So I really can't take your comment "I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction." very seriously. Do you troll slashdot often?
First: you're a fuckwit. Why? For bringing personal insults into a debate.
Second: I was talking about personal experience, as I stated.
Third: in each of those stories you linked to, the CCTV images were at best used as supporting evidence -- a long way from your claim CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth. CCTV does not magically "catch" anyone. Even in the rare case that a good image is obtained, this still has to be matched to the person.
Fourth: the references I was actually referring to was to support your statement: We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, much stronger than the claim that it has been used in court. Cite or retract please.
Why ChildLocate? 1. Locate your children anywhere in the UK
5. Keep an unobtrusive eye on your elderly parents or vulnerable relatives
Apart from the "genuine" ways of using it, is there any way of stopping someone from "borrowing" someone's phone, enabling the service, and then being able to track that person for the life of the phone?
I think other countries have to understand the British obsession with binge drinking and random physical drunken violence to appreciate why we don't really care about the amount of CCTV.
I am British and I certainly care about the amount of CCTV.
When it is just you and a bunch of drunken yobs on the street, you may still get the crap beaten out of you or mugged, but at least with CCTV you stand a good chance of getting them caught and convicted.
I know of several cases personally where people have been assaulted near cameras but were unable to get a conviction because the camera was pointed the wrong way, turned off, not manned, broken etc., or no one was able to recognise the blur recorded.
On the other hand, I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction.
We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, all at the cost of some imagined "privacy" while in a PUBLIC place.
CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth
If the paper was using political language this should have been picked up in the peer review process. If the journal's procedures were inadequate, they should have taken the criticism on the chin rather than resort to censorship under intimidation.
* Don't reveal plot points like "the space elevator gets destroyed!" It's the climax of the first book. * Try to write in sentences. Your stream-of-consciousness babbling is hard to read. * A LOT is two words. A--LOT.
I've read Red Mars and I didn't think much of it. None of the characters seemed very interesting and the sci fi seemed very unrealistic, particularly the terraforming.
Maybe they mean that they'll be adding heuristics to return the best results first (e.g., you're probably more likely to want to see files in ~ than in/tmp). I'm not sure how the most famous Google heuristic - linked files translates (most-accesses?)
Or maybe they mean to make it ubiquitous in use, in the way people will often go to a site by typing the name into Google rather than typing the URL; I can see this being popular if you can search from the toolbar.
"A" volunteer? We'll have an army of millions. It'll be like Doom 3, only in reverse. Pity the poor imps - with marines jumping out of closets, teleporting in all over the place...
That's not necessarily a good thing. Basically you would be concentrting all of the resulting pollution in one area instead of spreading it out more or less evenly. Assuming nature cleans up the pollution at a certain rate (say, as by density of plant life and large bodies of water to absorb and recycle CO2) then you actually made the problem much worse in some areas.
I think that the poster's point was the potential to use technology to reduce pollution, such as stack scrubbers. This is not feasible to replicated for each product that uses fuel.
no car pollution in cities
Ah, well, as long as it's not in your back yard I guess it's okay then!
So tall chimney stacks are no good then, because they're simply moving the pollution about! And car exhausts? Waste of time! Just let out the exhaust gases through the heating system:)
Fusion power has to actually exist before you can even consider it, and all of the other possibilities such as oil, coal and nuclear all rely on the very same sources we're trying to get away from.
Wind, solar, wave, tidal power. And fission is still better than oil or coal.
Short of code generation, how would I do this in Java? A switch statement is not acceptable, because it means that everwhere I deal with commands, the data will be duplicated (embedded in the code).
Polymorphism. It has the advantage of being far more readable than your code.
Then there's the type system, which uses hideous wrapper classes around the most useful types
Autoboxing.
There's the complete lack of introspection.
Reflection.
There's the absolute need to put every helper function into a class whether it logically belongs there or not
Every function logically belongs/somewhere/.
There's the misdesigned basic library so complex I need documentation every time I read from a pipe....
I'll concede that point. Streams are a bit of a mess. But at least the documentation is good:)
Thus, if you bring in someone who is a Perl novice, they may have no idea what it is going on in Perl code written by someone else.
That's not entirely fair. Quite often, you can bring in someone who is a Perl expert who will have no idea what is going on in someone else's Perl code.
There's little doubt among scientists these days that human beliefs (including political beliefs) are to a large degree the result of genetic factors
If that's true, then how come there's such a large gulf between, say, the "Left" of the US and the Left of Europe?
50 years ago, millions of people across the world were Fascists. Now you'll find very few people who will admit to be being a Fascist. And although you can still find Communists, you'll find very few people who defend the totalitarian type of regime that the old Soviet Union practiced, despite millions believing in it for decades.
I'm sure genetics plays some part, but I think by far the biggest influence on our political attitudes are society's and the media's interpretations.
since young people are so overwhelmingly liberal merely by virtue of their youth.
One possible correlation is that younger people are generally poorer and hence more left-inclined (and vice-versa for older people): basic selfishness.
Personally I'm on the side of the "make games shorter" argument. However, shouldn't it be possible to satisfy everyone? I'm proposing, in a similar vein to the "easy-medium-difficult" setting, a "distilled-medium-dilute" setting which specifies the approximate size of the game.
I'm currently playing Doom 3 and it'll probably be weeks before I get a chance to finish it. If I could play it through in, say, 7 hours, just being exposed to the most interesting parts, and skipping some of the endless corridors and mindless fighting, I'd be happy.
Capitalism by definition isn't necessarily supposed to be fair - it's an economic model that states that anyone is allowed to make money. It means that evil corporations are still allowed the make the same money in the same market that good ol' Joe is (substitute whatever David vs. Goliath story you wish - NewPunkBand vs RIAA, Consumers vs. BigCorporations, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc..etc.etc). It just so happens that currently (and many,many,many times in the past) politics are helping the bigger evil corporations make money easier than good ol' Joe, because they are big enough to get some law on their side.
I think you are missing the point about capitalism. Capitalism isn't just not supposed to be fair, it is by nature unfair -- at least as far as making money is concerned. It's not just the biases of the law that cause this, it is the nature of the system itself that making money is easier for the priveleged.
The point is, the more money you have, the more easily you can make more. Your Joe, starting from nothing, can work for Mr. Big for 100 zorkmids per week. On the other hand, Mr. Big makes 100 extra zorkmids for every 100 zorkmids he pays Joe (justified under Capitalism because he heroically invested his capital into the business!) and quickly makes 1,000,000 zorkmids because he employs dozens of Joes. He then invests this 1,000,000 zorkmids into another business and makes 500,000,000 zorkmids. And so on and so forth. The odds are stacked against Joe from the start.
Slashdot Mirror
So I really can't take your comment "I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction." very seriously. Do you troll slashdot often?
First: you're a fuckwit. Why? For bringing personal insults into a debate.
Second: I was talking about personal experience, as I stated.
Third: in each of those stories you linked to, the CCTV images were at best used as supporting evidence -- a long way from your claim CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth. CCTV does not magically "catch" anyone. Even in the rare case that a good image is obtained, this still has to be matched to the person.
Fourth: the references I was actually referring to was to support your statement: We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, much stronger than the claim that it has been used in court. Cite or retract please.
Fucking hell, that childlocate site is scary.
Why ChildLocate?
1. Locate your children anywhere in the UK
5. Keep an unobtrusive eye on your elderly parents or vulnerable relatives
Apart from the "genuine" ways of using it, is there any way of stopping someone from "borrowing" someone's phone, enabling the service, and then being able to track that person for the life of the phone?
I think other countries have to understand the British obsession with binge drinking and random physical drunken violence to appreciate why we don't really care about the amount of CCTV.
I am British and I certainly care about the amount of CCTV.
When it is just you and a bunch of drunken yobs on the street, you may still get the crap beaten out of you or mugged, but at least with CCTV you stand a good chance of getting them caught and convicted.
I know of several cases personally where people have been assaulted near cameras but were unable to get a conviction because the camera was pointed the wrong way, turned off, not manned, broken etc., or no one was able to recognise the blur recorded.
On the other hand, I know of no cases where the cameras actually secured a conviction.
We now know it does reduce crime, and increases detection and conviction rates, all at the cost of some imagined "privacy" while in a PUBLIC place.
CCTV has caught child killers, rapists, drunk drivers and so forth
Come on then. References please.
Wikipedia disagrees.
If the paper was using political language this should have been picked up in the peer review process. If the journal's procedures were inadequate, they should have taken the criticism on the chin rather than resort to censorship under intimidation.
OK, three points:
* Don't reveal plot points like "the space elevator gets destroyed!" It's the climax of the first book.
* Try to write in sentences. Your stream-of-consciousness babbling is hard to read.
* A LOT is two words. A--LOT.
I've read Red Mars and I didn't think much of it. None of the characters seemed very interesting and the sci fi seemed very unrealistic, particularly the terraforming.
Now I have a chance of finishing my thesis before my funding runs out.
Well, that'll save everyone teh trouble of actually reading the book!
Maybe they mean that they'll be adding heuristics to return the best results first (e.g., you're probably more likely to want to see files in ~ than in /tmp). I'm not sure how the most famous Google heuristic - linked files translates (most-accesses?)
Or maybe they mean to make it ubiquitous in use, in the way people will often go to a site by typing the name into Google rather than typing the URL; I can see this being popular if you can search from the toolbar.
"A" volunteer? We'll have an army of millions. It'll be like Doom 3, only in reverse. Pity the poor imps - with marines jumping out of closets, teleporting in all over the place...
one point to filter for emissions
:)
That's not necessarily a good thing. Basically you would be concentrting all of the resulting pollution in one area instead of spreading it out more or less evenly. Assuming nature cleans up the pollution at a certain rate (say, as by density of plant life and large bodies of water to absorb and recycle CO2) then you actually made the problem much worse in some areas.
I think that the poster's point was the potential to use technology to reduce pollution, such as stack scrubbers. This is not feasible to replicated for each product that uses fuel.
no car pollution in cities
Ah, well, as long as it's not in your back yard I guess it's okay then!
So tall chimney stacks are no good then, because they're simply moving the pollution about! And car exhausts? Waste of time! Just let out the exhaust gases through the heating system
Fusion power has to actually exist before you can even consider it, and all of the other possibilities such as oil, coal and nuclear all rely on the very same sources we're trying to get away from.
Wind, solar, wave, tidal power. And fission is still better than oil or coal.
Can we have a policy of modding down people who advertise pyramid scams in their sigs?
Er... doesn't your editor have autocompletion? M-/ in Emacs.
Short of code generation, how would I do this in Java? A switch statement is not acceptable, because it means that everwhere I deal with commands, the data will be duplicated (embedded in the code).
/somewhere/.
:)
Polymorphism. It has the advantage of being far more readable than your code.
Then there's the type system, which uses hideous wrapper classes around the most useful types
Autoboxing.
There's the complete lack of introspection.
Reflection.
There's the absolute need to put every helper function into a class whether it logically belongs there or not
Every function logically belongs
There's the misdesigned basic library so complex I need documentation every time I read from a pipe....
I'll concede that point. Streams are a bit of a mess. But at least the documentation is good
Thus, if you bring in someone who is a Perl novice, they may have no idea what it is going on in Perl code written by someone else.
That's not entirely fair. Quite often, you can bring in someone who is a Perl expert who will have no idea what is going on in someone else's Perl code.
I'm working in OO.org and I want to pause my music to take a call. Whoops! F12 is already used in OO.org to toggle numbering.
Turn down the volume.
HTH!
Guerrillas? No, they're Wookies. ...I'll get my coat.
There's little doubt among scientists these days that human beliefs (including political beliefs) are to a large degree the result of genetic factors
If that's true, then how come there's such a large gulf between, say, the "Left" of the US and the Left of Europe?
50 years ago, millions of people across the world were Fascists. Now you'll find very few people who will admit to be being a Fascist. And although you can still find Communists, you'll find very few people who defend the totalitarian type of regime that the old Soviet Union practiced, despite millions believing in it for decades.
I'm sure genetics plays some part, but I think by far the biggest influence on our political attitudes are society's and the media's interpretations.
since young people are so overwhelmingly liberal merely by virtue of their youth.
One possible correlation is that younger people are generally poorer and hence more left-inclined (and vice-versa for older people): basic selfishness.
Personally I'm on the side of the "make games shorter" argument. However, shouldn't it be possible to satisfy everyone? I'm proposing, in a similar vein to the "easy-medium-difficult" setting, a "distilled-medium-dilute" setting which specifies the approximate size of the game.
I'm currently playing Doom 3 and it'll probably be weeks before I get a chance to finish it. If I could play it through in, say, 7 hours, just being exposed to the most interesting parts, and skipping some of the endless corridors and mindless fighting, I'd be happy.
I don't think I've ever read a more long-winded post with so many errors of logic all the time I've been reading slashdot.
I believe this link might be relevant considering he's a window cleaner - reverse graffiti
Capitalism by definition isn't necessarily supposed to be fair - it's an economic model that states that anyone is allowed to make money. It means that evil corporations are still allowed the make the same money in the same market that good ol' Joe is (substitute whatever David vs. Goliath story you wish - NewPunkBand vs RIAA, Consumers vs. BigCorporations, Linux vs. Microsoft, etc..etc.etc). It just so happens that currently (and many,many,many times in the past) politics are helping the bigger evil corporations make money easier than good ol' Joe, because they are big enough to get some law on their side.
I think you are missing the point about capitalism. Capitalism isn't just not supposed to be fair, it is by nature unfair -- at least as far as making money is concerned. It's not just the biases of the law that cause this, it is the nature of the system itself that making money is easier for the priveleged.
The point is, the more money you have, the more easily you can make more. Your Joe, starting from nothing, can work for Mr. Big for 100 zorkmids per week. On the other hand, Mr. Big makes 100 extra zorkmids for every 100 zorkmids he pays Joe (justified under Capitalism because he heroically invested his capital into the business!) and quickly makes 1,000,000 zorkmids because he employs dozens of Joes. He then invests this 1,000,000 zorkmids into another business and makes 500,000,000 zorkmids. And so on and so forth. The odds are stacked against Joe from the start.
It's like town hall democracy, it doesn't scale past a few thousand people without big problems.
Why not?
England doesn't compete in the Olympics.
given that 90% of Aussies live on or very near the sea, water is in their blood
I think water is in everyone's blood.