Isn't much of the issue with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to do with differences between how we metabolise glucose and fructose?
When we get a big whack of fructose, our bodies metabolise that first rather than any glucose that may have been ingested. The relatively high amounts of glucose stay up whilst our bodies focus on the fructose, and that extra presence of glucose is what isn't so good for us.
So even though a portion of rice may have 250% the calories than a can of coke, as most of the calories are in starch, they are "healthier", as it were.
Many of the people who deny AGW show severe signs of failing to grasp the concepts that underpin science, and rightly so get modded down.
The people that then come out the woodwork to bitch about the downmoddings often try to justify their opinions with either very poor science, or what comes across as tantamount to faith. And they get modded down too. But not because of a conspiracy against them, but because they are speaking bollocks, and don't realise it.
Nice to see you attack the messenger, and not the message. I take it you understand why he might be jaded with your political right then?
And if you do, why don't you explain why you aren't jaded by the political right?
Considering you didn't explain, and just tried to shoot the messenger, I can only conclude that you somehow benefit (or think you benefit) from the political right's policies and points of view.
If even internally at Microsoft they are talking about making the most private browser in the market, why isn't the FOSS browser? Oh yeah, that's because they are mainly funded by an advertising company!
The top 3 browsers are uncomfortably close to advertisers, and the maker of the 4th is also starting to integrate advertising mechanisms directly into its products.
Firefox severely needs forking, and tightening up, as web users don't really have much of a choice!
OK, fair enough, I haven't installed FF3 so didn't know that had come back. I'm still on 2.highest due to the major dumbing down that comes with FF3: the awful bar.
I am still holding out for someone to fork Firefox and take it back to its philosophical roots, of light and fast, with extensions to add functionality.
I should have said "Maybe it's both, maybe it's neither". The point was that Google's money has massively influenced Mozilla, and very much in Google's favour, in subtle ways. If you or I truly understood the ways it works, we would be working for Google!
Just because IE seriously privacy rapes does not justify things Mozilla products may do, or have the capability to do. The geolocation functionality is a massive privacy risk, for example. Whilst it can be turned off, there could be a bug that causes the feature to be turned back on, or causes the off to not really work, or a 3rd party extension or plugin could turn the functionality on. The geolocation shit should be an optional extra, because if the functionality isn't there, it cannot be turned on, removing the privacy risk completely. But no, the feature is added to Firefox proper, rather than being something like a bundled extension, because Google's business interests stand to benefit from every user of FF having geolocation available - the advertisers can find out more accurately where the people are, so the adverts can be more influential.
Firefox is the best browser available, but still it has turned into an immense pile of shit. It's just the rest of them are barely any better. And it's the extensions that make FF too!
The browsers are all becoming frameworks for web applications to work within, as that looks to be the next profitable thing for the IT industry. Whilst it makes sense for businesses to chase this shit, individuals and non-profit entities should be aware of this bandwagon. Proprietary desktop applications are not good (ask RMS why), but web apps stand to be worse, because not only do you have less control of the application, you are likely to have less control of your data too.
For this reason, I avoid web applications at all costs. I have seen how proprietary software causes frustrations (at best!) in the long term, and whilst OSS may be lacking, its downsides are lesser than the downsides of proprietary software.
I do too, because it's about the least shit thing on TV! Apart from Buzzcocks, of course.
But yeah, the air resistance is the problem. IIRC, drag increases proportional to the square of velocity.... yeap, it does: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Drag_equation. So you need more and more power just to go faster at a linear rate.
That Top Gear with the Veyron Super Sport was dumbed down so much that they didn't even acknowledge maths exists:(
I'm inclined to agree with you. I too have heard that modern engines use no fuel when moving and being given no accelerator. In my world, "no fuel" means zero. They may use negligible fuel compared to powered driving, but negligible is greater than zero, and so is not "no fuel".
I hadn't thought about this in terms of the catalytic converter, I had thought about it more in terms of engine temperature, and hence wear. Obviously whilst the engine is moving, because the car is moving, the oil pump will be going, as will the water pump, and air will be flowing through the radiator. Going down a very long hill you really do stand a good chance of cooling the engine significantly if there is no source of heat in the engine, and this will do the engine no good at all. Or would the friction in the engine be enough to keep the temperature up, and stop the engine damaging itself?
Do the spark plugs not fire too during these alleged no fuel periods? Because if there is no fuel to burn, might as well save the wear on the plugs too. Though I could imagine that charge in the coil has to be disposed of, so not sparking might not be an option. Unless there was some mechanism to disengage the coil or alternator, but functionality like that would severely jeopardise the reliability of an engine otherwise.
I am not denying the engine uses minimal fuel in certain situations, I take advantage of this in my driving and routinely get over 50mpg out of a car the manufacturer says will get 48.5mpg. I just want to know if the minimal means zero, or if it means close to zero.
Oh yeah, I have tried some of the riskier hypermiling techniques (turning the engine off), and have gotten over 75mpg on a journey I do frequently (with a change in altitude of about 100m, downhill). Without the dangerous techniques, the best I can do is about 55, so I am very much inclined to say that the alleged zero is greater than zero.
What I have tested isn't a proper experiment. Obviously the car is more retarded (no laughing at the back) with the engine running and engaged to the wheels, and not being accelerated, than a car with the engine off and in neutral (well, really I leave it in 3rd or 4th (depending on the speed) and have my foot on the clutch. That way I can bump start the car at a moments notice, minimising the danger of driving with the engine off). With the engine off, the car's momentum carries you much further than if some of the momentum is being used to keep the engine turning, so I cannot say exactly how much of the 20mpg difference is due to engine friction, or due to the alleged zero not being zero.
Google (the advertising company) have been Mozilla's biggest benefactor since somewhere during the FF 1 product life. Between FF1 and 2 the option box to disallow 3rd party cookies vanished. I don't see this as a coincidence.
The option to reject 3rd party cookies is still in about:config, but most users will never know about it, and for some that do they will be put off by the scary message that appears the first time you go to about:config.
Google's money got Google as the default search engine in FF (and probably all Mozilla products), and got Google to be the start page too. I think a Google service is also used to check SSL certificates are still valid, which is enabled by default. If I am right, Google essentially gets notified every time you visit an HTTPS site. Ahh, actually it might be the anti-phishing thing. Maybe it's both.... the point is Google's business interests are very much represented in Mozilla products, whilst most people fawn over the open source rhetoric, or the unshitness compared to IE.
It's a LOSE - LOSE situation. When will people realise that well targetted and appropriate adverts are good for everyone?
Hahaha, funny fucker.
Oh, you're serious.
Advertising costs companies money, so if a product is advertised it has more costs associated with it than an unadvertised product. Therefore the advertised product it is a worse deal for me. So I do not want to see the adverts.
Adverts are maybe good for the businesses behind them, but I don't give a flying fuck about them. Adverts are definitely not in my interest, nor yours. And for you to think so.... well, I think you have been watching too much commercial TV or working too hard for corporations. You are starting to believe their bullshit!
There is a blackbox bit of software bundled with most (all?) proprietary scanning software that stops you scanning money, so what your copier-guy friend is saying is probably true. I found out about the software years ago when I first got a scanner, because to me it is obvious to try and casually copy money to see just how convincing (or not) it comes out.
I knew it would be crap quality - a 300dpi HP inkjet (a 595C, IIRC) on normal copier paper will never look good. It's just that the DRM jumped up and said no before I could even try and make a poor copy. Looking back, the computer turning around and saying no was a major thing for my attitude towards proprietary software. It has taken years to actually become even slightly RMS about things, but I have realised that I do not like my tools to tell me no, and so I try to not use tools that contain the ability to say no. I most definitely will not spend money on stuff that contains the ability to say no.
About the money though, the way the blackbox software works is it looks for a certain pattern of circles. I wonder if it would be possible to have this pattern on a shirt, hat, sign, whatever, to throw up a barrier to being photographed or monitored by CCTV? The UK's forward intelligence teams might have some real fun and games when it comes to cataloguing protesters if their software refuses to open the pictures the cameras have taken.
I have tried to track down an article to confirm what I am saying, but can't find jack-shit. Google's results really do just turn up commercial junk these days. Anyway, this picture does show the circles I am talking about, the dots all around the £20 in the top right.
Proprietary software needs the bugs and holes to keep the users upgrading, or used to the fact that software on their computer will appear to change non its own. This allows the proprietary software makers to add and remove features, encouraging people to pro versions of products, usually under the guise of "security".
The users also will be less able to understand the platform they are trying to use, and so when they have problems they will need to invest either lots of time, or spend money on a 3rd party to solve problems. After a few iterations of this, the user will not want to switch to another platform or product, due to their perceived investment.
The shitness of proprietary software is there by design. I'm not saying FOSS is perfect, but the user is much more likely to be put first with a FOSS product than with a proprietary product, as the author of the proprietary product has their profits (short and long-term) first.
Most of the versions of GTA (did they release that recentish version where all the fun had been removed?) I have played on the PC allow you to use an analogue joystick or pad for the driving and flying bits. IIRC you could use it for walking/running too if you wanted
In fact, when I used to play San Andreas I would use 3 controllers, keyboard for movement on foot and cars[1], joystick for aircraft, mouse for looking around/aiming.
[1] Binary controls for analogue events can be worked around, and I think SA does. Binary steering would be wheels straight or full-lock, but many computer games allow for this, and if you press the steering at different rates, or hold the steer button down, the vehicles will steer sensibly. There are games out there that do simulate the steering just like the buttons being pressed, but GTA:SA isn't one of them.
Indeed. Computers exist, and are getting faster, smaller, and cheaper as time goes on. High speed data lines into places of work, homes, and pockets exist.
Do you expect people not to use this stuff, especially when downloading can be more convenient than obtaining it "legally"?
The economic realities are that the tech is not going away, and humans are human. Trying to make snide comments about people pirating stuff is more of a waste of time that trying to stop the piracy!
It's not usually a lot of fun having your arse handed to you.
That depends on if you take things seriously or not. It is just a game, after all.
And even if you are crap at a game, if you're not taking it seriously, your 100 deaths don't matter if you get in a few good kills of the people who are taking it too seriously!
In construction zones on British Motorways there are often "average speed cameras", which measure vehicle speed over the whole length of the zone. It's not possible to cheat that, and IME it's quite relaxing to sit at 40mph (or whatever) without having people jostling to go a few mph faster.
If you straddle the lanes as you pass the cameras (just leisurely change lanes at the appropriate time) the cameras will probably miss you.
Or sit close behind a large vehicle as you pass cameras. If you are familiar with the roadworks then you will know how many sets of cameras there are, and if you are only seen by 1 set of cameras then you won't be ticketed.
I personally almost always straddle lanes when driving past any cameras that are clearly reading number plates, not so I can break the law and get away with it, but because my travels around the country are no one's business but mine.
I feel there is a line between enhancing a picture to make the existing contents clearer, and modifying the contents to make the message clearer.
The message BP wants to send by publishing these pictures is something like "we are working at 100% to fix this", and some knob somewhere decided that some screens being off didn't look like 100%. They are playing the PR game, and have gone as far as misrepresenting their operations. So what else have they misrepresented?
The photochopping is symptomatic of how all the players involved are dealing with the whole situation: too much PR, not enough actual dealing with it.
Just to play devil's advocate for a sec, America is the land of the automatic gearbox. In those other countries, the average Toyota is likely to have an extra pedal that can conveniently cut the drive to the wheels: the clutch.
Could the popularity of automatics in the US have a bearing on the rate of accidents?
I personally do think this is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by those looking to cash in on it, for the various reasons proposed in this discussion: business interests of non-Toyota companies, people looking to shirk responsibility for accidents they have caused, people looking to profit from legal action, etc..
Your comment reminds me of something I read, where an internet-ranter referred to "urban camouflage".
I should think that if these guys had done almost exactly the same thing, but also had clipboards, hard hats, and hi-vis jackets, nothing would have happened. Well, maybe they would have been asked what was going on, but the guards probably would have taken anything said as the truth, because of the magical powers of hi-vis clothing.
IME, people who say they support the death penalty often ultimately agree that if we are to say that killing people is wrong (murder), you don't demonstrate it by killing people.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously?! Your job title is Network Administrator! Administer the damn network! It's what you were hired to do!
And if management doesn't want to make the change?
Get it in writing.
Then when you are set up for a fall when the inevitable happens, you have something to cover your arse with.
Isn't much of the issue with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to do with differences between how we metabolise glucose and fructose?
When we get a big whack of fructose, our bodies metabolise that first rather than any glucose that may have been ingested. The relatively high amounts of glucose stay up whilst our bodies focus on the fructose, and that extra presence of glucose is what isn't so good for us.
So even though a portion of rice may have 250% the calories than a can of coke, as most of the calories are in starch, they are "healthier", as it were.
Yeah, that's what smokers say too.
Flamebait? Looks like the Digg crew are on this site too!
Many of the people who deny AGW show severe signs of failing to grasp the concepts that underpin science, and rightly so get modded down.
The people that then come out the woodwork to bitch about the downmoddings often try to justify their opinions with either very poor science, or what comes across as tantamount to faith. And they get modded down too. But not because of a conspiracy against them, but because they are speaking bollocks, and don't realise it.
Nice to see you attack the messenger, and not the message. I take it you understand why he might be jaded with your political right then?
And if you do, why don't you explain why you aren't jaded by the political right?
Considering you didn't explain, and just tried to shoot the messenger, I can only conclude that you somehow benefit (or think you benefit) from the political right's policies and points of view.
Cheers for sharing your photos, but that webpage totally unnecessarily needs javascript.... it's just some photos.
Anyway, a quick look at the source revealed where the pictures are, and as your server allows directory listing it is possible to browse the pictures without JS (albeit without thumbnails):
http://www.thoughtcrime.com/NSA%20Museum/Site/NSA%20Museum%20visit_files/
Yeap, and Google are a big funder of Mozilla too.
If even internally at Microsoft they are talking about making the most private browser in the market, why isn't the FOSS browser? Oh yeah, that's because they are mainly funded by an advertising company!
The top 3 browsers are uncomfortably close to advertisers, and the maker of the 4th is also starting to integrate advertising mechanisms directly into its products.
Firefox severely needs forking, and tightening up, as web users don't really have much of a choice!
OK, fair enough, I haven't installed FF3 so didn't know that had come back. I'm still on 2.highest due to the major dumbing down that comes with FF3: the awful bar.
I am still holding out for someone to fork Firefox and take it back to its philosophical roots, of light and fast, with extensions to add functionality.
I should have said "Maybe it's both, maybe it's neither". The point was that Google's money has massively influenced Mozilla, and very much in Google's favour, in subtle ways. If you or I truly understood the ways it works, we would be working for Google!
Just because IE seriously privacy rapes does not justify things Mozilla products may do, or have the capability to do. The geolocation functionality is a massive privacy risk, for example. Whilst it can be turned off, there could be a bug that causes the feature to be turned back on, or causes the off to not really work, or a 3rd party extension or plugin could turn the functionality on. The geolocation shit should be an optional extra, because if the functionality isn't there, it cannot be turned on, removing the privacy risk completely. But no, the feature is added to Firefox proper, rather than being something like a bundled extension, because Google's business interests stand to benefit from every user of FF having geolocation available - the advertisers can find out more accurately where the people are, so the adverts can be more influential.
Firefox is the best browser available, but still it has turned into an immense pile of shit. It's just the rest of them are barely any better. And it's the extensions that make FF too!
The browsers are all becoming frameworks for web applications to work within, as that looks to be the next profitable thing for the IT industry. Whilst it makes sense for businesses to chase this shit, individuals and non-profit entities should be aware of this bandwagon. Proprietary desktop applications are not good (ask RMS why), but web apps stand to be worse, because not only do you have less control of the application, you are likely to have less control of your data too.
For this reason, I avoid web applications at all costs. I have seen how proprietary software causes frustrations (at best!) in the long term, and whilst OSS may be lacking, its downsides are lesser than the downsides of proprietary software.
You watch a lot of Top Gear, don't you.
I do too, because it's about the least shit thing on TV! Apart from Buzzcocks, of course.
But yeah, the air resistance is the problem. IIRC, drag increases proportional to the square of velocity.... yeap, it does: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Drag_equation. So you need more and more power just to go faster at a linear rate.
That Top Gear with the Veyron Super Sport was dumbed down so much that they didn't even acknowledge maths exists :(
I'm inclined to agree with you. I too have heard that modern engines use no fuel when moving and being given no accelerator. In my world, "no fuel" means zero. They may use negligible fuel compared to powered driving, but negligible is greater than zero, and so is not "no fuel".
I hadn't thought about this in terms of the catalytic converter, I had thought about it more in terms of engine temperature, and hence wear. Obviously whilst the engine is moving, because the car is moving, the oil pump will be going, as will the water pump, and air will be flowing through the radiator. Going down a very long hill you really do stand a good chance of cooling the engine significantly if there is no source of heat in the engine, and this will do the engine no good at all. Or would the friction in the engine be enough to keep the temperature up, and stop the engine damaging itself?
Do the spark plugs not fire too during these alleged no fuel periods? Because if there is no fuel to burn, might as well save the wear on the plugs too. Though I could imagine that charge in the coil has to be disposed of, so not sparking might not be an option. Unless there was some mechanism to disengage the coil or alternator, but functionality like that would severely jeopardise the reliability of an engine otherwise.
I am not denying the engine uses minimal fuel in certain situations, I take advantage of this in my driving and routinely get over 50mpg out of a car the manufacturer says will get 48.5mpg. I just want to know if the minimal means zero, or if it means close to zero.
Oh yeah, I have tried some of the riskier hypermiling techniques (turning the engine off), and have gotten over 75mpg on a journey I do frequently (with a change in altitude of about 100m, downhill). Without the dangerous techniques, the best I can do is about 55, so I am very much inclined to say that the alleged zero is greater than zero.
What I have tested isn't a proper experiment. Obviously the car is more retarded (no laughing at the back) with the engine running and engaged to the wheels, and not being accelerated, than a car with the engine off and in neutral (well, really I leave it in 3rd or 4th (depending on the speed) and have my foot on the clutch. That way I can bump start the car at a moments notice, minimising the danger of driving with the engine off). With the engine off, the car's momentum carries you much further than if some of the momentum is being used to keep the engine turning, so I cannot say exactly how much of the 20mpg difference is due to engine friction, or due to the alleged zero not being zero.
Google (the advertising company) have been Mozilla's biggest benefactor since somewhere during the FF 1 product life. Between FF1 and 2 the option box to disallow 3rd party cookies vanished. I don't see this as a coincidence.
The option to reject 3rd party cookies is still in about:config, but most users will never know about it, and for some that do they will be put off by the scary message that appears the first time you go to about:config.
Google's money got Google as the default search engine in FF (and probably all Mozilla products), and got Google to be the start page too. I think a Google service is also used to check SSL certificates are still valid, which is enabled by default. If I am right, Google essentially gets notified every time you visit an HTTPS site. Ahh, actually it might be the anti-phishing thing. Maybe it's both.... the point is Google's business interests are very much represented in Mozilla products, whilst most people fawn over the open source rhetoric, or the unshitness compared to IE.
Here's how this will go...
[snip sky caving in scenario]
It's a LOSE - LOSE situation. When will people realise that well targetted and appropriate adverts are good for everyone?
Hahaha, funny fucker.
Oh, you're serious.
Advertising costs companies money, so if a product is advertised it has more costs associated with it than an unadvertised product. Therefore the advertised product it is a worse deal for me. So I do not want to see the adverts.
Adverts are maybe good for the businesses behind them, but I don't give a flying fuck about them. Adverts are definitely not in my interest, nor yours. And for you to think so.... well, I think you have been watching too much commercial TV or working too hard for corporations. You are starting to believe their bullshit!
There is a blackbox bit of software bundled with most (all?) proprietary scanning software that stops you scanning money, so what your copier-guy friend is saying is probably true. I found out about the software years ago when I first got a scanner, because to me it is obvious to try and casually copy money to see just how convincing (or not) it comes out.
I knew it would be crap quality - a 300dpi HP inkjet (a 595C, IIRC) on normal copier paper will never look good. It's just that the DRM jumped up and said no before I could even try and make a poor copy. Looking back, the computer turning around and saying no was a major thing for my attitude towards proprietary software. It has taken years to actually become even slightly RMS about things, but I have realised that I do not like my tools to tell me no, and so I try to not use tools that contain the ability to say no. I most definitely will not spend money on stuff that contains the ability to say no.
About the money though, the way the blackbox software works is it looks for a certain pattern of circles. I wonder if it would be possible to have this pattern on a shirt, hat, sign, whatever, to throw up a barrier to being photographed or monitored by CCTV? The UK's forward intelligence teams might have some real fun and games when it comes to cataloguing protesters if their software refuses to open the pictures the cameras have taken.
I have tried to track down an article to confirm what I am saying, but can't find jack-shit. Google's results really do just turn up commercial junk these days. Anyway, this picture does show the circles I am talking about, the dots all around the £20 in the top right.
They are referer checking, that's why it appeared to break.
As well as enhancing privacy, forging referers bypasses the desires of some webmasters to try to control the stuff they publish.
Hahaha, Adobe will do no such thing.
Proprietary software needs the bugs and holes to keep the users upgrading, or used to the fact that software on their computer will appear to change non its own. This allows the proprietary software makers to add and remove features, encouraging people to pro versions of products, usually under the guise of "security".
The users also will be less able to understand the platform they are trying to use, and so when they have problems they will need to invest either lots of time, or spend money on a 3rd party to solve problems. After a few iterations of this, the user will not want to switch to another platform or product, due to their perceived investment.
The shitness of proprietary software is there by design. I'm not saying FOSS is perfect, but the user is much more likely to be put first with a FOSS product than with a proprietary product, as the author of the proprietary product has their profits (short and long-term) first.
Most of the versions of GTA (did they release that recentish version where all the fun had been removed?) I have played on the PC allow you to use an analogue joystick or pad for the driving and flying bits. IIRC you could use it for walking/running too if you wanted
In fact, when I used to play San Andreas I would use 3 controllers, keyboard for movement on foot and cars[1], joystick for aircraft, mouse for looking around/aiming.
[1] Binary controls for analogue events can be worked around, and I think SA does. Binary steering would be wheels straight or full-lock, but many computer games allow for this, and if you press the steering at different rates, or hold the steer button down, the vehicles will steer sensibly. There are games out there that do simulate the steering just like the buttons being pressed, but GTA:SA isn't one of them.
Why would anybody pay for anything?
Indeed. Computers exist, and are getting faster, smaller, and cheaper as time goes on. High speed data lines into places of work, homes, and pockets exist.
Do you expect people not to use this stuff, especially when downloading can be more convenient than obtaining it "legally"?
The economic realities are that the tech is not going away, and humans are human. Trying to make snide comments about people pirating stuff is more of a waste of time that trying to stop the piracy!
Re:The real question is...who had more fun?
It's not usually a lot of fun having your arse handed to you.
That depends on if you take things seriously or not. It is just a game, after all.
And even if you are crap at a game, if you're not taking it seriously, your 100 deaths don't matter if you get in a few good kills of the people who are taking it too seriously!
In construction zones on British Motorways there are often "average speed cameras", which measure vehicle speed over the whole length of the zone. It's not possible to cheat that, and IME it's quite relaxing to sit at 40mph (or whatever) without having people jostling to go a few mph faster.
If you straddle the lanes as you pass the cameras (just leisurely change lanes at the appropriate time) the cameras will probably miss you.
Or sit close behind a large vehicle as you pass cameras. If you are familiar with the roadworks then you will know how many sets of cameras there are, and if you are only seen by 1 set of cameras then you won't be ticketed.
I personally almost always straddle lanes when driving past any cameras that are clearly reading number plates, not so I can break the law and get away with it, but because my travels around the country are no one's business but mine.
I feel there is a line between enhancing a picture to make the existing contents clearer, and modifying the contents to make the message clearer.
The message BP wants to send by publishing these pictures is something like "we are working at 100% to fix this", and some knob somewhere decided that some screens being off didn't look like 100%. They are playing the PR game, and have gone as far as misrepresenting their operations. So what else have they misrepresented?
The photochopping is symptomatic of how all the players involved are dealing with the whole situation: too much PR, not enough actual dealing with it.
Just to play devil's advocate for a sec, America is the land of the automatic gearbox. In those other countries, the average Toyota is likely to have an extra pedal that can conveniently cut the drive to the wheels: the clutch.
Could the popularity of automatics in the US have a bearing on the rate of accidents?
I personally do think this is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by those looking to cash in on it, for the various reasons proposed in this discussion: business interests of non-Toyota companies, people looking to shirk responsibility for accidents they have caused, people looking to profit from legal action, etc..
Your comment reminds me of something I read, where an internet-ranter referred to "urban camouflage".
I should think that if these guys had done almost exactly the same thing, but also had clipboards, hard hats, and hi-vis jackets, nothing would have happened. Well, maybe they would have been asked what was going on, but the guards probably would have taken anything said as the truth, because of the magical powers of hi-vis clothing.
IME, people who say they support the death penalty often ultimately agree that if we are to say that killing people is wrong (murder), you don't demonstrate it by killing people.
The death penalty is, at best, hypocritical.