Yeah, but at which point can you say the developer is not apt to do the job? How many weeks and $YOURCURRENCY can you invest into that? That's why you have to make some deadlines and checkpoints in your project (iterative or not).
Hoping for the best won't do it, as you say, it is hard and a too large share of projects don't meet the expectations.
You missed the point. If the products are good enough, it is not a problem for the customer. If they are not, they will not buy from the company anymore, sooner or later, and tell others that product sucks.
The Unix philosophy, worse is better, has always been about "good enough", so I think "good enough" is the future. Open source projects are mostly scratching an itch, until the itch is solved "good enough" (This is often criticized).
IPv4 is pretty bad (e.g. for VoIP), but it is good enough, so its used. The web is pretty messed up: Program logic and content go over the same channel, security. But it is good enough.
Good enough => disruptive technologies ? It's pretty hard to demand something better than good enough Oh I give up, this post is good enough
Well, to avoid the problems that go along with illegal organ trade (e.g. abduction of grown-ups and especially children), some countries have a reverse approach: In Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czech republic and Hungary, you have to register if you do not want your organs to be donated after you passed away.
I honestly don't even think IPv6 is needed. We just need recall some of those huge blocks of IP addresses that have been allocated for no good reason and implement NAT/proxies more widely.
It is needed for ubiquitous computing, sensor networks, internet-enabled whiteware/intelligent home, etc. Also Mobile IP.
Also, IPv6 is more than just more addresses. Read up about it.
This is relevant because "This report offers key findings from the 20 top studies/articles in the field and offers practical recommendations on how to optimize the use of public CCTV systems."
Key Findings Summary
* The expectation that CCTV systems should be deployed to reduce crime rather than solve crime has created huge problems.
* While the studies show serious doubt on CCTV's ability to reduce crime generally, a strong consensus exists in CCTV's ability to reduce premeditative/property crime
* CCTV is consistently treated as a singular, stable technology, obscuring radical technological changes that have occurred in the last 10 years
* Differences in per camera costs are largely ignored, preventing policy makers from finding ways to reduce costs
* Routine comparison of police vs cameras is counterproductive
Practical Recommendations Summary
* Stop claiming that CCTV can generally reduce crime
* Optimize future public CCTV projects around crime solving rather than crime reduction
* Optimize future public CCTV projects around material and premeditative crimes
* Target technologies that support crime solving and material/premeditative crimes
* Focus on minimizing cost per camera
and "CCTV in Glasgow" Main Findings - In the 12 months after installation of the cameras there were 3,156 fewer crimes and offences than the average for the 24 months preceding installation. - Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences, reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre. - The cameras appeared to have little effect on clear up rates for crimes and offences. - 33% of people questioned in the city centre were aware of the cameras 3 months after installation and 41% 15 months after installation. - Installation of the CCTV cameras did not reduce the proportion of those who said they would sometimes avoid a certain part of the city but there was a slight reduction in those who said they were anxious about becoming a victim of crime in the city centre. - 72% of all those interviewed believed CCTV cameras would prevent crime and disorder; 81% thought they would be effective in catching perpetrators; and 79% thought they would make people feel less likely that they would become victims of crime. - 67% of those interviewed 'did not mind' being observed by street cameras.
Personally, I think the cost is the only way we can argue back our privacy. Say you are not willing to pay for costly, ineffective measures.
I have read a post some time ago detailing how legalizing some drugs can effectively stop criminality. I think it was mostly about cannabis. Think about it, drugs finance huge businesses:
- Gangs
- Terrorist cells, Al Kaida
- dictatorships such as North Korea (I read some days ago) Imagine the huge effects that it would have if these would run out of money -> No new weapons -> Losing importance -> Dictatorships can be overthrown.
Maybe I am thinking too blue-eyed, but it is a lot of money. Stopping the money flow at the source could have global consequences. We tried stopping the drug users from using.
The.torrent files are worthless, they only ensure clients are talking about the same thing. I also think the web server part of the pirate bay wouldn't have been so much the problem if they hadn't had a (popular) tracker. The illegality of a tracker might be comparable to irc-#WaReZ channels.
I was hoping they would have 100Gb/sec working, but it appears it still in the works.
Easy! Lay 10 10Gb/sec cables next to each other! Or hire bicycle messengers and give them hard drives. For the 2 km with 20km/h you would need to distribute 36 1TB hard drives. You can give each cycler one or give all to one bicycler, depending on what your latency requirements are.
Actually, I use Facebook because I can control what of my private information I put out on the web. If I used my blog or twitter, or posted my photos on Flickr, everyone would be able to see them. With Facebook I can address a closed, authenticated user group.
It really depends on how you use Facebook IMO, and yeah, if other people leave stuff about you, that's bad.
I guess people love communication and hate feeling alone; not using social networks can not be the answer. It's like "don't use phones" because text messaging is overpriced or "don't use computers" when you hear about a new virus.
Firefox is spelled F-i-r-e-f-o-x - only the first letter capitalized (i.e. not FireFox, not Foxfire, FoxFire or whatever else a number of folk seem to think it to be called.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but at which point can you say the developer is not apt to do the job? How many weeks and $YOURCURRENCY can you invest into that? That's why you have to make some deadlines and checkpoints in your project (iterative or not).
Hoping for the best won't do it, as you say, it is hard and a too large share of projects don't meet the expectations.
You missed the point. If the products are good enough, it is not a problem for the customer.
If they are not, they will not buy from the company anymore, sooner or later, and tell others that product sucks.
The Unix philosophy, worse is better, has always been about "good enough", so I think "good enough" is the future. Open source projects are mostly scratching an itch, until the itch is solved "good enough" (This is often criticized).
IPv4 is pretty bad (e.g. for VoIP), but it is good enough, so its used. The web is pretty messed up: Program logic and content go over the same channel, security. But it is good enough.
Good enough => disruptive technologies ?
It's pretty hard to demand something better than good enough
Oh I give up, this post is good enough
My questions is: Would it have been a headline on /. if she had said the opposite?
I think a planet that has been ejected out of the solar system, flying around freely, is still called a planet.
Well, to avoid the problems that go along with illegal organ trade (e.g. abduction of grown-ups and especially children), some countries have a reverse approach:
In Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czech republic and Hungary, you have to register if you do not want your organs to be donated after you passed away.
You can't lunaform the moon because it is already moonish. You can't terraform the moon because it can't hold an atmosphere.
I honestly don't even think IPv6 is needed. We just need recall some of those huge blocks of IP addresses that have been allocated for no good reason and implement NAT/proxies more widely.
It is needed for ubiquitous computing, sensor networks, internet-enabled whiteware/intelligent home, etc. Also Mobile IP.
Also, IPv6 is more than just more addresses. Read up about it.
The mission has a blog (with feed) where they reported an anomaly two days ago.
I'll go with "lolwut?"
You can store half a megabyte per side of page side, if you use PaperBack (has been discussed here before).
Now you can store your 5 minutes video on about 78 pages. Would be great if that sources zip file made it into archive.org
Can I set a cookie or something to always view the newest (unapproved) version? I also didn't see a greasemonkey script yet.
I think facial painting is the most effective.
Some relevant links:
"Is Public CCTV Effective?"
This is relevant because "This report offers key findings from the 20 top studies/articles in the field and offers practical recommendations on how to optimize the use of public CCTV systems."
Key Findings Summary
* The expectation that CCTV systems should be deployed to reduce crime rather than solve crime has created huge problems.
* While the studies show serious doubt on CCTV's ability to reduce crime generally, a strong consensus exists in CCTV's ability to reduce premeditative/property crime
* CCTV is consistently treated as a singular, stable technology, obscuring radical technological changes that have occurred in the last 10 years
* Differences in per camera costs are largely ignored, preventing policy makers from finding ways to reduce costs
* Routine comparison of police vs cameras is counterproductive
Practical Recommendations Summary
* Stop claiming that CCTV can generally reduce crime
* Optimize future public CCTV projects around crime solving rather than crime reduction
* Optimize future public CCTV projects around material and premeditative crimes
* Target technologies that support crime solving and material/premeditative crimes
* Focus on minimizing cost per camera
and "CCTV in Glasgow"
Main Findings
- In the 12 months after installation of the cameras there were 3,156 fewer crimes and offences than the average for the 24 months preceding installation.
- Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences, reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre.
- The cameras appeared to have little effect on clear up rates for crimes and offences.
- 33% of people questioned in the city centre were aware of the cameras 3 months after installation and 41% 15 months after installation.
- Installation of the CCTV cameras did not reduce the proportion of those who said they would sometimes avoid a certain part of the city but there was a slight reduction in those who said they were anxious about becoming a victim of crime in the city centre.
- 72% of all those interviewed believed CCTV cameras would prevent crime and disorder; 81% thought they would be effective in catching perpetrators; and 79% thought they would make people feel less likely that they would become victims of crime.
- 67% of those interviewed 'did not mind' being observed by street cameras.
Personally, I think the cost is the only way we can argue back our privacy. Say you are not willing to pay for costly, ineffective measures.
You announce your birthday or put up an invitation to a party, but you don't put the steamy details of last night up there.
ORLY?
http://failblog.org/2009/08/22/facebooking-win/
I have read a post some time ago detailing how legalizing some drugs can effectively stop criminality. I think it was mostly about cannabis. Think about it, drugs finance huge businesses:
- Gangs
- Terrorist cells, Al Kaida
- dictatorships such as North Korea (I read some days ago)
Imagine the huge effects that it would have if these would run out of money -> No new weapons -> Losing importance -> Dictatorships can be overthrown.
Maybe I am thinking too blue-eyed, but it is a lot of money. Stopping the money flow at the source could have global consequences. We tried stopping the drug users from using.
You call 1% rare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality
They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.'"
"...just like computer programs."
No, computer programs always don't do the same task in the same way.
Why do you pick your noes in the bathroom? Also, eww!
The .torrent files are worthless, they only ensure clients are talking about the same thing. I also think the web server part of the pirate bay wouldn't have been so much the problem if they hadn't had a (popular) tracker.
The illegality of a tracker might be comparable to irc-#WaReZ channels.
I was hoping they would have 100Gb/sec working, but it appears it still in the works.
Easy! Lay 10 10Gb/sec cables next to each other!
Or hire bicycle messengers and give them hard drives. For the 2 km with 20km/h you would need to distribute 36 1TB hard drives. You can give each cycler one or give all to one bicycler, depending on what your latency requirements are.
Canada? Does it matter?
Is that another US-American saying I have yet to learn?
Actually, I use Facebook because I can control what of my private information I put out on the web. If I used my blog or twitter, or posted my photos on Flickr, everyone would be able to see them. With Facebook I can address a closed, authenticated user group.
It really depends on how you use Facebook IMO, and yeah, if other people leave stuff about you, that's bad.
I guess people love communication and hate feeling alone; not using social networks can not be the answer. It's like "don't use phones" because text messaging is overpriced or "don't use computers" when you hear about a new virus.
How would one find out that a box someone distributes runs Linux?
# How do I spell Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?
Firefox is spelled F-i-r-e-f-o-x - only the first letter capitalized (i.e. not FireFox, not Foxfire, FoxFire or whatever else a number of folk seem to think it to be called.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/releases/1.5.html#FAQ
We all write our comments in Word. Because the Internet Explorer doesn't have a spell checker.*
* (just a guess)