So, the parts that I remember about having to earn money and buy various equipment that you used to capture the ghosts is all just because of a bad memory?
So, in addition to there being hijackers on September 11th, there was a shoe bomber that day too? Damn, must have gotten swept under the rug with all the coverage on the bigger incidents. Oh, wait, he did his thing in December? Whoops. Not exactly germane, is it?
So if I am going to take a picture of some friends out on the driveway, I have to angle the shot so that it doesn't get any windows in the frame? If I am going to take a picture of the Empire State Building, do I have to edit it afterwards to obscure the windows before placing out on the web? Because those are kinds of things you are saying that I would have to do.
And it all has been outlined in rather black and white terms; the paprazi's constant hounding of celebrities has seen to that. With the money that celebrities have and the amount of frustration and anger that the paparazi is the (rather deservedly) target of, don't you think that proper legal channels, in regards to cameras, have been tread repeatedly?
This is not one step towards public surveilance, as you submit it to be. It is a one-off shot of the streetscape, no more. If this is morally wrong and reprehensible, then clamor for the proper use of cameras by every other person, and demand the shutdown of sites like Flickr, because they all just aid in this desensitization.
First off, the people are posting their own pictures, hence have consent. Secondly, the pictures are taken outside where there is no expectation of privacy at all.
That is all that Google is doing as well. They took their own pictures. And these pictures were taken outside. Unless someone else took the pictures from inside a place they weren't supposed to be and Google stole them, I don't see how your points apply to the situation at hand.
What I was talking about, in reference to the picutres on Flickr, is the presence of other people in pictures posted there. I can take a picture of Times Square, or an apartment building with cool architecture, and I can almost promise you that there will be people in the picture. If I then post that picture on Flickr, how is it any different that what Google has done?
Ok, let's see here. 1 picture taken versus 2,073,600 a day. That would take a lot of Google vans (or just one British government).
Anyways, you're hyperventilating here. Are you going to get this up in arms with the people on Flickr who post their vacation photos? It is the same thing. Google went for a drive and took pictures to show an experience. That doesn't mean that the van is on constant duty in that city, retreading the same routes and taking new pictures. If it was doing that, then you could make a case that they are documenting lives. But one picture does not warrant the level of paranoia that you are exhibiting.
I'm trying to figure out how the first post can be tagged as redundant. It doesn't work, unless one is taking into account the entire history of posting on/. And if that is the case, then everyone should just start off with (Score:-1, Redundant) to save mods the trouble.
He used the phrase "democrat neocon," not just the word neocon. My thought is that he is talking about someone to the extreme left, for which there is no convenient phrase other than communist and socialist, both of which don't quite fit the bill for what he is trying to state (I think). Perhaps a better word choice would have been "neolib," as it imparts a relation to the term neocon without the confusion of actually using that same word.
You missed the thrust of the post. He was holding Windows up to the same standards we hold other things we purchase up to, like cars, and decided that it fell far short. It only worked, out of the box, for 4 minutes. Meanwhile, for a car, you only have to perform routine maintenance, not install extra seatbelts and bumpers because the originals were no good from the get go.
I think part of the point the author was making is that you have to significantly patch a windows box before it can even think about touching the internet. Meanwhile, with almost all other products, we expect them to work correctly right out of the box. He's just applying the nigh universal standard of quality to Windows, and is showing that it fails. Miserably.
I wish I had mod points, because you would be going up. I'm sorry your post is now lost in the muck of the -1 mods, but all it takes is a couple idiots. There is a reason that I don't filter anything, and this is that reason. Thank you for your post, it cleared up the questions I had about that statistic.
The oversimplification of your comment into just the word funny was an attempt at humor, poking fun at your obtuse attempt at description. Try not to take things so seriously;)
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, Denver was a whole lot more.
So, the parts that I remember about having to earn money and buy various equipment that you used to capture the ghosts is all just because of a bad memory?
You do understand that was what the first game was, right?
Google's got Orkut. MS... dunno. 5% of Facebook or something like that.
So, in addition to there being hijackers on September 11th, there was a shoe bomber that day too? Damn, must have gotten swept under the rug with all the coverage on the bigger incidents. Oh, wait, he did his thing in December? Whoops. Not exactly germane, is it?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/forensics/
Or maybe he did. Your google-fu is weak.
So if I am going to take a picture of some friends out on the driveway, I have to angle the shot so that it doesn't get any windows in the frame? If I am going to take a picture of the Empire State Building, do I have to edit it afterwards to obscure the windows before placing out on the web? Because those are kinds of things you are saying that I would have to do.
And it all has been outlined in rather black and white terms; the paprazi's constant hounding of celebrities has seen to that. With the money that celebrities have and the amount of frustration and anger that the paparazi is the (rather deservedly) target of, don't you think that proper legal channels, in regards to cameras, have been tread repeatedly?
This is not one step towards public surveilance, as you submit it to be. It is a one-off shot of the streetscape, no more. If this is morally wrong and reprehensible, then clamor for the proper use of cameras by every other person, and demand the shutdown of sites like Flickr, because they all just aid in this desensitization.
That is all that Google is doing as well. They took their own pictures. And these pictures were taken outside. Unless someone else took the pictures from inside a place they weren't supposed to be and Google stole them, I don't see how your points apply to the situation at hand.
What I was talking about, in reference to the picutres on Flickr, is the presence of other people in pictures posted there. I can take a picture of Times Square, or an apartment building with cool architecture, and I can almost promise you that there will be people in the picture. If I then post that picture on Flickr, how is it any different that what Google has done?
Ok, let's see here. 1 picture taken versus 2,073,600 a day. That would take a lot of Google vans (or just one British government).
Anyways, you're hyperventilating here. Are you going to get this up in arms with the people on Flickr who post their vacation photos? It is the same thing. Google went for a drive and took pictures to show an experience. That doesn't mean that the van is on constant duty in that city, retreading the same routes and taking new pictures. If it was doing that, then you could make a case that they are documenting lives. But one picture does not warrant the level of paranoia that you are exhibiting.
Because I'm more interested as to who will be on the B stage.
(not so obvious?)
I'm trying to figure out how the first post can be tagged as redundant. It doesn't work, unless one is taking into account the entire history of posting on /. And if that is the case, then everyone should just start off with (Score:-1, Redundant) to save mods the trouble.
Did you enjoy the Derby?
Oh boy, I'll finally be a lvl 4 web developer!
If you have the money, "contract" is actually the better term.
Eh, if you were a true 'leet fanboi, you would have hacked the x86 OSX to run on your athlon.
(What's sad is I have a friend who did just that)
He used the phrase "democrat neocon," not just the word neocon. My thought is that he is talking about someone to the extreme left, for which there is no convenient phrase other than communist and socialist, both of which don't quite fit the bill for what he is trying to state (I think). Perhaps a better word choice would have been "neolib," as it imparts a relation to the term neocon without the confusion of actually using that same word.
Its a Waaaaaaahmbulance, you dummy.
Apparently, you are a teet.
Maybe it is related to Gore TV? You know, the cable station that has a lot of Google branding?
It will be interesting to see how they combine the two mediums, no matter what the results are.
You missed the thrust of the post. He was holding Windows up to the same standards we hold other things we purchase up to, like cars, and decided that it fell far short. It only worked, out of the box, for 4 minutes. Meanwhile, for a car, you only have to perform routine maintenance, not install extra seatbelts and bumpers because the originals were no good from the get go.
I think part of the point the author was making is that you have to significantly patch a windows box before it can even think about touching the internet. Meanwhile, with almost all other products, we expect them to work correctly right out of the box. He's just applying the nigh universal standard of quality to Windows, and is showing that it fails. Miserably.
So you are saying that the media has done its job in presenting an overly biased and slanted representation of the situation in Iraq?
I wish I had mod points, because you would be going up. I'm sorry your post is now lost in the muck of the -1 mods, but all it takes is a couple idiots. There is a reason that I don't filter anything, and this is that reason. Thank you for your post, it cleared up the questions I had about that statistic.
Sarcasm. Missed. Yes.
;)
The oversimplification of your comment into just the word funny was an attempt at humor, poking fun at your obtuse attempt at description. Try not to take things so seriously
it's postmodern surrealist anti-humor
What ever happened to something being just funny?