Lets use a brush a mile wide. Yes, there are police who abuse their power but they are the small minority. They appear to be more of an issue due to the publicity they get. Most police officers do their jobs to uphold the laws and protect people and property. Any tool can be abused but that does not mean we should not give police the tools to do their jobs. If an officer abuses his/her power he/she should be fired and/or prosecuted.
In my mind, a drone is the same as an manned helicopter; they both have a dedicated operator and can record video. We don't have issues with helicopters we shouldn't have issues with drones.
Com on guys can't you even to a simple search on past articles before posting a new one? This is the third time this week a duplicate article has been posted; two of them from this month.
From the article; 'Currently, the system harnesses less than 1% of the solar energy it receives" and 'William Chueh suggests that efficiencies of 15% or higher are possible'.
The point is that people have been researching this for over two years and no increase in efficiency. They are coming up with the same problems as two years ago and have not made any advancements. This looks to me like Cal Tech repeated the research done by Sandia National Laboratories and is calling it new. They appear to be at the same stage Sandai was two years ago.
There are other issues here. Is the current programmer spending all his time working on legacy software just trying to keep up with new demands? Has the senior programmer been given the time and/or opportunity to learn the new technology? Will the young pup make many errors due to inexperience? Will he be asking the old dog how to fix issue that the young pup has never encountered?
Old skills are not necessarily useless skills. If a significant portion of a company's income is derived from an old code base then people able to program in that language are very useful. That is why COBOL programmers still make a good wage. To use your mechanic analogy; would you want a new mechanics grad working on you '63 Corvette? Is the mechanic that works on you '63 corvette worth less that the one working on your Prius?
I agree that if the old dog does not want to learn, screw him. If he wants to learn he should be given the opportunity and pay.
New programmers have generally some major shortcommings. (there are exceptions) They have not worked on systems that take more that a month to build by one or two people. They have not dealt with scalability issues. They have not dealt with a QA department. They have not dealt with resource contention. They have not dealt with multiple processes updating the same database. They have a smaller toolbox of solution to standard problems. They do not understand rollback. They do not understand maintaiability (they write cool code that works but is a pain to change). An experienced programmer has seen all of these and generally knows how to deal with them.
I have a theory; every new programmer should spend a year bug fixing. One of two things will happen; they will quit because coding is too hard or they will loose most of the bad habits learned while writing code in school. Cool code is not necessarily stable or maintainable code.
I am sorry but the name calling and profanity is not useful in polite discussion. It weakens anything you say. Sure you are free to say it but I am also free to discount anything you say.
And yes, when the consequences of a misunderstanding could lead to someone's death everyone should watch what they say.
Actually it has everything to do with the conversation. The second post in this thread a mention of another gaff by Ms Palin. She ran for VP last time and has not said she would not run again. Even if she was running for VP she could become President if the President died or could not perform his duties for some reason. I want to be sure Ms. Palin does not get that chance. By the way, I am Canadian but Ms. Palin scares me.
I was merely pointing out the difference between targeting a state and targeting a district.
Was Sarah Palin trying to advocate killing congressional representatives; No. Could putting cross hairs on congressional district be misinterpreted by some nut job and inspire them to kill congressional representatives; yes. The issue is not Ms. Palin's intent but her lack of thought and foresight in using the image on her web site. Many Republicans came out against the site. It is yet another reason why a soccer mom from Alaska who has no diplomatic experience should never be the "most powerful person in the world" (note the quotes because that is becoming debatable).
Actually the definition of nuclear war is a bit fuzzy. In some definitions both sides have to use nuclear weapons so even WW2 would not be a nuclear war. In all definitions at least one side must use a nuclear weapon, "going nuclear", so The Cold War would not be a nuclear war.
The Cold War is might not even met the criteria to be a war as no official armed conflict occurred and no war was declared. Sure there were a lot of weapons pointed, many "incident" where people were killed and more than a few proxy wars but no overt military conflict where people were killed, land taken or treaties ending the "war" signed by the Western or Soviet powers when it ended. To me the Cold war is the label for a period of political tension not military conflict. If the Cold War was a war wouldn't the US, by those standards, be at war with Iran? I don't think so.
The difference is that in Sara Palin's case she was placed cross hairs on specific districts. It is very easy to connect the district with the representative from that district and imply targeting that representative. When a target is placed on a state there is no direct relationship with a single person.
It is human nature to be biased to see what we expect to see. If the person running the PCR had no idea which vial was a control or had gone through the coil this bias would be removed. This is an accepted scientific method. It would be considered a single blind test.
This is done all the time in medical research. In that case the doctor(s) evaluating a patient's progress is not told whether the patient in in the treatment group or the control group. The patient is also not given that information. This is called a double blind test and is a requirement for FDA approval.
I would have more faith in this experiment if the genetic testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments on them. Maybe he found what he was looking for because he expected it to be found.
I worked for a company that was developing this technology ten years ago. Once one has the ability to track a moving target it is trivial to check it the object in in a certain area. Here are some other applications we developed.
1. Check the a moving object was not within a certain distance of a point. Same idea as area but simpler to implement 2. Check that two moving objects do not come withing a certain distance. Restraining orders. 3. Check that object does not leave a certain area. Make sure disabled, ill and/or elderly people do not leave a designated area.
Having an email sent based on the above criteria is simple.
Personal freedoms are limited all the time without death; 1. hold office. 2 Purchase a gun. 3. travel to certain countries. 4. drive a vehicle. 5. come within a certain distance of certain people 6. associate with criminals 7. work for financial institution 8. obtain a security clearance 9. etc All of these are things that someone 'functioning as a normal member of society' can do. Do we kill everyone who falls in these categories?
Actually Mr. Assange's issue is that he stayed in Sweden for weeks offering to talk about the allegations but no-one would. When he left the country they wanted to talk to him. He has offered to answer questions by phone or teleconference. He has not been charged with anything. Think about the scenario where the police ask a few questions, wait till he leaves the country and demand he return for a few more questions; rinse and repeat. His point is that he does not have to return to Sweden every time the Swedish police have a question.
This has to be one of the most vague articles I have ever read. Here are some things it misses;
1. What pollutants does it purify? Heavy metals in the air would not be effected by a catalyst.
2. How such clothing could be cleaned?
3. How long will the dress be effective?
4. It says two universities were involved. What departments in those universities? Fine Art or Engineering? If it is the Fine Art department I would question the feasibility and effectiveness.
Even the technology as described is questionable. It would take 40 people one minute to 'purify' 8 cubic meters of air. That is a lot of people for a little bit of air.
In the article it says the dress is made with sprayed concrete but actually links to this which is cloth impregnated with concrete. The cloth becomes rigid when water is added and it is allowed to cure. A rigid dress is a sculpture not wearing apparel.
This looks to me like one of many artsy concepts that have little or no basis in science and questionable use as fashion.
I do not think that anyone can sign away provisions of a State law? The Colorado Medical Marijuana Code specifically requires licensing authorities to keep location information of optional premises cultivation operation confidential.
12-43.3-310.Licensing in general.
14) THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403 SHALL BE A CONFIDENTIAL RECORD AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT. STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES SHALL KEEP THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REDACT THE LOCATION FROM ALL PUBLIC RECORDS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A STATE OR LOCAL LICENSING AGENCY MAY SHARE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION WITH A PEACE OFFICER OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
24-72-202. Definitions. As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:
(6) (b) "Public records" does not include:
(XI) Information security incident reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-404 (2) (e) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (e); or
(XII) Information security audit and assessment reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-403 (2) (d) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (d); OR
(XIII) STATE AND LOCAL APPLICATIONS AND LICENSES FOR AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403, C.R.S., AND THE LOCATION OF THE OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION. (emphasis theirs)
Even if a cultivation operation waved their rights to privacy the city would still have to keep their locations confidential as per State Law. The poster's last comment about allowing law enforcement access is moot because that have access under part 14 of 12-43.3-310
You need a license to sell food. The reason isto know who is doing it so they can be inspected to ensure that they are not breaking laws such as using illegal herbicides. The license is not to grow the plant; it is to sell the plant to the public (even through a middleman).
Yeah. I was held by Homeland Gestapo when I refused to let them search my car's trunk w/o a warrant. They made me stand in the hot Texas sun for over an hour.
Tell the whole story. Did you wait an hour for the drug dog to show up to sniff your trunk?
This thing sound something like an unmanned Blue Thunder.
There are a couple of things this drone does not have the Blue Thunder does; rocket launchers and a chain gun.. A more accurate analogy is an unmanned version of the helicopters they already have.
Arming them may be your next logical step but it will never be done. These slippery slope arguments are as usual invalid; if the current use is OK then do it. If and when the unacceptable step is proposed stop it at that point.
If you applied your standard of "could it be abused" to the tools police officers already have they would have no tools all, not even their hands as they could be used to slap or punch an innocent person.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets use a brush a mile wide. Yes, there are police who abuse their power but they are the small minority. They appear to be more of an issue due to the publicity they get. Most police officers do their jobs to uphold the laws and protect people and property. Any tool can be abused but that does not mean we should not give police the tools to do their jobs. If an officer abuses his/her power he/she should be fired and/or prosecuted.
In my mind, a drone is the same as an manned helicopter; they both have a dedicated operator and can record video. We don't have issues with helicopters we shouldn't have issues with drones.
When I posted I could see no replies so I added my entry.
Com on guys can't you even to a simple search on past articles before posting a new one? This is the third time this week a duplicate article has been posted; two of them from this month.
This is a duplicate of http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/09/0418256/Aussie-Team-Smashes-Land-Speed-Record-For-Solar-Powered-Cars posted on January 9th.
How is this different from http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/0411235/How-Europe-Will-Lower-Emissions-mdash-Self-Driving-Cars posted two days ago? It is a slightly different angle but the same technology.
From the article;
'Currently, the system harnesses less than 1% of the solar energy it receives" and 'William Chueh suggests that efficiencies of 15% or higher are possible'.
So 15% has not been reached yet
The point is that people have been researching this for over two years and no increase in efficiency. They are coming up with the same problems as two years ago and have not made any advancements. This looks to me like Cal Tech repeated the research done by Sandia National Laboratories and is calling it new. They appear to be at the same stage Sandai was two years ago.
This has already been discussed two years ago here http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/01/06/1620228/Scientists-Recycle-CO2-with-Sunlight-to-Make-Fuel.
There are other issues here. Is the current programmer spending all his time working on legacy software just trying to keep up with new demands? Has the senior programmer been given the time and/or opportunity to learn the new technology? Will the young pup make many errors due to inexperience? Will he be asking the old dog how to fix issue that the young pup has never encountered?
Old skills are not necessarily useless skills. If a significant portion of a company's income is derived from an old code base then people able to program in that language are very useful. That is why COBOL programmers still make a good wage. To use your mechanic analogy; would you want a new mechanics grad working on you '63 Corvette? Is the mechanic that works on you '63 corvette worth less that the one working on your Prius?
I agree that if the old dog does not want to learn, screw him. If he wants to learn he should be given the opportunity and pay.
New programmers have generally some major shortcommings. (there are exceptions) They have not worked on systems that take more that a month to build by one or two people. They have not dealt with scalability issues. They have not dealt with a QA department. They have not dealt with resource contention. They have not dealt with multiple processes updating the same database. They have a smaller toolbox of solution to standard problems. They do not understand rollback. They do not understand maintaiability (they write cool code that works but is a pain to change). An experienced programmer has seen all of these and generally knows how to deal with them.
I have a theory; every new programmer should spend a year bug fixing. One of two things will happen; they will quit because coding is too hard or they will loose most of the bad habits learned while writing code in school. Cool code is not necessarily stable or maintainable code.
I am sorry but the name calling and profanity is not useful in polite discussion. It weakens anything you say. Sure you are free to say it but I am also free to discount anything you say.
And yes, when the consequences of a misunderstanding could lead to someone's death everyone should watch what they say.
Actually it has everything to do with the conversation. The second post in this thread a mention of another gaff by Ms Palin. She ran for VP last time and has not said she would not run again. Even if she was running for VP she could become President if the President died or could not perform his duties for some reason. I want to be sure Ms. Palin does not get that chance. By the way, I am Canadian but Ms. Palin scares me.
I was merely pointing out the difference between targeting a state and targeting a district.
Was Sarah Palin trying to advocate killing congressional representatives; No. Could putting cross hairs on congressional district be misinterpreted by some nut job and inspire them to kill congressional representatives; yes. The issue is not Ms. Palin's intent but her lack of thought and foresight in using the image on her web site. Many Republicans came out against the site. It is yet another reason why a soccer mom from Alaska who has no diplomatic experience should never be the "most powerful person in the world" (note the quotes because that is becoming debatable).
Actually the definition of nuclear war is a bit fuzzy. In some definitions both sides have to use nuclear weapons so even WW2 would not be a nuclear war. In all definitions at least one side must use a nuclear weapon, "going nuclear", so The Cold War would not be a nuclear war.
The Cold War is might not even met the criteria to be a war as no official armed conflict occurred and no war was declared. Sure there were a lot of weapons pointed, many "incident" where people were killed and more than a few proxy wars but no overt military conflict where people were killed, land taken or treaties ending the "war" signed by the Western or Soviet powers when it ended. To me the Cold war is the label for a period of political tension not military conflict. If the Cold War was a war wouldn't the US, by those standards, be at war with Iran? I don't think so.
The difference is that in Sara Palin's case she was placed cross hairs on specific districts. It is very easy to connect the district with the representative from that district and imply targeting that representative. When a target is placed on a state there is no direct relationship with a single person.
It is human nature to be biased to see what we expect to see. If the person running the PCR had no idea which vial was a control or had gone through the coil this bias would be removed. This is an accepted scientific method. It would be considered a single blind test.
This is done all the time in medical research. In that case the doctor(s) evaluating a patient's progress is not told whether the patient in in the treatment group or the control group. The patient is also not given that information. This is called a double blind test and is a requirement for FDA approval.
I would have more faith in this experiment if the genetic testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments on them. Maybe he found what he was looking for because he expected it to be found.
In Canada we do keep dangerous offenders in prison.
I worked for a company that was developing this technology ten years ago. Once one has the ability to track a moving target it is trivial to check it the object in in a certain area. Here are some other applications we developed.
1. Check the a moving object was not within a certain distance of a point. Same idea as area but simpler to implement
2. Check that two moving objects do not come withing a certain distance. Restraining orders.
3. Check that object does not leave a certain area. Make sure disabled, ill and/or elderly people do not leave a designated area.
Having an email sent based on the above criteria is simple.
Personal freedoms are limited all the time without death;
1. hold office.
2 Purchase a gun.
3. travel to certain countries.
4. drive a vehicle.
5. come within a certain distance of certain people
6. associate with criminals
7. work for financial institution
8. obtain a security clearance
9. etc
All of these are things that someone 'functioning as a normal member of society' can do. Do we kill everyone who falls in these categories?
Actually Mr. Assange's issue is that he stayed in Sweden for weeks offering to talk about the allegations but no-one would. When he left the country they wanted to talk to him. He has offered to answer questions by phone or teleconference. He has not been charged with anything. Think about the scenario where the police ask a few questions, wait till he leaves the country and demand he return for a few more questions; rinse and repeat. His point is that he does not have to return to Sweden every time the Swedish police have a question.
Notice that there is no web page at JulianAssangeMustDie.com. Maybe she registered it so someone else can not use it.
I was going to make that comment as well so I looked up the definition of navy and found that it includes any group of ships.
This has to be one of the most vague articles I have ever read. Here are some things it misses;
1. What pollutants does it purify? Heavy metals in the air would not be effected by a catalyst.
2. How such clothing could be cleaned?
3. How long will the dress be effective?
4. It says two universities were involved. What departments in those universities? Fine Art or Engineering? If it is the Fine Art department I would question the feasibility and effectiveness.
Even the technology as described is questionable. It would take 40 people one minute to 'purify' 8 cubic meters of air. That is a lot of people for a little bit of air.
In the article it says the dress is made with sprayed concrete but actually links to this which is cloth impregnated with concrete. The cloth becomes rigid when water is added and it is allowed to cure. A rigid dress is a sculpture not wearing apparel.
This looks to me like one of many artsy concepts that have little or no basis in science and questionable use as fashion.
I do not think that anyone can sign away provisions of a State law? The Colorado Medical Marijuana Code specifically requires licensing authorities to keep location information of optional premises cultivation operation confidential.
12-43.3-310.Licensing in general.
14) THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403 SHALL BE A CONFIDENTIAL RECORD AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT. STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES SHALL KEEP THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REDACT THE LOCATION FROM ALL PUBLIC RECORDS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A STATE OR LOCAL LICENSING AGENCY MAY SHARE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION WITH A PEACE OFFICER OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
24-72-202. Definitions. As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:
(6) (b) "Public records" does not include:
(XI) Information security incident reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-404 (2) (e) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (e); or
(XII) Information security audit and assessment reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-403 (2) (d) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (d); OR
(XIII) STATE AND LOCAL APPLICATIONS AND LICENSES FOR AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403, C.R.S., AND THE LOCATION OF THE OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION. (emphasis theirs)
Even if a cultivation operation waved their rights to privacy the city would still have to keep their locations confidential as per State Law. The poster's last comment about allowing law enforcement access is moot because that have access under part 14 of 12-43.3-310
You need a license to sell food. The reason isto know who is doing it so they can be inspected to ensure that they are not breaking laws such as using illegal herbicides. The license is not to grow the plant; it is to sell the plant to the public (even through a middleman).
Yeah. I was held by Homeland Gestapo when I refused to let them search my car's trunk w/o a warrant. They made me stand in the hot Texas sun for over an hour.
Tell the whole story. Did you wait an hour for the drug dog to show up to sniff your trunk?
This thing sound something like an unmanned Blue Thunder.
There are a couple of things this drone does not have the Blue Thunder does; rocket launchers and a chain gun.. A more accurate analogy is an unmanned version of the helicopters they already have.
Arming them may be your next logical step but it will never be done. These slippery slope arguments are as usual invalid; if the current use is OK then do it. If and when the unacceptable step is proposed stop it at that point.
If you applied your standard of "could it be abused" to the tools police officers already have they would have no tools all, not even their hands as they could be used to slap or punch an innocent person.