True, but if you want to record a cover version you only have to purchase a mechanical license - the price is fixed by law, so the copyright holder can't charge an unreasonable fee or prevent you from using the composition.
But...that was your savings to begin with. Copyright, on the other hand, is something that you only have because society has granted it to you in the first place.
If phenotypic plasticity could affect the development of sperm cells, would it provide a plausible mechanism for Lamarckian evolution? For example, could environmental factors affect the concentration of proteins that might influence the crossover process during meiosis? Might this explain why sperm are produced continuously rather than being produced before birth and stored, like eggs?
If the machine used commodity hardware, you could be fairly confident that the correct software was running by verifying the disk image before and after the election. Hardware tampering would still be possible, but surely it would be harder to carry out and easier to detect than software tampering?
On the contrary, cement production adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than the airline industry. (Source) The production of 1 tonne of cement clinker results in the generation of: ~535 kg "process" CO2 from the calcination of limestone; 375 kg CO2 from fuel used in the kiln; and 70kg CO2 "indirect" emissions from the electricity used. (Source)
Would you go up to the gawker and punch them? I didn't think so.
The gawker would feel social pressure from myself and others not to behave intrusively, and if they carried on following me without a good reason I might eventually call the police.
It's not compulsory to act different just because someone is watching you. The porn industry proves that.
The porn industry proves no such thing - do you think porn stars really behave that way 24 hours a day? They're acting for the camera.
As for whether it's compulsory to react to the presence of a camera, I think you have an unrealistic view about the power of the will to control emotional and instinctive reactions. But even if you're right, the same should apply to the masked man - you could just choose to go on about your daily business as if he wasn't there. Do you think you'd be able to do so? I don't - I think the knowledge that we're being watched and recorded affects our behaviour, even if we weren't doing anything illegal.
I can see cameras zoom and pan when they operate, can't you?
Many cameras are covered by dark plastic domes so you can't see which way they're pointing. Most of them are located above your normal eyeline so you wouldn't see them unless you're constantly looking around, and of course half the cameras that can see you will be behind you, on average.
Your vocabulary word for today is Sousveillance.
Thanks, yours in Condescension.
LOL, if you think you're ever going to have a symmetrical power relationship with the Power Elite, I have a bridge up East I'd like to sell you.
So there's no point trying to attain even a small amount of liberty, equality or autonomy? You're almost cynical enough to pass for British.;-)
People are only being treated that way by CCTV if they're doing something suspicious.
That's your assumption, but in most cases you can't see what the camera's looking at. How would you feel about a camera operator watching your mother or sister for ten minutes because he found her attractive?
Like the article said, 1 camera for every 14 people.
On a crowded street, each camera captures more than 14 people at a time. Anyway, would you be happy to be followed by a masked man for one day every two weeks? Do you think you'd behave differently on that day?
Yeah, it's exactly what other pedestrians do when you're walking around in public right now. They see you as you pass by, may turn to look if you're doing something interesting, and if they really want to, follow you for a bit if they wish.
But if they choose to stare at me I can stare back. If they choose to follow me, everyone can see them doing it. On the other hand if a camera tracks me down the street, nobody's any the wiser. The symmetry of the relationship is broken.
If you're doing something you wouldn't want a camera to see, why would you do it in public where a cop walking along could see you?
You're missing the point: it's not about wanting to commit crimes without being caught, it's about wanting to have a symmetric power relationship with other members of society.
sadlf aslkjf lksjaf alkj saf lkjsalfkjasf lkjsalfkjs flksajf laksj lfkasjf kjhds dsf
I'd really like to debate this issue with you but I'm too busy being productive.
akljshdf lkjdh fkjlfkajh lkjshd fljsh lkjsahd flkjas dhlkjhsad flkjhd flkjah sdf
Lawful business... hmm, ever smoked a joint? Driven a bit fast? Bought alcohol when you were under 18? Attended a peaceful demonstration within 1 kilometer of Parliament?
Yeah, if there's one place I'm concerned about privacy, it's when I'm out in public.
So you wouldn't mind if a masked man followed you everywhere, every day, from the moment you left your house to the moment you returned, and made regular and detailed reports about your activities to unspecified people? Because personally I'd feel extremely intimidated and invaded by that situation. Unfortunately it's easy to forget that you're being treated that way by CCTV, because the cameras are relatively unobtrusive.
I'd like to see a law requiring every CCTV camera to have a large screen attached, displaying what the camera is picking up - can you imagine the result being anything less than a public backlash against cameras? And yet the cameras would still be providing the same 'protection' they're supposedly providing now.
I agree, we're making more changes than we should (including the religious hatred law), and if the goal is to avoid conflict with extremists then it won't work.
Which, ironically, is exactly what Islamist are doing.
It's what they're being allowed to do, by a society that prefers the cheap thrill of confrontation to the long struggle of toleration. (I refer to the West in general, not just the Netherlands.) Changing government policy because of a single murder is hysterical and reactionary, and it plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.
The issue shouldn't be whether you want to 'weather' Islamism, but rather do you really want to take the giant steps backwards that this would entail?
I'm not suggesting that we should weather Islamism by giving in to it - I'm suggesting that we should weather it by refusing to modify our open, tolerant, liberal societies in response to a spectacular but statistically insignificant level of violence.
Want to know what a Europe that has weathered Islam looks like? Look to the Middle East.
The Middle East has never resembled modern Europe. Are you trying to draw a parallel between Israel, which is surrounded by hostile Muslim countries, and the Netherlands, which is surrounded by secular allies and contains a small Muslim minority, most of whom have made a conscious decision to live in the West?
You don't wait until bombs(or people) are exploding all over the country to realize you have a HUGE problem.
Yes you do, because otherwise a small number of people can hijack a democracy just by making threats. European democracy defeated feudalism and survived totalitarism on both the right and the left; it can certainly weather the storm of Islamic fundamentalism, as long as we keep a sense of perspective. Police states have killed millions of people in the last hundred years - terrorists have killed thousands. Which is the bigger threat?
How many people have been killed by trams since Theo van Gogh was murdered? There's no denying that it was a despicable crime, but one murder shouldn't be the basis (or pretext) for a national policy.
It works like this. You have two computer screens. On one you're typing, on the other comments appear checking the accuracy of what you are saying, suggesting better ways of making the same point.
"It looks like you're trying to slander your opponent to divert attention away from suspicious campaign donations. Would you like some help with that?"
I wasn't trying to draw moral equivalency between sex with children and sex with adults. The post to which I was responding highlighted the word GAY as if that was the reason for the scandal; I was pointing out that it was not.
For the record I'm not a Republican, and I find the fact that all American political discussions immediately divide along party lines profoundly depressing.
Let's assume that scammers are outnumbered by legitimate volunteers - after all, spam and phishing rely on automation, not widespread participation. For the scammers to take over the community, they'd have to agree with the legitimate volunteers about the classification of most messages, and disagree with the legitimate volunteers (but agree with one another) about the small number of messages they wanted to force through. If they disagreed with the legitimate majority about too many messages, their opinions would be ignored. But if they disagreed with the legitimate majority about too few messages, they wouldn't be able to influence the classifications.
The system probably shouldn't make users' reputations public, because this might allow scammers to walk the fine line between too much disagreement and too little disagreement by monitoring the system's feedback - if their reputations started to drop they could become more conservative for a while, and once their reputations were restored they could vote through a couple of scams. But even if this were possible, the system would have succeeded in limiting the number of scams to a level determined by the ratio of scammers to legitimate volunteers.
Slashdot Mirror
"Are you sure you want to replace 'Teh Money.xls', size $13.28, modified 11/21/2006, with 'Teh Money.xls', size $1,000,000.00, modified 11/30/2006? [OK] [Cancel]"
True, but if you want to record a cover version you only have to purchase a mechanical license - the price is fixed by law, so the copyright holder can't charge an unreasonable fee or prevent you from using the composition.
If phenotypic plasticity could affect the development of sperm cells, would it provide a plausible mechanism for Lamarckian evolution? For example, could environmental factors affect the concentration of proteins that might influence the crossover process during meiosis? Might this explain why sperm are produced continuously rather than being produced before birth and stored, like eggs?
Also, birds are lizards with wings, snakes are lizards without legs, and people are big colonies of cooperating bacteria. Nature prefers a hack.
If the machine used commodity hardware, you could be fairly confident that the correct software was running by verifying the disk image before and after the election. Hardware tampering would still be possible, but surely it would be harder to carry out and easier to detect than software tampering?
I hadn't thought of it in those terms - thanks for the information.
On the contrary, cement production adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than the airline industry. (Source) The production of 1 tonne of cement clinker results in the generation of: ~535 kg "process" CO2 from the calcination of limestone; 375 kg CO2 from fuel used in the kiln; and 70kg CO2 "indirect" emissions from the electricity used. (Source)
As for whether it's compulsory to react to the presence of a camera, I think you have an unrealistic view about the power of the will to control emotional and instinctive reactions. But even if you're right, the same should apply to the masked man - you could just choose to go on about your daily business as if he wasn't there. Do you think you'd be able to do so? I don't - I think the knowledge that we're being watched and recorded affects our behaviour, even if we weren't doing anything illegal.
Many cameras are covered by dark plastic domes so you can't see which way they're pointing. Most of them are located above your normal eyeline so you wouldn't see them unless you're constantly looking around, and of course half the cameras that can see you will be behind you, on average. Thanks, yours in Condescension. So there's no point trying to attain even a small amount of liberty, equality or autonomy? You're almost cynical enough to pass for British.sadlf aslkjf lksjaf alkj saf lkjsalfkjasf lkjsalfkjs flksajf laksj lfkasjf kjhds dsf
I'd really like to debate this issue with you but I'm too busy being productive.
akljshdf lkjdh fkjlfkajh lkjshd fljsh lkjsahd flkjas dhlkjhsad flkjhd flkjah sdf
Lawful business... hmm, ever smoked a joint? Driven a bit fast? Bought alcohol when you were under 18? Attended a peaceful demonstration within 1 kilometer of Parliament?
So eventually there's going to be one dark doorway behind a skip in a narrow street in Chipping Sodbury where all the crime happens?
I'd like to see a law requiring every CCTV camera to have a large screen attached, displaying what the camera is picking up - can you imagine the result being anything less than a public backlash against cameras? And yet the cameras would still be providing the same 'protection' they're supposedly providing now.
...but I was practising not clicking
What would "go home" mean for the London bombers, who were all born in Britain?
I agree, we're making more changes than we should (including the religious hatred law), and if the goal is to avoid conflict with extremists then it won't work.
It's what they're being allowed to do, by a society that prefers the cheap thrill of confrontation to the long struggle of toleration. (I refer to the West in general, not just the Netherlands.) Changing government policy because of a single murder is hysterical and reactionary, and it plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.
I'm not suggesting that we should weather Islamism by giving in to it - I'm suggesting that we should weather it by refusing to modify our open, tolerant, liberal societies in response to a spectacular but statistically insignificant level of violence.
The Middle East has never resembled modern Europe. Are you trying to draw a parallel between Israel, which is surrounded by hostile Muslim countries, and the Netherlands, which is surrounded by secular allies and contains a small Muslim minority, most of whom have made a conscious decision to live in the West?
Yes you do, because otherwise a small number of people can hijack a democracy just by making threats. European democracy defeated feudalism and survived totalitarism on both the right and the left; it can certainly weather the storm of Islamic fundamentalism, as long as we keep a sense of perspective. Police states have killed millions of people in the last hundred years - terrorists have killed thousands. Which is the bigger threat?
How many people have been killed by trams since Theo van Gogh was murdered? There's no denying that it was a despicable crime, but one murder shouldn't be the basis (or pretext) for a national policy.
Maybe Google should buy some of those tubes and pipes to stop the internets clogging up.
"It looks like you're trying to slander your opponent to divert attention away from suspicious campaign donations. Would you like some help with that?"
For the record I'm not a Republican, and I find the fact that all American political discussions immediately divide along party lines profoundly depressing.
The system probably shouldn't make users' reputations public, because this might allow scammers to walk the fine line between too much disagreement and too little disagreement by monitoring the system's feedback - if their reputations started to drop they could become more conservative for a while, and once their reputations were restored they could vote through a couple of scams. But even if this were possible, the system would have succeeded in limiting the number of scams to a level determined by the ratio of scammers to legitimate volunteers.