Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment But still flash is the only thing that networks... (Score 1) 77

... will stream with from their website.

I would love to be rid of flash forever, but there remains a small but distinct subset of websites for which I do not have any legal alternative for the content they provide that insist upon sticking with it... until hell freezes over as far as I can tell.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 91

If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well.

Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording, the problem is when other people are paying attention to matters that are none of their business. There is no reason to presume that a person who is simply recording their surroundings is paying attention to anyone in particular that might get offended by being recorded unless the person has done something else to indicate that they are so interested.

So the only reason to get upset about happening to be in a recording that someone else is making is believing yourself to be more important to that person than you probably are.

Which is, of course, not a remotely rational reason for doing something.

Of course, people aren't reknown for always being particularly rational, but that's no excuse to not even strive to behave like the rational creatures we are capable of being. We are, presumably, more evolved intellectually than that, and people who are incapable of showing self-control in such conditions are only showing themselves to be not that far removed from creatures that we would ordinarily put in cages.... in zoos. What, may I ask, is the point of so-called human rights if a person is incapable of acting like, you know, a human?

Comment -Still- looking at you, BBC... (Score 3, Interesting) 77

BBC still requires Flash on my desktop Safari. Switch the user-agent to being an iPad and presto - nice, working HTML 5 video without a single layout change either. Have sent in 'feedback' time after time after time.

Honestly, get with the times and dump Flash. Or at least service HTML 5 for preference and only fall back to Flash. Not this "let's serve Flash to HTML 5-capable browsers" rubbish.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 91

I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

A person with smelly armpits might make you uncomfortable to be around too... would you beat him up if he didn't just go away when you asked him to?

Somebody recording their surroundings of which you just happen to be a part does not in any way suggest that the person was ever interested in anything you were doing or saying, and it is undesired *eavesdropping* that is the violation of social protocol, not indifferent observation. The fact that it is being recorded is entirely superfluous because again, people record with their memories too. Faulty memory issues are superfluous to making them an exception because lossy digital recordings can be made already. And if we *were* in a society where wetware were a thing and information *could* be transferred from the mind to the computer, there would be just as much reason to be upset with someone who was just simply within eyeshot of you for recording you as there would be if he were carrying a physical recording device. Except we wouldn't get upset about that.. Now why do you suppose that is?

The *only* reason to be upset with someone recording you is the same reason you'd have to be upset with someone who is overtly eavesdropping on a conversation you are having.... they are paying undue attention to matters that do not concern them. You'd tell them to get lost or whatnot...but if they didn't appear to be paying attention to you in the first place, you wouldn't care. Presence of a recording device is only an indication that the person is interested in recording their environment of which you are just a small part, and is not by itself present any reasoned basis to presume that the person is paying attention to any one specific person unless the visibly do something that indicates they are.... just as you would presume about a person who was not carrying any visible recording device.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 91

Beating someone else up just because they offended you is breaking a pretty core social expectation too.

But might does not make right. There are those who believe that it does, but I'd argue that is symptomatic only of a failure in those people to use higher reasoning to draw their conclusions, and not founded on any actually morally justified grounds.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 2) 91

It's ironic that you'd claim to be acting in the name of common decency while invoking indecent violent behavior.

Let us invoke a hypothetical situation, however, to briefly consider why recording you in a public place should not be a problem. imagine that wetware is a real thing, and it is possible to transfer memories to a computer with full and vibrant video and audio... Lossy digital recording is possible today, so any imperfections in human memory are immaterial. In such a socieity, if you didn't want yourself to be recorded, would you get just as offended at anyone who was simply looking at you? If not, when in such a situation they could be using their memory as a recording medium, then why would you get offended today at someone who was using a visible device that might be used to record what is going on when that person probably wasn't even that interested in you in the first place until you got into their face and threatened them?

And of course, if you *do* try to beat the crap out of the so-called "glasshole", bear in mind that they would have a legitimate right to respond to such an attack in self-defense, and you could wind up getting yourself seriously injured instead.

If the device was actually recording at the time, the fact that you chose to instigate the confrontation would be irrefutable proof that this so-called glasshole was merely physically defending himself from your attack, and although what he was doing provoked the attack from you, it would be clear from the recording that he did not deliberately do it to antagonize you personally... you just happened to be someone who got offended enough by it to try and beat the guy up in response.

And failed. So.... you'd get beaten up *AND* still end up facing possible prison.

Think it's worth the risk? If you want privacy, go somewhere private.... if you go out of your way to do something to make yourself more interesting to somebody who isn't actually interested in you in the first place, then you are the one who is inviting the problems that may ensue, not the person recording their surroundings.

Comment Re:Which Democrat? (Score 1) 217

Nice sound bite, but this can be a rational decision for a society to get things done. Heaving too much regulatory burden on business can slow or stop progress.

After all, most likely you have no problem with government spending wads of billions on things with little or no return, covering hurricane losses, propping up industries and Amtrack, or creating a colossal high speed rail in California, or spending more on a Boston subway or Denver air port automated luggage system than the moon landing* .

* Exaggeration, but a small one.

Comment Re:Which Democrat? (Score 1) 217

Not that I'm disagreeing with him/her. I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety. The risks are too great. It's not NIMBY. Make it public run or show me you're willing to throw people responsible for lesser disasters like oil spills in jail for 10-20 years and we'll talk. Until then it'll be like always: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Nice sound bite, but ths can be a rational decision for

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 91

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes

This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Working...