C: CCTV solves and/or prevents almost 0 crime (See Wiki)
Yes, I did. It confirms that your claim is wrong. And indeed we see stories everyday of crimes that have been solved by CCTV footage.
"A more recent analysis by Northeastern University and the University of Cambridge, "Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," examined 44 different studies that collectively surveyed areas from the United Kingdom to U.S. cities such as Cincinnati and New York. The analysis found that: 1) Surveillance systems were most effective in parking lots, where their use resulted in a 51% decrease in crime; 2) Public transportation areas saw a 23% decrease in crimes; 3) Systems in public settings were the least effective, with just a 7% decrease in crimes overall."
A later paragraph notes some cynicism from others about the figures. But nowhere does it say "CCTV solves and/or prevents almost 0 crime". And if it did, I'd correct it. There's plenty of evidence it does.
And if you're going to reject it. You have to answer this conundrum. The British Crime Survey shows growth in crime every year for decades, until 1995. And since then a fall in crime almost every year. 1995 coincides with when a massive increase in CCTV cameras happened, according to your wiki page link. If it wasn't CCTV, what else changed the trend so decisively?
D. Traffic for Londoners and visitors will be a nightmare. But olympic athletes, officials and VIPS have designated lanes all over London that will be kept free for them to get around quickly.
Fines for using these lanes without a permit are £200. Even for cyclists - which will be interesting, as London cyclists mostly disregard traffic laws and ordinarily are not dealt with.
Americans that never venture out of America tend to think a free national health service is a terrible thought. Americans that actually come and live in Britain tend to realise quite quickly how good it is and come to love the NHS like the natives do.
It's the difference between ignorant and worldly wise.
Avoiding te GPL is the main reason. But Clang also has many technical superiorities to GCC too. Wikipedia gives a quick outline of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang
If Google+ actually was _GOOD_ people would use it.
No, because the utility of a social networking site is whether your friends/family/colleagues are on it. Us few people that tried it didn't last long, because few other people were there. It's a chicken and egg situation.
The technology only has to be good enough. And that's what Facebook is. Lots of things about it irritate people, but the size of personal networks there are enough to outweigh that.
The UI for Google+ is undoubtably better Facebook. But unless Facebook really screw up, they'll never reach the tipping point to become successful.
Sure, the main point of green technology isn't to create jobs. But Republicans argue that green policies will lose jobs, so it's useful to point out the other side: of the jobs created. If net job creation is zero then it's still worth doing.
Renewable energy is better than non-renewables. Indeed it's logically essential to make the move - finite energy sources will not continue to supply the world's energy by definition. So it's worth doing even before adding the pollution and AGW factors into the mix.
The lesson from the introduction of Tasers and pepper spray is that given more choices of offensive weapons, police don't reduce the force they apply. They use weapons in more situations than they would before.
So you won't get LRADed instead of being pepper sprayed. You'll still get pepper sprayed in situations where you would before. But in lesser situations, where previously they wouldn't have done anything, now they'll LRAD you.
Earplugs AND a video camera are both essential equipment now.
Absolutely. The sole argument for hosting it is that it is supposed to boost the economy of the host nation in some hard to define way.
As things are in the world right now, I'm pretty sure it's going to cost Britain a hell of a lot more than any boost in the economy.
I remember when Ireland won the Eurovision song contest about 3 times. They were hoping to lose by the end of it because the cost of hosting it was crippling them.
And of course if people are planning to protest in the street, they'll take ear-plugs, which will take most of the pain and disorientation away. This will only be really effective against non-protestors.
Ethanol is no longer subsidized. That stopped at the beginning of this year. Subsidy did exactly what it was supposed to do. It primed the pump. It got the industry going. Now it's not needed.
There's a tax on foreign ethanol, of any kind, even corn ethanol. But that's just protectionism. And its tax not subsidy.
That's a false dichotomy. Both manufacture and research provide jobs, and both are being funded. There is no either/or.
There are plenty of alternative technologies already, and they need to be rolled out. Then as research comes up with better ones, the roll out will progress to better technology.
Compare and contrast with microprocessors. Would you have said in the late 1970s that we need to invest in microprocessor research RATHER THAN manufacture? That the 808*, 6502 and Z80 weren't good enough and we should wait for something better before manufacturing? Had we have done so, we'd never have had the Core 2s and such like of today. The market supplied reason, direction and finance to the research.
There's something wrong if sales bonuses are a piece of a pie. Sales bonuses should be a proportion of the profit on the items sold, and should therefore be unlimited.
Back when I was a kid you won and you got a prize. And if you didn't win you got jack. Yes, you lost. Suck it up, loser. Work harder and next time you'll be the one with the trophy.
The thing is, that theory didn't work so well. It bred a generation of people who think "Suck it up loser!" is a good thing to say.
Some people have potential in a given field, some people do not. Basketball players are naturally tall, long distance runners and sprinters are built differently. For more intellectual pursuits, some people are born more intelligent than others. Some have a gift for music, etc.
It's great that we have people that excel in different fields, and for these people success is it's own reward. Labelling people that are merely average as losers, is the act of a dick.
Far better to encourage and help people to find out what they are best at, and then encourage them. At whatever level. Yes, even if they'll never be great at that thing they are best at.
Suppose you have a disabled child. What are you going to do? Call him a loser every day because he can't do the things his siblings can?
Medals aren't personal motivators. Soldiers don't think "I'll do this thing where I might get killed so I will get a medal." They are just in a particular challenging situation, and their training, team spirit and adrenaline kicks in, and they do something. It might be heroic and they end up getting a medal, or it might be shameful and they end up getting court marshalled.
The reason they are there is to give a feeling of pomp, circumstance and worthiness to the profession. So that the public consider them as a group to be potential heroes rather than trained killers.
making the actual work more interesting - in your example by making the training interesting and relevant to people, by avoiding all kinds of stress by submitting work in time, by giving people a greater variety of tasks, more responsibility - simply a more interesting job, not a more interesting badge.
But that can be gamification too. A really good game has a progression of levels over which you learn new information and skills at just the right rate, are are given a good variety of ways to use that information and skills. And that's a recipe for job satisfaction too.
Good managers are interested in developing their staff, and use work opportunities as a tool for doing that. So are good game designers.
Bad managers are just interested improving work related numbers. So are bad game designers.
It can also be a disincentive. I worked at a software company where pride in the product, a meritocracy in seniority and pay levels, and many social events encouraging bonding were all highly successful motivators. Morale was high.
Then a new manager was hired for our department, and he decided getting everyone in a stand up meeting once a month and giving a few individuals a cash bonus or movie tickets would be a good motivator. Actually the people selected just felt patronised and embarrassed. And those that didn't get them just felt left out. Morale nosedived.
You're right. Demand for a product or service is out of the workers hands - it comes from decisions of management and salesmen and the economy etc. So increasing productivity actually means reducing the number of people or reducing the money they are paid. It's not something to be welcomed by workers.
However, gamification is far more than just increasing productivity. A good game is a process of constant learning and increasing skills, whilst having fun doing it. That is also a recipe for job satisfaction. So don't dismiss gamification, done right it could be a very good thing.
That doesn't sound like a customer, that sounds like a colleague. People ringing a help desk from inside a company are not customers. Customers are people who pay and can choose who to buy from. A customers opinion should be very important. A colleague, less so, as it's the company that's paying not the colleague.
A customer should have that porn block removed if he asks. A colleague, probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
C: CCTV solves and/or prevents almost 0 crime (See Wiki)
Yes, I did. It confirms that your claim is wrong. And indeed we see stories everyday of crimes that have been solved by CCTV footage.
"A more recent analysis by Northeastern University and the University of Cambridge, "Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," examined 44 different studies that collectively surveyed areas from the United Kingdom to U.S. cities such as Cincinnati and New York. The analysis found that: 1) Surveillance systems were most effective in parking lots, where their use resulted in a 51% decrease in crime; 2) Public transportation areas saw a 23% decrease in crimes; 3) Systems in public settings were the least effective, with just a 7% decrease in crimes overall."
A later paragraph notes some cynicism from others about the figures. But nowhere does it say "CCTV solves and/or prevents almost 0 crime". And if it did, I'd correct it. There's plenty of evidence it does.
And if you're going to reject it. You have to answer this conundrum. The British Crime Survey shows growth in crime every year for decades, until 1995. And since then a fall in crime almost every year. 1995 coincides with when a massive increase in CCTV cameras happened, according to your wiki page link. If it wasn't CCTV, what else changed the trend so decisively?
It's...
D. Traffic for Londoners and visitors will be a nightmare. But olympic athletes, officials and VIPS have designated lanes all over London that will be kept free for them to get around quickly.
Fines for using these lanes without a permit are £200. Even for cyclists - which will be interesting, as London cyclists mostly disregard traffic laws and ordinarily are not dealt with.
Didn't I read a year or two ago that UK was planning to put cameras at every intersection everywhere in the country?
If you did, it must have been somewhere like The Onion. More probably you misremembered. Every motorway intersection, perhaps.
Odd that that quite long exposé of the bid didn't mention it. Do you have a citation?
Americans that never venture out of America tend to think a free national health service is a terrible thought. Americans that actually come and live in Britain tend to realise quite quickly how good it is and come to love the NHS like the natives do.
It's the difference between ignorant and worldly wise.
Avoiding te GPL is the main reason. But Clang also has many technical superiorities to GCC too. Wikipedia gives a quick outline of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang
If Google+ actually was _GOOD_ people would use it.
No, because the utility of a social networking site is whether your friends/family/colleagues are on it. Us few people that tried it didn't last long, because few other people were there. It's a chicken and egg situation.
The technology only has to be good enough. And that's what Facebook is. Lots of things about it irritate people, but the size of personal networks there are enough to outweigh that.
The UI for Google+ is undoubtably better Facebook. But unless Facebook really screw up, they'll never reach the tipping point to become successful.
The valuation isn't for the technology. The valuation is for the number of regular users.
Google+ is better technology, but by itself is worth a tiny fraction of what Facebook is.
Sure, the main point of green technology isn't to create jobs. But Republicans argue that green policies will lose jobs, so it's useful to point out the other side: of the jobs created. If net job creation is zero then it's still worth doing.
Renewable energy is better than non-renewables. Indeed it's logically essential to make the move - finite energy sources will not continue to supply the world's energy by definition. So it's worth doing even before adding the pollution and AGW factors into the mix.
The lesson from the introduction of Tasers and pepper spray is that given more choices of offensive weapons, police don't reduce the force they apply. They use weapons in more situations than they would before.
So you won't get LRADed instead of being pepper sprayed. You'll still get pepper sprayed in situations where you would before. But in lesser situations, where previously they wouldn't have done anything, now they'll LRAD you.
Earplugs AND a video camera are both essential equipment now.
Absolutely. The sole argument for hosting it is that it is supposed to boost the economy of the host nation in some hard to define way.
As things are in the world right now, I'm pretty sure it's going to cost Britain a hell of a lot more than any boost in the economy.
I remember when Ireland won the Eurovision song contest about 3 times. They were hoping to lose by the end of it because the cost of hosting it was crippling them.
Mostly yes. In fact I'm quite tempted to go and be a street ear-plug vendor. I get to make a point and a profit too!
And of course if people are planning to protest in the street, they'll take ear-plugs, which will take most of the pain and disorientation away. This will only be really effective against non-protestors.
Being a spectator at the Olympics isn't about seeing the sport. It's about being seen to be important/rich/lucky enough to be at the Olympics.
Ethanol is no longer subsidized. That stopped at the beginning of this year. Subsidy did exactly what it was supposed to do. It primed the pump. It got the industry going. Now it's not needed.
There's a tax on foreign ethanol, of any kind, even corn ethanol. But that's just protectionism. And its tax not subsidy.
That's a false dichotomy. Both manufacture and research provide jobs, and both are being funded. There is no either/or.
There are plenty of alternative technologies already, and they need to be rolled out. Then as research comes up with better ones, the roll out will progress to better technology.
Compare and contrast with microprocessors. Would you have said in the late 1970s that we need to invest in microprocessor research RATHER THAN manufacture? That the 808*, 6502 and Z80 weren't good enough and we should wait for something better before manufacturing? Had we have done so, we'd never have had the Core 2s and such like of today. The market supplied reason, direction and finance to the research.
PHBs yes. But very occasionally you get a manager who is not like that, and is genuinely interested in progressing his staff.
There's something wrong if sales bonuses are a piece of a pie. Sales bonuses should be a proportion of the profit on the items sold, and should therefore be unlimited.
I think the significant difference to the bad schemes is that this rewarded the whole team equally.
Back when I was a kid you won and you got a prize. And if you didn't win you got jack. Yes, you lost. Suck it up, loser. Work harder and next time you'll be the one with the trophy.
The thing is, that theory didn't work so well. It bred a generation of people who think "Suck it up loser!" is a good thing to say.
Some people have potential in a given field, some people do not. Basketball players are naturally tall, long distance runners and sprinters are built differently. For more intellectual pursuits, some people are born more intelligent than others. Some have a gift for music, etc.
It's great that we have people that excel in different fields, and for these people success is it's own reward. Labelling people that are merely average as
losers, is the act of a dick.
Far better to encourage and help people to find out what they are best at, and then encourage them. At whatever level. Yes, even if they'll never be great at that thing they are best at.
Suppose you have a disabled child. What are you going to do? Call him a loser every day because he can't do the things his siblings can?
Medals aren't personal motivators. Soldiers don't think "I'll do this thing where I might get killed so I will get a medal." They are just in a particular challenging situation, and their training, team spirit and adrenaline kicks in, and they do something. It might be heroic and they end up getting a medal, or it might be shameful and they end up getting court marshalled.
The reason they are there is to give a feeling of pomp, circumstance and worthiness to the profession. So that the public consider them as a group to be potential heroes rather than trained killers.
making the actual work more interesting - in your example by making the training interesting and relevant to people, by avoiding all kinds of stress by submitting work in time, by giving people a greater variety of tasks, more responsibility - simply a more interesting job, not a more interesting badge.
But that can be gamification too. A really good game has a progression of levels over which you learn new information and skills at just the right rate, are are given a good variety of ways to use that information and skills. And that's a recipe for job satisfaction too.
Good managers are interested in developing their staff, and use work opportunities as a tool for doing that. So are good game designers.
Bad managers are just interested improving work related numbers. So are bad game designers.
It can also be a disincentive. I worked at a software company where pride in the product, a meritocracy in seniority and pay levels, and many social events encouraging bonding were all highly successful motivators. Morale was high.
Then a new manager was hired for our department, and he decided getting everyone in a stand up meeting once a month and giving a few individuals a cash bonus or movie tickets would be a good motivator. Actually the people selected just felt patronised and embarrassed. And those that didn't get them just felt left out. Morale nosedived.
You're right. Demand for a product or service is out of the workers hands - it comes from decisions of management and salesmen and the economy etc. So increasing productivity actually means reducing the number of people or reducing the money they are paid. It's not something to be welcomed by workers.
However, gamification is far more than just increasing productivity. A good game is a process of constant learning and increasing skills, whilst having fun doing it. That is also a recipe for job satisfaction. So don't dismiss gamification, done right it could be a very good thing.
That doesn't sound like a customer, that sounds like a colleague. People ringing a help desk from inside a company are not customers. Customers are people who pay and can choose who to buy from. A customers opinion should be very important. A colleague, less so, as it's the company that's paying not the colleague.
A customer should have that porn block removed if he asks. A colleague, probably not.