He has a hell of a lot of support amongst the computer-literate and young.
Which proves that being computer-literate and young doesn't prevent you from being gullible.
The guy is just another self-entitled arsehole who thinks that he has a right to make money off other people's work. If you have a philosophical objection to copyright, fine, argue about it as much as you like, boycott the organisations that impose it and press for a change in the law.
But while you're making money off the copyright laws by circumventing them with something like megaupload you're just a con artist, hypocrite and leech.
What's that got to do with it? I am an adult and have to work like everyody else, that doesn't mean I think everything in life can be reduced to a monetary transaction. Without research the world is doomed, and not all research can be measured by the number of dollars it generates in the short or even medium term.
Some moronic little shit always loves to ridicule the disabled, usually by calling them fat or lazy!
I would love to get one of these exoskeletons to use instead of my scooter.
I think people are generally ridiculing fat, lazy people with nothing wrong with them that a change in diet and some light exercise wouldn't cure. People who are not disabled using mobility scooters do no favours to the genuinely disabled at all.
The DHS is the worst idea to come out of Washington and that's a town that's pretty much only ever generated bad ideas. I'd rather be waterboarded than lift a finger to suport that particular government agency.
I'm sure they could arrange for both if you were worth the effort.
I once got passed over because the majority of my experience was with C++ rather than the C#. I pointed out that they were both C-style object-oriented languages and that.NET was well enough documented that even with my limited C# experience I could hit the ground running. They were really adamant about their C#.NET though,
You should have found out in advance what they were looking for, boned up on C# and.NET and bullshitted your way through.
I agree completely. So the question becomes. Why does Slashdot post stories such as this one? It's only going to continue eroding its user base if it keeps on posting click-bait such as this.
Who would bother putting "click-bait" on slashdot when only a tiny minority of people ever read TFA anyway?
This gets modded insightful? In any case where a person responds to a perceived threat, there is a test for reasonableness. You might find a jury that thinks being on camera is threatening enough to require a physical response but its more likely that if you attack a cameraman, you'll find yourself being prosecuted.
I think if you ask someone to stop filming you and they refuse, you are morally within your rights to take direct action. I don't care whether it's "legal" or not.
Incidentally, it's amusing how legalistic slashdotters can get when it comes to real life as opposed to things like copyright infringement, where it's generally "I will do it because I can get away with it".
Security cameras are totally sociopathic (they're inanimate, they have to be). He's behaving like a sociopath in plain view to draw attention to the sociopaths hiding in the corners.
No offence, but if you think inanimate objects have human personality traits you probably need psychiatric help yourself.
Show me a case where surveillance prevented crime? It's always an after thought to catch people sometimes. Criminals know where the cameras are and just avoid them anyways.
You are assuming that all criminals are cool, calculaitng and intelligent. The sort of people who get drunk and attack strangers for looking at them funny in city centres are not, but they still deserve to be caught and punished. And CCTV is actually quite good for that, because even the most stupid and pissed individuals are unlikely to carry out assaults with a couple of policemen watching and taking notes.
Yes, it can be uncomfortable to have your beliefs or your security measures challenged, but sometimes they need to be.
If you want to challenge my beliefs or security measures, you can have a debate or conversation with me if I agree to it. If you just start harrassing me in the street I'll assume you're a criminal or psychotic assailant and take necessary measures to defend myself, up to and including stuffing your camera up your arse.
I hate to tell you this, but a security camera doesn't *prevent* much of anything. It may, depending on the quality of the captured video, make it easier to apprehend the person who 'did wrong', but it won't prevent it. Case in point: any convenience store security camera getting played on the news to illustrate how the place was just robbed by some idiot with a knife.
The fact that there are stupid and desperate criminals out there doesn't mean it isn't worth catching them and teaching them a lesson.
Why is it ok if the government does it but harassment when I do it?
It's like the difference between taxation and mugging.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. This is slashdot and those two are, of course the same thing. Or, rather, taxation is worse, because if yu fight back you will be EXECUTED by the government as all taxation is at the BARREL of a GUN.
Actually I think it's more like trying to get them to steal from the guy down the street rather than you.
I don't really disagree, but then that's paramount to promoting theft--and something I don't think most companies would openly admit to.:) And the UK, of course, takes it to the extreme and tries to make it "steal from the [country] down the [channel] rather than [us]", which is obviously absurd. But, then, that's why I call it all security theater. But, then, in the UK, I guess that'd be security theatre...
If the CCTV cameras do in fact prevent crime (and BTW are therefore not just security theatre) what's wrong with that?
Other than infringing on some imaginary right to commit crimes with assured privacy in public spaces, what is the problem exactly?
But, blah blah blah, Nineteen Eighty Four was a warning not a blueprint, blah blah blah.
And if the guy you really can't stand wins, will it really be the end of the world?
*cough* George W Bush *cough*.
He never quite got to starting a Middle East centred apolcalypse/rapture, but he certainly presided over the introduction of a whole swathe of almost fascist measures.
You're absolutely right, there should be some sort of proportional representation or transferaable vote system, so that you could put Jill Stein first, Obama second, and Mitt Romney nowhere. That would then ensure that your vote wasn't wasted and/or ended up as effectively a vote for Romney.
However, until the system changes, it is still the case that if enough people voted for Jill Stein (or any other non-Republican/Democrat) candidate, there would be momentum away from maintaining the status quo, which there will never be if most people just go on voting for one of the Big Two.
No, I just think that the vast majority of voters are stupid, and the vast majority of candidates are tainted. Also, I am not an American, and in my country, currently, with a bit over a month left until parliamentary elections, there are NO clean candidates. There is NO ONE I would vote for. Here, they are all organized in cliques and there's no way around it. The system is closed tight.
No system is closed that tight. Look at the Arab spring. People had to risk their lives to do it, but in the end democracy and the will of the majority of people will triumph, as long as people aren't lulled by bread and circuses.
Slashdot Mirror
He has a hell of a lot of support amongst the computer-literate and young.
Which proves that being computer-literate and young doesn't prevent you from being gullible.
The guy is just another self-entitled arsehole who thinks that he has a right to make money off other people's work. If you have a philosophical objection to copyright, fine, argue about it as much as you like, boycott the organisations that impose it and press for a change in the law.
But while you're making money off the copyright laws by circumventing them with something like megaupload you're just a con artist, hypocrite and leech.
the billion dollars estimated to have been the value of MegaUpload.
What, on the basis that it would have earned a million dollars a year in advertising revenue for the next thousand years?
I thought he was only worth 200 million?
Who says crime doesn't pay?
How long till you graduate and have to get a job?
What's that got to do with it? I am an adult and have to work like everyody else, that doesn't mean I think everything in life can be reduced to a monetary transaction. Without research the world is doomed, and not all research can be measured by the number of dollars it generates in the short or even medium term.
Some moronic little shit always loves to ridicule the disabled, usually by calling them fat or lazy!
I would love to get one of these exoskeletons to use instead of my scooter.
I think people are generally ridiculing fat, lazy people with nothing wrong with them that a change in diet and some light exercise wouldn't cure. People who are not disabled using mobility scooters do no favours to the genuinely disabled at all.
The DHS is the worst idea to come out of Washington and that's a town that's pretty much only ever generated bad ideas. I'd rather be waterboarded than lift a finger to suport that particular government agency.
I'm sure they could arrange for both if you were worth the effort.
In the UK DHS are a company best known for having continuous "hurry! must end Monday!" bed sales.
It makes it hard to read US stories about spying without giggling.
I live globally and go where the winds of trade take me.
What a wanker.
I once got passed over because the majority of my experience was with C++ rather than the C#. I pointed out that they were both C-style object-oriented languages and that .NET was well enough documented that even with my limited C# experience I could hit the ground running. They were really adamant about their C# .NET though,
You should have found out in advance what they were looking for, boned up on C# and .NET and bullshitted your way through.
Cyber!
a/s/l?
There's no expectation of privacy in public, therefore it's exempt.
Bullshit, that doesn't mean I can just stick my camera up your girlfriend's skirt because she's in public. There are limits.
watching me scratch my balls and walk out of 7-11 with three cases of beer, lottery tickets and an illegally sized Big Gulp
I don't get the Big Gulp reference, but as for the rest, who fucking cares?
Since when is it illegal for someone to videotape people in the street and add the video to his private collection of masturbation materials?
Since when is it ethical for someone to videotape people in the street and add the video to his private collection of masturbation materials?
There's more to life than obeying the law.
new movie:
Tactless in Seattle
He's lucky it's not Toothless in Seatte.
I agree completely. So the question becomes. Why does Slashdot post stories such as this one? It's only going to continue eroding its user base if it keeps on posting click-bait such as this.
Who would bother putting "click-bait" on slashdot when only a tiny minority of people ever read TFA anyway?
This gets modded insightful? In any case where a person responds to a perceived threat, there is a test for reasonableness. You might find a jury that thinks being on camera is threatening enough to require a physical response but its more likely that if you attack a cameraman, you'll find yourself being prosecuted.
I think if you ask someone to stop filming you and they refuse, you are morally within your rights to take direct action. I don't care whether it's "legal" or not.
Incidentally, it's amusing how legalistic slashdotters can get when it comes to real life as opposed to things like copyright infringement, where it's generally "I will do it because I can get away with it".
Security cameras are totally sociopathic (they're inanimate, they have to be). He's behaving like a sociopath in plain view to draw attention to the sociopaths hiding in the corners.
No offence, but if you think inanimate objects have human personality traits you probably need psychiatric help yourself.
Show me a case where surveillance prevented crime? It's always an after thought to catch people sometimes. Criminals know where the cameras are and just avoid them anyways.
You are assuming that all criminals are cool, calculaitng and intelligent. The sort of people who get drunk and attack strangers for looking at them funny in city centres are not, but they still deserve to be caught and punished. And CCTV is actually quite good for that, because even the most stupid and pissed individuals are unlikely to carry out assaults with a couple of policemen watching and taking notes.
Yes, it can be uncomfortable to have your beliefs or your security measures challenged, but sometimes they need to be.
If you want to challenge my beliefs or security measures, you can have a debate or conversation with me if I agree to it. If you just start harrassing me in the street I'll assume you're a criminal or psychotic assailant and take necessary measures to defend myself, up to and including stuffing your camera up your arse.
I hate to tell you this, but a security camera doesn't *prevent* much of anything. It may, depending on the quality of the captured video, make it easier to apprehend the person who 'did wrong', but it won't prevent it. Case in point: any convenience store security camera getting played on the news to illustrate how the place was just robbed by some idiot with a knife.
The fact that there are stupid and desperate criminals out there doesn't mean it isn't worth catching them and teaching them a lesson.
Why is it ok if the government does it but harassment when I do it?
It's like the difference between taxation and mugging.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. This is slashdot and those two are, of course the same thing. Or, rather, taxation is worse, because if yu fight back you will be EXECUTED by the government as all taxation is at the BARREL of a GUN.
I don't really disagree, but then that's paramount to promoting theft--and something I don't think most companies would openly admit to. :) And the UK, of course, takes it to the extreme and tries to make it "steal from the [country] down the [channel] rather than [us]", which is obviously absurd. But, then, that's why I call it all security theater. But, then, in the UK, I guess that'd be security theatre...
If the CCTV cameras do in fact prevent crime (and BTW are therefore not just security theatre) what's wrong with that?
Other than infringing on some imaginary right to commit crimes with assured privacy in public spaces, what is the problem exactly?
But, blah blah blah, Nineteen Eighty Four was a warning not a blueprint, blah blah blah.
And if the guy you really can't stand wins, will it really be the end of the world?
*cough* George W Bush *cough*.
He never quite got to starting a Middle East centred apolcalypse/rapture, but he certainly presided over the introduction of a whole swathe of almost fascist measures.
You're absolutely right, there should be some sort of proportional representation or transferaable vote system, so that you could put Jill Stein first, Obama second, and Mitt Romney nowhere. That would then ensure that your vote wasn't wasted and/or ended up as effectively a vote for Romney.
However, until the system changes, it is still the case that if enough people voted for Jill Stein (or any other non-Republican/Democrat) candidate, there would be momentum away from maintaining the status quo, which there will never be if most people just go on voting for one of the Big Two.
No, I just think that the vast majority of voters are stupid, and the vast majority of candidates are tainted. Also, I am not an American, and in my country, currently, with a bit over a month left until parliamentary elections, there are NO clean candidates. There is NO ONE I would vote for. Here, they are all organized in cliques and there's no way around it. The system is closed tight.
No system is closed that tight. Look at the Arab spring. People had to risk their lives to do it, but in the end democracy and the will of the majority of people will triumph, as long as people aren't lulled by bread and circuses.