Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: How Does SpaceX Do it? (Score 2) 58

by CrimsonAvenger (#47792555) Attached to: NASA's Competition For Dollars

No matter how bad environmental problem become, earth will still be better than anything which we could plan to reach. Fixing the problems here woll have a fraction of the cost whcih fixin them by flying away would have.

So, what's the plan for dealing with the Sun's inevitable transition to a red giant?

Space is where we need to be for the long term. And when I say "long term", I don't mean "three or more Congressional election cycles"....

Comment: Re:More like the "Laptop of Muwhahhahahahaha..." (Score 1) 338

It's not very clear from TFA, but if "virus" is supposed to refer to plague, the hopeful jihadist seems lacking in even basic microbiological knowledge.

Since the hopeful jihadist probably wasn't writing in English, it's just possible that "virus" was a translation error.

Comment: Re:Can the executive branch be held in contempt? (Score 1) 242

What would happen if the executive branch (which is supposed to enforce the law) simply refused to comply with a judicial order?

Does the phrase "Trail of Tears" mean anything to you?

How about "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"?

Note that the quotation is likely apocryphal, but it pretty much conveys Jackson's attitude toward the Supremes in regards to the Trail of Tears....

Comment: Re:this would expose an enormous state secret. (Score 1) 242

the deficit is shrinking at a staggering rate.

Yes, it's now the sixth or seventh largest in history...

Note that the only reason the deficit is "shrinking" is that it ballooned enormously (to over twice the previous record) a few years back. It has yet to get back down to the level that was considered "normal" (which most of us considered "too damn high")....

Comment: Re:It'd be nice... (Score 1) 242

half of these is probably about whether or not he slept with that woman... he he...
- Not that I ever cared one bit....

The only thing even remotely interesting about whether he slept with that woman was that, since she was an employee of his, it was a textbook example of workplace sexual harassment.

Even if she was willing....

Comment: Re:Send in the drones! (Score 1) 812

by CrimsonAvenger (#47779593) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Because, the yellow cake thing was a lie, there were no WMDs, they weren't sponsoring terrorism, and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.


No opinion on the yellowcake or the sponsoring of terrorism, but there WERE WMD's.

Note that chemical weapons are WMD's (yeah, Assad has used WMD's on his own people, as did Saddam). Note that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds....

Comment: Re:Media (Score 2) 322

by jd (#47773019) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

Yeah, I can see you do great on statistics, too.

Death stopped being binary some years back (suggest you read medical news) but this isn't about that. This is simple numbers. If device X kills N times out of 100 and device Y kills M times out of 100, where N != M, the lethality of the devices is not the same.

Comment: Re:Media (Score 4, Insightful) 322

by jd (#47772299) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

Cops are not doing a good job. Estimates range from 400-1000 unjustified deaths a year. To put it into context, since 9/11, there may well have been 4 times as many unjustified deaths by cops in America as unjustified deaths by Al Queda.

That isn't acceptable by any standards.

Or perhaps if you'd like, I can put it another way. There have been three times as many incidents of manslaughter and murder by American cop per capita of population than there have been incidents of manslaughter or murder in Britain in total.

That number is WAY unacceptable.

Cops carrying guns confer no benefit to those in the area (80% of bullets fired by police handguns miss their target, they don't vanish and they do hit passers-by, sound crew, hostages, etc).

Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to law and order, since alternatives from stun guns to pain rays (microwave stimulation of nerve endings, if you prefer) to teargas (which isn't great but is less lethal than a lump of lead) already exist and criminals are less likely to carry when running is a more practical option than a shoot-out. That has always been the British experience, which is why you now get regular shoot-outs where British cops are stupid enough to carry where you'd previously have had maybe one a decade versus an armed response unit.

Cops carrying guns confer no benefits to the cop, since dead weight can result a cop becoming dead, accidental shootings are very likely to produce retaliation, and "utility" belts stop utilizing when they terrify locals, intimidate visitors, but bolster thugs who gain greater mobility and dexterity from not wearing them.

Look, this is all very simple. Too simple for nutters, perhaps, but simple nonetheless.

First, preventing crime by eliminating prime environmental and psychological causes is a good start. If there's no crime, there's nobody to shoot and nobody shooting back.

Second, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them developing a "them vs us" attitude is essential and you don't achieve that by giving them scrutineering powers and not those they are scrutinizing. It has to be a two-way street to prevent that kind of mindset.

But that requires one additional ingredient to work properly:

Third, preventing cops turning bad by preventing them from being have-a-go heros. They should work with the community, be a part of the community, guard it from within. And, like all good guards, they should NOT be on constant alert. They should be constantly engaging on a social level, not a paramilitary one. If a crime happens, let the criminal go somewhere where there ISN'T a huge danger to others. Inanimate objects can look after themselves, people need a bit more effort.

It is better to let a gang "get away" from the scene, with no bullets fired, be tracked safely and then be apprehended INTACT when it is safe to do so. Going in there guns blazing will cause excessive damage, risk the lives of those supposedly protected and served, and for what? Some carcases. No trial, no determination of the chain of events, no proof even that the dead body is the guilty party. It can't exactly answer questions in the dock, can it?

No, disarm the cops, give them high-res cameras (and maybe girls gone wild t-shirts, I dunno), and let them be what cops should be - good citizens. They are NOT the army, they should NEVER be allowed military-grade weapons, they should deal with matters calmly, quietly and sensibly.

If they're not capable of that, they're incapable of good. Of any kind.

Comment: If a ruggedized camera breaks (Score 2) 322

by jd (#47772225) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

Then it wasn't an accident. Simple as that. People seem to forget that you can build these devices to withstand any force a cop's skull is likely to take, and more besides.

Storage is a non-issue because you don't need to store a lot locally. Local storage can be limited to the time the cop is outside of radio contact plus the time to clear enough buffer that no information is lost. So unless the cop is riding a motorbike in a cage, it's just not enough to create serious issues.

Battery will be a bigger issue. It'll take a lot of batteries to keep transmitting at a decent resolution. However, as cops with guns cause more trouble than they prevent, that's also easy to fix. Sufficient batteries will consume no more weight than a sidearm plus extra ammunition.

Actually, it might not be that bad. With the proposed mandate for vehicle-to-vehicle communication, a cop radio could turn the entire road network into a gigantic adhoc wireless network. You don't need as much power for a short-range transmission. Might as well get some value out of these stupid ideas.

Comment: Re:Developers prefer Ubuntu? (Score 1) 232

by jd (#47771989) Attached to: How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

Why would developers want/care about long-term support?

There are a tonne of packages out there that will grab source from a repository and compile in a root jail. You now have binaries for every permutation of dependencies ever produced. Test harnesses (you remember those, the things developers are supposed to use) can give you a list of regressions and compatibility bugs within minutes of a commit.

Long term support encourages developers to be lazy, to presuppose things that may not be true.

Developers are best supposing nothing, testing everything and isolating the conditional (which they should be doing anyway, good software design). If you don't have time to be competent, then you certainly don't have time to be incompetent. So find time.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein