Then when you're away from your desk at night, and the janitor is getting jiggy at PC station, he suddenly unlocks your root password and ends up erasing your critical report.
Security caught some guy working after-hours browsing porn on my boss's computer. She ordered a new keyboard and mouse first thing the next morning - phorm
Clarify: Where is the laser situated? If it's projecting from above, then wouldn't you break beams for the lower keys when moving your hand towards the upper keys?
Some laptop touchpads seem to work independent of the force applied. You can push as hard as you want with a pen, etc and nothing happens. A fairly light brush of the finger and the mouse moves. I'd assume it's based on energized contact, heat sensing, or something else that differs between human skin and inanimate objects poking the touchpad
If this turns out anything like the satellite-received modifying industry, chances are MS will never catch *everybody* and it will become somewhat of an long and tedius battle over time.
The satellite-mod industry may be a bad example though, I know people who have paid tons more for a modified received than they would have actually paying for the channels themselves (though at the moment, we can't get American sat legally in Canada, or at least not here).
Perhaps the best fight-back method would be to make the instructions for creating mod-chips more publicly available. In this case, every little shop would eventually proliferate them, and it would become too difficult to chase everyone down.
Of course, in a business sense this is a really bad idea, as it just creates competition. But in a hardware-modders right-to-change-my-property, fight the machine sense it would be nice.
I think that Google is big enough to spend the bucks on this. Let's hope they decide to put on the hurt then. I'd imagine that they find Mr. Novak's case rather repugnant, and wouldn't mind in the least backlashing against him as a deterrent to others who might have similar ideas.
Think anyone could get him to sue Microsoft or someone else ginormously large. In that case, we probably wouldn't hear any lawsuits from him in quite a awhile, unless it was over somebody defaming the cardboard box he'd end up living in.
I think this is wrong. To my knowledge, lawyers can work on a contingency or flat rate basis. I've seen cases with both.
If somebody can't afford the initial flat rate of a lawyer, but has a viable case, the percentage basis is a viable option - but that's up to the lawyer to decide whether the case is worth it. A lawyer could probably choose to be paid in bottle caps if he/she wanted, it's the lawyers choice to take the case.
Yes, that's the way it works here. I actually thought the US had something similar to this, but no? That's surprising, but would explain the fact that there are less frivolous lawsuits in Canada.
It's not always a good system though. I've heard it really sucks when one contests a traffic ticket and fails, because sometimes they can apparently ding you for the court charge on that, then you have to pay both. If it's a case of mostly your word VS traffic cop... it often encourages you to take a crappy ticket.
Truly though who do you vote for. There's that old saying about power corrupting, and it's very often true. You can also s/power/money/ in this statement.
Nowadays, it seems the best you can hope for is that the candidate is semi-honest when going in, but really a lot of the time you just have to choose the best of the bad.
It's like being offered a choice of painful afflications every four years and having to choose one.
Corrupt Politicians / Honest Politicians =...
ERR: Division by zero - phorm
Nothing is more idiotic than a legal system that allows one person to abridge the security and personal freedom of another, but exercising their own right to continually sue or press frivolous charges against individuals/organizations that cross their path.
We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits. That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue. I think I read earlier that there are some laws regarding individuals that are sue happy, why not make it federal (and get the Canadian government to apply one as well, although Canada seems less lawsuit-crazy than the US).
Don't forget large companies, as part of the "unofficial" government model. They can pass large amount of bribes... "assisting" government and other officials in coming to more "benefial" decisions for corporations.
It's cynical, but in today's government, unfortunately true - phorm
Who exactly would DO the public service? The employees of many of these companies are just doing their jobs, typing in data, etc, etc, unknowing of the legal properties of the information they process.
Monatary damages work in some cases, where they're big enough that the get noticed by other companies, and hopefully that they make a certain impact on the reparating company as well. Also, it would help if the actual victims (in this case the students) received some benefit from these rulings, but I doubt they'll ever see the cash.
In this case there aren't reparations due unless the ruling is broken, but if this were to happen, it would be nice if the students saw some cash. For $11,000 or so I'd probably be willing to forgive having my name sent to a few spamming companies.
In programming class I tended to get done quite early (geek) and ended up coding custom project. One with a chat-room that half the class ended up using instead of doing work. In version 2 of the program, I added a command to shells users to DOS. It was fun making the PC's run quickbasic progams that played notes in sequence as the prof walked by...
Agreed here. When decent Playstation emus came out, I was finally able to play some the games that I'd been itching to get at, but hadn't reached the PC market. If somebody can hack and X-box and/or a PS-2, I'll happily pay the games, but nothign sucks more than having to buy a console just to play 1-2 games.
In another year my PC hardware should be able to dish out almost anything a console of this generation can (playstation games look better in 3d on my 2-yr-old graphics card with an emulator).
1 big concern in PC emulation is 2d graphics. A lot of emulator designers have emus that are awesome for 3d, but crap out when it comes to 2d stuff, even such as simple as text and dialog boxes. Hopefully if an emu is made for X-box, 2d graphics won't fall to the side. As far as the actual console goes, MS could be a good fighter for games. If they're willing to dish out enough money, some seriously awesome games that might otherwise not happen may make it out on X-box.
Perhaps/. should warn those they link with PHP/mysql pages, or just wimpy servers, to up their threshhold for high traffic before making the post visible?
Usually I let somebody else put this up and then scoff at them, but this time there was only 1 post about the article (yay slashdot) before it fried.
I was going to post the google cache, but even this is loading slowly as heck for some reason?
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:NApeNz5jiiEC: www.locustworld.com/+%2B%22locustworld.com%22&hl=e n&ie=UTF-8
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:jeReKQ-XMO4C:w ww.locustworld.com/print.php%3Fsid%3D6+%2B%22locus tworld.com%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Slashdot, chewing up servers faster than a swarm of locusts - phorm
The hum is ok.
It's the high-pitched screech that you really don't want to hear on any hard-drive that's in use. It's often precluded by a rapid tick-tick-tick wherein the needle would bounce off the platter a few times before finally scatching a nice scratch across the surface.
Besides being generally unpleasant to listen to, it's the sound of doom for your data on that drive. Where are those old 1GB/2GB drives at on their warrantee period?:-)
The article deals with knocking metas out of search engine criteria, not as removing them from web-browsers. Your refresh and redirect metas should still happily work (or not) as usual.
I suppose that we could come to the agreement then that those who went around taking pictures up skirts of young ladies and underage girls alike were in fact doing something that should have had legal repercussions?
I'll certainly agree in that we don't need an overly broad law that allowed these individual to be prosecuted while also in fact nailing anyone else with a camera.
The problem I find is, we both agree that upskirt cammers who deal on the internet are scum, but neither of us can then find a way to deal with them in particular that wouldn't likely set a bad legal precedent for other cases with legal sleazy motives?
If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.
Oh, and underwear is generally a good option to go with a skirt. Those who don't wear it are probably asking for trouble in some form:-)
Read first: Warning if at work (Re:new item)
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 1
Just to let people know not to click this if you're at work. I should have thought of it before doing so... but I didn't. Luckily nobody was looking at my screen.
(X-rated link)
Is that when you consider the amount of idiotic lawsuits over laws that can be broadly interpreted... that some of these common devices might very well indeed end up under fire
Politicians seem to spend a lot of time patching up too-broad laws that don't meet their expectations, and an equal amount of time making silly new too-broad laws.
What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive
Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.
Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!
Our provincial drivers licenses have mag-strips in them that police can swipe to get information quickly.
When they first came out, an officer was telling a bunch of kids how they work. Some guy walking by thought this sounded cool, and asked the officer to test it on his license. The officer did so, came out, handcuffed the guy and read him his rights.
It appears that the guy had a warrant out for him in another city/province, but only thought that the license provided drivers info. Isn't it great when dumb criminals serve themselves on a silver platter?
In this case the persons in question would not being doing any unusual activity nor wearing any obscene or unusual clothing in which to expose themselves. Incidental viewing would be acceptable (in which case you happen to get a side glance of something naughty). However, the cameras are not incidental viewing, but are rather planted for exposure and in a orientation designed to facilitate and maximize said exposure.
Indeed, if a person were to see the camera and then deliberately expose herself to it, it would be her fault. If the camera catches the person's genetalia/undergarments due to its intentional positioning, rather than due to an intentional gesture of the individual, there would be the difference.
Those wearing skirts should wear underwear, however.
Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.
This is an American law article, therefore I am referencing American society. Most people would consider it a reasonable expectation not to have their bodies photographed. Most people would also be embarrassed were they to be photographed, regardless of whether the masses could identify them.
This may be fine in other cultures, but in North America the viewpoint is that among the reasons we wear clothes is to protect our modesty and privacy, which in this case is being violated.
You have a right to conduct yourself and your person in a manner that doesn't offend others. If you were to want to photograph yourself and those willing, put the picture up on billboards or the internet or wherever, that's fine.
You can put whatever your want within the confines of a mall, but when it invades (whether physically or visually) the confines of the clothing of unwilling participants, then you are violating their privacy and dignity.
The comment I find idiotic is the fact that you state that if a person in fact has that dignity violated, it is not in fact a violation due to the semi-anonymous nature of the violation.
Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?
Keep in mind that in previous cases, it has been seen that obvious intent to distribute underage pictures as a sexual medium has overridden the fact that many laws only cover these as poses or positions of a sexual nature.
Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?
Regardless of the current statistics, I think that hard drives have come a long way as far as noise production. I remember on a lot of my old PC's the huge amount of noise some of the hard-drives (old WD's and Maxtor's) used to make. I never needed to check the little indicator light to tell when my hard drive was whizzing away, you could hear it from the next room.
I probably won't buy a hard-drive based on noise-factor (or possibly heat factor) alone if the price difference is significant. After the drives of 10 years back, most current models hum like music. When it's just humming away (no data-access clicking), the sound of a hard-drive can actually be somewhat relaxing.
On an contrary note: I once worked in a testing lab that had about 40+ machines. When they were all running, the room hummed, but the noise was somewhat subliminal. Walking out of the room into a busy office, you definately noticed an increase in noise. On days I worked overtime however, leaving the lab to dead silence was quite noticable... I almost missed the conforting hum sometimes.
Noise ratings on scanners/printers/CD-ROMS would be nice. These tend to be a lot more irritating than hard drives. Anyone know a site?
Slashdot Mirror
Then when you're away from your desk at night, and the janitor is getting jiggy at PC station, he suddenly unlocks your root password and ends up erasing your critical report.
Security caught some guy working after-hours browsing porn on my boss's computer. She ordered a new keyboard and mouse first thing the next morning - phorm
Clarify: Where is the laser situated? If it's projecting from above, then wouldn't you break beams for the lower keys when moving your hand towards the upper keys?
Any URL's, pictures?
Some laptop touchpads seem to work independent of the force applied. You can push as hard as you want with a pen, etc and nothing happens. A fairly light brush of the finger and the mouse moves. I'd assume it's based on energized contact, heat sensing, or something else that differs between human skin and inanimate objects poking the touchpad
If this turns out anything like the satellite-received modifying industry, chances are MS will never catch *everybody* and it will become somewhat of an long and tedius battle over time.
The satellite-mod industry may be a bad example though, I know people who have paid tons more for a modified received than they would have actually paying for the channels themselves (though at the moment, we can't get American sat legally in Canada, or at least not here).
Perhaps the best fight-back method would be to make the instructions for creating mod-chips more publicly available. In this case, every little shop would eventually proliferate them, and it would become too difficult to chase everyone down.
Of course, in a business sense this is a really bad idea, as it just creates competition. But in a hardware-modders right-to-change-my-property, fight the machine sense it would be nice.
I think that Google is big enough to spend the bucks on this. Let's hope they decide to put on the hurt then. I'd imagine that they find Mr. Novak's case rather repugnant, and wouldn't mind in the least backlashing against him as a deterrent to others who might have similar ideas.
Think anyone could get him to sue Microsoft or someone else ginormously large. In that case, we probably wouldn't hear any lawsuits from him in quite a awhile, unless it was over somebody defaming the cardboard box he'd end up living in.
I think this is wrong. To my knowledge, lawyers can work on a contingency or flat rate basis. I've seen cases with both.
If somebody can't afford the initial flat rate of a lawyer, but has a viable case, the percentage basis is a viable option - but that's up to the lawyer to decide whether the case is worth it. A lawyer could probably choose to be paid in bottle caps if he/she wanted, it's the lawyers choice to take the case.
Yes, that's the way it works here. I actually thought the US had something similar to this, but no? That's surprising, but would explain the fact that there are less frivolous lawsuits in Canada.
It's not always a good system though. I've heard it really sucks when one contests a traffic ticket and fails, because sometimes they can apparently ding you for the court charge on that, then you have to pay both. If it's a case of mostly your word VS traffic cop... it often encourages you to take a crappy ticket.
Truly though who do you vote for. There's that old saying about power corrupting, and it's very often true. You can also s/power/money/ in this statement.
Nowadays, it seems the best you can hope for is that the candidate is semi-honest when going in, but really a lot of the time you just have to choose the best of the bad.
It's like being offered a choice of painful afflications every four years and having to choose one.
Corrupt Politicians / Honest Politicians =...
ERR: Division by zero - phorm
If not, maybe next week they will be
Nothing is more idiotic than a legal system that allows one person to abridge the security and personal freedom of another, but exercising their own right to continually sue or press frivolous charges against individuals/organizations that cross their path.
We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits. That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue. I think I read earlier that there are some laws regarding individuals that are sue happy, why not make it federal (and get the Canadian government to apply one as well, although Canada seems less lawsuit-crazy than the US).
Lawyers: Who do you want to sue today? - phorm
Don't forget large companies, as part of the "unofficial" government model. They can pass large amount of bribes... "assisting" government and other officials in coming to more "benefial" decisions for corporations.
It's cynical, but in today's government, unfortunately true - phorm
Who exactly would DO the public service? The employees of many of these companies are just doing their jobs, typing in data, etc, etc, unknowing of the legal properties of the information they process.
Monatary damages work in some cases, where they're big enough that the get noticed by other companies, and hopefully that they make a certain impact on the reparating company as well. Also, it would help if the actual victims (in this case the students) received some benefit from these rulings, but I doubt they'll ever see the cash.
In this case there aren't reparations due unless the ruling is broken, but if this were to happen, it would be nice if the students saw some cash. For $11,000 or so I'd probably be willing to forgive having my name sent to a few spamming companies.
In programming class I tended to get done quite early (geek) and ended up coding custom project. One with a chat-room that half the class ended up using instead of doing work. In version 2 of the program, I added a command to shells users to DOS. It was fun making the PC's run quickbasic progams that played notes in sequence as the prof walked by...
Agreed here. When decent Playstation emus came out, I was finally able to play some the games that I'd been itching to get at, but hadn't reached the PC market. If somebody can hack and X-box and/or a PS-2, I'll happily pay the games, but nothign sucks more than having to buy a console just to play 1-2 games.
In another year my PC hardware should be able to dish out almost anything a console of this generation can (playstation games look better in 3d on my 2-yr-old graphics card with an emulator).
1 big concern in PC emulation is 2d graphics. A lot of emulator designers have emus that are awesome for 3d, but crap out when it comes to 2d stuff, even such as simple as text and dialog boxes. Hopefully if an emu is made for X-box, 2d graphics won't fall to the side. As far as the actual console goes, MS could be a good fighter for games. If they're willing to dish out enough money, some seriously awesome games that might otherwise not happen may make it out on X-box.
Perhaps /. should warn those they link with PHP/mysql pages, or just wimpy servers, to up their threshhold for high traffic before making the post visible?
: www.locustworld.com/+%2B%22locustworld.com%22&hl=e n&ie=UTF-8
w ww.locustworld.com/print.php%3Fsid%3D6+%2B%22locus tworld.com%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Slashdot, chewing up servers faster than a swarm of locusts - phorm
Usually I let somebody else put this up and then scoff at them, but this time there was only 1 post about the article (yay slashdot) before it fried.
I was going to post the google cache, but even this is loading slowly as heck for some reason?
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:NApeNz5jiiEC
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:jeReKQ-XMO4C:
The hum is ok.
:-)
It's the high-pitched screech that you really don't want to hear on any hard-drive that's in use. It's often precluded by a rapid tick-tick-tick wherein the needle would bounce off the platter a few times before finally scatching a nice scratch across the surface.
Besides being generally unpleasant to listen to, it's the sound of doom for your data on that drive. Where are those old 1GB/2GB drives at on their warrantee period?
The article deals with knocking metas out of search engine criteria, not as removing them from web-browsers. Your refresh and redirect metas should still happily work (or not) as usual.
I suppose that we could come to the agreement then that those who went around taking pictures up skirts of young ladies and underage girls alike were in fact doing something that should have had legal repercussions?
:-)
I'll certainly agree in that we don't need an overly broad law that allowed these individual to be prosecuted while also in fact nailing anyone else with a camera.
The problem I find is, we both agree that upskirt cammers who deal on the internet are scum, but neither of us can then find a way to deal with them in particular that wouldn't likely set a bad legal precedent for other cases with legal sleazy motives?
If there are parts of you you don't want seen, you should cover them apropriately.
Oh, and underwear is generally a good option to go with a skirt. Those who don't wear it are probably asking for trouble in some form
Just to let people know not to click this if you're at work. I should have thought of it before doing so... but I didn't. Luckily nobody was looking at my screen.
(X-rated link)
I'll click it again when I get home - phorm
Is that when you consider the amount of idiotic lawsuits over laws that can be broadly interpreted... that some of these common devices might very well indeed end up under fire
Politicians seem to spend a lot of time patching up too-broad laws that don't meet their expectations, and an equal amount of time making silly new too-broad laws.
What the images are used for is not the issue. Child pornography is illegal because of the abuse caused in the creation of it. It is still not illegal to find under age people sexually attractive
Regardless this avoids the point. It's still illegal to take the pictures, even of willing minors. If you want to pull this to thoughtcrime, it would be the viewers of the pictures, who are unaffected except to have a particular source removed.
Would SHE not feel violated if somebody walked behind her and flashed a picture from up her skirt. This is what is described in the case. Some guy walking around taking pictures from up girls' skirts, not just a planted camera. In this case, I think it's also fairly obvious to the victim that they've just been photographed. The guy even used a flash!
Similar:
Our provincial drivers licenses have mag-strips in them that police can swipe to get information quickly.
When they first came out, an officer was telling a bunch of kids how they work. Some guy walking by thought this sounded cool, and asked the officer to test it on his license. The officer did so, came out, handcuffed the guy and read him his rights.
It appears that the guy had a warrant out for him in another city/province, but only thought that the license provided drivers info. Isn't it great when dumb criminals serve themselves on a silver platter?
In this case the persons in question would not being doing any unusual activity nor wearing any obscene or unusual clothing in which to expose themselves. Incidental viewing would be acceptable (in which case you happen to get a side glance of something naughty). However, the cameras are not incidental viewing, but are rather planted for exposure and in a orientation designed to facilitate and maximize said exposure.
Indeed, if a person were to see the camera and then deliberately expose herself to it, it would be her fault. If the camera catches the person's genetalia/undergarments due to its intentional positioning, rather than due to an intentional gesture of the individual, there would be the difference.
Those wearing skirts should wear underwear, however.
Really? We have a worldwide societal consensus? We can end all wars and live together in harmony now? Please. There are many sociteies on this planet, and a vast number of opinions ranging from each extreme on this subject. Hell, we can't even all agree that we're entitled to our own opinions.
This is an American law article, therefore I am referencing American society. Most people would consider it a reasonable expectation not to have their bodies photographed. Most people would also be embarrassed were they to be photographed, regardless of whether the masses could identify them.
This may be fine in other cultures, but in North America the viewpoint is that among the reasons we wear clothes is to protect our modesty and privacy, which in this case is being violated.
You have a right to conduct yourself and your person in a manner that doesn't offend others. If you were to want to photograph yourself and those willing, put the picture up on billboards or the internet or wherever, that's fine.
You can put whatever your want within the confines of a mall, but when it invades (whether physically or visually) the confines of the clothing of unwilling participants, then you are violating their privacy and dignity.
The comment I find idiotic is the fact that you state that if a person in fact has that dignity violated, it is not in fact a violation due to the semi-anonymous nature of the violation.
Will you agree that, in addition, it will be quite likely that the cameras in question will at time photograph the flesh or undergarments of those underage, and in conjunction with the other pictures, be used in a way that gratifies the sexual desires of those viewing. In this case, do you consider this also legal, despite the laws against underage pornography or pictures to that nature?
Keep in mind that in previous cases, it has been seen that obvious intent to distribute underage pictures as a sexual medium has overridden the fact that many laws only cover these as poses or positions of a sexual nature.
Last point. Do you have a wife or girlfriend (or are a woman?) If so, do you believe that she/you would not feel violated were she to have her genetalia photographed, again regardless of the chance (but not guarantee) that the photograph will likely be anonymous of her facial or some other publicly identifiable features?
Regardless of the current statistics, I think that hard drives have come a long way as far as noise production. I remember on a lot of my old PC's the huge amount of noise some of the hard-drives (old WD's and Maxtor's) used to make. I never needed to check the little indicator light to tell when my hard drive was whizzing away, you could hear it from the next room.
I probably won't buy a hard-drive based on noise-factor (or possibly heat factor) alone if the price difference is significant. After the drives of 10 years back, most current models hum like music. When it's just humming away (no data-access clicking), the sound of a hard-drive can actually be somewhat relaxing.
On an contrary note: I once worked in a testing lab that had about 40+ machines. When they were all running, the room hummed, but the noise was somewhat subliminal. Walking out of the room into a busy office, you definately noticed an increase in noise. On days I worked overtime however, leaving the lab to dead silence was quite noticable... I almost missed the conforting hum sometimes.
Noise ratings on scanners/printers/CD-ROMS would be nice. These tend to be a lot more irritating than hard drives. Anyone know a site?