Considering it's not really a vapourware product (I have no doubt as to Microsoft's intent to release the Courier when it's ready), and that information on functionality has been available since long before Apple had a product to show, they likely got a bit tangled up on development and are trying to hold back some of Apple's hype-marketing massive first-day sales push for the iPad until they get their product out onto the market.
To get the black box info, of which there's about 15 seconds of readings (kinda useless for tracking you anywhere before you were on your block), they'd have to get inside the car to hook up the connector. To plant a GPS device, they'd have to be outside your car and stick their hand under the bumper.
They can estimate bittorrent based on the number of seeds and leeches on torrent trackers just by looking at isohunt or doing a tally from something like Bit Che. That's the majority of your pirated copies of games right there, which should give you a good estimate of a total number pirated.
Guh, what? Bioware decided to go to the extent of making you download every level past the first, so you HAD to buy the game from them? That's even more insane than a constant internet connection to a DRM server requirement!
Evil monopolies don't care about quality if the cost to fix is greater than the benefit of not fixing. Since Microsoft has been doing exactly this for a long time, it kinda fits with the evil monopoly perspective.
The camera is just a tool. It is whether the people involved can see each other that determines parity. If you're looking at a camera, you don't even know who's on the other end of it.
You may very well not know who's on the other end of a camera on a timer for time lapse photography, either, especially if they're taking the pictures from a 2-story rooftop so the camera can be unattended. I guess we should outlaw that too?
How about the cameras in Walmart? I don't know who is on the other end, therefore it should be outlawed to film security footage.
This line of discussion is tiresome. You have constructed a hypothetical superhuman person with abilities, resources and intent that I find entirely unrealistic, and your entire argument that Google's actions are reasonable is based on the premise that such people exist.
No, I really haven't. All a person needs to do is remember the image of you inside your window, not the entirety of the situation including the placement and design of your fire escape, and the situation hasn't changed in any regard other than scope of "extras". Now, when you take into consideration that the scope of the problem is only the image of you in the window, and you'll see that by outlawing Google from running a Street View program, you also outlaw any artist from taking a picture of any building that has a window unless they check every single one before taking the shot.
you probably wouldn't like it if someone physically followed you around writing down everywhere you went, or kept a video camera on your wallet the whole time you were out in case you momentarily revealed your card details while making a payment.
Your entire opinion seems to be based on the fallacy that Google driving around taking pictures en masse is equivalent to someone spying specifically on you. This is definitively not the case. If a company that is running a (extremely) large Street View-like operation decides to start tracking individuals using their mass data gathering, then they should be prosecuted under spying or stalking laws. However, as it stands, there's nothing that personally identifies you (except for, potentially, an address), and they aren't following you.
And that's before we get into the increased concerns when modern technology allows mass databases, data mining and open republication via the Internet. I think society's expectations of privacy are going to evolve as non-technical people start to realise the implications of not changing the rules to keep up with the capabilities of new technologies.
Society's expectations of privacy don't need to evolve. They're perfectly fine. What needs to evolve is the ability to apply the same conventions we have had for a while now to said new technologies in a manner that equates truly equal concepts rather than distort them. Most people who aren't technically oriented wouldn't be able to, as they don't have a firm grasp as to the situation. Most people who are technically oriented are interested in drawing lines where there shouldn't be one, as they need to make the view of the world more complex that it really is.
There is no such parity when one of the parties is unknown and watching by remote camera proxy.
Oh? The cameras are behind invisibility cloaks now? I didn't realize that you couldn't ever see a camera. The camera can see you, and doesn't know the processes going on inside of your head. Why is you looking at the camera, and not know what it is doing, any different?
Society has historically regarded such parity as a good thing, while describing one-sided attempts to observe another party covertly with terms like "spying" and "stalking".
Society has also regarded "spying" and "stalking" as the gathering of information against one entity, be it a person, organization, or government. Google's Street View doesn't actually target anyone, or anything, that wouldn't be publicly available, and it doesn't target any individual, organization, or government.
You write as if the entire human population possesses eidetic memory, the artistic skill to render a photo realistic drawing of what they saw, the time and inclination to do so for whatever reason just because they once caught sight of something intended to be private, and the desire to share the results with the world via the Internet.
Considering that a random person walking down the street may or may not have this ability, as a camera may or may not be taking pictures and processing them, your point seems silly. You don't know what abilities a person walking by has, so you can, in the worst-case scenario, assume every single person will have all of the qualities you list, and will record every single thing they see and make it public. Since a person, or a population, can do it in theory, why should Google's cameras be treated differently in terms of privacy?
There's nothing wrong with them taking pictures on the street, as you don't have, and have never had, any reasonable expectation of privacy in these public areas. It's only when Google does something like looking over your 7-foot-tall wall, or in your window that's not normally accessible to view from the street, that Google is violating the privacy of anyone.
Instead of recycling, maybe we should go with another R, like reuse, and ship the old computers to people who might be able to use them, say, in the third world countries. It's likely cheaper than recycling everything.
There is a difference between one person incidentally observing something while going about their daily business and having a commercial organization with vast resources deliberately and systematically collect information about the entire world and then provide it in a permanent, publicly available, searchable form that anyone can use for any purpose
Actually, it doesn't matter about the organization, if the law is taken within its true context. The observer can, or cannot, be a part of an organization with any and all characteristics represented above, regardless as to whether the observer is human or machine. The only difference in this regard is the efficiency in which the organization operates. Any person can draw a nearly-perfect image of a location, tagging it publicly with keywords, and allowing it to be searched. The difference is the rate at which this process may occur....this a human, it may be a hour for each picture. With a sufficiently powerful machine with adaptable logic, it may be minutes in between each tagging.
The argument that one observer differes from another is a point that requires no further negotiation, as anything that may be seen by a human can be correctly assumed to be recalled exactly, and correctly, at any later date, regardless as to the nature of the observer, whether it be man or machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering it's not finished, you can hope it'll be done this way instead of the completely backwards way shown in the video.
Considering it's not really a vapourware product (I have no doubt as to Microsoft's intent to release the Courier when it's ready), and that information on functionality has been available since long before Apple had a product to show, they likely got a bit tangled up on development and are trying to hold back some of Apple's hype-marketing massive first-day sales push for the iPad until they get their product out onto the market.
It will take MSFt 3 years to duplicate the iphones major interface elements for touch screens.
Good thing they're not a cheap Chinese knockoff and that they make their own (at least semi-)unique products, or else you'd be right.
There are also verdicts that get appealed, for this very reason.
To get the black box info, of which there's about 15 seconds of readings (kinda useless for tracking you anywhere before you were on your block), they'd have to get inside the car to hook up the connector. To plant a GPS device, they'd have to be outside your car and stick their hand under the bumper.
Of course, on the Airbus, they take out the non-critical component's LOC count!
but with dynamic ip's/vpn's/tor
Average torrent user != average slashdotter
They can estimate bittorrent based on the number of seeds and leeches on torrent trackers just by looking at isohunt or doing a tally from something like Bit Che. That's the majority of your pirated copies of games right there, which should give you a good estimate of a total number pirated.
the developer, the consumer, or (ironically) the shareholder.
In an economy of choice, the consumer is a variety of shareholder.
People bitch and moan about how awful it is that shows like Firefly get cancelled, and then they turn around and illegally download the shows
The real problem isn't the people who do it in this order.
Do the chips in the keys constitute a digital method for managing the rights to drive a given Honda?
Guh, what? Bioware decided to go to the extent of making you download every level past the first, so you HAD to buy the game from them? That's even more insane than a constant internet connection to a DRM server requirement!
But when you buy a Rolex from Cartier, you don't expect to get a cheap $5 knock off.
You also don't expect to get a Rolex from Cartier.
Ever heard of people who know just enough to be dangerous?
Evil monopolies don't care about quality if the cost to fix is greater than the benefit of not fixing. Since Microsoft has been doing exactly this for a long time, it kinda fits with the evil monopoly perspective.
The sound of the caps lock key's new location flying away?
That is far, far too much work.
The camera is just a tool. It is whether the people involved can see each other that determines parity. If you're looking at a camera, you don't even know who's on the other end of it.
You may very well not know who's on the other end of a camera on a timer for time lapse photography, either, especially if they're taking the pictures from a 2-story rooftop so the camera can be unattended. I guess we should outlaw that too?
How about the cameras in Walmart? I don't know who is on the other end, therefore it should be outlawed to film security footage.
This line of discussion is tiresome. You have constructed a hypothetical superhuman person with abilities, resources and intent that I find entirely unrealistic, and your entire argument that Google's actions are reasonable is based on the premise that such people exist.
No, I really haven't. All a person needs to do is remember the image of you inside your window, not the entirety of the situation including the placement and design of your fire escape, and the situation hasn't changed in any regard other than scope of "extras". Now, when you take into consideration that the scope of the problem is only the image of you in the window, and you'll see that by outlawing Google from running a Street View program, you also outlaw any artist from taking a picture of any building that has a window unless they check every single one before taking the shot.
you probably wouldn't like it if someone physically followed you around writing down everywhere you went, or kept a video camera on your wallet the whole time you were out in case you momentarily revealed your card details while making a payment.
Your entire opinion seems to be based on the fallacy that Google driving around taking pictures en masse is equivalent to someone spying specifically on you. This is definitively not the case. If a company that is running a (extremely) large Street View-like operation decides to start tracking individuals using their mass data gathering, then they should be prosecuted under spying or stalking laws. However, as it stands, there's nothing that personally identifies you (except for, potentially, an address), and they aren't following you.
And that's before we get into the increased concerns when modern technology allows mass databases, data mining and open republication via the Internet. I think society's expectations of privacy are going to evolve as non-technical people start to realise the implications of not changing the rules to keep up with the capabilities of new technologies.
Society's expectations of privacy don't need to evolve. They're perfectly fine. What needs to evolve is the ability to apply the same conventions we have had for a while now to said new technologies in a manner that equates truly equal concepts rather than distort them. Most people who aren't technically oriented wouldn't be able to, as they don't have a firm grasp as to the situation. Most people who are technically oriented are interested in drawing lines where there shouldn't be one, as they need to make the view of the world more complex that it really is.
There is no such parity when one of the parties is unknown and watching by remote camera proxy.
Oh? The cameras are behind invisibility cloaks now? I didn't realize that you couldn't ever see a camera. The camera can see you, and doesn't know the processes going on inside of your head. Why is you looking at the camera, and not know what it is doing, any different?
Society has historically regarded such parity as a good thing, while describing one-sided attempts to observe another party covertly with terms like "spying" and "stalking".
Society has also regarded "spying" and "stalking" as the gathering of information against one entity, be it a person, organization, or government. Google's Street View doesn't actually target anyone, or anything, that wouldn't be publicly available, and it doesn't target any individual, organization, or government.
You write as if the entire human population possesses eidetic memory, the artistic skill to render a photo realistic drawing of what they saw, the time and inclination to do so for whatever reason just because they once caught sight of something intended to be private, and the desire to share the results with the world via the Internet.
Considering that a random person walking down the street may or may not have this ability, as a camera may or may not be taking pictures and processing them, your point seems silly. You don't know what abilities a person walking by has, so you can, in the worst-case scenario, assume every single person will have all of the qualities you list, and will record every single thing they see and make it public. Since a person, or a population, can do it in theory, why should Google's cameras be treated differently in terms of privacy?
There's nothing wrong with them taking pictures on the street, as you don't have, and have never had, any reasonable expectation of privacy in these public areas. It's only when Google does something like looking over your 7-foot-tall wall, or in your window that's not normally accessible to view from the street, that Google is violating the privacy of anyone.
Instead of recycling, maybe we should go with another R, like reuse, and ship the old computers to people who might be able to use them, say, in the third world countries. It's likely cheaper than recycling everything.
It's harder for the average person to pirate a game for 360 than it is to pirate the same game for PC.
There is a difference between one person incidentally observing something while going about their daily business and having a commercial organization with vast resources deliberately and systematically collect information about the entire world and then provide it in a permanent, publicly available, searchable form that anyone can use for any purpose
Actually, it doesn't matter about the organization, if the law is taken within its true context. The observer can, or cannot, be a part of an organization with any and all characteristics represented above, regardless as to whether the observer is human or machine. The only difference in this regard is the efficiency in which the organization operates. Any person can draw a nearly-perfect image of a location, tagging it publicly with keywords, and allowing it to be searched. The difference is the rate at which this process may occur....this a human, it may be a hour for each picture. With a sufficiently powerful machine with adaptable logic, it may be minutes in between each tagging.
The argument that one observer differes from another is a point that requires no further negotiation, as anything that may be seen by a human can be correctly assumed to be recalled exactly, and correctly, at any later date, regardless as to the nature of the observer, whether it be man or machine.
Use the crap to grow more grains for the chickens to eat, so you're not 100% reliant on omelets. Duh.
He also wouldn't have had an amazingly comprehensive conception of time zones. Case closed.
He probably gave it up by voting for noone.