Sounds like a beautiful idea, but these poor people are being placed in a position where they are forced to pay for ineffective police (at gunpoint no less) while volunteering to pay for their own police who will be held accountable for their action AND inaction.
From the seasoned defense attorney I know socially, to my son the new lawyer, his fiancée the newer lawyer, family friend the even newer lawyer, to all of the lawyers I have ever hired, they all say "Don't talk to the cops!" They even have a checklist for when the cops talk to you:
1. "I don't want to talk to you."
2. "Am I free to go?"
3. "I want a lawyer."
If someone with that kind of money and influence can do time just for talking to cops - what do you think that means for the rest of us?
She went to jail for answering a question from a federal cop incorrectly. She was asked if she made money off of an investment and said "no," when in fact she did make money off of the investment. Even though there was no criminality on her part with the investment to begin with. It is right up there with going to jail because a cop asks you if the sky is blue and you give any answer at all.
All that is true and Haselton is responding to something he was never asked to begin with. The video was up for quite some time before he wrote his articles. If he formulated an actual response to the video, rather than a response to himself using a video that never anticipated him as some sort of 'evidence,' he might form a better argument. But I doubt that.
The user will soon learn that limited hertz spread over many users hurts every aspect of the modern online experience.
Beams, targeting, timing gets you great bits per hertz... @ how many users per cell? 4, 20? whats that usable Mbps down to? 35? 5?
Unless the location is remote with a limited users, its better to go with nation building optical.
Roll out optical and let any isp, telco get equal access to users. Where you cant to optical, do really good fixed wireless then sat.
Your idea appears to be as close as they are getting to a Laissez-Faire solution in the UK.
I applaud Google for this move but the solution is for LEO not to release pictures or other personally identifiable information about people who have not been convicted in the first place because doing so can ruin an innocent person's life and innocent people get charged with crimes all the time. On a related note, when Strauss-Kahn got the "perp walk" treatment, many in France were shocked because the practice is banned there to protect the innocent,
This indeed is the correct solution. If governments were not tossing these pictures about willy-nilly, these sites would not have any content of anybody who was later found not guilty. The sources are frequently sheriff's department websites that amount to a big giant campaign sight at taxpayer expense saying "Hey! Look how many people we are arresting for YOU!"
It is pretty haphazard too. I have been trying to get an FBI wanted poster from 1972, of a guy who was caught and confessed (for real) in 1986, but they keep saying it cannot be released because it is of a "living person." I ended up getting the 1982 version from a collector's site anyway.
While what you are saying is true the trick with fingerprint back before the mid 90's was processing power. If you wanted to compare prints you had to pay one or more people to sit there and compare each print to a suspected print.
now you can compare hundreds of prints per second. and only have to use people to verify the half a dozen potential matches. The problem with completely automated systems is that they only compare a dozen points of interest. to be truely useful you would need to vector map the entire print.
In the 1930s, the FBI was claiming that their classification and search system took 3 minutes or less to match an unknown print with a known print: http://youtu.be/6xgPqc5ROHI?t=20s (skipped to 20 sec. in for the relevant content and skip the related promo. Contains video from the FBI on their fingerprint analysis system from the 1930s and after it became "digitized.") My primary objection is with how fingerprint analysis has been mis-characterized for over a century.
Exactly where I was going too. It is somewhat amazing that as soon as we find out that fingerprints are not truly unique, we have all of these tools to use them as bona fide ID. Granted, the odds of someone with the same fingerprint as you trying to log into your account are slim, there still should be some other secret associated with the print to allow access. It should be an enhancement to the password, not a replacement.
On the other side of the coin, back in the early 1970s the US government had not one, but two fingerprint cards on a bank bomber I am researching right now. They did not make a match until they found his real name and pulled his existing fingerprint card to make a match to the prints he left all over his bombs and his notes to the press. That part took almost a full week. His 1972 and 1982 wanted posters had full fingerprint sets, even though he had never been arrested. They came from his US Army enlistment records from 1956, and an enlistment under an alias in 1971. He stayed on the loose until 1986, when he was identified by his picture.
While there is some science associated with fingerprint identification, it is not quite the science that the authorities want us to believe.
Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.
Your (dipshit) Congress in action.
This is not going to reduce spending one bit. When the Congress gets done with 'shutdown' theater, everything that was put on hold will be restarted. The delays will cost more and some of the people who were intimately knowledgeable of the projects will move on, to be replaced by people who do not know as much of what is going on. None of these projects will stop, which is the only way that they would cost any less, they will continue and the interruption will make them cost more. And the Congress will continue appropriating while citing the interruption as a "need" for more money.
First of all, stop being pedantic. Second, the statement "FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas" is begging the question. It is basically saying "X should be regulated, because X is forbidden." If that isn't assuming the initial point (petitio principii), I don't know what is.
Sounds like it is already regulated. The question is if it is over regulated.
The article states the FAA already has regulations, so WHY the call for more? Just enforce what is there and stop making it harder to actually follow laws and regulations.
You got to my comment before me. The title of the piece is misleading, since it is already regulated. It is already enforced too, but you just have to catch a violator to inflict a penalty on them.
He is worried that the assessments themselves will be very expensive. It is not the specialized classes that would cost extra, but the assessment that determines which classes to take make be more thorough if you can spend money for private testing. I am not commenting on whether I agree with him, but that is his contention.
He works for one of the few organizations in the world that can legally force those who can perform the evaluation to it free. Not that I advocate that sort of thing, mind you.
Great, so someone laments the fact that some people may end up more educated than others. Wouldn't it be better if we taught everyone to their potential instead of holding back the more gifted students so everyone is equal? Lowest common denominator is "lowest" for a reason.
Much my take too. What is 'amazing' is that he is working someplace with more financial resources than any individual, anywhere, and his idea of competing is to trash a promising method in a classic class warfare manner, rather than bothering to suggest that his own organization adopt and spread it.
Slashdot Mirror
FedEx is not bad there, but waiting on NASA to fulfill your AAA request is another matter.
I don't remember a pie fight in Kuffs , Christian Slater's finest film.
Sounds like a beautiful idea, but these poor people are being placed in a position where they are forced to pay for ineffective police (at gunpoint no less) while volunteering to pay for their own police who will be held accountable for their action AND inaction.
I wonder of the private cops work for Bitcon?
Copmath, another reason to never talk to them.
From the seasoned defense attorney I know socially, to my son the new lawyer, his fiancée the newer lawyer, family friend the even newer lawyer, to all of the lawyers I have ever hired, they all say "Don't talk to the cops!" They even have a checklist for when the cops talk to you:
1. "I don't want to talk to you."
2. "Am I free to go?"
3. "I want a lawyer."
Why did Martha Steward go to jail?
If someone with that kind of money and influence can do time just for talking to cops - what do you think that means for the rest of us?
She went to jail for answering a question from a federal cop incorrectly. She was asked if she made money off of an investment and said "no," when in fact she did make money off of the investment. Even though there was no criminality on her part with the investment to begin with. It is right up there with going to jail because a cop asks you if the sky is blue and you give any answer at all.
All that is true and Haselton is responding to something he was never asked to begin with. The video was up for quite some time before he wrote his articles. If he formulated an actual response to the video, rather than a response to himself using a video that never anticipated him as some sort of 'evidence,' he might form a better argument. But I doubt that.
I think that conversion ratio is wrong. $13.57 USD
How much is that in Bitcoin?
This is up there with the Jane Barbie and Pat Fleet stories.
The user will soon learn that limited hertz spread over many users hurts every aspect of the modern online experience. Beams, targeting, timing gets you great bits per hertz... @ how many users per cell? 4, 20? whats that usable Mbps down to? 35? 5? Unless the location is remote with a limited users, its better to go with nation building optical. Roll out optical and let any isp, telco get equal access to users. Where you cant to optical, do really good fixed wireless then sat.
Your idea appears to be as close as they are getting to a Laissez-Faire solution in the UK.
Seiko TV watch, 1982 vintage. However, the receiver was external. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGzFIVYPDYw
Time to get ticked off by Mike Royko
Rolex wearer vs. Mike Royko's Casio Databank.
I applaud Google for this move but the solution is for LEO not to release pictures or other personally identifiable information about people who have not been convicted in the first place because doing so can ruin an innocent person's life and innocent people get charged with crimes all the time. On a related note, when Strauss-Kahn got the "perp walk" treatment, many in France were shocked because the practice is banned there to protect the innocent,
This indeed is the correct solution. If governments were not tossing these pictures about willy-nilly, these sites would not have any content of anybody who was later found not guilty. The sources are frequently sheriff's department websites that amount to a big giant campaign sight at taxpayer expense saying "Hey! Look how many people we are arresting for YOU!"
It is pretty haphazard too. I have been trying to get an FBI wanted poster from 1972, of a guy who was caught and confessed (for real) in 1986, but they keep saying it cannot be released because it is of a "living person." I ended up getting the 1982 version from a collector's site anyway.
While what you are saying is true the trick with fingerprint back before the mid 90's was processing power. If you wanted to compare prints you had to pay one or more people to sit there and compare each print to a suspected print.
now you can compare hundreds of prints per second. and only have to use people to verify the half a dozen potential matches. The problem with completely automated systems is that they only compare a dozen points of interest. to be truely useful you would need to vector map the entire print.
In the 1930s, the FBI was claiming that their classification and search system took 3 minutes or less to match an unknown print with a known print: http://youtu.be/6xgPqc5ROHI?t=20s (skipped to 20 sec. in for the relevant content and skip the related promo. Contains video from the FBI on their fingerprint analysis system from the 1930s and after it became "digitized.") My primary objection is with how fingerprint analysis has been mis-characterized for over a century.
I'll just leave this here.
Exactly where I was going too. It is somewhat amazing that as soon as we find out that fingerprints are not truly unique, we have all of these tools to use them as bona fide ID. Granted, the odds of someone with the same fingerprint as you trying to log into your account are slim, there still should be some other secret associated with the print to allow access. It should be an enhancement to the password, not a replacement.
On the other side of the coin, back in the early 1970s the US government had not one, but two fingerprint cards on a bank bomber I am researching right now. They did not make a match until they found his real name and pulled his existing fingerprint card to make a match to the prints he left all over his bombs and his notes to the press. That part took almost a full week. His 1972 and 1982 wanted posters had full fingerprint sets, even though he had never been arrested. They came from his US Army enlistment records from 1956, and an enlistment under an alias in 1971. He stayed on the loose until 1986, when he was identified by his picture.
While there is some science associated with fingerprint identification, it is not quite the science that the authorities want us to believe.
Defense spending needs to be reduced, but this bullshit isn't the way to do it. If anything these shenanigans are going to end up costing the American taxpayer more.
Your (dipshit) Congress in action.
This is not going to reduce spending one bit. When the Congress gets done with 'shutdown' theater, everything that was put on hold will be restarted. The delays will cost more and some of the people who were intimately knowledgeable of the projects will move on, to be replaced by people who do not know as much of what is going on. None of these projects will stop, which is the only way that they would cost any less, they will continue and the interruption will make them cost more. And the Congress will continue appropriating while citing the interruption as a "need" for more money.
First of all, stop being pedantic. Second, the statement "FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas" is begging the question. It is basically saying "X should be regulated, because X is forbidden." If that isn't assuming the initial point (petitio principii), I don't know what is.
Sounds like it is already regulated. The question is if it is over regulated.
The article states the FAA already has regulations, so WHY the call for more? Just enforce what is there and stop making it harder to actually follow laws and regulations.
You got to my comment before me. The title of the piece is misleading, since it is already regulated. It is already enforced too, but you just have to catch a violator to inflict a penalty on them.
It's as fascinating as NASCAR, people have been racing solar powered vehicles for almost 30 years, so it's boring fucking news.
Get one in my driveway, then we can talk about interesting things.
NASCAR is solar powered. Where do you think gasoline comes from?
oh come on, the sun powers plants, which our four-legged food eats.
the sun also powers garlic, which is especially yummy on food.
He is worried that the assessments themselves will be very expensive. It is not the specialized classes that would cost extra, but the assessment that determines which classes to take make be more thorough if you can spend money for private testing. I am not commenting on whether I agree with him, but that is his contention.
He works for one of the few organizations in the world that can legally force those who can perform the evaluation to it free. Not that I advocate that sort of thing, mind you.
Great, so someone laments the fact that some people may end up more educated than others. Wouldn't it be better if we taught everyone to their potential instead of holding back the more gifted students so everyone is equal? Lowest common denominator is "lowest" for a reason.
Much my take too. What is 'amazing' is that he is working someplace with more financial resources than any individual, anywhere, and his idea of competing is to trash a promising method in a classic class warfare manner, rather than bothering to suggest that his own organization adopt and spread it.
There you go Popular Science, a cure for what ails you.
It used to be the long axis of Pluto's orbit, in my book. And since Pluto is still a planet, in my book, then there you have it.