Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score 1) 394

by amxcoder (#48205293) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected
I should have added a third reason that these are bad:

In my state, a moving violation infraction is supposed to be issued to the actual driver of the vehicle at the time of the infraction. With these systems, this is not what is happening. If you let someone borrow your car, the ticket comes to you, the registered owner of the car. Same if you are a passenger in your own car, with a friend/spouse driving it. You can effectively get a moving violation ticket just for owning the vehicle rather than actually being the driver. again, illegal.

Comment: Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score 1) 394

by amxcoder (#48205261) Attached to: Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected
Everything you said is true, and I have read articles where some cities are pulling them out, which I find to be a good thing. Yet, many cities are still adding them, so I don't think the overall trend is downward yet.

I am opposed to these for 2 basic reasons:
First, with these cameras, you cannot face your accuser in a court of law, because it's an automated system, which is against the law. Sure, if you go to court, some desk jockey cop might show up who is the one who is blanket signing all the tickets issued out of the automated system, but it's not the same as facing your actual accuser, as it's not the cop who signs the ticket that is actually accusing you of breaking the law, but the camera system. Plus, most courts are in lock-step with the city, and will oppose any fighting of the ticket in court, no matter how much evidence you may have to prove otherwise.

Secondly, there is no discretion involved. If an actual police officer was to witness the situation, there is a human decision element involved, which allows for discretion given the surroundings, weather, traffic conditions, and perceived safety of the situation. Plus, the cop could actually see the events that happened just prior to the event to know if the decision you made was plausibly a good one or a bad one given all the variables at the time. The automated camera systems just take 1 factor into account, and only record that specific event without any context of the surrounding situation.

Comment: Re:I don't trust it (Score 1) 284

by amxcoder (#48174335) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Is this just like when ATT, Microsoft, Apple, and Google all collectively bent over and let them have unfettered access to all their data when the NSA came to them and said "All your data are belong to us!" ?

See, I don't think it works like that, cause I'm sure that giving all that data away to the NSA costs these companies "something", even it's only customer trust, however their probably is an economical aspect of cost to them as well.

The reason they comply, is because it is them "returning the favor" for the deals they asked congress for in order to .

Comment: Re:Obama Admin! (Score 1) 284

by amxcoder (#48174319) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
I didn't say the "living document" was a "liberal" idea, I said it was a "progressive" creation. The only time I mentioned 'liberal' was when referring to 'liberal interpretation' and meant is in it's literal sense, that the constitution is being interpreted liberally, as in the definition of 'liberal' = not literal or strict.

I stand by that it is a "progressive" creation, it was first coined by Prof. Howard McBain in 1927. He put forth the ideas of "living document" interpretation prior to that, including when he ran for president in 1912. [wikipedia].

The "Progressive Era" was between the 1890's and the 1920's and is marked by such policy as "The New Deal", and the "2nd Bill of Rights". If you read the 2nd Bill of Rights, it is clearly the ideas of what the Progressive's in both current parties want today as well. This "Living Constitution" idea and policy, started to effect the courts and judges under Wilson and FDR during the "Progressive Era". This was also the era, because of the related policies, that government grew leaps and bounds in size and scope. It brought you the IRS, Social Security, Welfare programs, and other enormous monsters that still live on today.

I would be the first to admit, that there are "progressives" on both sides of the isle these days. They may fight over different visions and desires, but make no mistake, there are progressives on both sides. However, the left is the side that seems to embrace it, and promote it, and mock those who don't consider themselves progressive. It was Hilary Clinton who came out and said it several years ago, when asked how she would describe her political viewpoints, and she responded that she would consider herself a "New Progressive". The Progressives have thoroughly infiltrated the Democrats/Left political organizations. They have also infiltrated the Republicans/Right side as well, however they haven't openly came out of the closet on the Right side yet, they still hide it, so as to grow in numbers and power like they did in the left. Their goal is similar, and that is why voting for either of the 2 major parties will not change a thing, because they are all corrupted, and they all want a giant government, with everyone dependent on them, they have little restriction in what they can do, and are in essence the 'big-brother nanny state'.

I agree with you on the 2nd amendment deal, all arms should be allowed, no argument on that, that would be an original intent interpretation of the Constitution that I'm talking about. Regan may have banned owning them after 1986, (I'm sure it was because he was 'thinking of the children' LOL), I can't dispute this. But keep in mind, that prior to that even, full automatic weapons, while not banned, were so heavily regulated that they might as well have been (especially in some states). They were regulated dating back to, 1930's, just after the progressive era prohibition act brought about organized crime and massive gang wars that happened in the 20's. Prior to that time, you could mail order a Thompson sub-machine gun in the mail, with no registration, tax stamp, or background check required.

Comment: Re:(Re:The Children!) Why? I'm not a pedophile! (Score 1) 284

by amxcoder (#48173887) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Amen, would mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread. The government has been usurping our individual rights on a daily basis, and through court decisions and other magic hand waving tries to get us to buy into their BS that we 'the people' never had those rights to begin with.

It's the government who never had those rights to begin with, until they stole them from 'the people'. And they continue to do so.

Comment: Re:Obama Admin! (Score 1) 284

by amxcoder (#48173415) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Ok, let me add to what I originally said:

I don't believe or accept that activist judges, whether in lower courts or even the Supreme court, have the REAL authority to bend, twist, reshape and misinterpret the rights spelled out in the Constitution (or any natural right) either.

The Constitution isn't a 'living document', and doesn't have much areas up to interpretation, it's written rather straight forward. Those who claim there are plenty of room to interpret the size/scope and nuances of the Constitution usually have an angle and desire to change it. The whole 'living document' thing didn't exist until the Progressive Era, when progressives wanted to re-interpret it to mean what they thought it *should* say, not what it said. Since then, it was a downward slope.

It was this 'living document' interpretation BS that has brought us 'free speech zones', 'hate speech' laws, gun control laws, lax warrant issuance, the federal government pre-empting state's authority/rights, and a recent example--the compulsive incrimination of forcing you to give up your encryption passwords. Sorry, but I don't care for what the 'living document' interpreters have given us in exchange over the last 100 years, cause it's usually not interpreted to give THE PEOPLE more rights, but less.

To put it another way, all the government rights inherently come from Man's natural rights, THE PEOPLE willingly give up some of those rights and entrust it in a government body to handle situations larger than a single person can handle. But by having the Government decide the scope and interpretation of the rights allowed by it from THE PEOPLE, it effectively allows the government to decide how much of those rights to take away, or to afford THE PEOPLE. So how is this any different than the up-side-down thought, that rights come from the government and are given to people, and can thus be taken away at will by the government as well.

So to counter your link, I don't personally give rip if some supreme court judges ruled it as constitutional by some liberal interpretation that was filtered by their own personal political views and an outcome that was determined by others with power prior to them making the 'decision' in the first place. The fact remains, that I and many others are not willing to relent our right to privacy, and right to "be secure in our person, effects and papers", no matter what judges have ruled. Same goes with some other rights as well that seem to be highly disdained by the political elite and constantly trying to be stolen from us in recent times.

Comment: Re:Obama Admin! (Score 2) 284

by amxcoder (#48170861) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Patriot Act or not, American government spying on American citizens without SPECIFIC warrants obtained, per person, and per reason/article to collect, is illegal with or without the Patriot Act. The last time I looked and studied, the US Constitution is the highest law in the land, and supersedes any and all laws that contradict it. In other words, the Patriot Act doesn't make something that is illegal/unconstitutional suddenly legal or ok, or vise-versa.

I also believe this to be true of all current gun restriction laws as well, but that's another discussion for another time.

Comment: California (Score 1) 407

by amxcoder (#48170589) Attached to: As Prison Population Sinks, Jails Are a Steal
I don't know about other states, but I wonder how much of California's "reduction" comes from letting violent offenders out on the street earlier than their sentencing. The last couple years California decided due to prison overcrowding to start releasing inmates early. While promising to only release 'non-violent' offenders, some reports that I've read pretty much give the indication that they didn't really pay too close of attention to who they let out early, because it was shown that rapist and murders and other repeat offenders were among those released. There were reports of literally bus loads of convicted inmates being dropped off and let free, and I believe many of them were given temporary housing to get back on their feet when released early.

I remember a couple years ago, one of the early releases got out, and within a few weeks of hitting the streets was a prime suspect in a rape, not far from the area that he was released.

Now, it's possible also, that some of the declining prison population is due to reduction in arrest and prosecution for minor offenses, most notably drug laws, where many states are now either not enforcing laws for possession of marajuana, or it's available through 'medical perscription', or like colorado, completely legalized. I'm sure that helps actually keep some of the actual 'non-violent' offenders from ever getting into the system in the first place (like it should).

Comment: Re:Am I the only one? (Score 1) 478

by amxcoder (#48121985) Attached to: The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola
Maybe Ebola isn't the easiest to catch, but it's similar to other non-airborn pathogens. The problem, is human interaction and travel is higher now than it ever has. Obviously, Ebola is spreading at this point, many point out that it is due to the 3rd world countries sanitation or other factors, but it is spreading.

The problem with pandemics, is they start out slowly, but ramp at an exponential rate. You can see this already from the graphs posted above. Once you hit a critical point, it is VERY hard to stop. It's one thing when it's 1 person out of millions, or what have you, but once it gets going, it starts infecting families, which are harder to separate and harder to quarantine.

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie "Outbreak" where the military has the whole city on lock down, and is ordering all families who have a member showing signs of infection to put a ribbon on their door so they can come and pick up the family member for quarantine. Families will not want to be broken up, especially when the movie puts into perspective a mom being given the boot from her husband and kids. Parents wouldn't want to boot out their kid to military in hazmat suits. No body would want to comply with those types of scenarios, and so spread would be rampant.

We're already seeing the result of the first guy that came here. He got asked about where he'd been and so on. He LIED! Whether out of fear, stupidity, pride or what have you. He's the idiot in the movie that brings in the monkey and doesn't tell anyone. But he's not alone, most people would do that. And while I don't think the outbreak is concerning YET in the US. Doesn't mean that given several months, we won't have a more widespread outbreak here as well, and that we won't be in a place where people start second guessing sending their kids to school, or going to work, or riding public transport, or other activities that involve close quarters to other individuals.

Comment: Re:Combine the 2 (Score 2) 279

I would wire up the house in places it's feasible. Trunk smaller subsystems with GBit switches back to the main entry point if needed to prevent having to run home-runs everywhere, but home runs would be best if possible.

I think you'll need to look for a decent main router/firewall pretty hard, I'm not sure about some of the newer home based ones, but I've heard many consumer routers, even ones rated for GBit internally, won't do GBit on the WAN port to the ISP. So you're going to want to make sure you spec in something that actually supports GBit on the WAN side hitting the fiber point. I wouldn't skimp this part if I wanted to fully utilize the network.

For areas that are to impractical to hit with physical wire, I would use WAP's for. You would probably want to use multiple WAP's so you don't get saturation on one particular wap, and the load is distributed out better, making for faster connections on the devices connecting wireless (less sharing of bandwidth). Also, make sure you get good WAP's that can do B/G/N seperately without degrading. Some cheaper versions will only go as high as the lowest device connected to them (something I didn't realize for quite some time). These basically can do N speed if everything is connected with N, but once 1 device connects that only supports B/G, then all the connections get knocked down to B/G. I think this is due to only having 1 radio in the AP rather than a separate radio for each speed protocol.

Just remember, while your wireing the house, it may be a pain in the butt, but just keep repeating the mantra that 'it will be over soon', and 'if you do it right the first time, you only have to do it once'. That helps me on big projects where cutting corners starts looking like a good idea just to get the project done. LOL.

Comment: Re: I call BS on this one.... (Score 1) 575

by amxcoder (#48080773) Attached to: Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics
The person the above poster is mentining is a filmmaker/journalist named James O'Keefe. Here is an article on the project: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...

He did this at least in New Hampshire, but maybe in more states, to show how easy is to take advantage.

This is the same James O'Keefe who exposed, and helped get ACORN de-funded a few years back.

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

Working...