What appears to be being talked about doesn't even really count as analytics. Actual educational analytics requires that the student work out problems on a computer (possibly also using scratch paper), so that it can be noted in detail which particular steps are not being understood and then that addressed.
Mind you, while I've heard of this being done, I've never actually witnessed it. It sounds like a good idea, but one that would require an extreme amount of time from the teacher/professor unless it was implemented via an AI. And the AI that can really do that hasn't been invented yet.
??? Perhaps you are attributing to me something written by someone else. Either that, or you need to explain yourself more fully if you want me to understand you.
Upload could be managed by a link to the squad car. While he's out of the car just transmit hashes, when he re-enters have a couple of high bandwidth methods. Say uv or ir lightlink as the primary and usb3 as the backup.
Storage: a real problem, but not insurmountable. Most of the stuff doesn't need to be rapid access, and the video should be highly compressible without loss. Probably a DVD per officer per day would suffice. He checks in his squad car when he goes off work, and that writes out anything needed. Then you file it.
Search and retrieval: Why should it be searchable except by date and time?
P.S.: I note someone else gave a different answer, but I think my proposal is cheaper and sufficient. But the group retrieving and storing the data would need to be totally independent of the law enforcement groups. They need to think more like the librarians at the rare books room: "The originals never leave my custody, and they don't get changed."
FWIW, most of the older security camera produce lousy images. Many times they are not sufficient to reliably identify someone who was undisguised in the photo. It's my understanding, however, that the newer cameras are better...as good as webcams.
I'm sure that it is often justifiable homicide. Also that it is almost always ruled justifiable homicide when investigated. But I'm not at all sure I trust the decision process. You might consider why you do. Remember, if 95% of the cases are, indeed, justifiable homicide, that means that 5% of them are manslaughter or murder.
To be at all fair you would need to compare population sizes.
OTOH, the US *is* failing as a civilization. Most "top countries" have throughout history, so that's not too surprising. The reason for my assertion is the gap between the median income level and the mean income level...which has been increasing. Also the location of the mode of income. It is my assertion that a civilization is failing when the wealthiest 10% of the population is more than 50 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. You can make reasonable arguments that for a population as large as that of the US the difference should be 75 or 100 times. Any larger and you are just putting lipstick on a pig. There are many reasonable arguments about HOW things should be changed to reach a more reasonable level. Personally I favor a combination of a guaranteed income and an exponential income tax. (Probably about 1.5 for the exponent, but that would need to be calculated.) And no exemptions for any income from whatever source. If you want to promote particular industries, use a more explicit subsidy.
Please note: This would not suffice to turn the US into a successful civilization. That would require a respect for polite behavior and for learning...but don't confuse respect with adulation. It would also require teaching people how to evaluate evidence. (That's a really tricky one, as so much depends on properly trusting other people. I'm still working on it for myself.)
Probably more than 90% of the complaints against police are invalid. But it's the other 9% or so that interest *me*. They happen, and they have often been documented to result in innocent people ending up dead.
Also make it illegal to act officially while your camera is inoperable. I really dislike that in many departments the police can, at their own decision, turn off the camera. That has been used to cloak violently illegal acts, that wouldn't have been ever known if some bystander hadn't been taking a photo. Sound recording is also important.
There's lots of nitpicky technical details that need to be thought through, but the prime importance is that immutable records of police actions should always be available. I don't say made public when they aren't relevant. Everybody needs to go to the john. But they need to be available.
And that's a major point. Selective enforcement of the law is an extremely bad thing. Whether the laws would actually get repealed or not is an interesting question, but even if they don't getting rid of selective enforcement may be worth it.
When the other christians publicly accept those who do so as christian, then those who act that way ARE christian.
Your point, that some christians don't accept them as christian, is quite weak when all the recognized mouthpieces of the religion accept them as christian.
Now, personally, speaking as a non-christian gnostic, I don't consider that were I a christian I would accept many of the spokespeople chosen by the religion as valid christians. But historically, they're closer to christians as defined by the council of Nicea than the average. E.g., few of them support burning people alive.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world mosquitoes have adapted to be relatively immune to DDT. I don't know that this is true of Brazil, but I wouldn't be surprised. (Of course, often the adaptation is to smell the stuff and find it so distasteful they go somewhere else, but that's been a fairly effective strategy.)
IIUC, the only way of using DDT that's still really effective (outside of bed nets) is to spread it over stagnant pools of water. But if you have lots of slowly flowing streams that doesn't work. Considering that the RainForest is in Brazil, I don't think it would be effective.
And yes, DDT is tremendously ecologically destructive, but people don't tend to worry about things like that when faced with multiple repulsively dangerous diseases.
Sorry, but this is welfare. Welfare just isn't a globally derogatory terms.
I do not believe that this is an appropriate way to solve the problem, I think a guaranteed income is a better solution, but given her circumstances and what she has to work with it's probably the best she can do. All she's in a position to do is patch a broken system...probably knowing that the patch will fail fairly soon either because her funds are cut or for some other reason. This *is* welfare. It advantages some over others rather than just raising the base. And welfare of some sort will always be needed. A guaranteed income isn't going to keep some people from blowing it on lottery tickets.
FWIW, when I first heard of the idea of "workfare" I thought it a marvelous idea. Then I saw the implementation. The idea isn't supposed to be to punish people for being poor, it's supposed to be to give them a job that they can handle that will pay a living wage. Say one that would give them an income that was half the median income. Something they could easily survive on, but which they would eagerly move up from. OTOH, when I see what some people think is a reasonable minimum wage I wonder if they have any idea of what prices of food and housing are.
You seem to fail in reading comprehension. Read what the grandparent wrote again. You don't need to agree with it, but your response indicates you didn't understand it.
Sorry, but that's not an excuse for the horribly broken design. And many people may not find out so quickly, especially if the purchases are more moderate. So I think it's clearly a scam, probably fraud, and just not provably malicious.
That many companies do this merely says that there is a lot of malicious action allowed to happen unpunished.
You can't prove that it's on purpose. The correct phrase was "is so blatant that it appears to be on purpose".
I don't feel I'm just being nitpicky here. To assume that Apple did this on purpose is to make an assumption about the kind of micromanagement that the company is exerting, but companies are not real entities. Someone at Apple probably did this on purpose, but I doubt that upper management was aware, much less the Board of Directors. This doesn't mean that they aren't responsible, as upper management sets the tone and motivations that are used to guide the actual implementers. But it may well (is probably) not be something that was intended to go quite that far.
If you hypostatize Apple as an entity, then this would likely equate to an unconscious or reflex action, and therefore the assertion of "on purpose" is in error. But it still shows what kind of an entity "Apple" is.
That was readable, just not intelligible. Perhaps it means something to someone who speaks another language, perhaps not. For that one I just say "I can't tell." This one is sort of intelligible, but unreadable. And it contradicts that which I've learned through other sources that I mainly trust. So I assume it's garbage.
FWIW the only validated method is slower than light, and, due to energy considerations, at considerably less than 1G. There are, IIUC, speculative ways around the light barrier, but they're all quite dubious. Perhaps one of them would work, but not with any foreseeable technology.
That said, there could be some kind of breakthrough, eventually, but it hasn't happened yet. Were I to bet, I'd bet on ion rockets with around 100-200 pounds of thrust as the way most likely to succeed. And this might be doable with fission power, but may well require fusion. (Light sails require either an even lower thrust, or trusting someone back home to keep your engine running for several centuries.)
For various reasons I don't expect any group to set out aiming to reach distant stars, but rather aiming to live off the Oort cloud, and eventually deciding to make the jump to another one. Or via a series of loose planets. When resources are rich, build a second ship and then the two of you go your separate ways. Eventually some of them would end up on other solar systems, but this would just be because that's where resources were thickest, and nobody was defending them. (Sort of "life as a von Neuman Probe".)
N.B.: For various reasons these ships would need to be quite large. A question that hasn't been answered is "What is the minimum number of people required to maintain a technological civilization?", but presumably laser communications would be possible and cut down the minimum number. So say a stable population of 100,000 or more. And not too crowded, as that causes increased unrest...and it's already going to be stressed as there's going to be needed a firm limit on the size of the population. Virtual reality is also going to need to be well developed to defuse social stresses.
P.S.: Don't suggest suspended animation. Interstellar space is where these people are going to live. Planets will only be occasionally visited for special reasons. And will probably only be visited by robots.
Now give me a magic space drive and all this changes, but I'll believe it when I understand that it can actually be built.
Actually it partially *is* the result of "autism spectrum". People are naturally ego-centric, tending to pick on those they perceive as weaker, and changes in the direction of autism make it harder to read social signals.
That said, there's also a lot of social insecurity, and anger at women in general because they defend something males *need* against access. (If you're bad at reading social signals, you don't do well at striking up a match.)
So it really *is* involved, though not as directly as normally presumed (or denied).
But it's also true that the structure of organizations either fosters or reduces hostile behavior, and structures that are just thrown together often foster competitive behavior without considering the nature of that competition. (Anonymous Cowards deserve their bad reputation, even though some Anonymous Coward posts are quite insightful.) N.B.: The moderation system is an attempt at a structured control of behavior that the group deems undesirable. It's not perfect, but it results in a system that's over-all a lot friendlier that systems that lack that feedback.
Whether they have more landmines or not depends on what you're doing. For some purposes C is the optimal language. For some purposes C++ is a lot better. (In both cases I find a lot of the syntax abominable. D got that a lot better. But D came late to the table, and all the libraries are written for C or C++.)
Rust has some nice features, but somebody needs to write some decent documentation for it if it's ever going to be popular.
OTOH, considering that it's just reached 1.0 it may not be doing to badly. But *SOME* languages have decent documentation early, and others never seem to get it. Examples of good documentation are Python, D, and Ruby. Original Pascal had decent documentation, but it doesn't cover the modern dialect, which has lousy documentation. Lisp documentation is OK, but nothing great. Smalltalk has reasonably good documentation, considering. Ada has excellent documentation, also considering. (Note that documentation doesn't make up for basic problems with the language, but seems to be necessary for adoption...reasonably.) FWIW, I don't really know about current Perl, but I didn't like what I saw of Perl5 documentation. This wasn't much as I didn't like the language.
Slashdot Mirror
No. You've probably already ignored the IoT-in-the-workplace case. Just *try* telling your boss to leave his phone at home.
What appears to be being talked about doesn't even really count as analytics. Actual educational analytics requires that the student work out problems on a computer (possibly also using scratch paper), so that it can be noted in detail which particular steps are not being understood and then that addressed.
Mind you, while I've heard of this being done, I've never actually witnessed it. It sounds like a good idea, but one that would require an extreme amount of time from the teacher/professor unless it was implemented via an AI. And the AI that can really do that hasn't been invented yet.
???
Perhaps you are attributing to me something written by someone else. Either that, or you need to explain yourself more fully if you want me to understand you.
Not hacking, but it sounds like entrapment.
Upload could be managed by a link to the squad car. While he's out of the car just transmit hashes, when he re-enters have a couple of high bandwidth methods. Say uv or ir lightlink as the primary and usb3 as the backup.
Storage: a real problem, but not insurmountable. Most of the stuff doesn't need to be rapid access, and the video should be highly compressible without loss. Probably a DVD per officer per day would suffice. He checks in his squad car when he goes off work, and that writes out anything needed. Then you file it.
Search and retrieval: Why should it be searchable except by date and time?
P.S.: I note someone else gave a different answer, but I think my proposal is cheaper and sufficient. But the group retrieving and storing the data would need to be totally independent of the law enforcement groups. They need to think more like the librarians at the rare books room: "The originals never leave my custody, and they don't get changed."
FWIW, most of the older security camera produce lousy images. Many times they are not sufficient to reliably identify someone who was undisguised in the photo. It's my understanding, however, that the newer cameras are better...as good as webcams.
I'm sure that it is often justifiable homicide. Also that it is almost always ruled justifiable homicide when investigated. But I'm not at all sure I trust the decision process. You might consider why you do. Remember, if 95% of the cases are, indeed, justifiable homicide, that means that 5% of them are manslaughter or murder.
To be at all fair you would need to compare population sizes.
OTOH, the US *is* failing as a civilization. Most "top countries" have throughout history, so that's not too surprising. The reason for my assertion is the gap between the median income level and the mean income level...which has been increasing. Also the location of the mode of income. It is my assertion that a civilization is failing when the wealthiest 10% of the population is more than 50 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. You can make reasonable arguments that for a population as large as that of the US the difference should be 75 or 100 times. Any larger and you are just putting lipstick on a pig. There are many reasonable arguments about HOW things should be changed to reach a more reasonable level. Personally I favor a combination of a guaranteed income and an exponential income tax. (Probably about 1.5 for the exponent, but that would need to be calculated.) And no exemptions for any income from whatever source. If you want to promote particular industries, use a more explicit subsidy.
Please note: This would not suffice to turn the US into a successful civilization. That would require a respect for polite behavior and for learning...but don't confuse respect with adulation. It would also require teaching people how to evaluate evidence. (That's a really tricky one, as so much depends on properly trusting other people. I'm still working on it for myself.)
Probably more than 90% of the complaints against police are invalid. But it's the other 9% or so that interest *me*. They happen, and they have often been documented to result in innocent people ending up dead.
It's happened already. Not, admittedly, frequently. But most people refrain from obviously filming police.
Also make it illegal to act officially while your camera is inoperable. I really dislike that in many departments the police can, at their own decision, turn off the camera. That has been used to cloak violently illegal acts, that wouldn't have been ever known if some bystander hadn't been taking a photo. Sound recording is also important.
There's lots of nitpicky technical details that need to be thought through, but the prime importance is that immutable records of police actions should always be available. I don't say made public when they aren't relevant. Everybody needs to go to the john. But they need to be available.
And that's a major point. Selective enforcement of the law is an extremely bad thing. Whether the laws would actually get repealed or not is an interesting question, but even if they don't getting rid of selective enforcement may be worth it.
When the other christians publicly accept those who do so as christian, then those who act that way ARE christian.
Your point, that some christians don't accept them as christian, is quite weak when all the recognized mouthpieces of the religion accept them as christian.
Now, personally, speaking as a non-christian gnostic, I don't consider that were I a christian I would accept many of the spokespeople chosen by the religion as valid christians. But historically, they're closer to christians as defined by the council of Nicea than the average. E.g., few of them support burning people alive.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world mosquitoes have adapted to be relatively immune to DDT. I don't know that this is true of Brazil, but I wouldn't be surprised. (Of course, often the adaptation is to smell the stuff and find it so distasteful they go somewhere else, but that's been a fairly effective strategy.)
IIUC, the only way of using DDT that's still really effective (outside of bed nets) is to spread it over stagnant pools of water. But if you have lots of slowly flowing streams that doesn't work. Considering that the RainForest is in Brazil, I don't think it would be effective.
And yes, DDT is tremendously ecologically destructive, but people don't tend to worry about things like that when faced with multiple repulsively dangerous diseases.
Sorry, but this is welfare. Welfare just isn't a globally derogatory terms.
I do not believe that this is an appropriate way to solve the problem, I think a guaranteed income is a better solution, but given her circumstances and what she has to work with it's probably the best she can do. All she's in a position to do is patch a broken system...probably knowing that the patch will fail fairly soon either because her funds are cut or for some other reason. This *is* welfare. It advantages some over others rather than just raising the base. And welfare of some sort will always be needed. A guaranteed income isn't going to keep some people from blowing it on lottery tickets.
FWIW, when I first heard of the idea of "workfare" I thought it a marvelous idea. Then I saw the implementation. The idea isn't supposed to be to punish people for being poor, it's supposed to be to give them a job that they can handle that will pay a living wage. Say one that would give them an income that was half the median income. Something they could easily survive on, but which they would eagerly move up from. OTOH, when I see what some people think is a reasonable minimum wage I wonder if they have any idea of what prices of food and housing are.
You seem to fail in reading comprehension. Read what the grandparent wrote again. You don't need to agree with it, but your response indicates you didn't understand it.
Sorry, but that's not an excuse for the horribly broken design. And many people may not find out so quickly, especially if the purchases are more moderate. So I think it's clearly a scam, probably fraud, and just not provably malicious.
That many companies do this merely says that there is a lot of malicious action allowed to happen unpunished.
You can't prove that it's on purpose. The correct phrase was "is so blatant that it appears to be on purpose".
I don't feel I'm just being nitpicky here. To assume that Apple did this on purpose is to make an assumption about the kind of micromanagement that the company is exerting, but companies are not real entities. Someone at Apple probably did this on purpose, but I doubt that upper management was aware, much less the Board of Directors. This doesn't mean that they aren't responsible, as upper management sets the tone and motivations that are used to guide the actual implementers. But it may well (is probably) not be something that was intended to go quite that far.
If you hypostatize Apple as an entity, then this would likely equate to an unconscious or reflex action, and therefore the assertion of "on purpose" is in error. But it still shows what kind of an entity "Apple" is.
That was readable, just not intelligible. Perhaps it means something to someone who speaks another language, perhaps not. For that one I just say "I can't tell." This one is sort of intelligible, but unreadable. And it contradicts that which I've learned through other sources that I mainly trust. So I assume it's garbage.
But that's too long for the title of a thread.
FWIW the only validated method is slower than light, and, due to energy considerations, at considerably less than 1G. There are, IIUC, speculative ways around the light barrier, but they're all quite dubious. Perhaps one of them would work, but not with any foreseeable technology.
That said, there could be some kind of breakthrough, eventually, but it hasn't happened yet. Were I to bet, I'd bet on ion rockets with around 100-200 pounds of thrust as the way most likely to succeed. And this might be doable with fission power, but may well require fusion. (Light sails require either an even lower thrust, or trusting someone back home to keep your engine running for several centuries.)
For various reasons I don't expect any group to set out aiming to reach distant stars, but rather aiming to live off the Oort cloud, and eventually deciding to make the jump to another one. Or via a series of loose planets. When resources are rich, build a second ship and then the two of you go your separate ways. Eventually some of them would end up on other solar systems, but this would just be because that's where resources were thickest, and nobody was defending them. (Sort of "life as a von Neuman Probe".)
N.B.: For various reasons these ships would need to be quite large. A question that hasn't been answered is "What is the minimum number of people required to maintain a technological civilization?", but presumably laser communications would be possible and cut down the minimum number. So say a stable population of 100,000 or more. And not too crowded, as that causes increased unrest...and it's already going to be stressed as there's going to be needed a firm limit on the size of the population. Virtual reality is also going to need to be well developed to defuse social stresses.
P.S.: Don't suggest suspended animation. Interstellar space is where these people are going to live. Planets will only be occasionally visited for special reasons. And will probably only be visited by robots.
Now give me a magic space drive and all this changes, but I'll believe it when I understand that it can actually be built.
Based on other comments I'm guessing they're an ISP. So how about refusing to let someone cancel their service?
Actually it partially *is* the result of "autism spectrum". People are naturally ego-centric, tending to pick on those they perceive as weaker, and changes in the direction of autism make it harder to read social signals.
That said, there's also a lot of social insecurity, and anger at women in general because they defend something males *need* against access. (If you're bad at reading social signals, you don't do well at striking up a match.)
So it really *is* involved, though not as directly as normally presumed (or denied).
But it's also true that the structure of organizations either fosters or reduces hostile behavior, and structures that are just thrown together often foster competitive behavior without considering the nature of that competition. (Anonymous Cowards deserve their bad reputation, even though some Anonymous Coward posts are quite insightful.)
N.B.: The moderation system is an attempt at a structured control of behavior that the group deems undesirable. It's not perfect, but it results in a system that's over-all a lot friendlier that systems that lack that feedback.
Whether they have more landmines or not depends on what you're doing. For some purposes C is the optimal language. For some purposes C++ is a lot better. (In both cases I find a lot of the syntax abominable. D got that a lot better. But D came late to the table, and all the libraries are written for C or C++.)
Rust has some nice features, but somebody needs to write some decent documentation for it if it's ever going to be popular.
OTOH, considering that it's just reached 1.0 it may not be doing to badly. But *SOME* languages have decent documentation early, and others never seem to get it. Examples of good documentation are Python, D, and Ruby. Original Pascal had decent documentation, but it doesn't cover the modern dialect, which has lousy documentation. Lisp documentation is OK, but nothing great. Smalltalk has reasonably good documentation, considering. Ada has excellent documentation, also considering. (Note that documentation doesn't make up for basic problems with the language, but seems to be necessary for adoption...reasonably.) FWIW, I don't really know about current Perl, but I didn't like what I saw of Perl5 documentation. This wasn't much as I didn't like the language.
What can you do for them that would cause them to live on their land? (Hint: see the Enclosure Acts for a past analogy.)