You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution rather than attempting to invoke Godwin's law right?
The causes, reasons, and methods of groups that hide in the civilian populace are completely tangent to the fact that civilians get killed because of it. Arguably it is worth it in some cases. It still drags innocent civilians into the fight, and the notion that "unarmed civilians" can be judged as "unarmed civilians" because they have no uniform and no visible weapon is laughable. A guy with a radio with no uniform calling out coordinates or troop movements for airstrikes or artillery is hardly an "innocent civilian" despite being unarmed and with no unform.
You also gloss over the fact that the American Revolutionaries and French Resistance both eventually formed up into formal armies. Something that doesn't frequently happen with groups hiding in the civilian populace.
Because ultrawhiney people like you get offended by it more than many of the "chicks" being called "chicks" do and it amuses us to watch it.
Seriously...the notion that there are bad words to use is mindboggling. Ok...so lets all get together and ban those nasty words, and then they will be replaced and other words will be used instead. I have heard the word "woman" used in a derogatory fashion more than I have heard the word "chick" used in the same way. So when will people wake up and realize that the actual words being used are just a method for communicating a particular idea or feeling and that changing those words will not change the idea or feeling being communicated.
So I could go with calling you an emotional male making irrational claims about degrading women, or just say whiney bitch. Same statement, but one is clearly more efficient.
Wow...I can't believe this is "Insightful". No uniform makes him a civilian, if you don't see a weapon they are unarmed? Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable. Armed soldiers killing unarmed civilians is tragic. But here is a bit of a wakeup call, that is why "War is hell".
Colonies vs Britian - your "unarmed civilians" won because they were "unarmed civilians" until they were close enough to pull the trigger.
Vietnam - your "unarmed civilians" used babies as explosive devices and any number of horrific ambush tactics. This is where America learned that just because they look unarmed or look civilian doesn't mean they are.
Iraq, Afghanistan - This is what that whole Gitmo problem is about! The fact that these terrorist assholes have no uniform, and frequently pretend to be unarmed. Many pretend to be unarmed right up until they explode killing dozens of people around them. The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.
That is just a few of the major ones. It is this kind of idiotic civilian rulemaking nonsense that lead to so many deaths in Vietnam. "Nonono, you can't hit THOSE targets, that would upset people. You have to leave their factories alone so that their war machine can keep running. Who cares if casualties on both sides go through the roof, it would cause too much political problems to hit their factories!"
American Indians?! Fuck them, what about the turkeys! Turkey Genocide Day and you are worried about American Indians (They are Native Americans by the way, they never were and never will be Indians. Indians are from India).
I count that as a weakness not advantage of the CS field. This is why so many CS people I have met can't seem to tell their ass from a hole in the ground. Great...so you know everything there is to know about the latest wizbang tech, but your understanding of the underlying systems is absolute garbage because they teach the latest wizbang instead of solid theory. It breeds technicians that can't troubleshoot worth a damn.
They attempt to teach the solution of the day rather than critical analysis of the problem itself. Imagine a math class that only taught how to use the popular counting technology of the day. Abacus, adding machine, calculator, computer, etc. You would be forever stuck in a cycle. Or you just teach the math and allow for new solutions to calculating said math to come about.
In the CS realm, why focus on a specific example of a buffer overflow. Buffer overflows themselves pretty much are all the same, just different specific implementations, but the problem itself is basically the same.
So you are saying Apache and all of its modules can be whipped up on the spot by anyone with the skills? So no research into standards, no testing, no debugging, etc? Clearly you are refering to the proprietary model not the OSS model.:) You aren't just going to "whip up" a web server with all of those features just like you won't "whip up" a text book. In fact your argument is backwards really. A poorly tested/researched software project can leave millions of computers vulnerable to crashing/exploitation and cause any number of major bad nastiness. When you come across a text book that you can enter write a wrong answer in and suddenly gain control of the instructor you let me know right away!
Writing a major F/OSS project really isn't that different from a text book. But just like all programming isn't the same, all writing isn't the same. Some 17yr old writing some F/OSS widget isn't the same as a major products dev team writing software. Same with some 17yr old kid writing his turn paper and a professor(s) writing a book.
I'm not a programmer either, but I imagine most of the people writing OO stuff are programmers and not bankers and businessmen. So you should probably write a polite email to them explaining what you would like it to do in as much detail as possible and hope they get around to implementing that feature. You should also encourage anyone else who needs those features to do the same.
I have done that with a number of small F/OSS projects and at the very least I typically get a polite reply from a developer explaining why that feature isn't already there, that it is being worked on, or asking for a few more details so they understand it better.
The "5 or more years out of date" is the exact innane argument that allows text book companies to give everyone the shaft. At the Associates or Bachelors level how many subjects are really moving that fast? Physics has remained largely unchanged, chemistry, geology, astronomy, calculus, algebra, statistics, english, speach, history, foreign languages, etc. Hell the only thing that has seemed to change that much is biology and that is legislated changes to curriculum, not scientific. Almost every subject taught at that level is mostly very old information. You typically don't get into the fast moving subjects until a bit higher in your education, and by the time you reach that level of understanding you are probably better off at a bookstore/library anyways. At the higher level in those fast moving fields it is more about active participation in expieriments and paper writing and such rather than sitting and listening to lectures and reading textbooks.
And I imagine most of the professors writing books would be employed by a university. So the situation is still pretty much the same. The programmer paycheck isn't coming from selling the software, nor would the writers paycheck come from selling the book.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a simple search/replace. You know, like the People and Pandas creationist book after the court ruling. (Now with any luck I have brought religion and creationism into the mix too, muahahahaha!)
Firefox, Samba, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Gimp (it is very comparable to photoshop given that most people don't use all of photoshops capabilities in the first place and assuming that everyone who needs a good graphic editing program is a photoshop wizard with $600 to drop on it is a complete r-tard). Then we have BSD, Linux, Gnome, KDE, Evolution, OpenOffice... Seriously...there are TONS of open software projects that compare to or exceed their commercial equivilents. Microsoft is going to support the ODF format BEFORE their own OOXML garbage...So push all they want...they are losing ground. Did you not just read how their silly SCO attempt went up in flames?
Now...that doesn't EVEN begin to compare the supercomputer and science realm of software that I don't have any experience in. IBM has been giving up tons of stuff to open source at a much lower level than "ooh look at the pretty clicky" user level stuff. The notion that free software doesn't compare to commercial software because you can't play Bioshock on a Linux desktop is laughable.
Basically yes. Even if the course isn't structured around a particular book, instructors are going to be receiving pressure from the school to use the latest and greatest book from publisher XYZ that they have a deal with. It is a money issue more than anything. To be fair, some subjects do change often enough that you need to refresh books frequently, but many don't. How long has it been since Algebra or Calculus has changed significantly enough to warrant a new book?
I have never taken a college course that was really structured around the book in a start to finish style. Typically the instructor takes the few sections he wants to use, arranges them how he wants to teach them, and then uses the homework from the book and the grading key to deal with assignments. It keeps everyone at the same reference point.
Also...can you imagine a world were college text books are clear and concise and stick to the topic at hand? You can't sell a 100 page book for $200, but if the subject can be accurately covered in 100 pages... I don't think I have taken a college course yet that has used more than maybe 1/2 of any given $100-200+ book that I had to purchase. If the professors aren't being paid by the page volume trying to sell megabooks then you could conceivably take a course that only includes the pages that you will need in the course. Modular text books so to speak. What a wonderful world that would be. Even if they get printed and you pay some amount, can you imagine a world where you don't have a back injury from carrying more than a few college books around?!
You can expect a huge pushback from the proprietary software industry (proprietary programs are a big moneymaker, especially considering how overpriced many programs are) and even from some programmers (they write the programs after all).
And there is another issue too: Who is going to write these open source programs? Even though programmers don't usually get paid particularly well for their writing, it's unlikely that many programmers are going to want to tackle something as big as the Linux kernel, Apache, or Samba for free.
Grab Windows by the Ballmer? I hope that gives you mental imagery that causes you to kill yourself for mentioning reach arounds, enjoyment, and Windows in a single line.
Wow...so what you are saying is that if the government had mass executions of whoever they didn't like at the time that people would be more more behaved and less likely to do anything that could possibly garner the attention of the government? You mean that instead of having mass graves we have huge prison populations. Yes...in fact I do think that shows that we are a pretty free nation. A less free nation would have no problems with more extreme measures as crime deterents.
I suspect Nazi Germany didn't have many terrorist/crime type problems because the SS had no problem forcing girls to kneel on frozen lakes until they were stuck and left them there to die, or murdering people and taking their gold teeth for money. When you have that kind of government sanctioned brutality you don't generally have a lot of people who step out of line. You are right...we should certainly fix that. Let's start by executing anyone that whines about the US without either offering a REAL solution to the problem mentioned or taking the problem into real perspective. Should clear up both political parties pretty quick. Just imagine...a democratic party with people who actually do something other than whine and a republican party that isn't so obsessed with things like "the homosexual agenda".
Also...anyone who uses a offhanded joke to springboard into political diatribe should be executed. And I even agree with you that our government is run by self serving morons! As I have mentioned, it is the self serving folks that aren't morons that you have to worry about.
Hitler was effective government. Stalin was effective government. You sir are clearly living in the safest place on the planet due to what is probably the most innane and ineffective government around. Be happy.
When you strip away the typical anti-Bush diatribe that goes along with any mention of Iraq it actually makes sense. Iraq had every reason to pretend to have a large WMD program. Iran hated them, Saudis didn't like them, Israel hated them. Posturing about having a WMD program (like Iran is doing now) is how they maintained their security when all of their neighbors wanted to attack them. If Iraq DID have WMDs then attacking them would have been a very high risk thing.
Bush used Iraqs posturing as justification. Iraq really had precious little choice in the matter. If Iraq opened up and said "see we have nothing" then it would have been Iran or Saudi or Israel taking the first swing at them. In which case there wouldn't be much sympathy or outcry about it (especially if it was Saudi or Iran). However, if they close up and refuse inspections it would only be a matter of time before the crazy cowboy would fire the first shot at them. Now it is big bad America picking on little old Iraq and the world goes crazy. Every dumb ass bleeding heart asshat comes out crying. I don't think we should be in Iraq, not our damned problem, but the idea that they were better off under that psychotic murderous dictator is laughable. I think the pretense for going to Iraq was a load of horseshit, but the UN was corrupt as hell and instead of attempting to resolve it peacefully was fucking the people of Iraq while making lucrative deals with a psychofuck dictator.
If you can't tell when a sales guy is lying to you without a machine like this then nothing can help you anyways. The biggest hint is that their lips are moving.
In all seriousness, I have NEVER dealt with a sales guy that could actually speak very intelligently about the product they are selling. The big difference is that some try to and that pretty much costs them the sale. The good ones will immediately get their technical folks on the phone. Then you know you are dealing with a real tech guy when you start asking sales related questions and they get that special tone of voice and explain that only those sales people know that kind of stuff. The best sales guys can get you anywhere in the company you could need to talk to at the drop of a hat, the sheisty ones try to answer all the questions themselves.
Actually to clarify the things at the ends of those lines were not how *I* was trying to frame it. It is the sentiment that shows up on slashdot every time one of these stories get posted. Be it government or private.
Second...when in public you have no privacy from citizens, government, or private industry. It is moronic to think so at best. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the government throwing up thousands of cameras to watch every inch of public land. It is creepy, and excessive, and the solution is to just vote the assholes that would do that out. In the end it is no different then them hiring thousands of police officers to do the same. Do you expect police officers to walk, drive, and ride around with blindfolds on because they are the government and you deserve privacy from them when you are in public?
Privacy has its limits. It is the reactionary wackjobs that demand that privacy means "anytime and anywhere that I don't want someone looking at me". I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Privacy...based on Private...not Public...that would be Publicity. How anyone confuses the two is beyond me. Thankfully the creepy people get to use these wackaloons to say "SEE! This is what they mean by privacy! We can't allow THAT". And then they procede to implement all kinds of crazy privacy invading stuff. You know...like that whole wiretap business...THAT is a privacy issue.
Thank you:). I watched myself get modded troll and then a bunch of bullshit about how its all about the government. Like that has shit to do with the argument anyways. Nevermind that almost all of the stories related to this battle have been PRIVATE like Google taking pictures of the public.
You are in public...the government...the private sector...the neighbors can all watch you and photograph you as much as they want. Deal with it. For all the idiots that bitch "no the government can't" Yes they can so long as you let them! Surprise! Publically elected officials doing things that make you uncomfortable, kick em out, elect new ones, but so long as you elected public officials that take pictures of anyone and everyone in public places...nothing illegal there...all you can do is elect people that won't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this for my posturing response. In line with my discussion of this issue last summer.
"Go hork yourself you sheeprag!"
You realize that you could have just pointed out the example that I showed of the American Revolution rather than attempting to invoke Godwin's law right?
The causes, reasons, and methods of groups that hide in the civilian populace are completely tangent to the fact that civilians get killed because of it. Arguably it is worth it in some cases. It still drags innocent civilians into the fight, and the notion that "unarmed civilians" can be judged as "unarmed civilians" because they have no uniform and no visible weapon is laughable. A guy with a radio with no uniform calling out coordinates or troop movements for airstrikes or artillery is hardly an "innocent civilian" despite being unarmed and with no unform.
You also gloss over the fact that the American Revolutionaries and French Resistance both eventually formed up into formal armies. Something that doesn't frequently happen with groups hiding in the civilian populace.
Governments that are incompetent are far less dangerous than competent ones.
Because ultrawhiney people like you get offended by it more than many of the "chicks" being called "chicks" do and it amuses us to watch it.
Seriously...the notion that there are bad words to use is mindboggling. Ok...so lets all get together and ban those nasty words, and then they will be replaced and other words will be used instead. I have heard the word "woman" used in a derogatory fashion more than I have heard the word "chick" used in the same way. So when will people wake up and realize that the actual words being used are just a method for communicating a particular idea or feeling and that changing those words will not change the idea or feeling being communicated.
So I could go with calling you an emotional male making irrational claims about degrading women, or just say whiney bitch. Same statement, but one is clearly more efficient.
Wow...I can't believe this is "Insightful". No uniform makes him a civilian, if you don't see a weapon they are unarmed? Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable. Armed soldiers killing unarmed civilians is tragic. But here is a bit of a wakeup call, that is why "War is hell".
Colonies vs Britian - your "unarmed civilians" won because they were "unarmed civilians" until they were close enough to pull the trigger.
Vietnam - your "unarmed civilians" used babies as explosive devices and any number of horrific ambush tactics. This is where America learned that just because they look unarmed or look civilian doesn't mean they are.
Iraq, Afghanistan - This is what that whole Gitmo problem is about! The fact that these terrorist assholes have no uniform, and frequently pretend to be unarmed. Many pretend to be unarmed right up until they explode killing dozens of people around them. The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.
That is just a few of the major ones. It is this kind of idiotic civilian rulemaking nonsense that lead to so many deaths in Vietnam. "Nonono, you can't hit THOSE targets, that would upset people. You have to leave their factories alone so that their war machine can keep running. Who cares if casualties on both sides go through the roof, it would cause too much political problems to hit their factories!"
American Indians?! Fuck them, what about the turkeys! Turkey Genocide Day and you are worried about American Indians (They are Native Americans by the way, they never were and never will be Indians. Indians are from India).
I count that as a weakness not advantage of the CS field. This is why so many CS people I have met can't seem to tell their ass from a hole in the ground. Great...so you know everything there is to know about the latest wizbang tech, but your understanding of the underlying systems is absolute garbage because they teach the latest wizbang instead of solid theory. It breeds technicians that can't troubleshoot worth a damn.
They attempt to teach the solution of the day rather than critical analysis of the problem itself. Imagine a math class that only taught how to use the popular counting technology of the day. Abacus, adding machine, calculator, computer, etc. You would be forever stuck in a cycle. Or you just teach the math and allow for new solutions to calculating said math to come about.
In the CS realm, why focus on a specific example of a buffer overflow. Buffer overflows themselves pretty much are all the same, just different specific implementations, but the problem itself is basically the same.
So you are saying Apache and all of its modules can be whipped up on the spot by anyone with the skills? So no research into standards, no testing, no debugging, etc? Clearly you are refering to the proprietary model not the OSS model. :) You aren't just going to "whip up" a web server with all of those features just like you won't "whip up" a text book. In fact your argument is backwards really. A poorly tested/researched software project can leave millions of computers vulnerable to crashing/exploitation and cause any number of major bad nastiness. When you come across a text book that you can enter write a wrong answer in and suddenly gain control of the instructor you let me know right away!
Writing a major F/OSS project really isn't that different from a text book. But just like all programming isn't the same, all writing isn't the same. Some 17yr old writing some F/OSS widget isn't the same as a major products dev team writing software. Same with some 17yr old kid writing his turn paper and a professor(s) writing a book.
I'm not a programmer either, but I imagine most of the people writing OO stuff are programmers and not bankers and businessmen. So you should probably write a polite email to them explaining what you would like it to do in as much detail as possible and hope they get around to implementing that feature. You should also encourage anyone else who needs those features to do the same.
I have done that with a number of small F/OSS projects and at the very least I typically get a polite reply from a developer explaining why that feature isn't already there, that it is being worked on, or asking for a few more details so they understand it better.
The "5 or more years out of date" is the exact innane argument that allows text book companies to give everyone the shaft. At the Associates or Bachelors level how many subjects are really moving that fast? Physics has remained largely unchanged, chemistry, geology, astronomy, calculus, algebra, statistics, english, speach, history, foreign languages, etc. Hell the only thing that has seemed to change that much is biology and that is legislated changes to curriculum, not scientific. Almost every subject taught at that level is mostly very old information. You typically don't get into the fast moving subjects until a bit higher in your education, and by the time you reach that level of understanding you are probably better off at a bookstore/library anyways. At the higher level in those fast moving fields it is more about active participation in expieriments and paper writing and such rather than sitting and listening to lectures and reading textbooks.
And I imagine most of the professors writing books would be employed by a university. So the situation is still pretty much the same. The programmer paycheck isn't coming from selling the software, nor would the writers paycheck come from selling the book.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a simple search/replace. You know, like the People and Pandas creationist book after the court ruling. (Now with any luck I have brought religion and creationism into the mix too, muahahahaha!)
Firefox, Samba, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Gimp (it is very comparable to photoshop given that most people don't use all of photoshops capabilities in the first place and assuming that everyone who needs a good graphic editing program is a photoshop wizard with $600 to drop on it is a complete r-tard). Then we have BSD, Linux, Gnome, KDE, Evolution, OpenOffice... Seriously...there are TONS of open software projects that compare to or exceed their commercial equivilents. Microsoft is going to support the ODF format BEFORE their own OOXML garbage...So push all they want...they are losing ground. Did you not just read how their silly SCO attempt went up in flames?
Now...that doesn't EVEN begin to compare the supercomputer and science realm of software that I don't have any experience in. IBM has been giving up tons of stuff to open source at a much lower level than "ooh look at the pretty clicky" user level stuff. The notion that free software doesn't compare to commercial software because you can't play Bioshock on a Linux desktop is laughable.
Basically yes. Even if the course isn't structured around a particular book, instructors are going to be receiving pressure from the school to use the latest and greatest book from publisher XYZ that they have a deal with. It is a money issue more than anything. To be fair, some subjects do change often enough that you need to refresh books frequently, but many don't. How long has it been since Algebra or Calculus has changed significantly enough to warrant a new book?
I have never taken a college course that was really structured around the book in a start to finish style. Typically the instructor takes the few sections he wants to use, arranges them how he wants to teach them, and then uses the homework from the book and the grading key to deal with assignments. It keeps everyone at the same reference point.
Also...can you imagine a world were college text books are clear and concise and stick to the topic at hand? You can't sell a 100 page book for $200, but if the subject can be accurately covered in 100 pages... I don't think I have taken a college course yet that has used more than maybe 1/2 of any given $100-200+ book that I had to purchase. If the professors aren't being paid by the page volume trying to sell megabooks then you could conceivably take a course that only includes the pages that you will need in the course. Modular text books so to speak. What a wonderful world that would be. Even if they get printed and you pay some amount, can you imagine a world where you don't have a back injury from carrying more than a few college books around?!
You can expect a huge pushback from the proprietary software industry (proprietary programs are a big moneymaker, especially considering how overpriced many programs are) and even from some programmers (they write the programs after all).
And there is another issue too: Who is going to write these open source programs? Even though programmers don't usually get paid particularly well for their writing, it's unlikely that many programmers are going to want to tackle something as big as the Linux kernel, Apache, or Samba for free.
It doesn't run on Linux
In doesn't run on Vista
Two perfectly good starting points.
Grab Windows by the Ballmer? I hope that gives you mental imagery that causes you to kill yourself for mentioning reach arounds, enjoyment, and Windows in a single line.
Wow...so what you are saying is that if the government had mass executions of whoever they didn't like at the time that people would be more more behaved and less likely to do anything that could possibly garner the attention of the government? You mean that instead of having mass graves we have huge prison populations. Yes...in fact I do think that shows that we are a pretty free nation. A less free nation would have no problems with more extreme measures as crime deterents.
I suspect Nazi Germany didn't have many terrorist/crime type problems because the SS had no problem forcing girls to kneel on frozen lakes until they were stuck and left them there to die, or murdering people and taking their gold teeth for money. When you have that kind of government sanctioned brutality you don't generally have a lot of people who step out of line. You are right...we should certainly fix that. Let's start by executing anyone that whines about the US without either offering a REAL solution to the problem mentioned or taking the problem into real perspective. Should clear up both political parties pretty quick. Just imagine...a democratic party with people who actually do something other than whine and a republican party that isn't so obsessed with things like "the homosexual agenda".
Also...anyone who uses a offhanded joke to springboard into political diatribe should be executed. And I even agree with you that our government is run by self serving morons! As I have mentioned, it is the self serving folks that aren't morons that you have to worry about.
Hitler was effective government. Stalin was effective government. You sir are clearly living in the safest place on the planet due to what is probably the most innane and ineffective government around. Be happy.
When you strip away the typical anti-Bush diatribe that goes along with any mention of Iraq it actually makes sense. Iraq had every reason to pretend to have a large WMD program. Iran hated them, Saudis didn't like them, Israel hated them. Posturing about having a WMD program (like Iran is doing now) is how they maintained their security when all of their neighbors wanted to attack them. If Iraq DID have WMDs then attacking them would have been a very high risk thing.
Bush used Iraqs posturing as justification. Iraq really had precious little choice in the matter. If Iraq opened up and said "see we have nothing" then it would have been Iran or Saudi or Israel taking the first swing at them. In which case there wouldn't be much sympathy or outcry about it (especially if it was Saudi or Iran). However, if they close up and refuse inspections it would only be a matter of time before the crazy cowboy would fire the first shot at them. Now it is big bad America picking on little old Iraq and the world goes crazy. Every dumb ass bleeding heart asshat comes out crying. I don't think we should be in Iraq, not our damned problem, but the idea that they were better off under that psychotic murderous dictator is laughable. I think the pretense for going to Iraq was a load of horseshit, but the UN was corrupt as hell and instead of attempting to resolve it peacefully was fucking the people of Iraq while making lucrative deals with a psychofuck dictator.
If you can't tell when a sales guy is lying to you without a machine like this then nothing can help you anyways. The biggest hint is that their lips are moving.
In all seriousness, I have NEVER dealt with a sales guy that could actually speak very intelligently about the product they are selling. The big difference is that some try to and that pretty much costs them the sale. The good ones will immediately get their technical folks on the phone. Then you know you are dealing with a real tech guy when you start asking sales related questions and they get that special tone of voice and explain that only those sales people know that kind of stuff. The best sales guys can get you anywhere in the company you could need to talk to at the drop of a hat, the sheisty ones try to answer all the questions themselves.
The sales demonstrations certainly would be fun. Hook up the sales rep and then start asking questions about the product. :)
Actually to clarify the things at the ends of those lines were not how *I* was trying to frame it. It is the sentiment that shows up on slashdot every time one of these stories get posted. Be it government or private.
Second...when in public you have no privacy from citizens, government, or private industry. It is moronic to think so at best. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the government throwing up thousands of cameras to watch every inch of public land. It is creepy, and excessive, and the solution is to just vote the assholes that would do that out. In the end it is no different then them hiring thousands of police officers to do the same. Do you expect police officers to walk, drive, and ride around with blindfolds on because they are the government and you deserve privacy from them when you are in public?
Privacy has its limits. It is the reactionary wackjobs that demand that privacy means "anytime and anywhere that I don't want someone looking at me". I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Privacy...based on Private...not Public...that would be Publicity. How anyone confuses the two is beyond me. Thankfully the creepy people get to use these wackaloons to say "SEE! This is what they mean by privacy! We can't allow THAT". And then they procede to implement all kinds of crazy privacy invading stuff. You know...like that whole wiretap business...THAT is a privacy issue.
Thank you :). I watched myself get modded troll and then a bunch of bullshit about how its all about the government. Like that has shit to do with the argument anyways. Nevermind that almost all of the stories related to this battle have been PRIVATE like Google taking pictures of the public.
You are in public...the government...the private sector...the neighbors can all watch you and photograph you as much as they want. Deal with it. For all the idiots that bitch "no the government can't" Yes they can so long as you let them! Surprise! Publically elected officials doing things that make you uncomfortable, kick em out, elect new ones, but so long as you elected public officials that take pictures of anyone and everyone in public places...nothing illegal there...all you can do is elect people that won't do it.