Vista has seen 9% growth since June 07. The MacIntel 2%. Linux 0.3%.
but how bout we compare its lifespan to ANY other OS release
How do you define release and how do you define lifespan?
That of the Cheetah (2001)? The Puma (2001)? The Jaguar (2002)? The Panther (2003)? The Tiger (2005)? The Leopard (2007)?
People buy into the bullshit marketing. Its not that the product has merit.
The "sour grapes" argument.
It saves the trouble of looking for any deeper explanation when your product barely shows a pulse. 0.67% of the desktop isn't much of a showing for ten years work.
The fun and charm of a series like MacGyver, Columbo, or Mission: Impossible is that the conventions of the action-adventure genre are inverted. The hero's only weapons are his intelligence, ingenuity, and psychological insight.
If Google responds with "We're sorry your are unhappy with our list of your company, we will of course remove all references/links to your company from our listings.
If Google tried anything as blatantly coercive - retaliatory - as this they would open to themselve to uo lawsuits and likely criminal prosecution from every direction.
And BTW, for now on the results listing your competitors were not matched by using your trademark, but rather by data about what links people clicked on in the past after searching for a specific string."
Google would have a hard time explaining what links the searcher is likely to click on if a search for a trademarked product returns little more than prominently placed adds for its competitors.
Isn't just about every government in possession and in charge of maintaining part of one of those fat underwater cables that brings and sends the data to other countries? Why should they only let ISPs, universities and other government organizations feed off the teet?
Because ISPs bribe, er, give campaign contributions to important politicians
The big fat pipe is often privately owned and operated:
So? Years back, "service" was intended for one computer. We got ourselves routers because it was quite silly that providers were charging on a per computer basis. It just didn't make sense
So they go back to charging you by the megabyte. Full commercial rates for the five to fifteen households you are now servicing.
The problem with this is, that it puts money from poor populations into Microsoft's pocket, due to our "help", when we could have given them Help that arranged their resources into THEIR pockets/world/development.
Windows seems to be putting rather a lot of money into the pockets of those working in India, China, Singapore, etc. Manufacturing. Support. Research and development.
Then why haven't they? The other laptops are still more expensive and have the wrong feature set. Why on earth would for-profit companies target the lucrative people with not enough money market? Remember, the OLPC effort is not a for-profit company.
OLPC's market is - or was - the education minister.
The guy who could commit his government to the purchase of 10,000 laptops. 100,000. 1,000,000.
That market is worth pursuing - and there are no technological barriers to getting there. The designer of XO's display has left for richer pastures. Intel wants its cut of the very low power CPU market.
The XO alternative doesn't have to be lime green. It doesn't need a 2 for 1 sale to gain traction in the open market.
The XO's commercial competitors aren't locked-in to the Maoist fantasy of small-scale local production.
The XO's display was never part of that fantasy.
Solar power, a rugged, reliable, clockwork dynamo? The keyboard that doesn't suck rocks? The precision manufacturer can deliver all that and more - and undercut your price anywhere in the world.
There are enormous economies of scale in building for the OS with 93% of the market. OLPC needed orders in the millions and tens of millions to keep the mass market Windows laptop at bay. That has not happened.
The Windows platform demands no ideological or religious commitment whatever.
Yes it does. It demands a commitment to NEVER be able to see the source code and find out how it works. It demands you agree to a commitment to never copy it and give it away. Perhaps it's a commitment you don't care about?
In the lower grades access to the source code of the operating system doesn't mean a damn thing. "View Source" on the XO exposes applications and not the OS. Big whoop.
For the kid who wants to learn programming there are superb resources out there for both Windows and Linux. Squeak and Scratch among them. Access to source is not the problem. Access to source has never been the problem.
Mastery of programming is mastery of math and logic and language.
To the schools - to parents - the teachers - OLPC is about basic education. The beginning of things, It is not about building a technological infrastructure. It is not about nurturing the next generation of computer geeks.
What you're defending is the real-world version of security through obscurity. If knowing the floor plan and guard rotations of a water plant is sufficient for a person with ill intent to gain access, then the security situation at this water plant is insufficient.
The geek is far too enamored with his own catch phrases.
In the real world. "Security Through Obscurity" can make perfectly good sense.
You can study message traffic at a distance without any significant risk of exposure. If your agents have to a climb over a barbed wire fence, you have a problem.
Whatever Nicholas Negroponte's price was, Microsoft seems to have found it.
It would be more honest - but less satisfying - to say that the market has met OLPC's price.
That it is - or very soon will be - possible for the OEM to build a fully competitive educational laptop, pre-load Microsoft's Student Innovation Suite and sell it for less than the XO.
The Windows platform demands no ideological or religious commitment whatever.
You can load and run software under any license you chose. Without ever once being drawn into a theological argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a GPL pin.
Everyone borrows. Or, in the case of Disney, outright pilfers and then claims to own what they pilferred (say, Snow White or Cinderella).
What Disney owns is its unique interpretation of these stories.
Prokofiev's ballet was staged in 1945. Disney's animated feature was released in 1950. Rogers and Hammerstein produced Cinderella for television in 1957. The puppeteer Jim Henson in 1970.
The geek who rants on about Disney is only exposing his own laziness, his lack of talent and imagination.
You write source code in the way you do because it has a specific audience that is intended to be able to understand it and behave according to that understanding. That audience is a computer.
It's telling. I suppose, that the geek sees his audience as the machine and not the user.
Moving on...
The programmer's audience is more likely to be a compiler.
It is rare these days to be less than one, two or three steps removed from the machine itself - and that distance is growing.
It is equally rare for a programmer to understand and participate in more than a tiny fraction of the development of a non-trivial program - and a program is always more than the code.
It's everything that sums up the difference between the tech demo that is Doom 3 and a game like Grand Theft Auto.
What makes you think it's impossible to craft laws in a way that the citizen can understand when it's possible to craft programs that a hunk of silicon can understand?
That hunk of silicon understands nothing.
It responds to a very narrow range of inputs in [easily?] definable ways. It is wholly unaware and disengaged from the actions it performs. It exists in a single moment of time. It has no past and no future.
It has no goal or purpose in life.
It does not know or comprehend "the other." It cannot understand conflicts in ideas or values. It is not a social being.
The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The law embodies the story of a nation's development...it cannot be dealt with as if it contained the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Seriously. Speak to a lawyer... You do not want to get involved with this. Best case, it turns out there's proof it was accidental. Worst case, you find evidence of... something. Drug use, criminal activity, involvement with a cult, something like that. Whatever it was, it drove him to suicide.
This has the right feel to it.
The amateur detective is best left to fiction. You have no way of knowing how deep the waters are here. How badly you could screw things up.
assuming he's allowed access to a computer, he can continue development on ReiserFS
That is a very large assumption.
Particularly if what is required is access to hardware internals, access to system internals. Internet access and other resources.
To monitor all that would be a very large drain on a prison's resources. You cannot allow the geek free exercise of his own perverse ingenuity in that setting.
And if the implementation is open source, any risk of Reiser sneaking in logic bombs as revenge will be mitigated by the many other eyes that will have access to the source.
Ah, the springtime warmth and child-like innocence of the geek's faith in many eyes.
But this is not an argument I would make to my own - more cynical - employer. Phrases like "a loose cannon" come to mind - and a "snowball's chance in hell."
I do think that convicting somebody based on circumstantial evidence is almost always a bad idea. In fact, it's such a bad idea, it usually doesn't happen... and when it does, the judge often steps in and overturns the conviction.
If there is a straight-line path to conviction the case doesn't go to a verdict - unless the state forces the issue by demanding the lethal injection.
Conviction on circumstantial evidence is the norm.
The criminal - if he not altogether witless - does not perform before the camera or a live audience.
He does not confess when a trail of blood leads to his doorstep. Which would save everyone a lot of time and trouble.
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand.
Reiser is the trial attorney's worst nightmare.
He will not listen to reason.
He will demand to take the stand.
He will be arrogant and argumentative under cross examination.
He will expect to jury to believe everything he says simply because he said it - the subliminal message the jury will hear loud and clear from the moment he opens his mouth.
You know that in eleven days on the stand he will expose a sociopathic personality that is perfectly consistent with the picture that the prosecution has been trying to paint for six months.
analysis of someone's behaviour never passes the reasonable doubt threshold.
But this is the judgment call that juries make every day. It is precisely why the standard for conviction is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and not some metaphysical certainty.
Negroponte is getting off track of the goal of the OLPC. Instead of the $100 goal it's now around $177 I think.
It was never more than a matter of time before an asian OEM would bring to market a Windows laptop that would be a legitimate competitor for the OLPC - rock-solid hardware, attractively priced.
The very best path to take is to give the children a path to learn those things without teachers.
This ideal - its limits and its failures - can be traced at least as far back as The New Math of the 1950's:
Before the results could even be measured, new math became a near religion, complete with its own high priests and heresies. Chief among the hierophants were the University of Illinois's Max Beberman and Stanford's Edward Begle. Together...they took aim at the mindless rigidity of traditional mathematics. They argued that math could be exciting if it showed children the whys of problem solving rather than just the hows. Memorization and rote were wrong. Discovery, deduction, and limited drill were the best routes to arithmetical mastery.
Discovery learning and nonverbal awareness were Beberman's twin pillars of pedagogy. Both stemmed from his faith in the mental agility of children to discover an answer. The goal was for teachers to guide younger students toward the concrete discovery of abstract mathematical principles by deduction. But as Peter Braunfeld, a mathematician and Beberman associate at the University of Illinois, says, "Max could teach math to anybody. He was a wizard."
To make every teacher into a Beberman was impossible,
The democratizing of new math ensured that problems [left parents] befuddled by their children's homework and embarrassed when they couldn't explain why 1 plus 1 didn't always equal 2. Max might have been willing to answer telephone calls at home, but few others were. The new-math revolution that the "pied piper of mathematics" had helped create was, by the early 1960s, no longer small, confined, or in any single person's control.
In their haste to jump on the new-math bandwagon, school districts frequently forgot the expensive lesson that Beberman had learned: Teachers must be nurtured and retrained in new-math techniques. Beberman heard their distress and gamely spoke out on their behalf. He knew that if new math was taught badly because teachers were unprepared, and if drills were mistakenly abandoned as unnecessary, children would not learn basic computation.
The satirist Art Buchwald joined the fray with an essay titled "Why Parents Can't Add." Tom Lehrer wrote a song about new-math subtraction--a song Beberman good-naturedly previewed to make sure it was mathematically correct--with lines like "The important thing is to understand what you're doing, not get the right answer." While no critic advocated a return to the old days, each of the barbs had just enough truth to wound.
For every bright student with a thirst for math, there was one who had trouble figuring the charges on his paper route. New math got no credit for the enthusiasm and all the blame for the ignorance. When Beberman died suddenly in 1971, at the age of forty-five, federal funding died with him.
The villain, if there is one, might be the country's penchant for the "quick fix." Had Sputnik not flown the experimental programs might have evolved slowly and carefully into a national curriculum; as it was, they were shoved to center stage, lavishly financed, and told to perform a miracle overnight. They couldn't, so the country passed on to the next educational fad - "back to basics."
Ironically, new math's most lasting impact might be that of a cautionary tale, as today's curriculum reformers begin again -- this time from the teachers up, not from the universities down.
Still, as the nation continues its endless search for solutions, I am haunted--and chastened--by Beberman's words: "Math is as creative as music, painting or sculpture. The high school freshman will revel in it if we let him play with abstractions. But insisting that he pin numbers down is like asking him to catch a butterfly to explain the sheen on its wings -- the magical glint of the sun rubs off on his fingers and the flutterin
Secondly, this will fly when somebody comes out with a gadget that will accept all kinds of organic household waste, not just some product that you have one source for.
This fantasy is older than the Whole Earth Catalog.
The reality is that fuel-from-waste works only on an industrial scale. The slaughterhouse feed lot. The chicken farm with a quarter of a million birds.
Working with organic wastes is not for the naive or the careless.
Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.
It is often the same perp:
The 19 burglaries occurred between May 2007 and January and were being investigated as a group because they followed a similar pattern. They occurred primarily in the Todt Hill and Grymes Hill neighborhoods between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m., and the thief or thieves stole mostly jewelry.Suspects, but No Arrests, in S.I. 'Ninja Burglaries'
Two Franklin men are jailed in Butler County on charges that they broke into 13 homes and stole guns, tools, electronics and jewelry over the past three months. Bradley Alcorn, 28, and Johnny Sorrell, 27, face charges of burglary and receiving stolen property involving daytime break-ins in Wayne and Madison townships when residents were away. Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones said detectives have received inquiries from police agencies in Warren, Preble and Montgomery counties, where similar burglaries were reported.
Arrests made in burglaries
The cop wants to bring him down quickly.
Stories like this do not always have a happy ending:
It's wasn't jewelry, cash, or a car that took down some Central Fresno burglars, but rather a blanket. According to Deputies a caller reported three men in her Floradora Ave. home around 11 p.m. Monday night. The caller, a 16-year-old girl, said the men woke her, her brother, sister and niece up when they entered the home. She told police that she and her relatives had locked themselves into a back bedroom while the men were inside the home. 24-year-old Charles Williams, 23-year-old Jayson Sanderson, and 21-year-old Princeton Williams, were located near McKinley and Marks a short while later. One of them was found to be in possession of a blue blanket which had belonged to the victims, thus connecting the men to the crime. All three men were arrested and booked into the Fresno County Jail. Williams was also booked on parole violations.Blanket Leads To Burglary Arrests
Burglaries fall into patterns.
Thieves work in teams, buddies the same age. They will have criminal records. They will break into an occupied home. They may be running a quart low, but that won't make them any less dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Operating System Market Share, Top Operating System Share Trend [May 5, 2008]
Vista has seen 9% growth since June 07. The MacIntel 2%. Linux 0.3%.
but how bout we compare its lifespan to ANY other OS release
How do you define release and how do you define lifespan?
That of the Cheetah (2001)? The Puma (2001)? The Jaguar (2002)? The Panther (2003)? The Tiger (2005)? The Leopard (2007)?
People buy into the bullshit marketing. Its not that the product has merit.
The "sour grapes" argument.
It saves the trouble of looking for any deeper explanation when your product barely shows a pulse. 0.67% of the desktop isn't much of a showing for ten years work.
The fun and charm of a series like MacGyver, Columbo, or Mission: Impossible is that the conventions of the action-adventure genre are inverted. The hero's only weapons are his intelligence, ingenuity, and psychological insight.
If Google tried anything as blatantly coercive - retaliatory - as this they would open to themselve to uo lawsuits and likely criminal prosecution from every direction.
And BTW, for now on the results listing your competitors were not matched by using your trademark, but rather by data about what links people clicked on in the past after searching for a specific string."
Google would have a hard time explaining what links the searcher is likely to click on if a search for a trademarked product returns little more than prominently placed adds for its competitors.
Because ISPs bribe, er, give campaign contributions to important politicians
The big fat pipe is often privately owned and operated:
Fiber-Optic Link Around the Globe [FLAG], Reliance Globalcom Transmission Network
FLAG is 28,000 km of submarine cable.
So they go back to charging you by the megabyte. Full commercial rates for the five to fifteen households you are now servicing.
Windows seems to be putting rather a lot of money into the pockets of those working in India, China, Singapore, etc. Manufacturing. Support. Research and development.
OLPC's market is - or was - the education minister.
The guy who could commit his government to the purchase of 10,000 laptops. 100,000. 1,000,000.
That market is worth pursuing - and there are no technological barriers to getting there. The designer of XO's display has left for richer pastures. Intel wants its cut of the very low power CPU market.
The XO alternative doesn't have to be lime green. It doesn't need a 2 for 1 sale to gain traction in the open market.
The XO's commercial competitors aren't locked-in to the Maoist fantasy of small-scale local production.
The XO's display was never part of that fantasy.
Solar power, a rugged, reliable, clockwork dynamo? The keyboard that doesn't suck rocks? The precision manufacturer can deliver all that and more - and undercut your price anywhere in the world.
There are enormous economies of scale in building for the OS with 93% of the market. OLPC needed orders in the millions and tens of millions to keep the mass market Windows laptop at bay. That has not happened.
The Windows platform demands no ideological or religious commitment whatever.
Yes it does. It demands a commitment to NEVER be able to see the source code and find out how it works. It demands you agree to a commitment to never copy it and give it away. Perhaps it's a commitment you don't care about?
In the lower grades access to the source code of the operating system doesn't mean a damn thing. "View Source" on the XO exposes applications and not the OS. Big whoop.
For the kid who wants to learn programming there are superb resources out there for both Windows and Linux. Squeak and Scratch among them. Access to source is not the problem. Access to source has never been the problem.
Mastery of programming is mastery of math and logic and language.
To the schools - to parents - the teachers - OLPC is about basic education. The beginning of things, It is not about building a technological infrastructure. It is not about nurturing the next generation of computer geeks.
The geek is far too enamored with his own catch phrases.
In the real world. "Security Through Obscurity" can make perfectly good sense.
You can study message traffic at a distance without any significant risk of exposure. If your agents have to a climb over a barbed wire fence, you have a problem.
It would be more honest - but less satisfying - to say that the market has met OLPC's price.
That it is - or very soon will be - possible for the OEM to build a fully competitive educational laptop, pre-load Microsoft's Student Innovation Suite and sell it for less than the XO.
You want Squeak? You can have Squeak.
The Windows platform demands no ideological or religious commitment whatever.
You can load and run software under any license you chose. Without ever once being drawn into a theological argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a GPL pin.
Turns out it's just about getting toys to kids.
OLPC is about getting laptops in the hands of grade school kids. Learning about the tech is secondary to learning how to read.
If she could do that on her own, why not someone else? Why do you deserve a free ride?
What Disney owns is its unique interpretation of these stories.
Prokofiev's ballet was staged in 1945. Disney's animated feature was released in 1950. Rogers and Hammerstein produced Cinderella for television in 1957. The puppeteer Jim Henson in 1970.
The geek who rants on about Disney is only exposing his own laziness, his lack of talent and imagination.
It's telling. I suppose, that the geek sees his audience as the machine and not the user.
Moving on...
The programmer's audience is more likely to be a compiler.
It is rare these days to be less than one, two or three steps removed from the machine itself - and that distance is growing.
It is equally rare for a programmer to understand and participate in more than a tiny fraction of the development of a non-trivial program - and a program is always more than the code.
It's everything that sums up the difference between the tech demo that is Doom 3 and a game like Grand Theft Auto.
What makes you think it's impossible to craft laws in a way that the citizen can understand when it's possible to craft programs that a hunk of silicon can understand?
That hunk of silicon understands nothing.
It responds to a very narrow range of inputs in [easily?] definable ways. It is wholly unaware and disengaged from the actions it performs. It exists in a single moment of time. It has no past and no future.
It has no goal or purpose in life.
It does not know or comprehend "the other." It cannot understand conflicts in ideas or values. It is not a social being.
The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The law embodies the story of a nation's development...it cannot be dealt with as if it contained the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
This has the right feel to it.
The amateur detective is best left to fiction. You have no way of knowing how deep the waters are here. How badly you could screw things up.
Non-profit does not mean there are no bills to pay. Non-profit does not mean that volunteers can do all the work - in their own good time.
That is a very large assumption.
Particularly if what is required is access to hardware internals, access to system internals. Internet access and other resources.
To monitor all that would be a very large drain on a prison's resources. You cannot allow the geek free exercise of his own perverse ingenuity in that setting.
And if the implementation is open source, any risk of Reiser sneaking in logic bombs as revenge will be mitigated by the many other eyes that will have access to the source.
Ah, the springtime warmth and child-like innocence of the geek's faith in many eyes.
But this is not an argument I would make to my own - more cynical - employer. Phrases like "a loose cannon" come to mind - and a "snowball's chance in hell."
If there is a straight-line path to conviction the case doesn't go to a verdict - unless the state forces the issue by demanding the lethal injection.
Conviction on circumstantial evidence is the norm.
The criminal - if he not altogether witless - does not perform before the camera or a live audience.
He does not confess when a trail of blood leads to his doorstep. Which would save everyone a lot of time and trouble.
Reiser is the trial attorney's worst nightmare.
He will not listen to reason.
He will demand to take the stand.
He will be arrogant and argumentative under cross examination.
He will expect to jury to believe everything he says simply because he said it - the subliminal message the jury will hear loud and clear from the moment he opens his mouth.
You know that in eleven days on the stand he will expose a sociopathic personality that is perfectly consistent with the picture that the prosecution has been trying to paint for six months.
But this is the judgment call that juries make every day. It is precisely why the standard for conviction is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and not some metaphysical certainty.
It isn't the job of an appellate court to second guess the jury as a trier of fact.
The jury, after all, had six months to observe Reiser in court - and the rare opportunity to judge his performance under direct and cross examination.
If - to a man - what they saw was arrogance, contrivance and deceit - who is to say they were wrong?
It was never more than a matter of time before an asian OEM would bring to market a Windows laptop that would be a legitimate competitor for the OLPC - rock-solid hardware, attractively priced.
This ideal - its limits and its failures - can be traced at least as far back as The New Math of the 1950's:
Before the results could even be measured, new math became a near religion, complete with its own high priests and heresies. Chief among the hierophants were the University of Illinois's Max Beberman and Stanford's Edward Begle. Together...they took aim at the mindless rigidity of traditional mathematics. They argued that math could be exciting if it showed children the whys of problem solving rather than just the hows. Memorization and rote were wrong. Discovery, deduction, and limited drill were the best routes to arithmetical mastery.
Discovery learning and nonverbal awareness were Beberman's twin pillars of pedagogy. Both stemmed from his faith in the mental agility of children to discover an answer. The goal was for teachers to guide younger students toward the concrete discovery of abstract mathematical principles by deduction. But as Peter Braunfeld, a mathematician and Beberman associate at the University of Illinois, says, "Max could teach math to anybody. He was a wizard."
To make every teacher into a Beberman was impossible,
The democratizing of new math ensured that problems [left parents] befuddled by their children's homework and embarrassed when they couldn't explain why 1 plus 1 didn't always equal 2. Max might have been willing to answer telephone calls at home, but few others were. The new-math revolution that the "pied piper of mathematics" had helped create was, by the early 1960s, no longer small, confined, or in any single person's control.
In their haste to jump on the new-math bandwagon, school districts frequently forgot the expensive lesson that Beberman had learned: Teachers must be nurtured and retrained in new-math techniques. Beberman heard their distress and gamely spoke out on their behalf. He knew that if new math was taught badly because teachers were unprepared, and if drills were mistakenly abandoned as unnecessary, children would not learn basic computation.
The satirist Art Buchwald joined the fray with an essay titled "Why Parents Can't Add." Tom Lehrer wrote a song about new-math subtraction--a song Beberman good-naturedly previewed to make sure it was mathematically correct--with lines like "The important thing is to understand what you're doing, not get the right answer." While no critic advocated a return to the old days, each of the barbs had just enough truth to wound.
For every bright student with a thirst for math, there was one who had trouble figuring the charges on his paper route. New math got no credit for the enthusiasm and all the blame for the ignorance. When Beberman died suddenly in 1971, at the age of forty-five, federal funding died with him.
The villain, if there is one, might be the country's penchant for the "quick fix." Had Sputnik not flown the experimental programs might have evolved slowly and carefully into a national curriculum; as it was, they were shoved to center stage, lavishly financed, and told to perform a miracle overnight. They couldn't, so the country passed on to the next educational fad - "back to basics."
Ironically, new math's most lasting impact might be that of a cautionary tale, as today's curriculum reformers begin again -- this time from the teachers up, not from the universities down.
Still, as the nation continues its endless search for solutions, I am haunted--and chastened--by Beberman's words: "Math is as creative as music, painting or sculpture. The high school freshman will revel in it if we let him play with abstractions. But insisting that he pin numbers down is like asking him to catch a butterfly to explain the sheen on its wings -- the magical glint of the sun rubs off on his fingers and the flutterin
This fantasy is older than the Whole Earth Catalog.
The reality is that fuel-from-waste works only on an industrial scale. The slaughterhouse feed lot. The chicken farm with a quarter of a million birds.
Working with organic wastes is not for the naive or the careless.
Living in a certain neighborhood exposes as much to the burglar as posting a billboard listing what you own.
It is often the same perp:
The 19 burglaries occurred between May 2007 and January and were being investigated as a group because they followed a similar pattern. They occurred primarily in the Todt Hill and Grymes Hill neighborhoods between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m., and the thief or thieves stole mostly jewelry. Suspects, but No Arrests, in S.I. 'Ninja Burglaries'
Two Franklin men are jailed in Butler County on charges that they broke into 13 homes and stole guns, tools, electronics and jewelry over the past three months. Bradley Alcorn, 28, and Johnny Sorrell, 27, face charges of burglary and receiving stolen property involving daytime break-ins in Wayne and Madison townships when residents were away. Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones said detectives have received inquiries from police agencies in Warren, Preble and Montgomery counties, where similar burglaries were reported. Arrests made in burglaries
The cop wants to bring him down quickly.
Stories like this do not always have a happy ending:
It's wasn't jewelry, cash, or a car that took down some Central Fresno burglars, but rather a blanket. According to Deputies a caller reported three men in her Floradora Ave. home around 11 p.m. Monday night. The caller, a 16-year-old girl, said the men woke her, her brother, sister and niece up when they entered the home. She told police that she and her relatives had locked themselves into a back bedroom while the men were inside the home. 24-year-old Charles Williams, 23-year-old Jayson Sanderson, and 21-year-old Princeton Williams, were located near McKinley and Marks a short while later. One of them was found to be in possession of a blue blanket which had belonged to the victims, thus connecting the men to the crime. All three men were arrested and booked into the Fresno County Jail. Williams was also booked on parole violations. Blanket Leads To Burglary Arrests
Burglaries fall into patterns.
Thieves work in teams, buddies the same age. They will have criminal records. They will break into an occupied home. They may be running a quart low, but that won't make them any less dangerous.