|
|
|
I think a better design would be a silent system that sends out a text with a location every 30 seconds. The loud noise would draw the attacker's attention probably followed by a foot coming down on it and breaking it.
Much better to have a silent device so that if the person being assailed is being dragged off into a car they can be located more easily and it being silent means that the attacker is not immediately aware of the beacon.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Er ... no ... sorry. A silent alarm is worse than no alarm at all. The whole point is to make the attacker think twice - rape alarms are piercingly loud and obnoxious for that very reason - whilst alerting anyone close enough to respond in time. Even if it only distracts the assailant long enough to waste his energy on destroying the device that is a precious moment during an attack increasing your chances of escape. Simply waiting for someone to respond from a distance while the attacker blithely sets about completing his work is not an option from which the victim has anything to gain. Any measure of prevention, no matter how small, is always preferable to cure in this situation.
There is no question that alarms are effective. The problem has been that they have been too large and inconvenient to be reached instantly when required. In that regard my only concern would be the 3 seconds required to activate the alarm. That is really quite a long time to maintain pressure if you are under attack.
|
|
|
|
|
What about this anti-rape device[^] ? 
(Yes, rape is a serious and intrusive violation. Silent alarms are not the solution, nor the loud ones for that matter. IMHO the best way is to avoid being attacked all together. Don't walk alone in the middle of the night. Learn self-defense, get some mace in your handbag and follow your gut feeling: if you're feeling scared, act on it. If all else fails, some form of alarm might save you, although I doubt it  )
|
|
|
|
|
There already exist: it's called .38 Special. Loaded with JHP.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
Cristiano Ronaldo says he is the best footballer in the world and comparable with the game's all-time greats.
He should be careful what he thinks, but that's okay as there is a fall back. As the great Ferenc Puskás said "The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pelé as a player. He was above that."
Ronaldo isn't even good enough to clean Pelé's boots.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I think that there have been many players far better than that preening popinjay, Cristiano Ronaldo.
For a start, the best player, ever, was, bar none, George Best.
Johan Cruyff, Gerd Muller, Jimmy Greaves, Stanley Matthews were all great; Pele can go in that list.
Figo, Ronaldo, Zinadine headbutter, Ricardo Villa (one of the best goals ever), Thierry Henry.
There have been so many great players. C.Ronaldo is certainly up there. But the best? Not by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just a little bit surprised. 
--Diego Armando
|
|
|
|
|
Different era will have different "best" players, in all sports.
Pele was the best player of his era.
Zidane was the best player of his ere (up to the "Coup de Boule").
Ronaldo and Messi are the best players these days.
Same thing for Hockey, you cannot compare players from different era, Wayne Gretzky was the best player in the 80's, and so was Maurice Richard in the 50's
The problem is that now, players call themselves the best players in the world.
(Disclaimer, I never watch Pele play, nor do I really follow football in general..)
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Gareth Bale is easily as good as Ronaldo; the buggers just won't use him. Probably come back to the UK; maybe Man Utd or City.
Messi is a good choice but the real test of a player is the English Premier League.
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Wayne Gretzky was the best player in the 80's, and so was Maurice Richard in the 50's
But Bobby Orr is the Greatest Of All Time!!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Same thing for Hockey, you cannot compare players from different era,
In the NHL, only one defenseman has ever won the Art Ross Trophy (regular season scoring title)
There are strangers on the Plain, Croaker
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: he thinks
That was the biggest revelation for me.
Seriously though I think the modern day players are better than the players of the past as they are much fitter and up against more consistent, better players. Ronaldo and Messi of today are better than Pele and Best of the 70's. Now if Pele was around today would he have been better than Messi? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you cannot really compare now and then. It's not only the players but the game that has changed as well, and everything that happens around it. The game has become faster and more tactical, the players are not just players anymore but speculation and marketing objects at the same time. They might be fitter, but they don't really have a choice if they want to meet today's requirements, and let's not forget about doping which is a big taboo because of all the money involved. Soccer is highly commercialized, which is sad because it is really killing the sports because the higher budget you have, the more likely you win. I mean, look at the tables of all big European leagues - there are maybe two, three clubs left who can become champion, it's become very unlikeley for another team to reach that goal...
But anyways, I went off-topic. I don't think there is a single one you can pick and say he's the best, it's always a group of players that are outstanding in their generation, they are all the best.
And let's not forget: Even the best are nothing without a good team.
|
|
|
|
|
There are comparisons that can be made. For example, when Pelé was playing, there was less competitive football available yet he played nearly 700 club games, or 33 a year scoring 0.94 goals per game. He is/was the youngest player to score in international football, play in the world cup and score in the world cup. He retired 32 years ago and yet still holds a plethora of records[^] including most World Cup Winner's medals.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Cristiano Ronaldo
That does not sound right.
His period as best player was a short one.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I see from all the replies that you're all falling into the trap of believing that there are only, at most, five 'players' in a team and that the only true measure of a player is goals scored then. Oh dear. You do have to wonder whether anybody really understands football at all sometimes!
|
|
|
|
|
And he's humble, too.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Given his penchant for preening, he might be the "best player". Just not necessarily in the footballing sense.
[edit} Although George Best was probably guilty of that too (Miss England, Miss World etc.)
modified 30-Nov-15 5:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
What in the flippin' elephant is the Scroll Lock button for on my keyboard?! That little blister cost me a couple hours of work!
All of a sudden last week the arrow keys and command keys stopped functioning properly in Excel. I couldn't navigate anywhere properly. I was pulling my hair out for days, spending a half-hour here and there scouring the web to figure out what the problem was. I thought it was an Excel keyboard setting that I had inadvertantly modified. NOPE. Turns out it was the stupid little "Scroll Lock" button which had gotten stuck in the Locked position (with a corresponding tiny little light far, far away from it on the corner of my Microsoft keyboard. Thanks MS!)
What gives? Why in the world are all the keyboards in the world wasting valuable real-estate on a vestigial remnant of an ancient operating system? In the US alone there are over 300M keyboards. If each one dedicates 1 square centimeter for this relic of absurdity, that equates to a total of over 7 acres of squandered space -- that's over $15000 in wasted real estate costs (in average land prices)! I say let's all just pop these little buggers off and sell them all to Dubai to create a floating island.
Have any of you ever intentionally used this little plastic cretin? (I mean -- since the dark ages)
modified 5-Nov-15 15:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never used it in Windows, but in DOS I used it with Microfocus Cobol to pause code listings.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
He did mention the dark ages 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the good 'ol days of DOS, absolutely. We used "PrtSc" for printing a screen dump to the printer (now we use it in Windows to create a screenshot).
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
-- Marcus Brigstocke, British Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't talking about PrtScn. I use that all the time too. I'm talking about the button that is usually right next door: "ScrLk"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
