Absolutely. Alarms, CCTV or guns are about stopping or catching a thief who is already in you house. Strong doors & windows with GOOD locks keep the thief out in the first place.
I have a solid wooden door with an EVVA 3KSPlus (http://www.evva.com/products/mechanical-locking-systems/schliesssystem-3ks-3ksplus/technology/en/) as the main lock. Reputedly unpickable, undrillable etc etc. Cost me £90 ($143 US, prices in your country of choice may vary) for the cylinder, but it's rock solid and will keep even the best equipped neer-do-wells out. On the minus side if I ever get myself locked out a lumberjack will be more use than a locksmith.
Wait a fucking minute here... so they have had technology to keep glass from breaking - windows, drinking glasses, eye glasses for 48 years and are just NOW deciding it would be a good thing?
You're absolutely right, assuming of course that this glass is as easy and cheap to manufacture as regular glass... which it isn't.
Why don't they use their own programs to trade and make the big bucks then?
If it's not that easy to turn 'their' code into flowing rivers of cash, why don't they STFU and either do the job they're being paid to do, or decide that it isn't worth it and do something else??
Do you analyse the likely resale value of a lawn-mower before you buy it? Or a drill? Unlikely. It's a tool that does a job, just like a car.
No, because you are likely to use a lawnmower or drill until it breaks and is unrepairable, and not resell it before that point. Very few people want to keep a car for 15 years (assuming it was bought new) so cars get resold. If you intend to resell, the 'resale value' becomes important, doesn't it?
Try to grab someone who doesn't want to be grabbed, then tell us why Tasers shouldn't be used.:)
Police are trained and experienced in exactly that.
Justifying escalation of 'less lethal' arms for the sake of police convenience doesn't wash IMO. You could just as easily say "try merging into a freeway lane where no-one else wants you to, and then tell me why I can't fit nudge bars and ram them out of the way". Potentially dangerous electric shocks are unjustified in a situation where hands will do.
Already happens in the UK. Multiple providers working off one cell tower is very common.
Also common is 'virtual' cell networks, where the consumer-facing provider rents cell capacity from an established telco as you suggest. Examples of this are Tesco Mobile and Virgin Mobile, neither of which own or operate any infrastructure, instead piggybacking off other networks and offering their own pricing and service structure.
I assume that by 'colour coding' what the summary actually means is Frequency Division Multiplexing, which isn't exactly new.
Reading TFA it looks to me like a situation of "we've 'invented' this amazing technology, give us money". That may be unfair I admit. What IS interesting is the idea of the fibre being shared by competing telcos. Has that been done before?
Quick! Quick! Reduce the entire gamut of politics to a single left-right dichotomy! It's our only hope of denouncing people without considering their arguments for even a second! Quick!
Please explain in detail exactly why that is a bad idea, including references.
Please send me a handwritten letter, by courier, as to why exactly you think he should provide this. The writing paper must be european 'A5' size and be a pale yellow. The ink MUST be blue.
If you fail to do this then you have lost the argument.
If you want to give the people healthcare, then you need a system where money is transferred from the taxpayer directly to those who provide healthcare: doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. Sticking a middleman in there who takes a giant cut and only complicates the provision of care doesn't help any.
The problem is that quite often in taxpayer funded systems, the government takes the role of the bloated ineffecient middleman.
Government healthcare isn't a panacea, and private healthcare isn't either. Unfortunately things are far more complicated than that.
only a few people need to go at a sane speed and it forces those behind them to slow down too.
(of course then they try to overtake in stupid situations but until we get them fitted with shock collars idiots will always do idiotic things.)
So, according to you; the way to make the roads safer is to piss off a large number of drivers and make them late? You are the idiot who needs fitting with a shock collar.
The moment that you think that ANY news source is really 'unbiased' is the moment that you fail hard.
The BBC has biases all of its own; it should be considered 'another point of view' rather than 'an entirely unbiased and trustworthy news source'. You need to get your information from diverse sources to get a full picture.
"A valuable contribution to our democracy"? Yes. "Uninfluenced by.. lobbying"? No. There are lobbyists with influence there, but different lobbyists to those active elsewhere.
I also think that there is somewhat active product placement and other 'advertising' going on, unless you consider BBC coverage of, for example, Twitter and/or Apple to be proportionate or justified.
Much the opposite; if the show is THAT popular then they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting advertisers to pay for it instead of taxation, therefore the BBC doesn't need to produce it.
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
The fact of the matter is that while the BBC *does* produce some damn fine programming, every good program is accompanied with a torrent of pointless shit. It's funny how people like yourself use the 5% good programming too justify 100% (or more) of the compulsory taxation that funds the remaining 95%.
I'd personally be happy if they cut the crap and concentrated on the distinctive and valuable stuff that people seem to assume is all they do.
You talk about (presumably) people in the USA and elsewhere choosing to pay for cable, satellite or whichever other TV service. That happens here too. The point is that here we *HAVE* to pay the tax to watch anything at all, even 'free to air' TV.
Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
No, but if the King is spending billions on paintings every year, 95% of which are artless garbage, by raising a massively regressive tax that becomes a sizeable burden on the poorest in society; then I have the right to be pissed off.
Complaining does not get you perfection.
Oh, I'm sorry; how dare I give a toss where my taxes go.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
You are utterly, utterly wrong. The BBC takes a £3.5 billion/year subsidy from the British taxpayer, collected from a £142.50/year per-household 'television license'. (Figures source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom ).
If you watch TV (or own a working TV) without a license, there is a £1000 fine and the possibility of jail.
That's why some people here in the UK occasionally get pissed off with the BBC's spending and operations; we're all directly funding them, by law.
Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence. The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator. Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.) but the fundamental rules are the same.
Money want to reproduce. We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.
Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself. Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e. tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).
The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy. The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents. We can garden (i.e. set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream). Moreover, money replication isn't free. It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited. Expanding the garden forever isn't an option. Sustaining a nice one probably is.
It is possible for the economy to grow, even with hard-limited resources, for as long as technology continues to grow. New tech allows greater effeciencies to develop (think of computing power per kg of silicon, for example) which allows greater economic value to be derived from a given amount of resources. More value or use from a given input of natural resources or labour tends to decrease the 'real' price of those resources, because in a way they become less 'scarce'. A 'bigger economy' can mean 'cheaper stuff' as well as or instead of 'more stuff'.
Of course it's not good for your health. Human beings evolved alongside mother nature, not power stations. The question is how much exposure does it take to do damage. Is it truly negligible, or not?
..and posting on/. as AC *MUST* be very bad for your health, after all; we humans evolved in the warm, comforting bosom of Gaia; not some soulless collection of electronic messages...
The UK Conservative party is so far right that it has difficulty in finding allies in other European countries.
Politics: Thousands of possible positions that can be taken over thousands of issues; all easily able to be boiled down into a one-dimensional left-right dichotomy.
There is sometimes a perception that better educated and technically aware individuals do not vote for them much.
You also win in the meaningless statement competition. You know, there is also sometimes a perception that better educated and technically aware individuals do not vote for your currently preferred party. Hell, there is sometimes a perception that the LHC will destroy the universe as well.
They want to persuade us to forget about having a fair society so that we can have better broadband speed.
..because over the past 13 years labour have eradicated poverty, haven't they? You're obviously a fan of Gordon's "Magical money for all- sometime in the future" policies.
For the record; yes, I do think that this article is an entirely speculative load of nonsense.
Have you ever considered the possibility that countless people (including yourself) continually banging on about some moronic "average driver" who can't be trusted behind the wheel in any capacity has given most drivers the thought "sheesh, if the 'average driver' is that bad, I must be pretty damn good!".
If you treat people as idiots then they will be idiots.
I'm soooo glad that you would never ever break ANY law whatsoever.
(Assuming you're in the UK) you've never:
* Driven at 70.0001mph or more on any public road
* Played any copyrighted music in public
* Made any kind of written or verbal statement about anyone that you couldn't absolutely prove to be true on demand
* Been in posession of a single molecule of any banned drug (CLUE: There are detectable traces on all money, and most other objects that have been handled by the public)
* At any point downloaded or stored any image or depiction of S&M or potentially arousing images of any person younger than 18 (even accidentally)
* Dropped any object in a public place as litter (I wonder if skin cells technically count)
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Alarms, CCTV or guns are about stopping or catching a thief who is already in you house. Strong doors & windows with GOOD locks keep the thief out in the first place.
I have a solid wooden door with an EVVA 3KSPlus (http://www.evva.com/products/mechanical-locking-systems/schliesssystem-3ks-3ksplus/technology/en/) as the main lock. Reputedly unpickable, undrillable etc etc. Cost me £90 ($143 US, prices in your country of choice may vary) for the cylinder, but it's rock solid and will keep even the best equipped neer-do-wells out. On the minus side if I ever get myself locked out a lumberjack will be more use than a locksmith.
Wait a fucking minute here... so they have had technology to keep glass from breaking - windows, drinking glasses, eye glasses for 48 years and are just NOW deciding it would be a good thing?
You're absolutely right, assuming of course that this glass is as easy and cheap to manufacture as regular glass... which it isn't.
Why don't they use their own programs to trade and make the big bucks then?
If it's not that easy to turn 'their' code into flowing rivers of cash, why don't they STFU and either do the job they're being paid to do, or decide that it isn't worth it and do something else??
Do you analyse the likely resale value of a lawn-mower before you buy it? Or a drill? Unlikely. It's a tool that does a job, just like a car.
No, because you are likely to use a lawnmower or drill until it breaks and is unrepairable, and not resell it before that point.
Very few people want to keep a car for 15 years (assuming it was bought new) so cars get resold. If you intend to resell, the 'resale value' becomes important, doesn't it?
Try to grab someone who doesn't want to be grabbed, then tell us why Tasers shouldn't be used. :)
Police are trained and experienced in exactly that.
Justifying escalation of 'less lethal' arms for the sake of police convenience doesn't wash IMO. You could just as easily say "try merging into a freeway lane where no-one else wants you to, and then tell me why I can't fit nudge bars and ram them out of the way". Potentially dangerous electric shocks are unjustified in a situation where hands will do.
Already happens in the UK. Multiple providers working off one cell tower is very common.
Also common is 'virtual' cell networks, where the consumer-facing provider rents cell capacity from an established telco as you suggest. Examples of this are Tesco Mobile and Virgin Mobile, neither of which own or operate any infrastructure, instead piggybacking off other networks and offering their own pricing and service structure.
I assume that by 'colour coding' what the summary actually means is Frequency Division Multiplexing, which isn't exactly new.
Reading TFA it looks to me like a situation of "we've 'invented' this amazing technology, give us money". That may be unfair I admit. What IS interesting is the idea of the fibre being shared by competing telcos. Has that been done before?
Quick! Quick!
Reduce the entire gamut of politics to a single left-right dichotomy! It's our only hope of denouncing people without considering their arguments for even a second! Quick!
Please explain in detail exactly why that is a bad idea, including references.
Please send me a handwritten letter, by courier, as to why exactly you think he should provide this. The writing paper must be european 'A5' size and be a pale yellow. The ink MUST be blue.
If you fail to do this then you have lost the argument.
Not Canada Post, not FedEx, not UPS, not DHL, not Purolator. Nobody delivers on saturday except pizzerias.
The Royal Mail in the UK deliver saturday. I'd bet other european services do as well.
If you want to give the people healthcare, then you need a system where money is transferred from the taxpayer directly to those who provide healthcare: doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. Sticking a middleman in there who takes a giant cut and only complicates the provision of care doesn't help any.
The problem is that quite often in taxpayer funded systems, the government takes the role of the bloated ineffecient middleman.
Government healthcare isn't a panacea, and private healthcare isn't either. Unfortunately things are far more complicated than that.
only a few people need to go at a sane speed and it forces those behind them to slow down too. (of course then they try to overtake in stupid situations but until we get them fitted with shock collars idiots will always do idiotic things.)
So, according to you; the way to make the roads safer is to piss off a large number of drivers and make them late?
You are the idiot who needs fitting with a shock collar.
There's an advert for a private healthcare provider in the UK (hence competing with the'free' NHS) where the slogan is "We can be bothered"
A racist with a working knowledge of electronic manufacturing?
Dave, is that you??
The moment that you think that ANY news source is really 'unbiased' is the moment that you fail hard.
The BBC has biases all of its own; it should be considered 'another point of view' rather than 'an entirely unbiased and trustworthy news source'. You need to get your information from diverse sources to get a full picture.
"A valuable contribution to our democracy"? Yes. "Uninfluenced by .. lobbying"? No. There are lobbyists with influence there, but different lobbyists to those active elsewhere.
I also think that there is somewhat active product placement and other 'advertising' going on, unless you consider BBC coverage of, for example, Twitter and/or Apple to be proportionate or justified.
/my 2p
Much the opposite; if the show is THAT popular then they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting advertisers to pay for it instead of taxation, therefore the BBC doesn't need to produce it.
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
The fact of the matter is that while the BBC *does* produce some damn fine programming, every good program is accompanied with a torrent of pointless shit. It's funny how people like yourself use the 5% good programming too justify 100% (or more) of the compulsory taxation that funds the remaining 95%.
I'd personally be happy if they cut the crap and concentrated on the distinctive and valuable stuff that people seem to assume is all they do.
You talk about (presumably) people in the USA and elsewhere choosing to pay for cable, satellite or whichever other TV service. That happens here too. The point is that here we *HAVE* to pay the tax to watch anything at all, even 'free to air' TV.
Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
No, but if the King is spending billions on paintings every year, 95% of which are artless garbage, by raising a massively regressive tax that becomes a sizeable burden on the poorest in society; then I have the right to be pissed off.
Complaining does not get you perfection.
Oh, I'm sorry; how dare I give a toss where my taxes go.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
You are utterly, utterly wrong. The BBC takes a £3.5 billion/year subsidy from the British taxpayer, collected from a £142.50/year per-household 'television license'. (Figures source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom ).
If you watch TV (or own a working TV) without a license, there is a £1000 fine and the possibility of jail.
That's why some people here in the UK occasionally get pissed off with the BBC's spending and operations; we're all directly funding them, by law.
Seriously.
Money is more accurately described as a kind of swarm intelligence. The meme of money is the fundamental self replicator. Admittedly the ecology is complex, (dollars, derivatives, bonds, et al.) but the fundamental rules are the same.
Money want to reproduce. We (our collective cultural awareness) are merely hosts for money to exist.
Usually, money is symbiotic, benefiting the host and itself. Occasionally, it turns into a pathology that harms its hosts (i.e. tulip manias, compulsive gambling/banking, stock market crashes).
The delusion here is thinking that we can "control" the economy. The economy (our name for money's ecology), will always, to some degree, be out of control as long as the hosts are relatively free agents. We can garden (i.e. set up nice environments for money to replicate), but direct control is probably a pipe dream). Moreover, money replication isn't free. It takes real environmental resources to create and is therefore limited. Expanding the garden forever isn't an option. Sustaining a nice one probably is.
It is possible for the economy to grow, even with hard-limited resources, for as long as technology continues to grow. New tech allows greater effeciencies to develop (think of computing power per kg of silicon, for example) which allows greater economic value to be derived from a given amount of resources. More value or use from a given input of natural resources or labour tends to decrease the 'real' price of those resources, because in a way they become less 'scarce'. A 'bigger economy' can mean 'cheaper stuff' as well as or instead of 'more stuff'.
Of course it's not good for your health. Human beings evolved alongside mother nature, not power stations. The question is how much exposure does it take to do damage. Is it truly negligible, or not?
..and posting on /. as AC *MUST* be very bad for your health, after all; we humans evolved in the warm, comforting bosom of Gaia; not some soulless collection of electronic messages...
The UK Conservative party is so far right that it has difficulty in finding allies in other European countries.
Politics: Thousands of possible positions that can be taken over thousands of issues; all easily able to be boiled down into a one-dimensional left-right dichotomy.
There is sometimes a perception that better educated and technically aware individuals do not vote for them much.
You also win in the meaningless statement competition. You know, there is also sometimes a perception that better educated and technically aware individuals do not vote for your currently preferred party. Hell, there is sometimes a perception that the LHC will destroy the universe as well.
They want to persuade us to forget about having a fair society so that we can have better broadband speed.
..because over the past 13 years labour have eradicated poverty, haven't they? You're obviously a fan of Gordon's "Magical money for all- sometime in the future" policies.
For the record; yes, I do think that this article is an entirely speculative load of nonsense.
LOL i red this, coz I iz gud, at ritin english init, there all morans ROFL
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Cell phone use is a privilege, not a right.
Ooh, I like this game....
"Free speech is a privelege, not a right"
"Eating is a privelege, not a right"
The fact that something is a 'privelege' does not give you or anyone else the moral obligation to apply your own arbitary criteria to it.
You will respect mah authoritah!
There, fixed that for you
Have you ever considered the possibility that countless people (including yourself) continually banging on about some moronic "average driver" who can't be trusted behind the wheel in any capacity has given most drivers the thought "sheesh, if the 'average driver' is that bad, I must be pretty damn good!".
If you treat people as idiots then they will be idiots.
How about not breaking the law instead?
I'm soooo glad that you would never ever break ANY law whatsoever.
(Assuming you're in the UK) you've never:
* Driven at 70.0001mph or more on any public road
* Played any copyrighted music in public
* Made any kind of written or verbal statement about anyone that you couldn't absolutely prove to be true on demand
* Been in posession of a single molecule of any banned drug (CLUE: There are detectable traces on all money, and most other objects that have been handled by the public)
* At any point downloaded or stored any image or depiction of S&M or potentially arousing images of any person younger than 18 (even accidentally)
* Dropped any object in a public place as litter (I wonder if skin cells technically count)