So, how do you feel about building owners capturing images of you and your kids as they walk around in public, or inside their building?
Why is a photographer with a "big evil lens" so bad when a CCTV camera is fine?
A telephoto lens for a CCTV type camera is much smaller, so it might not be obvious, especially if a CCTV pinhole lens(a CCTV pinhole lens isn't an actual pinhole lens) is being used.
Wouldn't that be even worse, since the pictures could be going online right away, just like my webcams below in my sig?
I really don't get why people think of photographers holding cameras and CCTV type cameras with a pan, tilt, and zoom mounts as being so completely different.
But, "Interstate commerce" currently means "anything that could potentially, possibly, have more than a $0.01 impact on any transaction that could theoretically cross a state line"
Second, send yourself messages from multiple outside sources with the GTUBE string. This string is meant to trigger SpamAssassin so that it guarantees the message is marked as spam. Other filter systems respond to it as well. So you'll be able to tell if the message came through or not. http://spamassassin.apache.org/gtube/
That would cause problems if Google renamed YouTube to GTUBE.
There actually are property releases, so you can't use the picture of a famous animal/new building without the appropriate release, if it is going to be used commercially.
But, if it is going to be used in a newspaper or fine art print, again there isn't much that the owner of the horse can legally do there to get money.
That's not entirely true. I know that in New York you are NOT allowed to take pictures of other people without their consent.
If that was true, then you couldn't set up any meaningful kind of CCTV security system.
That is NOT true at all, see Arrington v New York Times Co., 434 N.E.2d 1319 (N.Y. 1982). There isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Shopping malls and other private areas can have restrictions, but they can't restrict taking pictures of the building from a public area. You only need permission and a model release if the photograph is going to be used commercially, which excludes news and "fine art" usage. That means that you can even photograph children in public and sell the picture to a newspaper without anyones permission. If a cop stops you, they can't require that you either show them your pictures, or to delete pictures. Don't trust me, ask a lawyer.
No, that question wasn't rhetorical, since I have never used Vista.
But, why do you think it is a big deal that your monitors are supported under Vista? I am not aware of any monitor specific drivers aside from resolution and refresh rate. Even more so if they are using an analog VGA connection. And then those old mice and keyboards are PS/2, right? Same thing there.
And then all of those USB drives should be using USB Mass Storage, so there aren't any device specific drivers there either, but if MS fixed the "you plugged a USB device into a different port, reinstalling driver" issue, that is a good thing.
Must both sides be given a equal voice by mandate?
I think you make a false assumption there:
Why does the number of sides to an issue have to be 2?
"Which party is the best?" Are you saying that you have to take a Democrat and a Republican? What about the other parties?
You mention the Earth's shape. You would talk to the flat-earth people, and then whom? The people who believe that the Earth is a sphere? What about the scientists who think it is an oblate spheroid. What about people who think it is a more complex 4-dimensional shape?
Any meaningful question/issue is going to have more than 2 sides, and trying to squeeze a meaningful discussion into a binary decision is pretty harmful. Just look at our parties. They have migrated to be slightly away from each other, but both actually quite close together.
Any kind of DRM makes a pirated game better than the original.
The only PC(linux, kind of) game I play is EVE, and that doesn't have any DRM from what I can tell. I don't even have a disc or serial number to go along with it.
I wonder how badly the MP3 compression affects the music with all of that hiss and crackle taking-up so much bandwidth? Also, how much would the compression artifacts affect the ability of the clean-up utility to do its job?
Agreed. It seems to be fairly bad, since the mp3s I downloaded were 128kpbs, which doesn't leave very much extra data there.
He should have recorded them to FLAC, and created the mp3s to put on the website, so that he would have a lossless original version.
Actually, for me http://0.0.0.0/ goes to my Ruby on Rails server running on my computer as well. Netstat shows it listening for any requests on (I assume any interface, loopback or other):
tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:80 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN
What is a good "really do not ever request this host" IP? Negative numbers?
Etc etc. I mean, come on. Everyone thinks flames and blowing stuff up is cool. I suppose if I was a kid today I'd get sent to a psychologist.
That is one reason I love my part-time job as a wildland firefighter: I get paid to travel and then sometimes burn up the areas I travel to. The main downside is that someone has to clean up, and cleaning up a 90,000 fire, like I recently did in California can be a little boring.
My normal job is a Ruby on Rails developer, so it really seems like Peter Gibbons is my role model, except that I am not ripping off banks.
At no point should the government be able to tell you to shut up,
Agreed, especially in this case.
but this does not negate the fact that people who suffer damage by your statements can seek compensation for that damage.
I am not saying whether or not slander should be legal, but if you can be held liable for what you say, there isn't complete freedom of speech, and thus the freedom of speech is abridged. If what a person says (speech) could form the basis of a lawsuit, then there are legal penalties involved. It may not be the government getting the money, but it is the court system passing the judgment, and it is supposed to be a penalty, not something like a tax.
Then would you also like to allow the people who said "some toys in Wal-Mart have lead in them" to also have their speech limited?
The critical part of rights like the freedom of speech is that if it excludes stuff you don't like, then it is worthless.
"You can say whatever you want, as long as nobody is offended" doesn't really work.
Personally I don't see how any possible exclusions to freedom of speech can be obtained from "Congress shall make no law... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;", and so libel and slander can't be made illegal as the first amendment is currently written. Neither do I think that it should be possible to make obscene or offensive speech, books, or printings illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
So, how do you feel about building owners capturing images of you and your kids as they walk around in public, or inside their building?
Why is a photographer with a "big evil lens" so bad when a CCTV camera is fine?
A telephoto lens for a CCTV type camera is much smaller, so it might not be obvious, especially if a CCTV pinhole lens(a CCTV pinhole lens isn't an actual pinhole lens) is being used.
Wouldn't that be even worse, since the pictures could be going online right away, just like my webcams below in my sig?
I really don't get why people think of photographers holding cameras and CCTV type cameras with a pan, tilt, and zoom mounts as being so completely different.
Ah, quite right.
That should violate the 10th amendment, then.
But, "Interstate commerce" currently means "anything that could potentially, possibly, have more than a $0.01 impact on any transaction that could theoretically cross a state line"
Where in the Constitution does it say that the 4th Amendment applies to private companies?
I agree that drugs in the government has lead to some horrible things, but they are mostly searches, seizure, and no-knock raids by the police.
That would cause problems if Google renamed YouTube to GTUBE.
There actually are property releases, so you can't use the picture of a famous animal/new building without the appropriate release, if it is going to be used commercially.
But, if it is going to be used in a newspaper or fine art print, again there isn't much that the owner of the horse can legally do there to get money.
If that was true, then you couldn't set up any meaningful kind of CCTV security system.
That is NOT true at all, see Arrington v New York Times Co., 434 N.E.2d 1319 (N.Y. 1982). There isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Shopping malls and other private areas can have restrictions, but they can't restrict taking pictures of the building from a public area. You only need permission and a model release if the photograph is going to be used commercially, which excludes news and "fine art" usage. That means that you can even photograph children in public and sell the picture to a newspaper without anyones permission. If a cop stops you, they can't require that you either show them your pictures, or to delete pictures. Don't trust me, ask a lawyer.
Living in Colorado, I have more than a few discs that are broken in the mail during winter, I assume due to the cold-hot cycles.
They replace them for free, no comments asked.
It has been like that for the 5 years I have been with Netflix.
It would be worth whatever you can get someone to buy it for.
Nice editing on the part of whomever took the firehose article. Changing the title changed how anybody is going to read the article.
Getting a single metric for the quality of a wiki is going to be really hard, since the number would just about be made up.
If you want to say what percentage of pages are uncategorized, below a certain size, or orphaned, then do that.
No, that question wasn't rhetorical, since I have never used Vista.
But, why do you think it is a big deal that your monitors are supported under Vista? I am not aware of any monitor specific drivers aside from resolution and refresh rate. Even more so if they are using an analog VGA connection. And then those old mice and keyboards are PS/2, right? Same thing there.
And then all of those USB drives should be using USB Mass Storage, so there aren't any device specific drivers there either, but if MS fixed the "you plugged a USB device into a different port, reinstalling driver" issue, that is a good thing.
I find that Linux, and especially Ubuntu has much better support, and behaves better than Windows XP.
Mass Storage devices: just plug in, and they are ready to go very quickly. No need to install drivers if you plug it into a different port.
GPS: same, it emulates a serial device so that GPSBabel can handle it easily.
My odd mouse had drivers built into the kernel by Ubuntu, there was no "insert CD to use this mouse" stage.
And that is on an AMD64 Ubuntu computer. How is the driver support in Vista 64-bit?
Ubuntu on my HP/Intel laptop found everything just fine, and the Wifi even worked in the LiveCD installer.
I think you make a false assumption there:
Why does the number of sides to an issue have to be 2?
"Which party is the best?" Are you saying that you have to take a Democrat and a Republican? What about the other parties?
You mention the Earth's shape. You would talk to the flat-earth people, and then whom? The people who believe that the Earth is a sphere? What about the scientists who think it is an oblate spheroid. What about people who think it is a more complex 4-dimensional shape?
Any meaningful question/issue is going to have more than 2 sides, and trying to squeeze a meaningful discussion into a binary decision is pretty harmful. Just look at our parties. They have migrated to be slightly away from each other, but both actually quite close together.
Any kind of DRM makes a pirated game better than the original.
The only PC(linux, kind of) game I play is EVE, and that doesn't have any DRM from what I can tell. I don't even have a disc or serial number to go along with it.
The speed might be good on Mars, but the latency to most websites is going to be horrible.
DOH, I was wrong.
Please mod parent(me) down.
He has WAV versions of the songs, and created the 128kbps mp3s for the website.
He could use FLAC to reduce the amount of storage that takes up, though.
Agreed. It seems to be fairly bad, since the mp3s I downloaded were 128kpbs, which doesn't leave very much extra data there.
He should have recorded them to FLAC, and created the mp3s to put on the website, so that he would have a lossless original version.
Or just drop the requirement to register the MAC address to a username.
Then all you could give the RIAA would be the MAC address that IP was assigned to at that time, if a judge requires them to keep logs.
And since a MAC address is easily spoofable, there goes any ability to tie the IP to a computer, much less a person.
The Olympics are trying to hack your webserver?
I wasn't aware that Server CTF was an Olympic sport.
Actually, for me http://0.0.0.0/ goes to my Ruby on Rails server running on my computer as well.
Netstat shows it listening for any requests on (I assume any interface, loopback or other):
What is a good "really do not ever request this host" IP? Negative numbers?
That is one reason I love my part-time job as a wildland firefighter:
I get paid to travel and then sometimes burn up the areas I travel to.
The main downside is that someone has to clean up, and cleaning up a 90,000 fire, like I recently did in California can be a little boring.
My normal job is a Ruby on Rails developer, so it really seems like Peter Gibbons is my role model, except that I am not ripping off banks.
Agreed, especially in this case.
I am not saying whether or not slander should be legal, but if you can be held liable for what you say, there isn't complete freedom of speech, and thus the freedom of speech is abridged. If what a person says (speech) could form the basis of a lawsuit, then there are legal penalties involved. It may not be the government getting the money, but it is the court system passing the judgment, and it is supposed to be a penalty, not something like a tax.
Sweet, can I have my flying car now?
If you can be successfully sued for something you say in public, then that wouldn't be complete freedom of speech.
What you are saying is like "there is nothing stopping you from speeding, but you might have to pay tickets or lose your license."
Complete freedom of speech would mean that there couldn't be any legal consequences from any kind of speech.
Is it the Streisand effect when the people trying to conceal the information personally publish it in a way that gets more publicity?
The lawsuit itself would probably lead to a Streisand effect on its own, though.
Then would you also like to allow the people who said "some toys in Wal-Mart have lead in them" to also have their speech limited?
The critical part of rights like the freedom of speech is that if it excludes stuff you don't like, then it is worthless.
"You can say whatever you want, as long as nobody is offended" doesn't really work.
Personally I don't see how any possible exclusions to freedom of speech can be obtained from "Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;", and so libel and slander can't be made illegal as the first amendment is currently written. Neither do I think that it should be possible to make obscene or offensive speech, books, or printings illegal.
People will still be allowed to get PHP 4 after it is EOL'd.
Try buying a new copy of XP now. Even getting a computer with XP (and not paying for Vista) is getting difficult now.
That is the difference.