QT display all the quality of HD 1080p - or not?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: bible stuff
Next: Recommend OCR programs?
From: Warren Oates on 22 Jun 2010 08:02 In article <210620101659211783%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > Is it to much to ask to have clever thinking people > in our police departments? Police departments recruit from a sub-culture of lower-middle-class thugs, so, yes, it's way too much to ask. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Warren Oates on 22 Jun 2010 09:31 In article <michelle-8EFCD0.05311622062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > The GI happened to be a member of Mensa, and that's what > led to his views on highly intelligent criminals. One should never confuse Mensa with Jeopardy, they represent two very different forms (if that's the word) of "intelligence." I'm not surprised that Mensa members can't find their butts with flashlights ... -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Doug Anderson on 22 Jun 2010 09:54 Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> writes: > In article <0v39wfaahc.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson > <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, if crime prevention was a riddle duel between detectives and > > criminals a la Bilbo and Gollum in The Hobbit, you'd have a point. > > Crime prevention, such as it is in this country, is partly about > outwiting the criminal. > > A witless detective, such as me for example, is going to have > a much lower success rate than a highly intelligent detective > who is good at tying together non-obvious facts. Again, outside of fiction, police work is rarely concerned with solving elaborate logic puzzles. Sure, smart hardworking police are better than stupid lazy ones if those are your choices. But the ability to solve elaborate logic puzzles may be important in the fictional world of Hercule Poirot, but it is rarely important in preventing or solving crimes.
From: Mark Conrad on 22 Jun 2010 10:40 In article <tkettler-50632E.07581922062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Thomas R. Kettler <tkettler(a)blownfuse.net> wrote: > > I hope not. I would like to think there are a few intelligent > > humans around, for all our sakes. > > Did you make a grid where you log what can and cannot be a relationship > between two pieces of info (person in this house doesn't have birds, > smoker of this lives in yellow house, etc._ > > I won't indicate the results since I don't want to spoil it for someone > else, but if anyone is interested in seeing the Excel spreadsheet I used > to get the answer, email me privately applying the sig below. I did not make such a grid initially, but reverted to doing so after a while. Unfortunately, threw my hands up in digust prior to actually solving the puzzle. < g > Apparently we humans can only juggle a few relationships at a time, before we give up in dispair. Your spreadsheet is a good approach. An even better approach would be some sort of automatic spreadsheet, which would try _all_ the possible combinations, so you would not have to enter them manually. Mark-
From: Mark Conrad on 22 Jun 2010 10:48
In article <8eeifzw4t7.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > A witless detective, such as me for example, is going to have > > a much lower success rate than a highly intelligent detective > > who is good at tying together non-obvious facts. > > Again, outside of fiction, police work is rarely concerned with solving > elaborate logic puzzles. Yeah, you are right. It is much easier to allow a killer to continue killing, than it is to puzzle out the obvious clue connections and remove him from the streets. Mark- |