Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Wave power can work (Score 1) 187

by Archangel Michael (#47941141) Attached to: Wave Power Fails To Live Up To Promise

Slave trade exists only where people are considered property. We (the western world) are existing in a "slave" market, where the owners take from the sweat of supposedly "free" people (in the form of "Feudal taxes") not by consent, but by threat of government guns. We've only traded one type of owner for another. The only difference is we supposedly elect our kings and queens, rather than have them born into royalty.

We aren't free.

Comment: Re:Bad Analogy (Score 1) 56

by phoenix321 (#47940271) Attached to: London's Crime Hot Spots Predicted Using Mobile Phone Data

If you have a small enough town with a small enough cell size, it should be blindingly obvious which handset IMSI numbers where usually in the area when a crime was committed.

With enough data, you can simply map out the handset IMSI of the most probable perpetrators. There were 5 instances of a street robbery, at night, and the only common denominator is IMSI xyz that has been in the vicinity and moving around the time of all 5 robberies. It either is a totally unlucky individual or the most likely suspect.

Follow that IMSI with a drone for a few nights, record evidence and then lock these people away.

Note that I don't mind any and all police activity directed against common street thugs, as long as they have reliable evidence against them. (not dealers, not pimps, not smugglers, maybe not even thieves - but violent criminals that assault and rob innocent people or even invade their homes deserve absolutely no mercy.)

Comment: Algorithms are not hindered by wishful thinking (Score 1) 56

by phoenix321 (#47940173) Attached to: London's Crime Hot Spots Predicted Using Mobile Phone Data

We know that people that commit crimes are much more often from certain social and cultural backgrounds. There are untold numbers of "anecdotal evidence" around, but we don't want that to be true. So we tell ourselves white lies, blame victims, discount hundreds of incidents as "anecdotal evidence", pinpoint the few cases outside the norm and fabricate elaborate excuses about why such and such were practically forced to commit crime. We are constantly telling ourselves how we are to blame for not paying enough welfare, not enough education, not giving enough leeway while conveniently ignoring millions of people of other social and cultural backgrounds that simply don't commit any more crime than everyone else, being good people despite being poor and uneducated.

Choices of cellphone contracts and handset make and models are similar along cultural and social bonds. An algorithm will never know about that but detect the significance.

But anyway, even among the groups with the highest part in crime, only a few select individuals are responsible for a large percentage of crime.

Algorithms will find that when IMSI xyz is in the general area, people will get robbed. It will also find that when expensive handsets with IMSI abc where in the area when a phone robbery happened, they will probably be around the next crime area as well, since the thief will either have it now or sold it to a pawn shop in the high crime area.

Comment: Re:No, It Won't (Score 4, Informative) 196

by JWW (#47939943) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

The irony is that you can only really accomplish the needed sustainability if you do NOT try to accomplish the former.

Communism and to a lesser extent Socialism always attack the rich and promise the spoils to "the people". In the end the people always end up with nearly nothing (see Venezuela).

Whereas that evil vile capitalism has only ever just pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, worldwide, over the past 60 years.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 236

by Sloppy (#47938243) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

Except Netflix offers to deliver an entire bakery to the the table.

Yes, one bite at a time. You're not allowed get your second bite of cake onto your fork until you have swallowed your first bite, and you're sure as hell not allowed to have your cannoli on the table until after you have finished your tiramisu.

Say you have a waiter who isn't delivering your individual bites fast enough. Maybe he's legitimately crippled, or maybe he's just a spiteful asshole, but you're stuck with that waiter. What would you do about it? I'd tell the chef wearing the Netflix apron in the kitchen, to send me a whole slice of cake, and let's forget this whole bite, ack, bite, ack, bite nonsense. I'm hungry (and this baking analogy isn't helping!) and intend to minimize the waiter's impact upon my meal.

I suppose I see how using timeshifting to make speed less relevant, has a downside: it removes our incentive to increase performance. Ok, then go ahead and remain vulnerable to networking problems (whether it's due to your ISP being assholes, or because someone else in the house is using the Internet for something else, or whatever) for political reasons, both as a protest and to keep your own passion inflamed (so that you'll stay activist). But when AT&T starts suggesting that bulk video get special QoS, the bluff is starting to get a little too real. There are people taking this idea seriously. That is bad.

It's going to increase your Netflix bills and it's going to increase your AT&T bills. So here is what I suggest instead: take the monthly amount of money that they're taling about increasing your bills by, and spend it once on SSD or spinning rust instead, and stick that storage into your player computer (since apparently it doesn't already have any?!?). Have a download process that writes to files, and a player process that reads from files. Then don't start playing a video until you're pretty sure you're not going to "catch up" to however much has downloaded so far (or if that sounds complicated, then just don't play things until you're finishing downloading them).

You just saved a shitload of money, made it so that your internet speed doesn't really have an effect on whatever video bitrate you use (if you want to use a huge high-res TV at a house with a slow connection, that'll be fine), and now you're more resistant to "weather" (kid in other room's torrents, ISP-ISP and ISP-video_provider contract disputes, etc: all that stuff fades in significance).

What's not to like? Everyone wins except the spiteful waiter, except that even he just got an easier job, even if it's instead of the raise that he wanted.

Comment: Re:Does HFCS count? (Score 1) 244

by ArhcAngel (#47938029) Attached to: Study Finds Link Between Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance
I've seen a similar study taken apart on the grounds you suggested but not this one specifically. I'm skeptical to a fault of everything but even more so when huge sums of money are involved and the alternative sweetener arena is just such an animal. I've seen reports of all the disastrous side effects of Aspartame and vehement denials and counter reports but I've also seen first hand the negative affect it has had on people I know. Even if this study were not accurate there is enough evidence for me to avoid HFCS where/when I can. That said I eat a lot of things daily that contain HFCS. But when I have a choice I choose sugar or stevia or agave.

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley