Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Jun 2013 @ 9:44am
Re: Re: This is a real mania with you 14-year-olds, isn't it?
I need a human sacrifice for my satanic ritual this Friday
As someone who has also played violent video games since their invention (space invaders anyone?) and has further fuelled my clear predisposition for violence by repeatedly playing roleplaying games (including *gasp* some involving religious and even satanic themes) I am clearly in desperate need of attending a human sacrifice immediately... I'd be grateful if you'd forward your address and if it's OOTB you get then it'll be well worth the plane ticket - I'll even spring for the candles and knife... :-)
Damn I must have been repressing my muderous tendencies for way too long...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 30 May 2013 @ 10:52am
Completely true...
We've discussed in the past a favorite talking point of the RIAA, claiming a 40% decline in employment for musicians over the past decade or so, which simply isn't supported by the numbers.
But there is a 40% decline in musicians over the last decade!*
*Definition: Musician (N)
A performer of rhythmic noises capable of making an RIAA-associated label a minimum of $10M in at least 4 major markets worldwide...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 30 May 2013 @ 10:31am
I'm not quite certain you've nailed the culture that needs to die. I'm quite sure that you didn't, actually.
Yeah, for a country touting itself as "The Land of The Free" it's amazing how many people there take it to mean "As long as I'm free and people that look and think exactly like me, then everyone else can go f*ck themselves" isn't it?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 24 May 2013 @ 2:14am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, or 65,000 of them for that matter.
That's 2 stages down after they've gathered that in fact 443 of them are required for internet banking and is the point at which "blank look" becomes "nosebleed and brains dribbling out of ears"...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 24 May 2013 @ 1:50am
Re: Follow the "shoot all the lawyers" philosophy
If we killed all the lawyers (except mine - I need him to play banjo in our bluegrass band)
I'm pretty sure that won't do much about politicians (other than the ones that are also lawyers, which is a good start), but it's an excellent plan anyway. Yours can just have a lobotomy instead.... a bit of plastic surgery to enlarge his ears and he'll be good to go for the band and a far more useful member of society :-)
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 24 May 2013 @ 1:45am
Re: Political Parties, partisan politics and we
This will never happen as there are "too many secrets". Movie reference anyone?
Unfortunately, even with a magic answering machine to decrypt all (apparantly american only) computer systems, politics and politicians are unlikely to change while our "democracies" are such that it is a de facto requirement to be beholden to corporations in order to get elected.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 May 2013 @ 6:31pm
Re: Re:
"firewalls come with everything enabled, and you then have to figure out what to close down.
To be fair to firewall manufacturers, he was (presumably) talking about "everything enabled" outgoing since I don't thik I've ever come across a firewall enabled inbound by default but he still has a point.
Of course the reason they are that way is because then some level of security can be obtained by (and more importantly sales made to) those whos networking skills are at the "Um... firewalls... those are good, right?" level because anything else usually elicits a blank look and the question "What's a port and why do I need 80 of them?"
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 1:25am
Re: Copyright
Interesting that in an article talking about broken copyright law you pick one of the most broken aspects of copyright to complain about - everything is a derivative work. Every. Single. Thing.
Trying to pick out what's "too derivative" and requires a license is a game played by lawyers and corporations with the money to enforce it at the expense of anyone who actually creates culture and hopes to make a modest amount of money from their work.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 11:35am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are search engines for images already btw =)
That's what I said... facial rec is already available on smartphones, there's probably a good chance you can match it to a name using existing websearching technology crawling social networking sites. How much more you get depends largely on how much people post on public sites like facebook. None of this is rocket science and has been achievable for ages. The hyperbole is aimed at the vaguely scary sounding quote of "sooon this will be possible oooooohh the waallls of civilization will crumble when Goooooogle Glases can do thiiiis scaaary thing!" (I'm paraphrasing) in the letter.
Civilization hasn't ended yet from such fiendish technology so what the hell difference do Google Glasses make?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who else should they ask?
Since I was responding to the AC (who I am assuming is not you) who wrote:
Yes, people should be asking the same questions about many devices. That they neglected to do so doesn't invalidate the questions aimed at Google Glass.
...Then any one of the myriad other companies producing technologies that perform discrete surveillance functions... lets see, Samsung, Sony, Axis, Toshiba, Apple, Logitech, HTC, Nokia, Nikon, Canon, and many many many others.
As for the "specific questions about specific claims" that I wasn't addressing, a quick read through the letter suggests that all of those questions would equally apply for example to a smartphone now.
For example the scary-sounding claim in the 2nd 'graph about finding someone's personal details using facial recognition is shear hyperbole. Assuming such details are publically searchable on the internet or some other database you happen to have access to and include a picture so you can link face and name, yes sure you can do that.. but then you can do that now without needing the quasi-mystical qualities of Google Glass so again I call grandstanding rather than "privacy concern".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 7:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if they are not valid it is for some reason other than the fact that folks didn't ask them of other pertinent technologies.
But if, as you agree this is a common thing to many technologies, then directing the questions at gGogle is still equally pointless. Google Glass may in that case be a catalyst for a debate but not the target.
If it were a general congressional debate about personal surveillance tech then fine, but no it's a grandstanding "moral" prod aimed at one company.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 May 2013 @ 4:47am
Re: But you forget, sir...
They are the ones who are supposed to be representing the public and the commons.
Yeah... not so much... some figures to back up the detected sarcasm perhaps?
UK 2010 general election: 65% voter turnout, Conservative vote: 36%, LibDem vote: 23%
Unless my maths is faulty, that means that only around 39% of the population voted for anyone in government at all and even if you make the staggeringly false mental leap as to assume that a vote means you are "represented" and agree with what is done in your name, only a maximum of 24% of "the public" are actually "represented" on any given issue.
Me, I think calling that "representing the public" is stretching reality more than perhaps a little... but then that's what politicians do best.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 May 2013 @ 9:22am
Re: Re: NOT "a valuable contribution to the field" -- IT'S A SURVEY.
while ignoring the more important fact that even at such a low ratio they are still spending more money.
I'm trying to work out whether it's just wilful blindness/paid agenda or whether the poor dear can't get his head around the difference between physical and digital goods - i.e. that, with the marginal cost of each "digital good" infinitessimal, more money is REAL more money as opposed to IMAGINARY "lost" money.
On the post: Researcher Tries To Connect Violence And Video Games During Murder Trial; Gets Destroyed During Cross Examination
Re: Re: This is a real mania with you 14-year-olds, isn't it?
Damn I must have been repressing my muderous tendencies for way too long...
On the post: Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade
Completely true...
*Definition: Musician (N)
A performer of rhythmic noises capable of making an RIAA-associated label a minimum of $10M in at least 4 major markets worldwide...
On the post: Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade
Completely true,,,
On the post: Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade
Completely true,,,
On the post: Stop & Frisk Accomplishments: Barely Any Illegal Weapons Recovered, But Tons Of Weed Smokers Jailed
On the post: Chinese Hacks Of Google Database Of Surveillance Targets Highlight How Dumb Technology Backdoors Are
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Partisanship Over Spying On Journalists Is Stupid: Spying On Journalists Is Bad, Period
Re: Follow the "shoot all the lawyers" philosophy
On the post: Partisanship Over Spying On Journalists Is Stupid: Spying On Journalists Is Bad, Period
Re: Political Parties, partisan politics and we
On the post: Chinese Hacks Of Google Database Of Surveillance Targets Highlight How Dumb Technology Backdoors Are
Re:
On the post: Chinese Hacks Of Google Database Of Surveillance Targets Highlight How Dumb Technology Backdoors Are
Re: Re:
Of course the reason they are that way is because then some level of security can be obtained by (and more importantly sales made to) those whos networking skills are at the "Um... firewalls... those are good, right?" level because anything else usually elicits a blank look and the question "What's a port and why do I need 80 of them?"
On the post: EU Commission Sued For Refusing To Reveal Trade Agreement Documents They Shared With Lobbyists
Re:
On the post: Make Art, Not Law
Re: Copyright
Trying to pick out what's "too derivative" and requires a license is a game played by lawyers and corporations with the money to enforce it at the expense of anyone who actually creates culture and hopes to make a modest amount of money from their work.
On the post: Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Civilization hasn't ended yet from such fiendish technology so what the hell difference do Google Glasses make?
On the post: Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the "specific questions about specific claims" that I wasn't addressing, a quick read through the letter suggests that all of those questions would equally apply for example to a smartphone now.
For example the scary-sounding claim in the 2nd 'graph about finding someone's personal details using facial recognition is shear hyperbole. Assuming such details are publically searchable on the internet or some other database you happen to have access to and include a picture so you can link face and name, yes sure you can do that.. but then you can do that now without needing the quasi-mystical qualities of Google Glass so again I call grandstanding rather than "privacy concern".
On the post: Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it were a general congressional debate about personal surveillance tech then fine, but no it's a grandstanding "moral" prod aimed at one company.
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: The Tory way
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: Re: Re: Shocking
On the post: Copyright Holders Will Define Details Of UK's Orphan Works Bill, But Not The Public
Re: But you forget, sir...
UK 2010 general election: 65% voter turnout, Conservative vote: 36%, LibDem vote: 23%
Unless my maths is faulty, that means that only around 39% of the population voted for anyone in government at all and even if you make the staggeringly false mental leap as to assume that a vote means you are "represented" and agree with what is done in your name, only a maximum of 24% of "the public" are actually "represented" on any given issue.
Me, I think calling that "representing the public" is stretching reality more than perhaps a little... but then that's what politicians do best.
On the post: Once Again Top Downloaders Are Top Spenders, According To UK Gov't Study
Re: Re: NOT "a valuable contribution to the field" -- IT'S A SURVEY.
On the post: This Is My Pencil. This Is My Pencil Pretending To Be A Gun. One Is For Writing. One Is For Mandatory Suspensions.
Re:
Next >>