Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Asinine (Score 1) 322

by LocalH (#46708289) Attached to: LA Police Officers Suspected of Tampering With Their Monitoring Systems

When you gain the power that comes with being a police officer, then everything you do when on duty and filling that official capacity should be open to public scrutiny. Since abuses of that power have very direct and damaging effects on the victims of said abuses, I feel that all officers must sacrifice some of their freedom, while on the job, in order to help protect civilian rights. Those who are good officers that go by the book in every situation (outside of emergency situations that can and do occur, that require nearly instantaneous reaction time) and don't abuse their power have nothing to worry about - if something bad happens that is questionable, having a record of it would also protect the officer.

Yes, I realize that's dangerously close to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide". However, there is a difference between applying that to civilian individuals (including off-duty police officers) who have a very real right to privacy, and applying it to people who we have allowed to have legal power above and beyond what we allow civilians to do (for example, while civilians in many areas have the right to make a "citizen's arrest", they most likely do not have the right to use physical force to detain that individual, whereas the police do have that right). With power comes the responsibility to ensure that those powers are used properly, and having such interactions recorded as a matter of law protects the civilian and the officer.

I personally think this would be a good idea with civilians too, but the difference is, with officers (and other public officials with power above an ordinary civilian), those recording devices should be mandated by law and such footage available for review by any member of the public, but with civilians, the control over such devices (and indeed, the entire decision to wear them at all) should rest with the individual device owner. I really wish people would get over their Google Glass hangups and realize that, while in public, there is no right not to be recorded. Having a record of the day's interactions (that would automatically fade into the ether after, say, 24 hours, unless a segment is explicitly reviewed by the user and saved) would help prevent or at least reduce the "he said, she said" arguments that sometimes occur when a claim is made, because there is an impartial record of what happened (and in fact, in a society that doesn't have such a hangup about "public privacy", all parties would be recording, making for a way to corroborate what happened and have a fighting chance at detecting editing or other tampering).

Comment: Re:Don't raise wages. Demand lower prices. (Score 2) 870

by LocalH (#46579941) Attached to: Job Automation and the Minimum Wage Debate

This would effectively outlaw automation, given that the costs are not zero to operate such machinery. I can understand the argument that prices should be lower, but to say that they should be near zero is to argue that those who use automation heavily shouldn't be allowed to make a profit at all. I can't get behind that philosophically.

Comment: Re:Not even close to the worst. (Score 0) 290

Pragmatically speaking:

Nuclear and wind power will likely never reach the public support necessary to eclipse the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power because of the perceived harm, and wind power because "ohh those windmills are ugly and I don't want to see them".

That leaves solar+hydro. Since pure hydrogen does not occur naturally, that means it must be manufactured somehow, so you're basically reduced to solar power (unless you use fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, which sort of defeats the purpose here). I don't think our solar extraction technology is quite efficient enough to cover all of our fuel needs, or we'd already be doing it.

Comment: Re:You keep using that word (Score 1) 479

by LocalH (#46449277) Attached to: Author Says It's Time To Stop Glorifying Hackers

Welcome to the real world, where old systems operate together in a mish-mash of different protocols and standards. Why do you think companies even exist solely to provide the service of screen-scraping old terminal-based servers in order to provide a "modern" GUI (that is often times just as archaic and messy, if not more so, than the old text-based setup).

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 465

by LocalH (#46417465) Attached to: Apple Refuses To Unlock Bequeathed iPad

Technically correct, but pragmatically useless. Devices running iOS 7 with Find my iWhatever enabled will not be able to activate, even after a DFU restore, without the original Apple ID and password. The only way around this I know of would be to have an A4 device with the requisite SHSH blobs to downgrade below iOS 7.0, and whether one could then change the Apple ID and restore to iOS 7 I don't know.

Comment: Re: No, not those who don't understand... (Score 1) 921

by LocalH (#46362231) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

She didn't start recording until she was in fear of bodily harm. You know, in case she was actually attacked, there would be video evidence? She was demonstrating it to someone, and someone mouthed off to her out of fear, because they had obviously been misled into thinking that Glass is some sort of uber spy device that records everything that's happening with no external notification. Which is precisely how all the detractors paint the issue, so that's not unsurprising. What is surprising is the number of people on a supposedly tech-savvy site who have this misconception.

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum