by corporations, their lawyers, and the congresscritters in their pocket (sonny bono)
what was originally intended as a modest incentive to create works has been perverted to apply to ownership of material well beyond any reasonable understanding of public versus private domain
drug companies make billions with patents on drugs that expire in a time period an order of magnitude smaller than what copyright has bloated into
furthermore, copyright was created when it was easy to enforce: cassette or cd duplication and distribution is a slow moving operation, and therefore easy to target and shut down
what do we have now? i can point and click and 10,000 people on 5 continents have access to my entire music collection
push comes to shove: morally defunct copyright laws meet poor technologically astute music hungry teenagers
i'm sorry, but your going to have to take your high holy moral outrage and go sit over there with the disgruntled chimney sweeps and the steamship captains: technological progress has come and rendered your understanding of the morality of the situation defunct
there is nothing within natural morality or reason or religious text that somehow asserts or implies that copyright is moral pact. what it is is an economic agreement that made into law in another technological era. that era has passed, and so has the economics. so you have no real insight or moral sense to your position, you simply have an antiquated sense of how reality works now. so adapt, or allow your views, as written above, to be irrelevant
dim vbaRelevancy set vbaRelevancy=new activeXObject("vbaWantsToLive") if vbaRelevancy.microsoftBacking(2009)=false then Office2009="VSTO" set vbaRelevancy=nothing
that, is, nevermind the philosophical arguments about why privacy should be upheld, or shouldn't: it is simply getting impossible to enforce. much like copyright as a philosophical notion mihg tbe pristine, in the real world it is turning impossible to police and uphold
regardless of how you feel about privacy or copyright, the point is simply that the notions are unenforceable in today's world
and not just from the government, but from your own fellow citizens. forget big brother, little brother destroys your privacy just as much. that is, you can't do much nowdays without someone with a cell phone camera closeby, ready to record
is that good? is that bad?
not my point. good or bad, my point is, it's inevitable: the death of privacy. i'm not cheering, i'm not crying, i'm merely recognizing the inevitable
i mean, you can also outlaw alcohol. but people will still drink, you just wind up rewarding is the mafia
people will copy files and share them. before the internet, that was a work intensive and very localized effort. anyone remember bootleg cassette tapes of concerts?
nowadays, the effort involved in sharing files is practically zero. and so a major shift has developed. people will copy files and share them. with ease. nothing you say or do will stop that
as for morality, what is moral or immoral about sharing files? someone "owns" them? oh really? their "ownership", unlike say, their ownership of a house or a car, is an abstract legal notion, derived from a business model that is now defunct in the age of the internet
there is nothing immoral or dishonest about sharing files. except among those minds who can't adapt and shift to a new paradigm about how media will be consumed in this world
new business models will develop. and they surely won't be as lucrative. again, is that a bad thing? not at all. music is about community, a passion for art. it's not about the passage of filthy lucre
so deal with change. or don't, and remain defunct. your choice, but copyright is dead
but i remember details from high school biology, where you could put heart cells next to each other on a petri dish, and they would synch their beats
so the announcement seems like there is this major advance, heart cells beating in tandem, shaped like a heart. but it doesn't seem to take that much more technical acumen than what has been around for a while, as heart cells will naturally synch up
so they put the cells and grew them in a heart shaped matrix. then biorhythms and mother nature took over
they've been doing that with skin cells for awhile
again, not to rain on the parade, but i think the technical leap implied here is being overstated. it's good news nonetheless, and i cheer it
surveillance of a government by all of its citizens
this tech can be used the other way around you know
and for those who wish to inject the concept of governmental control over these devices (cell phones cameras, the internet, etc.), please don't forget that this is a thread about the pirate party, which was born of file traders doing something entrenched interests hate
in other words the control you imagine is phantom: these devices, the internet, it's out there, and it isn't being controlled
no, the west can't stop surveillance of government by its citizens. iran and china are trying to control from above. let us see just how successful they are with that. my guess is, not so much. but others will imagine that the kind of control being attempted in china and iran will begin in the west under the radar without a hiccup of notice. really?
people wring their hands about 1984 constantly. but the problem of orwell's vision is that it assumes the government has a monopoly on the technology
on the contrary, ever since rodney king in LA in 1991, the opposite has proven a more viable concept of our future
big brother is a defunct, antiquated expired model of our future
dear big media companies: you just can't control the internet. sorry, not yours. if it is out there, it's out there
the only valid intellectual property is that which you keep secret and private. but if it can be digitized, and it is made public, no one owns it anymore
go ahead and pass lots of laws contradicting this observation. go ahead and hire legions of lawyers
as if any of those laws and lawyers mean anything or make a difference, or have any moral validity or economic viability
they are already irrelevant. in an era of cassette tapes and cds, yes, the riaa was relevant. the copyrigh skirting players were few, and they were slow. but their mission statement in an era of point and click distribution is impossible to fulfill, where no one plays by the rules, and the rules themselves are defunct and antiquated
so the only question about their disappearance is will it be gradual, as those who fund them slowly wither away themselves, or will it be quick and dramatic, as those who fund them get a glimmer of insight in their final years of existence as economic forces
conservative fud: "ZOMG! people will marry children and pets!"
no, not really
"realid will become a uniform national id"
libertarian fud: "ZOMG! it's 1984"
no, not really
if you understand why allowing homosexuals to marry is limited in scope, you understand why realid is limited in scope
if, instead, you think it's the beginning of a vast slippery slope into fascism/ the death of the american family, or whatever your retarded fantasies are, you are reacting on fear and hysteria, and nothing else. no reason or rationality about you whatsoever
and frankly, you lose it. where it=a grasp on reality. seriously. realid IS NOT A BIG DEAL. it simply isn't
now don't let me get in the way of you getting your panties in a twist over the coming authoritarian overlords. you go on with your bad selves. i'm obviously an advance guard of the illuminati come to cast aspersions on you
"those who give up a little liberty to gain a little..." PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THAT OVERUSED QUOTE. IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THOUGHT
it has to do with the fact that instead of the usual equilibrium present in a reaction, there are two, or three equilibriums between three or four different states, all roughly equivalent thermodynamically. they just seesaw around in circles between the equilibriums when a little energy is introduced into the mix. apparently its very tricky to get it just right. but if you do, the equilbriums bounce back and forth between each other like a pendulum or spring, and sometimes, balanced just right, like a pendulum on a grandfather clock, they can bounce back and forth for a very long time
what you want is adversarial oversight. such as when the democrats go at the republicans in public hearings and such. that is true oversight
but you really can't get adversarial oversight in a process which by its very nature must be secret. even if you said "ok, i understand the need for secrecy, but there's nothing saying you can't have adversarial oversight done by someone who is not of the process who is sworn to secrecy. a true watchdog"
ok, fine. put the watchdogs in place. happy now? no, you aren't
because if the watchdogs are sworn to secrecy, we'll still have people just like you trumpeting the fact that everything is hush hush and secret and hidden. because the only thing that will truly mollify people with a deficit of trust is if all wiretaps are made widely public...but that absolutely destroys the secrecy needed to catch high profile criminal activity
so it's a catch-22. you can have true oversight, but then all secrets are out. or you can have secret wiretaps, but then you wind up trusting powerful people in government who should not be trusted. you, nor i, nor anyone, will be truly satisfied. and frankly, you never SHOULD be satisfied. because some investigations just really need to be hush hush in this world when going after certain really bad dudes
that doesn't mean i trust a**holes in the administration or the government. it's just that given the choice between giving trust to someone i really don't trust at all, and openly blowing a high profile secret investigation, i'd rather begrdugingly trust the government spook
like much of life, it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and will never be satisfied to everyone's comfort level
in this world there are people who blindly trust those who shouldn't, and those who have a deficit of trust, and give their trust too cautiously. and who's to draw the line where an appropriate level of trust is in a given situation? no one can do that
welcome to life, welcome to uncertainty. you will never ge tthe comfort with these kind of wiretaps you crave. no one will. ever
is not that it verifies the results, but that it squelches the bullshit. say, for the sake of argument, that this story is 100% made up. with paper ballots, with enough pressure, you could force a recount. but with electornic voting, no one knows what is real, and what is not. the process is opaque. it's electronic, it's quicksilver
you need an army of conspirators working hard and long to mess with paper ballots to a large degree. you need one asshole in the right spot for 3 seconds to completely alter the results in any way you can imagine, including recreating plausible degrees of randomness, and you can cover your tracks completely
the order of magnitude increase in number of attack vectors that are introduced with electronic voting is one thing, and the radically increased potential for doing massive damage quickly is another. but the real threat electronic voting poses to democracy is that it is opaque. it can't be trusted, because nothing can be truly verified. any "verification" is comparing one piece of easily altered quicksilver to another
i am not in any way joking when i say the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century is electronic voting. it erodes trust, faith, and confidence. strictly because when stories like this one spreads, and they always do, after every election, in every country, there is no way to dispel them. sour grapes or a genuine issue, no can tell for sure with electornic voting
paper voting should NEVER be replaced, and in fact mecahnical voting should be retired as well
i'll say it again: the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century is electronic voting
i firmly believe that. it is a menace
when the next bush versus gore extremely close imbroglio occurs in another election, there won't be any hanging chadsto look at. just some assholes in suits form some private company with questionable political connections telling us over and over everything is ok and everything is verified and everything is squeaky clean. oh really? what you get after that is instant chaos, instant zero legitimacy in the government in the eyes of the public. out of the woodwork come all of the demagogues, spreading all of their lies, and public trust gets placed in the worng hands
give me hanging chads over electronic voting any day
after the success of monstrously sized suvs in the 80s and 80s, here in the usa, the hummer or humvee became a success. it is a retooled military vehicle you need an escalator to climb into, and that can get into an accident with a vw bug and keep rolling as if you hit a speed bump. it can handle incredible grades, weather conditions, and high levels of water... but its mostly used to go to starbucks on the freeway
and yes, it gets 0.5 mpg, but we don't care about that. we're blissfully unawares
in light of the success of the hummer, i think we should commercialize for the public IED-resistance troop transports. this is the next logical evolution in american automobile tastes
but let's get real folks: with our massive use of petroleum, and our need to use more military force in order to ensure the supply, these two trends will eventually converge and become one. we will all drive to work in m1 abrams, and procure our own wells individually by force. this is the logical end game of the trend in car design and fashion in the usa.
the era of Way Crazy is not the correct term for the billion year old universe. the billion year old universe is known as the You Gotta Be Freakin Kiddin Me Epoch, not to be confused with the You Gotta Be Freakin Nuts Epoch much earlier. Way Crazy is a specific terminology for the time period between supersymmetry breaking and the formation of the quark-gluon plasma, aka the Thats Outta Sight Man era
new york city was a cesspool of crime. the era of bernie goetz and vigilante justice, the guardian angels, etc.: traditional law enforcement was failing
now, new york city just recorded its lowest yearly count of murders since they started counting. real estate values are soaring in previously bombed out blighted neighborhoods
and people have thought alot about the philosophies during the 90s that helped clean up the city, and two stand out:
1. compstat. computerized, statistical analysis of crime trends, up to the minute, down to the apartment building and block. this allowed the police brass to stay ahead of trends tactically
2. the broken window theory. which is the point of this entire comment:
pay attention to low importance quality of life crimes (turnstile jumping, broken windows, rafitti, etc.) and you wind up cutting down on rapes, murders, and much worse crimes. how's that work?
this works #1: through perception. a community that cares about its image will put up with less crap. a community that tolerates asocial behavior and a menacing environment plants the seeds for more major crimes. give some a little leeway, and they take a mile of bad behavior
it also works #2: a lot of guys who are murderers and rapists also apparently aren't very good at keeping a low profile. when cops for example began cracking down on turnstile jumpers, they made sure to do a background check on all the guys they caught via this very low level offense, and wound up catching a lot of really major crooks
so i think that this theory about SEO seeking types indicative of worse behavior is actually quite true. lots of little corner cutting is an indicator of criminal proclivities. new york city's current pristine crime statistics is proof of that way of thinking
Slashdot Mirror
by corporations, their lawyers, and the congresscritters in their pocket (sonny bono)
what was originally intended as a modest incentive to create works has been perverted to apply to ownership of material well beyond any reasonable understanding of public versus private domain
drug companies make billions with patents on drugs that expire in a time period an order of magnitude smaller than what copyright has bloated into
furthermore, copyright was created when it was easy to enforce: cassette or cd duplication and distribution is a slow moving operation, and therefore easy to target and shut down
what do we have now? i can point and click and 10,000 people on 5 continents have access to my entire music collection
push comes to shove: morally defunct copyright laws meet poor technologically astute music hungry teenagers
i'm sorry, but your going to have to take your high holy moral outrage and go sit over there with the disgruntled chimney sweeps and the steamship captains: technological progress has come and rendered your understanding of the morality of the situation defunct
there is nothing within natural morality or reason or religious text that somehow asserts or implies that copyright is moral pact. what it is is an economic agreement that made into law in another technological era. that era has passed, and so has the economics. so you have no real insight or moral sense to your position, you simply have an antiquated sense of how reality works now. so adapt, or allow your views, as written above, to be irrelevant
as vba doesn't have this limitation like that child's toy they call unix
dim vbaRelevancy
set vbaRelevancy=new activeXObject("vbaWantsToLive")
if vbaRelevancy.microsoftBacking(2009)=false then Office2009="VSTO"
set vbaRelevancy=nothing
well within the grasp of your average earnest middle class western teenager
$2 grand at the very most
anything else i can help you with today?: cost of investment is negible. go ahead and agrue that point, make yourself look like a bigger fool
it's called progress: copyright is dead. the unstoppable march of technological improvement walked right over it, rendering it unneeded
well within the grasp of your average earnest middle class western teenager:
$1 grand HD camera
$1 grand laptop with editing suite
that's called progress: what previously took an entire studio system to produce now can be done in a teenager's bunk bed
it's progress
copyright is dead
people who don't get it
"cost of production" translates into what nowadays?
the price of a laptop
congratulations, you fail it. where it=the way the world is trending
enjoy your obsolescence
that, is, nevermind the philosophical arguments about why privacy should be upheld, or shouldn't: it is simply getting impossible to enforce. much like copyright as a philosophical notion mihg tbe pristine, in the real world it is turning impossible to police and uphold
regardless of how you feel about privacy or copyright, the point is simply that the notions are unenforceable in today's world
and not just from the government, but from your own fellow citizens. forget big brother, little brother destroys your privacy just as much. that is, you can't do much nowdays without someone with a cell phone camera closeby, ready to record
is that good? is that bad?
not my point. good or bad, my point is, it's inevitable: the death of privacy. i'm not cheering, i'm not crying, i'm merely recognizing the inevitable
its unenforceable
i mean, you can also outlaw alcohol. but people will still drink, you just wind up rewarding is the mafia
people will copy files and share them. before the internet, that was a work intensive and very localized effort. anyone remember bootleg cassette tapes of concerts?
nowadays, the effort involved in sharing files is practically zero. and so a major shift has developed. people will copy files and share them. with ease. nothing you say or do will stop that
as for morality, what is moral or immoral about sharing files? someone "owns" them? oh really? their "ownership", unlike say, their ownership of a house or a car, is an abstract legal notion, derived from a business model that is now defunct in the age of the internet
there is nothing immoral or dishonest about sharing files. except among those minds who can't adapt and shift to a new paradigm about how media will be consumed in this world
new business models will develop. and they surely won't be as lucrative. again, is that a bad thing? not at all. music is about community, a passion for art. it's not about the passage of filthy lucre
so deal with change. or don't, and remain defunct. your choice, but copyright is dead
will i need a new graphics card for this display?
why are you laughing?
but i remember details from high school biology, where you could put heart cells next to each other on a petri dish, and they would synch their beats
so the announcement seems like there is this major advance, heart cells beating in tandem, shaped like a heart. but it doesn't seem to take that much more technical acumen than what has been around for a while, as heart cells will naturally synch up
so they put the cells and grew them in a heart shaped matrix. then biorhythms and mother nature took over
they've been doing that with skin cells for awhile
again, not to rain on the parade, but i think the technical leap implied here is being overstated. it's good news nonetheless, and i cheer it
surveillance of a government by all of its citizens
this tech can be used the other way around you know
and for those who wish to inject the concept of governmental control over these devices (cell phones cameras, the internet, etc.), please don't forget that this is a thread about the pirate party, which was born of file traders doing something entrenched interests hate
in other words the control you imagine is phantom: these devices, the internet, it's out there, and it isn't being controlled
no, the west can't stop surveillance of government by its citizens. iran and china are trying to control from above. let us see just how successful they are with that. my guess is, not so much. but others will imagine that the kind of control being attempted in china and iran will begin in the west under the radar without a hiccup of notice. really?
people wring their hands about 1984 constantly. but the problem of orwell's vision is that it assumes the government has a monopoly on the technology
on the contrary, ever since rodney king in LA in 1991, the opposite has proven a more viable concept of our future
big brother is a defunct, antiquated expired model of our future
little brother is the real future
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.
-Mel Brooks
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26965.html
with your headline, you pass science, but you flunk marketing
in two months time
dear big media companies: you just can't control the internet. sorry, not yours. if it is out there, it's out there
the only valid intellectual property is that which you keep secret and private. but if it can be digitized, and it is made public, no one owns it anymore
go ahead and pass lots of laws contradicting this observation. go ahead and hire legions of lawyers
as if any of those laws and lawyers mean anything or make a difference, or have any moral validity or economic viability
just adapt to the new reality, or die off
they are already irrelevant. in an era of cassette tapes and cds, yes, the riaa was relevant. the copyrigh skirting players were few, and they were slow. but their mission statement in an era of point and click distribution is impossible to fulfill, where no one plays by the rules, and the rules themselves are defunct and antiquated
so the only question about their disappearance is will it be gradual, as those who fund them slowly wither away themselves, or will it be quick and dramatic, as those who fund them get a glimmer of insight in their final years of existence as economic forces
adios assholes
"homosexuals should be allowed to marry"
conservative fud: "ZOMG! people will marry children and pets!"
no, not really
"realid will become a uniform national id"
libertarian fud: "ZOMG! it's 1984"
no, not really
if you understand why allowing homosexuals to marry is limited in scope, you understand why realid is limited in scope
if, instead, you think it's the beginning of a vast slippery slope into fascism/ the death of the american family, or whatever your retarded fantasies are, you are reacting on fear and hysteria, and nothing else. no reason or rationality about you whatsoever
and frankly, you lose it. where it=a grasp on reality. seriously. realid IS NOT A BIG DEAL. it simply isn't
now don't let me get in the way of you getting your panties in a twist over the coming authoritarian overlords. you go on with your bad selves. i'm obviously an advance guard of the illuminati come to cast aspersions on you
"those who give up a little liberty to gain a little..." PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THAT OVERUSED QUOTE. IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THOUGHT
FRANKLIN HIMSELF WOULD LAUGH AT YOU
what the hell are you talking about?
it has to do with the fact that instead of the usual equilibrium present in a reaction, there are two, or three equilibriums between three or four different states, all roughly equivalent thermodynamically. they just seesaw around in circles between the equilibriums when a little energy is introduced into the mix. apparently its very tricky to get it just right. but if you do, the equilbriums bounce back and forth between each other like a pendulum or spring, and sometimes, balanced just right, like a pendulum on a grandfather clock, they can bounce back and forth for a very long time
what you want is adversarial oversight. such as when the democrats go at the republicans in public hearings and such. that is true oversight
...but that absolutely destroys the secrecy needed to catch high profile criminal activity
but you really can't get adversarial oversight in a process which by its very nature must be secret. even if you said "ok, i understand the need for secrecy, but there's nothing saying you can't have adversarial oversight done by someone who is not of the process who is sworn to secrecy. a true watchdog"
ok, fine. put the watchdogs in place. happy now? no, you aren't
because if the watchdogs are sworn to secrecy, we'll still have people just like you trumpeting the fact that everything is hush hush and secret and hidden. because the only thing that will truly mollify people with a deficit of trust is if all wiretaps are made widely public
so it's a catch-22. you can have true oversight, but then all secrets are out. or you can have secret wiretaps, but then you wind up trusting powerful people in government who should not be trusted. you, nor i, nor anyone, will be truly satisfied. and frankly, you never SHOULD be satisfied. because some investigations just really need to be hush hush in this world when going after certain really bad dudes
that doesn't mean i trust a**holes in the administration or the government. it's just that given the choice between giving trust to someone i really don't trust at all, and openly blowing a high profile secret investigation, i'd rather begrdugingly trust the government spook
like much of life, it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and will never be satisfied to everyone's comfort level
in this world there are people who blindly trust those who shouldn't, and those who have a deficit of trust, and give their trust too cautiously. and who's to draw the line where an appropriate level of trust is in a given situation? no one can do that
welcome to life, welcome to uncertainty. you will never ge tthe comfort with these kind of wiretaps you crave. no one will. ever
Amen
1. make sure to confuse the need to condemn bad and corrupt law enforcement with the need to condemn all law enforcement, good and bad
2. make sure to confuse the need to question improperly obtained wiretap warrants with the need to question all wiretaps warrants, proper and improper
there, now you are ready to flame on in misunderstanding and miscommunication on the subject of wiretapping. enjoy!
is not that it verifies the results, but that it squelches the bullshit. say, for the sake of argument, that this story is 100% made up. with paper ballots, with enough pressure, you could force a recount. but with electornic voting, no one knows what is real, and what is not. the process is opaque. it's electronic, it's quicksilver
you need an army of conspirators working hard and long to mess with paper ballots to a large degree. you need one asshole in the right spot for 3 seconds to completely alter the results in any way you can imagine, including recreating plausible degrees of randomness, and you can cover your tracks completely
the order of magnitude increase in number of attack vectors that are introduced with electronic voting is one thing, and the radically increased potential for doing massive damage quickly is another. but the real threat electronic voting poses to democracy is that it is opaque. it can't be trusted, because nothing can be truly verified. any "verification" is comparing one piece of easily altered quicksilver to another
i am not in any way joking when i say the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century is electronic voting. it erodes trust, faith, and confidence. strictly because when stories like this one spreads, and they always do, after every election, in every country, there is no way to dispel them. sour grapes or a genuine issue, no can tell for sure with electornic voting
paper voting should NEVER be replaced, and in fact mecahnical voting should be retired as well
i'll say it again: the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century is electronic voting
i firmly believe that. it is a menace
when the next bush versus gore extremely close imbroglio occurs in another election, there won't be any hanging chadsto look at. just some assholes in suits form some private company with questionable political connections telling us over and over everything is ok and everything is verified and everything is squeaky clean. oh really? what you get after that is instant chaos, instant zero legitimacy in the government in the eyes of the public. out of the woodwork come all of the demagogues, spreading all of their lies, and public trust gets placed in the worng hands
give me hanging chads over electronic voting any day
after the success of monstrously sized suvs in the 80s and 80s, here in the usa, the hummer or humvee became a success. it is a retooled military vehicle you need an escalator to climb into, and that can get into an accident with a vw bug and keep rolling as if you hit a speed bump. it can handle incredible grades, weather conditions, and high levels of water... but its mostly used to go to starbucks on the freeway
and yes, it gets 0.5 mpg, but we don't care about that. we're blissfully unawares
in light of the success of the hummer, i think we should commercialize for the public IED-resistance troop transports. this is the next logical evolution in american automobile tastes
perhaps put a nice cosmetic chrome on an armored car? make a real statement about your bling
but let's get real folks: with our massive use of petroleum, and our need to use more military force in order to ensure the supply, these two trends will eventually converge and become one. we will all drive to work in m1 abrams, and procure our own wells individually by force. this is the logical end game of the trend in car design and fashion in the usa.
here in america, we drive like we're in mad max 2:the road warrior. why? WHAT'S WITH THIS WHY SHIT?!
can i get this in red?
the era of Way Crazy is not the correct term for the billion year old universe. the billion year old universe is known as the You Gotta Be Freakin Kiddin Me Epoch, not to be confused with the You Gotta Be Freakin Nuts Epoch much earlier. Way Crazy is a specific terminology for the time period between supersymmetry breaking and the formation of the quark-gluon plasma, aka the Thats Outta Sight Man era
new york city was a cesspool of crime. the era of bernie goetz and vigilante justice, the guardian angels, etc.: traditional law enforcement was failing
now, new york city just recorded its lowest yearly count of murders since they started counting. real estate values are soaring in previously bombed out blighted neighborhoods
and people have thought alot about the philosophies during the 90s that helped clean up the city, and two stand out:
1. compstat. computerized, statistical analysis of crime trends, up to the minute, down to the apartment building and block. this allowed the police brass to stay ahead of trends tactically
2. the broken window theory. which is the point of this entire comment:
pay attention to low importance quality of life crimes (turnstile jumping, broken windows, rafitti, etc.) and you wind up cutting down on rapes, murders, and much worse crimes. how's that work?
this works #1: through perception. a community that cares about its image will put up with less crap. a community that tolerates asocial behavior and a menacing environment plants the seeds for more major crimes. give some a little leeway, and they take a mile of bad behavior
it also works #2: a lot of guys who are murderers and rapists also apparently aren't very good at keeping a low profile. when cops for example began cracking down on turnstile jumpers, they made sure to do a background check on all the guys they caught via this very low level offense, and wound up catching a lot of really major crooks
so i think that this theory about SEO seeking types indicative of worse behavior is actually quite true. lots of little corner cutting is an indicator of criminal proclivities. new york city's current pristine crime statistics is proof of that way of thinking