Oh of course. I was trolling. I was stating a fact, showing how economically unviable open-source drivers are to the manufacturer, and of course it's trolling. Jeez, people, how about some objectivity? You are interested in facts and not sensationalist zeal, right? right??
Just owing to the sheer amount of MP3 players out there, the iPod is untouchable. Sure, it doesn't command 95% of the marketplace, but it's the biggest and most strongest performer in the market, with the most money behind it, and the biggest PR/advertising campaign. Hardly the "small guy", is it?
Because most people here have no idea what they're talking about, or have a very US-centric view of global economics. The same flows that gave the US great heaps of money during the internet boom, are now flowing that money and those jobs to India and other cheaper-than-the-US places, where IT staff get paid a proper wage (ie not blown out of all proportion) and are happy for the job. It's only "good" when it goes to the US, and bad any other time. Aaah. The American condition. Us = good, them = bad.
Unfortunately, that would require some after-sales co-operation between millions of vendors and Google. After all, there's no reason for the vendor to tell google they had a referral from them...
Well, I've written an HTTPMAIL wrapper for Outlook Express to read my gmail... it's not exactly difficult. They're gonna pop up all over the place soon.
Of course. Every single piece of software you're using now has its roots in proprietary software. Saying that's not a good thing is like condemning the very primordial ooze we crawled out from.
I hear people going on about binary drivers, but what's the problem? You're running an OS on less than 3% of desktops out there - you should be happy you're getting any drivers at all!:)
Not being funny, but the complete lack of objectivity when discussing linux on this board means this discussion might as well be ended right here. We won't get anywhere.
We're talking about MP3 players here, and Apple. Apple sell THE MOST POPULAR MP3 player out there. By far. It's entered every-day use. I even saw it in a comic in the newspaper the other day. We're not talking about Apple trying to get OSX into the universities...
Because most people would leave the Zire 31 at home, and go out and buy their own iPod. Sure, it's cheaper, but the iPod has a large hard disk in it, and firewire/usb2 interface. It also looks good and performs well... I bet you listen to Ogg files, don't you;)
"Learned an important lesson about 'better' standards. Unless it's got widespread adoption, or improves things by an order of magnitude, it's not going anywhere. Vorbis may sneak in as people start using it here and there... just because it's free, but I'd expect that to take a LONG time"
replace "vorbis" with "linux", and this sounds very familiar indeed...
Well, I can imagine the police abusing their powers (heck, it happens every day). Does that mean we shouldn't have police? No - it means
systems need to be in place to monitor them, and make them accountable to their bosses - us. If we decided to scrap every initiative that could be abused, we'd have NOTHING. No capitalism, no communism, no language, no internet, no computers, no money, no countries, no government, no society, no friends, no family, NOTHING.
With a system for ensuring legality when using CCTV, the person picking their nose wouldn't get any trouble at all. If the guy wanted to call in a SWAT team, the footage would show the guy immediately innocent.
If a person is being beaten by a cop, and the cops don't do anything to stop the cop, then that's a failure of the police department, not an excuse to damn anything that empowers the police in general. By your logic, bullet-proof vests, police cars, radios, and even the law are bad, as they could let cops beat more women. Your argument doesn't hold much water.
Watching != controlling. Do you have a problem with police on the streets, too? After all, they work for the authorities, and they're WATCHING YOU! Using their eyes, no less! So scary!
Being watched by the authorities is nothing new, isn't draconian, isn't orwellesque, isn't scary. It's useful, and can help you. People sound like ignorant fools when they bang on about how cameras IN PUBLIC is a bad thing. Shit.
No, you don't. You can have privacy in public, but it's definitely no right.
There's no difference between a camera watching you and a policeman. If you have a problem with a cop watching you, then you have more immediate problems upstairs.
Re:So, here's the question I find interesting.
on
1984 Comes To Boston
·
· Score: 1
The act was the "Data Protection Act", and it still stands. It says you can request a copy of any information about you a company or entity has, for an administrative charge (to cover them actually doing it). It's applicable to anyone with a computer system, and CCTV footage.
You're missing the point entirely. If you'd done some research into Al Qaida, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, you'd realise there was a lot going on you (living in the US) have NO idea about. Let me clue you up.
During the first gulf war, the US (as friends of Saudi Arabia) helped bolster the severely-lacking armed forces of SA. SA accepted, and offered a blank check to the US to pay for it. The Americans went over the top with charging, and ended up ripping Saudi Arabia off to the tune of $50bn. That's right, fifty billion dollars, for next to nothing. After the war, the US soldiers stayed in the area without the blessing of the SA government, which really pissed off a lot of Arabs, especially as US solders' behaviour isn't exactly that of a "gracious guest" (check out what the US soldiers did in the war memorial they used as a base in Iraq). That's just one of the reasons terrorists like Al Qaida want the US out of the middle east. The Islam aspect is purely used as a recruitment tool, like how emotive TV ads are used in the states. Same game. Of course, the media in the west has spun it into good vs. evil, freedom vs. terrorism, etc. It's all bullshit. They want to sucker us into it, saying they hate us because we have freedom (not because we jacked them for $50bn). Of course leaving a place alone means they have no gripe with you. When was the last time you heard of a central-american tribe blowing up chunks of Finland? Exactly. It doesn't happen.
I'm probably ranting by now, but all this ridiculous spin based on lies and more spin is only helping those who want to control us. If everyone here is so fond of freedom, then change your regime - it's the nastiest one out there.
Exactly. Funnily enough, we've never had privacy in public. That's why it's called public. I have no idea why people are complaining about cameras. If the government wanted to fuck with you, they'd do away with court-ordered search/arrest warrants and set up a seperate legal system for people deemed "enemies of the state". Oh, wait...
How on earth is that insightful? +5, Pulled-out-of-my-arse more like.
If you're mugged in the street, chances are the culprit will be caught on camera. You tell a cop what happened, and if you didn't wait 8 hours, the culprit will still be out there somewhere (although somewhat in a hurry). The cop calls the CCTV control room, and they track the mugger all the way home. The mugger thinks he's safe (as there were no sirens). The cops turn up and arrest him, retrieving your property. In the UK, you can ask for a copy of any footage you appear in, which has to be provided to you. How someone can "abuse" a camera IN A PUBLIC PLACE is beyond me. I mean, you're in PUBLIC. Do you run from shadow to shadow draped in a black cloth, to protect you from being seen by someone else?
You're more likely to need one of these cameras than ever be persecuted via one. Seriously. Do some reading on the matter;)
It is up to society to defend its members. If your society isn't defending you, your society is fucked. I have the right to not carry a gun around, and I shouldn't be punished for doing so. Can you explain your thinking?:)
It's the same logic behind yahoos having guns in public. "If they knows I'm a packin', they won't come in mah house and shoots me and muh family". If the criminals know they're being caught on tape, they won't commit a crime. However, as anyone with an ounce of brain will tell you, neither argument (gun or camera) WORKS. Cameras are put in place to aid police after a crime. They're used by the operators to track a criminal clear across a city without anyone physically following them. They're used to automatically scan number plates on cars, alerting police to that cars whereabouts (should it have done anything naughty). The cameras also usable as evidence, and the operators are good at catching thing son tape people don't want the cops to see. Cameras don't prevent crime, but allow the cops to find criminals in minutes, and arrest them knowing they have suitable evidence to prosecute.
Of course, if you're paranoid, they must be evil. I did admire your points, though, especially the one about a woman with the cop who likes to hit here. If you're with a cop who likes to hit you, YOU TELL THE COPS, and that cop is put in prison, where they get raped nightly. Problem solved. No cameras snitching the lady's location away, nothing.
Cameras in public don't cause problems, as the cameras are in public. Public meaning belonging to the people, which kinda implies you have no right to do anything in public you don't want anyone else seeing. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.:)
Where on earth does it say freedom = civilisation??? jeez. What is it with people thinking they can drop one-word answers (usually
freedom, democracy, linux, America, etc.) and think they're making a deep statement? As if we're all going to take a collective breath, step back from our computers and go "Wow. That [insert name here] really knows their shit. What a thinker". Hardly. so cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh of course. I was trolling. I was stating a fact, showing how economically unviable open-source drivers are to the manufacturer, and of course it's trolling. Jeez, people, how about some objectivity? You are interested in facts and not sensationalist zeal, right? right??
Just owing to the sheer amount of MP3 players out there, the iPod is untouchable. Sure, it doesn't command 95% of the marketplace, but it's the biggest and most strongest performer in the market, with the most money behind it, and the biggest PR/advertising campaign. Hardly the "small guy", is it?
Because most people here have no idea what they're talking about, or have a very US-centric view of global economics. The same flows that gave the US great heaps of money during the internet boom, are now flowing that money and those jobs to India and other cheaper-than-the-US places, where IT staff get paid a proper wage (ie not blown out of all proportion) and are happy for the job. It's only "good" when it goes to the US, and bad any other time. Aaah. The American condition. Us = good, them = bad.
Unfortunately, that would require some after-sales co-operation between millions of vendors and Google. After all, there's no reason for the vendor to tell google they had a referral from them...
Well, I've written an HTTPMAIL wrapper for Outlook Express to read my gmail... it's not exactly difficult. They're gonna pop up all over the place soon.
And that copes with all sorts of proxies and tunnelling how, exactly?
Of course. Every single piece of software you're using now has its roots in proprietary software. Saying that's not a good thing is like condemning the very primordial ooze we crawled out from.
I hear people going on about binary drivers, but what's the problem? You're running an OS on less than 3% of desktops out there - you should be happy you're getting any drivers at all! :)
I played the demo on my P4 3.2, with a crappy GeForce2 card, and it worked fine...
Not being funny, but the complete lack of objectivity when discussing linux on this board means this discussion might as well be ended right here. We won't get anywhere.
We're talking about MP3 players here, and Apple. Apple sell THE MOST POPULAR MP3 player out there. By far. It's entered every-day use. I even saw it in a comic in the newspaper the other day. We're not talking about Apple trying to get OSX into the universities...
Because most people would leave the Zire 31 at home, and go out and buy their own iPod. Sure, it's cheaper, but the iPod has a large hard disk in it, and firewire/usb2 interface. It also looks good and performs well... I bet you listen to Ogg files, don't you ;)
replace "vorbis" with "linux", and this sounds very familiar indeed...
With a system for ensuring legality when using CCTV, the person picking their nose wouldn't get any trouble at all. If the guy wanted to call in a SWAT team, the footage would show the guy immediately innocent.
If a person is being beaten by a cop, and the cops don't do anything to stop the cop, then that's a failure of the police department, not an excuse to damn anything that empowers the police in general. By your logic, bullet-proof vests, police cars, radios, and even the law are bad, as they could let cops beat more women. Your argument doesn't hold much water.
Being watched by the authorities is nothing new, isn't draconian, isn't orwellesque, isn't scary. It's useful, and can help you. People sound like ignorant fools when they bang on about how cameras IN PUBLIC is a bad thing. Shit.
There's no difference between a camera watching you and a policeman. If you have a problem with a cop watching you, then you have more immediate problems upstairs.
The act was the "Data Protection Act", and it still stands. It says you can request a copy of any information about you a company or entity has, for an administrative charge (to cover them actually doing it). It's applicable to anyone with a computer system, and CCTV footage.
During the first gulf war, the US (as friends of Saudi Arabia) helped bolster the severely-lacking armed forces of SA. SA accepted, and offered a blank check to the US to pay for it. The Americans went over the top with charging, and ended up ripping Saudi Arabia off to the tune of $50bn. That's right, fifty billion dollars, for next to nothing. After the war, the US soldiers stayed in the area without the blessing of the SA government, which really pissed off a lot of Arabs, especially as US solders' behaviour isn't exactly that of a "gracious guest" (check out what the US soldiers did in the war memorial they used as a base in Iraq). That's just one of the reasons terrorists like Al Qaida want the US out of the middle east. The Islam aspect is purely used as a recruitment tool, like how emotive TV ads are used in the states. Same game. Of course, the media in the west has spun it into good vs. evil, freedom vs. terrorism, etc. It's all bullshit. They want to sucker us into it, saying they hate us because we have freedom (not because we jacked them for $50bn). Of course leaving a place alone means they have no gripe with you. When was the last time you heard of a central-american tribe blowing up chunks of Finland? Exactly. It doesn't happen.
I'm probably ranting by now, but all this ridiculous spin based on lies and more spin is only helping those who want to control us. If everyone here is so fond of freedom, then change your regime - it's the nastiest one out there.
Exactly. Funnily enough, we've never had privacy in public. That's why it's called public. I have no idea why people are complaining about cameras. If the government wanted to fuck with you, they'd do away with court-ordered search/arrest warrants and set up a seperate legal system for people deemed "enemies of the state". Oh, wait...
If you're mugged in the street, chances are the culprit will be caught on camera. You tell a cop what happened, and if you didn't wait 8 hours, the culprit will still be out there somewhere (although somewhat in a hurry). The cop calls the CCTV control room, and they track the mugger all the way home. The mugger thinks he's safe (as there were no sirens). The cops turn up and arrest him, retrieving your property. In the UK, you can ask for a copy of any footage you appear in, which has to be provided to you. How someone can "abuse" a camera IN A PUBLIC PLACE is beyond me. I mean, you're in PUBLIC. Do you run from shadow to shadow draped in a black cloth, to protect you from being seen by someone else?
You're more likely to need one of these cameras than ever be persecuted via one. Seriously. Do some reading on the matter ;)
It is up to society to defend its members. If your society isn't defending you, your society is fucked. I have the right to not carry a gun around, and I shouldn't be punished for doing so. Can you explain your thinking? :)
Of course, if you're paranoid, they must be evil. I did admire your points, though, especially the one about a woman with the cop who likes to hit here. If you're with a cop who likes to hit you, YOU TELL THE COPS, and that cop is put in prison, where they get raped nightly. Problem solved. No cameras snitching the lady's location away, nothing.
Cameras in public don't cause problems, as the cameras are in public. Public meaning belonging to the people, which kinda implies you have no right to do anything in public you don't want anyone else seeing. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp. :)
So when the Republicans are in power, the US isn't a civilization any more?
Where on earth does it say freedom = civilisation??? jeez. What is it with people thinking they can drop one-word answers (usually freedom, democracy, linux, America, etc.) and think they're making a deep statement? As if we're all going to take a collective breath, step back from our computers and go "Wow. That [insert name here] really knows their shit. What a thinker". Hardly. so cheap.