You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 1 Apr 2010 08:00 On 1 Apr, 10:09, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers- pies.co.am> wrote: > Ian wrote: > > "Adrian" <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:80rvirFqbjU14(a)mid.individual.net... > >> Phil Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > >> much > >> like they were saying: > > >>>> Trivial, although Phil's suggested method is completely wrong. > >>>> Just > >>>> store the raw data, then perform whatever queries you wish at a > >>>> later > >>>> date. > > >>> Well, I was thinking of sort/merge and cobol! > > >> Cobol? Tha don't know tha's born. When ah were a lad, all we 'ad > >> were > >> Fortran, and a lump o'coal once a month. > > > dBase III+ > > > With no Clipper. > > Oi!! I still use dBaseIII+. > > And what's Clipper? Something new fangled I expect.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - forerunner of dBase
From: Cynic on 1 Apr 2010 08:07 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:08:46 +0100, "Ian" <idh(a)henden.co.uk> wrote: >In my book, and on my calculator, �11.06 per kg IS �1.66 for 150g, so >the store are not only misleading, they are deliberately falsely >advertising. There is nothing deliberate about it. It will be a simple typing error on the part of the person who entered the per-item weight into the database. Try calculating the per Kg price using a per item weight of 180g instead of 150g. Many things in most databases were originally entered by a human via a keyboard. Everyone makes typing errors every now and again. Therefore the probability that a large database contains no errors is very close to zero. In some cases it is possible for a computer to do a "sanity check" on the data to check for gross errors, and to cross-check between fields to see if they tally. -- Cynic
From: Ian Dalziel on 1 Apr 2010 14:13 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:15:46 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:20:31 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world >wrote: > >>Well obviously I've never tried it on a CCTV camera (though I've been sorely >>tempted) but I know a halfwit aquaintance who wanted to see what would happen >>to his pocket camera if he tried it. He found out pretty quick. Even the sun >>can damage out some cameras if you point them at it for too long. > >What do you mean *even* the Sun? Try the following: 1) focus a laser >beam from a laser pointer onto the back of your hand using a large >magnifying glass. 2) Focus the Sun onto the back of your hand using a >magnifying glass. > >You will soon discover why it does so much damage to point a camera at >the Sun while the average laser pointer will do no lasting damage at >all (though it may well interfere with the exposure system of the >camera and render the image unusablewhile it is pointed at the >camera). Does it matter which page? -- Ian D
From: Prai Jei on 12 Apr 2010 05:20 Conor set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > I've been stopped at a checkpoint whilst going about my legal business, > asked who I worked for (plastered all over the side of the wagon) where > I was going, where I'd come from (on the side of the wagon) , what I was > carrying and what time I started work. This wasn't from a copper but > some gubbermint busybody with a clipboard - the Police were the ones > pulling random cars in. > > Its happened several times in various places. Each time, the response > was the same - a polite sod off. The time is coming when that sort of reply will not be an option. -- ξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
From: Prai Jei on 12 Apr 2010 05:35
Phil Stovell set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:01:47 +0000, Ret. wrote: > >> As I have mentioned in another post - the vast number of 'reads' per day >> means that it would be impossible to record the movements of 'all' >> vehicles - and why would they want to waste time and resources in doing >> so? The only vehicles that are tracked are those recorded as 'hits' - >> ie, those vehicles that are 'tagged' as being of police interest. > > I could quite easily write a program that traced, as far as possible, > every car number that appeared on every camera. Get me the data, and I'll > do it! Sort all the data sets into ascending registration number and > date/time of photographing and location - I expect you can see what I > mean. > > >> Kev Computers can now log everything in case it's of interest later. All Plod then needs to do is ask the system, "where has vehicle reg no TC57ZYX been seen between December 2009 and February 2010?" and in a few seconds, out pops a full listing. That's interesting - almost every week he's gone from Streatham to West Bromwich, but varying his route - M1 and M6 one week, M40 the next, A5 the next, this one is weird - on January 15 the system lost track of him beyond Buckingham until it picked him up again him coming in via Cannock and Walsall. Now why would he go the roundabout route via minor roads where they haven't installed cameras yet? Must have something to hide. OK let's check his religion, ethnic origin, sexual preference, internet browsing ..... mmmmmm ..... Right, we'll get the anti-terror squad to keep tabs at this guy. -- ξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply |