I couldn't disagree more. A "disagree" mod that didn't affect a posts score would be pointless. What's the point of disagreeing if you can't post a contrary argument or idea?
As for if the "disagree" mod has a -1 value, down voting is in essence silencing a person as I imagine a lot of users don't browse at the 0 score level. A person shouldn't be silenced because you disagree with them. Meanwhile most would agree that relegating those who post Obama erotica or the like to a 0 score is fine as they're not contributing to the conversation in a positive way. Sure, some people miss use the tools Slashdot provides to drown out Trolls and Flamers as a means of stifling legitimate ideas or arguments but that doesnt mean we have to legitimize the process by giving it an actual mod title.
I doubt the modding system will ever be perfect but providing a "disagree" mod would only serve to stifle discussion and debate if it was scored and would be just pointless if it wasn't.
The other guy is onto something, but I do agree with you about the wording.
It should be a "not helpful" or "not useful" (to the thread it's in) or something like that. There are people that jump into the first post thread and then change the subject... just to be at the top of the page. That mod would help prevent that type of stuff.
But also be a way of not telling someone they are wrong, but their argument isn't working. Considerably more fair and more to the spirit of what the discussions should be here.
Overrated and underrated are completely useless in my opinion.
ALSO; this site needs a FAQ or something to teach about all the settings and controls where new stuff can be added and RTFM will again become a wonderful chorus here. There are blogs, there are dots that change color, there are click to expand or contract threads (which is new ish) the links are now in an odd place, there is moderation, there is meta-moderation, there is a timer with mysterious criteria, etc.
There was a fatality from a RC helo a couple years ago.
It was a big helo, and the owner flew it up to himself to grab it. One day apparently something happened and he cut the top of his own head open with it.
I predict they will lose or injure too many birds and the project will be stopped.
No, it appears to be reverse-trolling aimed at APK. For one, it links to a competing HOSTS file engine.
And then the most telling, is this quote:
But the sheer number of constantly-shifting server DNs to block means I couldn't possibly manage such a list on my own.
"Managing" the list isn't needed.
I use the same one linked in the submission, and I update it about once a year when I start to see stuff I don't want.
Sometimes I add things I want, and sometimes I have to search through it to take something off. But, both of those things are pretty rare.
For most stuff, the HOSTS file lists are 99.9995% effective at blocking ads, and slightly less effective at preventing malware attempts.
Some day I am going to figure out how to pull that list into a script and load the primary domains onto a DNS server, which will both be a smaller file but also be manageable on a network-wide level instead of per device.
I had the same basic question, "What is the benefit here?" Skimming through the linked article, there is a sort of an answer:
Underwater data centers can be cooled by the surrounding water, and could also be powered by wave or tidal energy
I don't know if it's really much more efficient than having normal cooling systems and power generated by an external tidal power system, but it might not be completely pointless and stupid.
The wave or tidal energy part makes it a zero sum side effect on the local environment.
If energy comes to you via waves or tides, it is expended via friction, changes in potential energy, sound and vibration, etc. and ends up as heat.
If you take that energy, use it, and expel it as heat, you don't change a whole lot. The specific location of that heat, and perhaps delay it a little bit.
True, if you are piping in electricity from land somewhere, you do heat the ocean around the pod some. Based on what I have seen in a lot of places, extra heat is enjoyed and valued by the local wild life and plants, so they might make for better fish in the area.
With proper design, they could use heat conductors and no moving parts (besides hard drives) to make those things work, they might end up quite reliable.
Let me get this straight, the lack of WMDs in Iraq -- easily Bush's single biggest embarrassment in eight years in office -- was actually a lie perpetrated by the Bush administration. You're nuts. And an idiot.
I find it more likely it was a lie that Saddam's underlings told him. He believed it, some of the top brass believed it (or were at least playing along).
They couldn't or didn't have the capacity to make more than what they had in the war vs Iran and they lied to the guy at the top to avoid getting killed for failure of it.
When foreign intelligence found this out, they thought the lie was true because they were plugged in too high to figure it out.
Iraq didn't have a useful amount of WMDs at the time of the second war, but they were convinced they did.
I generally oppose additional gun control in the US. However, both sides support themselves with dubious arguments. Many of the proposed restrictions wouldn't actually prevent the crimes that inspired the restrictions. An example is using watch lists to restrict gun purchases in response to the San Bernardino shootings. It should be noted that the shooters weren't on any watch lists to begin with, let alone the serious problems with the watch lists.
Those opposing gun control argue that criminals will have guns so the world is safer when everyone else does, too. There are a couple of problems with this. The US has a patchwork of gun laws, meaning that laws really don't restrict access to guns. For example, a resident of Chicago, where gun control is strict, need only travel to Indiana to purchase guns much more easily. There is also a vast amount of guns in circulation right now. Gun control won't immediately remove the guns that people already have. In the short term, there's little if any benefit to restricting guns. However, over a long period of time, if significantly more guns are removed from circulation than enter, there would far fewer guns to go around. The scarcity of guns would almost certainly reduce the amount of gun crime. Furthermore, even before guns become scarce, the perceived future difficulty in obtaining such a gun may make current owners less likely to sell their firearms. An example is the restrictions on machine guns imposed first by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Over the following eight decades, machine guns have become scarce, though there are still legal ways to obtain such a weapon.
I can see other reasons to oppose gun control, but I question the thoroughness of the studies you cite. In the short term, gun control may be slightly harmful in terms of violent crime. But I think in the long term, gun control has to reduce gun crime as long as the effect is sufficient to significantly restrict the supply.
As an Illinois resident CANT "mearly travel to Indiana to purchase guns more easily.
You are perpetuating a LIE.
It's both a crime in Indiana to do that, and a federal felony to do that. Your arguments would carry a lot more weight, if you weren't LYING about basic facts, Mr. Too Cowardly to Log In to perpetuate your lies.
The number of guns legally sold person-to-person is miniscule. The vast majority of homicides are in inner cities like parts of Chicago, over the drug trade, where they are purchased through gun mules along with the drugs.
First off, you are quite wrong. About half the guns that people have (of the people that I know) were obtained through legal face to face transactions. Mostly as gifts and hand me downs, but also simply trading and buying / selling because of changing interests. There are some places and some demographics where there is few FTF transactions going on... the increasing demographic of women buying guns is mostly from retail outlets.
Face to face transactions are illegal in Illinois. Likewise, owners are required to have a valid FOID card beforehand (an additional above and beyond check over what most other states do.
It doesn't make a lick of difference.
And it STILL won't make a lick of difference if laws are changed one way or another, local, state, or federal. The problem is criminals, not laws that only good people obey.
In principle, I agree, guns shouldn't be sold to dangerous individuals. But that's far easier to say than actually do. Forcing gun sales off of Facebook, where they can be tracked and logged, means the transactions will be negotiated elsewhere.
like newspaper ads, craigslist, bulletin boards, armslist.com, etc that have been around for years? As long as people meet up in person, there's nothing stopping these transactions. Otherwise, firearms need to be shipped to a Federally licensed dealer who performs the background checks.
Face to face transactions, in most non-facist states, have always been done without background checks.
This "OMG! No background check!" stuff is a dumbass new yucker that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Or, just simply lying about it with typical liberalists speak.
That said, the laws vary widely by state, know the laws in your state before beginning. In ALL of those states where FTF transactions are not allowed, the crime is the transaction, not communicating about the transaction, or reguardless media on which the discussion takes place.
Facebook is simply acting as liberal thought-police in this case. If you use Facebook, know what they are, they'll ban you for pissing off the SWJs in a heartbeat.
HTTPS is encryption and authentication. Without HTTPS, anyone between your computer and the web servers can manipulate every part of the request and the web page. Mobile networks for example are notorious for adding headers to HTTP requests and "optimizing" the pages you get back.
No.
HTTPS encrypts the data transfer, and provides for VERIFICATION that a third party CA believes the site is who it says it is. No authentication involved.
That delay only exists if you post using the older, non-JavaScript interface. With the JS post (where you type your post inline), there's little to no minimum time between posts, though IIRC there's still something like a 20 second minimum from when you click reply to when you can actually post, which only occasionally is annoying when a one- or two-word answer would suffice.
I use the interface you describe.
And your assertion is factually incorrect.
Moderate once, then want to post (and therefore, in AC) and you are in the perpetual wait bin for posting.
Unless said javascript is running on some godforsaken fucking ad network (in which case I am not getting it) then it's not working as you describe.
This doesn't matter. Snowden is a rare bird - an American seeking political asylum in Russia, while having a lot of sympathy in the western world.
His usefulness to the Russians is not so much the NSA data - although chances are Russia found it easier to extract from whoever has it now, than from the NSA itself. No, he is useful because whenever American diplomats talk about 'human rights' and such, they get to make snarky remarks about Snowden. Their priced refugee! The man who fled from America! And this works especially well because Snowden never was a Russian spy.
He is also useful as an advertisement; "Look comrade, see how Edward has good life, good vodka, sexy Moscow brideski. You make us your secrets too you have fantastic Moscow brideski too."
They have nothing to gain by destroying him now. They have LOTS to gain by letting leak the (relative) fun he's having.
Rape and homicide by minorities were also up in 2015 over 2014 which is why women have flocked to guns for self protection, even when traveling on airplanes. The country is scared, the country is angry, and Trump will make America great again come Nov 2016.
Yup. New gun owners make noob mistakes with their new guns.
23 million NICS checks in 2015 represent somewhere between 20 million to 50 million new firearms purchased. (Depending on what you think the number of forms with more than one firearm are, and the checks that don't involve firearms, or used firearms sold through an FFL, or the ones that were just denials.)
This breaks previous records, and 2016 is on track to breaking previous monthly records the whole way through too.
I'd like to know who the idiots are that respond and make spam profitable. Really, these enablers are ultimately responsible for spam and should also receive condemnation.
It's not the people that respond that are the suckers.
It's the people that are sold the idea they can send out mail and make a profit.
Spammer: "Hey, loser dumbass small business idiot person, I can get you lots of money by sending out your message!"
Idiot Loser Dumbass Small Business: "OK! Here's some money for "impressions" on my web site!"
Spammer: [sends out spam everywhere, generating useless impressions for a web site and annoying everybody]
The spam doesn't have to WORK for it to be profitable for spammers. They just have to convince some idiot to pay them to do it.
The private officer rate is based on the officers' fee, insurance, pension, equipment use, etc.
The officers' fee is not the baseline for an officer's salary.
Likewise, those guys you might hire to sit in a car or make sure underage kids don't drink and the adults leave quickly when the event closes are not the same guys that do video review in some tech booth somewhere. Just like you don't have the skills to manage to make a proper paragraph on Slashdot, not everybody has the same skills to do all things in the police department.
Isn't that Cam footage from tax payer bought cameras worn by city employees who receive their salary from tax funds? How the hell do they justify charging that kind of money?
It is.
Can the tv station demand that a certain street be re-paved?
Can the tv station expect that traffic lights be installed and timed so they can leave their motorpool in all directions quickly?
Can the tv station expect to be able to plug into public power sources anywhere and any time they need to set up a bunch of electronic stuff?
If the answer is no to any of these, then they can justify "charging that kind of money."
Confidential informants could also have their lives put at risk by released footage of what a cop sees. Some criminals are known to kill people who snitch.
Heck, it could be as simple as someone snitching on who doesn't pick up poop after their dog.
Someone has to go through all 190 hours of video (and not just someone, a knowledgeable police officer) and delete all the stuff not relevant to the request, and that might compromise someone's safety or that is part of an ongoing investigation.
Sorry, not seeing a problem here.
Before you snot nosed "everybody wins a trophy" trash respond, you are asking for the police to release what would be the equivalent of every editing step of every story, any bloopers, also, the photo and address and school of all of the children of the staff of the "media" all being public. Bad things could happen from that...
Wait, on second thought, doing that to the media might cause them to be a bit more responsible.
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to do some task, and after putting it off as long as possible find out it no longer was necessary or that the instructions had changed so much that I would have had to redo it, had I originally dropped everything and performed the requested task. There is kind of a fine line, but I've reached the conclusion that, used properly, procrastination is a useful tool to minimize the amount of inefficiency others can inflict upon you.
I came here to post something exactly like this.
In a work environment, delaying the task can make the task go away.
On the actual subject though, procrastination is not the benefit. It's something that happens despite the benefit. The real bonus is letting the subconscious mind work on the problem a while in order to get out of the "must be solved this way" loop.
Delaying the problem DOES NOT work for large classes of things that need to get done. Sometimes delaying can cause a spring of motivation to happen (like doing taxes during some boring futball game. Figuring out how to re mount a broken bird feeder might be insight from procrastination. Procrastinating on cleaning the toilet is just going to keep you with a dirty toilet and no girlfriend.
If I remember this company's tech correctly, the wind drags it out, turning a generator as it goes. They then switch it to a low-drag mode and reel it back in. So it cycles between high power generation and low power consumption. The concept being that you'd have many of them so that you'd get continuous net generation.
Slow and powerful drag out is going to have a massive, complicated, and hard to maintain gear box to run a generator. Generators run at hundreds of RPM. This is the same problem with big wind turbines, making power into RPM in a gear box is hard. If you have a wind farm around, look at the ones that are stopped they'll have black stains on them where the gear box failed.
On a tower, they are difficult to service.
On a floating, bobbing, need to use a boat to get to, they are probably going to have to un-hook them and bring them to shore to fix.
Those kite things are overly optimistic given the state of the gearbox technology used today.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't disagree more. A "disagree" mod that didn't affect a posts score would be pointless. What's the point of disagreeing if you can't post a contrary argument or idea?
As for if the "disagree" mod has a -1 value, down voting is in essence silencing a person as I imagine a lot of users don't browse at the 0 score level. A person shouldn't be silenced because you disagree with them. Meanwhile most would agree that relegating those who post Obama erotica or the like to a 0 score is fine as they're not contributing to the conversation in a positive way. Sure, some people miss use the tools Slashdot provides to drown out Trolls and Flamers as a means of stifling legitimate ideas or arguments but that doesnt mean we have to legitimize the process by giving it an actual mod title.
I doubt the modding system will ever be perfect but providing a "disagree" mod would only serve to stifle discussion and debate if it was scored and would be just pointless if it wasn't.
The other guy is onto something, but I do agree with you about the wording.
It should be a "not helpful" or "not useful" (to the thread it's in) or something like that. There are people that jump into the first post thread and then change the subject... just to be at the top of the page. That mod would help prevent that type of stuff.
But also be a way of not telling someone they are wrong, but their argument isn't working. Considerably more fair and more to the spirit of what the discussions should be here.
Overrated and underrated are completely useless in my opinion.
ALSO; this site needs a FAQ or something to teach about all the settings and controls where new stuff can be added and RTFM will again become a wonderful chorus here. There are blogs, there are dots that change color, there are click to expand or contract threads (which is new ish) the links are now in an odd place, there is moderation, there is meta-moderation, there is a timer with mysterious criteria, etc.
There was a fatality from a RC helo a couple years ago.
It was a big helo, and the owner flew it up to himself to grab it. One day apparently something happened and he cut the top of his own head open with it.
I predict they will lose or injure too many birds and the project will be stopped.
No, it appears to be reverse-trolling aimed at APK. For one, it links to a competing HOSTS file engine.
And then the most telling, is this quote:
But the sheer number of constantly-shifting server DNs to block means I couldn't possibly manage such a list on my own.
"Managing" the list isn't needed.
I use the same one linked in the submission, and I update it about once a year when I start to see stuff I don't want.
Sometimes I add things I want, and sometimes I have to search through it to take something off. But, both of those things are pretty rare.
For most stuff, the HOSTS file lists are 99.9995% effective at blocking ads, and slightly less effective at preventing malware attempts.
Some day I am going to figure out how to pull that list into a script and load the primary domains onto a DNS server, which will both be a smaller file but also be manageable on a network-wide level instead of per device.
I had the same basic question, "What is the benefit here?" Skimming through the linked article, there is a sort of an answer:
Underwater data centers can be cooled by the surrounding water, and could also be powered by wave or tidal energy
I don't know if it's really much more efficient than having normal cooling systems and power generated by an external tidal power system, but it might not be completely pointless and stupid.
The wave or tidal energy part makes it a zero sum side effect on the local environment.
If energy comes to you via waves or tides, it is expended via friction, changes in potential energy, sound and vibration, etc. and ends up as heat.
If you take that energy, use it, and expel it as heat, you don't change a whole lot. The specific location of that heat, and perhaps delay it a little bit.
True, if you are piping in electricity from land somewhere, you do heat the ocean around the pod some. Based on what I have seen in a lot of places, extra heat is enjoyed and valued by the local wild life and plants, so they might make for better fish in the area.
With proper design, they could use heat conductors and no moving parts (besides hard drives) to make those things work, they might end up quite reliable.
Let me get this straight, the lack of WMDs in Iraq -- easily Bush's single biggest embarrassment in eight years in office -- was actually a lie perpetrated by the Bush administration. You're nuts. And an idiot.
I find it more likely it was a lie that Saddam's underlings told him. He believed it, some of the top brass believed it (or were at least playing along).
They couldn't or didn't have the capacity to make more than what they had in the war vs Iran and they lied to the guy at the top to avoid getting killed for failure of it.
When foreign intelligence found this out, they thought the lie was true because they were plugged in too high to figure it out.
Iraq didn't have a useful amount of WMDs at the time of the second war, but they were convinced they did.
He has been doing everything they tell him to the past seven years, so yes he is.
He's been doing anything ANYBODY tells him for the past seven years.
That gives me an idea.... [runs off to write a letter]
Of course. Fuck it. If it's convenient, regardless of the law, the right thing to do, or damages something or someone else, if it's convenient do it!
Take a short cut across the golf course in your bro truck! Fuck it! It's convenient!
Pour that oil down the drain (or better yet, just in the street) Fuck it! convenient!
Walk right past the checkout with a pocket full of artificial crab meat! Fuck it! It's convenient!
See some nice 14 year old pussy, fuck it! It's convenient!
None of that is WRONG or anything if it was done out of convenience.
I generally oppose additional gun control in the US. However, both sides support themselves with dubious arguments. Many of the proposed restrictions wouldn't actually prevent the crimes that inspired the restrictions. An example is using watch lists to restrict gun purchases in response to the San Bernardino shootings. It should be noted that the shooters weren't on any watch lists to begin with, let alone the serious problems with the watch lists.
Those opposing gun control argue that criminals will have guns so the world is safer when everyone else does, too. There are a couple of problems with this. The US has a patchwork of gun laws, meaning that laws really don't restrict access to guns. For example, a resident of Chicago, where gun control is strict, need only travel to Indiana to purchase guns much more easily. There is also a vast amount of guns in circulation right now. Gun control won't immediately remove the guns that people already have. In the short term, there's little if any benefit to restricting guns. However, over a long period of time, if significantly more guns are removed from circulation than enter, there would far fewer guns to go around. The scarcity of guns would almost certainly reduce the amount of gun crime. Furthermore, even before guns become scarce, the perceived future difficulty in obtaining such a gun may make current owners less likely to sell their firearms. An example is the restrictions on machine guns imposed first by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Over the following eight decades, machine guns have become scarce, though there are still legal ways to obtain such a weapon.
I can see other reasons to oppose gun control, but I question the thoroughness of the studies you cite. In the short term, gun control may be slightly harmful in terms of violent crime. But I think in the long term, gun control has to reduce gun crime as long as the effect is sufficient to significantly restrict the supply.
As an Illinois resident CANT "mearly travel to Indiana to purchase guns more easily.
You are perpetuating a LIE.
It's both a crime in Indiana to do that, and a federal felony to do that. Your arguments would carry a lot more weight, if you weren't LYING about basic facts, Mr. Too Cowardly to Log In to perpetuate your lies.
The number of guns legally sold person-to-person is miniscule. The vast majority of homicides are in inner cities like parts of Chicago, over the drug trade, where they are purchased through gun mules along with the drugs.
First off, you are quite wrong. About half the guns that people have (of the people that I know) were obtained through legal face to face transactions. Mostly as gifts and hand me downs, but also simply trading and buying / selling because of changing interests. There are some places and some demographics where there is few FTF transactions going on... the increasing demographic of women buying guns is mostly from retail outlets.
Face to face transactions are illegal in Illinois. Likewise, owners are required to have a valid FOID card beforehand (an additional above and beyond check over what most other states do.
It doesn't make a lick of difference.
And it STILL won't make a lick of difference if laws are changed one way or another, local, state, or federal. The problem is criminals, not laws that only good people obey.
In principle, I agree, guns shouldn't be sold to dangerous individuals. But that's far easier to say than actually do. Forcing gun sales off of Facebook, where they can be tracked and logged, means the transactions will be negotiated elsewhere.
like newspaper ads, craigslist, bulletin boards, armslist.com, etc that have been around for years? As long as people meet up in person, there's nothing stopping these transactions. Otherwise, firearms need to be shipped to a Federally licensed dealer who performs the background checks.
Face to face transactions, in most non-facist states, have always been done without background checks.
This "OMG! No background check!" stuff is a dumbass new yucker that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Or, just simply lying about it with typical liberalists speak.
That said, the laws vary widely by state, know the laws in your state before beginning. In ALL of those states where FTF transactions are not allowed, the crime is the transaction, not communicating about the transaction, or reguardless media on which the discussion takes place.
Facebook is simply acting as liberal thought-police in this case. If you use Facebook, know what they are, they'll ban you for pissing off the SWJs in a heartbeat.
HTTPS is encryption and authentication. Without HTTPS, anyone between your computer and the web servers can manipulate every part of the request and the web page. Mobile networks for example are notorious for adding headers to HTTP requests and "optimizing" the pages you get back.
No.
HTTPS encrypts the data transfer, and provides for VERIFICATION that a third party CA believes the site is who it says it is. No authentication involved.
That delay only exists if you post using the older, non-JavaScript interface. With the JS post (where you type your post inline), there's little to no minimum time between posts, though IIRC there's still something like a 20 second minimum from when you click reply to when you can actually post, which only occasionally is annoying when a one- or two-word answer would suffice.
I use the interface you describe.
And your assertion is factually incorrect.
Moderate once, then want to post (and therefore, in AC) and you are in the perpetual wait bin for posting.
Unless said javascript is running on some godforsaken fucking ad network (in which case I am not getting it) then it's not working as you describe.
This doesn't matter. Snowden is a rare bird - an American seeking political asylum in Russia, while having a lot of sympathy in the western world.
His usefulness to the Russians is not so much the NSA data - although chances are Russia found it easier to extract from whoever has it now, than from the NSA itself. No, he is useful because whenever American diplomats talk about 'human rights' and such, they get to make snarky remarks about Snowden. Their priced refugee! The man who fled from America! And this works especially well because Snowden never was a Russian spy.
He is also useful as an advertisement; "Look comrade, see how Edward has good life, good vodka, sexy Moscow brideski. You make us your secrets too you have fantastic Moscow brideski too."
They have nothing to gain by destroying him now. They have LOTS to gain by letting leak the (relative) fun he's having.
Rape and homicide by minorities were also up in 2015 over 2014 which is why women have flocked to guns for self protection, even when traveling on airplanes. The country is scared, the country is angry, and Trump will make America great again come Nov 2016.
Yup. New gun owners make noob mistakes with their new guns.
23 million NICS checks in 2015 represent somewhere between 20 million to 50 million new firearms purchased. (Depending on what you think the number of forms with more than one firearm are, and the checks that don't involve firearms, or used firearms sold through an FFL, or the ones that were just denials.)
This breaks previous records, and 2016 is on track to breaking previous monthly records the whole way through too.
I'd like to know who the idiots are that respond and make spam profitable. Really, these enablers are ultimately responsible for spam and should also receive condemnation.
It's not the people that respond that are the suckers.
It's the people that are sold the idea they can send out mail and make a profit.
Spammer: "Hey, loser dumbass small business idiot person, I can get you lots of money by sending out your message!"
Idiot Loser Dumbass Small Business: "OK! Here's some money for "impressions" on my web site!"
Spammer: [sends out spam everywhere, generating useless impressions for a web site and annoying everybody]
The spam doesn't have to WORK for it to be profitable for spammers. They just have to convince some idiot to pay them to do it.
They are going to need a ruling on mass rape long before the mass surveillance is going to matter.
4b: Also a parent/college/workplace paying the power bill.
4c: Resistance electric heating where the "extra" power goes to something you gotta do anyway.
4d: Testing a new rig.
4e: Annoys the sanctimonious douchebags in the audience.
The private officer rate is based on the officers' fee, insurance, pension, equipment use, etc.
The officers' fee is not the baseline for an officer's salary.
Likewise, those guys you might hire to sit in a car or make sure underage kids don't drink and the adults leave quickly when the event closes are not the same guys that do video review in some tech booth somewhere. Just like you don't have the skills to manage to make a proper paragraph on Slashdot, not everybody has the same skills to do all things in the police department.
Isn't that Cam footage from tax payer bought cameras worn by city employees who receive their salary from tax funds? How the hell do they justify charging that kind of money?
It is.
Can the tv station demand that a certain street be re-paved?
Can the tv station expect that traffic lights be installed and timed so they can leave their motorpool in all directions quickly?
Can the tv station expect to be able to plug into public power sources anywhere and any time they need to set up a bunch of electronic stuff?
If the answer is no to any of these, then they can justify "charging that kind of money."
Confidential informants could also have their lives put at risk by released footage of what a cop sees. Some criminals are known to kill people who snitch.
Heck, it could be as simple as someone snitching on who doesn't pick up poop after their dog.
Someone has to go through all 190 hours of video (and not just someone, a knowledgeable police officer) and delete all the stuff not relevant to the request, and that might compromise someone's safety or that is part of an ongoing investigation.
Sorry, not seeing a problem here.
Before you snot nosed "everybody wins a trophy" trash respond, you are asking for the police to release what would be the equivalent of every editing step of every story, any bloopers, also, the photo and address and school of all of the children of the staff of the "media" all being public. Bad things could happen from that...
Wait, on second thought, doing that to the media might cause them to be a bit more responsible.
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to do some task, and after putting it off as long as possible find out it no longer was necessary or that the instructions had changed so much that I would have had to redo it, had I originally dropped everything and performed the requested task. There is kind of a fine line, but I've reached the conclusion that, used properly, procrastination is a useful tool to minimize the amount of inefficiency others can inflict upon you.
I came here to post something exactly like this.
In a work environment, delaying the task can make the task go away.
On the actual subject though, procrastination is not the benefit. It's something that happens despite the benefit. The real bonus is letting the subconscious mind work on the problem a while in order to get out of the "must be solved this way" loop.
Delaying the problem DOES NOT work for large classes of things that need to get done. Sometimes delaying can cause a spring of motivation to happen (like doing taxes during some boring futball game. Figuring out how to re mount a broken bird feeder might be insight from procrastination. Procrastinating on cleaning the toilet is just going to keep you with a dirty toilet and no girlfriend.
It wouldn't.
You don't get some sort of medical insurance with the trials paid for by the trial?
Or life insurance for that matter?
If I remember this company's tech correctly, the wind drags it out, turning a generator as it goes. They then switch it to a low-drag mode and reel it back in. So it cycles between high power generation and low power consumption. The concept being that you'd have many of them so that you'd get continuous net generation.
Slow and powerful drag out is going to have a massive, complicated, and hard to maintain gear box to run a generator. Generators run at hundreds of RPM. This is the same problem with big wind turbines, making power into RPM in a gear box is hard. If you have a wind farm around, look at the ones that are stopped they'll have black stains on them where the gear box failed.
On a tower, they are difficult to service.
On a floating, bobbing, need to use a boat to get to, they are probably going to have to un-hook them and bring them to shore to fix.
Those kite things are overly optimistic given the state of the gearbox technology used today.
From this side of the pond that is significantly less funny.
Not unfunny enough to do anything about it though is it?