Not even close to the same. People who make false reports will be quickly identified and ignored. The video itself doesn't disappear, so completely bogus complaints will be thrown out before anyone goes knocking on doors. This is not a he said she said contest. This is backed up by the video itself.
He also says it is inevitable -- with cameras getting cheaper and smaller and better by the day, the time will come when everyone will be wearing several cameras for 360 recording of what's around them, sent wirelessly back to central servers, probably never to be deleted, ever, with the cost of storage dropping as fast. The time will come when any bad guy will leave traces on so many recordings, all of which will ne annotated with time and lat/lon, that it will be a trivial matter to back track thru all the cameras in the area and trace the perp back far enough for identification. Physical crime will become pretty rare. So will phoney alibis, all sorts of cheatin' hearts, the murky deeds of hypocritical politicians.... it's going to be an interesting future, this global village with no privacy. I look forward to it. It will take some time to get used to the lack of privacy, but the tradeoff -- the *inevitable* tradeoff -- will be well worth it, and those who grow up with this will have a fantasticaly different mindset from those of us living now..
So anybody can be challenged for anything now, just because somebody who's trying to win a chunk of money thinks they saw something wrong?
No. Not just "because somebody thinks they saw something". The video is the proof. Unless this is so brain dead as to rely strictly on what people say they saw and the video is not kept around.
Anything even close to properly run would screen out those who cry wolf. This isn't hearsay. This is video for everyone to see.
The problem with surveillance cameras is not the cameras themselves, but who watches the watchers? Cops have been shown to zoom in on bedroom windows, innocent women on the street, just being official and unpunishable peeping toms.
Now the watchers are the public. I have zero problems with this kind of full time surveillance cameras. The best thing to happen to civilian control of the police state since Rodney King and cell phone videos.
Every president from WW II up to and including Carter decreased the national debtleft over from the Depression and WW II. Reagan and Bush II doubled it; Bush I increaed it but wasn't around long enough to double it. Reagan and Bush II cut taxes but not spending, which any 3rd grader could have told them was pretty braindead. Clinton balanced the budget, again, and began paying down the deficit, again. Once you assign this failed economy recovery costs to Bush II because it happened on his watch, he far more than doubled the deficit.
The $60 trillion unfunded mandate is silly. All of those mandates are deliberately funded by ongoing taxes. You can't count future expenditures without counting future taxes, and since neither are known with any certainty, it's pretty pointless propaganda to count either one, let alone just one and not the other. Besides which, one of those bleeding hearts you denigrate for non-essential unfunded mandates is Bush II with his poorly conceived and executed prescription plan, the biggest increase in unfunded mandates since LBJ.
As for the founding fathers... you ought to look at the things they funded. read some history some time there's a lot of interesting things out there. They did not stick to just defense and crime and maybe roads. For one thing, crime was almost entirely a state or local problem, there being few federal crimes. Your conflation of federal and state funding right there labels you as an opportunistic cherry picker. Don't try to suddenly ignore state funding of all sorts of non-essential things now that you have based part of your argument on said non-essential funding. You can't use that cake while pretending you don't know about it.
You must be a typical braindead so-called conservative to spout nonsense like that, whether you believe it yourself or not. Your ignorance and arrogance are appalling but typical.
Even if I believed that they believed what they had been told, I wouldn't believe they had been told or understood the full truth, I wouldn't believe they always followed all security precautions (like logging out when not at their desks), and I wouldn't believe that their kind of lax physical security made them safe.
Then you have no soul. Old classic cars are not good *cars* as such, but they are classics, and that one in particular looked like it was in pretty good shape. Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.
100 km (62.x miles) is where NASA considers space to start for purposes of being labeled an astronaut. That's where the Space X prize boundary was, I believe for that reason.
I know you meant this as a joke (I thought it was pretty funny), but seriously it does annoy me that people read words into the second amendment that aren't there, and ignore clear writings from the founding fathers that arms were intended for all uses, not just self-defense, but including hunting for food.
A firearm is a firearm, not a political or social football to be kicked around according to your own private whims.
I would have prefered not to write this anonymously, but because what I have to say is not very "pro soldiers"[There's a new phrase!]. Its not anti-soldier either, its[apostrophe missing] an observation from having been in the armed forces myself.
I have worked on a deployment as an intelligence analyst in the Balkans. My job was to read "patrol reports"[unnecessary quotes] squad leaders / platoon leaders would write up after their patrols. I can say this with experience that most of the grunts I have worked with have a reading / writing level of less an 8th grade student. Their ability to translate experience into the written word is often very poor, and hard to translate. A lot of the work was shoddy at best, and required additional "questioning"[unnecessary quotes] of the patrol leader and its members in order to find out any information of value. Probably 20% of the time, the additional questioning[dropped the unnecessary quotes, I see] yielded actual useful information.
This lack of literacy does not entail[This verb fits not the situation] that these individuals are stupid or incapable. That is a very dangerous assumption to make, and is often not true at all. Its[apostrophe] very simple, most of the infantrymen learn by doing, and not by reading. They are experts at executing breaches and urban combat operations once instructed, and can adapt very well. But I wouldnt[apostrophe] trust them to write a document I'm going to hand to fresh recruits. Thats[apostrophe] work best left for the officers.
For some of the listed field manuals (in particular Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations) this will probably work, for others, it will probably end up being white washed[it's a single word, not two] by field experienced officers. I expect most soldiers will also expect[I expect you are overusing this word] the white wash[it's still a single word] to occur, but I think this is a very good compromise[this seems to end the sentence] and positive adaptation[without an "a" before the noun, it seems to start a new sentence or clause requiring its own verb] of technology to shape doctrine and benefit[then this shows up like a noun without a verb or a verb without a subject] from collective experiences.
My question for the slashdot crowd is this: Is there better technology than a wiki to organize collective experience?
You might start with some individual expertise of that which you denigrate.
You need to distinguish what is understandable language from what your personal tastes find unappealing. Your dislike of some idiomatic usage does not make it non-language.
Your comparison to leet-speak is telling; do you also find other languages unacceptable? I am sure it is quite annoying for you to face a language you can't read. But that does not make them unacceptable.
As for being juvenile, that is your opinion of the context. Throwing foreign languages into a conversation just to show off my language skills would no doubt be thought juvenile in many quarters, but that does not make them unacceptable as languages either.
Except that you understood it, and thus it is perfectly acceptable language. That's the beauty of a living language -- it evolves.
Now if I had wanted to complain about your abuse of the language, I would have told you to put quotes around your first use of This, excuse me, I mean "This".
No, I didn't miss the point, not even slightly. The point is government interference, even Big Brother. The point is that if they actually did want to, they could raise gas taxes. Hell, they haven't been raised in years, and inflation is something everybody understands. Peg it to inflation, make the increases automatic. Most people would bitch but still understand.
The added cost of the equipment in each car -- that won't be cheap. The equipment to read it -- does that happen once a year, once a month, at the gas station... that won't be cheap. The enforcement hassles, everything you can think of is wrong with this. This is ought to be in the dictionary under "Rube Goldberg".
The tire tax is an interesting idea, and it would catch electric vehicles. Especially if it is not a straight percentage tax, but based on type of tire, so it corresponds more closely to wear and tear caused by different types of vehicles.
Or if they insist on a mileage tax, do it by odometer reading when you renew your registration every year. Pretty simple and quick -- drive up, someone sticks his head in the side window, writes it down or even punches it into the computer, done. You could even do it on the honor system, and add it to the things written down when you get a traffic ticket -- most of the people who would lie are also the types to speed, overstay meters, etc, so they would be caught, and a simple $100 or $200 fine in addition, plus enforced inspection at the next couple of reregistrations, would keep that kind of cheating under control.
But this GPS deal is a boondoggle, nothing less, the most horrendously complicated perverse way of collecting tax for roads, and it is all too easy to think there must be ulterior Big Brother motives.
Original troll modded 0, my retroll modded -1 Troll, then his response +1 Insightful? and my reretroll modded -1 Offtopic?!? Come on, give me at least a -1 Flamebait. I stayed very clearly on the original poster's troll topic.
Buncha Fundamentalist Christians running around here, I swear. I'm surprised they have so much time to waste on slashdot with that... thing... in the formerly white house. On the other hand, good to get them riled up and venting their bile here rather than on talk radio.
Fundamentalist Islam goes back 1300 years? Fundamentalist Christianity goes back 2000 years! Ha! The ignorant Christians beat the ignorant Muslims again.
Then there's the fact that the ignorant fundamentalist Christians don't even know their own bible, calling gay marriage an affront to traditional Christian marriage, ignoring the Mormons in their modern day midst who are more Christian in their views on marrying multiple wives (but not multiple husbands) and at a young age too. Yes, let's bring back traditional biblical marriage, widows being forced to marry their brother-in-laws, multiple young wives, all that good Christian marriage stuff.
This explains why the Vikings conquered the Mediterranean where the Assyrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans failed so miserably to make much of any kind of impression on history, and how the North Americans, who came from Asia and were the farthest removed from Africa, conquered the Europeans who were so much closer to Africa and had interbred with the dirty Neanderthals. Ditto for the Australians, who were also so far removed from Africa and conquered Europe too.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that craptastic nonsense the contorted rationalization you had to come up with to justify your fantasies involving Asian boys?
Not even close to the same. People who make false reports will be quickly identified and ignored. The video itself doesn't disappear, so completely bogus complaints will be thrown out before anyone goes knocking on doors. This is not a he said she said contest. This is backed up by the video itself.
He also says it is inevitable -- with cameras getting cheaper and smaller and better by the day, the time will come when everyone will be wearing several cameras for 360 recording of what's around them, sent wirelessly back to central servers, probably never to be deleted, ever, with the cost of storage dropping as fast. The time will come when any bad guy will leave traces on so many recordings, all of which will ne annotated with time and lat/lon, that it will be a trivial matter to back track thru all the cameras in the area and trace the perp back far enough for identification. Physical crime will become pretty rare. So will phoney alibis, all sorts of cheatin' hearts, the murky deeds of hypocritical politicians .... it's going to be an interesting future, this global village with no privacy. I look forward to it. It will take some time to get used to the lack of privacy, but the tradeoff -- the *inevitable* tradeoff -- will be well worth it, and those who grow up with this will have a fantasticaly different mindset from those of us living now..
So anybody can be challenged for anything now, just because somebody who's trying to win a chunk of money thinks they saw something wrong?
No. Not just "because somebody thinks they saw something". The video is the proof. Unless this is so brain dead as to rely strictly on what people say they saw and the video is not kept around.
Anything even close to properly run would screen out those who cry wolf. This isn't hearsay. This is video for everyone to see.
The problem with surveillance cameras is not the cameras themselves, but who watches the watchers? Cops have been shown to zoom in on bedroom windows, innocent women on the street, just being official and unpunishable peeping toms.
Now the watchers are the public. I have zero problems with this kind of full time surveillance cameras. The best thing to happen to civilian control of the police state since Rodney King and cell phone videos.
Typical unthinking knee jerk response.
Every president from WW II up to and including Carter decreased the national debtleft over from the Depression and WW II. Reagan and Bush II doubled it; Bush I increaed it but wasn't around long enough to double it. Reagan and Bush II cut taxes but not spending, which any 3rd grader could have told them was pretty braindead. Clinton balanced the budget, again, and began paying down the deficit, again. Once you assign this failed economy recovery costs to Bush II because it happened on his watch, he far more than doubled the deficit.
The $60 trillion unfunded mandate is silly. All of those mandates are deliberately funded by ongoing taxes. You can't count future expenditures without counting future taxes, and since neither are known with any certainty, it's pretty pointless propaganda to count either one, let alone just one and not the other. Besides which, one of those bleeding hearts you denigrate for non-essential unfunded mandates is Bush II with his poorly conceived and executed prescription plan, the biggest increase in unfunded mandates since LBJ.
As for the founding fathers ... you ought to look at the things they funded. read some history some time there's a lot of interesting things out there. They did not stick to just defense and crime and maybe roads. For one thing, crime was almost entirely a state or local problem, there being few federal crimes. Your conflation of federal and state funding right there labels you as an opportunistic cherry picker. Don't try to suddenly ignore state funding of all sorts of non-essential things now that you have based part of your argument on said non-essential funding. You can't use that cake while pretending you don't know about it.
You must be a typical braindead so-called conservative to spout nonsense like that, whether you believe it yourself or not. Your ignorance and arrogance are appalling but typical.
One request every 3 seconds
He didn't do that with his fingers. He installed a small Perl program which did both download and upload.
Guess you're the one who didn't RTFA.
Nuclear.
Comparatively cheap per megawatt
Not really. In reality, it's one of the most expensive. You ought to get some up to date facts. This has been known for a decade or two.
Are you sure about that?
Nobody loves me, but my mother,
And she could me jivin' too.
And you believed them?
Even if I believed that they believed what they had been told, I wouldn't believe they had been told or understood the full truth, I wouldn't believe they always followed all security precautions (like logging out when not at their desks), and I wouldn't believe that their kind of lax physical security made them safe.
I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up.
Then you have no soul. Old classic cars are not good *cars* as such, but they are classics, and that one in particular looked like it was in pretty good shape. Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.
100 km (62.x miles) is where NASA considers space to start for purposes of being labeled an astronaut. That's where the Space X prize boundary was, I believe for that reason.
I can't believe Mel is fading from slashdot consciousness so quickly.
The Story of Mel
I am crestfallen to not have thought of that.
No, those are "breasted Americans".
I know you meant this as a joke (I thought it was pretty funny), but seriously it does annoy me that people read words into the second amendment that aren't there, and ignore clear writings from the founding fathers that arms were intended for all uses, not just self-defense, but including hunting for food.
A firearm is a firearm, not a political or social football to be kicked around according to your own private whims.
That would probably violate any number of EPA toxic waste laws.
I would have prefered not to write this anonymously, but because what I have to say is not very "pro soldiers"[There's a new phrase!]. Its not anti-soldier either, its[apostrophe missing] an observation from having been in the armed forces myself.
I have worked on a deployment as an intelligence analyst in the Balkans. My job was to read "patrol reports"[unnecessary quotes] squad leaders / platoon leaders would write up after their patrols. I can say this with experience that most of the grunts I have worked with have a reading / writing level of less an 8th grade student. Their ability to translate experience into the written word is often very poor, and hard to translate. A lot of the work was shoddy at best, and required additional "questioning"[unnecessary quotes] of the patrol leader and its members in order to find out any information of value. Probably 20% of the time, the additional questioning[dropped the unnecessary quotes, I see] yielded actual useful information.
This lack of literacy does not entail[This verb fits not the situation] that these individuals are stupid or incapable. That is a very dangerous assumption to make, and is often not true at all. Its[apostrophe] very simple, most of the infantrymen learn by doing, and not by reading. They are experts at executing breaches and urban combat operations once instructed, and can adapt very well. But I wouldnt[apostrophe] trust them to write a document I'm going to hand to fresh recruits. Thats[apostrophe] work best left for the officers.
For some of the listed field manuals (in particular Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations) this will probably work, for others, it will probably end up being white washed[it's a single word, not two] by field experienced officers. I expect most soldiers will also expect[I expect you are overusing this word] the white wash[it's still a single word] to occur, but I think this is a very good compromise[this seems to end the sentence] and positive adaptation[without an "a" before the noun, it seems to start a new sentence or clause requiring its own verb] of technology to shape doctrine and benefit[then this shows up like a noun without a verb or a verb without a subject] from collective experiences.
My question for the slashdot crowd is this: Is there better technology than a wiki to organize collective experience?
You might start with some individual expertise of that which you denigrate.
You need to distinguish what is understandable language from what your personal tastes find unappealing. Your dislike of some idiomatic usage does not make it non-language.
Your comparison to leet-speak is telling; do you also find other languages unacceptable? I am sure it is quite annoying for you to face a language you can't read. But that does not make them unacceptable.
As for being juvenile, that is your opinion of the context. Throwing foreign languages into a conversation just to show off my language skills would no doubt be thought juvenile in many quarters, but that does not make them unacceptable as languages either.
Except that you understood it, and thus it is perfectly acceptable language. That's the beauty of a living language -- it evolves.
Now if I had wanted to complain about your abuse of the language, I would have told you to put quotes around your first use of This, excuse me, I mean "This".
No, I didn't miss the point, not even slightly. The point is government interference, even Big Brother. The point is that if they actually did want to, they could raise gas taxes. Hell, they haven't been raised in years, and inflation is something everybody understands. Peg it to inflation, make the increases automatic. Most people would bitch but still understand.
The added cost of the equipment in each car -- that won't be cheap. The equipment to read it -- does that happen once a year, once a month, at the gas station ... that won't be cheap. The enforcement hassles, everything you can think of is wrong with this. This is ought to be in the dictionary under "Rube Goldberg".
The tire tax is an interesting idea, and it would catch electric vehicles. Especially if it is not a straight percentage tax, but based on type of tire, so it corresponds more closely to wear and tear caused by different types of vehicles.
Or if they insist on a mileage tax, do it by odometer reading when you renew your registration every year. Pretty simple and quick -- drive up, someone sticks his head in the side window, writes it down or even punches it into the computer, done. You could even do it on the honor system, and add it to the things written down when you get a traffic ticket -- most of the people who would lie are also the types to speed, overstay meters, etc, so they would be caught, and a simple $100 or $200 fine in addition, plus enforced inspection at the next couple of reregistrations, would keep that kind of cheating under control.
But this GPS deal is a boondoggle, nothing less, the most horrendously complicated perverse way of collecting tax for roads, and it is all too easy to think there must be ulterior Big Brother motives.
Original troll modded 0, my retroll modded -1 Troll, then his response +1 Insightful? and my reretroll modded -1 Offtopic?!? Come on, give me at least a -1 Flamebait. I stayed very clearly on the original poster's troll topic.
Buncha Fundamentalist Christians running around here, I swear. I'm surprised they have so much time to waste on slashdot with that ... thing ... in the formerly white house. On the other hand, good to get them riled up and venting their bile here rather than on talk radio.
Raising the gas tax is far cheaper, impossible to turn into Big Brother, and localizes the the state and community pretty well, on average.
Fundamentalist Islam goes back 1300 years? Fundamentalist Christianity goes back 2000 years! Ha! The ignorant Christians beat the ignorant Muslims again.
Then there's the fact that the ignorant fundamentalist Christians don't even know their own bible, calling gay marriage an affront to traditional Christian marriage, ignoring the Mormons in their modern day midst who are more Christian in their views on marrying multiple wives (but not multiple husbands) and at a young age too. Yes, let's bring back traditional biblical marriage, widows being forced to marry their brother-in-laws, multiple young wives, all that good Christian marriage stuff.
Trolling the trolls is so much fun.
This explains why the Vikings conquered the Mediterranean where the Assyrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans failed so miserably to make much of any kind of impression on history, and how the North Americans, who came from Asia and were the farthest removed from Africa, conquered the Europeans who were so much closer to Africa and had interbred with the dirty Neanderthals. Ditto for the Australians, who were also so far removed from Africa and conquered Europe too.