StringJunky

Perhaps it is your choice of news sources that is the problem.

I think ANPR cameras do a better job of speedsters because they calculate average speed between two distant cameras, rather than just the one camera capturing a single speed data point over a short distance. These can be easily circumvented by people familiar with speed camera locations by slowing down just in time. That's more a recipe for accidents and reckless driving because it puts people in two modes: fast and slow. ANPR cameras probably force more people to drive in a more steady fashion because the mental mathematics of getting around them is too difficult to work out in real-time.

I live in a county of about 1m people with 1073 serving officers (2020). That's the lowest ratio in the country. There seem to be cc cameras on all traffic light systems that I've seen in the city. Camera surveillance is very big in the UK, I think. We have about 9000 ANPR and 7000 speed cameras on the roads in the UK (4th highest globally). It might be worth splitting off, Phi. I think the general feeling here, is that they are really more a revenue stream due to there locations, and that's why there are so many. The latter is anecdotal on my part from things I've read in the local and national news. In just London alone there are 500,000 government-run cctv cameras. There's a few more statistics in that quote link. There appears to be a camera, of all types, for every 13 people. Hope that gives you a general idea. I find it interesting how many people are caught commiting crimes by their own camera systems, of whatever sort, and people are buying them like they are going out of fashion; Alexas, car cameras, doorbell cameras, helmet cameras, baby cameras, etc. Mobile phones are also potentially perfect remote government spies, Centralize all that data and Big Brother will truly be here. China is already implementing such an authoritarian nightmare. If you challenge the intrusion, that old chestnut "What have you got to hide?" will be thrown at you. The trail of data you leave behind you now, as you live your life, is endless. Privacy is pretty much a myth now. It's a wide subject of conversation, and I'm definitely off the focus of this thread. We will all become immortal by virtue of our data profile. Happy days.

People fight to preserve what they believe in. My grandfather, and likely many other war veterans would double facepalm your comment. Putin would welcome someone like you... makes his brand of autocratic rule easier to accomplish.

A funny thought: if we go to war with Russia, watch the toilet rolls fly off the shelves first before anything else.

They're the opportunists, trying to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

You probably didn't take the cursor out of the first quote box, due to probably editing it, on to a new line outside it before adding another quote, lLike this:

Here's a BBC explanation on what initiated the change: If drivers are getting away with it, that might be down to the ever diminishing presence of the police on the roads.

A crow's got to eat... They do pick up the dead stuff as well and keep our roads and paths clean of dead animals.

I think 'democracy' is on their "inappropriate thoughts" list as well. The takedown of the Tiannamen protest monuments are presently being removed in Hong Kong.

Yes, the very wealthy could be exempted by their 'tax-efficient' accountants.

My neighbour had the same attitude, that each group was somehow monolithic and distinct. We can only ssume that such persons have roots growing out of their arse and into their seats, with everyone outside their vehicle an infernal obstruction.

A very wealthy cyclist/pedestrian with no motors will pay less towards the upkeep of road infrastructure than a typical salaried/factory worker car driver? Almost everything everyone pays for, some fraction goes to the tax man . Besides, most people are some mix of each transport category.

I suppose, with the new reversed hierarchy, motorists will be more liable in an accident involving pedestrians and cyclists, or cyclists hurt a pedestrian, if they are shown to have not observed it. With the increasing use of in-vehicle cameras, it's probably more enforceable with that sort of evidence likely to be more available now. Even quite a few cyclists have them on their helmets. .False.

It's not adapting for atmospheric effects, since there is none in space. It is for making remote on-site assembly corrections. It's that technique that allows the mirror to be so big. You couldn't fold a large sectional mirror, lauch it, and expect it to be aligned automatically on unfolding to the thickness much less than a human hair without it. Compared to the Earth-based ones, which adapt continuously in real-time at many points, it's relatively crude, but it's made such a big space-based mirror possible.

JWT has adaptive optics, which Hubble doesn't have because it wasn't developed then. Here's a stackexchange post about it: Searching 'telescope adaptive optics' will give you more general info about it. It was originally developed to counter atmospheric effects affecting Earth-based telescopes. It appears to have been adapted for the JWT in a first, for reasons stated in the quote.

Autocrats don't like being ignored, they get lonely. Putin's done it, KJU's doing it, all we need is Xi to feel left out, although he's got the Olympics.

Do you think reciprocal cyber disruption will play a significant part in this? I read the US have quite a potent malware that severely disputed one of the Chinese telecoms iirc.

The ITER milestone is not about 'how hot' but 'how long'.

Which is not surprising, the spectre of WW2 still haunts them, and their subsequent national MO towards military conflict in the 21st century. They are treading carefully. Also, they are comprised of a coalition government, which will make them appear more collectively hesitant due to inter-party disagreements.... it's another layer to deal with.

Here's some latest numbers on hesitancy distribution, within the NHS, in the BMJ:

The history of the formation of religions and associated contemporary beliefs can be viewed dispassionately. The political control of the archaeology would be part of a discussion on issues impeding archaeological/historical enquiries. Scientists/researchers in other fields also have political obstacles to overcome.

I take that as a compliment. There should be no grinding and swinging of axes in an anthropologically-based question like this.