That is an interesting view. I could go for that though I don't think that the government would need to subsidize them as many businesses are adding them or already have them and I'm guessing that trend will continue. I'm certainly not pro-monitoring by any means but I think it is something we'll have to approach and deal with instead of wishing it would go away. If we can manage to find a compromise it may be better in the long run.
The point is what I said it was, not what you are wishing it to be.
It appears that they're able to legitimately pull out numbers to prove the efficacy so I think the argument must be that the decrease in crime isn't worth the decrease in privacy.
Nah, I've both given it thought and looked at what evidence we have. It's certainly true that the government wishes to control us though I think that this is simply observation. I find that they feel they need to observe us to be above and beyond what I think they should do but I don't think there's some grand conspiracy to control us via Orwellian means. Well not any more than they'd be controlling us in that we may behave differently if we know we're monitored by CCTV though, again, I think their stated intent is just as they claim in this particular instance.
It is my right, I know this. I vote accordingly but I don't tend to jump on the old conspiracy theory bandwagon. Critical thinking would suggest Occam's Razor in this case and that the government really wants to just use them for observation which is bad in and of itself in my opinion. Also your question concerning extra police presence, why would you assume it is either/or and not both?
Absolutely and you may well be correct. It's a very valid theory. However, I do better statistically by taking them at face value and with their stated intent. It helps me be correct more often than assuming the worst does.
That is an interesting line of thought but without further evidence I am going to conclude that the goal is the stated goal. It may make me a "sheeple" but I find that, by law of probability, I'm usually right about such things when I do it this way.
They could stream the content live to the internet. They could stream all of the feeds in an easy to navigate, quick to load, standards-based web site for the world to see. I could see people willingly logging in, on their own time, and monitoring the streets with the intent to notify police if there appears to be anything afoot. I'm not positive but I recall there being some success with a similar program only it was people watching the border between the United States and Mexico though I've never participated or bothered looking into it so my knowledge is only hearsay and fuzzy recollection.
Unfortunately it looks like a review of a bunch of studies indicates that CCTV usage actually has a positive impact on crime with it being markedly so in the case of car parks it seems. It appears that they're able to legitimately pull out numbers to prove the efficacy so I think the argument must be that the decrease in crime isn't worth the decrease in privacy. Some exceptions could be made, for instance, as it shows a 50% decrease in crime when used in car parks it seems. I imagine that compromises will need to be made and I'd personally rather the increased freedom over the increased safety though I'm aware that other people will not think the same and that it is, ideally, a democracy where I live.
I am not even sure that it can violate that as the courts have pretty much decided that we have no right to privacy outside of our homes or even in our homes - as an example of the loss of privacy in our homes look at the people who have been busted for walking around nude in their home with their blinds open.
I don't think that I disagree with your ideals. Having said that, and - really, I don't disagree with them in all likelihood, I must ask, "In which way(s) are you asserting that drones, or their use(s), illegal to start with? What, specifically, is illegal about drones? What laws are being broken with them?"
I ask because, well, I fear that they will become so inexpensive to operate (including training) that they will be used to increase surveillance which, while against my ideals, probably doesn't (in and of itself) violate any laws. I'd like to be able to make a clear, factual, and reasonable argument against the increased use of drones but I don't have any arguments to make against it that are logical and truthful. I can only state that I'm afraid of what it may turn into.
Even in my worst imagined fears concerning these drones, I'm unable to find any laws that are being broken. Perhaps you come from a different country than I do? I'm from the United States of America. We're not all that free here which means that there are a lot of laws. Given the number of laws it is impossible for me (I'm not a lawyer, even then it would still be impossible) to know all of the laws. However, I'm reasonably aware of the many laws that we have to protect us and I'm reasonably aware of the laws that the government must follow and I'm unable to point to anything specifically about drones (or their proposed use, or even with the uses that I'm afraid of) which are illegal.
So, I'm not asking you to be my research assistant or the likes. You stated that drone use was illegal which isn't very specific and certainly isn't true so I'm hoping that you have something more concrete and that you can actually point out which laws being broken by these. If you could provide specifics and case law that would be most excellent too but I'm trying to not ask for too much.
See, in my opinion, they are making their surveillance too intrusive and too easily accomplished. In this day and age we're able to be monitored in most everything we do and, while this has always been legal, it has become increasingly easy for this to be done and for this information to be shared. The use of drones by police, municipalities, and private companies to monitor, photograph, and track a person is just yet another step in the age of zero privacy. I'm quite certain that it (that portion specifically) is legal though I'm equally certain that it shouldn't be. I can vocalize, express, this as a worry and all and that may affect the opinions of some but if it is illegal then there's an even greater chance of demonstrating the harm that this can cause to society.
I don't know... Perhaps you meant it should be illegal? I'm really unable to find anything that indicates the use of drones would be illegal in and of itself and that includes FAA regulations and the likes - I've looked. I could be missing something. Then again, this is/. and you could just be an insane zealot who thinks that anything they don't like is illegal but I'm hoping you're more honest and logical than that. Trust me on this, I've seen it here before...
Either way, I'm hoping you have something more concrete than the generic statement that the use of drones is illegal because, well... No, no it isn't illegal in and of itself. If there's some specific manner that they're being used that is illegal then I'm quite interested in knowing what it is. Like I said, I've even met people online who thought that DST (Daylight Savings Time) was illegal so you could just be one of the crazy ones but I'm sort of hoping you're not. It would be, admittedly, amusing but it wouldn't actually be beneficial to me.
Fortunately there are a lot of setting and options for pointing devices for those who suffer various handicaps though I suspect that, no matter what, we can not possibly have settings and equipment enough for the rarer cases. I'm reminded of the clit mouse. I used to crank the speed up on those and, after a while, got really adept at them to the point where those were faster for me than a touch pad would have been. (I used to buy only Toshiba laptops back then.)
Absolutely and that's one of the benefits of having the applet to start with. It can be adjusted quite a bit and I've never met anyone who wasn't eventually able to find a setting where they were pretty well satisfied.
The police man has the gun and a bunch of buddies with guns. You're free to be the person to go tell him he's fired - in Kenya. Everything you say concerning the subject should either be tempered with or followed by that point - in Kenya. Kenya has come a long ways but they have a very long ways to go. Corruption, bribery, and the likes are still very common (to the point where how business gets done) but, as I said, they've really come a long ways. They're protecting game reserves, they're cooperating with the locals for preservation with all sorts of nifty programs, they actually have elections and some non-starving people now.
An example was taking the time to find out (and then informing people and providing a variety of resources) that the farmer's livestock was being eaten by lions so the natives would kill the lions. That makes sense... Someone figured out that either all dogs or a certain breed of dogs (I don't recall which but I recall the program) would bark when lions approached and that the lions would go to easier targets and not even eat the dogs as well as leaving the livestock alone. So, I think it was the same group of people who use the locals as a source to hear about the poachers by the way, found a way to breed and give out the dogs which resolved the problem.
Now, to be fair...
No, when I last heard about the program and the effect that it was having I can say that I heard nothing AT THAT TIME to indicate that they were eating the dogs or using them for that strange belief system.
To tie it all back together... I forget the name and am too lazy to look it up but a part of the problem in the "bad" sections mentioned above (in my prior post up above this) is the crazy belief in some black magic stuff where they go to a witch doctor and get all sorts of crazy cures and spells. (Even Nigerian scammers go there - and insist on going there because they won't have success without the blessings from the crazy witch doctors. There's a name for it, I forget.) There is even a movie craze going on about this black magic stuff... No - no I'm not making any of this up - it's crazy stuff and worse than I describe it. I truly could see them scamming the anti-poaching people into giving them dogs just so they could eat them, sacrifice them, or use their entrails in some crazy ceremony.
I could be mistaken but I don't think that's this section of Africa. I think that's Liberia, Ghana, and Nigeria area that does that. I am not, by any means, an expert on African culture but I think that's the area where it is more prevalent if not pretty much exclusive to. It's the only place on the planet where a once war criminal who was named General Butt Naked can manage to not go to prison (or be executed) and be a preacher today. I admit the previous sentence may not make much sense at initial viewing BUT I'm not making this up and the sentence should make sense with a few readings.
Because/. has been very consistently anti-censorship (even on their own servers) over the years. It is a part of the corporate culture there and it is a wonderful part. It means we have to deal with this, the goat thing, and many other moronic things that have come and gone over the years. This policy has, for the most part, been well followed and I respect them for it though it does mean that we have to put up with silly shit like this.
Even on the old ball mice you could adjust the mouse properties in the speed section and not have to pick up the mouse to traverse the screen. I thought everybody did this? That's what the speed adjusted in the control panel applets/settings even on ball mice. LOL One of my first moves in setting up a PC was to turn the mouse speed up a couple of notches.
I'm not sure if the default speed has changed or if the advent of more refined mice changed it but I know that, today, I don't HAVE to make any adjustments to the mouse speed to do that any more and it is one of my later configuration changes and those changes are but a single notch of speed increase typically. Same with a track pad although I had to slow the earlier track pads down but I think that was a matter of me getting used to it as I no longer turn it down. But, well, you could.
Making two bombs with the same equipment is too many traceable parts as well as testing your bombs in an area that can be tied to yourself.
That's what I have learned from watching television. I haven't any real desire to build bombs. As a kid we used to make explosives and I don't think it was illegal then. These days even those soda bottle, aluminum foil, and toilet bowl cleaner "bombs" are considered illegal. Now that I am an adult and the laws have changed - I can buy fireworks. However, as a kid I'd have been in a lot of trouble if I'd been caught AND it was today.
We used to use black powder and emptied out BB gun CO2 cartridges. We'd use a waterproof (green) wick. They'd put a giant hole in the ground, throw shrapnel around, and do all sorts of wonderful things like lift up cast iron bathtubs. They were awesome.
As an adult I'd go to PMITA prison for that today. As a kid I'd end up going to juvenile hall for it (for an insanely long time - like a couple of years in the most recent case that I saw and that was for the above mentioned soda bottle bomb). Hell, one of the kids who made it with me was a cop's kid - we'd have to bring home a few for his dad to play with. His dad also had reloading equipment and a class 3 (I think that's the one) FFL so he could have fully automatic weapons which were a good deal of fun.
I don't know if it is post 9/11 or if it was before that but, at some point, someone tried to make life safe and making it safe made it less fun. I'd not even consider making one now simply because I don't know what the penalty is but I'm positive it is higher than I want to pay.
I can see it being useful though it shouldn't be the primary means of input. I'd not say that it doesn't belong on the desktop but I'd say that it is not the best method for long term data input and data manipulation. An example where this could be valuable would be someone walking over to your computer and wanting to show you something to ask you a question. They could reach out, "grab" something, and drag it to another area of the screen for example. So, in a limited example where you sometimes have more than one person at a monitor it would be easier for this (and better, I think - perhaps, depending) than for them to grab your mouse or keyboard.
It certainly isn't the best and I am not sure anyone is advocating it as the soul source. But, I think it as a stretch to say it doesn't belong. I'd say it isn't a requirement (or the best method for input and manipulation) but it could come in handy for some people. If $5 speeds up collaboration then I'm all for it.
Perhaps you missed the "unable to agree" in my comment? I didn't agree, I was civil. There is a difference. I opted to be civil as it was the more noble road and I felt like being idealistic. I am not sure but I think the world would be in better shape if more people did that.
Thank you. I was sure you had a reason. I am unable to agree with that reasoning with the scant evidence at hand and your conclusions seem like huge leaps and maybe even blaming a language for the error that is people but I can see where you're coming from now.
Slashdot Mirror
That is an interesting view. I could go for that though I don't think that the government would need to subsidize them as many businesses are adding them or already have them and I'm guessing that trend will continue. I'm certainly not pro-monitoring by any means but I think it is something we'll have to approach and deal with instead of wishing it would go away. If we can manage to find a compromise it may be better in the long run.
The point is what I said it was, not what you are wishing it to be.
It appears that they're able to legitimately pull out numbers to prove the efficacy so I think the argument must be that the decrease in crime isn't worth the decrease in privacy.
Nah, I've both given it thought and looked at what evidence we have. It's certainly true that the government wishes to control us though I think that this is simply observation. I find that they feel they need to observe us to be above and beyond what I think they should do but I don't think there's some grand conspiracy to control us via Orwellian means. Well not any more than they'd be controlling us in that we may behave differently if we know we're monitored by CCTV though, again, I think their stated intent is just as they claim in this particular instance.
It is my right, I know this. I vote accordingly but I don't tend to jump on the old conspiracy theory bandwagon. Critical thinking would suggest Occam's Razor in this case and that the government really wants to just use them for observation which is bad in and of itself in my opinion. Also your question concerning extra police presence, why would you assume it is either/or and not both?
That is the point - I get to be correct more often than I would if I jumped on the bandwagon believing every conspiracy theory that is out there.
Absolutely and you may well be correct. It's a very valid theory. However, I do better statistically by taking them at face value and with their stated intent. It helps me be correct more often than assuming the worst does.
Thank you.
That is an interesting line of thought but without further evidence I am going to conclude that the goal is the stated goal. It may make me a "sheeple" but I find that, by law of probability, I'm usually right about such things when I do it this way.
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/news_/CCTV_modest_impact_on_crime.php
They could stream the content live to the internet. They could stream all of the feeds in an easy to navigate, quick to load, standards-based web site for the world to see. I could see people willingly logging in, on their own time, and monitoring the streets with the intent to notify police if there appears to be anything afoot. I'm not positive but I recall there being some success with a similar program only it was people watching the border between the United States and Mexico though I've never participated or bothered looking into it so my knowledge is only hearsay and fuzzy recollection.
Unfortunately it looks like a review of a bunch of studies indicates that CCTV usage actually has a positive impact on crime with it being markedly so in the case of car parks it seems. It appears that they're able to legitimately pull out numbers to prove the efficacy so I think the argument must be that the decrease in crime isn't worth the decrease in privacy. Some exceptions could be made, for instance, as it shows a 50% decrease in crime when used in car parks it seems. I imagine that compromises will need to be made and I'd personally rather the increased freedom over the increased safety though I'm aware that other people will not think the same and that it is, ideally, a democracy where I live.
I am not even sure that it can violate that as the courts have pretty much decided that we have no right to privacy outside of our homes or even in our homes - as an example of the loss of privacy in our homes look at the people who have been busted for walking around nude in their home with their blinds open.
I don't think that I disagree with your ideals. Having said that, and - really, I don't disagree with them in all likelihood, I must ask, "In which way(s) are you asserting that drones, or their use(s), illegal to start with? What, specifically, is illegal about drones? What laws are being broken with them?"
I ask because, well, I fear that they will become so inexpensive to operate (including training) that they will be used to increase surveillance which, while against my ideals, probably doesn't (in and of itself) violate any laws. I'd like to be able to make a clear, factual, and reasonable argument against the increased use of drones but I don't have any arguments to make against it that are logical and truthful. I can only state that I'm afraid of what it may turn into.
Even in my worst imagined fears concerning these drones, I'm unable to find any laws that are being broken. Perhaps you come from a different country than I do? I'm from the United States of America. We're not all that free here which means that there are a lot of laws. Given the number of laws it is impossible for me (I'm not a lawyer, even then it would still be impossible) to know all of the laws. However, I'm reasonably aware of the many laws that we have to protect us and I'm reasonably aware of the laws that the government must follow and I'm unable to point to anything specifically about drones (or their proposed use, or even with the uses that I'm afraid of) which are illegal.
So, I'm not asking you to be my research assistant or the likes. You stated that drone use was illegal which isn't very specific and certainly isn't true so I'm hoping that you have something more concrete and that you can actually point out which laws being broken by these. If you could provide specifics and case law that would be most excellent too but I'm trying to not ask for too much.
See, in my opinion, they are making their surveillance too intrusive and too easily accomplished. In this day and age we're able to be monitored in most everything we do and, while this has always been legal, it has become increasingly easy for this to be done and for this information to be shared. The use of drones by police, municipalities, and private companies to monitor, photograph, and track a person is just yet another step in the age of zero privacy. I'm quite certain that it (that portion specifically) is legal though I'm equally certain that it shouldn't be. I can vocalize, express, this as a worry and all and that may affect the opinions of some but if it is illegal then there's an even greater chance of demonstrating the harm that this can cause to society.
I don't know... Perhaps you meant it should be illegal? I'm really unable to find anything that indicates the use of drones would be illegal in and of itself and that includes FAA regulations and the likes - I've looked. I could be missing something. Then again, this is /. and you could just be an insane zealot who thinks that anything they don't like is illegal but I'm hoping you're more honest and logical than that. Trust me on this, I've seen it here before...
Either way, I'm hoping you have something more concrete than the generic statement that the use of drones is illegal because, well... No, no it isn't illegal in and of itself. If there's some specific manner that they're being used that is illegal then I'm quite interested in knowing what it is. Like I said, I've even met people online who thought that DST (Daylight Savings Time) was illegal so you could just be one of the crazy ones but I'm sort of hoping you're not. It would be, admittedly, amusing but it wouldn't actually be beneficial to me.
While being used to run a 3D printer, of course.
while woking on a rubik's cube
You have a stove in your car??? Also, don't cook plastic. Even cooked it isn't meant to be eaten usually.
Wok this way, talk this way...
Fortunately there are a lot of setting and options for pointing devices for those who suffer various handicaps though I suspect that, no matter what, we can not possibly have settings and equipment enough for the rarer cases. I'm reminded of the clit mouse. I used to crank the speed up on those and, after a while, got really adept at them to the point where those were faster for me than a touch pad would have been. (I used to buy only Toshiba laptops back then.)
Absolutely and that's one of the benefits of having the applet to start with. It can be adjusted quite a bit and I've never met anyone who wasn't eventually able to find a setting where they were pretty well satisfied.
The police man has the gun and a bunch of buddies with guns. You're free to be the person to go tell him he's fired - in Kenya. Everything you say concerning the subject should either be tempered with or followed by that point - in Kenya. Kenya has come a long ways but they have a very long ways to go. Corruption, bribery, and the likes are still very common (to the point where how business gets done) but, as I said, they've really come a long ways. They're protecting game reserves, they're cooperating with the locals for preservation with all sorts of nifty programs, they actually have elections and some non-starving people now.
An example was taking the time to find out (and then informing people and providing a variety of resources) that the farmer's livestock was being eaten by lions so the natives would kill the lions. That makes sense... Someone figured out that either all dogs or a certain breed of dogs (I don't recall which but I recall the program) would bark when lions approached and that the lions would go to easier targets and not even eat the dogs as well as leaving the livestock alone. So, I think it was the same group of people who use the locals as a source to hear about the poachers by the way, found a way to breed and give out the dogs which resolved the problem.
Now, to be fair...
No, when I last heard about the program and the effect that it was having I can say that I heard nothing AT THAT TIME to indicate that they were eating the dogs or using them for that strange belief system.
To tie it all back together... I forget the name and am too lazy to look it up but a part of the problem in the "bad" sections mentioned above (in my prior post up above this) is the crazy belief in some black magic stuff where they go to a witch doctor and get all sorts of crazy cures and spells. (Even Nigerian scammers go there - and insist on going there because they won't have success without the blessings from the crazy witch doctors. There's a name for it, I forget.) There is even a movie craze going on about this black magic stuff... No - no I'm not making any of this up - it's crazy stuff and worse than I describe it. I truly could see them scamming the anti-poaching people into giving them dogs just so they could eat them, sacrifice them, or use their entrails in some crazy ceremony.
I could be mistaken but I don't think that's this section of Africa. I think that's Liberia, Ghana, and Nigeria area that does that. I am not, by any means, an expert on African culture but I think that's the area where it is more prevalent if not pretty much exclusive to. It's the only place on the planet where a once war criminal who was named General Butt Naked can manage to not go to prison (or be executed) and be a preacher today. I admit the previous sentence may not make much sense at initial viewing BUT I'm not making this up and the sentence should make sense with a few readings.
Because /. has been very consistently anti-censorship (even on their own servers) over the years. It is a part of the corporate culture there and it is a wonderful part. It means we have to deal with this, the goat thing, and many other moronic things that have come and gone over the years. This policy has, for the most part, been well followed and I respect them for it though it does mean that we have to put up with silly shit like this.
What? Don't blame me. You asked why.
Even on the old ball mice you could adjust the mouse properties in the speed section and not have to pick up the mouse to traverse the screen. I thought everybody did this? That's what the speed adjusted in the control panel applets/settings even on ball mice. LOL One of my first moves in setting up a PC was to turn the mouse speed up a couple of notches.
I'm not sure if the default speed has changed or if the advent of more refined mice changed it but I know that, today, I don't HAVE to make any adjustments to the mouse speed to do that any more and it is one of my later configuration changes and those changes are but a single notch of speed increase typically. Same with a track pad although I had to slow the earlier track pads down but I think that was a matter of me getting used to it as I no longer turn it down. But, well, you could.
Making two bombs with the same equipment is too many traceable parts as well as testing your bombs in an area that can be tied to yourself.
That's what I have learned from watching television. I haven't any real desire to build bombs. As a kid we used to make explosives and I don't think it was illegal then. These days even those soda bottle, aluminum foil, and toilet bowl cleaner "bombs" are considered illegal. Now that I am an adult and the laws have changed - I can buy fireworks. However, as a kid I'd have been in a lot of trouble if I'd been caught AND it was today.
We used to use black powder and emptied out BB gun CO2 cartridges. We'd use a waterproof (green) wick. They'd put a giant hole in the ground, throw shrapnel around, and do all sorts of wonderful things like lift up cast iron bathtubs. They were awesome.
As an adult I'd go to PMITA prison for that today. As a kid I'd end up going to juvenile hall for it (for an insanely long time - like a couple of years in the most recent case that I saw and that was for the above mentioned soda bottle bomb). Hell, one of the kids who made it with me was a cop's kid - we'd have to bring home a few for his dad to play with. His dad also had reloading equipment and a class 3 (I think that's the one) FFL so he could have fully automatic weapons which were a good deal of fun.
I don't know if it is post 9/11 or if it was before that but, at some point, someone tried to make life safe and making it safe made it less fun. I'd not even consider making one now simply because I don't know what the penalty is but I'm positive it is higher than I want to pay.
I can see it being useful though it shouldn't be the primary means of input. I'd not say that it doesn't belong on the desktop but I'd say that it is not the best method for long term data input and data manipulation. An example where this could be valuable would be someone walking over to your computer and wanting to show you something to ask you a question. They could reach out, "grab" something, and drag it to another area of the screen for example. So, in a limited example where you sometimes have more than one person at a monitor it would be easier for this (and better, I think - perhaps, depending) than for them to grab your mouse or keyboard.
It certainly isn't the best and I am not sure anyone is advocating it as the soul source. But, I think it as a stretch to say it doesn't belong. I'd say it isn't a requirement (or the best method for input and manipulation) but it could come in handy for some people. If $5 speeds up collaboration then I'm all for it.
Perhaps you missed the "unable to agree" in my comment? I didn't agree, I was civil. There is a difference. I opted to be civil as it was the more noble road and I felt like being idealistic. I am not sure but I think the world would be in better shape if more people did that.
Thank you. I was sure you had a reason. I am unable to agree with that reasoning with the scant evidence at hand and your conclusions seem like huge leaps and maybe even blaming a language for the error that is people but I can see where you're coming from now.