While I agree with some of what you say, believing that playing a game is important enough to violate copyright law shows a worse lack of moral compass than someone who thinks game publishers ought to be compensated for their product. How much a company or person makes is irrelevant... if someone creates a popular product, they deserve the reward.
That said, I'm no fan of DRM, and I don't see how advances in DRM are a good thing. People can still play games they legally purchased for old game systems that haven't been produced in decades. Why should I forfeit my right to play games I legally purchased because the manufacturer no longer supports the platform? People are able to play their ps and ps2 games years after the fact... if the companies "win," in a few years, if your system breaks, you won't be able to play your legally purchased games ever again. Used systems will only last so long.
However, the fact that you may not be hurting someone is not justification for violating someone else's rights in order to play games.
I don't get it, either, but again, if you're playing percentages, there's always someone... if it's not prepubescent kids, it's animals, or feet, or fat, or insert whatever. They say psychopaths make up 1% of the population... that's a LOT of psychopaths out there... people who not only don't care about hurting other people, but can get off on it.
It's all about the percentages, not the raw numbers. United Nations says over 3 billion people are using the internet. 60k from 3B is really not a large number, relatively speaking.
Camera battery only has to last a shift.... and, as I mentioned, the data should be relayed to other servers for storage. I do not think it's as burdensome as you suggest. Small, portable, wearable tech... the officer could even have multiple units. Also, the footage does not need to be kept indefinitely, and only clips are required if there is an incident. I think if a cop does not report something, and nobody comes by for some time to report them for something, the space can be reclaimed. But the data should be public, and if some private entity wants to store it all in perpetuity, that'd be their own choice.
I could accept the cameras not always being on - but then I'd defer to the citizens in cases where the officer failed to turn it on.
As for what is a legitimate malfunction, that can be tricky. If the video is streamed to the patrol car and instantly relayed back to other storage, then a criminal wouldn't be able to break the camera without the footage being seen. I could see where, otherwise, a criminal could shoot a cop and then break the camera. I wouldn't want something like that happening. But otherwise, obviously, the receiver in the vehicle could warn the officer that there's no signal.
As for how much I'm willing to pay - the fact is we pay more than enough to do this. You'd probably disagree with me, but I can guarantee I could find enough taxes to cut to pay for this. The alternative is an escalation in claims against police - also costing millions in taxpayer dollars, even if the officer is found innocent and there's no payout.
The code is integral to the research. Your prof's theories are useless without the code that shows that they are of some use and that they work. Just as you are "replaceable", your professor is, too. So don't think any less of yourself just for being replaceable: most of us are.
I didn't exactly mean it that way. I'm not trying to understate the importance of implementing something complex.
Furthermore, personally, I believe the implementer is due same credit as the researcher.
I just disagree with that... if the researcher comes up with a theory, and the programmer comes up with a way to test it, then sure - but if the researcher comes up with a theory and the programmer implements a way to test it that the researcher gave the programmer ("this is how you test it, here's the algorithm"), or it was some known way to test the theory, then the programmer hasn't actually done any research. I'm not saying the code isn't important, I'm saying it's not "research." They can get thanks, they can get a mention, just as if off the shelf (already existing code) is used then that program can be mentioned... but if the code is actually something new and innovative that the programmer came up with to test or verify something, then it is it's own topic for research and they can get their own credit.
It doesn't matter what the effort was, it matters who did the research. Writing code isn't research. If the people writing the code came up with something new and innovative in order to solve a problem on their own, then that in itself should be the topic of their own research paper.
Who cares? I mean, OK, sometimes I care, but in this case is there really any doubt of the positive benefits? Just because someone's making money doesn't mean it's bad.
If they are equipped with a camera, and it's not legitimately malfunctioning, then they should automatically be assumed to be at fault if the camera is off during a confrontation.
Honestly, these body camera should not even have an off switch, they should stream to a server in the officers vehicle, and instantly be streamed to other storage - at least one not controlled by the police department. They should also be required to return to the station and get a replacement if their camera is malfunctioning.
Why would it need to be counter balanced? I'm not saying citizens shouldn't video cops - and I think cops need to be told that being videoed doing their jobs as public servants is not to be denied, and I'm not even suggesting that having many multiple view points isn't great, but I don't know how a cops video would need to be "counterbalanced."
A lot of the things that have happened recently in the U.S. could have been put to rest - one way or another - with first person video (and often multiple points of view).
Dash cams are great, and we should continue using them on EVERY car, but every officer should also have this kind of tech. There should also be punishments or reprimands if the device is turned off during a shift (malfunctions aside). The video should also be streamed to their vehicles and, perhaps, even relayed directly back to the station.
But who did the research? As I mentioned in another reply, when I was a research assistant, if some professor came up with some algorithm or criteria for a simulation and asked me to implement it, why should I get any research credit? I did get mentioned a couple of times in credits for having implemented the software, but anyone at my level could have done it... I got zero research credit in those cases, and didn't deserve any.
But writing software isn't research or necessarily insightful at all - if one person comes up with a theory or model or formula, and another person codes it, the person who coded it didn't contribute anything to the actual research, and any decent programmer would be able to implement someone else's algorithms. If the programmer came up with a way to test or do something in particular, then they certainly should get credit, but merely implementing someone else's research is NOT research in, and of, itself.
And yes, I really come to this perspective as a former research assistant who had to code my professor's theories, because anyone at my level could have done it.
They detonate a hydrogen bomb and explicitly say they are doing this because they consider the U.S. an enemy. Are you seriously suggesting that's not threatening enough?
I agree... I think scrum works if everyone - especially the manager, is on board. Unfortunately, the reality of the last manager I had was that he pushed us all into scrum after some conference or something... and then would get mad at us for not doing the little side-tasks (favors to other people in the company, mainly) at will because we were in the middle of a sprint.
So, I like it - in theory. It's very hard to get everyone on the same page in practice, though.
I agree, but as a programmer there's basic aspects that Agile, in theory, is really good at. Using the entire team to break down the project into bite-size chunks and prioritizing them (although, everybody should be doing that anyway), and I also like keeping the client involved because just about every project I've worked on ended up with the client saying "that's not what I wanted," even if they finally admit "OK, that's what I asked for, but it's not what I wanted." Catching things early on helps. I also like the incremental development - you can often get 80% of the way there with 20% of the work, and have something functional for the client, then slowly add that last 20% over time. The client gets something usable faster.
In theory it also shields the developer from managers that want to solve everybody else's problems to make themselves look good - "Hey, gfxguy, can you do [something] for [someone who's not part of the current sprint]?" I am thankfully not in that programming department anymore, but the manager (who pushed us into "agile" after some convention he went to) at that time had a fit in our weekly meeting about why we weren't doing the things he asked us to do, then he specifically looked at me and asked why I didn't do something, and I said "because you didn't make it a task in our system and prioritize it - I was working on my sprint. Do you want us to do agile or not?"
In a one-on-one with the manager, I said "Look, one of the nice things about agile is I get to concentrate on one thing at a time, so am I supposed to do one thing, or multi-task?" And he answered "No, you don't have to multitask, but sometimes you need to do other things, too." No, I'm completely serious.
So there are parts of agile/scrum that fail when everybody is not on board - the manager hears some buzz-words, makes us all go full tilt into scrum, and then wouldn't follow it himself. I also have problems with daily stand ups. We all worked in one open area of cubicles, we could discuss problems and adapt as needed at any time.
it enforces readability without requiring too many extra characters
I agree... over the past five years or so I've migrated to python, both in web development and a lot of scrips I wrote for use in house for special case "things." It's a great combination of brief (as little as 1/10 or less the size of equivalent Java) and yet structured and readable.
Yes, to the previous two comments - I don't want to write my version of a driving manual, but I was referring to urban areas where interstates typically balloon from 2 or 3 lanes to sometimes 6 or more, and typically not rush hour where every lane just becomes another travel lane because of capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with some of what you say, believing that playing a game is important enough to violate copyright law shows a worse lack of moral compass than someone who thinks game publishers ought to be compensated for their product. How much a company or person makes is irrelevant... if someone creates a popular product, they deserve the reward.
That said, I'm no fan of DRM, and I don't see how advances in DRM are a good thing. People can still play games they legally purchased for old game systems that haven't been produced in decades. Why should I forfeit my right to play games I legally purchased because the manufacturer no longer supports the platform? People are able to play their ps and ps2 games years after the fact... if the companies "win," in a few years, if your system breaks, you won't be able to play your legally purchased games ever again. Used systems will only last so long.
However, the fact that you may not be hurting someone is not justification for violating someone else's rights in order to play games.
I don't get it, either, but again, if you're playing percentages, there's always someone... if it's not prepubescent kids, it's animals, or feet, or fat, or insert whatever. They say psychopaths make up 1% of the population... that's a LOT of psychopaths out there... people who not only don't care about hurting other people, but can get off on it.
It's all about the percentages, not the raw numbers. United Nations says over 3 billion people are using the internet. 60k from 3B is really not a large number, relatively speaking.
Camera battery only has to last a shift.... and, as I mentioned, the data should be relayed to other servers for storage. I do not think it's as burdensome as you suggest. Small, portable, wearable tech... the officer could even have multiple units. Also, the footage does not need to be kept indefinitely, and only clips are required if there is an incident. I think if a cop does not report something, and nobody comes by for some time to report them for something, the space can be reclaimed. But the data should be public, and if some private entity wants to store it all in perpetuity, that'd be their own choice.
I could accept the cameras not always being on - but then I'd defer to the citizens in cases where the officer failed to turn it on.
As for what is a legitimate malfunction, that can be tricky. If the video is streamed to the patrol car and instantly relayed back to other storage, then a criminal wouldn't be able to break the camera without the footage being seen. I could see where, otherwise, a criminal could shoot a cop and then break the camera. I wouldn't want something like that happening. But otherwise, obviously, the receiver in the vehicle could warn the officer that there's no signal.
As for how much I'm willing to pay - the fact is we pay more than enough to do this. You'd probably disagree with me, but I can guarantee I could find enough taxes to cut to pay for this. The alternative is an escalation in claims against police - also costing millions in taxpayer dollars, even if the officer is found innocent and there's no payout.
The code is integral to the research. Your prof's theories are useless without the code that shows that they are of some use and that they work. Just as you are "replaceable", your professor is, too. So don't think any less of yourself just for being replaceable: most of us are.
I didn't exactly mean it that way. I'm not trying to understate the importance of implementing something complex.
Furthermore, personally, I believe the implementer is due same credit as the researcher.
I just disagree with that... if the researcher comes up with a theory, and the programmer comes up with a way to test it, then sure - but if the researcher comes up with a theory and the programmer implements a way to test it that the researcher gave the programmer ("this is how you test it, here's the algorithm"), or it was some known way to test the theory, then the programmer hasn't actually done any research. I'm not saying the code isn't important, I'm saying it's not "research." They can get thanks, they can get a mention, just as if off the shelf (already existing code) is used then that program can be mentioned... but if the code is actually something new and innovative that the programmer came up with to test or verify something, then it is it's own topic for research and they can get their own credit.
It doesn't matter what the effort was, it matters who did the research. Writing code isn't research. If the people writing the code came up with something new and innovative in order to solve a problem on their own, then that in itself should be the topic of their own research paper.
I don't get it... the first article says the officer was charged with murder, in the second the motorist was completely wrong.
Who cares? I mean, OK, sometimes I care, but in this case is there really any doubt of the positive benefits? Just because someone's making money doesn't mean it's bad.
If they are equipped with a camera, and it's not legitimately malfunctioning, then they should automatically be assumed to be at fault if the camera is off during a confrontation.
Honestly, these body camera should not even have an off switch, they should stream to a server in the officers vehicle, and instantly be streamed to other storage - at least one not controlled by the police department. They should also be required to return to the station and get a replacement if their camera is malfunctioning.
"lil" children don't have nuclear weapons. Yet. NK does.
Then we all agree... they are a threat. So what's the problem?
In that case I agree, but perhaps the software like that is then worthy of it's own research paper.
Why would it need to be counter balanced? I'm not saying citizens shouldn't video cops - and I think cops need to be told that being videoed doing their jobs as public servants is not to be denied, and I'm not even suggesting that having many multiple view points isn't great, but I don't know how a cops video would need to be "counterbalanced."
A lot of the things that have happened recently in the U.S. could have been put to rest - one way or another - with first person video (and often multiple points of view).
Dash cams are great, and we should continue using them on EVERY car, but every officer should also have this kind of tech. There should also be punishments or reprimands if the device is turned off during a shift (malfunctions aside). The video should also be streamed to their vehicles and, perhaps, even relayed directly back to the station.
But who did the research? As I mentioned in another reply, when I was a research assistant, if some professor came up with some algorithm or criteria for a simulation and asked me to implement it, why should I get any research credit? I did get mentioned a couple of times in credits for having implemented the software, but anyone at my level could have done it... I got zero research credit in those cases, and didn't deserve any.
But writing software isn't research or necessarily insightful at all - if one person comes up with a theory or model or formula, and another person codes it, the person who coded it didn't contribute anything to the actual research, and any decent programmer would be able to implement someone else's algorithms. If the programmer came up with a way to test or do something in particular, then they certainly should get credit, but merely implementing someone else's research is NOT research in, and of, itself.
And yes, I really come to this perspective as a former research assistant who had to code my professor's theories, because anyone at my level could have done it.
They detonate a hydrogen bomb and explicitly say they are doing this because they consider the U.S. an enemy. Are you seriously suggesting that's not threatening enough?
I'd like to see the balloon big enough to cause a 5.1 earthquake!
The travesty is that you could go to jail doing something that hurts no one else.
I like your style of thinking... but them first.
I agree... I think scrum works if everyone - especially the manager, is on board. Unfortunately, the reality of the last manager I had was that he pushed us all into scrum after some conference or something... and then would get mad at us for not doing the little side-tasks (favors to other people in the company, mainly) at will because we were in the middle of a sprint.
So, I like it - in theory. It's very hard to get everyone on the same page in practice, though.
I agree, but as a programmer there's basic aspects that Agile, in theory, is really good at. Using the entire team to break down the project into bite-size chunks and prioritizing them (although, everybody should be doing that anyway), and I also like keeping the client involved because just about every project I've worked on ended up with the client saying "that's not what I wanted," even if they finally admit "OK, that's what I asked for, but it's not what I wanted." Catching things early on helps. I also like the incremental development - you can often get 80% of the way there with 20% of the work, and have something functional for the client, then slowly add that last 20% over time. The client gets something usable faster.
In theory it also shields the developer from managers that want to solve everybody else's problems to make themselves look good - "Hey, gfxguy, can you do [something] for [someone who's not part of the current sprint]?" I am thankfully not in that programming department anymore, but the manager (who pushed us into "agile" after some convention he went to) at that time had a fit in our weekly meeting about why we weren't doing the things he asked us to do, then he specifically looked at me and asked why I didn't do something, and I said "because you didn't make it a task in our system and prioritize it - I was working on my sprint. Do you want us to do agile or not?"
In a one-on-one with the manager, I said "Look, one of the nice things about agile is I get to concentrate on one thing at a time, so am I supposed to do one thing, or multi-task?" And he answered "No, you don't have to multitask, but sometimes you need to do other things, too." No, I'm completely serious.
So there are parts of agile/scrum that fail when everybody is not on board - the manager hears some buzz-words, makes us all go full tilt into scrum, and then wouldn't follow it himself. I also have problems with daily stand ups. We all worked in one open area of cubicles, we could discuss problems and adapt as needed at any time.
No love for Japan, but you forgot the rest of the story - then it makes international news and Japan is blamed for the death of the protesters.
it enforces readability without requiring too many extra characters
I agree... over the past five years or so I've migrated to python, both in web development and a lot of scrips I wrote for use in house for special case "things." It's a great combination of brief (as little as 1/10 or less the size of equivalent Java) and yet structured and readable.
Yes, to the previous two comments - I don't want to write my version of a driving manual, but I was referring to urban areas where interstates typically balloon from 2 or 3 lanes to sometimes 6 or more, and typically not rush hour where every lane just becomes another travel lane because of capacity.