Now, I do plenty of things, I think that Bleach character with the bow and arrow who name now alludes me is pretty cool, but sewing, stitchery, and quilting I do not.
I'm going to lose several points off my 'cool' license for this (if I had any in the first place), but his name is Ishida Uryuu.
As a someone steeped in experience, is there much of a difference between 1999 flamebait and 2006 flamebait?
I mean, sentences like "I know one person who bought a Mac over the forced move" just make me laugh out loud. I'm pretty sure that someone who would spend $2000 on a computer because Microsoft asked them to use IE7 instead of 6 can only be classed as a complete idiot, rather than some insightful Mac zealot who moved from Windows because he couldn't work out how to press 'Cancel' in the 'Do you want to install IE7' box.
I'd like you to clarify how IE6 to IE7 is a forced upgrade. You see, when they did the upgrade, I got asked twice. Regular users with automatic update on would have been asked once regardless unless their admin already agreed it for them. Firefox (good old lovely Firefox that everyone adores so much) didn't give me the option to stay at whatever version I was on until I went hunting through layers of options to turn it off.
Also, clarify how IE7 is buggy and insecure.
Also, give us some research that backs up your 'Linux/Firefox/Mac crowd are more likely to spend online', because I'm pretty sure you pulled that out of your ass.
Also, clarify how you even managed to get through the summary without realising the whole shebang was total bullshit from beginning to end.
You've been predicting the end of MS and IE ever since I can remember reading your shit, and it hasn't ended yet. I really can't honestly decide nowadays whether you believe this stuff or do it to get people who actually know something pissed off enough to reply and people who don't to mod you through the roof.
It's really the difference between you being a genius and a complete tool.
I know that answers coming from ACs don't usually help so allow me:
Yes, it does.
You have to not only agree to download and install the update (either automatically or by notification), and then you get a SECOND window asking you whether you want to install it, which pops up regardless of whether you have automatic set or not.
The only time it won't pop up is if your network administrator decides to install it across all computers on the network. THEN you don't get a choice, but then it was hardly your choice to begin with anyway, hmm?
"In this way users will be properly protected against any possible waves of attacks using voice over IP systems. For traditional problems (known malicious code), signature-based scanning; for new problems, new technologies (intelligent detection of unknown code)."
What, something like your goddamn TruPrevent Technology which repeatedly identified my uTorrent client as malware and my connection to WoW as an e-mail virus?
And if I go out at night, and if I wear all black, and if a car comes towards me with no headlights on then I might get run over.
Seriously though, there were an awful lot of 'if's and 'maybe's in that, and at least one of those steps can be avoided by being at least slightly knowledgable about the internet. It's a matter of education and in that respect people have to help themselves, or other people will help themselves instead.
I'd forgotten that it's only Wikipedia that frowns on arguments like "Here's my opinion, here's someone else's opinion to back it up. I must be right, because you only have YOUR opinion to argue against it with."
You're right, this isn't Wikipedia. Doesn't mean you can spout shit, though.
Look Mac, I know that this is from the Isle of the Kidney-Pie Eaters and Sun Readers but the dumbing down of school children is a world-wide agenda.
No, it isn't. Want to provide some proof? A study or something? Anything at all?
Your masters are Germans, (Haus Sachsen-Coburg) and your national anthem is in fact a German hymn and that starts with "Heil Dir dem Siegerkranz".
What made you think I care? I'll just read that as "I can't make a good point so I'll antagonise you instead in the hope that you'll forget that I have the arguing skills of a cucumber", which didn't really work, did it?
I would like to note that this book would be far more interesting if it was "The Dumbing Down of Britain", which (if you'd bothered to read the summary, or even the headline, and got past your innate assumption that everything of import happens in America) you might note is where the incident actually took place.
To answer your first point, no. But for them, full surveillance was a tool. Almost everything in the world has positive or negative effects depending on how they are used. You can use a spade to dig a hole or beat someone to death. A gun can be used to shoot a man or deter him from killing you. A car can be used to transport you, or run you down. Words are capable of spreading love and causing fear. In this way, cameras can be used to stop crime and protect citizens, or to control populations and eliminate privacy.
The future of 1984 was created by The Party, not by the cameras. That is why it is a pathetic point to bring up regarding surveillance. It should be quoted when talking about governments, not cameras.
And once again, you're accusing me of insinuating things I have never said. I do not live in a world where it's either one thing or another, and neither do you.
What you meant was "You didn't ask the question I wanted you to ask", then you made some dramatic assumptions about what I do or do not find acceptable.
You obviously took something away from that book which I didn't, then. What I saw was a government obsessed with propaganda and control, not with surveillance. Surveillance was merely the way they enforced their propaganda on the inhabitants. Surveillance in the hands of the well-meaning is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Also, accusing me of having unlimited trust in the government is a complete fallacy. I can only assume you have Two-Tone Perception disorder: the inability to see anything except as one thing or another. Not everything is black and white.
Read what I said, and what you asked, and start again. Try it without the stupid this time.
Sorry, we've already established that saying "1984" is not an argument, nor is it a good point. I can only assume that all the people who say '1984' have never taken the time to actually read the book, as they would be more frugal as to where they throw the reference.
To switch your indirectly insulting, loaded and poorly written question about on it's face: Are you an idiot that believes the police do nothing right?
I love people who trot that out every time a story like this comes out as if it's a certainty that putting a camera anywhere means the inevitably of the future of 1984 happening. Not to mention it has the positive side of making you look well-read.
Unfortunately, it's another generic response to my question. Can you try answering it properly?
Yet farmers have guns, the government owns nukes, drugs are taken all the time, nearly everyone 'has religion' and most people hopefully have an education......yet you turn on a camera to try and prevent a crime and suddenly it's too far?
I fail to see your logic, to be honest. Can you clarify what you're trying to say?
I agree with most of what you say there, but I have something to add to 1).
The problem is, corruption is always possible. When you give more tools for people to do the right thing, you invariably give people the tools to do the wrong thing too. You can have these people watched too but by other people who could be corrupt.
There is a limit to how many people you can have in a chain before you have to draw a line and say "We have to trust these people to do the right thing."
"But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow?
You can't be tried for a law that doesn't exist. IANAL, but if it wasn't against the law when you did it, you can't be arrested for it. Ignorance of the law is one thing, but ignorance of a non-existant law is quite another.
What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?
Yes, but that's also privacy intrusion now. These cameras aren't there to catch public figures picking their noses. Straw man, anyone?
Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time.
How does having better computers provide the manpower to watch more cameras?
What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think?
What if the cameras are only there to watch for criminal activity? What if all other activity is disregarded? Does it make you pause to think that maybe you're a tad paranoid?
The kind of slippery slope argument you're using here works both ways. Yes, cameras can be abused. But what if they aren't being abused and never will be?
As long as this is the way they're used, yes. Then again, I live in the UK and these kinds of cameras are pretty prevalent.
I'm intrigued to hear from someone to explain why they don't want these cameras around. Privacy concerns is what I usually hear but as you're in a public place surrounded by the public who can watch you using their eyes, what's the difference between a policeman watching you in person and a policeman watching you by camera?
Hell, I'm 24 (or was about a month ago) and I'm fed up with unaccountable shitcocks online, and all I do is maintain a LiveJournal (and post here of course).
Ever heard of something called "burden of proof"? That is, that if you didn't provide all the details and evidence of your argument, then it's hardly 'middle-school logic' to say that you didn't do enough to prove your point.
You didn't even bother to challenge what I said other than "I don't have to prove what I said. Generic playground insult."
Of course I'm the same guy! I mean, it couldn't be possible that two people on the whole planet had trouble getting your operating system to install? While following all the guidelines given on the website and in the installer only to find out later that they're wrong? Not noting, of course, that I didn't bother asking anybody for help, thereby invalidating your "crazy sense of entitlement" crack?
It can't be your installer, because nobody earlier in this very same thread admitted that GRUB installer wasn't what the guy should have used, despite it saying "Highly Recommended" right next to it? And you're still trying to maintain this completely insane point of view that he could have done better research into what he was installing?
You can tell us. You're among friends. Are you on drugs or something?
The only point you answered with something other than "Oh, you're the same guy, I don't have to talk to you" was an exercise in pointlessness that was already proved wrong by another Ubuntu user earlier in this thread, and the rest of your post was an exercise in how ironically you can call someone a sarcastic dick while acting like (you guessed it) a sarcastic dick.
Is it any wonder that people think Linux geeks are elitist assholes when you, as a community, allow this smug prick to speak for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I do plenty of things, I think that Bleach character with the bow and arrow who name now alludes me is pretty cool, but sewing, stitchery, and quilting I do not.
I'm going to lose several points off my 'cool' license for this (if I had any in the first place), but his name is Ishida Uryuu.
1) Your link is broken,
2) Your layout stinks and it was only 30 seconds of trying to decipher how to read your shit before I gave up, and
3) Don't project your bitter disappointment that Zonk rejected your advances onto a DVD format war. It's not healthy.
So you are saying that because matches are incredibly exploitable in burning down houses, that some of the blame lies with the matchmakers?
As a someone steeped in experience, is there much of a difference between 1999 flamebait and 2006 flamebait?
I mean, sentences like "I know one person who bought a Mac over the forced move" just make me laugh out loud. I'm pretty sure that someone who would spend $2000 on a computer because Microsoft asked them to use IE7 instead of 6 can only be classed as a complete idiot, rather than some insightful Mac zealot who moved from Windows because he couldn't work out how to press 'Cancel' in the 'Do you want to install IE7' box.
I'd like you to clarify how IE6 to IE7 is a forced upgrade. You see, when they did the upgrade, I got asked twice. Regular users with automatic update on would have been asked once regardless unless their admin already agreed it for them. Firefox (good old lovely Firefox that everyone adores so much) didn't give me the option to stay at whatever version I was on until I went hunting through layers of options to turn it off.
Also, clarify how IE7 is buggy and insecure.
Also, give us some research that backs up your 'Linux/Firefox/Mac crowd are more likely to spend online', because I'm pretty sure you pulled that out of your ass.
Also, clarify how you even managed to get through the summary without realising the whole shebang was total bullshit from beginning to end.
You've been predicting the end of MS and IE ever since I can remember reading your shit, and it hasn't ended yet. I really can't honestly decide nowadays whether you believe this stuff or do it to get people who actually know something pissed off enough to reply and people who don't to mod you through the roof.
It's really the difference between you being a genius and a complete tool.
I know that answers coming from ACs don't usually help so allow me:
Yes, it does.
You have to not only agree to download and install the update (either automatically or by notification), and then you get a SECOND window asking you whether you want to install it, which pops up regardless of whether you have automatic set or not.
The only time it won't pop up is if your network administrator decides to install it across all computers on the network. THEN you don't get a choice, but then it was hardly your choice to begin with anyway, hmm?
Give this guy a cigar.
I loved the end quote to the article:
"In this way users will be properly protected against any possible waves of attacks using voice over IP systems. For traditional problems (known malicious code), signature-based scanning; for new problems, new technologies (intelligent detection of unknown code)."
What, something like your goddamn TruPrevent Technology which repeatedly identified my uTorrent client as malware and my connection to WoW as an e-mail virus?
I think not, chumps!
And if I go out at night, and if I wear all black, and if a car comes towards me with no headlights on then I might get run over.
Seriously though, there were an awful lot of 'if's and 'maybe's in that, and at least one of those steps can be avoided by being at least slightly knowledgable about the internet. It's a matter of education and in that respect people have to help themselves, or other people will help themselves instead.
To all your money.
Oh yes, my bad.
I'd forgotten that it's only Wikipedia that frowns on arguments like "Here's my opinion, here's someone else's opinion to back it up. I must be right, because you only have YOUR opinion to argue against it with."
You're right, this isn't Wikipedia. Doesn't mean you can spout shit, though.
Sorry buddy, burden of proof is still on you. You made the claim, back it up.
Look Mac, I know that this is from the Isle of the Kidney-Pie Eaters and Sun Readers
but the dumbing down of school children is a world-wide agenda.
No, it isn't. Want to provide some proof? A study or something? Anything at all?
Your masters are Germans, (Haus Sachsen-Coburg) and your national anthem is in fact
a German hymn and that starts with "Heil Dir dem Siegerkranz".
What made you think I care? I'll just read that as "I can't make a good point so I'll antagonise you instead in the hope that you'll forget that I have the arguing skills of a cucumber", which didn't really work, did it?
It is much different. British legal culture is not as litigation-happy as it's American counterpart.
Yet.
I would like to note that this book would be far more interesting if it was "The Dumbing Down of Britain", which (if you'd bothered to read the summary, or even the headline, and got past your innate assumption that everything of import happens in America) you might note is where the incident actually took place.
To answer your first point, no. But for them, full surveillance was a tool. Almost everything in the world has positive or negative effects depending on how they are used. You can use a spade to dig a hole or beat someone to death. A gun can be used to shoot a man or deter him from killing you. A car can be used to transport you, or run you down. Words are capable of spreading love and causing fear. In this way, cameras can be used to stop crime and protect citizens, or to control populations and eliminate privacy.
The future of 1984 was created by The Party, not by the cameras. That is why it is a pathetic point to bring up regarding surveillance. It should be quoted when talking about governments, not cameras.
And once again, you're accusing me of insinuating things I have never said. I do not live in a world where it's either one thing or another, and neither do you.
No, I was asking the right question.
What you meant was "You didn't ask the question I wanted you to ask", then you made some dramatic assumptions about what I do or do not find acceptable.
Want to try again?
You obviously took something away from that book which I didn't, then. What I saw was a government obsessed with propaganda and control, not with surveillance. Surveillance was merely the way they enforced their propaganda on the inhabitants. Surveillance in the hands of the well-meaning is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Also, accusing me of having unlimited trust in the government is a complete fallacy. I can only assume you have Two-Tone Perception disorder: the inability to see anything except as one thing or another. Not everything is black and white.
Read what I said, and what you asked, and start again. Try it without the stupid this time.
Sorry, we've already established that saying "1984" is not an argument, nor is it a good point. I can only assume that all the people who say '1984' have never taken the time to actually read the book, as they would be more frugal as to where they throw the reference.
To switch your indirectly insulting, loaded and poorly written question about on it's face: Are you an idiot that believes the police do nothing right?
You'd be proper fucked if I said no, huh?
So, no.
I already have. Have you?
I love people who trot that out every time a story like this comes out as if it's a certainty that putting a camera anywhere means the inevitably of the future of 1984 happening. Not to mention it has the positive side of making you look well-read.
Unfortunately, it's another generic response to my question. Can you try answering it properly?
Yet farmers have guns, the government owns nukes, drugs are taken all the time, nearly everyone 'has religion' and most people hopefully have an education... ...yet you turn on a camera to try and prevent a crime and suddenly it's too far?
I fail to see your logic, to be honest. Can you clarify what you're trying to say?
I agree with most of what you say there, but I have something to add to 1).
The problem is, corruption is always possible. When you give more tools for people to do the right thing, you invariably give people the tools to do the wrong thing too. You can have these people watched too but by other people who could be corrupt.
There is a limit to how many people you can have in a chain before you have to draw a line and say "We have to trust these people to do the right thing."
"But why is a permanent record bad, when I'm doing nothing wrong?". You aren't doing anything wrong today, but what about under the laws of tomorrow?
You can't be tried for a law that doesn't exist. IANAL, but if it wasn't against the law when you did it, you can't be arrested for it. Ignorance of the law is one thing, but ignorance of a non-existant law is quite another.
What about if you later become a public figure, and they have tapes of you picking your nose? Is it suddenly a privacy intrusion then?
Yes, but that's also privacy intrusion now. These cameras aren't there to catch public figures picking their noses. Straw man, anyone?
Also, with better and better computer processing, ALL of the cameras can be watched ALL of the time.
How does having better computers provide the manpower to watch more cameras?
What if the police had officers on every corner, and were taking notes 24 hours a day of everything that happened, everyone who passed by, etc. Would that make you pause to think?
What if the cameras are only there to watch for criminal activity? What if all other activity is disregarded? Does it make you pause to think that maybe you're a tad paranoid?
The kind of slippery slope argument you're using here works both ways. Yes, cameras can be abused. But what if they aren't being abused and never will be?
As long as this is the way they're used, yes. Then again, I live in the UK and these kinds of cameras are pretty prevalent.
I'm intrigued to hear from someone to explain why they don't want these cameras around. Privacy concerns is what I usually hear but as you're in a public place surrounded by the public who can watch you using their eyes, what's the difference between a policeman watching you in person and a policeman watching you by camera?
Hell, I'm 24 (or was about a month ago) and I'm fed up with unaccountable shitcocks online, and all I do is maintain a LiveJournal (and post here of course).
Ever heard of something called "burden of proof"? That is, that if you didn't provide all the details and evidence of your argument, then it's hardly 'middle-school logic' to say that you didn't do enough to prove your point.
You didn't even bother to challenge what I said other than "I don't have to prove what I said. Generic playground insult."
Fuck it, I have karma to burn. Have at you!
Of course I'm the same guy! I mean, it couldn't be possible that two people on the whole planet had trouble getting your operating system to install? While following all the guidelines given on the website and in the installer only to find out later that they're wrong? Not noting, of course, that I didn't bother asking anybody for help, thereby invalidating your "crazy sense of entitlement" crack?
It can't be your installer, because nobody earlier in this very same thread admitted that GRUB installer wasn't what the guy should have used, despite it saying "Highly Recommended" right next to it? And you're still trying to maintain this completely insane point of view that he could have done better research into what he was installing?
You can tell us. You're among friends. Are you on drugs or something?
The only point you answered with something other than "Oh, you're the same guy, I don't have to talk to you" was an exercise in pointlessness that was already proved wrong by another Ubuntu user earlier in this thread, and the rest of your post was an exercise in how ironically you can call someone a sarcastic dick while acting like (you guessed it) a sarcastic dick.
Is it any wonder that people think Linux geeks are elitist assholes when you, as a community, allow this smug prick to speak for you?