imagine if a cop knows he is being recorded by an unknown number of devices. You think he's still going to try to abuse a situation?
The usual thing up to now is for the cop to take any camera phones in as evidence. Or to detain the photographer on suspicion of terrorism charges.
So much easier to make the latter seem acceptable when the camera is semi covert. "He had a camera hidden in his glasses, he MUST have been doing surveillance for terrorism."
Look at the Boston Marathon bombings. They weren't tracked by anything other than photos taken by the public and a handful of CCTV feeds. Imagine if one quarter of people in that crowd had a Glass type device on their face, and the government continued to have the right to access our devices without our permission. What do you think will happen?
You're obviously trying to lead people to something. But the most obvious reply to your leading question is "they'll catch terrorists quicker". Presumably not the direction you wanted to head.
my comment was relevant to the post i was replying to, which was trying to say that home computing has nothing to do with parallel workloads, which is wrong
No you didn't reply to any such post. The post you originally replied to was trying to make the distinction that PCs are not supercomputers. You thought the fact that there's some degree of parallel processing (at the server of all places) meant that it was supercomputing. Which means you didn't understand that supercomputing, and it seems you still don't.
and every application is IO-bound, including on supercomputers... maybe if you're just crunching the value of pi to the millionth decimal place you may not need IO, but if you're trying to do anything useful (like crunching data from SETI or the human genome project or trying to predict the weather), you're going to need real data. that's why things like SANs were created.
No, supercomputers are usually not IO bound, but bound by the interconnect speed between the processors. And it's very likely that they are not doing much if any IO whilst operating. They are quite likely to hold all the data locally.
You mention SETI, which is more distributed computing than supercomputing, and uses slow internet connections between devices, yet it spends far more time analysing the data packets than pulling them off the network.
Only if you have a very personal definition of "computation" that defines it as being something that can only be done on one core.
If you'd said operation, then I'd have agreed with you.
None of which is relevant to the topic of supercomputing being a very different thing from client computers (or servers) running a conventional OS with a handful of cores.
No. Walking up to your property is not the same thing as walking on your property.
So someone is an asshole because they have the ability to record a video of you? I hate to tell you this, but everyone you see has the ability to record a video of you; EVERYONE! And you may not even know they have a camera.
Classic strawman. No, people don't think people who own video cameras are assholes. They thing people who relish the idea of wearing them on their face are assholes.
Much the same as people don't consider people with mobiles phones to be assholes, but do consider people who constantly walk around with bluetooth headsets in their ears to be assholes.
I think part of the problem here is that people are afraid that things they do in public will be made public.
There's a bit of that. But mostly people just don't like assholes. And pointing a video camera back in someone's face then they are perhaps trying to communicate with you is an assholeish thing to do. It would be with a camcorder. It's more so when it's essentially glued to your face.
Of course if it turns out that Glass users have the common curtesy to always remove the glasses when they interact with people, it'll be less of a problem. But I guarantee you people who think Glass is a geed idea are the kind of socially inept types that wouldn't have a clue what makes for decent social graces.
Frankly this sort of advertising is far less intrusive then most offline advertising. Consider the omni-present ads on busses and taxis and billboards, the flood of intrusive ads on TV and radio. I would far prefer to substitute those for google's approach: show me something I might actually want in a very unobtrusive fashion.
It's not an either/or. On the one hand, there are cities that have banned bill-board ads. Imagine that, some cities where the politicians make laws for the benefit of the people rather than corporations. On the other hand, having Google glass present adverts directly in front of your eyes, will not take away bill-boards if they are allowed in your city.
Privacy is already destroyed, constant surveillance is the norm now that literally everyone is carrying at least one camera. Glass may well improve the situation by reminding people of that.
Right. Poke people in the eye to remind them that people are invading their rights already. That's a real Utopia you're arguing for there, and no mistake.
He's choosing what he posts, and he's doing it under a pseudonym with nothing to link it to his real life. So thing like the invasion of privacy that Google Glass is at all.
First, if someone walks up to your property, you may firmly order them to leave.
No, that's only if they're on your property.
Google "public web cam" for just a small smidgen of cameras that already out there, recording your movements 24/7.
This is the "There are already things happening that piss you off, so why are you objecting to yet another thing that pisses you off" argument. Good luck with that.
Also, Glass is not filming ALL the time. The user has to turn it on. It's also not automatically uploaded to Google unless the user tells it to, and even then it's not made public, again, unless the user makes it public.
Which might reassure the person wearing the glasses that he has some control. It does nothing to reassure other people. They're already called Glassholes for a reason. And nobody trusts assholes.
You know it's there and with an LED, you know when it's recording.
There's no such recording LED.
Stop making excuses to hate things other people enjoy.
There's no evidence of any significant number of people who want this. Even amongst Android enthusiasts. You're almost on your own in the world. Just as you are on this thread.
I guess it depends if you believe in an afterlife or not. For people that do, believing that dead men can suffer from the circumstances after their death is not much of a leap.
Even the shallow grave part isn't THAT straight forward. The depth of the ground is relative to surface level. And the surface level of 500 years ago is probably not the same as the surface level of the 20th century car park.
If the 500 years ago surface layer is still there, and other layers just piled on top then not too difficult. But what things have been disturbed more than that? What if the 500 years ago surface level isn't there any more?
The story is about supercomputing. Parallel computing, so what?
You don't need to go as far as the end of the copper/fibre. As I said it's quite likely a HTTP request is serviced by a single core. So it's quite likely your mobile phone is using more cores than the other end of the connection.
Granted, people make mistakes and shouldn't bear the burden of them forever; but if given the choice between candidate A, where you can find those mistakes on line, and B, where you can't, B will generally win.
On the other hand, given a choice between candidate A who I can find good or innocuous things about on the internet, and candidate B, where I can't, A will generally win.
The answer is not to shy away from the internet, but to be aware of what sort of a reputation you are building there.
I mean ugly in exactly the same way as Windows. Inelegant. Crap piled upon shit. Beauty is not made by adding features.
It's not a RISC vs CISC comment. It's specifically the x86 lineage that I'm referring to as ugly. It was the first processor family that I didn't want to learn assembler for, and for 30 years since then I've continued to avoid it. Though I learned assembler for other architectures in that time.
6502 was beautiful, as was 6809, 68000, ARM, PowerPC and Propeller. All in their own ways. X86 is ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
You're already displayed your lack of knowledge of computing. You're now showing your lack of maturity.
Hang on a sec. Drinkiepoo? You're British aren't you? No such thing as a right to free speech in Britain. Thankfully.
so what possible interest besides bullshit rent-seeking
Why aren't Nepal allowed to collect rent?
To me, free speech and free press are human rights
You must be an American. Your constitution and it's particular extremes apply to your country, not other people's.
Most of the "Libertarians" around here are actually Anarcho-capitalists.
Of course they do. It's ridiculous that cops should object to being filmed. They film us.
But they do object. And they're going to object to Google Glass.
I also object. And there's no public interest argument for filming me.
imagine if a cop knows he is being recorded by an unknown number of devices. You think he's still going to try to abuse a situation?
The usual thing up to now is for the cop to take any camera phones in as evidence. Or to detain the photographer on suspicion of terrorism charges.
So much easier to make the latter seem acceptable when the camera is semi covert. "He had a camera hidden in his glasses, he MUST have been doing surveillance for terrorism."
Look at the Boston Marathon bombings. They weren't tracked by anything other than photos taken by the public and a handful of CCTV feeds. Imagine if one quarter of people in that crowd had a Glass type device on their face, and the government continued to have the right to access our devices without our permission. What do you think will happen?
You're obviously trying to lead people to something. But the most obvious reply to your leading question is "they'll catch terrorists quicker". Presumably not the direction you wanted to head.
The year, yes. The full date, no.
my comment was relevant to the post i was replying to, which was trying to say that home computing has nothing to do with parallel workloads, which is wrong
No you didn't reply to any such post. The post you originally replied to was trying to make the distinction that PCs are not supercomputers. You thought the fact that there's some degree of parallel processing (at the server of all places) meant that it was supercomputing. Which means you didn't understand that supercomputing, and it seems you still don't.
and every application is IO-bound, including on supercomputers... maybe if you're just crunching the value of pi to the millionth decimal place you may not need IO, but if you're trying to do anything useful (like crunching data from SETI or the human genome project or trying to predict the weather), you're going to need real data. that's why things like SANs were created.
No, supercomputers are usually not IO bound, but bound by the interconnect speed between the processors. And it's very likely that they are not doing much if any IO whilst operating. They are quite likely to hold all the data locally.
You mention SETI, which is more distributed computing than supercomputing, and uses slow internet connections between devices, yet it spends far more time analysing the data packets than pulling them off the network.
Only if you have a very personal definition of "computation" that defines it as being something that can only be done on one core.
If you'd said operation, then I'd have agreed with you.
None of which is relevant to the topic of supercomputing being a very different thing from client computers (or servers) running a conventional OS with a handful of cores.
Right. That is exactly what I said.
No. Walking up to your property is not the same thing as walking on your property.
So someone is an asshole because they have the ability to record a video of you? I hate to tell you this, but everyone you see has the ability to record a video of you; EVERYONE! And you may not even know they have a camera.
Classic strawman. No, people don't think people who own video cameras are assholes. They thing people who relish the idea of wearing them on their face are assholes.
Much the same as people don't consider people with mobiles phones to be assholes, but do consider people who constantly walk around with bluetooth headsets in their ears to be assholes.
I think part of the problem here is that people are afraid that things they do in public will be made public.
There's a bit of that. But mostly people just don't like assholes. And pointing a video camera back in someone's face then they are perhaps trying to communicate with you is an assholeish thing to do. It would be with a camcorder. It's more so when it's essentially glued to your face.
Of course if it turns out that Glass users have the common curtesy to always remove the glasses when they interact with people, it'll be less of a problem. But I guarantee you people who think Glass is a geed idea are the kind of socially inept types that wouldn't have a clue what makes for decent social graces.
The 4th amendment only applies to people. And at the time of writing it, the legal nonsense that "corporations are people" hadn't been dreamt up yet.
So no the constitution does not protect corporations with a "probable cause" condition. Only later case law might possibly do that. Or not.
Frankly this sort of advertising is far less intrusive then most offline advertising. Consider the omni-present ads on busses and taxis and billboards, the flood of intrusive ads on TV and radio. I would far prefer to substitute those for google's approach: show me something I might actually want in a very unobtrusive fashion.
It's not an either/or.
On the one hand, there are cities that have banned bill-board ads. Imagine that, some cities where the politicians make laws for the benefit of the people rather than corporations.
On the other hand, having Google glass present adverts directly in front of your eyes, will not take away bill-boards if they are allowed in your city.
Privacy is already destroyed, constant surveillance is the norm now that literally everyone is carrying at least one camera. Glass may well improve the situation by reminding people of that.
Right. Poke people in the eye to remind them that people are invading their rights already. That's a real Utopia you're arguing for there, and no mistake.
He's choosing what he posts, and he's doing it under a pseudonym with nothing to link it to his real life. So thing like the invasion of privacy that Google Glass is at all.
First, if someone walks up to your property, you may firmly order them to leave.
No, that's only if they're on your property.
Google "public web cam" for just a small smidgen of cameras that already out there, recording your movements 24/7.
This is the "There are already things happening that piss you off, so why are you objecting to yet another thing that pisses you off" argument. Good luck with that.
Also, Glass is not filming ALL the time. The user has to turn it on. It's also not automatically uploaded to Google unless the user tells it to, and even then it's not made public, again, unless the user makes it public.
Which might reassure the person wearing the glasses that he has some control. It does nothing to reassure other people. They're already called Glassholes for a reason. And nobody trusts assholes.
You know it's there and with an LED, you know when it's recording.
There's no such recording LED.
Stop making excuses to hate things other people enjoy.
There's no evidence of any significant number of people who want this. Even amongst Android enthusiasts. You're almost on your own in the world. Just as you are on this thread.
Presumably the bones were in some foetal like clump, rather than laid out full length.
Of course. The disabled spots are always in prime position.
Lighten up. It's just comedy.
Yeah right. If you are going to claim to recalling things that you just looked up on Wikipedia, at least make them useful things.
Richard Of York Got Buried In Van.
I guess it depends if you believe in an afterlife or not. For people that do, believing that dead men can suffer from the circumstances after their death is not much of a leap.
Even the shallow grave part isn't THAT straight forward. The depth of the ground is relative to surface level. And the surface level of 500 years ago is probably not the same as the surface level of the 20th century car park.
If the 500 years ago surface layer is still there, and other layers just piled on top then not too difficult. But what things have been disturbed more than that? What if the 500 years ago surface level isn't there any more?
The story is about supercomputing. Parallel computing, so what?
You don't need to go as far as the end of the copper/fibre. As I said it's quite likely a HTTP request is serviced by a single core. So it's quite likely your mobile phone is using more cores than the other end of the connection.
Granted, people make mistakes and shouldn't bear the burden of them forever; but if given the choice between candidate A, where you can find those mistakes on line, and B, where you can't, B will generally win.
On the other hand, given a choice between candidate A who I can find good or innocuous things about on the internet, and candidate B, where I can't, A will generally win.
The answer is not to shy away from the internet, but to be aware of what sort of a reputation you are building there.
I mean ugly in exactly the same way as Windows. Inelegant. Crap piled upon shit. Beauty is not made by adding features.
It's not a RISC vs CISC comment. It's specifically the x86 lineage that I'm referring to as ugly. It was the first processor family that I didn't want to learn assembler for, and for 30 years since then I've continued to avoid it. Though I learned assembler for other architectures in that time.
6502 was beautiful, as was 6809, 68000, ARM, PowerPC and Propeller. All in their own ways. X86 is ugly.