And not believing in bigfoot is a position based on faith, I'm sure.:/
(Most) Atheists don't maintain there can't be a god. They maintain that, due to the nature of the claim and lacking of evidence, one most likely does not exist.
What part is fictional? The entire transcript really occured. In fact, I still have access to the guy's e-mail, if nobody I gave it to changed the password...
They are pretty desperate. I e-mailed the guys he was in contact with, they didn't respond. He really was conning them, so I don't think it was a prank. In fact, the e-mail originally was sent to my mother, not to me.
After wasting his time I got into his hotmail account, changed the password and password question/answer, and notified everyone he was in contact with. He was actually scamming people-- it looked like he was rather close to getting some of them.
Speaking of worms, how easily could worms spread if it were Linux that was popular and not windows?
I know linux is more secure, especially because of the multi-user system where root is only used for special reasons, and that many windows programs are integrated in the OS (IE, Outlook...), but how feasible WOULD it be to make worms for Linux? I really don't know. I do use Linux, and I love it. I only boot into windows for certain things such as Battlefield 1942...
Well, in this case, it goes to far, then. Background checks are completely unreasonable and often not easily accessible to the average person.
With a car, you put your private property on public property. Anyone can see it. Anyone can see your scooter, shirt, pants, segway, whatever. It's not invisible.
And I agree, computers often CAN screw up. But if they are done right, should they? I think not. I agree with you that automated fines and such are bad things.
I thought this system simply recorded license plates. If all we have are cameras that look and license plates, then I see no trouble. How the government chooses to enforce supposed violations is another story.
As interesting as your post is, the government could easily (and probably does to deemed security threats) do it without having to go through that mess. Simple survellience.
Perhaps this information should be publicly available, so the government does not get a benefit the average person doesn't.
Normally, I would be against "big brother", but in this case aren't cameras basically able to see only what the general public would be able to see anyway?
Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human, if the software is done right. However, the issue is privacy, so I digress. But, computer vs. policeman aside, what difference does it make if a police officer was stationed looking for people?
If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy (that kind of survellience is hopefully illegal), or the government had "special" means that cannot be easily monitored such as those security blimps then I would agree it's a loss of privacy.
I'm certainly for as little government as possible. But in this case is privacy really being lost? The same thing can be done with humans, afterall, and no one complains about loss of privacy by seeing a police officer legally on public land looking for criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
Blocking freedom of speech. Duh.
And not believing in bigfoot is a position based on faith, I'm sure. :/
(Most) Atheists don't maintain there can't be a god. They maintain that, due to the nature of the claim and lacking of evidence, one most likely does not exist.
I wonder how test flights would go. Someone tricking their little brother to "step in the SPACESHIP!"
Yes
You're stupid. A lot of people play games with the 419 guys. I'm in no way racist. You're just a fucking troll-- that's why you're posting as an AC.
Anyway, my karma is already excellent, so...
What part is fictional? The entire transcript really occured. In fact, I still have access to the guy's e-mail, if nobody I gave it to changed the password...
Me? I'm not newly created at all. I've had multiple accounts, in fact, but I lost the passwords to those.
I've been around awhile.
His password question's answer was ekpontu. Simple as that.
They are pretty desperate. I e-mailed the guys he was in contact with, they didn't respond. He really was conning them, so I don't think it was a prank. In fact, the e-mail originally was sent to my mother, not to me.
Grandfather Randi is a reference to famous skeptic and magician James Randi.
After wasting his time I got into his hotmail account, changed the password and password question/answer, and notified everyone he was in contact with. He was actually scamming people-- it looked like he was rather close to getting some of them.
I had fun with one of these guys here.
Some people don't buy certain games because they don't last long enough-- especially if they have multiplayer. Even if they do find them fun.
*sings* Computer Antivirus....Panda!
Speaking of worms, how easily could worms spread if it were Linux that was popular and not windows?
I know linux is more secure, especially because of the multi-user system where root is only used for special reasons, and that many windows programs are integrated in the OS (IE, Outlook...), but how feasible WOULD it be to make worms for Linux? I really don't know. I do use Linux, and I love it. I only boot into windows for certain things such as Battlefield 1942...
I think if you are on public ground then being photographed is just one of the risks you have to take.
Well, imagine the benefits.
s ho le_wide_open.jpg
http://www.goat.cx/picture_of_man_stretching_as
Hmm. Perhaps that ISN'T a benefit knowing the purpose of that picture.
My concern would be accuracy and methodology, along with the economics of the idea. Not privacy.
Well, in this case, it goes to far, then. Background checks are completely unreasonable and often not easily accessible to the average person.
With a car, you put your private property on public property. Anyone can see it. Anyone can see your scooter, shirt, pants, segway, whatever. It's not invisible.
And I agree, computers often CAN screw up. But if they are done right, should they? I think not. I agree with you that automated fines and such are bad things.
I thought this system simply recorded license plates. If all we have are cameras that look and license plates, then I see no trouble. How the government chooses to enforce supposed violations is another story.
As interesting as your post is, the government could easily (and probably does to deemed security threats) do it without having to go through that mess. Simple survellience.
Perhaps this information should be publicly available, so the government does not get a benefit the average person doesn't.
No, at least not as far as privacy is concerned.
But couldn't a normal citizen record passing cars themselves for whatever reason they want?
Normally, I would be against "big brother", but in this case aren't cameras basically able to see only what the general public would be able to see anyway?
Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human, if the software is done right. However, the issue is privacy, so I digress. But, computer vs. policeman aside, what difference does it make if a police officer was stationed looking for people?
If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy (that kind of survellience is hopefully illegal), or the government had "special" means that cannot be easily monitored such as those security blimps then I would agree it's a loss of privacy.
I'm certainly for as little government as possible. But in this case is privacy really being lost? The same thing can be done with humans, afterall, and no one complains about loss of privacy by seeing a police officer legally on public land looking for criminals.
Usually the last CDs contain only optional stuff like that.