That is sort of a concern. On the whole, these spikes likely wouldn't show anything out of ordinary is views as a total for a year or quarter or something long range. But because the data is available for shorter periods of time, it was found quickly.
So did the company or the city alter the cams in order to increase revenue and make the camera pay for itself or is there a completely different explanation. Right now, it seems they were altered and not documented then altered back.
These RLC citations, at least in Ohio (some areas of Ohio that I know of), were issued as a civil penalty or some bullshit like that and there is absolutely no court involved at all and no way to challenge outside of an administration hearing with the company who leases the cameras to the city and a board created by the city. In Ohio, there are several court cases challenging the constitutionality of them because of this and it went in front of the state supreme court. We are waiting on their ruling.
The state legislature is attempting to create a law mandating that a police officer be present when the violation occurs and the camera captures it. They tried to ban them at one time but ran into some constitutional issues with the home rule provisions in the state constitution.
No, society has to accept errors happen and strive to avoid them while not forgoing the process altogether. That is why when we find an error, instead of saying "but he was convicted anyways, let him rot", we release them and allow them to sue for reparations.
You are 100% right though. In that errors cannot be avoided. But they shouldn't be accepted either.
Sigh... I took his comment to mean that brakes in good working order would fail not that they would wear out.
If that was a defect rate for brakes in all cars manufactured. A 0.05% is excellent. It means you have a 99.95% chance of buying a car without the brakes failing.
actually no.. Take GM's recent recall about a spring in the key mechanism that was too weak. GM identified it caused 31 crashes and 13 deaths but is recalling 8.2 million vehicles over the problem. So 31 crashes out of 8.2 million vehicles is about a.000378048 % failure rate. GM is facing lawsuits, paid an record civil penalty, and it constantly being grilled on capitol hill by congress and government agencies because a number far less that.05% was not excellent.
Is doing better actually acceptable when wrong convicting an innocent person?
Everything in our justice system is supposed to be geared to allowing guilty people walk if there is any real doubt in order to escape convicting innocent people. sometimes it doesn't seem like it is still that way and sometimes is seems like the more guilty a person is, the less punishment they get while fringe cases are made examples of, but we need to strive to ensure innocent people are not punished if at all possible.
It's worse in my town. they shortened the green light on busy cross streets along the main drag with the red light cameras. You are lucky to get two cars through now and if you are waiting for apposing traffic before turning left, you will be in the intersection when your light turns red. They did this right after the cameras went up.
Luckily, soon after the cameras went up, the state and a court said they couldn't be used pending a couple court cases over them. One judge already called it "criminal" in one of the cases and another called it racketeering so I think the state supreme court might not allow them either. The state (Ohio) is not banking on the courts, they are trying to pass legislation that would bar their use unless a cop was at the intersection witnessing the infraction.
One of the very first yellow light studies was conducted over Chillicothe Ohio's cams. I don't know if this is the original or not (I originally remember reading a PDF about it and from another site) but this explains a lot of the problem with short yellows.
First, there is a lot of information pointing to the rebel scum really early in this happening. It's almost as if it was prepared in advance in order to hand out once the rebel scum shot it down.
Finally, can we trust anyone who has an axe to grind this early in the game? It seems like everyone pointing fingers is in a position to want someone else to look bad. The Danes are going to investigate so I think I will wait until they report before I believe anything concrete. I'm not saying they are not corruptible, I just don't see anything they would gain right at the moment.
Well, as lpng as we are going conspiracy here, wasn't the US trying to get the EU to impose sanctions on Russia and most EU countries were afraid it would have negetive impacts on their economies? I bet they support sanctions now.
Just as a reference, a typicle semi truck running down the highway will have almost 50,000 lbs carying capacity or roughly 25 tons. And these are not built to operate off road or with debris in the road. So if one of these shows up with supplies for disaster relief or whatever, its about the same as trucking in 12 fully loaded semis -or more if you figure the reduced hauling capacity from suring them up to operate in those conditions.
You would hope it would destroy the unemployment issues. However, i have serious doubts if the economic growth doesn't improve and workers retiring is the solution to unemployment. There will likely be problems negating and improvements.
Its sad. But i have little hope of real economic improvement any time soon. I agree that low unemployment is the best way to increase wages and brnefits.
What part og you're ugly or you're stupid is sexual or gender based?
And your insistance on having conversations in your head has nothing to do with me. You can disagree with me all day long. Just do not pretend i have said or done something when i nnever participated in your fantasies at all. Here you are trying to do it again using my telling you not to as an excuse.
Why do people have conversations with themselves and impose the results onto others as if they actually participated in them?
I mean seriously, the topic is sexual harassment, the parent post complained about the illegitimacy of the inclusion as sexual harassment, I made a comment about how it was not sexual so should not be included as sexual harassment and now all the sudden you know all about my life while taking the position that it doesn't matter if it is sexual or not to be included as sexual harassment.
You make it sound like no-one thought of changes in demographics before now. The SS trust fund has always had assumptions about longevity built in. And the US is not outside of that predicted range (actually a little under, IIRC.)
I don't know how I made it sound anything of the sort. I simply commented on the life expectancy difference between dates.
The problems with the SS trust fund are purely due to the artificial contributions cap combined with the decline in median household income relative to GDP. The planners didn't expect to lose the gains in income equality over the prior to the '80s. (If the national income is more concentrated at the top end, and you exclude the top end from contributing....)
That's not the problem at all. Income inequality has little to do with it. Unemployment is rampant which hurts the basic premise of the social security schema. Add to that the problem of a somewhat negative population growth and it throws it all out of whack.
You see, the planners forecast population growth and the idea was that about 80% of the working population would pay for around 15% in social security benefits. I left 5% off because there will be some eligible to draw benefits but continue to work and end up paying their allotment back in penalties. But when you have a boom in population growth and then it slows, you end up with 25% or better of the population being over the age of retirement (in 2010, there was something like 20.7% of 65 and over compared to 18-64 with roughly 8% under 18 compared to the same source and another 41.9% coming.)
Or in other words, currently, the number of people 65 and over is equal to 20.7% of people of working age. The number of people under 18 year old who will replace the retiring workers is equal to roughly 8% of the current working age population. But the number of people within 18 years of being 65 is roughly 42% of the current working population. this means that 42% will leave while only 8% replaces them leaving a deficit of 34% without bothering to estimate the number of retirees who will still be with us and dependent on Social Security or the number of working age people and others who had tragic events happen and draw from the system too..
But I like you try to push income inequality as a leading factor. It shows you are willing to make something up to push the idea and I bet people believed you too.
It isn't that people didn't live long lives, it is that the average or median age of death was lower. Of course social security was implemented in 1935 not 1800, but the numbers may actually surprise you.
He can do a hostile take over which basically means he or his company ends up cpntrolling 51 percent of the voting stock and puts his own management team in charge and forces a merger.
He doesn't have to own 51% of the stock, just enough to be able to vote and somehow manage to get enough other stock holders to side with him ( and yes, paying them is a valid tactic).
It always amazes me when a discussion about the size of government turns into whining about the sales tax and crap impacting the poorer the hardest from the same people who want bigger government.
Logic would suggest that if we didn't have to pay for lots of government, we wouldn't need to tax some much. But alas, it gets lost i guess. Especially when small verses big government is typically focused on the federal government and sales tax as well as most other regressive taxes come from state and local governments.
Give him.a break, he is still new to online rantings about this crap. I mean he got quite a few things completely wrong in concept and fact.
First, he cannot be talking about Reagan as he was elected in 1980 not 81. I know you just assumed because he took office like all presidents- the first month of the yesr following the election, but you actually encourage idiocy when you fill in the blanks for them.
For some reason, he thinks no one registers for the draft any more. Despite the fact we have a volunter military, the draft is still there and males still have to register when they turn 18. Perhaps calling it the selective service threw him off?
And while he talks about taxes like its his money or something, he either doesn't know about all the loopholes you could have to escape those taxes. Yes, that guy elected in 1980 stopped a doctor from buying a luxury boat, taking his receptionist out on it and banging her a few times, calling it a business expene and writing it off his 70 and 90% taxes.
But since he talked in platitudes, its hard to pin down specifics. But here is one that seems to challenge his premis. More people habe bettered their lives since Reagan was president than at any other time since 1933.
First, a service level agreement is essentially what third party providers purchase when thry buy a fast lane. And they do pay a lot more for it (normal access fees and a fast lane fee).
Second, if the ISP is purposely limiting your connection speeds, they are defrauding you as a customer as the up yo or best effort speeds will have to be lower than what they represented and you purchased. There simply is no way around it. If the premium service is being paid by a third party, the incentive will be for service that doesn't suck because it can demand a higher rate for the servicelevel agreement (fast lane) from the third party.
Finally, you seem to be wanting to argue against what i said by bringing up other than what i said. I specifically set conditions to my statement of acceptance of fast lanes. Its like i said i would go swimming if a life guard was on duty and you are harping about how dangerous it is to swin without one so i shouldn't swim at all ever.
And that can be done. There is typically available bandwidth outside what is used for internet service and the fast-lane can use that and be switched to your specific leg of the drop at the last moment.
In effect, the fast lane would be carried outside the regular service and combined right before it hits your house or building sidestepping the service congestion. and if it cannot, then they cannot have a fast lane.
Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a fast lane _as_long_as no customers are getting less than what they purchased in order to have it. If that cannot happen, then no fast lane. It is not a hard concept and you describing situation where it wouldn't happen doesn't really apply.
Slashdot Mirror
That is sort of a concern. On the whole, these spikes likely wouldn't show anything out of ordinary is views as a total for a year or quarter or something long range. But because the data is available for shorter periods of time, it was found quickly.
So did the company or the city alter the cams in order to increase revenue and make the camera pay for itself or is there a completely different explanation. Right now, it seems they were altered and not documented then altered back.
No, you cannot always.
These RLC citations, at least in Ohio (some areas of Ohio that I know of), were issued as a civil penalty or some bullshit like that and there is absolutely no court involved at all and no way to challenge outside of an administration hearing with the company who leases the cameras to the city and a board created by the city. In Ohio, there are several court cases challenging the constitutionality of them because of this and it went in front of the state supreme court. We are waiting on their ruling.
The state legislature is attempting to create a law mandating that a police officer be present when the violation occurs and the camera captures it. They tried to ban them at one time but ran into some constitutional issues with the home rule provisions in the state constitution.
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
No, society has to accept errors happen and strive to avoid them while not forgoing the process altogether. That is why when we find an error, instead of saying "but he was convicted anyways, let him rot", we release them and allow them to sue for reparations.
You are 100% right though. In that errors cannot be avoided. But they shouldn't be accepted either.
Sigh... I took his comment to mean that brakes in good working order would fail not that they would wear out.
If that was a defect rate for brakes in all cars manufactured. A 0.05% is excellent. It means you have a 99.95% chance of buying a car without the brakes failing.
actually no.. Take GM's recent recall about a spring in the key mechanism that was too weak. GM identified it caused 31 crashes and 13 deaths but is recalling 8.2 million vehicles over the problem. So 31 crashes out of 8.2 million vehicles is about a .000378048 % failure rate. GM is facing lawsuits, paid an record civil penalty, and it constantly being grilled on capitol hill by congress and government agencies because a number far less that .05% was not excellent.
Is doing better actually acceptable when wrong convicting an innocent person?
Everything in our justice system is supposed to be geared to allowing guilty people walk if there is any real doubt in order to escape convicting innocent people. sometimes it doesn't seem like it is still that way and sometimes is seems like the more guilty a person is, the less punishment they get while fringe cases are made examples of, but we need to strive to ensure innocent people are not punished if at all possible.
It's worse in my town. they shortened the green light on busy cross streets along the main drag with the red light cameras. You are lucky to get two cars through now and if you are waiting for apposing traffic before turning left, you will be in the intersection when your light turns red. They did this right after the cameras went up.
Luckily, soon after the cameras went up, the state and a court said they couldn't be used pending a couple court cases over them. One judge already called it "criminal" in one of the cases and another called it racketeering so I think the state supreme court might not allow them either. The state (Ohio) is not banking on the courts, they are trying to pass legislation that would bar their use unless a cop was at the intersection witnessing the infraction.
One of the very first yellow light studies was conducted over Chillicothe Ohio's cams. I don't know if this is the original or not (I originally remember reading a PDF about it and from another site) but this explains a lot of the problem with short yellows.
http://www.shortyellowlights.c...
I suspect that someone will challenge this on constitutional grounds as the state coining money.
First, there is a lot of information pointing to the rebel scum really early in this happening. It's almost as if it was prepared in advance in order to hand out once the rebel scum shot it down.
Second, who benefits the most from this?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
Finally, can we trust anyone who has an axe to grind this early in the game? It seems like everyone pointing fingers is in a position to want someone else to look bad. The Danes are going to investigate so I think I will wait until they report before I believe anything concrete. I'm not saying they are not corruptible, I just don't see anything they would gain right at the moment.
Well, how does your possibilities look considering this?
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
I cannot say there is a connection or not, but as long as we are speculating, we might as well speculate.
Well, as lpng as we are going conspiracy here, wasn't the US trying to get the EU to impose sanctions on Russia and most EU countries were afraid it would have negetive impacts on their economies? I bet they support sanctions now.
Just as a reference, a typicle semi truck running down the highway will have almost 50,000 lbs carying capacity or roughly 25 tons. And these are not built to operate off road or with debris in the road. So if one of these shows up with supplies for disaster relief or whatever, its about the same as trucking in 12 fully loaded semis -or more if you figure the reduced hauling capacity from suring them up to operate in those conditions.
Sigh...
Not all harassment is sexual harassment. Please show me a dictionary that claims it is.
You would hope it would destroy the unemployment issues. However, i have serious doubts if the economic growth doesn't improve and workers retiring is the solution to unemployment. There will likely be problems negating and improvements.
Its sad. But i have little hope of real economic improvement any time soon. I agree that low unemployment is the best way to increase wages and brnefits.
What part og you're ugly or you're stupid is sexual or gender based?
And your insistance on having conversations in your head has nothing to do with me. You can disagree with me all day long. Just do not pretend i have said or done something when i nnever participated in your fantasies at all. Here you are trying to do it again using my telling you not to as an excuse.
Why do people have conversations with themselves and impose the results onto others as if they actually participated in them?
I mean seriously, the topic is sexual harassment, the parent post complained about the illegitimacy of the inclusion as sexual harassment, I made a comment about how it was not sexual so should not be included as sexual harassment and now all the sudden you know all about my life while taking the position that it doesn't matter if it is sexual or not to be included as sexual harassment.
Please, go back on your meds.
I don't know how I made it sound anything of the sort. I simply commented on the life expectancy difference between dates.
That's not the problem at all. Income inequality has little to do with it. Unemployment is rampant which hurts the basic premise of the social security schema. Add to that the problem of a somewhat negative population growth and it throws it all out of whack.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...
You see, the planners forecast population growth and the idea was that about 80% of the working population would pay for around 15% in social security benefits. I left 5% off because there will be some eligible to draw benefits but continue to work and end up paying their allotment back in penalties. But when you have a boom in population growth and then it slows, you end up with 25% or better of the population being over the age of retirement (in 2010, there was something like 20.7% of 65 and over compared to 18-64 with roughly 8% under 18 compared to the same source and another 41.9% coming.)
Or in other words, currently, the number of people 65 and over is equal to 20.7% of people of working age. The number of people under 18 year old who will replace the retiring workers is equal to roughly 8% of the current working age population. But the number of people within 18 years of being 65 is roughly 42% of the current working population. this means that 42% will leave while only 8% replaces them leaving a deficit of 34% without bothering to estimate the number of retirees who will still be with us and dependent on Social Security or the number of working age people and others who had tragic events happen and draw from the system too..
http://factfinder2.census.gov/...
But I like you try to push income inequality as a leading factor. It shows you are willing to make something up to push the idea and I bet people believed you too.
So no.. it is not unless you are some weirdo looking for an excuse to claim sexual harassment.
Whether it does or doe not contribute to a healthy work environment, is it sexual harassment?
I say no.
That's is money changes hands. It's possible that the regulators simply sympathize and go directly to collaborator/protector.
It isn't that people didn't live long lives, it is that the average or median age of death was lower. Of course social security was implemented in 1935 not 1800, but the numbers may actually surprise you.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...
That should give you some interesting comparisons.
It depends on how badly he wants it.
He can do a hostile take over which basically means he or his company ends up cpntrolling 51 percent of the voting stock and puts his own management team in charge and forces a merger.
He doesn't have to own 51% of the stock, just enough to be able to vote and somehow manage to get enough other stock holders to side with him ( and yes, paying them is a valid tactic).
It always amazes me when a discussion about the size of government turns into whining about the sales tax and crap impacting the poorer the hardest from the same people who want bigger government.
Logic would suggest that if we didn't have to pay for lots of government, we wouldn't need to tax some much. But alas, it gets lost i guess. Especially when small verses big government is typically focused on the federal government and sales tax as well as most other regressive taxes come from state and local governments.
Give him.a break, he is still new to online rantings about this crap. I mean he got quite a few things completely wrong in concept and fact.
First, he cannot be talking about Reagan as he was elected in 1980 not 81. I know you just assumed because he took office like all presidents- the first month of the yesr following the election, but you actually encourage idiocy when you fill in the blanks for them.
For some reason, he thinks no one registers for the draft any more. Despite the fact we have a volunter military, the draft is still there and males still have to register when they turn 18. Perhaps calling it the selective service threw him off?
And while he talks about taxes like its his money or something, he either doesn't know about all the loopholes you could have to escape those taxes. Yes, that guy elected in 1980 stopped a doctor from buying a luxury boat, taking his receptionist out on it and banging her a few times, calling it a business expene and writing it off his 70 and 90% taxes.
But since he talked in platitudes, its hard to pin down specifics. But here is one that seems to challenge his premis. More people habe bettered their lives since Reagan was president than at any other time since 1933.
First, a service level agreement is essentially what third party providers purchase when thry buy a fast lane. And they do pay a lot more for it (normal access fees and a fast lane fee).
Second, if the ISP is purposely limiting your connection speeds, they are defrauding you as a customer as the up yo or best effort speeds will have to be lower than what they represented and you purchased. There simply is no way around it. If the premium service is being paid by a third party, the incentive will be for service that doesn't suck because it can demand a higher rate for the servicelevel agreement (fast lane) from the third party.
Finally, you seem to be wanting to argue against what i said by bringing up other than what i said. I specifically set conditions to my statement of acceptance of fast lanes. Its like i said i would go swimming if a life guard was on duty and you are harping about how dangerous it is to swin without one so i shouldn't swim at all ever.
And that can be done. There is typically available bandwidth outside what is used for internet service and the fast-lane can use that and be switched to your specific leg of the drop at the last moment.
In effect, the fast lane would be carried outside the regular service and combined right before it hits your house or building sidestepping the service congestion. and if it cannot, then they cannot have a fast lane.
Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a fast lane _as_long_as no customers are getting less than what they purchased in order to have it. If that cannot happen, then no fast lane. It is not a hard concept and you describing situation where it wouldn't happen doesn't really apply.