I'm not trying to conflate the two because the question of whether or not an individual can be identified by IP does not rest on the moral or ethical trivialities of the actions taken in response to that presumed identification.
You don't even know that it was 'someone at Diebold'. You know that, as reported by a Wikipedia crawling robot, an edit was performed by a machine that reported its IP address as one belonging to a block assigned to Diebold. Trot out any of the arguments made in favor of dropping an RIAA lawsuit against a single mom and they all apply here. Maybe Diebold is running an unsecured wirelss AP. Maybe someone there has a rootkit. Maybe some guy took his laptop home and let his son use it.
Certainly it is far fetched to believe that it isn't Diebold, but no more far fetched than to believe that the RIAA would invent screen shots of people sharing thousands of copyrighted music files and turn them in to a court.
I don't see that quite as clearly as you do, I guess.
Maybe it is because I recall the last **AA lawsuit article in which Slashdotters asserted that an IP address is an entirely meaningless number as it relates to proving anything about anyone.
Unlike, say, the response from the other side of the debate, indicating that either they are A-OK with World Weekly News style headlines or that they recognize the problem and are all planning to sit down and figure out how to rein in the dumb shit.
Anything at all would be nice, really. "We're too busy to fuck with headlines" would be fine. "We don't think you people are smart enough to have a discussion on your own". As of late all we've gotten in the way of direct communication is a rant about a toolbar that rates web sites. Or maybe we have and I just don't hang out on IRC channels so I missed it.
I'm a professional photographer, which is one of the high end high margin markets Microsoft would like to do more business in, and is the 5% you guess at above. If they want in they'll need to deal with Photoshop in some way. If Paint.net, or GIMP, or any of the other giveaway photo programs do all you need, you are both not the market we're talking about here nor do you understand its needs.
I went to one day of Microsoft's Pro Photo Summit last month and I get the impression they are quite serious about this. More so than in the past.
Photoshop will be an extremely tough hill to climb because there really are no other apps in the ballpark. That leverage is how they got Lightroom into the hands of so many photographers despite that fact it really isn't very good at doing any tasks that weren't copied straight out of Photoshop.
Before Microsoft bought iView it was a much better photo management app than Lightroom. The only thing better about Adobe's product was its UI and integration with Photoshop. I don't know what changes MS has made but if they haven't broken its ability to quickly handle large libraries they might be able to get some traction there.
That is a popular idea, and true to an extent, but it isn't the whole picture.
Many political entities throughout the Middle East and Africa are making war to consolidate power in their own country and use the West as a convenient scapegoat. This isn't much different from what the neo-cons, to use a contemporary example, have done in reverse in the West. Invent some boogeyman, convince your people you can protect them from him, and they will support you.
On a conceptual level Sayeed Kotb's ideas aren't all that different from Leo Strauss'.
Sure many Western governments have encouraged conflicts. Directed them to their benefit. Provided the raw materials. But the total absence of all Western influence wouldn't bring peace, a great many people can still be killed with machetes.
I think the continued survival of chickens as we know them depends on their marketability as a food item.
Regardless, it is a stretch to assume that a vegetarian is by default healthier than a one that includes meat. But due to the nature of the thing, somewhere on some vegan web forum vegans are probably complaining about subsidizing health insurance for vegetarians.
And my BMI is usually just less than 30. Yet my body fat is around 6%, which is kind of at odds with the summary, but pointing out errors in summaries is kind of boring here.
Luckily I'm self employed and pay exorbitant rates regardless.
Allow me to suggest that they improve their graph making software.
It pains me to see a company so concerned with aesthetics put together a graph like the one Engadget has a photo of. I'd think the Apple Corporation could afford a Tufte book.
I was really hoping you'd take the angle that Tunguska was the result of government funded weapons research. You, of all people, should have records of this somewhere in your various filing cabinets and such.
It would be even cooler if you had the records on microfilm.
Or Minox negatives.
Come to think of it, if you don't have Minox negatives recording some nefarious governmental carryings on, you make some documents up and I'll shoot them for you, because to collection is complete without such things.
Police in the US have been using lights as weapons for a long time, and the military before them. The intent hasn't been to make suspects puke or crap or anything, just disoriented. Flashbangs are an example, weaponlights, etc. Light is generally an effective way to gain an upper hand and apart from a few sympathetic finger responses from guys using the Surefire/Rogers technique there is little physical collateral damage.
You are correct in that non-lethal control measures are 'easier' to implement. But I think that once the decision is made to bring a situation under control, it is going to happen regardless. Maybe I just don't trust cops, but it seems like once things go bad they go the whole way. If firehoses are at hand, they bring out the firehoses. Tasers, clubs, rubber bullets, PIT maneuvers, etc etc.
Don't worry about my bubble as don't even have one related to image verification, I was just pointing out that some technology had been brought to bear on the problem.
Yes, their cameras can attach metadata to an image based on its content while still in the camera. The kit then reads the metadata to determine whether any bits have been altered. If you string along enough ifs it can be cracked, certainly.
I hear Canon's latest top level DSLR can encrypt both the image and all its associated metadata, in camera, allowing it to be decrypted by someone other than the photographer or even his news agency. If GPS data is included I might develop a bubble you can burst, because with the kind of shooting I do a lot of people sometimes argue over where certain things took place.
Most forensic photography is digital these days and the resulting images run through verification software to prove that they are 'straight from the camera'.
The SLRs I shoot are Canons and they provide the option of "Add Original Decision Data" in their settings. Combined with Canon's data verification kit any of the images I shoot can be demonstrated to be originals, with minimal in camera image processing.
And anyone who thinks image alteration in the film world is too hard to undertake to swing a court case can't be taken seriously.
For whatever reason, a lot of people don't notice subtleties (or even non-subtleties) in text layouts and typeface. I blame poor reading skills.
I was thinking about this while driving to the store yesterday. There is a new housing development on the way with signs around their retention pond NO TRESPASSING VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED, set out one word per line on a rectangular sign, no punctuation. Isn't likely what they mean to convey but no one seems to have noticed yet.
Some organization around here has handed out bumper stickers. They are black with yellow text in a bulbous font. The first line reads "It is a poverty that", maybe 1" high letters. Second line "a child must be killed". Third line something I don't remember. The problem is that the font size of the second line is double that of the first and third, so that at normal following distances the only text I can make out is "a child must be killed". This is a private hilarity to me.
Everyone I know doesn't particularly enjoy the movie theater experience anymore. That doesn't constitute much of a sample but it is instructive that none of you particularly enjoy it yet you still go. A comment like that only strengthens my assertion that people want pop culture so badly they are willing to put up with whatever, for them, trivial inconveniences they have to. I think it could be harder to get into a movie theater than a commercial airplane and enough people would continue to go to make it a successful business.
And as I noted above, you for one probably don't represent the average moviegoer. (Or the median, or mode, you as a Slashdotter are probably a ways out on the curve)
Her 20 seconds of video may not have violated anyone's copyrights but the theater owner has the authority to set the terms of her use of his facility. One of those terms prohibits recording devices regardless of intent.
I don't disagree that this whole thing violates common sense, but common sense doesn't get to decide. Business sense does.
I don't have any first hand experience with the internet version, but I know being a crooked doctor is very lucrative.
There is one not far from me who, I'm told, is the guy to visit if you need anabolics. Or strong dieuretics. GH. Monkey hormones. Stuff like that. He continuously expands his land holdings in the area so I assume he is raking in the cash.
I'm a cycling fan too, and the reports from that front indicate that riders are willing to fork over huge amounts of money to go a little faster. I doubt it is much different in any other sport, professional all the way down to high school.
Quite a few people are operating under the assumption that it isn't in the theater's best interest to make a big deal out of this. From his perspective it was probably a great opportunity to do just that.
Had an usher taken what you claim to be the common sense approach, there would have been no newspapaer article and no front page Slashdot story. No one would be getting their heavy dose of "we're not kidding around about this no videotaping rule". For the few holdouts still left who think that maybe they are going to get off with a light flick in the face this is a newsflash: We are going to call the police and you will be arrested. This isn't an ethical issue for the theater, like is it for Slashdot. She could legally be arrested so she was, because that is what is best for business.
I know Slashdot conventional wisdom is that if the **AAs treat people poorly enough they'll stop giving them their money, but that does not seem to be the case with the public in general. People seem to be quite willing to put up with nearly anything in trade for pop culture.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to conflate the two because the question of whether or not an individual can be identified by IP does not rest on the moral or ethical trivialities of the actions taken in response to that presumed identification.
You don't even know that it was 'someone at Diebold'. You know that, as reported by a Wikipedia crawling robot, an edit was performed by a machine that reported its IP address as one belonging to a block assigned to Diebold. Trot out any of the arguments made in favor of dropping an RIAA lawsuit against a single mom and they all apply here. Maybe Diebold is running an unsecured wirelss AP. Maybe someone there has a rootkit. Maybe some guy took his laptop home and let his son use it.
Certainly it is far fetched to believe that it isn't Diebold, but no more far fetched than to believe that the RIAA would invent screen shots of people sharing thousands of copyrighted music files and turn them in to a court.
I don't see that quite as clearly as you do, I guess.
Maybe it is because I recall the last **AA lawsuit article in which Slashdotters asserted that an IP address is an entirely meaningless number as it relates to proving anything about anyone.
At least it was entertaining.
Unlike, say, the response from the other side of the debate, indicating that either they are A-OK with World Weekly News style headlines or that they recognize the problem and are all planning to sit down and figure out how to rein in the dumb shit.
Anything at all would be nice, really. "We're too busy to fuck with headlines" would be fine. "We don't think you people are smart enough to have a discussion on your own". As of late all we've gotten in the way of direct communication is a rant about a toolbar that rates web sites. Or maybe we have and I just don't hang out on IRC channels so I missed it.
I'm a professional photographer, which is one of the high end high margin markets Microsoft would like to do more business in, and is the 5% you guess at above. If they want in they'll need to deal with Photoshop in some way. If Paint.net, or GIMP, or any of the other giveaway photo programs do all you need, you are both not the market we're talking about here nor do you understand its needs.
I went to one day of Microsoft's Pro Photo Summit last month and I get the impression they are quite serious about this. More so than in the past.
Photoshop will be an extremely tough hill to climb because there really are no other apps in the ballpark. That leverage is how they got Lightroom into the hands of so many photographers despite that fact it really isn't very good at doing any tasks that weren't copied straight out of Photoshop.
Before Microsoft bought iView it was a much better photo management app than Lightroom. The only thing better about Adobe's product was its UI and integration with Photoshop. I don't know what changes MS has made but if they haven't broken its ability to quickly handle large libraries they might be able to get some traction there.
I feel the same way about the entire news story. How it constitutes news that presentation impacts a person's enjoyment of food is beyond me.
I expect Iron Chef Sakai to issue a blanket apology to to the millions he has hoodwinked with his fancy knifework and flower littered platings.
Thinkgeek is way too high dollar.
Specs on DealExtreme's stuff is usually grossly overstated, but it is cheap.
That is a popular idea, and true to an extent, but it isn't the whole picture.
Many political entities throughout the Middle East and Africa are making war to consolidate power in their own country and use the West as a convenient scapegoat. This isn't much different from what the neo-cons, to use a contemporary example, have done in reverse in the West. Invent some boogeyman, convince your people you can protect them from him, and they will support you.
On a conceptual level Sayeed Kotb's ideas aren't all that different from Leo Strauss'.
Sure many Western governments have encouraged conflicts. Directed them to their benefit. Provided the raw materials. But the total absence of all Western influence wouldn't bring peace, a great many people can still be killed with machetes.
I think the continued survival of chickens as we know them depends on their marketability as a food item.
Regardless, it is a stretch to assume that a vegetarian is by default healthier than a one that includes meat. But due to the nature of the thing, somewhere on some vegan web forum vegans are probably complaining about subsidizing health insurance for vegetarians.
On top of the $5 I already paid?
And my BMI is usually just less than 30. Yet my body fat is around 6%, which is kind of at odds with the summary, but pointing out errors in summaries is kind of boring here.
Luckily I'm self employed and pay exorbitant rates regardless.
Allow me to suggest that they improve their graph making software.
It pains me to see a company so concerned with aesthetics put together a graph like the one Engadget has a photo of. I'd think the Apple Corporation could afford a Tufte book.
You totally let me down on that one.
I was really hoping you'd take the angle that Tunguska was the result of government funded weapons research. You, of all people, should have records of this somewhere in your various filing cabinets and such.
It would be even cooler if you had the records on microfilm.
Or Minox negatives.
Come to think of it, if you don't have Minox negatives recording some nefarious governmental carryings on, you make some documents up and I'll shoot them for you, because to collection is complete without such things.
Police in the US have been using lights as weapons for a long time, and the military before them. The intent hasn't been to make suspects puke or crap or anything, just disoriented. Flashbangs are an example, weaponlights, etc. Light is generally an effective way to gain an upper hand and apart from a few sympathetic finger responses from guys using the Surefire/Rogers technique there is little physical collateral damage.
You are correct in that non-lethal control measures are 'easier' to implement. But I think that once the decision is made to bring a situation under control, it is going to happen regardless. Maybe I just don't trust cops, but it seems like once things go bad they go the whole way. If firehoses are at hand, they bring out the firehoses. Tasers, clubs, rubber bullets, PIT maneuvers, etc etc.
Whatever it takes.
Also, statistically, 100% of unarmed people are unable to repel boarders with arms.
I have both the ADT sign and the above suggested firearms.
Don't worry about my bubble as don't even have one related to image verification, I was just pointing out that some technology had been brought to bear on the problem.
Yes, their cameras can attach metadata to an image based on its content while still in the camera. The kit then reads the metadata to determine whether any bits have been altered. If you string along enough ifs it can be cracked, certainly.
I hear Canon's latest top level DSLR can encrypt both the image and all its associated metadata, in camera, allowing it to be decrypted by someone other than the photographer or even his news agency. If GPS data is included I might develop a bubble you can burst, because with the kind of shooting I do a lot of people sometimes argue over where certain things took place.
Most forensic photography is digital these days and the resulting images run through verification software to prove that they are 'straight from the camera'.
The SLRs I shoot are Canons and they provide the option of "Add Original Decision Data" in their settings. Combined with Canon's data verification kit any of the images I shoot can be demonstrated to be originals, with minimal in camera image processing.
And anyone who thinks image alteration in the film world is too hard to undertake to swing a court case can't be taken seriously.
For whatever reason, a lot of people don't notice subtleties (or even non-subtleties) in text layouts and typeface. I blame poor reading skills.
I was thinking about this while driving to the store yesterday. There is a new housing development on the way with signs around their retention pond NO TRESPASSING VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED, set out one word per line on a rectangular sign, no punctuation. Isn't likely what they mean to convey but no one seems to have noticed yet.
Some organization around here has handed out bumper stickers. They are black with yellow text in a bulbous font. The first line reads "It is a poverty that", maybe 1" high letters. Second line "a child must be killed". Third line something I don't remember. The problem is that the font size of the second line is double that of the first and third, so that at normal following distances the only text I can make out is "a child must be killed". This is a private hilarity to me.
Leo Strauss
Well, depending on which side of the lie you are on.
And as I noted above, you for one probably don't represent the average moviegoer. (Or the median, or mode, you as a Slashdotter are probably a ways out on the curve)
Her 20 seconds of video may not have violated anyone's copyrights but the theater owner has the authority to set the terms of her use of his facility. One of those terms prohibits recording devices regardless of intent.
I don't disagree that this whole thing violates common sense, but common sense doesn't get to decide. Business sense does.
I don't have any first hand experience with the internet version, but I know being a crooked doctor is very lucrative.
There is one not far from me who, I'm told, is the guy to visit if you need anabolics. Or strong dieuretics. GH. Monkey hormones. Stuff like that. He continuously expands his land holdings in the area so I assume he is raking in the cash.
I'm a cycling fan too, and the reports from that front indicate that riders are willing to fork over huge amounts of money to go a little faster. I doubt it is much different in any other sport, professional all the way down to high school.
Quite a few people are operating under the assumption that it isn't in the theater's best interest to make a big deal out of this. From his perspective it was probably a great opportunity to do just that.
Had an usher taken what you claim to be the common sense approach, there would have been no newspapaer article and no front page Slashdot story. No one would be getting their heavy dose of "we're not kidding around about this no videotaping rule". For the few holdouts still left who think that maybe they are going to get off with a light flick in the face this is a newsflash: We are going to call the police and you will be arrested. This isn't an ethical issue for the theater, like is it for Slashdot. She could legally be arrested so she was, because that is what is best for business.
I know Slashdot conventional wisdom is that if the **AAs treat people poorly enough they'll stop giving them their money, but that does not seem to be the case with the public in general. People seem to be quite willing to put up with nearly anything in trade for pop culture.
You don't think he conducted business between the states?