life where one might need to accompany a policeman to a station. If you had your ID on you to help verify you're not the molester they're looking for, you probably wouldn't have to go anywhere.
You could look similar to a suspect and get picked up by the police, you could be a victim of a crime and have to go to the station to file a report, etc. It's really not that scary, and most police officers are pretty nice people, you know?
While I certainly can see this case from the viewpoint of parents and school administration, a warning does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to people
No, of course not, and no one implied otherwise. A warning is however, polite and all. And it gives you a chance to avoid things you might be uncomfy with, such as being photographed. What we're talking about here is taking your picture, which is not illegal with or without a warning.
In the UK we have warnings for speed cameras, but hat doesn't necesarily make them right.
It doesn't necessarily make them wrong either. What's your point? The cameras are legal, aren't they?
Or similarly, just because I have a sign saying "Warning! Trespassers will be shot!" on my lawn doesn't give me the right to shoot anybody who sets foot on my lawn.
OK, so if it doesn't work, you have even less to worry about. Except possibly that it's a waste of money (which I agree with). But that's an issue for the local school board and government to deal with.
It's not about nothing to fear. It's about giving governments the machinery for tyranny.
Yo, the US government already has all the machinery for tyranny it needs -- mostly in the form of guns, but the people also have some machinery to prevent tyrrany -- such as the constitution, and the fact that the governemt, and its "enforcers" (the military) are citizens too.
Sure, you may trust the government with your left nut today, but tomorrow there might be some crooks in there (as unlikely as it sounds).
No, I do not trust them with that. Not even figuratively. I don't have to, either. See above.
The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is extremely helpful to the ability to enslave a population.
This is not "ability to monitor where everyone 24/7". And, you did not explain why this is so helpful for enslavement. (Because it's not really, I suppose)
We live in a country with a massive amount of capital (unconstitutionally obtained, I might add),
"unconsititutionally obtained capital"? Huh?
capital n.
A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.
A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.
Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: " [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital" (George F. Will).
Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.
Capital stock.
Capitalists considered as a group or class.
An asset or advantage: "profited from political capital accumulated by others" (Michael Mandelbaum).
A capital letter.
Which one of these are you talking about? And how is any of it "unconsititutionally obtained"?
as well as an almost 300 million dollar a year defense budget. Even if those in Washington have the best intentions, we're setting up a future generation for tyranny.
How is spending money on defense "setting up a future generation for tyranny"? It's rather annoying to me when people spout this kind of insane nonsense without any attempt to back it up.
Hm, so, if your wife just got raped and murdered, and you saw the guy run away, and you could describe him to the police, would you leave off any mention of his race?
Of course not.
But then if you don't omit that info, racial profiling would be inevitable -- the police would issue an alert and start looking for the suspect, and those who happen to share his race and be in the area would no doubt be more likely to be questioned by the police in connection with your wife's unfortunate demise.
But wait -- you're against racial profiling. So, you shouldn't refer to race when describing the perpetrator! In fact, you must not, else you foist upon the hapless police an unavoidable bias which will no doubt make them more likely to question members of that race than others.
Complaints against racial profiling, unless the results of the profiling are illegal, such as not getting a job, are stupid and misguided. If you want to be so ignorant as to ignore race when it is a useful identifying characteristic, then you are free to refure to mention race ever, even when describing your wife's killer to the police.
The rest of us (except for a few that are so afraid of anything that involves "race" that they'll instantly and unthinkingly capitulate to the silliest of arguments) will continue to treat race as just another identifying characteristic -- neither inherently good nor bad, but really hard to change quickly.
While you're at it, you may want to stop refering to eye color, hair color, height, weight, and language, since all of those are charactersitics that can be used to profile people. And profiling is bad, right?
I mean, we are talking profiling (which I doubt this system will do, but anyway, you brought it up), not execution or flogging. What's wrong with making wise use of statistical information obtained from past experiences to improve effifiency when conducting what must, by necessity, be a non-exhaustive search?
I'd be very concerned if my face was scanned into some government computer that is accessible to umpteen departments and might end up being used for god knows what!
What, exactly, are you worried that the government might do with a photo of you?
Read this and tell me if it doesn't turn your skin:
CNN reports that Phoenix City Hall is intstalling face recognition scanners to help prevent tax evasion and identify those misusing building permits.
It doesn't turn my skin, or scare me in the slightest. I really, really don't understand -- if you're on public property (or someone else's private property), why would, or should you be worried about someone taking your picture?
I don't think photography really steals your soul. Do you?;)
It's legal to photograph persons on public property or your own private property. I'm unaware of any laws that prevent you from comparing such photos to others to try to identify you.
Er, the tracking device touches your car. I don't think the face recognition scanner isn't the sort of scanner that you have to press your face up to to get an image.
"There are huge privacy concerns. I'm also troubled by the fact that the technology is not proven," said Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union.
Well, then, whoah. I mean, if there are huge privacy concerns then, well, I mean, that's serious stuff. Not just big, or serious concerns, these are huge! So, I'm like, justifiably concerned, and all. You know?
Oh, and besides those privacy concerns (such as, um, I guess, our god-given right to not be recognized, especially when someone has the nerve to try to recognize us, and stuff -- well, you have to admit that that's just going too far!), there's that troubling fact that the technology isn't proven.
Because, you know, if it's not proven to be 100% percent effective in all possible situations then, well, you can't use it. Everyone knows that. Because that would be awful if someone had to show some ID or something when asked. Or, you know, like they would have to maybe not come in the school or something, but that's not fair! I mean, if someone is a known sex offender and stuff, don't we need to educate them to rehabilitate them? I thought so! So why would we keep those poor sex offenders out of a school!? That's where they need to go, you know, to get edumacated on why sex offenses are so, you know, offensive.
So, I'm really justifiably concerned about this outrageous invasion into the private life of child molesters who like to sneak into schools.
Two cameras, which are expected to be operational next week, will scan faces of people who enter the office at Royal Palm Middle School. They are linked to state and national databases of sex offenders, missing children and alleged abductors.
Easy, if you're a sex offender (or a missing child that would like to remain missing), don't enter that school. They were nice enough to warn you in advance!
Whether or not you agree with this post or its parent, if you have any understanding of the slashdot moderation system you must agree that this post is absolutely, positively, NOT a troll. Please stop abusing the moderation system to further your political agenda. It's getting so bad that I may have to just dump all my karma on real troll flood the likes of which haver never been seen here. Maybe then you moronmods would have a nice frame of reference to help you understand the difference between a Troll and something you merely diagree with.
No, you would think that. I would not. Clearly, this game is not made for you. Isn't it wonderful that no one will force you to buy or play it?
I think it would be just as wonderful if you bit your lip instead of spouting your self-righteous moral judgments about a game that some people want to play.,
Slashdot Mirror
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.
It's about this.
No, it wasn't ever just about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
Read news much?
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it anyone in W's administration said they know exactly where they are.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD. Cite something for that false claim. Go on, try.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claims that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD, or that it was illegal in any sense.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.
It's about this.
There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.
Oh no! Accompanying a policeman to the station! The horror! Seriously, there are lots of cases in one's life where one might need to accompany a policeman to a station. If you had your ID on you to help verify you're not the molester they're looking for, you probably wouldn't have to go anywhere.
You could look similar to a suspect and get picked up by the police, you could be a victim of a crime and have to go to the station to file a report, etc. It's really not that scary, and most police officers are pretty nice people, you know?
I just don't get the problem,
While I certainly can see this case from the viewpoint of parents and school administration, a warning does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to people
No, of course not, and no one implied otherwise. A warning is however, polite and all. And it gives you a chance to avoid things you might be uncomfy with, such as being photographed. What we're talking about here is taking your picture, which is not illegal with or without a warning.
In the UK we have warnings for speed cameras, but hat doesn't necesarily make them right.
It doesn't necessarily make them wrong either. What's your point? The cameras are legal, aren't they?
Or similarly, just because I have a sign saying "Warning! Trespassers will be shot!" on my lawn doesn't give me the right to shoot anybody who sets foot on my lawn.
It should. And, in some parts of the US, it does.
OK, so if it doesn't work, you have even less to worry about. Except possibly that it's a waste of money (which I agree with). But that's an issue for the local school board and government to deal with.
It's not about nothing to fear. It's about giving governments the machinery for tyranny.
Yo, the US government already has all the machinery for tyranny it needs -- mostly in the form of guns, but the people also have some machinery to prevent tyrrany -- such as the constitution, and the fact that the governemt, and its "enforcers" (the military) are citizens too.
Sure, you may trust the government with your left nut today, but tomorrow there might be some crooks in there (as unlikely as it sounds).
No, I do not trust them with that. Not even figuratively. I don't have to, either. See above.
The ability to monitor where everyone 24/7 is extremely helpful to the ability to enslave a population.
This is not "ability to monitor where everyone 24/7". And, you did not explain why this is so helpful for enslavement. (Because it's not really, I suppose)
We live in a country with a massive amount of capital (unconstitutionally obtained, I might add),
"unconsititutionally obtained capital"? Huh?
capital n.
A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.
A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.
Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: " [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital" (George F. Will).
Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.
Capital stock.
Capitalists considered as a group or class.
An asset or advantage: "profited from political capital accumulated by others" (Michael Mandelbaum).
A capital letter.
Which one of these are you talking about? And how is any of it "unconsititutionally obtained"?
as well as an almost 300 million dollar a year defense budget. Even if those in Washington have the best intentions, we're setting up a future generation for tyranny.
How is spending money on defense "setting up a future generation for tyranny"? It's rather annoying to me when people spout this kind of insane nonsense without any attempt to back it up.
Hm, so, if your wife just got raped and murdered, and you saw the guy run away, and you could describe him to the police, would you leave off any mention of his race?
Of course not.
But then if you don't omit that info, racial profiling would be inevitable -- the police would issue an alert and start looking for the suspect, and those who happen to share his race and be in the area would no doubt be more likely to be questioned by the police in connection with your wife's unfortunate demise.
But wait -- you're against racial profiling. So, you shouldn't refer to race when describing the perpetrator! In fact, you must not, else you foist upon the hapless police an unavoidable bias which will no doubt make them more likely to question members of that race than others.
Complaints against racial profiling, unless the results of the profiling are illegal, such as not getting a job, are stupid and misguided. If you want to be so ignorant as to ignore race when it is a useful identifying characteristic, then you are free to refure to mention race ever, even when describing your wife's killer to the police.
The rest of us (except for a few that are so afraid of anything that involves "race" that they'll instantly and unthinkingly capitulate to the silliest of arguments) will continue to treat race as just another identifying characteristic -- neither inherently good nor bad, but really hard to change quickly.
While you're at it, you may want to stop refering to eye color, hair color, height, weight, and language, since all of those are charactersitics that can be used to profile people. And profiling is bad, right?
Huh, funny -- I don't think it happens enough.
I mean, we are talking profiling (which I doubt this system will do, but anyway, you brought it up), not execution or flogging. What's wrong with making wise use of statistical information obtained from past experiences to improve effifiency when conducting what must, by necessity, be a non-exhaustive search?
I'd be very concerned if my face was scanned into some government computer that is accessible to umpteen departments and might end up being used for god knows what!
What, exactly, are you worried that the government might do with a photo of you?
Read this and tell me if it doesn't turn your skin:
;)
CNN reports that Phoenix City Hall is intstalling face recognition scanners to help prevent tax evasion and identify those misusing building permits.
It doesn't turn my skin, or scare me in the slightest. I really, really don't understand -- if you're on public property (or someone else's private property), why would, or should you be worried about someone taking your picture?
I don't think photography really steals your soul. Do you?
Uh, green?
Seriously -- wtf are you insinuating? Racial something or another? Jebus Fripdiddle, can there be anything that doesn't prompt someone to cry racism?
It's legal to photograph persons on public property or your own private property. I'm unaware of any laws that prevent you from comparing such photos to others to try to identify you.
Why would that be a problem for anyone?
Er, the tracking device touches your car. I don't think the face recognition scanner isn't the sort of scanner that you have to press your face up to to get an image.
:)
Oh, wait, I get it:
"There are huge privacy concerns. I'm also troubled by the fact that the technology is not proven," said Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union.
Well, then, whoah. I mean, if there are huge privacy concerns then, well, I mean, that's serious stuff. Not just big, or serious concerns, these are huge! So, I'm like, justifiably concerned, and all. You know?
Oh, and besides those privacy concerns (such as, um, I guess, our god-given right to not be recognized, especially when someone has the nerve to try to recognize us, and stuff -- well, you have to admit that that's just going too far!), there's that troubling fact that the technology isn't proven.
Because, you know, if it's not proven to be 100% percent effective in all possible situations then, well, you can't use it. Everyone knows that. Because that would be awful if someone had to show some ID or something when asked. Or, you know, like they would have to maybe not come in the school or something, but that's not fair! I mean, if someone is a known sex offender and stuff, don't we need to educate them to rehabilitate them? I thought so! So why would we keep those poor sex offenders out of a school!? That's where they need to go, you know, to get edumacated on why sex offenses are so, you know, offensive.
So, I'm really justifiably concerned about this outrageous invasion into the private life of child molesters who like to sneak into schools.
Won't someone please think of the molesters?!?!
Two cameras, which are expected to be operational next week, will scan faces of people who enter the office at Royal Palm Middle School. They are linked to state and national databases of sex offenders, missing children and alleged abductors.
Easy, if you're a sex offender (or a missing child that would like to remain missing), don't enter that school. They were nice enough to warn you in advance!
Whether or not you agree with this post or its parent, if you have any understanding of the slashdot moderation system you must agree that this post is absolutely, positively, NOT a troll. Please stop abusing the moderation system to further your political agenda. It's getting so bad that I may have to just dump all my karma on real troll flood the likes of which haver never been seen here. Maybe then you moronmods would have a nice frame of reference to help you understand the difference between a Troll and something you merely diagree with.
Redundant my ass. Fuck off mods. Especially apple-sucking mods. Yes, you.
No, you would think that. I would not. Clearly, this game is not made for you. Isn't it wonderful that no one will force you to buy or play it?
I think it would be just as wonderful if you bit your lip instead of spouting your self-righteous moral judgments about a game that some people want to play.,
It's so amazing to me that you reached all those (inane) conclusions without every playing the game or even seeing anyone play the game.
I would like to gently suggest that you shut your stupid pie hole until you have some experience with the game in question.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation, you annoying fuckwitted asshat censorship-mongering moron.