well, i guess hp would resort to all kinds of stupid lawsuits. their technical value seems to be smaller and smaller. right now i'm in an email exchange with their support about a laptop hanging in bios with a specific usb flashdrive attached. i keep getting replies that say something about "not enough power because drivers are available in windows"...
somehow i feel that would be much better than making these topics taboos. then you can wave one topic and have anything passed in the legislative process.
let's turn around your examples. "how to prevent somebody from stealing a laptop", "how to engineer a society that can withstand and prevent/reduce begging/rape/murder". to understand these topics one must understand cause and be able to discuss them, not shut down going la-la-la.
also, this is an interesting and serious enough of a topic, should not have been on idle.
i'm less concerned about sitting still, but more about "The interface is based on ultrasound technology and allows the user to remain in an unchanged state." part.
are there solutions that require changing state to/from solid/liquid/gas ?
they might as well be all crazy, but the question is - why is that location obscured in every satellite photo ? all kinds of secret bases, icbm sites and other locations can be seen. not this one:)
obscured area in _all_ sattellite images, american, russian, whatever.
technical glitch, distraction or something important ? slashdot to the rescue ! (well, maybe. judging by some sources of information even the locals have no idea what's there)
that. proper ventilation will (should) solve problems with humidity and non-fresh air.
i recall watching about a homeowner in finland who had built extremely heat conserving house. very thick & packed walls & doors, 3 or more pane windows and lots of other stuff. he claimed that a few people + a few candles could keep the house in a comfortable temperature even at quite low temperatures. my google-fu fails me to find more information on that, but it was something i considered interesting to do if i had lots of spare initial money:)
i haven't bought a game on a physical medium for quite some time now (and i haven't had the time to play games for quite some time now...), but when we did (quite often pooling the resources to get a present for a friend), it was possible to bring the game back if it was really bad (constant crashing or other problems). while shops would not give refunds, they would give another game. we did not abuse this, usually games were returned after a few days, not few years:)
be careful with intel as well. their offerings often have open source drivers... that don't work.
the kms switch resulted in absolute majority of distributions not working on many systems with intel graphics chips in gui mode - at all ! unless you went with vesa driver or something.
i was burned quite bad by intel videochip (onboard one for i5) not working in suse, fedora, kubuntu and several other distros tried on it. i'm still hearing reports on latest distros not working on some intel video cards.
your exaggerated example would probably be something along the lines of libel/slander/whatever - consult your lawyer.
as for "should choose not to do", it is important to understand two things :
1. reasons to choose not to; 2. reasons to choose to do so.
in this case it's somebody's desire to control all pictures where their house might appear vs a quite dangerous precedent and mindset.
just reducing this to "you should not because i say so !" is not a valid argument, and it completely ignores the second part, which, i believe, is much more dangerous in the long run.
but then they pretty much gain the ability to censor any image that their house happens to be on... and we're back on square one - the right to take photos in a public place and share them.
and the reasons might as well be to :
a) raise the awareness of the "freedom of photography"; b) prevent this case from becoming a precedent in future censorship attempts;
etc. and i believe these reasons are much better and much more important than your simplistic "asshole" position.
because the laws don't say so ?:) you most likely own the project/technical drawings of the house (depends on your agreements with architect and others), but you don't own the look of things that are viewable from public locations. while i might agree that grabbing a photo of somebody's house and using that in a commercial would not be a very nice thing, i'm not even sure that would be illegal.
this is about a compromise - privacy vs public place. you chose to have a house in a place that can be viewed from a public location. you chose a fence that allows it to be seen from the said location. in this case, and i agree with that, the right to take a photo from a public place trumps your desire to keep it to yourself.
a view that can be seen from a public place is not something you can copyright, so essentially just looking at your house is the same as taking a photo of it and distributing it - you are not chasing everybody who passes down the street and screaming at them if they dare to stare at the direction of your house, do you ?
i'm in the same position, with a house visible from a public place and easily photographable. yeah, in a couple of locations i've taken measures to limit visibility by having raised ground or some bushes/trees, but that was to limit visibility of persons inside the properties, the house can still be easily photographed. and if somebody did ? i don't believe i have the right to prohibit that or limit them in any way. if they started taking photos of people inside the property - that's crossing the line of privacy where i would object.
also, as i mentioned before, i would prefer somebody looking at a photo of my house instead of standing on the street in front of it and staring for days;)
wouldn't a person who tries to restrict and censor the right to take photos in public places be a "douche bag" ? you know, all those private security officers, policemen and other assholes we have been discussing in previous/. articles who have been harassing photographers ?
this sounds like the only piece of sane objection in this whole discussion:) unfortunately, that has not been the main argument, and has not been mentioned as one. in such a case, i'd expect the photographer to do a service to those people then by taking photos from street level.
anyway, how high actually _is_ google camera ? is it really that much higher than some 2.30 m above the ground ? (or maybe some people want to prevent tall persons from passing their properties).
shouldn't you be the one deciding where to live, taking into account local laws, and working towards changing them if they don't suit you ? if others are exercising their right to take photos in public places, why should _they_ try to change some building code or other local laws somewhere ? and talking about a difference is a bit weird imho. i might take a photo of your house and look at it for days. maybe i want to have a window layout like yours, hopefully that can't be copyrighted. frankly speaking, i'd prefer somebody take a picture of my house to look at it than standing in front of my house for days and staring at it. in the second case i would probably go outside and ask them whether i could help them in any way:)
back to fences, if you were allowed to build such a fence, would you actually ? you probably have seen such places - would you really want to live in a such place ? if not, you would choose to have your place visible from the outside, and outside visible from your place. if you would, wouldn't you turn around later and protest to somebody taking a photograph of your fence to show how stupid it looks ?:)
but why would he be an asshole ? he is pointing out that some homeowners are acting the same as overzealous private guards that harass photographers or cops who "don't like" to be photographed. these homeowners are actually doing the same - trying to limit the right to take photos in public places. and this person is trying to work against that. as a homeowner i would object to photos of my house being published only if there were some people visible (or maybe a car or some other movable object that could be considered distributing information about whereabouts of some person). i don't think i have the right to tell others what they might or might not do with photos taken in a public place that might include my house.
is your house visible from a public location, like a street ? do you try to prevent people passing on the street from looking in the direction of your house ? you may care, and it may matter, but only to the border of your property. if somebody enters your property to take photos, it is a problem and those photos should not be published. if somebody takes a photo from a street, it might be because they like the colour or architecture of your house, it might be the house number or name for mapping purposes, it might also be something behind your house. if the view is visible from a public place, it can be taken a photo of. now, if in such photos people inside the house or other premises are visible, it would be a reasonable request to remove such detail, and such request should be obeyed without any objections.
if _people_ opt out, i don't think that is an issue. if buildings start opting out, then we do have an issue.
the main issue here is the ability to take photos in public places and share them. we've read too many articles about problems with that, and i have been stopped by overzealous home owner for taking a photo of his housenumber (for openstreetmap purposes). public place is a public place. if you want to shield yourself, build a fence that can not be seen through. some people do that, although it looks more like a prison to me. i will argue for privacy, but i will also argue for freedom of photography and sharing.
...so ? i can understand (and support) requests to blur/remove people, cars or other objects. immovable objects, visible from public locations, should not be targets for revisionism.
i have no idea what gfwl is, and i haven't really used windows for some 8 years... but let me say that age of empires was my favourite rts game. and i don't have that many games i would list as my favourite:)
frankly, ms fucked up with aoe3. aoe 1&2 were 2d, simplistic controls, allowed for quite prolonged games with large scale cities & armies etc. aoe3... half-baked 3d with performance problems and visual glitches, more like rpg than rts at times, very attack oriented (defensive strategies were pretty much nonexistent etc). so in a way i don't believe they will make something i might be interested in anyway:)
but aoe2... damn, this made me want to run it in wine and waste an hour or so. that's how great it was:)
interestingly, another game i could name as my favourite also was completely messed up in version 3 while ruling the scene in version 1 & somewhat in version 2 as well - carmageddon. version 3 was more like crappy fps with main hero having wheels attached...
High speed rail has none of the big downsides of air travel like the need to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight to check in, the need to pass through 3 layers of security, bans on liquids and other things, cramped seats etc.
Now obviously trains cant compete with long-haul air travel such as New York to LA
actually, if you factor in the first sentence i quoted in the second one... maybe they can:)
5. drop the iris scanner you planned to throw at the attacker next so you can run faster. for bonus points look at it for a moment, then scream "zomg, it's gonna BLOW UP" before dropping it.
trivial crime rates and large part of population in prisons. it's a bit sad that you have to compare world's most advanced country to the one that can't really hold together on its own;)
Slashdot Mirror
hehe. "you wanted facepalm ? face palm now."
well, i guess hp would resort to all kinds of stupid lawsuits. their technical value seems to be smaller and smaller. right now i'm in an email exchange with their support about a laptop hanging in bios with a specific usb flashdrive attached. i keep getting replies that say something about "not enough power because drivers are available in windows"...
maybe they should rename themselves to facepalm
somehow i feel that would be much better than making these topics taboos. then you can wave one topic and have anything passed in the legislative process.
let's turn around your examples. "how to prevent somebody from stealing a laptop", "how to engineer a society that can withstand and prevent/reduce begging/rape/murder". to understand these topics one must understand cause and be able to discuss them, not shut down going la-la-la.
also, this is an interesting and serious enough of a topic, should not have been on idle.
i'm less concerned about sitting still, but more about "The interface is based on ultrasound technology and allows the user to remain in an unchanged state." part.
are there solutions that require changing state to/from solid/liquid/gas ?
they might as well be all crazy, but the question is - why is that location obscured in every satellite photo ? :)
all kinds of secret bases, icbm sites and other locations can be seen. not this one
phew, that's nothing. try http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=421694 ;)
obscured area in _all_ sattellite images, american, russian, whatever.
technical glitch, distraction or something important ? slashdot to the rescue ! (well, maybe. judging by some sources of information even the locals have no idea what's there)
that. proper ventilation will (should) solve problems with humidity and non-fresh air.
i recall watching about a homeowner in finland who had built extremely heat conserving house. very thick & packed walls & doors, 3 or more pane windows and lots of other stuff. he claimed that a few people + a few candles could keep the house in a comfortable temperature even at quite low temperatures. :)
my google-fu fails me to find more information on that, but it was something i considered interesting to do if i had lots of spare initial money
it also sounds like you really, really don't have any unemployment problems in usa. at least none serious enough to solve.
if you can't find people willing to do a job, you have the opposite problem of unemployment.
they had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Enterprise_Linux
well... not really "their own", more like they "borrowed" it :)
i haven't bought a game on a physical medium for quite some time now (and i haven't had the time to play games for quite some time now...), but when we did (quite often pooling the resources to get a present for a friend), it was possible to bring the game back if it was really bad (constant crashing or other problems). while shops would not give refunds, they would give another game. we did not abuse this, usually games were returned after a few days, not few years :)
be careful with intel as well. their offerings often have open source drivers... that don't work.
the kms switch resulted in absolute majority of distributions not working on many systems with intel graphics chips in gui mode - at all !
unless you went with vesa driver or something.
i was burned quite bad by intel videochip (onboard one for i5) not working in suse, fedora, kubuntu and several other distros tried on it. i'm still hearing reports on latest distros not working on some intel video cards.
your exaggerated example would probably be something along the lines of libel/slander/whatever - consult your lawyer.
as for "should choose not to do", it is important to understand two things :
1. reasons to choose not to;
2. reasons to choose to do so.
in this case it's somebody's desire to control all pictures where their house might appear vs a quite dangerous precedent and mindset.
just reducing this to "you should not because i say so !" is not a valid argument, and it completely ignores the second part, which, i believe, is much more dangerous in the long run.
but then they pretty much gain the ability to censor any image that their house happens to be on... and we're back on square one - the right to take photos in a public place and share them.
and the reasons might as well be to :
a) raise the awareness of the "freedom of photography";
b) prevent this case from becoming a precedent in future censorship attempts;
etc. and i believe these reasons are much better and much more important than your simplistic "asshole" position.
because the laws don't say so ? :)
you most likely own the project/technical drawings of the house (depends on your agreements with architect and others), but you don't own the look of things that are viewable from public locations.
while i might agree that grabbing a photo of somebody's house and using that in a commercial would not be a very nice thing, i'm not even sure that would be illegal.
this is about a compromise - privacy vs public place. you chose to have a house in a place that can be viewed from a public location. you chose a fence that allows it to be seen from the said location. in this case, and i agree with that, the right to take a photo from a public place trumps your desire to keep it to yourself.
a view that can be seen from a public place is not something you can copyright, so essentially just looking at your house is the same as taking a photo of it and distributing it - you are not chasing everybody who passes down the street and screaming at them if they dare to stare at the direction of your house, do you ?
i'm in the same position, with a house visible from a public place and easily photographable. yeah, in a couple of locations i've taken measures to limit visibility by having raised ground or some bushes/trees, but that was to limit visibility of persons inside the properties, the house can still be easily photographed.
and if somebody did ? i don't believe i have the right to prohibit that or limit them in any way.
if they started taking photos of people inside the property - that's crossing the line of privacy where i would object.
also, as i mentioned before, i would prefer somebody looking at a photo of my house instead of standing on the street in front of it and staring for days ;)
wouldn't a person who tries to restrict and censor the right to take photos in public places be a "douche bag" ? /. articles who have been harassing photographers ?
you know, all those private security officers, policemen and other assholes we have been discussing in previous
this sounds like the only piece of sane objection in this whole discussion :)
unfortunately, that has not been the main argument, and has not been mentioned as one.
in such a case, i'd expect the photographer to do a service to those people then by taking photos from street level.
anyway, how high actually _is_ google camera ? is it really that much higher than some 2.30 m above the ground ? (or maybe some people want to prevent tall persons from passing their properties).
shouldn't you be the one deciding where to live, taking into account local laws, and working towards changing them if they don't suit you ? :)
if others are exercising their right to take photos in public places, why should _they_ try to change some building code or other local laws somewhere ?
and talking about a difference is a bit weird imho. i might take a photo of your house and look at it for days. maybe i want to have a window layout like yours, hopefully that can't be copyrighted.
frankly speaking, i'd prefer somebody take a picture of my house to look at it than standing in front of my house for days and staring at it. in the second case i would probably go outside and ask them whether i could help them in any way
back to fences, if you were allowed to build such a fence, would you actually ? you probably have seen such places - would you really want to live in a such place ? :)
if not, you would choose to have your place visible from the outside, and outside visible from your place.
if you would, wouldn't you turn around later and protest to somebody taking a photograph of your fence to show how stupid it looks ?
but why would he be an asshole ?
he is pointing out that some homeowners are acting the same as overzealous private guards that harass photographers or cops who "don't like" to be photographed.
these homeowners are actually doing the same - trying to limit the right to take photos in public places. and this person is trying to work against that.
as a homeowner i would object to photos of my house being published only if there were some people visible (or maybe a car or some other movable object that could be considered distributing information about whereabouts of some person).
i don't think i have the right to tell others what they might or might not do with photos taken in a public place that might include my house.
is your house visible from a public location, like a street ? do you try to prevent people passing on the street from looking in the direction of your house ?
you may care, and it may matter, but only to the border of your property. if somebody enters your property to take photos, it is a problem and those photos should not be published.
if somebody takes a photo from a street, it might be because they like the colour or architecture of your house, it might be the house number or name for mapping purposes, it might also be something behind your house. if the view is visible from a public place, it can be taken a photo of.
now, if in such photos people inside the house or other premises are visible, it would be a reasonable request to remove such detail, and such request should be obeyed without any objections.
if _people_ opt out, i don't think that is an issue. if buildings start opting out, then we do have an issue.
the main issue here is the ability to take photos in public places and share them. we've read too many articles about problems with that, and i have been stopped by overzealous home owner for taking a photo of his housenumber (for openstreetmap purposes).
public place is a public place. if you want to shield yourself, build a fence that can not be seen through. some people do that, although it looks more like a prison to me.
i will argue for privacy, but i will also argue for freedom of photography and sharing.
...so ?
i can understand (and support) requests to blur/remove people, cars or other objects. immovable objects, visible from public locations, should not be targets for revisionism.
i have no idea what gfwl is, and i haven't really used windows for some 8 years... but let me say that age of empires was my favourite rts game. and i don't have that many games i would list as my favourite :)
frankly, ms fucked up with aoe3. aoe 1&2 were 2d, simplistic controls, allowed for quite prolonged games with large scale cities & armies etc. aoe3... half-baked 3d with performance problems and visual glitches, more like rpg than rts at times, very attack oriented (defensive strategies were pretty much nonexistent etc). so in a way i don't believe they will make something i might be interested in anyway :)
but aoe2... damn, this made me want to run it in wine and waste an hour or so. that's how great it was :)
interestingly, another game i could name as my favourite also was completely messed up in version 3 while ruling the scene in version 1 & somewhat in version 2 as well - carmageddon. version 3 was more like crappy fps with main hero having wheels attached...
High speed rail has none of the big downsides of air travel like the need to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight to check in, the need to pass through 3 layers of security, bans on liquids and other things, cramped seats etc.
Now obviously trains cant compete with long-haul air travel such as New York to LA
actually, if you factor in the first sentence i quoted in the second one... maybe they can :)
5. drop the iris scanner you planned to throw at the attacker next so you can run faster. for bonus points look at it for a moment, then scream "zomg, it's gonna BLOW UP" before dropping it.
trivial crime rates and large part of population in prisons. it's a bit sad that you have to compare world's most advanced country to the one that can't really hold together on its own ;)