Photographing people at public events for intimidation purposes has been around for a long time before this technology was even conceived.
The FBI used to do it back in the 60's, when cameras used film. I'm unaware of any of the images actually ever being used, but the threat was obvious: we know who you are. Even if, of course, they didn't.
Didn't stop the protestors then, either. Just pissed a bunch of people off, and had a lot of people jumping in front of the cameras and shouting their names and addresses at them: Now you really know who I am, and that I'm not afraid of you.
I know you're being facetious, but also, sadly accurate...
I think there's a reasonable expectation that car manufacturers should put coffee holders in convenient locations so that I don't decide to place hot coffee between my legs. Blame Ford.
I remember a car commercial from some time back about a car company whose "every car comes standard with four-wheel anti-lock brakes!" It then mentioned, disdainfully, that all their competitor's cars "come standard with... cup holders?"
I've never seen an actual study, but I'd be willing to be that cup holders have prevented more accidents than anti-lock brakes have.
Anyway, cup holders are becoming pretty much standard equipment in cars anymore, though not mandatory like airbags and seatbelts.
I think there's a reasonable expectation that a cigarette lighter will not set fire to my hair which hangs in my face as I light my cigarette. Blame Bic.
Sadly, this is part of the reason why lighters are now "child-proof" (and hence, of course, more dangerous than before).
I think there's a reasonable expectation that when camping in the wilderness, I will not die of exposure due to lack of planning. Blame the police who should have been there.
I'm not aware of any lawsuits over this yet. Though Oregon has apparently lost a record number of campers this year, so wait a bit and we'll see.
I think there's a reasonable expectation that a bartender should recognize when I've had one too many. And he should be legally responsible for my actions if he fails to do so.
Sadly, this one is already law in several states, including Oregon.
The bartender is also responsible if you have fake ID and he still serves you.
I think there's a reasonable expectation that my life be free of risk for which I am personally responsible.
Actual troublemakers will probably be sure to have ID at all times.
I never did.
Back in the day, when I used to regularly attend student protests, and take part in various other anti-government activities, I made it a point to never carry ID with me.
If you're in a batch arrest, and have ID, it's now on your record. If you don't, the cops would be more likely to just believe you are whatever name you make up.
Actually, come to think of it, they never really believed me when I gave them a fake name, but it was never worth their bother following through on it, either.
"Sure, officer, I'd be perfectly happy to show you my ID. It's at my house, you can just drop me off there after driving across town. Thanks." "Never mind, kid, you think you're so clever, now you have to figure out your own way home. Hah!" (Followed by me going to get on a bus, using the money in my shoe.)
Not so much the troublemaker any more these days, but I still don't bother to carry my ID with me every time I go out for a walk.
So next time there's a terrorist suicide attack, they'll know who the people involved were, because they showed ID? Kinda like... last time... ?
But, if people enter the US from other countries, they'll be using their passports for ID, not this thing, so... um... what was the point again?
Ah, but if they made everyone, even people visiting from other countries, get one of these, then it's much more secure than showing the passport. And how would they get one? They'd need some other ID first... like, for instance, a passport...
So, what possible good can this do? Well, I guess it'll make it harder for underage kids to buy beer. Other than that? Nothing, really...
But wouldn't it make more sense to, say, make them pay back the money they stole? Maybe 2-3 times what they took, so it serves as a deterrent. Instead, two or three of the Enron guys go to some country-club prison at taxpayer expense for a few months each, and they and everyone else involved gets to keep most of the money they took. How is that good for anyone but the criminals?
Same with this guy: how many copies of the movie were actually downloaded? They're available for, what $15.00 each more or less? It seems that would be a more appropriate punishment for copyright violation than jail time...
Until you need change for an item which comes to 11.97 after sales tax. You'll be tired of being ripped off two or three cents every transaction.
No I won't:
Figure 3c per transaction. Average maybe three transactions a day. 9c per day, or about $2.70/month.
Or $32.85 per year.
That's a dinner out for two at a cheap restaurant once per year. Not really a noticeable amount, even if every single thing I buy with cash ends up losing money by rounding and it's never in my favor.
OK, I'm confused about all these comments about the camera.
I just got the game last weekend, but as far as I can tell, the camera is exactly the same as NWN1, except with a little more control.
Whereas in NWN1 to turn the camera or tilt it up and down, I had to move the mouse to the edge of the screen, or use the PageUp/PageDown buttons, now I just hold the middle button down to move it around. But, the default view, from high up and behind the main character, is exactly the same default view in NWN, isn't it?
And expect a lot of protestors to become good actors, writhing on the ground, bashing their heads in when the system isn't even deployed.
Sadly true.
And every one that does that only makes it that much more difficult to bring any charges against anyone when the system is inevitably abused.
This isn't anti-protest. This is anti-riot. This isn't torture.
Exactly the same for the Taser. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a good non-lethal way of bringing down a bad guy who isn't an immediate threat to anyone. And I'm sure the vast majority of times that police deploy tasers, that's exactly what they use it for.
But the potential for abuse is there, and without any safeguards against it, we can guarantee it will be widespread.
I can torture you with a board, a cloth, and some water much more effectively.
According to the U.S. government, that isn't torture, either.
Any bets on whether this is already in use for interrogation?
That was one of my first thoughts, too.
If they're admitting the existence of this thing now, that most likely means they've been using it for at least a few years.
And something that causes more pain than actual damage would be well suited for interrogation.
A secret prison, full of undocumented "volunteers" would be the perfect place to test it, along with other "enhanced" interrogation techniques. So it's a good thing the United States would never have any of those.
That said, though, non-lethal solutions like this for crowd control are better than the alternative. Like the Taser, though, this would need a lot of safeguards to prevent rampant abuse. (And, like the Taser, I don't expect to see them any time soon). Look soon to see youtube videos of college students writhing in pain screaming and comments on slashdot from people saying he shouldn't have mouthed off at the cops, or it's their own fault for not leaving the area when told to.
...but isn't there already a system that makes it so that minors can't play some games?
Yes. Here in the United States, parents have say over their children's disposable income, and are able to veto what they spend it on. Furthermore, they can limit their children's access to the television and to the gaming system, and have to power to check to see what games their kids are playing and to take it away, or even punish the child in other ways if they're playing a game that the parent doesn't approve of.
Heehee. I'm kidding, of course. No, there's no system.
Isn't it a fundamental flaw of free speech that it can be used to express one's opposition to free speech?
I wouldn't say it's a flaw. It's a strength.
"If any person would advocate even the dissolution of this nation, let him stand forth free and unmolested as an example of how even the most egregious error of reason can be tolerated in a free society."
- Thomas Jefferson
Or do you believe that free speech should be restricted in order to prevent such opposition being expressed?
Did any of the comments posted give you the impression that anyone was advocating that? Most of the comments I read pointed out one of two things:
a) He's wrong.
b) He's an idiot.
Nothing I saw was advocating any punishment or any kind of restriction on his right to be an idiot.
Actually, the CIA is working on a project to replace all American cops with Fembots(tm). One nipple will shoot laser beams. The other will be a camera.
Well, it's about time the CIA did something useful!
Oh, im sorry I zaped you 3 times already and you still won't move.
Ooh, the irony.
Maybe if they should have broken his kneecaps with their clubs, maybe then he'd wise up and walk away!
Re:Boxen Is Not A Word
on
Free Geek Robbed
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Oh, it's quite a bit older than 1997.
I remember using the term back in the early 80s, so it was around before then (i.e., I didn't invent it, either.)
My guess is it derives from "vaxen" which is, of course, the plural of VAX, one of the most popular computer systems in universities in the 70s. Although, now that I think about it, vaxen probably derived from boxen, not the other way around, so the term is likely from even earlier.
It's a rather obvious derivation: ox --> oxen box --> boxen Makes sense to me.
The GP had a good point, though: many computers come pre-loaded with software. My last laptop had a whole suite of utilities and an operating system on it, all installed by the store that I bought it from before I bought it.
How is this any different?
you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
It's very common in the U.S. to paint all middle-eastern countries as Islamic fundamentalists, especially thanks to extremists such as the former Ayatollah of Iran, our good friends in Saudi Arabia, and of course the now well-known Taliban.
However, it is not entirely accurate. While most of the people in southern Iraq at least gave lip service to Islam, they were far from Sharia, and never wanted it.
Until the sanctions began to take their toll in the mid-90's, it was even very rare to see women wearing veils.
The truth of the matter is, Iraq was, and in many ways is still, more secular than the United States.
Not to say that you're wrong about your point about it being impossible to force a western-style democracy at gunpoint on a people who don't want it.
Of course, bringing democracy to Iraq was never really a goal and only added to the propaganda well after the invasion, when people began to realize that the inspectors were right all along when they claimed there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
The FBI used to do it back in the 60's, when cameras used film. I'm unaware of any of the images actually ever being used, but the threat was obvious: we know who you are. Even if, of course, they didn't.
Didn't stop the protestors then, either. Just pissed a bunch of people off, and had a lot of people jumping in front of the cameras and shouting their names and addresses at them: Now you really know who I am, and that I'm not afraid of you.
No Matthew Broderick? It's gonna suck.
I remember a car commercial from some time back about a car company whose "every car comes standard with four-wheel anti-lock brakes!" It then mentioned, disdainfully, that all their competitor's cars "come standard with... cup holders?"
I've never seen an actual study, but I'd be willing to be that cup holders have prevented more accidents than anti-lock brakes have.
Anyway, cup holders are becoming pretty much standard equipment in cars anymore, though not mandatory like airbags and seatbelts.
Sadly, this is part of the reason why lighters are now "child-proof" (and hence, of course, more dangerous than before).
I'm not aware of any lawsuits over this yet. Though Oregon has apparently lost a record number of campers this year, so wait a bit and we'll see.
Sadly, this one is already law in several states, including Oregon.
The bartender is also responsible if you have fake ID and he still serves you.
Welcome to America!
I never did.
Back in the day, when I used to regularly attend student protests, and take part in various other anti-government activities, I made it a point to never carry ID with me.
If you're in a batch arrest, and have ID, it's now on your record. If you don't, the cops would be more likely to just believe you are whatever name you make up.
Actually, come to think of it, they never really believed me when I gave them a fake name, but it was never worth their bother following through on it, either.
"Sure, officer, I'd be perfectly happy to show you my ID. It's at my house, you can just drop me off there after driving across town. Thanks." "Never mind, kid, you think you're so clever, now you have to figure out your own way home. Hah!" (Followed by me going to get on a bus, using the money in my shoe.)
Not so much the troublemaker any more these days, but I still don't bother to carry my ID with me every time I go out for a walk.
But, if people enter the US from other countries, they'll be using their passports for ID, not this thing, so... um... what was the point again?
Ah, but if they made everyone, even people visiting from other countries, get one of these, then it's much more secure than showing the passport. And how would they get one? They'd need some other ID first... like, for instance, a passport...
So, what possible good can this do? Well, I guess it'll make it harder for underage kids to buy beer. Other than that? Nothing, really...
Oh my God - we so totally need a remake of The Ten Commandments, with Bruce Campbell in Charleton Heston's role!
Smite the Minnonites! SMITE 'em!
But wouldn't it make more sense to, say, make them pay back the money they stole?
Maybe 2-3 times what they took, so it serves as a deterrent. Instead, two or three of the Enron guys go to some country-club prison at taxpayer expense for a few months each, and they and everyone else involved gets to keep most of the money they took. How is that good for anyone but the criminals?
Same with this guy: how many copies of the movie were actually downloaded? They're available for, what $15.00 each more or less? It seems that would be a more appropriate punishment for copyright violation than jail time...
No I won't:
Figure 3c per transaction. Average maybe three transactions a day. 9c per day, or about $2.70/month.
Or $32.85 per year.
That's a dinner out for two at a cheap restaurant once per year. Not really a noticeable amount, even if every single thing I buy with cash ends up losing money by rounding and it's never in my favor.
Unless you go into the Game Options and set "right-click menu delay" to 0.
:)
Why that exists, I have no idea, but at least they let us ADHD people over-ride it
Whereas in NWN1 to turn the camera or tilt it up and down, I had to move the mouse to the edge of the screen, or use the PageUp/PageDown buttons, now I just hold the middle button down to move it around. But, the default view, from high up and behind the main character, is exactly the same default view in NWN, isn't it?
Sadly true.
And every one that does that only makes it that much more difficult to bring any charges against anyone when the system is inevitably abused.
Exactly the same for the Taser. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a good non-lethal way of bringing down a bad guy who isn't an immediate threat to anyone. And I'm sure the vast majority of times that police deploy tasers, that's exactly what they use it for.
But the potential for abuse is there, and without any safeguards against it, we can guarantee it will be widespread.
According to the U.S. government, that isn't torture, either.
That was one of my first thoughts, too.
If they're admitting the existence of this thing now, that most likely means they've been using it for at least a few years.
And something that causes more pain than actual damage would be well suited for interrogation.
A secret prison, full of undocumented "volunteers" would be the perfect place to test it, along with other "enhanced" interrogation techniques. So it's a good thing the United States would never have any of those.
That said, though, non-lethal solutions like this for crowd control are better than the alternative. Like the Taser, though, this would need a lot of safeguards to prevent rampant abuse. (And, like the Taser, I don't expect to see them any time soon). Look soon to see youtube videos of college students writhing in pain screaming and comments on slashdot from people saying he shouldn't have mouthed off at the cops, or it's their own fault for not leaving the area when told to.
I have noticed that.
But, fortunately, about 99% of the people on the highway with me tend to be driving at about the same speed.
Yes. Here in the United States, parents have say over their children's disposable income, and are able to veto what they spend it on. Furthermore, they can limit their children's access to the television and to the gaming system, and have to power to check to see what games their kids are playing and to take it away, or even punish the child in other ways if they're playing a game that the parent doesn't approve of.
Heehee. I'm kidding, of course. No, there's no system.
So, what you're saying is that their business plan is something like:
1) First Place?
2) Second Place?
3) PROFIT!
I wouldn't say it's a flaw. It's a strength. "If any person would advocate even the dissolution of this nation, let him stand forth free and unmolested as an example of how even the most egregious error of reason can be tolerated in a free society."
- Thomas Jefferson
Did any of the comments posted give you the impression that anyone was advocating that? Most of the comments I read pointed out one of two things:
a) He's wrong.
b) He's an idiot.
Nothing I saw was advocating any punishment or any kind of restriction on his right to be an idiot.
You're not 14.
Seriously, though, it seems the younger a person is, the less they use their phone for voice. Which is a major change from when I was 14.
Of course, back then, telephones didn't doanything besides voice.
They also were generally only found inside buildings or phone booths (remember those?), and attached to the wall with cords.
Well, it's about time the CIA did something useful!
Ooh, the irony.
Maybe if they should have broken his kneecaps with their clubs, maybe then he'd wise up and walk away!
Oh, it's quite a bit older than 1997.
I remember using the term back in the early 80s, so it was around before then (i.e., I didn't invent it, either.)
My guess is it derives from "vaxen" which is, of course, the plural of VAX, one of the most popular computer systems in universities in the 70s. Although, now that I think about it, vaxen probably derived from boxen, not the other way around, so the term is likely from even earlier.
It's a rather obvious derivation:
ox --> oxen
box --> boxen
Makes sense to me.
The GP had a good point, though: many computers come pre-loaded with software. My last laptop had a whole suite of utilities and an operating system on it, all installed by the store that I bought it from before I bought it. How is this any different?
According to most post-apocalyptic movies I've seen, it will keep just fine for decades in plastic or steel containers...
Nah, that happened long ago when they first started putting cheese in spray cans.
It's very common in the U.S. to paint all middle-eastern countries as Islamic fundamentalists, especially thanks to extremists such as the former Ayatollah of Iran, our good friends in Saudi Arabia, and of course the now well-known Taliban.
However, it is not entirely accurate. While most of the people in southern Iraq at least gave lip service to Islam, they were far from Sharia, and never wanted it.
Until the sanctions began to take their toll in the mid-90's, it was even very rare to see women wearing veils.
The truth of the matter is, Iraq was, and in many ways is still, more secular than the United States.
Not to say that you're wrong about your point about it being impossible to force a western-style democracy at gunpoint on a people who don't want it.
Of course, bringing democracy to Iraq was never really a goal and only added to the propaganda well after the invasion, when people began to realize that the inspectors were right all along when they claimed there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Nah, he's just beginning to position himself for a 2008 run for President.