People still use IE5 and 6, as well. Should we limit all comparisons to the earliest versions still used? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if, in some of the poorer nations, there are still even earlier versions of IE being used (just as there are still places where Windows 98 is used).
You can't compare an old version of something to the newest version of something else unless you are trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Your comparison of Firefox 1.0 to IE7 is little more than comparing old black and white movies with modern high-def.
and I'll say it again now: One of these days, the Mafiaas are going to piss off the wrong person, and their corrupt leaders are going to end up with a bullet in the head. They go throwing their weight around like they were the only dogs in the yard that mattered, and they eventually piss off a smaller, quieter but far more vicious dog, and get torn apart.
People won't take their BS forever, and something tells me, the Mafiaa won't be able to see where the line of "too far" is. I would feel pity for the leaders, but considering the billions of dollars their forced DRM infections have cost people, I can't in good faith care for them enough to feel pity.
And yes, for any of the rats who troll this place for their Mafiaa masters, I am saying that I feel some lives aren't "priceless."
When a group starts making life Hell for everyone else, their lives become without worth, and sooner or later, somebody is going to "cash in" on the worthless filth and improve not only their own lives, but the lives of everyone around them.
While the thought of cameras inside private residences frightens me, I'm not sure that this is what the article is going for. The blurb up top says "He also wants them in private homes..." but nowhere in the linked article did I read that.
What was stated, was that he wanted cameras watching the property. "And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said."
Cameras in malls and large apartment complexes are actually quite common. Having a camera watching the halls and lobbies should not affect normal people at all. A camera which is used for watching private property is not/too/ much different, as long as it is placed outside of the house (probably watching the road in front of it, the driveway and the walk up to the front door). To me, it sounds like that is all he's talking about.
Of course, having a camera/inside/ the home is a totally different issue, and any who suggest it should be thrown from whichever office they currently hold.
Slashdot Mirror
People still use IE5 and 6, as well. Should we limit all comparisons to the earliest versions still used? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if, in some of the poorer nations, there are still even earlier versions of IE being used (just as there are still places where Windows 98 is used). You can't compare an old version of something to the newest version of something else unless you are trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Your comparison of Firefox 1.0 to IE7 is little more than comparing old black and white movies with modern high-def.
and I'll say it again now: One of these days, the Mafiaas are going to piss off the wrong person, and their corrupt leaders are going to end up with a bullet in the head. They go throwing their weight around like they were the only dogs in the yard that mattered, and they eventually piss off a smaller, quieter but far more vicious dog, and get torn apart. People won't take their BS forever, and something tells me, the Mafiaa won't be able to see where the line of "too far" is. I would feel pity for the leaders, but considering the billions of dollars their forced DRM infections have cost people, I can't in good faith care for them enough to feel pity. And yes, for any of the rats who troll this place for their Mafiaa masters, I am saying that I feel some lives aren't "priceless." When a group starts making life Hell for everyone else, their lives become without worth, and sooner or later, somebody is going to "cash in" on the worthless filth and improve not only their own lives, but the lives of everyone around them.
What was stated, was that he wanted cameras watching the property. "And if a homeowner requires repeated police response, it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of the property, he said."
Cameras in malls and large apartment complexes are actually quite common. Having a camera watching the halls and lobbies should not affect normal people at all. A camera which is used for watching private property is not /too/ much different, as long as it is placed outside of the house (probably watching the road in front of it, the driveway and the walk up to the front door). To me, it sounds like that is all he's talking about. /inside/ the home is a totally different issue, and any who suggest it should be thrown from whichever office they currently hold.
Of course, having a camera