If it's legally allowed, by definition, it's not a crime.
Then since cops are legally allowed to do drugs, steal, and cheat, those must no longer be crimes. Oh, wait, they still are unless you're a cop. That is my objection. If something is going to be illegal, it should be illegal for EVERYONE. If it is going to be legal for cops, it should be legal for everyone else, too. Yes, I understand that this is not going to happen in our society. That doesn't mean it's bad. Equal prosecution, equal punishment, equal enforcement. Those are the ideals.
If you believe cops are mostly motivated by greed, I think you need to examine their salaries a bit closer.
Do you have any data to back this up? Well, your implication seems to be that cops are not well paid. To me that would make it more likely, not less, that they will look to opportunistically profit however they can. Free dinners, free coffee, little perqs for being a cop, these things are common, at least where I live. They're illegal, but that doesn't stop the cops NOR the stores and restaurants. Also, RICO seizures in particular strike me as pure, unadulterated greed.
The ultimate irony, in my opinion as an adult looking back, is that being an obedient drone is not the path to success in life. The drones just get stepped on and exploited.
I'm afraid this is not irony. It would be if the purpose of public schools was to help students along the path to success. Sadly, that isn't the case. Those who are already successful WANT everyone else to be a drone to be stepped on and exploited. It's not a conspiracy, it's just human nature.
It looks to me like she had absolutely no control whatsoever of her class and was being walked over by her students.
Obviously this must all be blamed on the students. After all, it isn't part of a teacher's job to control his or her class. A teacher shouldn't be held responsible for what goes on in his or her classroom. All they're doing is getting paid to do a job. We shouldn't expect them to do it. Suspend all the students, and then teachers will have the perfect environment. If you couldn't detect the sarcasm in this post, please learn how to read.
First this isn't an issue of privacy, it's an issue of your personal rights to not have people take pictures and videos of you and do whatever they want with them.
Uhm. How is your 'personal right to not having your picture taken' NOT an issue of privacy? Oh, right, because then you'd have to admit that in PUBLIC, you don't have a right to PRIVACY. You have a right to privacy in private, not public. That's the very reason that we have two words: private, and public. I know it's confusing, but when you are not in private, you are in public. Do you think that everyone who makes a travel video with a camcorder has to get a release from everyone who is shown in it? What a hellish world your world would be.
Say if I were to take a picture of some random person walking down the street, and then put the caption 'pedophile?' on it then just stuck it on the internet for free. If they found out about that they'd want to break every tooth in my head.
Depends on if it were true or not, and if you could prove it. See, instead of breaking your teeth, they'd just sue you for libel. If you couldn't prove they were a pedophile, they'd win. They're not suing you in this case for taking their picture, because they can't. They're suing you for lying about them.
Most people don't know about the protocol for this sort of thing.
Including, apparently, you.
Generally it's only professional photographers and the media pay attention to this stuff because they can easily be sued for showing somebody on TV.
Funny, I doubt that newscasters get releases from all the people walking by in the background of their reports, yet they aren't sued into oblivion. I wonder why? Could it be because those background people are in PUBLIC and have no expectation of PRIVACY? Maybe.
Generally because nobody knows about it.
Damn, already made this joke in this post. Oh well.
Haven't you gotten the memo? A "model student" is one that sits down, shuts up, does exactly what he or she is told, no more and no less, and asks, "How high?" when an authority figure says, "Jump." Obviously, this kid is NOT a model student because he acted up in the classroom. Didn't he know that he is there to learn how to be a good little worker bee, just like everyone else? Stupid kid. That said, sure, this behaviour is reprehensible. But to me, it's no more childish than "zero tolerance" for aspirin, midol, asthma medication and (so I've heard) fingernail clippers. He has a better excuse, that of actually BEING a child. Education in America died the day public school was written into the Communist Manifesto, it just took a long time for people to notice.
It's me again, posting logged in with karma bonus turned off to accomplish the same thing you do by posting anonymously... I know that when I used to use phrases incorrectly, I appreciated it when people corrected me. You'd rather just go around being wrong, I guess, and have people laugh at you behind your back but never tell you to your face? Well, not me. Besides, I was NOT wrong. The best word to use in that sentence is among. I don't care if between can be used in special cases to refer to more than two things. In the particular sentence in which it was used, it was not used correctly. Also, starting a sentence with 'and' is perfectly acceptable in most cases. So why would I care that you did it? Also, I don't take the 'dick' comment personally at all. How could I? You don't know me personally. I know many people take online things personally, I've just never understood why. Also, I *am* a dick. No shame in telling the truth, or pointing out the obvious.
Let me see if I get this straight: I'm a dick for correcting someone...but you aren't? Yep, sounds about right for this place. Besides, I'm not wrong. He used between correctly several times in the post. In that particular sentence, he was using the word to describe undesignated differences between races (note that I did not specifically state how many races, so my usage is correct). If anything, his usage MAY be allowable, but it is certainly not absolutely right. However, I will stick to my guns and say that his usage was incorrect. Now, go ahead and correct me again while telling me what a dick move it is to correct someone. You dick.
I hope to see a complete dichotomy between the three.
So you want to see 'division into two equal but contradictory groups' among three races? That doesn't seem likely to work. Also, 'between' specifically refers to two things, not three. The words you were looking for are 'trichotomy' and 'among'. You're welcome, no thanks necessary.
good luck with that. let me know how suing a private company on 'constitutional' 'freedom of speech' and 'equality' issues turns out. I'm gonna go with 'case thrown out of court'.
Well, now, if someone offers to sell you drugs/stolen goods/his or her body, you can check the website to see if that person's an undercover cop. Seems fair to me. Besides, cops are supposed to solve crimes and arrest criminals, not commit crimes while becoming criminals to 'trick' other criminals. I'm not trying to denigrate the police who actually believe in 'protect and serve' but there are a great many shady things that happen in undercover operations. You know what they say about trying to catch monsters.
1.) You're the one who wanted me to explain. You don't get to 'duh' me when YOU asked me to explain. I didn't think I NEEDED to explain, but you felt like I did. Therefore your 'duh' is not applicable. 2.) even then, it's a best guess and probably won't stand up in court. (then again, a BUNCH of things people commonly believe to be indisputable won't necessarily stand up in court: bullet fragment/gun barrel marking evidence, fingerprints, video/audio, even DNA evidence)
Re:97 billion USD can buy a big chunk of the MPAA
on
Dell Linux Details
·
· Score: 1
The bullion depository at Fort Knox holds 147 million troy ounces of gold. At 660 USD per ounce, that makes 97 billion USD. This is more than enough to buy a controlling interest in The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, and Viacom Inc., and spin out their film divisions.
Or enough to pay off the U.S. national debt...er wait, N/M.
True. But when the same blob in jeans can be seen on several consecutive cameras as he/she walks from his flat to the train, that makes ID'ing said blob more feasible.
Perhaps. However, I think you're overestimating the capabilities of both technology and law enforcement personnel. Maybe I'm wrong. But my experience doesn't point to that. Of course, that's only evidence for me.:) However, unless they can get seamless coverage the entire journey, with no cuts, it's easy to plant reasonable doubt in a jury. I can see the lawyer strutting around now, "The person alleged to be my client is not visible for over 2.9 minutes on this journey! Jeans and t-shirts are not exactly unique in New York. How can you be SURE that my client didn't turn sdown this street/this alley/that store/whatever isn't visible on tape?" etc.
The massive multitude of cameras is just one objection. Using them all in tandem for getting even *more* info (patterns, whether you frequent gay/straight bars, whether you like middle-eastern cuisine, etc.) is yet another objection. Such surveillance open a nasty can of worms, in terms of potential harassment and discrimination.
Well, if you don't want to be seen going to gay/straight bars, perhaps you shouldn't go to them. If you're paranoid that law enforcement is going to do something to you based on your eating preferences, don't go to restaurants. When they start monitoring inside the home, or putting public police cameras inside private property such as stores or office buildings, THEN we'll have a problem. I can see my house on Google Maps. So can you, if you have my address. The time will likely arrive when satellites watch everything that happens in public. I'm thinking of developing a clothing company based on making shapeless serapes or hoodies for mass use. That way, we'll all look the same to the cameras. They can't POSSIBLY have people watching each camera real time, because there isn't enough money for that. So, they'll be relying on whatever the camera happened to record. If all they have is a sea of similarly-dressed people without being able to easily tell who's male, female, dark, light, etc, it would make the harrassment/info gathering thing a lot harder.
Okay, I'll explain. If you have 400 pixels of resolution, you CANNOT interpolate 1600 pixels in there AND match the resolution of a 1600 pixel native photo. Clear enough? You can guess, pattern match, etc, but you cannot get more information from a photo than is there. When you enlarge a small section of a normal security camera photo, you get something that looks like a blown-up atari game. Clear enough?
as noted in my previous comment, some areas will surely receive better cameras. I imagine the rich areas will get better cameras than the poor ones, which is of course bass ackwards but that's life.
Something I haven't seen very much of ITT and which this thread could really use: truth about the cameras they're using. I used to work for a security company - not guards and such, but implementing card/badge readers, cameras, gates, alarms, etc. Most of our customers wanted the psych benefit of having cameras everywhere, but they didn't want to shell out the huge bucks for GOOD cameras. Criminals (and employees) can't tell the difference. However, those same companies got really ticked when there was a theft and they couldn't identify the perpetrator. "Well this guy's face is just a blob and we can only tell he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans! This camera's useless!" Of course, we'd show them the job sheet where we recommended the expensive cameras and they shot them down. Just like with everything else, you get what you pay for. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if most government-purchased cameras were very good. Obviously, they'll shell out for the goods in some areas, but for the most part, I'd bet you could get away with just about anything if you were wearing oversized, drab clothes, a baseball cap pulled low, and avoided looking directly into any camera (that you could see). Now, I wouldn't personally bet on it, but I wouldn't be afraid that some cop was watching me pick my nose on the street and annotating some file on me or anything. Unless you're shelling out the giant bucks for really good cameras and facial recognition hardware/software, you're probably getting the same crappy cameras convenience stores use. I hope I don't have to explain that you can't take a small part of the image from a camera and 'enhance' it to get facial features, etc. If the camera doesn't have a high enough resolution to start with, you can't make the picture much better than it is normally.
I am not disputing the meaning. I'm disputing the idea that word choice can make a concept verboten. For example: You can say, "You're full of crap" on TV all day long with no repercussions. However, if you say, "You're full of shit" on TV, you will be fined. The meaning, in this context, is exactly the same. However, based upon the use of one synonym over another, you can be fined/sanctioned. That bothers me greatly. I don't expect to change society, but I also won't blindly support illogical societal conventions.
Not exactly. I appreciate that different words are appropriate for different situations. I dispute that some words are 'so bad' that they should be removed from the lexicon entirely. I also disapprove of banning/sanctioning people based specifically on word choice. Banning for being a jerk is fine, as long as there are guidelines. But if one person says 'you're crap' and doesn't get banned, but another person says 'you're shit' and does get banned, I have a problem with that.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's legally allowed, by definition, it's not a crime.
Then since cops are legally allowed to do drugs, steal, and cheat, those must no longer be crimes. Oh, wait, they still are unless you're a cop. That is my objection. If something is going to be illegal, it should be illegal for EVERYONE. If it is going to be legal for cops, it should be legal for everyone else, too. Yes, I understand that this is not going to happen in our society. That doesn't mean it's bad. Equal prosecution, equal punishment, equal enforcement. Those are the ideals.
If you believe cops are mostly motivated by greed, I think you need to examine their salaries a bit closer.
Do you have any data to back this up? Well, your implication seems to be that cops are not well paid. To me that would make it more likely, not less, that they will look to opportunistically profit however they can. Free dinners, free coffee, little perqs for being a cop, these things are common, at least where I live. They're illegal, but that doesn't stop the cops NOR the stores and restaurants. Also, RICO seizures in particular strike me as pure, unadulterated greed.
The ultimate irony, in my opinion as an adult looking back, is that being an obedient drone is not the path to success in life. The drones just get stepped on and exploited.
I'm afraid this is not irony. It would be if the purpose of public schools was to help students along the path to success. Sadly, that isn't the case. Those who are already successful WANT everyone else to be a drone to be stepped on and exploited. It's not a conspiracy, it's just human nature.
It looks to me like she had absolutely no control whatsoever of her class and was being walked over by her students.
Obviously this must all be blamed on the students. After all, it isn't part of a teacher's job to control his or her class. A teacher shouldn't be held responsible for what goes on in his or her classroom. All they're doing is getting paid to do a job. We shouldn't expect them to do it. Suspend all the students, and then teachers will have the perfect environment. If you couldn't detect the sarcasm in this post, please learn how to read.
First this isn't an issue of privacy, it's an issue of your personal rights to not have people take pictures and videos of you and do whatever they want with them.
Uhm. How is your 'personal right to not having your picture taken' NOT an issue of privacy? Oh, right, because then you'd have to admit that in PUBLIC, you don't have a right to PRIVACY. You have a right to privacy in private, not public. That's the very reason that we have two words: private, and public. I know it's confusing, but when you are not in private, you are in public. Do you think that everyone who makes a travel video with a camcorder has to get a release from everyone who is shown in it? What a hellish world your world would be.
Say if I were to take a picture of some random person walking down the street, and then put the caption 'pedophile?' on it then just stuck it on the internet for free. If they found out about that they'd want to break every tooth in my head.
Depends on if it were true or not, and if you could prove it. See, instead of breaking your teeth, they'd just sue you for libel. If you couldn't prove they were a pedophile, they'd win. They're not suing you in this case for taking their picture, because they can't. They're suing you for lying about them.
Most people don't know about the protocol for this sort of thing.
Including, apparently, you.
Generally it's only professional photographers and the media pay attention to this stuff because they can easily be sued for showing somebody on TV.
Funny, I doubt that newscasters get releases from all the people walking by in the background of their reports, yet they aren't sued into oblivion. I wonder why? Could it be because those background people are in PUBLIC and have no expectation of PRIVACY? Maybe.
Generally because nobody knows about it.
Damn, already made this joke in this post. Oh well.
Haven't you gotten the memo? A "model student" is one that sits down, shuts up, does exactly what he or she is told, no more and no less, and asks, "How high?" when an authority figure says, "Jump." Obviously, this kid is NOT a model student because he acted up in the classroom. Didn't he know that he is there to learn how to be a good little worker bee, just like everyone else? Stupid kid. That said, sure, this behaviour is reprehensible. But to me, it's no more childish than "zero tolerance" for aspirin, midol, asthma medication and (so I've heard) fingernail clippers. He has a better excuse, that of actually BEING a child. Education in America died the day public school was written into the Communist Manifesto, it just took a long time for people to notice.
He's a troll. American? Probably. This is primarily an American website. But this is a textbook troll post. YMBNH.
It's me again, posting logged in with karma bonus turned off to accomplish the same thing you do by posting anonymously... I know that when I used to use phrases incorrectly, I appreciated it when people corrected me. You'd rather just go around being wrong, I guess, and have people laugh at you behind your back but never tell you to your face? Well, not me. Besides, I was NOT wrong. The best word to use in that sentence is among. I don't care if between can be used in special cases to refer to more than two things. In the particular sentence in which it was used, it was not used correctly. Also, starting a sentence with 'and' is perfectly acceptable in most cases. So why would I care that you did it? Also, I don't take the 'dick' comment personally at all. How could I? You don't know me personally. I know many people take online things personally, I've just never understood why. Also, I *am* a dick. No shame in telling the truth, or pointing out the obvious.
I disagree. In my opinion, cops are supposed to reduce crime.
By being legally allowed to commit them?
Cops still have to do their jobs, even if they don't like it.
Have you seen the amounts of property they confiscate from drug offenders? Of course they like it. Free stuff for them.
Let me see if I get this straight: I'm a dick for correcting someone...but you aren't? Yep, sounds about right for this place. Besides, I'm not wrong. He used between correctly several times in the post. In that particular sentence, he was using the word to describe undesignated differences between races (note that I did not specifically state how many races, so my usage is correct). If anything, his usage MAY be allowable, but it is certainly not absolutely right. However, I will stick to my guns and say that his usage was incorrect. Now, go ahead and correct me again while telling me what a dick move it is to correct someone. You dick.
"Is municipal Wi-Fi just a bad idea, has it been poorly implemented, or is the technology just not there to support such an endeavor?"
Well, based on my experiences with municipal bureaucracies, I'd say yes, yes, and maybe.
I absolutely love your .sig. Thank you! Makes me want to do a 'to, too, two' .sig. Maybe a 'there, their, they're' one. You rule.
I demand a CP/M port!
I hope to see a complete dichotomy between the three.
So you want to see 'division into two equal but contradictory groups' among three races? That doesn't seem likely to work. Also, 'between' specifically refers to two things, not three. The words you were looking for are 'trichotomy' and 'among'. You're welcome, no thanks necessary.
Why wouldn't you use fiber channel? Then you can get 4Gbps...
Stupid slow-ass 3.0Gbps SATA. Might as well use wheelbarrows to move data around.
On a related note, I saw the first Christmas displays going up the other day. Only what, 216 shopping days left?
good luck with that. let me know how suing a private company on 'constitutional' 'freedom of speech' and 'equality' issues turns out. I'm gonna go with 'case thrown out of court'.
Well, now, if someone offers to sell you drugs/stolen goods/his or her body, you can check the website to see if that person's an undercover cop. Seems fair to me. Besides, cops are supposed to solve crimes and arrest criminals, not commit crimes while becoming criminals to 'trick' other criminals. I'm not trying to denigrate the police who actually believe in 'protect and serve' but there are a great many shady things that happen in undercover operations. You know what they say about trying to catch monsters.
1.) You're the one who wanted me to explain. You don't get to 'duh' me when YOU asked me to explain. I didn't think I NEEDED to explain, but you felt like I did. Therefore your 'duh' is not applicable.
2.) even then, it's a best guess and probably won't stand up in court. (then again, a BUNCH of things people commonly believe to be indisputable won't necessarily stand up in court: bullet fragment/gun barrel marking evidence, fingerprints, video/audio, even DNA evidence)
The bullion depository at Fort Knox holds 147 million troy ounces of gold. At 660 USD per ounce, that makes 97 billion USD. This is more than enough to buy a controlling interest in The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, and Viacom Inc., and spin out their film divisions.
Or enough to pay off the U.S. national debt...er wait, N/M.
True. But when the same blob in jeans can be seen on several consecutive cameras as he/she walks from his flat to the train, that makes ID'ing said blob more feasible.
:) However, unless they can get seamless coverage the entire journey, with no cuts, it's easy to plant reasonable doubt in a jury. I can see the lawyer strutting around now, "The person alleged to be my client is not visible for over 2.9 minutes on this journey! Jeans and t-shirts are not exactly unique in New York. How can you be SURE that my client didn't turn sdown this street/this alley/that store/whatever isn't visible on tape?" etc.
Perhaps. However, I think you're overestimating the capabilities of both technology and law enforcement personnel. Maybe I'm wrong. But my experience doesn't point to that. Of course, that's only evidence for me.
The massive multitude of cameras is just one objection. Using them all in tandem for getting even *more* info (patterns, whether you frequent gay/straight bars, whether you like middle-eastern cuisine, etc.) is yet another objection. Such surveillance open a nasty can of worms, in terms of potential harassment and discrimination.
Well, if you don't want to be seen going to gay/straight bars, perhaps you shouldn't go to them. If you're paranoid that law enforcement is going to do something to you based on your eating preferences, don't go to restaurants. When they start monitoring inside the home, or putting public police cameras inside private property such as stores or office buildings, THEN we'll have a problem. I can see my house on Google Maps. So can you, if you have my address. The time will likely arrive when satellites watch everything that happens in public. I'm thinking of developing a clothing company based on making shapeless serapes or hoodies for mass use. That way, we'll all look the same to the cameras. They can't POSSIBLY have people watching each camera real time, because there isn't enough money for that. So, they'll be relying on whatever the camera happened to record. If all they have is a sea of similarly-dressed people without being able to easily tell who's male, female, dark, light, etc, it would make the harrassment/info gathering thing a lot harder.
Okay, I'll explain. If you have 400 pixels of resolution, you CANNOT interpolate 1600 pixels in there AND match the resolution of a 1600 pixel native photo. Clear enough? You can guess, pattern match, etc, but you cannot get more information from a photo than is there. When you enlarge a small section of a normal security camera photo, you get something that looks like a blown-up atari game. Clear enough?
as noted in my previous comment, some areas will surely receive better cameras. I imagine the rich areas will get better cameras than the poor ones, which is of course bass ackwards but that's life.
Something I haven't seen very much of ITT and which this thread could really use: truth about the cameras they're using. I used to work for a security company - not guards and such, but implementing card/badge readers, cameras, gates, alarms, etc. Most of our customers wanted the psych benefit of having cameras everywhere, but they didn't want to shell out the huge bucks for GOOD cameras. Criminals (and employees) can't tell the difference. However, those same companies got really ticked when there was a theft and they couldn't identify the perpetrator. "Well this guy's face is just a blob and we can only tell he was wearing a t-shirt and jeans! This camera's useless!" Of course, we'd show them the job sheet where we recommended the expensive cameras and they shot them down. Just like with everything else, you get what you pay for. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if most government-purchased cameras were very good. Obviously, they'll shell out for the goods in some areas, but for the most part, I'd bet you could get away with just about anything if you were wearing oversized, drab clothes, a baseball cap pulled low, and avoided looking directly into any camera (that you could see). Now, I wouldn't personally bet on it, but I wouldn't be afraid that some cop was watching me pick my nose on the street and annotating some file on me or anything. Unless you're shelling out the giant bucks for really good cameras and facial recognition hardware/software, you're probably getting the same crappy cameras convenience stores use. I hope I don't have to explain that you can't take a small part of the image from a camera and 'enhance' it to get facial features, etc. If the camera doesn't have a high enough resolution to start with, you can't make the picture much better than it is normally.
I am not disputing the meaning. I'm disputing the idea that word choice can make a concept verboten. For example: You can say, "You're full of crap" on TV all day long with no repercussions. However, if you say, "You're full of shit" on TV, you will be fined. The meaning, in this context, is exactly the same. However, based upon the use of one synonym over another, you can be fined/sanctioned. That bothers me greatly. I don't expect to change society, but I also won't blindly support illogical societal conventions.
Not exactly. I appreciate that different words are appropriate for different situations. I dispute that some words are 'so bad' that they should be removed from the lexicon entirely. I also disapprove of banning/sanctioning people based specifically on word choice. Banning for being a jerk is fine, as long as there are guidelines. But if one person says 'you're crap' and doesn't get banned, but another person says 'you're shit' and does get banned, I have a problem with that.