To play the devil's advocate here there does seem to be considerable evidence that voting makes very little, if not zero, difference. Voting for the "least crappy" candidate still leaves you with crap. Plus now they have all that support in the form of votes.
I never asserted that these cameras aren't often abused. I only assert that red light cameras are not an invasion of privacy or ignoring of rights. The wanton disregard for public safety is the infringement on your rights- not the camera.
First of all: ensuring laws are followed for public safety is one of the primary purposes of the government. Stopping you from running red lights is not micromanaging.
Second: you know for a fact it is impossible for humans to do that kind of monitoring and you would be even more petulant if they tried to hire more cops to do this. Welcome to the modern world where we use technology to do more work with less humans. This is the perfect use case for computer monitoring. Trivial to identify and frees the police to handle more difficult crime.
The two things are very different though. Police aren't stopping you at the lights to inspect your car to see if you have intent to run the red light. It's merely a logging device that identifies if you broke the law. Complaining about it isn't much different than complaining that you have to register your vehicle to use public roads.
If people are speeding anyway with the only repercussion being a fine then it would seem that the fine is the primary reason the speeding is an offense.
I've always found it quite humorous that it is now so discouraged for young people to learn how to control a slide in the relatively safe environment of an empty parking lot.
Do you people even listen to yourselves? As if you think forcing you not to run red lights and endangering people's lives is some major attack on your freedom.
Let's just get rid of the lights all together! How dare they try to control you with their luminescent tyranny!
Fjord had such a glaringly one sided agenda and extensive history that anyone that recognised the name knew that any post would be nothing but misrepresentations of half-truths. Such a person should be ignored and have a tarnished reputation. Arguing with a liar is pointless. He made use of extensive logical tricks and careful fallacies to flog his agenda which is what made him such an interesting case.
Capacity or units would suffice. You know, the nouns that compute was being used to describe before marketing thought they could create a new buzzword.
He's been mysteriously less active in recent memory. I remember when he would have had 10 posts in a thread like this 5 minutes after it was posted. Budget cuts?
This is not slang. This is an attempt at forcing slang and that is what makes it moronic. I am fully aware of the evolution of language and this is not it.
No, it does not say the same thing. It makes it look like the sentence was cut off because there was a trailing verb. There are perfectly good nouns that would fit that spot and actually be descriptive. Alternatively, they could have actually written what they meant instead of trying to "spice" it up and make it look hip. If they wanted to talk about compute capacity or compute units they should have said that or used the nouns.
Not all language "evolution" helps clarity nor is it always a good thing. Sometimes it should still be corrected. Marketing departments should almost always be fought with full force.
This is why your statement and opinion is pointless. The Earth was never motionless no matter what someone believed or used as a simplification. That has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of multi-dimensional theory. Ptolemy never stood on a motionless Earth- not in this dimension or in any theoretical other dimension. There are no physical means to achieve that state. Physics doesn't give a shit what you believe. The fact that you have no idea what these words mean doesn't mean "everything will happen".
Well it might be true if in your frame of reference "everything will happen" means "somethings might happen but definitely not everything". In any meaningful "frame of reference" to us "everything" will not happen.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about... I am actually unconvinced your post wasn't generated by a Markov chain. Albeit a very angry Markov chain.
It doesn't matter if you think "He" could (he can't because he doesn't exist) because "He" doesn't. Therefore "He" is either complicit or powerless to the will of man and therefore man has defacto control of "Him".
Your definition of me changes the truth to anyone whom will believe you. I am insignificant so what people believe of me really has no effect on the real world. People's views on a god tend to be a little more significant and hence more of an issue.
Any "universal truth" is a meaningless concept as it is impossible for an individual to know (you have already admitted this) so the only "truth" that matters is what people believe and act upon.
It does not have to be the truth for me to be in control of its effect. We have already established your god has no meaningful effect on the world other than what people do in his name. Control the message control the people. The fact that I made up some god to justify my made up message has nothing to do with any "truthful" being.
Our worldviews are so diametrically opposed because you suffer some cognitive dissonance on the topic. You insist that god is real and has a real effect on the world but that effect has no perceivable influence. You cannot admit that, even if your god exists, he doesn't meddle and therefore anyone claiming to speak of his will is just inventing their own god (this includes you).
Slashdot Mirror
To play the devil's advocate here there does seem to be considerable evidence that voting makes very little, if not zero, difference. Voting for the "least crappy" candidate still leaves you with crap. Plus now they have all that support in the form of votes.
I never asserted that these cameras aren't often abused. I only assert that red light cameras are not an invasion of privacy or ignoring of rights. The wanton disregard for public safety is the infringement on your rights- not the camera.
That is complete nonsense!
First of all: ensuring laws are followed for public safety is one of the primary purposes of the government. Stopping you from running red lights is not micromanaging.
Second: you know for a fact it is impossible for humans to do that kind of monitoring and you would be even more petulant if they tried to hire more cops to do this. Welcome to the modern world where we use technology to do more work with less humans. This is the perfect use case for computer monitoring. Trivial to identify and frees the police to handle more difficult crime.
The two things are very different though. Police aren't stopping you at the lights to inspect your car to see if you have intent to run the red light. It's merely a logging device that identifies if you broke the law. Complaining about it isn't much different than complaining that you have to register your vehicle to use public roads.
And I'm damn tired of watching our freedom being stripped away by cowards who want a nanny state to protect them from their own shadow.
Just replaying to one useless strawman with another.
You aren't arguing that people should be able to run red lights- just that they should be able to easily get away with it.
The issue is you seem to think it is overbearing that they try to force you not to run red lights. In what way is that overbearing?
If people are speeding anyway with the only repercussion being a fine then it would seem that the fine is the primary reason the speeding is an offense.
And a lot more cops to attract these days too.
I've always found it quite humorous that it is now so discouraged for young people to learn how to control a slide in the relatively safe environment of an empty parking lot.
Do you people even listen to yourselves? As if you think forcing you not to run red lights and endangering people's lives is some major attack on your freedom.
Let's just get rid of the lights all together! How dare they try to control you with their luminescent tyranny!
Fjord had such a glaringly one sided agenda and extensive history that anyone that recognised the name knew that any post would be nothing but misrepresentations of half-truths. Such a person should be ignored and have a tarnished reputation. Arguing with a liar is pointless. He made use of extensive logical tricks and careful fallacies to flog his agenda which is what made him such an interesting case.
Capacity or units would suffice. You know, the nouns that compute was being used to describe before marketing thought they could create a new buzzword.
All those broken Windows machines would definitely stimulate the economy. Sound economic theory at its finest.
He's been mysteriously less active in recent memory. I remember when he would have had 10 posts in a thread like this 5 minutes after it was posted. Budget cuts?
Maybe because one is a real statement and one is something you pulled out of your ass that isn't a real statement. Small wonder it doesn't make sense.
This is not slang. This is an attempt at forcing slang and that is what makes it moronic. I am fully aware of the evolution of language and this is not it.
No, it does not say the same thing. It makes it look like the sentence was cut off because there was a trailing verb. There are perfectly good nouns that would fit that spot and actually be descriptive. Alternatively, they could have actually written what they meant instead of trying to "spice" it up and make it look hip. If they wanted to talk about compute capacity or compute units they should have said that or used the nouns.
Not all language "evolution" helps clarity nor is it always a good thing. Sometimes it should still be corrected. Marketing departments should almost always be fought with full force.
Yes, assuming you mean gerund. Computing is a noun but compute still is not.
"compute" in a cloud context == "compute capacity".
That is possibly more moronic than simply mistaking a verb for a noun.
If I'm "Rob Jones", and someone calls me "Rob", it doesn't turn me into a verb.
That's because your first name is a name and by definition names are nouns. Nouns and verbs are different.
Compute is a verb and I am aware of no other usage of the word. Verbs are not things; nouns are things.
This is why your statement and opinion is pointless. The Earth was never motionless no matter what someone believed or used as a simplification. That has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of multi-dimensional theory. Ptolemy never stood on a motionless Earth- not in this dimension or in any theoretical other dimension. There are no physical means to achieve that state. Physics doesn't give a shit what you believe. The fact that you have no idea what these words mean doesn't mean "everything will happen".
Well it might be true if in your frame of reference "everything will happen" means "somethings might happen but definitely not everything". In any meaningful "frame of reference" to us "everything" will not happen.
That statement, although oft repeater, is simplified so much that it is pretty much false.
I think it's more probable that you just have no idea what you're talking about.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about... I am actually unconvinced your post wasn't generated by a Markov chain. Albeit a very angry Markov chain.
It doesn't matter if you think "He" could (he can't because he doesn't exist) because "He" doesn't. Therefore "He" is either complicit or powerless to the will of man and therefore man has defacto control of "Him".
Your definition of me changes the truth to anyone whom will believe you. I am insignificant so what people believe of me really has no effect on the real world. People's views on a god tend to be a little more significant and hence more of an issue.
Any "universal truth" is a meaningless concept as it is impossible for an individual to know (you have already admitted this) so the only "truth" that matters is what people believe and act upon.
It does not have to be the truth for me to be in control of its effect. We have already established your god has no meaningful effect on the world other than what people do in his name. Control the message control the people. The fact that I made up some god to justify my made up message has nothing to do with any "truthful" being.
Our worldviews are so diametrically opposed because you suffer some cognitive dissonance on the topic. You insist that god is real and has a real effect on the world but that effect has no perceivable influence. You cannot admit that, even if your god exists, he doesn't meddle and therefore anyone claiming to speak of his will is just inventing their own god (this includes you).
A million dollar machine shop can build a gun. No one has ever had any doubt about that.