From: den Otter (neosapient@geocities.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 11:56:49 MST
----------
> From: mark@unicorn.com
> Peter C. McCluskey [pcm@rahul.net] wrote:
> >By the standards you are using here, almost all evidence is a joke. Are
> >you arguing against using evidence, or did you have some other point in
> >mind?
>
> Video evidence is a joke. Anyone who trusts it is an idiot. No
non-sentient
> witness can be trusted.
ROTFL. Right, of course a sentient witness *can* be trusted. Nope,
people don't have notoriously bad memories (proven in tests) when
it comes to giving even the most basic details of an event, and nope,
they don't have such things as personal agendas, prejudices etc.,
and they certainly can't be manipulated either, no way!
In other words, no matter how flawed automated (video) surveillance
may be, it certainly beats the living crap out of the primitive method of
relying on human (eye) witnesses. And *improvemt* is what counts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:00 MST