Illegal, but very difficult to police, and very little evidence that anyone is actively policing it. The only reason it's not widespread is that other people with mobile phones haven't got quite that annoying yet.
I think jammers have a far better future as a product than Google Glass does. Both are very annoying to people around you, but one advertises itself by being on your face. The other is hidden away in a pocket or a cupboard.
Plus it will be pretty obvious when you take pictures, since you have to touch it active and say "Glass, take picture". The bouncer will likely throw you out at that point.
Jeez. Never mind bouncers. Is there any place with other people around where it'll be acceptable to say that to your glasses? Rarely has a product had FAIL written in bigger letters on it.
I'd say exactly the opposite. You've been able to attach a camera to a kite or a model aircraft for years. And there have been planes taking ariel photography too.
Nobody givers a shit. People's reaction? "Can I buy an aerial photo of my house?"
However point a video camera in the face of someone you don't know when it's not a social event, or use a smartphone whilst someone is trying to talk to you and they'll be pissed off. Have a video camera somewhere really inappropriate and they'll call the police.
They also mocked Segway, Kin, the Spot Watch and Google Wave.
"Afraid of change" is a nonsense. This is a group of technology lovers. They love new stuff. They just have a variety of predictions about which products will/should succeed and which will/should fail. Not always correct, and often corrupted by company loyalties, but still batting better than average.
Find yourself a better provider. Most people have never been blocked, and you've been collaterally damaged multiple times? Why would you stick with those cowboys?
Those that have this sense of responsiblity are likely to have availed themselves of suitable gear to conserve, or even hypermile.
Suitable gear such as this product.
Your lockstep fashionability
Fashionability? What, my decades old interest in the environment, or my use of the distinctly unfashionable Garmin GPS? I'm afraid I left fashionability behind a long time ago. It's the boy racers who are trying to impress people.
It's called a speedometer.
If you're trying to sell the picture that you never absent mindedly speed, nobody with any driving experience is buying it.
It's matching from the tiny number of people that are your contacts. And the photos are typically taken with the face looking in the direction of the camera, in good light, adopting their usual face that they use for photos (smiling, frowning).
Trying to match from thousands to millions of reference photos, in widely varying light conditions, from all sorts of angles, especially from a high angle looking down, with people's faces pointing in any direction. It's not a soluble problem.
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it's doomed. Others have been doing it for years. My Garmin SatNav does it.
Not everyone is quite so infantile with their driving as those that are complaining. People who have got past the boy racer stage are happy to drive in an economic, environmentally sound and legal fashion. And some quite like a device that helps them do that.
You're the one that's not keeping up. The more reference images it has, the less it works. And it doesn't work at the best of times. If it had everyone with a driver's license on it, it would be completely valueless.
Note that no automated software identified any pictures of any terrorists at Boston. So much for "well known". You bought into the security theatre as if it was real.
I'm not really that worried that it might. On a mass scale the differences between faces is tiny. And vastly overcome by the random angles the face can be at, the flexibility of the face to change shape second to second and over time. That many wear hats, hoodies and scarves. That about 40% of the population paint their face every day. etc.
Facial recognition may have a role in forensics, where technology is paired with human judgement, and comparisons are being made between a limited number of images. But on a mass scale it's just an element of security theatre, nothing more.
It does indeed read like something from a right wing conspiracy site. Or Fox News. Note how there are several links throughout the piece but not a single one on the fundamental thing the article is about; the same thing you are claiming.
Note also at the end of the article they've already had to apologise from inflating one figure from thousands to millions.
But for signs of tin-foil hattedness, start at the top. It's not from a Forbes journalist it's from a "contributor". The same label Fox News use when they want to keep some distance from cranks.
Second he contributes on climate, energy, environmental issues. So, what;s the betting he's a Global Warming denial crank? [click}. Oh look, first article that comes up. Yes, he's a denier.
Walking down the street, I can reasonably expect that people will see me, notice me, but that I will be one of many, unrecognized other than by those who directly know me. It is this last expectation that is violated by omnipresent cameras.
No it's not. You'll still be one of many, unrecognised by anyone that doesn't know you. If you're talking about mass facial recognition systems such as have been installed in some airports. Latest news is they don't work as advertised, and are just one more element of security theatre. And unless you were already a suspect you wouldn't be on the match database anyway.
I wouldn't. Being arrested can still be embarrassing, even if there is no conviction.
If I were have a complaint about police behaviour, then *I* would want access to the video. I still wouldn't want it publicly available unless I chose to make it so.
If I were to be a witness to someone else's crime, I'd be even less keen on video evidence of who I blabbed on to be available on the internet.
CCTV, unlike policemen wandering around, does not prevent violent crimes. It holds people accountable, but that is not on the mind of these people in these situation.
Violent crimes are committed by a small minority of people. Anything that helps convict them, takes them off the streets for a period of time, and that has a significant effect on violent crime levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Illegal, but very difficult to police, and very little evidence that anyone is actively policing it. The only reason it's not widespread is that other people with mobile phones haven't got quite that annoying yet.
I think jammers have a far better future as a product than Google Glass does. Both are very annoying to people around you, but one advertises itself by being on your face. The other is hidden away in a pocket or a cupboard.
Plus it will be pretty obvious when you take pictures, since you have to touch it active and say "Glass, take picture". The bouncer will likely throw you out at that point.
Jeez. Never mind bouncers. Is there any place with other people around where it'll be acceptable to say that to your glasses? Rarely has a product had FAIL written in bigger letters on it.
I can build a 12" stainless steel wearable codpiece. It doesn't mean I should wear one.
I'd say exactly the opposite. You've been able to attach a camera to a kite or a model aircraft for years. And there have been planes taking ariel photography too.
Nobody givers a shit. People's reaction? "Can I buy an aerial photo of my house?"
However point a video camera in the face of someone you don't know when it's not a social event, or use a smartphone whilst someone is trying to talk to you and they'll be pissed off. Have a video camera somewhere really inappropriate and they'll call the police.
Does an iPad include developer tools to self-host development?
It's a niche
Wait a minute. You're using the fact that it doesn't have developer tools as a reason that it's a niche?!
You've just won the prize for being the geek most out of touch with the real world.
Whoosh!
They also mocked Segway, Kin, the Spot Watch and Google Wave.
"Afraid of change" is a nonsense. This is a group of technology lovers. They love new stuff. They just have a variety of predictions about which products will/should succeed and which will/should fail. Not always correct, and often corrupted by company loyalties, but still batting better than average.
You know they said the same things about bluetooth headsets. People will think you are crazy!
People DO think you're crazy when you wear one. And an asshole.
Find yourself a better provider. Most people have never been blocked, and you've been collaterally damaged multiple times? Why would you stick with those cowboys?
Those that have this sense of responsiblity are likely to have availed themselves of suitable gear to conserve, or even hypermile.
Suitable gear such as this product.
Your lockstep fashionability
Fashionability? What, my decades old interest in the environment, or my use of the distinctly unfashionable Garmin GPS? I'm afraid I left fashionability behind a long time ago. It's the boy racers who are trying to impress people.
It's called a speedometer.
If you're trying to sell the picture that you never absent mindedly speed, nobody with any driving experience is buying it.
You're more then a decade out of date on the technology. ODB-II provides fuel metering.
It's matching from the tiny number of people that are your contacts. And the photos are typically taken with the face looking in the direction of the camera, in good light, adopting their usual face that they use for photos (smiling, frowning).
Trying to match from thousands to millions of reference photos, in widely varying light conditions, from all sorts of angles, especially from a high angle looking down, with people's faces pointing in any direction. It's not a soluble problem.
I wonder just how much of the world's spam went through this scumbag. I'm hoping for a downturn in spam volume as this outfit is closed down.
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it's doomed. Others have been doing it for years. My Garmin SatNav does it.
Not everyone is quite so infantile with their driving as those that are complaining. People who have got past the boy racer stage are happy to drive in an economic, environmentally sound and legal fashion. And some quite like a device that helps them do that.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3689809&cid=43560991
You're the one that's not keeping up. The more reference images it has, the less it works. And it doesn't work at the best of times. If it had everyone with a driver's license on it, it would be completely valueless.
Note that no automated software identified any pictures of any terrorists at Boston. So much for "well known". You bought into the security theatre as if it was real.
I hear people say things about people with sports cars - "he's got small penis" or "he's showing off", but I'm just having fun.
Well, if you've got a small penis, you've got to get your jollies where you can.
Why would you buy this if you're trying to be green?
Because it's hard to optimise without a profiling tool.
I'm not really that worried that it might. On a mass scale the differences between faces is tiny. And vastly overcome by the random angles the face can be at, the flexibility of the face to change shape second to second and over time. That many wear hats, hoodies and scarves. That about 40% of the population paint their face every day. etc.
Facial recognition may have a role in forensics, where technology is paired with human judgement, and comparisons are being made between a limited number of images. But on a mass scale it's just an element of security theatre, nothing more.
Although you can probably point out that I'm getting the information from cookey right wing conspiracy sites... like FORBES. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/10/why-the-heck-is-dhs-buying-more-than-a-billion-bullets-plus-thousands-of-guns-and-mine-resistant-armored-vehicles/
It does indeed read like something from a right wing conspiracy site. Or Fox News. Note how there are several links throughout the piece but not a single one on the fundamental thing the article is about; the same thing you are claiming.
Note also at the end of the article they've already had to apologise from inflating one figure from thousands to millions.
But for signs of tin-foil hattedness, start at the top. It's not from a Forbes journalist it's from a "contributor". The same label Fox News use when they want to keep some distance from cranks.
Second he contributes on climate, energy, environmental issues. So, what;s the betting he's a Global Warming denial crank? [click}. Oh look, first article that comes up. Yes, he's a denier.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bullshit. I can expect plenty of privacy in public places. I can expect anything I do that's not too attention-getting to be ignored and forgotten.
No, you can only hope for that. And in these days of commercial CCTV, mobile phones and dashcams, you'll likely have your image captured anyway.
There's a huge loss in privacy between having a searchable archive of ubiquitous surveillance
Searchable? How do you propose searching it? Mass facial recognition systems don't work worth a damn.
Walking down the street, I can reasonably expect that people will see me, notice me, but that I will be one of many, unrecognized other than by those who directly know me. It is this last expectation that is violated by omnipresent cameras.
No it's not. You'll still be one of many, unrecognised by anyone that doesn't know you. If you're talking about mass facial recognition systems such as have been installed in some airports. Latest news is they don't work as advertised, and are just one more element of security theatre. And unless you were already a suspect you wouldn't be on the match database anyway.
Strange. You seem to be angry at someone else for doing the same thing you'd already done.
I wouldn't. Being arrested can still be embarrassing, even if there is no conviction.
If I were have a complaint about police behaviour, then *I* would want access to the video. I still wouldn't want it publicly available unless I chose to make it so.
If I were to be a witness to someone else's crime, I'd be even less keen on video evidence of who I blabbed on to be available on the internet.
CCTV, unlike policemen wandering around, does not prevent violent crimes. It holds people accountable, but that is not on the mind of these people in these situation.
Violent crimes are committed by a small minority of people. Anything that helps convict them, takes them off the streets for a period of time, and that has a significant effect on violent crime levels.