No the rich and powerful don't get their way. Look at the general trend of history. As more and more information is available for technological reasons (printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, tv, internet, plus railroads, cars, and airplanes), the rich and powerful lose some of their power and the usefulness of their riches decreases. 100 or 200 years ago, wealth bought basic health, such as a warm house and clean water.
When webcams are dirt cheap and sold by the pound, they can only be stopped by stopping technology itself. The War on (Some) Drugs could only be won in an extreme dictatorship, something Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't accomplish. It would take something more extreme yet to stop technology.
New to this world? Never heard anyone speak of any organization's institutional history or memory? Playing dumb because using your brain is too much work?
It gave each state a veto over all federal legislation, indeed over every other state's own internal legislation. If any state didn't like what the federal government or any other state government was doing, it could threaten to secede.
One of the main arguments for secession was by South Carolina. They didn't like the high tariffs imposed by the majority, claimed that every individual state had the power to veto federal legislation, and threatened to secede if tariffs were enforced in South Carolina. There was a nasty undercurrent to this. The main source of income for the federal government of the time was tariffs. Part of South Carolina's plan was to force a small ineffective federal government on the rest of the nation by vetoing its income source thruout the nation.
That's no way to run any organization, let alone a government.
Look at the original articles of confederation from the 1776 revolution which proved to be so unworkable that they were replaced by the 1789 constitution. One of the main complaints was that the national government had almost no powers of its own, especially taxes. All its revenue came from donations by the individual states. It simply did not work, and the federal government of the 1789 constitution was the preferred result. Secession as threatened by South Carolina would have destroyed that. Secession as practiced by the confederacy did try to destroy the constitution. And the confederacy was just as hypocritical as any bunch of politicians; they put down more than a few rebellions of their own from counties that wanted no part of the war for slavery.
Secession as proposed by the New England states in 1815 was slightly better -- they wanted negotiations, not outright unilateral secession. But it still would have destroyed the union by imposing a veto on the nation.
Right, I even bought a copy of Transparent Society or whatever the book was called (loaned it out and haven't seen it for several years). But IIRC, his emphasis was on having public access to all government cameras so the public could watch the watchers.
Seems to me the proliferation of public webcams will make it a moot point. I expect government cameras to fade from existence as they become obsolete and wear out (or are vandalized). The cops won't even watch the public cameras, there will be so many civilians doing it for free.
He was probably our greatest American president ever
Very much so, and he was a hell of a killer too. As a percentage of population, Lincoln killed more Americans than all the rest of the US Presidents combined and by a fairly wide margin.
If you make that assertion because you think he was responsible for the entire war, think again. The hotheads in the south who seceded before he even took the oath of office, and the even hotter heads in South Carolina who started the fighting -- those are the idiots who started the war.
The parent post certainly expresses what we today consider racist opinions, but they are what Lincoln thought, they are a direct response to its parent post, and it is not a troll.
Mods -- just because history is racist does not make reports on history racist.
These things are inevitable. Ubiquitous *civilian* surveillance is unstoppable, but you, by the government, by lawsuits, utterly and irrevocably unstoppable. It matters not a whit what you or I or anyone else thinks about it personally. Read up on King Canute for further details on the usefulness of trying to stop it.
I'm an old fart. Knowing my car is going to be tracked gives me the willies, just as knowing the NSA is reading all my emails and IMs, listening to all my phone calls, and watching all my web surfing.
But look. It can't be prevented. Cameras are getting to be so small and cheap, and computing power is so ubiquitous, that it won't be long, a decade or two at the most, before 90% of the population has a full time camera as their collar button, broadcasting to a public server and archived for posterity, and every bozo that wants to will be able to see anything desired.
I am serious about this. It cannot be stopped.
But rather than gripe about something that cannot be stopped, I think about the consequences, and I tell you what, I think it will end up in greater freedom. Let's take this to an extreme. Suppose they can issue automatic speeding tickets to every car which passes cameras too quickly. They'll be issuing speeding tickets to half the cars out there. This obviously can't be handled the same as now -- they'd be suspending every driver within days or weeks.
They will have to come up with an alternative, which I guess to be raising speed limits to something reasonable such that much less than 1% of licenses are suspended every year, and speeding will turn into minor revenue sources -- you want to get somewhere faster? Pay a buck or two more, or $5 more, and no points, no fines, no problem.
Or consider the privacy problem. I sure don't like knowing I will be tracked everywhere I go. But consider what happens when everyone is tracked by everyone's cameras. It will apply to **everyone**, including the rich and famous, not just ordinary blokes. The billions of publicly available fully archived webcams will quickly outnumber politically controlled government cameras.
Remember, there will be public broadcasts of billions of webcams, nice high resolution ones, with plenty of archival storage. Want to know who met with your local politician just before that vote change to help a huge contractor? Programs will abound which will search archives for specific individuals or cars, or just go to the politician's and contractor's houses, go back thru the archive til you find them, follow them backwards -- when they disappear off one webcam, there will be dozens or hundreds already picking up the trail.
Just as the gun equalized "might makes right", eliminating the advantage of lots of idle time for sword practice which peasants didn't have, this ubiquitous surveillance will equalize anonymity. Ordinary people don't have much of it now; the rich and powerful do. In a decade or two, they won't have it either.
When there are billions of webcams to choose from for your own idle pleasure or to target your computer search programs on, who would you rather see -- your neighbors who you already see all day, or Donald Trump? The rich and powerful have far more to lose than ordinary folk.
We will *ALL* live in a small town where nobody can hide anything. I relish that thought and think it a damned fine tradeoff for loss of privacy.
No, silly second troll, it means the first troll was exaggerating to the point of lying. But I suppose if lying for the greater good is ok with you, then you can't see the difference.
The only fraud was submitting fake registrations. There is not the slightest evidence of any actual voter fraud. In other words, the registrations were faked to get the registration income, not to vote.
I tend to think you tend to overuse "tend", but that's just a human tendency after all, and I myself tend to follow in many human tendencies after all.
But after all is said and done, I tend to understand you after all.
He's asking whether he should continue the patent process which costs $10K, and which potentially covers the new protocol. That involves the patent lawyer, and that is why he needs to continue talking to the patent lawyer instead of random/. strangers.
For practical engineering purposes the gravity well of the moon is weak enough to not be a problem for the transportation of materials off it's surface.
You mean, it's less than earth and that makes it less of a problem, but it's still a gravity well, and your wishing it away won't make it so.
Asteroids do have gravity obviously but almost nothing due to their size.
I asked about asteroids having different orbits and being a long ways away. It's not just the orbital planes being different, but there are speed differences.
There's no way shipping ANYTHING up from the gravity well would allow us to build a ship of this nature within any reasonable time frame with the exception of using absolutely huge space elevators.
*THE* gravity well?
The moon has one too. Asteroids have a different but similar problem in being so far away and having such different orbital mechanics.
This is a very poor choice of words. China is hugely developed. It's not some backwater peasant village. China has over fifty cities with a population of 1 million or more, and Shanghai is the fourth most populated city in the world and absolutely dwarfs most American cities in size.
This is a very poor choice of statistics. The size of cities doesn't make a country developed. What percentage of the population lives in cities, how many on farms? How many jobs are unskilled manual labor? Surely you could come up with better statistics if you believed in your proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
No the rich and powerful don't get their way. Look at the general trend of history. As more and more information is available for technological reasons (printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, tv, internet, plus railroads, cars, and airplanes), the rich and powerful lose some of their power and the usefulness of their riches decreases. 100 or 200 years ago, wealth bought basic health, such as a warm house and clean water.
When webcams are dirt cheap and sold by the pound, they can only be stopped by stopping technology itself. The War on (Some) Drugs could only be won in an extreme dictatorship, something Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't accomplish. It would take something more extreme yet to stop technology.
New to this world? Never heard anyone speak of any organization's institutional history or memory? Playing dumb because using your brain is too much work?
Why is secession wrong?
It gave each state a veto over all federal legislation, indeed over every other state's own internal legislation. If any state didn't like what the federal government or any other state government was doing, it could threaten to secede.
One of the main arguments for secession was by South Carolina. They didn't like the high tariffs imposed by the majority, claimed that every individual state had the power to veto federal legislation, and threatened to secede if tariffs were enforced in South Carolina. There was a nasty undercurrent to this. The main source of income for the federal government of the time was tariffs. Part of South Carolina's plan was to force a small ineffective federal government on the rest of the nation by vetoing its income source thruout the nation.
That's no way to run any organization, let alone a government.
Look at the original articles of confederation from the 1776 revolution which proved to be so unworkable that they were replaced by the 1789 constitution. One of the main complaints was that the national government had almost no powers of its own, especially taxes. All its revenue came from donations by the individual states. It simply did not work, and the federal government of the 1789 constitution was the preferred result. Secession as threatened by South Carolina would have destroyed that. Secession as practiced by the confederacy did try to destroy the constitution. And the confederacy was just as hypocritical as any bunch of politicians; they put down more than a few rebellions of their own from counties that wanted no part of the war for slavery.
Secession as proposed by the New England states in 1815 was slightly better -- they wanted negotiations, not outright unilateral secession. But it still would have destroyed the union by imposing a veto on the nation.
Right, I even bought a copy of Transparent Society or whatever the book was called (loaned it out and haven't seen it for several years). But IIRC, his emphasis was on having public access to all government cameras so the public could watch the watchers.
Seems to me the proliferation of public webcams will make it a moot point. I expect government cameras to fade from existence as they become obsolete and wear out (or are vandalized). The cops won't even watch the public cameras, there will be so many civilians doing it for free.
He was probably our greatest American president ever
Very much so, and he was a hell of a killer too. As a percentage of population, Lincoln killed more Americans than all the rest of the US Presidents combined and by a fairly wide margin.
If you make that assertion because you think he was responsible for the entire war, think again. The hotheads in the south who seceded before he even took the oath of office, and the even hotter heads in South Carolina who started the fighting -- those are the idiots who started the war.
The south is especialy culpable because 50 years before during the War of 1812, when the New England states tried to open negotitations with the national government on seceding, the south was foremost in calling it treason. 50 years later they decided treason was perfectly fine.
The parent post certainly expresses what we today consider racist opinions, but they are what Lincoln thought, they are a direct response to its parent post, and it is not a troll.
Mods -- just because history is racist does not make reports on history racist.
These things are inevitable. Ubiquitous *civilian* surveillance is unstoppable, but you, by the government, by lawsuits, utterly and irrevocably unstoppable. It matters not a whit what you or I or anyone else thinks about it personally. Read up on King Canute for further details on the usefulness of trying to stop it.
I'm an old fart. Knowing my car is going to be tracked gives me the willies, just as knowing the NSA is reading all my emails and IMs, listening to all my phone calls, and watching all my web surfing.
But look. It can't be prevented. Cameras are getting to be so small and cheap, and computing power is so ubiquitous, that it won't be long, a decade or two at the most, before 90% of the population has a full time camera as their collar button, broadcasting to a public server and archived for posterity, and every bozo that wants to will be able to see anything desired.
I am serious about this. It cannot be stopped.
But rather than gripe about something that cannot be stopped, I think about the consequences, and I tell you what, I think it will end up in greater freedom. Let's take this to an extreme. Suppose they can issue automatic speeding tickets to every car which passes cameras too quickly. They'll be issuing speeding tickets to half the cars out there. This obviously can't be handled the same as now -- they'd be suspending every driver within days or weeks.
They will have to come up with an alternative, which I guess to be raising speed limits to something reasonable such that much less than 1% of licenses are suspended every year, and speeding will turn into minor revenue sources -- you want to get somewhere faster? Pay a buck or two more, or $5 more, and no points, no fines, no problem.
Or consider the privacy problem. I sure don't like knowing I will be tracked everywhere I go. But consider what happens when everyone is tracked by everyone's cameras. It will apply to **everyone**, including the rich and famous, not just ordinary blokes. The billions of publicly available fully archived webcams will quickly outnumber politically controlled government cameras.
Remember, there will be public broadcasts of billions of webcams, nice high resolution ones, with plenty of archival storage. Want to know who met with your local politician just before that vote change to help a huge contractor? Programs will abound which will search archives for specific individuals or cars, or just go to the politician's and contractor's houses, go back thru the archive til you find them, follow them backwards -- when they disappear off one webcam, there will be dozens or hundreds already picking up the trail.
Just as the gun equalized "might makes right", eliminating the advantage of lots of idle time for sword practice which peasants didn't have, this ubiquitous surveillance will equalize anonymity. Ordinary people don't have much of it now; the rich and powerful do. In a decade or two, they won't have it either.
When there are billions of webcams to choose from for your own idle pleasure or to target your computer search programs on, who would you rather see -- your neighbors who you already see all day, or Donald Trump? The rich and powerful have far more to lose than ordinary folk.
We will *ALL* live in a small town where nobody can hide anything. I relish that thought and think it a damned fine tradeoff for loss of privacy.
There isn't time to analyze a HUD or listen to audio. A solenoid whacking your ribs will trigger instinctive reflexes.
Did you see something saying "detected by sound"? I didn't.
No, silly second troll, it means the first troll was exaggerating to the point of lying. But I suppose if lying for the greater good is ok with you, then you can't see the difference.
The only fraud was submitting fake registrations. There is not the slightest evidence of any actual voter fraud. In other words, the registrations were faked to get the registration income, not to vote.
I tend to think you tend to overuse "tend", but that's just a human tendency after all, and I myself tend to follow in many human tendencies after all.
But after all is said and done, I tend to understand you after all.
perl -e 'print localtime(1234567890) ."\n";'
Let the "." concatenate operator do it for you.
It's hard to say for sure, but it looks like an open jar in the picture.
Methinks you are trolling, either indirectly via your boss or by making up the boss story too.
Whoosh!
There, fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you. Grammer nazi's suck!
He's asking whether he should continue the patent process which costs $10K, and which potentially covers the new protocol. That involves the patent lawyer, and that is why he needs to continue talking to the patent lawyer instead of random /. strangers.
Your company presumably has one. You know damned well it's a waste getting any legal advice from /. so why bother?
TALK TO YOUR DAMNED PATENT LAWYER!
Maybe if you had a couple of pop bottles and a way to mine Mentos on the moon.
Moon ... Mine ... Mento .... mmm good!
For practical engineering purposes the gravity well of the moon is weak enough to not be a problem for the transportation of materials off it's surface.
You mean, it's less than earth and that makes it less of a problem, but it's still a gravity well, and your wishing it away won't make it so.
Asteroids do have gravity obviously but almost nothing due to their size.
I asked about asteroids having different orbits and being a long ways away. It's not just the orbital planes being different, but there are speed differences.
A lot of energy to expend in both places.
There's no way shipping ANYTHING up from the gravity well would allow us to build a ship of this nature within any reasonable time frame with the exception of using absolutely huge space elevators.
*THE* gravity well?
The moon has one too. Asteroids have a different but similar problem in being so far away and having such different orbital mechanics.
What exactly are you proposing?
Get a grip, AC. It is not remarks about political forces that get censored, but remarks such as that made by Stormwatch about the Thai monarchy.
I dunno know abut that. Get enough rambunctious independent thinking foreigners in there and it might just be the place to be.
This is a very poor choice of words. China is hugely developed. It's not some backwater peasant village. China has over fifty cities with a population of 1 million or more, and Shanghai is the fourth most populated city in the world and absolutely dwarfs most American cities in size.
This is a very poor choice of statistics. The size of cities doesn't make a country developed. What percentage of the population lives in cities, how many on farms? How many jobs are unskilled manual labor? Surely you could come up with better statistics if you believed in your proposition.