but in a slowing economy, advertising budgets are going to be one of the last to be completely eliminated in hopes of attracting more customers.
I don't think you've ever worked in an advertising-related field. Advertising is often the "canary in the coalmine" - when things are going bad, advertising is often the first expense to be slashed. When an economy is recovering, advertising is often the first to benefit.
At this point, I'm not even sure that it's been settled that licenses are enforcible, given that their terms aren't available prior to the customer paying for the product, which makes it a sale or purchase.
It started with small touching with fingers/arms. It was routine - every day a few times I would put my octopus-looking hand in and she would embrace. And Pull - she wanted me to stay.
Yeah, it's all romantic and lovely at first... but then comes the tentacle rape.
Absolutely not true in most localities - camera violations in the US are almost universally treated as a civil code enforcement issue, and it's the code enforcement people, NOT the police, that follow up. Additionally, once you get the ticket, you don't get to argue before a judge or jury, you get to argue before a petty bureaucrat that has no incentive whatsoever to listen to your story, or care in the least about whether you're actually guilty or not.
Well, that's a bigger issue than the cameras. Justice shouldn't be outsourced like that. But it's not a strong argument against speed cameras, it's an argument against how the bureaucracy and enforcement is run.
The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light
But you said the ticket was initiated by the camera. Now you've changed the claim. Even though the camera "decides" to take a ticket, that doesn't mean every picture it takes is going to result in a ticket. So, the camera is independent of the ticketing process.
If you want to talk origins, then the ticket was originated by the people who decided to install the camera system.... no wait, the ticket was initiated by the people who invented photography!
I do not know what your point is of making a distinction between the camera and an 'automated system'.
My point is simply that the camera does not issues tickets. It takes photos to be used as data in a ticketing system. And yes, humans are involved. They program and operate the automated systems.
I respect your views that it's ok to have machines police us, but I disagree.
Do you have any suggestions on how it's feasible to police such large populations with so many miles of roadways, and not have us end up as a police state? If you hired enough humans to do that, we'd probably need 1 in 10 people (or more) being employed as a cop. The police union would end up being more powerful than the government. Corruption would probably be even more rampant than it is now.
I just don't think it's feasible to police on this scale without technological aid.
While I strongly feel that this benefit is not worth the cost, there's no denying it exists and if that's what's important to you then we have arrived at the classic "agree to disagree" moments.
What? How is the light from a flash supposed to produce enough interference as to make the image illegible? I've taken images straight into high-power studio strobe units, and there's no interference.
Right - but he said something of "equal luminance" to the light reflected from the plate. So, how would something of equal brightness to the object being photographed cause bloom? So that brings us back to having a flash unit "approximately as powerful as the sun" - now even if you have that, and it's enough to cause bloom, the bloom isn't likely to be big enough to obscure very far beyond the edges of the light source.
Anybody actually got any evidence of this working?
The IRS doesn't audit you without having a human involved in the process, nor do intelligence agencies leave the processing of flagged individuals up to computers.
Nor does the police department issue tickets without human involvement. Do you think the machines are completely autonomous and not operated by humans or something? I guess AI has come further than I thought!
That said, the fundamental problem with speed cameras is that they don't work.
Evidence? the seem to work fine. Millions of speeding tickets are issued every year around the world - so they do seem quite capable of detecting and documenting speeding. Much more so than a human-operated system, which isn't nearly as efficient.
A cop on the road with a speed gun slows everyone down,
I'm not getting this point - people slow down for speed cameras too. What makes you think they don't?
Speed cameras on the other hand, only pick up speeders, don't accurately identify the driver, don't deter the driver from further speeding,
Getting fines doesn't deter speeding? Potentially having your license revoked doesn't deter speeding? The penalties are the same whether a camera or a human documents the speeding - so why would cameras deter speeding any less than human officers?
The one and only thing that speed cameras do well is generate revenue.
I disagree... they seem to be remarkably effective at catching people breaking the law. they wouldn't be making any revenue if they weren't successfully catching people.
And what's wrong with generating money from people breaking the law, anyway? Police forces cost a lot of money to run. And it's not as if anybody has a right to speed. Would you prefer higher taxes on everybody?
The english language is full of problematic and nonsensical words and phrases; that doesn't make them any less valid.
Except when it does make them less valid. As in the case of "irregardless". What makes you think it is equally as valid as "regardless"? The dictionary you linked to doesn't agree.
But I'm sure the IRS has software that monitors various patterns and transactions, and which can "flag" a certain person or company for scrutiny. And likewise, intelligence agencies monitor internet and phone communications for suspicious activity. Regardless of semantics, we live in an age of automation. To say that law enforcement should ignore the advantages of technology is pretty dubious, IMO. Of course, they shouldn't abuse it either... but that's another matter.
Unfortunately, now there is no human judgement, you have to sit at that red light until it goes green and let the guy in the back of the ambulance die...otherwise you are in the wrong.
But the upside to that may be much greater than the downside. It means fewer bogus charges of "driving while black", and automated cameras can't be bribed. But there is still human judgement - that's in the hands of the court.
Yeah, that's going to work. Are you going to pay the taxes to employ enough human officers to enforce speeding across the entire US road system? And what's this "moral responsibility" you speak of? I don't see how it's immoral to use an automated system for policing, provided it's not abused. What your saying is akin to saying the the IRS has a moral responsibility not to use computers, and everything must be calculated by hand.
If anything, the automated cameras improve human policing - because the human officers can focus on things that require a human to police, rather than just being a human tripod for an electronic speed gun.
And red light cameras are abuse. Every study of red light cameras has shown that increasing the length of yellow lights to a minimum of seven seconds has the same benefits in terms of sideswipe accident reduction without the increased rate of rear end collisions,
Aside from abuse by officials, what does the red light camera have to do with the timing of lights? Why would a study of red light cameras concern itself with light timing? That would be a separate study, wouldn't it? I really doubt that "every study of red light cameras" makes claims about the proper timing of yellow lights.
If the lights are timed correctly, then what difference would having a red light camera make?
However, red light cameras do not make it safer. In most places, red light cameras INCREASE the occurrence of rear-end accidents because people are afraid they might get a ticket and stop short.
Not true. What you are claiming is based on a study of very specific places, not "most places". And it is also a misinterpretation of the study promoted by some anti-camera crusaders. The key point in those cases is that the timing of the yellow light had been tampered with. So, the cameras weren't causing the accidents - the altered timing of the lights caused them.
And it has been proven in certain cities that the governments are shortening the yellow-light times to catch people off guard. So even people who are not trying to "run" the light get caught in it.
So, obviously, the tampering is the problem, not the cameras. By focusing on the cameras rather than the tamperers, you are letting the real criminals off the hook. There are plenty of countries where there are red light cameras all over the place, and they don't tamper with light timings - the timings are based on standards and studies.
With those systems (not sure about the UK) you usually don't have to go to court. You can write a letter, or fill in a form that comes with the ticket, stating your argument. Only if that is not accepted, do you go to court.
Ignoring the vast majority of what the other sibling had to say concerning work, you have to understand that to a large part of America, working as a teenager is a necessity. It's their first chance to start seeing what the world is like.
Which is why we need better public transport options. Deal with the problem at the root. I know, it's a pipe dream. Not going to happen. But I don't think it excuses the terrible driving or screwing around with license plates.
I think the most practical solution would be to have extended probationary periods, and stronger restrictions on young drivers. So, they can still drive to work - but they have to be a lot more careful and take things more seriously. Heck, even for adults the licensing and training requirements should be much stricter. Tech people the seriousness of the responsibility, so the vehicle is not treated as a toy.
I think I know a thing or two about optics. How does a flash next to the license plate cause the license plate to be unreadable, unless the lens is really shitty and flares like a motherfucker?
Nope, again wrong. The camera submits data for further action. The ticket is initiated by the police authority (or their automated system). The camera doesn't decide whether to send a ticket - it just takes a photo. It probably takes plenty of pictures which never result in a ticket being sent for various reasons.
But you said there's nothing wrong with it, and your link clearly states that it's problematic. Even if it is casual writing, it's still poor usage, because the word is nonsensical.
Slashdot Mirror
but in a slowing economy, advertising budgets are going to be one of the last to be completely eliminated in hopes of attracting more customers.
I don't think you've ever worked in an advertising-related field. Advertising is often the "canary in the coalmine" - when things are going bad, advertising is often the first expense to be slashed. When an economy is recovering, advertising is often the first to benefit.
but I don't see why Mac clones wouldn't be good for OS X in the long run.
But shouldn't that be Apple's decision?
Look at what happened in the 80s with IBM-compatibles (clones).
And look at what happened in the 90s with licensed Mac clones.
I use OS X at work and I'd love to use it at home but I just can't afford a Mac
Really? Then you must be running some cheap-ass PC hardware. Even if you can't afford a new one (even a mini?) - then used models abound.
At this point, I'm not even sure that it's been settled that licenses are enforcible, given that their terms aren't available prior to the customer paying for the product, which makes it a sale or purchase.
But they are available prior to purchase.
It started with small touching with fingers/arms. It was routine - every day a few times I would put my octopus-looking hand in and she would embrace. And Pull - she wanted me to stay.
Yeah, it's all romantic and lovely at first... but then comes the tentacle rape.
It is...*rolls*...a pleasure to meet you!
No, he means he role-plays a die, not that he rolls one.
the present invention provides a unique lightweight electric-energy storage unit that has the capability to store ultrahigh amounts of energy
Can't you express these things in units we all all understand, like jigawatts per nanofornight?
Absolutely not true in most localities - camera violations in the US are almost universally treated as a civil code enforcement issue, and it's the code enforcement people, NOT the police, that follow up. Additionally, once you get the ticket, you don't get to argue before a judge or jury, you get to argue before a petty bureaucrat that has no incentive whatsoever to listen to your story, or care in the least about whether you're actually guilty or not.
Well, that's a bigger issue than the cameras. Justice shouldn't be outsourced like that. But it's not a strong argument against speed cameras, it's an argument against how the bureaucracy and enforcement is run.
So you have a legal (and potentially criminal) process where it's illegal not to admit guilt.
Got any evidence of this? Can't you go to court and plead "not guilty"?
The entire process is initiated by the camera, it does not take pictures of every car passing through the intersection, only the ones it thinks are running the red light
But you said the ticket was initiated by the camera. Now you've changed the claim. Even though the camera "decides" to take a ticket, that doesn't mean every picture it takes is going to result in a ticket. So, the camera is independent of the ticketing process.
If you want to talk origins, then the ticket was originated by the people who decided to install the camera system.... no wait, the ticket was initiated by the people who invented photography!
I do not know what your point is of making a distinction between the camera and an 'automated system'.
My point is simply that the camera does not issues tickets. It takes photos to be used as data in a ticketing system. And yes, humans are involved. They program and operate the automated systems.
I respect your views that it's ok to have machines police us, but I disagree.
Do you have any suggestions on how it's feasible to police such large populations with so many miles of roadways, and not have us end up as a police state? If you hired enough humans to do that, we'd probably need 1 in 10 people (or more) being employed as a cop. The police union would end up being more powerful than the government. Corruption would probably be even more rampant than it is now.
I just don't think it's feasible to police on this scale without technological aid.
While I strongly feel that this benefit is not worth the cost, there's no denying it exists and if that's what's important to you then we have arrived at the classic "agree to disagree" moments.
Awwww. It's a Festivus miracle!
Ok well it becomes a right when the people pay taxes which are then used for the roadways.
No, it doesn't. Do you have a right to take a joyride on the Space Shuttle just because it's paid for by taxes?
What? How is the light from a flash supposed to produce enough interference as to make the image illegible? I've taken images straight into high-power studio strobe units, and there's no interference.
Right - but he said something of "equal luminance" to the light reflected from the plate. So, how would something of equal brightness to the object being photographed cause bloom? So that brings us back to having a flash unit "approximately as powerful as the sun" - now even if you have that, and it's enough to cause bloom, the bloom isn't likely to be big enough to obscure very far beyond the edges of the light source.
Anybody actually got any evidence of this working?
The IRS doesn't audit you without having a human involved in the process, nor do intelligence agencies leave the processing of flagged individuals up to computers.
Nor does the police department issue tickets without human involvement. Do you think the machines are completely autonomous and not operated by humans or something? I guess AI has come further than I thought!
That said, the fundamental problem with speed cameras is that they don't work.
Evidence? the seem to work fine. Millions of speeding tickets are issued every year around the world - so they do seem quite capable of detecting and documenting speeding. Much more so than a human-operated system, which isn't nearly as efficient.
A cop on the road with a speed gun slows everyone down,
I'm not getting this point - people slow down for speed cameras too. What makes you think they don't?
Speed cameras on the other hand, only pick up speeders, don't accurately identify the driver, don't deter the driver from further speeding,
Getting fines doesn't deter speeding? Potentially having your license revoked doesn't deter speeding? The penalties are the same whether a camera or a human documents the speeding - so why would cameras deter speeding any less than human officers?
The one and only thing that speed cameras do well is generate revenue.
I disagree... they seem to be remarkably effective at catching people breaking the law. they wouldn't be making any revenue if they weren't successfully catching people.
And what's wrong with generating money from people breaking the law, anyway? Police forces cost a lot of money to run. And it's not as if anybody has a right to speed. Would you prefer higher taxes on everybody?
The english language is full of problematic and nonsensical words and phrases; that doesn't make them any less valid.
Except when it does make them less valid. As in the case of "irregardless". What makes you think it is equally as valid as "regardless"? The dictionary you linked to doesn't agree.
But I'm sure the IRS has software that monitors various patterns and transactions, and which can "flag" a certain person or company for scrutiny. And likewise, intelligence agencies monitor internet and phone communications for suspicious activity. Regardless of semantics, we live in an age of automation. To say that law enforcement should ignore the advantages of technology is pretty dubious, IMO. Of course, they shouldn't abuse it either... but that's another matter.
Unfortunately, now there is no human judgement, you have to sit at that red light until it goes green and let the guy in the back of the ambulance die...otherwise you are in the wrong.
But the upside to that may be much greater than the downside. It means fewer bogus charges of "driving while black", and automated cameras can't be bribed. But there is still human judgement - that's in the hands of the court.
Yeah, that's going to work. Are you going to pay the taxes to employ enough human officers to enforce speeding across the entire US road system? And what's this "moral responsibility" you speak of? I don't see how it's immoral to use an automated system for policing, provided it's not abused. What your saying is akin to saying the the IRS has a moral responsibility not to use computers, and everything must be calculated by hand.
If anything, the automated cameras improve human policing - because the human officers can focus on things that require a human to police, rather than just being a human tripod for an electronic speed gun.
And red light cameras are abuse. Every study of red light cameras has shown that increasing the length of yellow lights to a minimum of seven seconds has the same benefits in terms of sideswipe accident reduction without the increased rate of rear end collisions,
Aside from abuse by officials, what does the red light camera have to do with the timing of lights? Why would a study of red light cameras concern itself with light timing? That would be a separate study, wouldn't it? I really doubt that "every study of red light cameras" makes claims about the proper timing of yellow lights.
If the lights are timed correctly, then what difference would having a red light camera make?
However, red light cameras do not make it safer. In most places, red light cameras INCREASE the occurrence of rear-end accidents because people are afraid they might get a ticket and stop short.
Not true. What you are claiming is based on a study of very specific places, not "most places". And it is also a misinterpretation of the study promoted by some anti-camera crusaders. The key point in those cases is that the timing of the yellow light had been tampered with. So, the cameras weren't causing the accidents - the altered timing of the lights caused them.
And it has been proven in certain cities that the governments are shortening the yellow-light times to catch people off guard. So even people who are not trying to "run" the light get caught in it.
So, obviously, the tampering is the problem, not the cameras. By focusing on the cameras rather than the tamperers, you are letting the real criminals off the hook. There are plenty of countries where there are red light cameras all over the place, and they don't tamper with light timings - the timings are based on standards and studies.
With those systems (not sure about the UK) you usually don't have to go to court. You can write a letter, or fill in a form that comes with the ticket, stating your argument. Only if that is not accepted, do you go to court.
Ignoring the vast majority of what the other sibling had to say concerning work, you have to understand that to a large part of America, working as a teenager is a necessity. It's their first chance to start seeing what the world is like.
Which is why we need better public transport options. Deal with the problem at the root. I know, it's a pipe dream. Not going to happen. But I don't think it excuses the terrible driving or screwing around with license plates.
I think the most practical solution would be to have extended probationary periods, and stronger restrictions on young drivers. So, they can still drive to work - but they have to be a lot more careful and take things more seriously. Heck, even for adults the licensing and training requirements should be much stricter. Tech people the seriousness of the responsibility, so the vehicle is not treated as a toy.
I think I know a thing or two about optics. How does a flash next to the license plate cause the license plate to be unreadable, unless the lens is really shitty and flares like a motherfucker?
Nope, again wrong. The camera submits data for further action. The ticket is initiated by the police authority (or their automated system). The camera doesn't decide whether to send a ticket - it just takes a photo. It probably takes plenty of pictures which never result in a ticket being sent for various reasons.
But you said there's nothing wrong with it, and your link clearly states that it's problematic. Even if it is casual writing, it's still poor usage, because the word is nonsensical.