the government is paying for these cameras to be used to prevent crime. That's the difference. While I agree that there is little difference on who is doing the spying, I have no choice or influence on private parties doing such things. AFAIK, private companies art enot permitted to install their cameras in public places, only private property.
When I said the government wasn't doing these things I was referring not to using surveillence camera footage, but the other things (credit card checks etc).
Much as I'd like to see that come true, it won't. Using a work of fiction to counter the argument "If it saves one life" reply doesn't answer the problem.
I'd love if it gov't or IBM/my employer whoever would allow transparent viewing, but they won't nor would govt or business work in such a setting.
As for the "if it saves on life" argument...
If it saves one life, let's burn the Bill of Rights. after all, why not just eliminate trials? Surely, shooting accused criminals on the spot without any examination of evidence can save lives.
If it saves just one life, why not lie down and succomb to the biggest bully? After all, a single life is more important than any prinicples such as liberty or equality.
if it saves just one life, why not stop manufacturing cars? 37,000 people die in car accidents in the US annualy. Surely saving 37,000 lives each year is more important than transportation of goods like food or enabling any kind of commerce beyond say 10 miles?
Geez. We live in the real world. in the real world abuses can and do happen. These are usually perpetrated by those with power over others.
"Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category."
US Crime and violence has not increased. In fact it is at it's lowest levels in reporting history. See: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Yep. The US Department of Justice's statistics.
"Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft."
I'm sorry. Where's the evidence? I didn't realize Britain had so many problems with terrorism. And didn't Britain put cameras in banks long before this? So why has bank robberies decreased all of a sudden? And pickpocketing and car theft? What? A good pickpocket isn't going to be deterred by a camera. Their techniques can be done in broad daylight on a busy street with nobody knowing. Car thefts? In the US property crimes (such as theft) have been going down as well, all without the aid of cameras everywhere.
"Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now)."
I may be registered to vote, but my ballot is secret. Opening a bank account is not a criminal offense nor would a photogrpahic/video record be necessary to prove it was done. Using a credit card is not a criminal activity. Nor are any of these things being done by the State. In fact, none of them is actually any sort of contract between the State and its citizens. Spying on citizens and monitoring them is a violation of the natural law contract between citizens and the State. I wold have thought that people in Britian (with no written Constitution/Bill of Rights) would know that.
"The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not."
You don't get it. It's the public's perception of security that leads to needless or onerous laws like installing surveillence cameras. The *fact* that crime in general has been going down steadily since the 1970s (except for a pike in violent crime in 92 and 95) doesn't seem to be broadcast much. When people foolishly watch the media and believe that crime is out of control becuase they only see it on the news leads to a conclusion based on faulty perceptions (ie - that crime is going up and that installing caermas will fix the problem).
And since when did a politician tell their population that it is safe? It is the exact opposite. If the population believed it was safe there'd be no wars without invasion, no new criminal laws passed, no redefining things such as knocking over post boxes as "terrorism" etc etc. Politicians play on the population's fear to be elected and stay in office.
Barking out generalities like cameras stop terrorism and crime goes down despite lack of any evidence and the claims that crime is going up (despite eviedence to the contrary) makes your arguments weak.
So if the problem is mainly with drunks why notchabnge the liquor laws? Why not punish the barkeeps for serving drunk or unruly customers? Why have the majority of people feel unreasonably safe simply becuase cameras are present?
And why does the notion of state control of all people not alarm people? I'm told in the States not to expect privacy unless I am in my own home. But when I can get called by unsolicited marketers, have the police use "passive" IR cameras and break into my home with unannounced warrants without my knowledge *while in my home* where is the privacy?
It's bad enough I have private cops spying on me all th etime. Why do I need the state to do the same?
I thoguht the goal was to have educational institutions be using this exclusively until it had been finalized. So does this mean Internet2 will be used for business purposes before then or the government gets to use it too?
And who cares about 3D? It's an extremely poor and useless waste of bandwidth (no matter if it is infinite) for interfaces like this. Why not just make our phones use Dolby Surround Sound?
Jon, I don' t know if you know this or not, but several of these "murderous" teens were on medical treatment for depression. Most f this information was not in the immediate press stories, but consequently discoverd by later, more in-depth research.
A short list:
1. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug, Luvox. Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil.
2. Kip Kinkel (the shooter in the May 21, 1998, Springfield, Oregon, school massacre) had been a user of Prozac.
3. Julie Meade also took Prozac for four years. She was shot to death by police when she waved a gun at them. This after she called 911 and begged cops to shoot her or she'd shoot herself or start shooting other police.
4. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, the alleged Jonesboro shooters (they haven't been tried yet AFAIK) were being treated for violent behavior. They COULD have been using Prozac or another anti-depressant which, according to the pharmaceutical industry, has been used in attempts to modify violent behavior.
So Jon, why aren't these medications being considered positive proactive steps? Could the medications themselves be a contributing factor? After all, some medical opinions believe anti-depressants such as the ones used by these teens can CAUSE psychotic behavior.
There are certainly many contributing factors, and despite desires to the contrary, you can't quantify each factor. But these are examples of kids who WERE being treated for depression or other mental ills commonly found in stressed out teens.
You don't allow children to drink or vote. Society has said repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults because they do not have the same abilities/maturity/responsibilities, as you state.
I'd advocate that ANY American without a violent criminal record and that has passed a rigorous gun safety course should be afforded the right to bear a firearm. I received and used my first firearm at age 12 because my dad knew I was mature enough to handle the responsibility. I would venture that the vast majority of children don't. And they certainly won't get that maturity by parental neglect, Americans' unwillingness to accept responsibility, and the State's constant haranguing of "guns are evil" nonsense. But to restrict my Constiutional rights (and ability as a last resort to end a tyrannical despot) simply becuase some people are irresponsible in using a deadly instrument (and that includes cars, knives etc) is unjust. If I commit a crime while using a gun I will be punished according to the law.
Jesus Christ, loss of life is a cost of liberty. Quit trying to make everything so damn safe by limiting my liberties as defiend in the Consitution.
"However, Fair use DOES not by any stretch of the imagination mean you should be guaranteed to be able to copy directly to CD rather than tape, or that you should be facilitated in copying it to MiniOggCD-2010 or whatever alternate formats may emerge. That is ridiculous."
So what's the difference? The quality of the copy? You can't allow CD to tape and then in the same breath say CD to CD is somehow not Fair Use.
I disagree. There is some validity to what the industries are saying inasmuch as piracy affect production. Take a look at the HK movie industry. It was going to hell not because of the PRC, but rather the cheap pirated VCDs you could buy for $5 on the street outside the movie theater. People quit going to the theater when a cheap, "good enough" alternative was provided. Production budgets fell which led to poor movies which just continued the spiral.
Sure, there were also other factors, but are they any different from what Hollywood faces?
Well, yeah. But he'd also have opened up a can of legal worms that would extend into other things like privacy, use of resources, "official" e-mail (that is e-mail that can be used for legal evidence) vs "conversational" e-mail (which is assumed to be like a spoken conversation - informal and forgotten) and the legal status of an elected official who is always "at work". This would likely not be resolved legally until he's out of the white house. so wh give up potentially damaging info now?
"The problem is, this issue will not garner much media attention and thus popular support."
I disagree strongly. The Napster and DeCSS case are both highly publicized cases. Both likely have the average citizen behind the defendants. You seem to be under the belief that that DMCA cannot be fought, which is clearly not the case. The more cases that challenge the DMCA the more likely the thing will be overturned or refined. Even the industries supporting the DMCA expected case challenges to further define the limits of the law.
In any event, I find it hypocritical that a web site that places so much value on free speech caves to a group of nutcases like the Scientologists. You'd think that being bought by Andover would give them some resources to fight this.
If we were to follow your line of reasoning no laws should ever be challenged.
Yes, I'm bitter. Guess prinicples are only worth defending after a cost analysis has been performed. Thats an insult to people who fought for this country.
I have no doubt this will be modded down. I guess it doesn't matter if its a cult for Hubbard or Malda, the effect is the same. Dissent is hidden by glowing support from the true believers.
"Perhaps by standing up for legality and order, Rob Malda and Slashdot can server as a shining example for all of us who frequent the site."
I'm sorry, but I have a moral obligation to ignore or defeat unjust laws. That a *religion* can be *copyrighted* is one such example. Remember, all tyrannies use the law as a sledgehammer against freedom.
My friend told me he's worried about the same thing here in Melbourne. There's not enough security conscious companies out there and even fewer mainstream users. I think because since WW1 encription has been a primarily governmnet led field. Previous to that a lot of encryption theory was done by mathematicians. At least that's what Discovery Channel says.
But it seems the US government wants to capitalize on the ignorance of encryption to control it's image. Instead they should encourage its use and development.
It doesn't matter if Hatch was hoodwinked or not, the fact remains he pushed this monstrosity despite warnings from many groups. These groups said the content providers would have too much power.
The RIAA and MPAA are throwing money in Washington like crazy to fight DeCSS and Napster. I suspect Hatch will have his hands full fighting off the Democrats (a big entertainment supporter) and more than enough Republicans to prevent any serious challenge to changing DMCA or copyright laws.
The public is too lazy/ignorant to put up a big stink and even if they were the same people who make the content own and run the media.
I'm probaby stupid for saying this, but there is a very easy way to get screen captures of DVD movies.
1. Pause the movie.
2. Use Application switcher to bring the Finder forward.
3. Hit the keyboard command for taking a screenshot. Make sure it's not the one that takes the front window shot.
I've taken shots of a couple movies using this method.
"why are they releasing the GeForce 3 for the Mac first?"
Nvidia does not manufacture entire video cards, just the processors that power them, which perhaps gave Apple--which can design a computer from motherboard to video card--an advantage over PC manufacturers, who must wait for third parties to design, test and build card.
Wow. Looks like an *advcantage* to controlling hardware and software exists after all, albeit a temporary one.
Maybe they're that dark because there's little background or ambient light. Since this is an early stage for a game, perhaps iD wanted to keep things simple and save some surprises.
Looks to me like they just used a few models, emphasizing the details on the characters. Its a lot simpler to do that than model an entire scene (which would likely take away from the main model's details which is the emphsasis anyway.
It probably would have been more appropriate to have used shots from Maya (which is what Carmack and co used to make the models in Doom 3), but then it wouldn't have been as effective for Apple PR-wise. Gaming geeks and the general public don't care about Maya, but games.
Add in the fact the card costs $600 and I doubt many people will be rushing out to buy it soon.
Slashdot Mirror
the government is paying for these cameras to be used to prevent crime. That's the difference. While I agree that there is little difference on who is doing the spying, I have no choice or influence on private parties doing such things. AFAIK, private companies art enot permitted to install their cameras in public places, only private property.
When I said the government wasn't doing these things I was referring not to using surveillence camera footage, but the other things (credit card checks etc).
Much as I'd like to see that come true, it won't. Using a work of fiction to counter the argument "If it saves one life" reply doesn't answer the problem.
I'd love if it gov't or IBM/my employer whoever would allow transparent viewing, but they won't nor would govt or business work in such a setting.
As for the "if it saves on life" argument...
If it saves one life, let's burn the Bill of Rights. after all, why not just eliminate trials? Surely, shooting accused criminals on the spot without any examination of evidence can save lives.
If it saves just one life, why not lie down and succomb to the biggest bully? After all, a single life is more important than any prinicples such as liberty or equality.
if it saves just one life, why not stop manufacturing cars? 37,000 people die in car accidents in the US annualy. Surely saving 37,000 lives each year is more important than transportation of goods like food or enabling any kind of commerce beyond say 10 miles?
Geez. We live in the real world. in the real world abuses can and do happen. These are usually perpetrated by those with power over others.
talk about damned lies...
"Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category."
US Crime and violence has not increased. In fact it is at it's lowest levels in reporting history. See: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Yep. The US Department of Justice's statistics.
"Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft."
I'm sorry. Where's the evidence? I didn't realize Britain had so many problems with terrorism. And didn't Britain put cameras in banks long before this? So why has bank robberies decreased all of a sudden? And pickpocketing and car theft? What? A good pickpocket isn't going to be deterred by a camera. Their techniques can be done in broad daylight on a busy street with nobody knowing. Car thefts? In the US property crimes (such as theft) have been going down as well, all without the aid of cameras everywhere.
"Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now)."
I may be registered to vote, but my ballot is secret. Opening a bank account is not a criminal offense nor would a photogrpahic/video record be necessary to prove it was done. Using a credit card is not a criminal activity. Nor are any of these things being done by the State. In fact, none of them is actually any sort of contract between the State and its citizens. Spying on citizens and monitoring them is a violation of the natural law contract between citizens and the State. I wold have thought that people in Britian (with no written Constitution/Bill of Rights) would know that.
"The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not."
You don't get it. It's the public's perception of security that leads to needless or onerous laws like installing surveillence cameras. The *fact* that crime in general has been going down steadily since the 1970s (except for a pike in violent crime in 92 and 95) doesn't seem to be broadcast much. When people foolishly watch the media and believe that crime is out of control becuase they only see it on the news leads to a conclusion based on faulty perceptions (ie - that crime is going up and that installing caermas will fix the problem).
And since when did a politician tell their population that it is safe? It is the exact opposite. If the population believed it was safe there'd be no wars without invasion, no new criminal laws passed, no redefining things such as knocking over post boxes as "terrorism" etc etc. Politicians play on the population's fear to be elected and stay in office.
Barking out generalities like cameras stop terrorism and crime goes down despite lack of any evidence and the claims that crime is going up (despite eviedence to the contrary) makes your arguments weak.
This is all MHO of course. I could be wrong.
So if the problem is mainly with drunks why notchabnge the liquor laws? Why not punish the barkeeps for serving drunk or unruly customers? Why have the majority of people feel unreasonably safe simply becuase cameras are present?
And why does the notion of state control of all people not alarm people? I'm told in the States not to expect privacy unless I am in my own home. But when I can get called by unsolicited marketers, have the police use "passive" IR cameras and break into my home with unannounced warrants without my knowledge *while in my home* where is the privacy?
It's bad enough I have private cops spying on me all th etime. Why do I need the state to do the same?
I thoguht the goal was to have educational institutions be using this exclusively until it had been finalized. So does this mean Internet2 will be used for business purposes before then or the government gets to use it too?
And who cares about 3D? It's an extremely poor and useless waste of bandwidth (no matter if it is infinite) for interfaces like this. Why not just make our phones use Dolby Surround Sound?
*sigh*
"Unfortunately Australia seems intent on preserving it's 1930s economy for the forseeable future."
Yep, this country needs a Sir Donald for the 00's. Sport seems the only thing the Aussies have going for them ATM.
It could.It's all open speculation. it appears that Sony is using BeIA in their eVilla product to be introduced shortly.
Many companies register domains and let them lie. But if the cash is running out and they recently registered the domains...
They may already be planning Open Sourcing the main OS (not the IA part). They've recenty registered openbeos.com
Jon, I don' t know if you know this or not, but several of these "murderous" teens were on medical treatment for depression. Most f this information was not in the immediate press stories, but consequently discoverd by later, more in-depth research.
A short list:
1. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug, Luvox. Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil.
2. Kip Kinkel (the shooter in the May 21, 1998, Springfield, Oregon, school massacre) had been a user of Prozac.
3. Julie Meade also took Prozac for four years. She was shot to death by police when she waved a gun at them. This after she called 911 and begged cops to shoot her or she'd shoot herself or start shooting other police.
4. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, the alleged Jonesboro shooters (they haven't been tried yet AFAIK) were being treated for violent behavior. They COULD have been using Prozac or another anti-depressant which, according to the pharmaceutical industry, has been used in attempts to modify violent behavior.
So Jon, why aren't these medications being considered positive proactive steps? Could the medications themselves be a contributing factor? After all, some medical opinions believe anti-depressants such as the ones used by these teens can CAUSE psychotic behavior.
There are certainly many contributing factors, and despite desires to the contrary, you can't quantify each factor. But these are examples of kids who WERE being treated for depression or other mental ills commonly found in stressed out teens.
You don't allow children to drink or vote. Society has said repeatedly that children do not have the same rights as adults because they do not have the same abilities/maturity/responsibilities, as you state.
I'd advocate that ANY American without a violent criminal record and that has passed a rigorous gun safety course should be afforded the right to bear a firearm. I received and used my first firearm at age 12 because my dad knew I was mature enough to handle the responsibility. I would venture that the vast majority of children don't. And they certainly won't get that maturity by parental neglect, Americans' unwillingness to accept responsibility, and the State's constant haranguing of "guns are evil" nonsense. But to restrict my Constiutional rights (and ability as a last resort to end a tyrannical despot) simply becuase some people are irresponsible in using a deadly instrument (and that includes cars, knives etc) is unjust. If I commit a crime while using a gun I will be punished according to the law.
Jesus Christ, loss of life is a cost of liberty. Quit trying to make everything so damn safe by limiting my liberties as defiend in the Consitution.
"However, Fair use DOES not by any stretch of the imagination mean you should be guaranteed to be able to copy directly to CD rather than tape, or that you should be facilitated in copying it to MiniOggCD-2010 or whatever alternate formats may emerge. That is ridiculous."
So what's the difference? The quality of the copy? You can't allow CD to tape and then in the same breath say CD to CD is somehow not Fair Use.
I disagree. There is some validity to what the industries are saying inasmuch as piracy affect production. Take a look at the HK movie industry. It was going to hell not because of the PRC, but rather the cheap pirated VCDs you could buy for $5 on the street outside the movie theater. People quit going to the theater when a cheap, "good enough" alternative was provided. Production budgets fell which led to poor movies which just continued the spiral.
Sure, there were also other factors, but are they any different from what Hollywood faces?
*counting on being marked a troll*
Well, yeah. But he'd also have opened up a can of legal worms that would extend into other things like privacy, use of resources, "official" e-mail (that is e-mail that can be used for legal evidence) vs "conversational" e-mail (which is assumed to be like a spoken conversation - informal and forgotten) and the legal status of an elected official who is always "at work". This would likely not be resolved legally until he's out of the white house. so wh give up potentially damaging info now?
"The problem is, this issue will not garner much media attention and thus popular support."
I disagree strongly. The Napster and DeCSS case are both highly publicized cases. Both likely have the average citizen behind the defendants. You seem to be under the belief that that DMCA cannot be fought, which is clearly not the case. The more cases that challenge the DMCA the more likely the thing will be overturned or refined. Even the industries supporting the DMCA expected case challenges to further define the limits of the law.
In any event, I find it hypocritical that a web site that places so much value on free speech caves to a group of nutcases like the Scientologists. You'd think that being bought by Andover would give them some resources to fight this.
If we were to follow your line of reasoning no laws should ever be challenged.
Yes, I'm bitter. Guess prinicples are only worth defending after a cost analysis has been performed. Thats an insult to people who fought for this country.
I have no doubt this will be modded down. I guess it doesn't matter if its a cult for Hubbard or Malda, the effect is the same. Dissent is hidden by glowing support from the true believers.
"Perhaps by standing up for legality and order, Rob Malda and Slashdot can server as a shining example for all of us who frequent the site."
I'm sorry, but I have a moral obligation to ignore or defeat unjust laws. That a *religion* can be *copyrighted* is one such example. Remember, all tyrannies use the law as a sledgehammer against freedom.
My friend told me he's worried about the same thing here in Melbourne. There's not enough security conscious companies out there and even fewer mainstream users. I think because since WW1 encription has been a primarily governmnet led field. Previous to that a lot of encryption theory was done by mathematicians. At least that's what Discovery Channel says.
But it seems the US government wants to capitalize on the ignorance of encryption to control it's image. Instead they should encourage its use and development.
It doesn't matter if Hatch was hoodwinked or not, the fact remains he pushed this monstrosity despite warnings from many groups. These groups said the content providers would have too much power.
The RIAA and MPAA are throwing money in Washington like crazy to fight DeCSS and Napster. I suspect Hatch will have his hands full fighting off the Democrats (a big entertainment supporter) and more than enough Republicans to prevent any serious challenge to changing DMCA or copyright laws.
The public is too lazy/ignorant to put up a big stink and even if they were the same people who make the content own and run the media.
Yes, I have no faith in lawyers and money.
They keep being investigated. So did Network Solutions. Nothing happens.
*Rinse*, *Repeat*
Its some geek joke. I got tired of it the second time I saw it.
I see it about 6 times a day now with no sign of slowdown.
Somebody set the system clock ahead 15 minutes.
I'm probaby stupid for saying this, but there is a very easy way to get screen captures of DVD movies.
1. Pause the movie.
2. Use Application switcher to bring the Finder forward.
3. Hit the keyboard command for taking a screenshot. Make sure it's not the one that takes the front window shot.
I've taken shots of a couple movies using this method.
QED.
The trailer had Lorne Greene in them? He died back in '87!
Now there's some British SF shows that don't believe in glitz! ;P
Wouldn't the Aibo be the descendent? I mean the Aibo came after the dagit bothi in terms of Galactica mythology and real life timeline.
"why are they releasing the GeForce 3 for the Mac first?"
Nvidia does not manufacture entire video cards, just the processors that power them, which perhaps gave Apple--which can design a computer from motherboard to video card--an advantage over PC manufacturers, who must wait for third parties to design, test and build card.
Wow. Looks like an *advcantage* to controlling hardware and software exists after all, albeit a temporary one.
Maybe they're that dark because there's little background or ambient light. Since this is an early stage for a game, perhaps iD wanted to keep things simple and save some surprises.
Looks to me like they just used a few models, emphasizing the details on the characters. Its a lot simpler to do that than model an entire scene (which would likely take away from the main model's details which is the emphsasis anyway.
It probably would have been more appropriate to have used shots from Maya (which is what Carmack and co used to make the models in Doom 3), but then it wouldn't have been as effective for Apple PR-wise. Gaming geeks and the general public don't care about Maya, but games.
Add in the fact the card costs $600 and I doubt many people will be rushing out to buy it soon.