The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light
But you said the ticket was initiated by the camera. Now you've changed the claim.
You seriously think I'm changing the claim by saying the process for the ticket vs the ticket. You're really splitting hairs for the sake of argument. But ok, when I said the ticket was initiated by the camera I did indeed realize the camera did not have a printer or postage machine attached to it(or it did if you count the network that it's connected to:) ).
If you want to talk origins, then the ticket was originated by the people who decided to install the camera system.... no wait, the ticket was initiated by the people who invented photography!
Nope, wrong again:), it was God or the Big Bang or whatever your belief on creation is.
My point is simply that the camera does not issues tickets. It takes photos to be used as data in a ticketing system. And yes, humans are involved. They program and operate the automated systems.
Yes I realize machines are made by people, it doesn't change the fact that I don't want machines policing us.
Do you have any suggestions on how it's feasible to police such large populations with so many miles of roadways, and not have us end up as a police state?
I'll ignore 'miles of roadways' as it's not an argument where cameras are used (urban areas) and as far as large populations go, it doesn't matter how large the populations is, it's a matter of percentage, how does the number of people change how many cops you need per x number of people? (in other words 1 cop per 100 people doesn't change if you have 1000 or 1000000 people).
:) It seems I have met someone who likes to argue as much as I do.
The camera submits data for further action. The ticket is initiated by the police authority (or their automated system).
The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light.
Additionally, being that my original argument was that there is a difference between a machine and a human initiating charges I do not know what your point is of making a distinction between the camera and an 'automated system'.
I respect your views that it's ok to have machines police us, but I disagree.
Simple, the car is registered to a car dealer. The car dealer gets the notice then replies they sold it at our auction. They send us the notice and due to confidentiality agreements we tell them we can't give them the information for who bought it without a legal order to do so. They respond with more notices. They are just a collection agency nothing more. We get tickets from around the country, we've been shredding them for about a year now. Some are for speeding, some for toll violations, some for red light tickets, some for parking violations.
remind me never to buy from there
Don't worry, you can't, we are a wholesale only auction, you'll never know if your car passed through us and you'd never get a ticket anyway as the process hits a dead end.
Who says it worse. But generally CCTV footage is used as evidence to support a charge. The CCTV like in a convenience store doesn't generally initiate the charge, it only provides evidence. So if speeding/red light cameras were used to support a charge made by another person or the police it might be a little better.
Since the cameras are generally owned by companies and not the local authorities, I think they only thing they can do is put it on your credit report. Where I am, they recently took down some red light cameras because they were not generating enough revenue for the company and the city didn't want to pay for them. It has nothing to do with law and everything to do with profit.
Historically colonies have a way of breaking away from the 'parent' country. Becoming even more powerful than the original. I'm thinking of where the United States stands in the world compared to Britain, and where they stood 300 years ago.
A society that holds itself to embrace science, rationality, and logic should ignore numbers that have no sources. Do not accept numbers that came from no place.
Where is that society? I would love to move there.
They shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should have to pay the price asked if you want a game or whatever.
The problem is some old software does not have a price. Keeping them illegal, just increases the chance that these 'works of art' will perish over time.
The emulators are legal, as well as a few games that some authors have released or that were made by amateurs on the net. Unfortunately it's probably hard to find legal roms than illegal ones.
So we should keep burning coal until we've figured out how to survive the heat death of the universe?
Absolutely not, but we should never settle for the steps in between and always see new energy sources for what they are. Nuclear, uranium was created in a star, wind is caused from temperature differences created by the sun, solar obviously from the sun. All known energy sources come from stars, so it should be our ultimate goal. We should use interim steps until we reach a level that we can harness all of our energy needs from the nearest star but we should never forget the ultimate goal.
Proven reserves of uranium assuming the current insanely wasteful once-through no-reprocessing fuel cycle are about 40 years worth.
Yes we all know how humans never waste anything.
Simple reprocessing expands that to a few hundred years. Proven reserves.
If we do that and at current energy requirements.
Breeder reactors expand that to over a thousand years proven reserves.
That's not counting thorium.
As long as we're talking about things that don't exist you should have at least mentioned fusion as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe. Of course we have one fusion reactor...the sun. I love all of these solutions that just push the problem off decades, centuries or even millenia but don't solve it.
Nuclear power(I assume Fission as we have yet to produce a net energy yield with Fusion) wasn't killed by the Sierra Club, it was killed anytime you tried to get a community to accept nuclear waste. All of a sudden everyone becomes an environmentalist when you try to bury radioactive waste near them.
Solar? What misc "activist". Are you talking about Home Owners Organizations that consistently fight them because they 'lower property values'.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light
But you said the ticket was initiated by the camera. Now you've changed the claim.
You seriously think I'm changing the claim by saying the process for the ticket vs the ticket. You're really splitting hairs for the sake of argument. But ok, when I said the ticket was initiated by the camera I did indeed realize the camera did not have a printer or postage machine attached to it(or it did if you count the network that it's connected to :) ).
If you want to talk origins, then the ticket was originated by the people who decided to install the camera system.... no wait, the ticket was initiated by the people who invented photography!
Nope, wrong again :), it was God or the Big Bang or whatever your belief on creation is.
My point is simply that the camera does not issues tickets. It takes photos to be used as data in a ticketing system. And yes, humans are involved. They program and operate the automated systems.
Yes I realize machines are made by people, it doesn't change the fact that I don't want machines policing us.
Do you have any suggestions on how it's feasible to police such large populations with so many miles of roadways, and not have us end up as a police state?
I'll ignore 'miles of roadways' as it's not an argument where cameras are used (urban areas) and as far as large populations go, it doesn't matter how large the populations is, it's a matter of percentage, how does the number of people change how many cops you need per x number of people? (in other words 1 cop per 100 people doesn't change if you have 1000 or 1000000 people).
:) It seems I have met someone who likes to argue as much as I do.
The camera submits data for further action. The ticket is initiated by the police authority (or their automated system).
The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light.
Additionally, being that my original argument was that there is a difference between a machine and a human initiating charges I do not know what your point is of making a distinction between the camera and an 'automated system'.
I respect your views that it's ok to have machines police us, but I disagree.
No it's not. Do you really think the ticket gets sent directly from the camera, and not a computer system somewhere else?
I didn't say the camera sent the ticket, only that it initiated it.
remind me never to buy from there
Don't worry, you can't, we are a wholesale only auction, you'll never know if your car passed through us and you'd never get a ticket anyway as the process hits a dead end.
The speed camera is not bringing a charge, the police are. The speed camera is merely providing evidence, just like the CCTV.
But the speed camera is initiating the charge. There is a difference.
I don't know, if I goto the 'quickie mart' and shop lift does the camera send me a fine, if the clerk didn't see it?
Who says it worse. But generally CCTV footage is used as evidence to support a charge. The CCTV like in a convenience store doesn't generally initiate the charge, it only provides evidence. So if speeding/red light cameras were used to support a charge made by another person or the police it might be a little better.
Since the cameras are generally owned by companies and not the local authorities, I think they only thing they can do is put it on your credit report.
Where I am, they recently took down some red light cameras because they were not generating enough revenue for the company and the city didn't want to pay for them. It has nothing to do with law and everything to do with profit.
I work for an auto auction. We get about a dozen red light tickets a day for cars that passed through but we never owned. We throw them all away.
I've often thought if I got one of these tickets I would take it to court and ask for the right to see my accuser.
Are you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine or Equal Time? They are not exactly the same thing.
It should not be confused, but often is, with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, and has no specific equal-time requirement; the Equal Time rule only deals with political candidates.
We all know how much they care about fairly compensating the people who actually made the music.
Historically colonies have a way of breaking away from the 'parent' country. Becoming even more powerful than the original. I'm thinking of where the United States stands in the world compared to Britain, and where they stood 300 years ago.
I've often wondered if Governments are afraid to colonize space what with the history of colonies on Earth.
A society that holds itself to embrace science, rationality, and logic should ignore numbers that have no sources. Do not accept numbers that came from no place.
Where is that society? I would love to move there.
They shouldn't be. In my opinion, you should have to pay the price asked if you want a game or whatever.
The problem is some old software does not have a price. Keeping them illegal, just increases the chance that these 'works of art' will perish over time.
The emulators are legal, as well as a few games that some authors have released or that were made by amateurs on the net. Unfortunately it's probably hard to find legal roms than illegal ones.
So we should keep burning coal until we've figured out how to survive the heat death of the universe?
Absolutely not, but we should never settle for the steps in between and always see new energy sources for what they are. Nuclear, uranium was created in a star, wind is caused from temperature differences created by the sun, solar obviously from the sun. All known energy sources come from stars, so it should be our ultimate goal. We should use interim steps until we reach a level that we can harness all of our energy needs from the nearest star but we should never forget the ultimate goal.
You got me, I'll name stars though as dictating how long the Universe is livable.
Proven reserves of uranium assuming the current insanely wasteful once-through no-reprocessing fuel cycle are about 40 years worth.
Yes we all know how humans never waste anything.
Simple reprocessing expands that to a few hundred years. Proven reserves.
If we do that and at current energy requirements.
Breeder reactors expand that to over a thousand years proven reserves. That's not counting thorium.
As long as we're talking about things that don't exist you should have at least mentioned fusion as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe. Of course we have one fusion reactor...the sun. I love all of these solutions that just push the problem off decades, centuries or even millenia but don't solve it.
This abundant availability of cheap and reliable nuclear energy
Just like oil in 1900. I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear in the interim, but it is still not a solution as it, like oil is finite.
"We cannot survive without the sun" -Star Trek IV
The type of person who gets pregnant on "accident" isn't the type of person I'd have raising children.
Just wanted to point out that billions of years of evolution encourages this "accident" to happen.
I believe that 90% of all adults are infected with the virus that causes Herpes.
Yep, Herpes comes in at least 8 varieties in humans and over 80 in the animal kingdom. So if you've ever had chicken pox...
"Chickenpox is a highly communicable disease caused by the varicella virus, a member of the herpes virus family"
New York State Department of Health
Ummm.
Toyota pays an average of $30 at it's largest plant, compared with $27 at GM.
reference
So I don't leave the other two uncontested.
Nuclear power(I assume Fission as we have yet to produce a net energy yield with Fusion) wasn't killed by the Sierra Club, it was killed anytime you tried to get a community to accept nuclear waste. All of a sudden everyone becomes an environmentalist when you try to bury radioactive waste near them.
Solar? What misc "activist". Are you talking about Home Owners Organizations that consistently fight them because they 'lower property values'.