IIRC, he used planes and such to get a smooth finish. At one point he had a guest who he introduced as a hacker (an older guy with a beard). He made 4 legs for some table or chair project Roy was working on in about 30 seconds, 4 chops each with a hatchet, perfectly square, tapered appropriately, and of course blade smooth. Impressive as anything.
The old meaning is "computer criminal," the new meaning was invented when a bunch of kids decided that being a hacker sounded cool,
The old meaning of hacker is "one who makes furniture with a hatchet". It's a fantastically impressive skill. "Hacker" meant "computing enthusiast" for a couple decades before it meant "computer criminal", as the latter was often the former and the distinction blurred.
Go to a library.
What century are you living in?
The results of publicly funded research must be made publicly available, in a manner appropriate for the current century.
"Cultural issues" my ass, white boy.
There are plenty of poor white people who are poor for their own cultural reasons. The fact that you think culture is the same as skin color shows what a confused person you are. Culture is about behavior, not pigment. Avoiding that reality is just more PC deflection on your part. Nice try. Well, not really.
Poverty is caused by lack of money.
No, it's not. Poverty is caused by not doing the things that make you prosperous. Certainly a kid born into a household where nobody does the things necessary to provide a prosperous environment is a victim indeed. The parents are the only ones responsible for that, period (yeah, yeah, we can make exceptions to that
A kid born into a family where there is no culture of learning, or creativity, of movement towards the things that have lifted untold millions out of poverty
In order to avoid having to give up on your moral relativism and turn in your PC/SJW card, you'll pretend that you just read someone talking about skin color. The fact that you so reflexively resort to that perspective in order to avoid talking about the real problem is, ironically, a stellar display of either disingenuous, craven intellectual dishonesty (or just a juvenile lack of rhetorical skills) on your part, or the sign of someone who really hasn't thought this through.
Address these things and poverty is reduced
Ah, an "addressor" in our midst. Say what you, mean. Tear down people who have something so you can spread it around, right? No. Places like west Baltimore are saturated in lavish education spending, free or heavily subsidized transportation (and walkable blocks from places without even needing it), awash in grant money that's just looking for ways to turn abandoned properties into livable homes and viable businesses, and it's been run by people at the legislative and executive levels (since you're so obsessed with this) roughly the same color as those who live there. Health and legal expenses? Covered by taxpayer-funded medical care and legal clinics where you can hear the crickets chirping for lack of interest in use other than when someone's arrested for street crime.
We've been "addressing" those issues, lavishly, for decades. Miles away, there's prosperity. In that spot? People living in fear of the local street gangs and those squatting in abandoned homes and businesses. Why? Because the members of those gangs, the thugs who make that area intolerable as a place to live or run a business, have safe haven, culturally, in the households in which they were so passively raised. Ask the people who live there, and they'll tell you that's exactly the problem. "Addressing" that problem means (ready?) not tolerating the crime. And that means police presence and activity. But we're being told, by the president no less, that what's really needed is a less visible and active police force. And indeed, the police in that area have dialed it way back in the last few weeks
Just what you look for when deciding where to build your next fire-proof retail store, right?
OK, so really the GP is saying that the only reason we have people in poverty is because we have other people who aren't in poverty. Which is nonsense.
Prosperity is not a fixed-size meal to be spread around. If it were, we'd all be living like paupers because the population has grown so much. Prosperity is created, and people of modest means create it all the time. Then they become the ones who are resented for no longer being impoverished. Too bad, they earned it. The fact that they are no longer impoverished is not what's keeping someone else from having a better life.
IMO, the only decent/moral solution is for a society in which things are more equitable. I'm not saying that a CEO shouldn't earn more than an employee, but 100X seems immoral.
So, impoverished people will suddenly start raising kids in two-parent households, or start teaching kids to read and think critically and have a work ethic
How about CEOs that make 50X? Does that pass your moral standard? 49.5%? 49.4%? When exactly does a business owners or director's pay become "moral." What is the standard you're using? Do you really mean that morality is based on statistics, not on actual principles? You agree that the person who runs a company is worth more than a person who sweeps the floor at that company. Why? What MORAL grounds to you have for that distinction? Be specific. And then in one percent pay increments, start describing exactly when it's suddenly immoral.
Because once you nail that down, you'll see how you've just set yourself up to be the immoral one for making more money, yourself, than someone else does. By someone else's standards (if we use your model), you yourself pure evil for not being as poor as someone else. How DARE you live a lifestyle so rich that you can afford the time to sit around expressing opinions on the internet! Other people don't have that luxury, so you must be immorally prosperous. If you stop being that prosperous, that will finally other people to be prosperous, right?
Does it work in Pale Moon? (Pale Moon is FF without the Mozilla Crazy.)
He was the winning entry in the SPD's 'hackathon' to produce a video redaction system to meet their needs (his request for video was also the main reason for having the hackathon in the first place buts that's not important).
He pretty much meets the definition of hobbyist hacker from Wikipedia or the #3 definition of hacker from webster "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer".
If you read the article you'd see that there are 3 possible versions of police video. #1 always exists, #2 will exist in most cases (when fully implemented) and #3 is only created upon request.
1) The raw video which is stored on DVD and available for any court proceedings. This version is not altered in any way.
2) The over-redacted version which this post is about. This version is intentionally altered to try and remove any identifying features from the subjects, including suspects and also filters out videos involving specific crimes (rape or involving kids). This video is not used for any legal proceedings; it's primary purpose is to allow interested parties to review police interactions with the public.
3) Videos legally requested under disclosure laws. These are manually redacted to remove the minimum required by law to protect peoples privacy. Depending on the subjects this would generally look like the videos you see on COPS where the subjects are clearly visible but some bystanders are blurred.
The idea is that by providing the second type of videos they can reduce FOIA or similar legal requests because in most cases seeing exactly who was involved is much less important as seeing what was done to and by each person involved in the incident. Before the existence of the over-redacted versions every request to view police body cams resulted in the the need to create a manually redacted version and this took up to 1 hour/minute to process.
At least they're equal race discriminators. http://content.time.com/time/b...
Me on the other hand? I'm an island in a sea of indifference.
Which is fine until you're killed by someone who irrationally thinks you're responsible for their poverty. Or your home loses half its value because a change in the local demographics means an encroaching street crime problem. Indifference doesn't change the problem you'll have renegotiating your upside down mortgage. But that's fine, you're much too cool to worry about such stuff.
I don't understand why the fact that Black people kill Black people negates the fact that law enforcement is often racist. Can't both be true?
Yes, there can be racist cops, just like there are racist black people. That has nothing to do with the assertion that the DC police only went after this quadruple murderer because the killer is black and victims are white. DC police go after killers every day. Given the local demographic, most of the killers are black, just like most of their victims. The GP wants to imagine that the DC police don't ever go after killers of black victims, which is BS on the face of it.
Reduce minority poverty, and minority crime will probably drop too. There are lots of ways to do that, but it takes a huge effort to do so.
So what do you propose? Use government power to force minority mothers to marry, and to force the fathers or children to stay at home, become educated, and care enough to raise children who will actually attend school? Are you saying that a kid who is born into a household with one young, under-educated parent is going to be starting out life with that disadvantage because other people aren't poor? Do you really think that places like Baltimore, which spend way above average per student on education, and have an endless parade of subsidies and programs to provide resources to people in poverty
The problem is cultural. Persistent poverty in the worst parts of Appalachia, or in west Baltimore, don't exist because other people are prosperous. That entire meme is just SJW hand-wringing BS. Poorly disguised resentment of success that's trotted out to do anything to avoid addressing the cultural issues that are the actual problem in such places.
Given UKIP got 12% of the popular vote, and the Conservatives 36%, there's hope for the UK yet!
If you pick a black person and then pick a random victim, it's more likely the victim will be white than black, because there are more white people than black people.
Then why are there more murders committed by black people (against all sorts of victims) then would be accounted for by their percentage of the population? What is your point, exactly? Yes, there are more "white" people than "black" people in the general population. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rate of crime coming out of specific demographics.