The worst part of illegal drugs is that so many of them are addictive. There are two problems:
some impoverished individual may turn to drugs to lessen his/her pain.
the addiction that results, preventing said individual from putting his/her life back together.
It could also be argued that the 'escape' from problems is addictive enough, without chemical addiction.
There are countless reasons a person's life may fall apart. Unfortunately, the government can't help with all of those situations, and it it probably not a good idea for it to help with most of them.
What it *can* do to help, though, is to prevent you from stupidly compounding your problems by adding a drug addiction into the mix.
The 'additional risks' you point out are pretty silly - no sane person would argue that those risks outweigh the risks associated with drug use.
The guy who came up with the idea for RSS should be sent back to comp. sci. 101. It should have been readily apparent from day 1 that this would be a problem.
Some sort of peer-to-peer event-driven model would be a better match for this problem.
Hah. It took you almost a whole day to come up with that?
And the best you could do was some lame crack at my sig?
I would have expected more from you, "silicon not in the v".
At best, this tactic means that you pre-empt the user from arguing that you gave them something they didn't want. It does *not* mean you gave them a usable interface.
The goal is to make something the user can actually use, not to eliminate a valid avenue for them to ask for improvement, or to make them feel guilty about being shitty ui designers.
From their web site, it appears that the system was originally designed as an open-loop system, which explains their concerns about feedback. Taking an open-loop system and mis-using it as a closed-loop system often results in rapid oscilations due to the prediction model over-compensating for the feedback.
Assuming they have a good enough understanding of the way traffic works, they could change to a closed-loop prediction model that would converge on a correct answer even in the face of feedback.
And if everyone reads when there will be a jam, no-one will drive then, and the traffic jam will be at a different time.
Presumably, this is a closed-loop system, with a short loop. The predictions are based on very recent, near real-time data. If the traffic is affected by people reading the predictions, then the predictions would adjust to compensate very quickly.
Do city planners have access to this sort of technology?
It stands to reason that if the people designing the roads had a better understanding of traffic dynamics, they could design better road systems, and increase capacity proactively.
Basically, the question must be asked: If they have the capability to provide such a product which tacks onto Windows, why can't they just incorporate it into Windows and make it part of the OS?
Because then all the whiners would start talking about unfair business tactics.
I obviously understand letting AOL members use it, but allowing non-members always confused me.
Their members will value the service more if they can talk to anyone on the internet with it. If it wasn't available for free, then a lot of AOL users would have skipped AIM and gone for something that was free, thus defeating the lock-in.
I don't think anyone would actually pay to then be shown ads, at least anyone with some sense.
Sorta like.. cable tv and movie theatres. Was anyone else really pissed to start seeing swiffer wet-jet commercials before feature-length movies at the theatre?
To avoid being charged, forward this message to everyone on your contact list! AOL will keep track of how many people forward this and if enough of us do, then they will be forced to keep AIM free!
Thanks!
Now, even through you may be able to put a data description of the DNA analysis into a computer, you're also going to keep the actual sample in an archive for confirmation testing.
I don't think it would be necessary to keep the samples. If you find a match and need confirmation, why not go get a new sample from the individual?
Your argument about false-matches is compelling - I admit I don't have the necessary background to argue it. However, I have heard that our current DNA testing is more accurate than fingerprints, which have been used for centuries. Also, we can never have a 100% standard of proof - we have to allow for some acceptable rate of error.
To address your other point, I think we should take DNA samples at birth. That would level the playing field, so previous arrests don't tip the scales at all. This may just be a gradual shift in that direction.
It is possible (but rare) for the small pieces to match without the entire DNA matching.
It is also possible for fingerprints to falsely match. We still use them in investigations. Also, DNA is enough to get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt." Our standard of proof can never be 100%, we wouldn't get anything done.
And you don't seem to know that DNA synthesizing machines exist and are used everyday in biological research.
It is trivial to plant a suspect's DNA at the crime scene. DNA is obtainable from hair, spit, skin, etc.etc.
Yes, I am aware of those machines. They can produce copies of DNA. AFAIK, however, they aren't capable of (today at least) producing significant quantities of blood, spit, skin, etc. You don't walk into a crime scene and start looking around for pieces of Deoxyribonucleic acid laying on the carpet. You look for blood, spit, skin, etc.
I will admit that this limitation probably won't stand the test of time, and one day there will be machines capable of producing these things. However, I think it's much simpler to realize that they can already frame someone today by collecting hair samples from your brush or comb. Why use the million-dollar machine to fake evidence when you can just collect it the old fashioned way?
All that's required is the "label" or appearance of guilt and your life is ruined.
I agree with that statement. However, law enforcement can do that today. They can make you a suspect based on an insignicicant chain of connections. Happens already. This will change the way some suspects are thrown into the hat, but the effect is the same. Maybe it's more arbitrary, maybe not - that is debatable.
How does this help to commit me of the original crime? In fact, you can't because that would be double jeapordy. All it would do is help identify me.
Who said anything about the original crime? You were innocent of the first crime. It's the second crime we're concerned with here.
In fact, it wouldn't do a damn thing. It would help you identify that DNA found at the second crime matched mine
Yes, that is exactly what we want. The ability to locate suspects based on DNA evidence left at a crime scene. No different than fingerprints, video cameras, eye-witness reports, etc.
Since I was innocent of the first crime, I should be presumed innocent of the second. You can't approach it as "he's guilty because we already had his dna from the last time he was wrongly accused!".
The two crimes are totally separate. In the U.S., you are assumed innocent of all crimes, until proven guilty. That has nothing to do with what previous crimes you may or may not have committed.
Thing is, crime or not, you can't go around presuming the guilt of people who are innocent. Dumbass.
There is no presumption of guilt here. This is simply a way to provide suspects. Even if there is some of your DNA at a crime scene, that doesn't even come close to proving you committed the crime. Nobody said anything about automatic convictions, or double jeopardy or anything of the sort. Please try to formulate meaningful arguments before going around calling people "dumbass".
Yes, support the booming prison industry!
Yes, make this cheaper so they can buy more super-happy-"nonlethal"-weapons to try out on demonstrators and random nearby civilians!
Oh right, I can see the connection between a DNA database and.. demonstrators. Riiight. Good one.
Law enforcement is fun to critisize sometimes, but please keep in mind that without them, your geeky anti-prison ass would probably have been shot in the face by now.
Slashdot Mirror
The worst part of illegal drugs is that so many of them are addictive. There are two problems:
- some impoverished individual may turn to drugs to lessen his/her pain.
- the addiction that results, preventing said individual from putting his/her life back together.
It could also be argued that the 'escape' from problems is addictive enough, without chemical addiction.There are countless reasons a person's life may fall apart. Unfortunately, the government can't help with all of those situations, and it it probably not a good idea for it to help with most of them.
What it *can* do to help, though, is to prevent you from stupidly compounding your problems by adding a drug addiction into the mix.
The 'additional risks' you point out are pretty silly - no sane person would argue that those risks outweigh the risks associated with drug use.
This "optimization" will not have any long-lasting benefits. There are at least three variables in this equation:
This optimization only addresses #3, which is the least likely to grow as time goes on.
The guy who came up with the idea for RSS should be sent back to comp. sci. 101. It should have been readily apparent from day 1 that this would be a problem.
Some sort of peer-to-peer event-driven model would be a better match for this problem.
Hah. It took you almost a whole day to come up with that?
And the best you could do was some lame crack at my sig?
I would have expected more from you, "silicon not in the v".
At best, this tactic means that you pre-empt the user from arguing that you gave them something they didn't want. It does *not* mean you gave them a usable interface.
The goal is to make something the user can actually use, not to eliminate a valid avenue for them to ask for improvement, or to make them feel guilty about being shitty ui designers.
The average developer knows zero about good ui design. The average user knows less than that.
Assuming they have a good enough understanding of the way traffic works, they could change to a closed-loop prediction model that would converge on a correct answer even in the face of feedback.
Do city planners have access to this sort of technology? It stands to reason that if the people designing the roads had a better understanding of traffic dynamics, they could design better road systems, and increase capacity proactively.
Already registered. Redirects to whitehouse.gov.
They also need some way to sort the collection.
Here ya go:
Glad I could help.
...and I feel 100% less productive now that I don't have my own office. Ah, those were the days. I miss my office.
I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.
Because then all the whiners would start talking about unfair business tactics.
Sorta like.. cable tv and movie theatres.
Was anyone else really pissed to start seeing swiffer wet-jet commercials before feature-length movies at the theatre?
To avoid being charged, forward this message to everyone on your contact list! AOL will keep track of how many people forward this and if enough of us do, then they will be forced to keep AIM free! Thanks!
To address your other point, I think we should take DNA samples at birth. That would level the playing field, so previous arrests don't tip the scales at all. This may just be a gradual shift in that direction.
I will admit that this limitation probably won't stand the test of time, and one day there will be machines capable of producing these things. However, I think it's much simpler to realize that they can already frame someone today by collecting hair samples from your brush or comb. Why use the million-dollar machine to fake evidence when you can just collect it the old fashioned way?
hmm... maybe he's an ass-face. :-) or butt-head.
Please explain something to me.
Gladly.
How does this help to commit me of the original crime? In fact, you can't because that would be double jeapordy. All it would do is help identify me.
Who said anything about the original crime? You were innocent of the first crime. It's the second crime we're concerned with here.
In fact, it wouldn't do a damn thing. It would help you identify that DNA found at the second crime matched mine
Yes, that is exactly what we want. The ability to locate suspects based on DNA evidence left at a crime scene. No different than fingerprints, video cameras, eye-witness reports, etc.
Since I was innocent of the first crime, I should be presumed innocent of the second. You can't approach it as "he's guilty because we already had his dna from the last time he was wrongly accused!".
The two crimes are totally separate. In the U.S., you are assumed innocent of all crimes, until proven guilty. That has nothing to do with what previous crimes you may or may not have committed.
Thing is, crime or not, you can't go around presuming the guilt of people who are innocent. Dumbass.
There is no presumption of guilt here. This is simply a way to provide suspects. Even if there is some of your DNA at a crime scene, that doesn't even come close to proving you committed the crime. Nobody said anything about automatic convictions, or double jeopardy or anything of the sort. Please try to formulate meaningful arguments before going around calling people "dumbass".
Law enforcement is fun to critisize sometimes, but please keep in mind that without them, your geeky anti-prison ass would probably have been shot in the face by now.