This ruling really worries me, actually.
I don't like regulation of the Internet in any form unless absolutely necessary, and while many will feel this is necessary I can picture this ruling being abused very very easily.
You people generally want to be able to do whatever you want on the net, yet at the same time you want to restrict what someone else can do. Tread carefully, or else you may find yourself being restricted next.
For instance, if this spam law involved reasoning about using resources without approval that could arguably be extended to something like pinging another point on the Internet just to measure your latency.
More cameras can also be used to keep the government honest. After all, if everyone knew how our local government was allowing the cable company to screw over customers in return for free premium services for themselves, some people would get mad and the next elections could actually go differently.
This is actually a puckish wrapper around how things should be run daily anyway. There is nothing wrong with cameras mounted on streets and stores filming whomever might be around, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with cameras being held by people filming whatever they may see. The fact is that cameras create accountability (and generate raw information) no matter where and how they're used. Whether that accountability is acted upon and acted upon in a correct manner is a seperate subject that doesn't really involve the cameras themselves.
As Brinn said, there is no stopping the spread of cameras now, but why would anyone want to stop them anyway? People need to simply accept the cameras and use them instead of fighting them every step of the way, missing out on the great things that cameras can provide average citizens.
Your charges are idiotic.
He showed nothing herdlike. Further, your minirant against the modding system is pretty unfounded, in general. His post was much, much more informed than yours was.
Your random attack on him in your "helpful correction" was uncalled for, making you look even worse.
I hate my Chevy Malibu.
Among other things, the car doesn't let the driver turn off the headlights at night, use the power locks when any doors are open, or pop the trunk from the inside when the car's not in park. All of these things required extra inteligence (on the part of the car, not Chevy) in order to make the life of the car owner more difficult.
Additionally, my theft system is currently malfunctioning so that occasionally I have to wait 15 minutes before retrying to start my car. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about any of this.
Hell, I'd prefer if Gore were handling this crisis, instead of someone with no foreign policy understanding who is quite possibly the least inspiring President we've ever had.
Don't worry. It's ok. Bill Clinton is out of office now. You can stop cowering.
It would be interesting if there was some group set up whereby green computer people would go volunteer for a good cause and work with some paid experts in the field.
You know, a group of college computer science majors donating time to install servers somewhere for a good cause working with someone who actually knows what he's doing... In fact, if it's set up right the "kids" could even end up paying for the experience.
I read through http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html and yet I still don't see what's wrong with being recorded as I walk down the street. This webpage even has a section on "But what's the harm?", but the section doesn't actually do any more than reiterating that you can be recorded. So what if I'm recorded?
I mean really: if you're not doing anything wrong and the law is on your side then you have nothing to worry about. If you're not doing anything wrong and the law is not on your side, work to change the law. If you're doing something wrong then cut it out.
I only see cameras as a positive thing generating more information (which geeks should love). They are not repressive in and of themselves. Some structures exist that can use cameras to be oppressive, but these are a seperate issue from the cameras themselves. Fight them, not the cameras.
Abuse of CCTV cameras is NOT a given.
Far from oppression, cameras actually spell empowerment for people if they're accepted and used properly!
I think that's very short sighted, though.
AND, there's more to this than simply human life counts. Economic and lifestyle matters have to be considered too.
But basically, simply because we're killing 10:1 right now does not mean that we won't be saving 20:1 from disuading would-be terrorists in the future. There is no way ever to know the truth behind this, but better safe than sorry.
And as for the Bush comment, I am so glad he is in his possition. I can only imagine how horrible things would be right now had Gore won the election.
Bush has been doing a really great job. It's that simple.
A long time ago I read something about how every generation of fuel uses a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio. For instance, coal to oil and then oil to natural gas.
Every generation was less poluting and more efficient because of this larger ratio, and so it seems almost natural that eventually we'd get to pure hydrogen as a fuel source.
The REAL issue is where you have to present said ID card.
I don't have to present ID to ride the bus, to buy groceries, to drive on the highway (though I do have to have my driver's license). I don't have to present ID to cross from state to state. You don't technically have to show ID to board an airplane (but good luck doing so nowadays after the sept. 11 incidents).FAA regulations clearly allow you to travel without ID.
The real issue is even more specific than that. The real issue is, as you said, what they do with the information when they DO card you.
1. Just because it's a national id does not mean that it is.
2. How can you possibly back this up? A national ID would be an extra tool that they could use to screen people. Adding a tool would not make any of the existing ones go away.
3. Libertarian theories do not say that a voluntary national id system would be a bad thing.
How do you know this? Why do people assume that this ID card scheme would not be comprimised (read counterfit) ?
He knows this because they did not use counterfeit IDs. Based on the assumption that they would not have changed that part of their actions, they would have been caught.
Will they run two airplanes for those of us who would opt-out? If not, you will still be waiting on the plane for us to check in, so your not waiting in line idea won't work. If they will run two planes, that's insane, airlines are strapped for cash now, I doubt they could double the planes with half the people.
Did you completely miss that with some people out of the line the entire line would move faster? Everyone would benefit.
The social security number system was not designed to be a national ID system. Therefore it allows things like the reuse of numbers and things like that. It is not a number to use as the basis of a national id system at all.
Slashdot Mirror
This ruling really worries me, actually.
I don't like regulation of the Internet in any form unless absolutely necessary, and while many will feel this is necessary I can picture this ruling being abused very very easily.
You people generally want to be able to do whatever you want on the net, yet at the same time you want to restrict what someone else can do. Tread carefully, or else you may find yourself being restricted next.
For instance, if this spam law involved reasoning about using resources without approval that could arguably be extended to something like pinging another point on the Internet just to measure your latency.
Just one example...
More cameras can also be used to keep the government honest. After all, if everyone knew how our local government was allowing the cable company to screw over customers in return for free premium services for themselves, some people would get mad and the next elections could actually go differently.
Cameras, enough of them, will show the truth.
This is actually a puckish wrapper around how things should be run daily anyway. There is nothing wrong with cameras mounted on streets and stores filming whomever might be around, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with cameras being held by people filming whatever they may see. The fact is that cameras create accountability (and generate raw information) no matter where and how they're used. Whether that accountability is acted upon and acted upon in a correct manner is a seperate subject that doesn't really involve the cameras themselves.
As Brinn said, there is no stopping the spread of cameras now, but why would anyone want to stop them anyway? People need to simply accept the cameras and use them instead of fighting them every step of the way, missing out on the great things that cameras can provide average citizens.
How about MS-DOS and PC-DOS, who owned the trademark on DOS and how were there two versions?
And do you know where I could find some old laptops like this? I've been looking and the closest I can find is in the PII range for more than $300.
Your charges are idiotic.
He showed nothing herdlike. Further, your minirant against the modding system is pretty unfounded, in general. His post was much, much more informed than yours was.
Your random attack on him in your "helpful correction" was uncalled for, making you look even worse.
What good would more debate among the uneducated general population do?
We can have more debate in the media about the validity of the theory of relativity, but it would also do just as much good.
I hate my Chevy Malibu.
Among other things, the car doesn't let the driver turn off the headlights at night, use the power locks when any doors are open, or pop the trunk from the inside when the car's not in park. All of these things required extra inteligence (on the part of the car, not Chevy) in order to make the life of the car owner more difficult.
Additionally, my theft system is currently malfunctioning so that occasionally I have to wait 15 minutes before retrying to start my car. And there's absolutely nothing I can do about any of this.
Hell, I'd prefer if Gore were handling this crisis, instead of someone with no foreign policy understanding who is quite possibly the least inspiring President we've ever had.
Don't worry. It's ok. Bill Clinton is out of office now. You can stop cowering.
I'd say that experience under the Clinton mockery is a negative thing...
What is the answer to the simple matter of waste disposal?
It would be interesting if there was some group set up whereby green computer people would go volunteer for a good cause and work with some paid experts in the field.
You know, a group of college computer science majors donating time to install servers somewhere for a good cause working with someone who actually knows what he's doing... In fact, if it's set up right the "kids" could even end up paying for the experience.
Nope.
I fail to see how racial profiling is harmful at all, and voyeurism is little more than a childish stunt.
And a history of the abuse of powers is actually something that can be helped by increased prevalence of cameras.
It will require the watchful eye of citizens, that's all.
I don't consider tracking black people or zooming in on boobs as abuse to the people because it doesn't harm them at all.
Also, whether or not I can name an example doesn't have any bearing on whether or not abuse necessarily follows from anything.
I read through http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html and yet I still don't see what's wrong with being recorded as I walk down the street. This webpage even has a section on "But what's the harm?", but the section doesn't actually do any more than reiterating that you can be recorded. So what if I'm recorded?
I mean really: if you're not doing anything wrong and the law is on your side then you have nothing to worry about. If you're not doing anything wrong and the law is not on your side, work to change the law. If you're doing something wrong then cut it out.
I only see cameras as a positive thing generating more information (which geeks should love). They are not repressive in and of themselves. Some structures exist that can use cameras to be oppressive, but these are a seperate issue from the cameras themselves. Fight them, not the cameras.
Abuse of CCTV cameras is NOT a given.
Far from oppression, cameras actually spell empowerment for people if they're accepted and used properly!
IEs 5.5 and 6 both crash greater than 6 times more than Mozilla on every computer I've used in the past 6 months. That's not an overstatement at all.
These numbers are obtained running on a clean install of NT4 and also on Windows2000 on a completely different computer.
I think that's very short sighted, though.
AND, there's more to this than simply human life counts. Economic and lifestyle matters have to be considered too.
But basically, simply because we're killing 10:1 right now does not mean that we won't be saving 20:1 from disuading would-be terrorists in the future. There is no way ever to know the truth behind this, but better safe than sorry.
And as for the Bush comment, I am so glad he is in his possition. I can only imagine how horrible things would be right now had Gore won the election.
Bush has been doing a really great job. It's that simple.
Well, have you attempted to think for yourself and answer that question? When you do, you'll find the answer very reasonable and valid.
War on terrorism is exactly what's happening, as evidenced by facts collaborated by all of the major international news networks.
You'd have to stretch quite a bit to support a charge of war on Bush's enemies.
A long time ago I read something about how every generation of fuel uses a higher hydrogen to carbon ratio. For instance, coal to oil and then oil to natural gas.
Every generation was less poluting and more efficient because of this larger ratio, and so it seems almost natural that eventually we'd get to pure hydrogen as a fuel source.
Please correct me if someone else has more info.
Whether or not that was overreacting will NEVER be seen.
There is no way to isolate the variables. We'll simply never know.
Nope, libertarianism would dictate that some people WILL get marginalized.
The REAL issue is where you have to present said ID card. .FAA regulations clearly allow you to travel without ID.
I don't have to present ID to ride the bus, to buy groceries, to drive on the highway (though I do have to have my driver's license). I don't have to present ID to cross from state to state. You don't technically have to show ID to board an airplane (but good luck doing so nowadays after the sept. 11 incidents)
The real issue is even more specific than that. The real issue is, as you said, what they do with the information when they DO card you.
1. Just because it's a national id does not mean that it is.
2. How can you possibly back this up? A national ID would be an extra tool that they could use to screen people. Adding a tool would not make any of the existing ones go away.
3. Libertarian theories do not say that a voluntary national id system would be a bad thing.
How do you know this? Why do people assume that this ID card scheme would not be comprimised (read counterfit) ?
He knows this because they did not use counterfeit IDs. Based on the assumption that they would not have changed that part of their actions, they would have been caught.
Will they run two airplanes for those of us who would opt-out? If not, you will still be waiting on the plane for us to check in, so your not waiting in line idea won't work. If they will run two planes, that's insane, airlines are strapped for cash now, I doubt they could double the planes with half the people.
Did you completely miss that with some people out of the line the entire line would move faster? Everyone would benefit.
The social security number system was not designed to be a national ID system. Therefore it allows things like the reuse of numbers and things like that. It is not a number to use as the basis of a national id system at all.