Interesting theory, but if you watch the videos the thieves are targeting specific vehicles.
Not to mention, I think most people would notice their keys had been stolen when they, you know, try to unlock something (like the front door to their homes).
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
If you're being arrested, they're not going to stand there and play "20 questions" with you about it.
Considering the bulk of your response, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your interactions with cops have been less than pleasant due to your own attitude and response to their inquiries.
A piece of advice: when interacting with police officers, you get a lot more consideration if you're polite and congenial; "Fuck you pig" doesn't earn you a lot of friends in law enforcement.
WOW! Dumbass. I was accused of rape by my fucktard ex girlfriend, Andrea. Her "rape kit" showed no sign of forced sex. I was charged anyway. Not with rape. But with sexual assault.
Those are two separate charges, and you've unwittingly proven my point - when the rape kit showed no signs of forced intercourse, the rape charges were dropped.
Why don't you let your balls drop before making any more arguments boy?:)
The maturity level of this response makes one question whether or not yours have, as a matter of medical reality (i.e., surely anyone old enough for their testes to have descended would be smart enough to come up with a better insult).
You have no understanding of any law it seems, or the fact that in a rape case you're guilty until proven innocent based on the female's statement.
Sounds like something a rapist would say. Personally, I prefer to let the rule of law prevail, and in our society accusations must be backed with evidence. Just because you weren't smart enough to request the results of the rape kit* prior to submitting yourself to custody has no bearing on the reality of law.
* unless you really are a rapist, in which case I can understand not wanting the rape kit evidence brought to light.
Regulatory agencies sometimes work
Yea, and every once in a while a blind sow finds a truffle. What's your point?
you can thank them for your meat (largely) not having salmonella, or not blowing our your ear drums when your TV switches to commercial.
Actually, I have the local farmers who I know personally to thank for the quality of my meats, and I do on a regular basis; they're great people. As for the TV volume issue, I have a feeling that even without the FCC there would not only be methods of evening out volumes, but that the market would self regulate, in that commercials that were offensively loud would be switched off, thus limiting the reach of the advertisement (while not a marketing goon myself, I understand how human nature interacts with a capitalist market... really, it's elementary stuff if you actually have the mental capacity to consider it).
Of course you're probably just going to reply with some dumbass remark that makes no fuckin sense, so... have at it!
Nah, you seem to have a monopoly on that market, and I have no intention of usurping your dominance. Cheers.
You don't need creative editing to make cops look bad; they're pretty adept at it themselves.
Hell, the TV show COPS is designed to portray police in a positive light, and they even fail to do that regularly; at least, to those of us who realize 90% of the shit they say to suspects are blatant lies that violate the suspects civil liberties.
I admit that, statistically, there's a non-zero chance that someone, sometime, will edit a video to unfairly portray police in a negative light; however, considering how often cops will make that claim in order to discredit credible, non-edited video, society has developed a bit of a 'boy-who-cried-wolf' mentality when it comes to police claims of unfair editing, and rightly so.
An issue that the headcams may help to mitigate, assuming they are operated properly and justly.
Let's think about this for a second, lets say you were falsely arrested for rape, it happens EVERY day thanks to a certain breed of woman, would you really want that footage to immediately be uploaded for the public's viewing?
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
Oh, you say no rape kit was administered? So, then, what am I being arrested for?
Yea, don't see where that would be an issue for me (since I'm not a rapist and all).
The police department isn't the right department to regulate the police department either, they've had enough chances. We'd need yet another government regulatory agency for this to work.
... and what would you call the regulatory body? The "We May Have Fucked This Up Before, But Trust Us When We Say We Won't Fuck It Up This Time" Department? Helluva acronym...
It'd also make being a cop even tougher, so its a shame a few bad apples have to spoil the bunch
Yea, always hear that - only a few cops are dirty, and give the rest a bad name. To that, I say - Bull-fucking-shit; if a 'good' cop sees a bad cop doing bad things and breaking the law, and doesn't immediately arrest the other officer, then the 'good' cop is just as fucked, just as wrong as the cop breaking the law. Period, end of story. It's like if you stopped at a gas station with a friend, who proceeded to get out of your car, walk in the station, steal the money from the till, and get back in your car. According to the law, YOU are just as guilty as your 'friend' for aiding and abetting his crime; why should cops, who are supposed to uphold the law, be treated any differently?
"What? No, I don't know anything about any large magnets scrambling the signal from my headcam... musta been some of those darn kids with their ghetto-blasters..."
"According to law, any email older than 6 months on a server (example yahoo or google mail) is considered abandoned and available to investigative groups and agencies without warrant."
So you're saying all of the subfolders for my email account is full of abandoned messages even though it's an actively used account? Are you sure you don't mean email account?
Per TFA, the Dreambox is apparently incapable of printing the infamous Liberator firearm.
Mind you, not because it violates the ToS (which it totally does), but because the printer "isn’t able to print some of the complex parts required for the gun."
Footage Reveals Drone Aircraft Neatly Avoids Passenger Plane in 2004, Testament To Drone Technology.
Fixed.
From TFA:
The 88lb German 'Luna' drone was caught in air turbulence created by the Ariana passenger plane, before losing control and crash landing near the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Uh, yea, not really "neatly avoid[ing]" when the damn thing crashes as a result.
so, the human user is providing random input (breathing & key clicks)
Which is sufficient in practice for any game that's actually being played. The least significant bit of the pressure due to breathing, key clicks, speaker output bouncing off the player's head, and other sources of motion of the air in the room is an input source that neither the developer nor the player has any conscious control over.
Ah, I see now - didn't realize before that you were applying the idea to the previous topic of AI intellect formation; in that case, you make a good point, in that taking random things as input can lead to a 'randomized' output... Nice. Very nice.
And even if you're trying to be pedantic for pedantry's sake, is the sound card's ADC part of the computer or not part of the computer? If it is part of the computer, then the thermal noise inherent in any 16-bit or deeper ADC is a hardware random number generator; therefore, computers can act random.
Ooh, that smacks of a higher philosophical, 'why are we here' kind of thinking, doesn't it? Sadly, I don't think I've had enough caffeine (or have had too much) for my brain to function at that high a level right now...
I was referring to a microphone capturing ambient noise, such as the player's breathing and the key clicks, plus the thermal noise in the ADC. These provide at least 1 bit per sample.
... so, the human user is providing random input (breathing & key clicks), and the computer converts it in a predictable manner.
I never said I do; I said I am a believer in the right to revolution, which is completely different from claiming such a right actually exists.
That is what I find so ridiculous about 2nd amendment fanatics (I am not saying all gun owners are 2nd amendment fanatics) who believe the 2nd amendment gives them a right to overthrow the government.
Once again, no one I've spoken with has ever, ever claimed that the 2nd Amendment (proper noun, FYI) "gives them a right to overthrow the government." What it does, and why it exists, is to give Americans the tools necessary to limit oppressive government and, if necessary, defend our civil liberties with force. This meaning is quite obvious if you take the time to read the plethora of writings submitted by the founding fathers who wrote said amendment; Thomas Jefferson in particular is famous for his adamant claims that people should revolt every few decades, lest the overbearing pressure of bloated bureaucracy crush our liberties beneath it's burgeoning mass.
Remember the minute you open fire on an authority figure all your rights basically disappear regardless of what the constitution says.
Right, because other citizens have been conditioned to believe that rights are individual and thus, we are each responsible for defending our own liberties. Were we to somehow remove this indoctrination, and replace it with the understanding that civil rights will only exist so long as we, collectively, are willing to defend the rights of those we disagree with, I imagine the ability of the federal government to ignore them would vanish post haste. To summarize, via a paraphrasing of Benjamin Disraeli, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
humans have a power that no existing computer can compete with nor compensate for: the ability to act with complete, true randomness
Since when can no computer "act with complete, true randomness"? Take the 48000 samples coming from the sound card's ADC every second, hash them down to 1 bit per sample, and you end up with 48000 bits per second of high-quality entropy.
But that's a predictable result... i.e., not random. Regardless of what audio file you use, the output will be a predictable series of bits, the hashes for which will be equally predictable based on the input bits and algorithm used to compute it.
Kinda the opposite of random from where I sit... unless the term has another meaning I'm not aware of.
It's easy to design computers that are good (or even close to perfect) at FPS
I have to disagree; while it might be trivial to design the AI to take advantage of being part of the computer (i.e., able to read plot data on player position, take advantage of the physics properties of weapons/environment), I'm hard pressed to believe there is a method of programming AI intelligently, where it could outmaneuver highly skilled human players on an equal playing field, without cheating (doing things and having knowledge of programming variables the human player couldn't possibly do or know).
Notably, humans have a power that no existing computer can compete with nor compensate for: the ability to act with complete, true randomness.
That said, I'd love to see some research or experimentation regarding the topic.
People who strongly believe in gun rights, who believe it is fair for citizens to take up arms against the government when the government overreaches its powers, would agree with the SCOTUS and say it is quite fair to take DNA sample at the time of arrest.
Can't speak for any one else, but as a believer in strong gun rights and the right of revolution, I have to say your contention is pure bullshit.
People who allow their biases to color their opinion on who receives which rights are why shit like this can happen; congrats, you've just shown yourself to be part of the problem.
Using this sort of logic is not getting you any converts.
When discussing political extremism, I submit that using any sort of logical argument is akin to screaming at a wall.
Personally, I find complacency ("yea, sure, oppressive group/policy X is getting worse, but there's nothing I can/will do about it") to be a far more dangerous thing than any amount of fanatical extremism, if only by merit of its prevalence in our society; true, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy is actually quite rare (although they tend to scream so loudly they're hard to ignore), but the masses don't seem to have the wherewithal to shut these stupid assholes up.
I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?
Fingerprints can't be used to deny me medical insurance, have me institutionalized against my will, create designer illnesses that only target me personally, etc. etc.
I'm not enjoying the crazies on the "right" saying the same things about Obama that the reasonable people on the "left" said for Bush
Yea, most people don't like having their own hypocrisy pointed out to them - for example, calling one group "crazies" for pointing out that the current prez is just as fucked as the old one, while praising the critics of the latter as "reasonable people."
Personal anecdote- when CFLs were first coming out I've watched people mutter 'fuck the environment' when seeing CLFs on the shelf, but they were cheapskates, not actually political about it:D
Heh... I remember when they first came out, I overheard a group of folks bitching about how they were some evil plot of the G.W. Bush administration to force compliance with some dastardly plan or another.
The irony was especially hilarious after Obama was elected, and I started hearing the exact same complaint from the other side of the crazy spectrum.
Personally, I'd find the unthinking, overly politicized imbecile demographic downright hysterical, if not for the fact that I often have to suffer the after effects of their ignorance and stupidity being signed into law...
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting theory, but if you watch the videos the thieves are targeting specific vehicles.
Not to mention, I think most people would notice their keys had been stolen when they, you know, try to unlock something (like the front door to their homes).
Step 1. Apply brick swiftly to car side window.
That doesn't always work either.
You forgot the citation
The last think I want it the system to detect me fapping and turn the tv to CSPAN and turn all the lights on!
No, but you might want it to react that way when you're rushing to hide your boner from your mom, who just walked through the door.
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
If you're being arrested, they're not going to stand there and play "20 questions" with you about it.
Considering the bulk of your response, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your interactions with cops have been less than pleasant due to your own attitude and response to their inquiries.
A piece of advice: when interacting with police officers, you get a lot more consideration if you're polite and congenial; "Fuck you pig" doesn't earn you a lot of friends in law enforcement.
WOW! Dumbass. I was accused of rape by my fucktard ex girlfriend, Andrea. Her "rape kit" showed no sign of forced sex. I was charged anyway. Not with rape. But with sexual assault.
Those are two separate charges, and you've unwittingly proven my point - when the rape kit showed no signs of forced intercourse, the rape charges were dropped.
Why don't you let your balls drop before making any more arguments boy? :)
The maturity level of this response makes one question whether or not yours have, as a matter of medical reality (i.e., surely anyone old enough for their testes to have descended would be smart enough to come up with a better insult).
You have no understanding of any law it seems, or the fact that in a rape case you're guilty until proven innocent based on the female's statement.
Sounds like something a rapist would say. Personally, I prefer to let the rule of law prevail, and in our society accusations must be backed with evidence. Just because you weren't smart enough to request the results of the rape kit* prior to submitting yourself to custody has no bearing on the reality of law.
* unless you really are a rapist, in which case I can understand not wanting the rape kit evidence brought to light.
Regulatory agencies sometimes work
Yea, and every once in a while a blind sow finds a truffle. What's your point?
you can thank them for your meat (largely) not having salmonella, or not blowing our your ear drums when your TV switches to commercial.
Actually, I have the local farmers who I know personally to thank for the quality of my meats, and I do on a regular basis; they're great people. As for the TV volume issue, I have a feeling that even without the FCC there would not only be methods of evening out volumes, but that the market would self regulate, in that commercials that were offensively loud would be switched off, thus limiting the reach of the advertisement (while not a marketing goon myself, I understand how human nature interacts with a capitalist market... really, it's elementary stuff if you actually have the mental capacity to consider it).
Of course you're probably just going to reply with some dumbass remark that makes no fuckin sense, so... have at it!
Nah, you seem to have a monopoly on that market, and I have no intention of usurping your dominance. Cheers.
I googled a definition of "lightweighted". It isn't a word.
Correct; the word he should have used would be 'lightened'
Also... who the fuck is Steve? Not mentioned in TFS.
You don't need creative editing to make cops look bad; they're pretty adept at it themselves.
Hell, the TV show COPS is designed to portray police in a positive light, and they even fail to do that regularly; at least, to those of us who realize 90% of the shit they say to suspects are blatant lies that violate the suspects civil liberties.
I admit that, statistically, there's a non-zero chance that someone, sometime, will edit a video to unfairly portray police in a negative light; however, considering how often cops will make that claim in order to discredit credible, non-edited video, society has developed a bit of a 'boy-who-cried-wolf' mentality when it comes to police claims of unfair editing, and rightly so.
An issue that the headcams may help to mitigate, assuming they are operated properly and justly.
Let's think about this for a second, lets say you were falsely arrested for rape, it happens EVERY day thanks to a certain breed of woman, would you really want that footage to immediately be uploaded for the public's viewing?
The tape would probably consist of me laughing about the accusation, then politely asking the officer what the result from the rape kit were.
Oh, you say no rape kit was administered? So, then, what am I being arrested for?
Yea, don't see where that would be an issue for me (since I'm not a rapist and all).
The police department isn't the right department to regulate the police department either, they've had enough chances. We'd need yet another government regulatory agency for this to work.
... and what would you call the regulatory body? The "We May Have Fucked This Up Before, But Trust Us When We Say We Won't Fuck It Up This Time" Department? Helluva acronym...
It'd also make being a cop even tougher, so its a shame a few bad apples have to spoil the bunch
Yea, always hear that - only a few cops are dirty, and give the rest a bad name. To that, I say - Bull-fucking-shit; if a 'good' cop sees a bad cop doing bad things and breaking the law, and doesn't immediately arrest the other officer, then the 'good' cop is just as fucked, just as wrong as the cop breaking the law. Period, end of story. It's like if you stopped at a gas station with a friend, who proceeded to get out of your car, walk in the station, steal the money from the till, and get back in your car. According to the law, YOU are just as guilty as your 'friend' for aiding and abetting his crime; why should cops, who are supposed to uphold the law, be treated any differently?
"What? No, I don't know anything about any large magnets scrambling the signal from my headcam... musta been some of those darn kids with their ghetto-blasters..."
if 100% of the footage is uploaded/published on a regular basis.
Remove the ability of a department to "lose" the info. Perhaps even send the raw footage to the AFL-CIO
Also, change
Footage is then uploaded to a cloud-based service where it can be accessed by the police department
to
Footage is then uploaded to a cloud-based service where it can be accessed by the public
It seems apparent that Internal Affairs, AKA the "Office of Paid Vacations," is a fucking joke in most municipalities.
"According to law, any email older than 6 months on a server (example yahoo or google mail) is considered abandoned and available to investigative groups and agencies without warrant."
So you're saying all of the subfolders for my email account is full of abandoned messages even though it's an actively used account? Are you sure you don't mean email account?
The first one.
Per TFA, the Dreambox is apparently incapable of printing the infamous Liberator firearm.
Mind you, not because it violates the ToS (which it totally does), but because the printer "isn’t able to print some of the complex parts required for the gun."
Footage Reveals Drone Aircraft Neatly Avoids Passenger Plane in 2004, Testament To Drone Technology.
Fixed.
From TFA:
The 88lb German 'Luna' drone was caught in air turbulence created by the Ariana passenger plane, before losing control and crash landing near the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Uh, yea, not really "neatly avoid[ing]" when the damn thing crashes as a result.
so, the human user is providing random input (breathing & key clicks)
Which is sufficient in practice for any game that's actually being played. The least significant bit of the pressure due to breathing, key clicks, speaker output bouncing off the player's head, and other sources of motion of the air in the room is an input source that neither the developer nor the player has any conscious control over.
Ah, I see now - didn't realize before that you were applying the idea to the previous topic of AI intellect formation; in that case, you make a good point, in that taking random things as input can lead to a 'randomized' output... Nice. Very nice.
And even if you're trying to be pedantic for pedantry's sake, is the sound card's ADC part of the computer or not part of the computer? If it is part of the computer, then the thermal noise inherent in any 16-bit or deeper ADC is a hardware random number generator; therefore, computers can act random.
Ooh, that smacks of a higher philosophical, 'why are we here' kind of thinking, doesn't it? Sadly, I don't think I've had enough caffeine (or have had too much) for my brain to function at that high a level right now...
Regardless of what audio file you use
I was referring to a microphone capturing ambient noise, such as the player's breathing and the key clicks, plus the thermal noise in the ADC. These provide at least 1 bit per sample.
... so, the human user is providing random input (breathing & key clicks), and the computer converts it in a predictable manner.
Where's the "random computer" part happen?
Except you have no right of revolution.
I never said I do; I said I am a believer in the right to revolution, which is completely different from claiming such a right actually exists.
That is what I find so ridiculous about 2nd amendment fanatics (I am not saying all gun owners are 2nd amendment fanatics) who believe the 2nd amendment gives them a right to overthrow the government.
Once again, no one I've spoken with has ever, ever claimed that the 2nd Amendment (proper noun, FYI) "gives them a right to overthrow the government." What it does, and why it exists, is to give Americans the tools necessary to limit oppressive government and, if necessary, defend our civil liberties with force. This meaning is quite obvious if you take the time to read the plethora of writings submitted by the founding fathers who wrote said amendment; Thomas Jefferson in particular is famous for his adamant claims that people should revolt every few decades, lest the overbearing pressure of bloated bureaucracy crush our liberties beneath it's burgeoning mass.
Remember the minute you open fire on an authority figure all your rights basically disappear regardless of what the constitution says.
Right, because other citizens have been conditioned to believe that rights are individual and thus, we are each responsible for defending our own liberties. Were we to somehow remove this indoctrination, and replace it with the understanding that civil rights will only exist so long as we, collectively, are willing to defend the rights of those we disagree with, I imagine the ability of the federal government to ignore them would vanish post haste. To summarize, via a paraphrasing of Benjamin Disraeli, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
humans have a power that no existing computer can compete with nor compensate for: the ability to act with complete, true randomness
Since when can no computer "act with complete, true randomness"? Take the 48000 samples coming from the sound card's ADC every second, hash them down to 1 bit per sample, and you end up with 48000 bits per second of high-quality entropy.
But that's a predictable result... i.e., not random. Regardless of what audio file you use, the output will be a predictable series of bits, the hashes for which will be equally predictable based on the input bits and algorithm used to compute it.
Kinda the opposite of random from where I sit... unless the term has another meaning I'm not aware of.
It's easy to design computers that are good (or even close to perfect) at FPS
I have to disagree; while it might be trivial to design the AI to take advantage of being part of the computer (i.e., able to read plot data on player position, take advantage of the physics properties of weapons/environment), I'm hard pressed to believe there is a method of programming AI intelligently, where it could outmaneuver highly skilled human players on an equal playing field, without cheating (doing things and having knowledge of programming variables the human player couldn't possibly do or know).
Notably, humans have a power that no existing computer can compete with nor compensate for: the ability to act with complete, true randomness.
That said, I'd love to see some research or experimentation regarding the topic.
People who strongly believe in gun rights, who believe it is fair for citizens to take up arms against the government when the government overreaches its powers, would agree with the SCOTUS and say it is quite fair to take DNA sample at the time of arrest.
Can't speak for any one else, but as a believer in strong gun rights and the right of revolution, I have to say your contention is pure bullshit.
People who allow their biases to color their opinion on who receives which rights are why shit like this can happen; congrats, you've just shown yourself to be part of the problem.
Using this sort of logic is not getting you any converts.
When discussing political extremism, I submit that using any sort of logical argument is akin to screaming at a wall.
Personally, I find complacency ("yea, sure, oppressive group/policy X is getting worse, but there's nothing I can/will do about it") to be a far more dangerous thing than any amount of fanatical extremism, if only by merit of its prevalence in our society; true, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy is actually quite rare (although they tend to scream so loudly they're hard to ignore), but the masses don't seem to have the wherewithal to shut these stupid assholes up.
I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?
Fingerprints can't be used to deny me medical insurance, have me institutionalized against my will, create designer illnesses that only target me personally, etc. etc.
A cheek swap does not equate to GATTACA.
Yet.
But you have to admit, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
I'm not enjoying the crazies on the "right" saying the same things about Obama that the reasonable people on the "left" said for Bush
Yea, most people don't like having their own hypocrisy pointed out to them - for example, calling one group "crazies" for pointing out that the current prez is just as fucked as the old one, while praising the critics of the latter as "reasonable people."
Personal anecdote- when CFLs were first coming out I've watched people mutter 'fuck the environment' when seeing CLFs on the shelf, but they were cheapskates, not actually political about it :D
Heh... I remember when they first came out, I overheard a group of folks bitching about how they were some evil plot of the G.W. Bush administration to force compliance with some dastardly plan or another.
The irony was especially hilarious after Obama was elected, and I started hearing the exact same complaint from the other side of the crazy spectrum.
Personally, I'd find the unthinking, overly politicized imbecile demographic downright hysterical, if not for the fact that I often have to suffer the after effects of their ignorance and stupidity being signed into law...