Slashdot Mirror


I Downloaded an App. Suddenly, I was a Rescue Dispatcher. (houstonchronicle.com)

Holly Hartman, a journalism teacher for 22 years, writes an incredible story: After watching nonstop coverage of the hurricane and the incredible rescues that were taking place, I got in bed at 10:30 on Tuesday night. I had been glued to the TV for days. I read an article about the Cajun Navy and the thousands of selfless volunteers who have shown up to this city en masse. The article explained they were using a walkie-talkie-type app called Zello to communicate with each other, locate victims, get directions, etc. I downloaded the app, found the Cajun Navy channel and started listening. I was completely enthralled. Voice after voice after voice coming though my phone in the dark, some asking for help, some saying they were on their way. Most of the transmissions I was hearing when I first tuned in were from Houston, but within 30 minutes or so, calls started coming in from Port Arthur and Orange. Harvey had moved east from Houston and was pummeling East Texas. Call after call from citizens saying they were trapped in their houses and needed boat rescue. None of the volunteer rescuers had made it to that area from Houston, but as soon as the calls started coming in, they were moving out, driving as fast as they could into the middle of Harvey.

172 comments

  1. This other app made me an air traffic controller by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    And that I can only communicate with drones or their pilots.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  2. I Downloaded an App. by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 5, Funny

    Suddenly, I was a vietnamese callgirl.

    1. Re:I Downloaded an App. by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Suddenly, I was a vietnamese callgirl.

      And that makes for a happy ending!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:I Downloaded an App. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - that app was called "IRC"?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:I Downloaded an App. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly, I was a vietnamese callgirl.

      Sucky-sucky, five dollar!

    4. Re:I Downloaded an App. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Damn it I ordered a ladyboy from Bangkok!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  3. Re:Vigilante justice by DarkOx · · Score: 0

    Right because we don't have problems already because so many of our LEOs are laughably badly trained, just bad at their jobs, etc. Replacing them with any random citizen who downloaded an app is going to go just so very well.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  4. Not working? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I've been relaying messages for someone in the Miami-Dade area. She has internet connectivity, but not cellular. Her only method of communicating with her mother is via cellular (call or text), and she doesn't have any other text type gateway apps set up. However, she does normally use Zello which is non-functional for her even though she has data. So I'm not sure if Zello is overloaded there, or if it requires more bandwidth than is currently available. Either way I'm posting this to point out that Zello is not functioning for at least some people in the thick of it, even though they can use FB Messenger and other messaging apps of the sort.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Not working? by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Google Voice, it's free and gives you voice, sms, and voicemail access online with free US domestic calls.

    2. Re:Not working? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Voice is not free (you trade your privacy for it) and has been deprecated for nearly a decade.

  5. Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point of rescuing those people who displayed a total lack of intelligence by remaining in what they knew would become a disaster zone?

    It was known for days that the hurricane was coming. It's not like it happened out of the blue. People had lots of time to evacuate safely.

    Even those without access to a vehicle, or those who have mobility issues, had ample time to make arrangements or otherwise rely on government-provided evacuation services/shelters.

    It's no secret that hurricanes can cause severe problems for people who do not evacuate. Even children know this to be true.

    So why bother rescuing anyone who was stupid enough to stay? Why risk lives saving the stupid?

    1. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being a decent human being is challenging. So just keep practicing, you will get there.

    2. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say the GP AC is a "decent human being", to use your words, because of this part of the comment: "Why risk lives saving the stupid?". So clearly the GP AC is compassionate and cares about people, but just people who aren't stupid. If anyone is lacking compassion, I have to agree that it would be the people who chose to stay behind despite ample warning, and who then demand to be rescued, needlessly endangering the lives of the rescuers. Putting other people in danger out of your own negligent behavior is not "being a decent human being".

    3. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well, let's see if you say that same thing when it is a relative of yours.

      here's the deal, you do not know everything about everybody. One paraplegic in Marathon, he tried to schedule a service to take him to the airport to evacuate Tuesday last week. His service said sure. His flight got cancelled Saturday, and he couldn't get a cab or taxi and there was no other option for him but to stay with a friend on the third floor apartment that friend had. So they are trapped in a building that is flooded.

      But his 'stupidity' should make him pay the ultimate price?

      You are an idiot.

    4. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're wanting to make the world less stupid, I suggest you start by offing yourself.

    5. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the point of rescuing those people who displayed a total lack of intelligence by remaining in what they knew would become a disaster zone?

      I can help you, since I saw Hurricane Harvey first-hand. Most people who were saved by these "cajun navy" volunteers did not know that their neighborhoods would become disaster areas. There was no precedent for 53" of rain, or the dams in the reservoirs to have to be opened unleashing millions of gallons of water into neighborhoods that had never flooded before.

      Second, evacuation was simply not an option. Houston has a metro-area population of 6.5 million people. The last time they tried to evacuate ahead of a storm, many more people died trying to evacuate than died in Hurricane Harvey. Most people really can't conceive of the sheer size of Houston. It's vast, and the area affected by catastrophic flooding was huge. We moved out of Houston after the flood on the first day there were roads open leaving town (Aug 31) and there were still so many people trying to evacuate ahead of the still-rising flood waters that it took a full day of driving to get from Midtown, where we lived, to the city limits. We only got as far as College Station by late that night.

      Houston is a city that has grown without planning, without human reason. The "freedom" that Texans value so highly and brag about so much for certain members of Texas society is a guarantee that when something really bad happens, a lot more people will suffer than if they'd had, you know, zoning laws.

      Remember, Texas is a state where the most celebrated, the most revered, and the most re-enacted military battle is one in which every single Texan was slaughtered. Disaster is in their blood (along with toxic substances from the many chemical plants, refineries and fracking rigs).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say the GP AC has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for human life by dismissing everyone who didn't evacuate as "stupid" without any attempt to understand whether they actually had the ability to evacuate.

      The viral photo of the seniors at a flooded assisted living center are a good example of what's wrong with that logic. None of those people had the ability to evacuate themselves, but you and the GP are both dismissing them as "stupid" and not worthy of being rescued without any regard for the situation they found themselves in.

      There is nothing decent or humane about your comments here. You should both be ashamed of yourselves.

    7. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he knows he has mobility issues, and he knew enough to get out by the Tuesday (since that's when he made his plans to leave), then why the hell would he wait until the Saturday to actually evacuate?! Given his physical limitations, it's obvious that you don't wait until the last minute, when the storm is hitting southern Florida, to leave. You leave on the Wednesday or the Thursday, before the situation gets really bad, and when the specialized transportation infrastructure he needs is still in place and functioning. In some ways this situation you describe sounds even dumber than the people who don't plan to evacuate. This fellow you write of apparently made a plan to evacuate, but it was obviously done in the worst way possible by waiting until the last minute to actually get out! It's like he planned to have his evacuation fail by not getting out sooner.

    8. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There are always people that fall through the cracks but the majority of people had options to get out but were more worried about their possessions and looters than their lives, this was announced at least a week in advance and nobody started moving until 0-48 hours before when the situation was already dire.

      And living up hurricane alley, does the majority of people have proper preparations, sufficient food? Again, no. How hard is it to store a couple of crates of water and canned food? I live nowhere near hurricane seasons but if I get snowed in or my power goes out for a few weeks, I can make due and I've vacated my property twice already in the last 3 years because of adverse weather.

      It's sad for elderly, disabled and children that have to rely on others when the others are so blasé about the whole situation.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I'd say the GP AC is a "decent human being", to use your words, because of this part of the comment: "Why risk lives saving the stupid?". So clearly the GP AC is compassionate and cares about people, but just people who aren't stupid. If anyone is lacking compassion, I have to agree that it would be the people who chose to stay behind despite ample warning, and who then demand to be rescued, needlessly endangering the lives of the rescuers. Putting other people in danger out of your own negligent behavior is not "being a decent human being".

      Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.

    10. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.

      Go back and read the comment that started this discussion. That matter was addressed:

      Even those without access to a vehicle, or those who have mobility issues, had ample time to make arrangements or otherwise rely on government-provided evacuation services/shelters.

      There's no excuse to remain when it's known 5+ days in advance that a severe hurricane is coming to a near-coastal area.

    11. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well for one, those in Houston were explicitly told 'don't evacuate', basically telling people by trying, they put themselves at risk of being stuck in their car on the road which is more dangerous than their house. In fact that is precisely what did happen in Texas before, more people died trying to evacuate than probably would have died by sitting in place.

      Now one could easily say the answer would have been to do proper evacuation planning rather than giving up on evacuation altogether, but that's the government's failing and there's a lot of folks who were doing precisely what they were being told and for somewhat valid reasons.

      Rescues *during* the storm are one thing in terms of risk, but by and large we are talking about post-storm rescues in the wake of the flooding. These activities were certainly challenging, contending with hazards and strong currents, but not particularly life threatening given the proper precautions all boaters should know.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by LT218 · · Score: 2

      There's a middle ground here. People who genuinely could not evacuate themselves for whatever reason is a different story.

      The GP's point about people who were capable of evacuating but stayed and ended up needing to be rescued and causing easily avoidable risks to the emergency responders is valid. Those people are extremely selfish and stupid.

      If everyone who could evacuate did, it would have freed up a significant pool of resources that could have instead provided faster, additional aid to the people who had no choice.

      In fact, I'd think that if you do indeed have a relative who could not leave for some reason, you'd be first in line to be royally pissed off at the idiots who could have evacuated but chose to stay and thus tied up resources that might have allowed your relative to be rescued sooner.

    13. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Junta · · Score: 2

      Note that we are not talking about people jumping out in the middle of a hurricane to help people. We are talking about folks puttering about in boats in flooded areas fetching people stranded in their homes. It's certainly more challenging boating than most of them are used to, but not crazy so much so that they are putting their lives in grave danger for the sake of attempting rescues.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We moved out of Houston after the flood on the first day

      You knew that Houston is a big city that's difficult to evacuate from, you knew that Houston has a relatively low elevation, you knew that the hurricane was coming, yet you waited until the predictable flooding happened before leaving?!

    15. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 2

      >Houston is a city that has grown without planning, without human reason.

      Even if Houston had sane zoning laws, there literally is no precedent for 53 inches of rain in 2 days, which is the average amount of rain that Houston gets in 365 days. The local and extended area response was still a hell of a lot better than what happened in New Orleans after Katrina (where there were mass rapes, lots of people firing on rescue boats and helicopters, and it took a large military presence to get things back under control).

      >The "freedom" that Texans value so highly and brag about so much for certain members of Texas society is a guarantee that when something really bad happens, a lot more people will suffer than if they'd had, you know, zoning laws. While I'm all for shitting on Houston's lack of zoning for many different reasons, this did not contribute anything to the problem with Harvey. Harvey killed 70 people (so far), while Katrina killed closed to 2,000.

      It could have been so much worse.

    16. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad to see what has become of America. Self-reliance and intelligence used to be among the most important values that Americans held. But these days anyone who promotes the ideas of taking care of yourself or otherwise acting sensibly is now viciously attacked.

    17. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "evacuate themselves" - Fun trivia note, when a person evacuates themselves, it means they soiled themselves, not that they transported to a different location. I am pretty sure all of these people had the ability to evacuate themselves, but they probably didn't have the ability to travel.

    18. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      While I'm all for shitting on Houston's lack of zoning for many different reasons, this did not contribute anything to the problem with Harvey. Harvey killed 70 people (so far), while Katrina killed closed to 2,000.

      New Orleans is an ancient, densely populated city that's situated directly on the Gulf Coast. Houston is a sprawling, new city, 50 miles inland. I saw somewhere that the majority of houses that were flooded in Houston were built since 1990.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      It's easy to say that when you're wealthy enough that you can afford to fill your car with gas (and you have a car) to take your valuables and get out of town, but when you're faced with leaving everything you value in life back in your home so you can wait for a bus that never comes to take you to a shelter of unknown safety/supplies to be packed in a room with 1000 other people who, like you , are also too poor to evacuate.... you might reconsider.

    20. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      And exactly what "arrangements" is someone supposed to make when they have no money or family elsewhere to take them in?

      Yep, just take that $5 you managed to save up last year and buy a $1000 train ticket to some random place where you'll have no connections, food, or source of income to get back on your feet.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      While I'm all for shitting on Houston's lack of zoning for many different reasons, this did not contribute anything to the problem with Harvey.

      Yes, yes it did. The homes that wound up completely underwater instead of only partly underwater were the result of bad zoning. They should not have let people build homes on land that low-lying.

      Further, if you really had proper zoning, you wouldn't be allowed to build anything in most of the region. Or, for that matter, most of Texas.

      It could have been so much worse.

      It could have been so much better, as well. So what? It wasn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Houston is a city that has grown without planning, without human reason.

      To be fair to Houston, and while I'm sure it is pretty bad, I don't think you'll find any large or even small city in the world which took "get entire population to go somewhere else on the same day" into account when they designed the transport system.

      Most cities can't handle workers going home in the afternoon. "Well planned" cities only just scrape past this barrier.

    23. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Now one could easily say the answer would have been to do proper evacuation planning rather than giving up on evacuation altogether, but that's the government's failing

      No, it's a group effort. All the people who have moved to Houston for work even though it's just one big flood plain share the blame. The only people who don't are the people who were born poor there. They actually have an excuse for why they haven't left, and nobody should be giving them a hard time for not leaving. None of those people with money want to move into their shit-shack anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The self reliance was always a myth. Unless you moved straight into the heart of completely untamed "Indian Country" and built a cabin and livelihood with your own two hands. In which case you were probably killed or chased of very quickly by the natives as an illegal invader, as word had already spread from the East Coast as to exactly what sort of demons the Europeans always proved themselves to be.

      In reality that much-loved independence was always backed by a network of friends, family, neighbors, etc. that pulled together as a community to help out those who fell on hard times. Or you just died when bad luck hit. That happened too. But as populations grew, those personal bonds broke down - there's no such think as a tight-knit community of millions. Or even tens of thousands. And so the support that community provided must now be provided by larger, more faceless mechanisms (which certainly have their own problems).

      As for intelligence - America has had a strong anti-intellectual bent from its inception "nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." " -- Isaac Asimov

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    25. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.
      Then I would slowly start to question 'what is wrong' with "your system".

      If there is a call for evacuation in Germany, happens rarely, but happens: the government provides the means of evacuation. AND: takes care that EVERYONE is evacuated. The only way to not get evacuated is to actively play hide and seek. And if you get caught doing that the punishment is heavy fines and/or jail time.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You love fake news so much?

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.
      Then I would slowly start to question 'what is wrong' with "your system".

      Politics.

    28. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      yet you waited until the predictable flooding happened before leaving?!

      So quick to criticize, so slow to comprehend.

      The degree of flooding surprised a lot of people, as the OP mentioned:

      There was no precedent for 53" of rain, or the dams in the reservoirs to have to be opened unleashing millions of gallons of water into neighborhoods that had never flooded before.

      It was a clusterfuck because Harvey dropped a lot of rain---more than hurricanes that were "bigger" based on size or wind speed.

      Harvey had a coastal surge like every other hurricane, but it didn't really affect Houston. The intense rain and reservoir relief were not predicted, and they are what flooded the city.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    29. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      "evacuate themselves" - Fun trivia note, when a person evacuates themselves, it means they soiled themselves, not that they transported to a different location. I am pretty sure all of these people had the ability to evacuate themselves, but they probably didn't have the ability to travel.

      I'm pretty sure some of the people who didn't evacuate themselves to another location ended up evacuating themselves your way.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    30. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zoning, with its roots in racism, has been shown repeatedly to restrict housing and proce housing out of the reach of ordinary people. It is particularly harsh in its effects on the botton 40%.

      And... it didnt prevent massive flooding in multiple cities over the last decade.

      And nothing says zoning lije empty unusable buildings with posters in the windows because they are zoned "wrong" and no wealthy powerful person has stepped up to get them rezoned yet

      Is zoning all bad? No.

      Does it favor the top 40%? Yes.

      Does it restrict housing? Yes.

      Does it hurt the poor? Yes.. significantly.

      Has it prevented flooding in zoned cities? Nope.

    31. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I weren't Anon I'd have + for the PopeRatzo... We tried to evacuate after we saw what we were in for. 30 minutes on the road turned us around because it was more dangerous on the roads than sloshing around the first of two levels in our home. I'm glad we did turn tail (and we didn't flood) because that eve on the news there was a guy who watched the rest of his family drown in their van whilst trying to evacuate.
      So FUCK you who said we were stupid to hang around. A Cat 3 isn't a big deal until it parks itself off-shore and dumps 51' of rain [in my gauge]. -T

    32. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Houston is a spawling city built on flat land. Harvey simultaneously dropped about 3.5 feet of rain on that flat plain in an area 20 to 30 times the size of houston.

      The drainage system was actually pretty amazing. If 100,000 people got flooded by a storm of biblical proportions out of about 8 million, thats a really tiny percentage.

      Ive spent the last two weeks helping flooded people. The house i am on now was built in 1948, had never previously flooded, and took 18" of water for over 24 hours. Why would she have evacuated? She wasnt even in a 500 year flood area, much less a 100 year flood area.

    33. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      There was no precedent for 53" of rain, or the dams in the reservoirs to have to be opened unleashing millions of gallons of water into neighborhoods that had never flooded before.

      I understand from a coworker who has family in Houston (and actually in South Florida as well) that FEMA is telling people that got flooded when they opened the dams that they aren't covered with disaster relief funds since the storm itself didn't cause the damage.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    34. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The assertion that Houston doesn't have zoning or has grown without planning is more legend than fact. But legends aside, building in areas that might flood once every 500 years seems like a reasonable risk. And yes, some places in that area flood more often and people are willing to accept that risk. The real issue isn't whether people should be allowed to build, but rather who should pay for the damage when it does.

    35. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Yes, yes it did. The homes that wound up completely underwater instead of only partly underwater were the result of bad zoning. They should not have let people build homes on land that low-lying.

      That's completely moronic. We aren't talking about an area that has endemic flooding every 10 years. We're talking about a biblical flood. If that same flood had hit any other coastal region in the United States, the damage would have been just as bad or worse, zoning be damed.

      >Further, if you really had proper zoning, you wouldn't be allowed to build anything in most of the region. Or, for that matter, most of Texas.

      LOL, ok, I'm arguing with an idiot.

      >It could have been so much better, as well. So what? It wasn't.

      Ok. Where were you when Sandy killed 117 people? Were you condemning the zoning in the North East? All the houses built in the low lying areas?

    36. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      >Yes, yes it did. The homes that wound up completely underwater instead of only partly underwater were the result of bad zoning. They should not have let people build homes on land that low-lying.

      That's completely moronic. We aren't talking about an area that has endemic flooding every 10 years. We're talking about a biblical flood.

      Oh yeah? Well then where the fuck is Jesus? We've been waiting for a long time.

      >Further, if you really had proper zoning, you wouldn't be allowed to build anything in most of the region. Or, for that matter, most of Texas.

      LOL, ok, I'm arguing with an idiot.

      Ah yes, the call of idiots everywhere. Look, it's very simple. You don't fucking build on a flood plain. And guess what? That's what much of Texas is, so you shouldn't build there. That means that Texas should have a tiny fraction of its current population. There's no good reason why people should want to live there; Texas has some of the worst weather you'll ever see, the gulf is a toxic cesspit... but cognitive dissonance is powerful, and people have convinced themselves that Texas is a great state. Well, it ain't. It's a great big shithole.

      Ok. Where were you when Sandy killed 117 people? Were you condemning the zoning in the North East? All the houses built in the low lying areas?

      Yes. That's exactly where I was. That's where I was during Katrina, too. And I am seriously pissed off that Trump has removed the protections Obama put in place to prevent tax money being spent on rebuilding in places which are just going to get wiped out again. That is going to literally kill people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The assertion that Houston doesn't have zoning or has grown without planning is more legend than fact [rice.edu].

      If you read the article closely, you'll see that the "de facto zoning" laws that the article talks about only apply to the downtown business district, which saw little flooding and damage.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If anyone is lacking compassion, I have to agree that it would be the people who chose to stay behind despite ample warning, and who then demand to be rescued, needlessly endangering the lives of the rescuers. Putting other people in danger out of your own negligent behavior is not "being a decent human being".

      Not everyone that rides out a hurricane is "stupid", some don't have the means to leave the area.

      I emphasized the conditional part of the statement, which makes your response a nonsequitor. Everyone WHO CHOOSES TO STAY is stupid.

    39. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Oh yeah? Well then where the fuck is Jesus? We've been waiting for a long time.

      I think, assuming he was a real person, his bones are rotting in the ground somewhere.

      >Ah yes, the call of idiots everywhere. Look, it's very simple. You don't fucking build on a flood plain. And guess what? That's what much of Texas is, so you shouldn't build there.

      Much of Texas is on a flood plain, eh? If so, then by that rational then so is the midwest, the south, and the Atlantic states all the way up to Rhode Island. Furthermore, California is an earthquake zone, Wyoming is a massive caldera zone, so really, we should just abandon 90-95% of the United States in the event that something bad will happen, somewhere, eventually.

      >And I am seriously pissed off that Trump has removed the protections Obama put in place to prevent tax money being spent on rebuilding in places which are just going to get wiped out again. That is going to literally kill people.

      Spoiler alert: you die in the end. Your parents die. Your children die. Me and mine too.

    40. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Much of Texas is on a flood plain, eh? If so, then by that rational then so is the midwest, the south, and the Atlantic states all the way up to Rhode Island.

      Correct! I believe you have finally got it!

      Furthermore, California is an earthquake zone,

      The entire country is an earthquake zone. There's nowhere there's no faults, only places where they are fewer and where they are expected to be active less often. The whole country should take seismic activity into account in building codes.

      Wyoming is a massive caldera zone,

      Lots of California is, as well.

      I don't actually propose that nobody should ever spend time in these places, but that building codes should take reality into account. And if that means that people are only permitted to live in some places on a temporary or even seasonal basis, then that's what it means.

      See, I think it's wrong not to help people who have been wiped out by a disaster. But the corollary to that (in my mind) is that I think it's stupid to settle people where they are likely to be wiped out if there is a disaster. That only makes it more disastrous. There are lots of other elements of the way we build homes which are also idiotic. For example, no one who lives in forested country should be permitted to build a home with a flammable roof, but the standard is still asphalt, paper, and plywood. That is just insane.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have to resort to absolutism and pedantry, your argument looks and sound weak.

    42. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Then I would slowly start to question 'what is wrong' with "your system".

      Politics.

      "Freedom" is why the government cannot order people to leave their homes. This is not a wrong in the system. "Politics" comes in when people exercise their freedom not to evacuate and then expect the government to make good their losses. That's the wrong part.

    43. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they don't have the means to leave, they shouldn't be there at all, which is where the stupid comes in.

    44. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American cities are built in such a way that it's impossible to evacuate them quickly. There is just not enough capacity on the roads out. Particularly Houston, which prides itself on no city planning whatsoever resulting in a sprawled out nightmare of traffic. I'm all for not continuing to subsidize this selfish and reckless attitude when the predictable problems result.

    45. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      See, I think it's wrong not to help people who have been wiped out by a disaster. But the corollary to that (in my mind) is that I think it's stupid to settle people where they are likely to be wiped out if there is a disaster. That only makes it more disastrous.

      But the implicit assumption you're making in this case is that all these flooded houses in Houston were likely to experience a flood like this. Likely over what sort of time scale? As others have noted multiple times, there is no historical precedent at all for what happened. It makes perfect sense to criticize re-building in a place that has repeatedly flooded. But we're talking about places that have never, ever flooded in recorded history. Any estimate of the likelihood of something like this happening would have been absurdly small -- non-zero, yes, but absurdly small. So if you're using the criterion that one shouldn't live in a place where the likelihood of a flood is non-zero, then the earlier complaint remains: the same argument can be made of every other type of disaster, and there's no place on the entire planet one can live.

    46. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If they don't have the means to leave, they shouldn't be there at all, which is where the stupid comes in.

      Then where should poor people live? Or does society just incinerate them since poor people have no place in our society?

    47. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Wow, do not move to my neighborhood, you are bad luck if you were in the same places as the last 3 big natural disasters.

    48. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also feel bad for people who develop cancer from smoking? How about people who get injured or killed because they decided to drive while drunk?

      I'm sorry but there needs to be accountability and responsibility at some point. People who choose to put themselves in danger deserve everything they get. But you're just another irresponsible millennial who always has a scapegoat to explain away why you didn't become the special little blossom that mommy and daddy always said you were.

    49. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is all you dickbags for whom "freedom" is a fig leaf over the most vile misanthropy the species has to offer.

    50. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by swillden · · Score: 1

      As for intelligence - America has had a strong anti-intellectual bent from its inception "nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." " -- Isaac Asimov

      Some parts of America have long had the anti-intellectual bent, which they acquired largely in reaction to the pro-intellectual and zealous progressive proselytization of the Yankee northeast. From the 17th century the Yankee northeast revered education above wealth and birth and deeply trusted in collective, democratic community decisionmaking over aristocratic and other tradition, and worked to spread their gospel (originally religious gospel; later a sort of secular humanist gospel).

      Meanwhile, the Virginia Tidewater region, settled by second sons of aristocrats interested in establishing and supporting their own hereditary aristocracy, also appreciated education, but of the classical, scholastic, let's-act-like-upper-class-Romans sort, rather than the progressive sort. The Deep South society, modeled after the slave plantations of Barbados, just wanted an ironclad aristocratic structure to keep the slaves from rising. They had little interest in, or opposition to, education for the upper class but actively disliked democracy unless it was tightly restricted. Both southern cultures disagreed with and disliked the Yankees, and resented their pushy progressivism (regarding abolition and much more).

      And then there were the Applachian regions, with a culture derived from the first Scottish highlander settlers, violent and almost ridiculously independent. They also were deeply skeptical of the opinions of educated snobs and had no real interest in community much above the level of the family, or any sort of democracy, but just wanted to be left alone.

      The other early American cultures, of New York (thoroughly commercial above all), the Midlands (pluralistic and middle class) and New France (egalitarian and tolerant) weren't so anti-intellectual, nor even so anti-Yankee, but all objected to the pushy self-assurance of the Yankee northeast.

      Of course, history has mostly vindicated the progressive positions of the 18th-century Yankees, whose ideas were the core of the US Constitution. But their confidence in their own rightness and righteousness, that they knew what was better for others than those others knew themselves, is almost entirely responsible for the anti-intellectual element of American thought.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    51. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But the implicit assumption you're making in this case is that all these flooded houses in Houston were likely to experience a flood like this. Likely over what sort of time scale?

      Well, that leads nicely into the other point of denial, which is that Texas helped bring this on itself by pumping oil out of the ground to be burned. This sort of thing is the new "normal", and you'd better fucking get used to it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Houston had sane zoning laws, there literally is no precedent for 53 inches of rain in 2 days, which is the average amount of rain that Houston gets in 365 days.

      Except you know, actual literal precedents.

      And Flooding in general is not unprecedented, so...maybe you should think about what you claim is unprecedented.

      The local and extended area response was still a hell of a lot better than what happened in New Orleans after Katrina (where there were mass rapes, lots of people firing on rescue boats and helicopters, and it took a large military presence to get things back under control).

      You should also be more careful about examining the stories you've heard, the mass rapes was a myth(driven by the idea that is the sort of thing would happen in New Orleans), the firing reports also happened in Harvey(and are as likely exaggerated as the first), and that military presence was needed to bring in supplies, which took somebody with the guts to think about the people to do(mostly because FEMA under Brown was dithering).

      While I'm all for shitting on Houston's lack of zoning for many different reasons, this did not contribute anything to the problem with Harvey. Harvey killed 70 people (so far), while Katrina killed closed to 2,000.

      I'd be careful about that too, the deaths attributed to Katrina include people who had heart attacks due to the stress, suicides and quite a few drug overdoses.

      Probably not got complete results for the Harvey deaths either, at that.

      It could have been so much worse.

      It could have been less worse. They got lucky. In another year, Trump probably would have ruined FEMA. Even a few weeks later, if it had hit, when Trump was planning his shutdown, would have increased the disaster.

    53. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Here was my experience with Andrew, 1992. We were teaching a Scuba Diving course in West Palm Beach while it was still in the Atlantic and unsure of the landfall. We can into the hotel that night with the announcement that it will hit Miami within the next 48 hours. I packed up my car in WPB, went back to Miami, grabbed as much as I could (computer, VCR, TV, clothes, and of course my cat) and left. This was all before the storm gained intensity and hit Cat 5, I would called my work 4 hours later when I arrived about 200 miles north in Cape Canaveral and said I would not be in for the next couple of days. They said "We understand". I was out of the city before they even suggested that it would be a good idea to evacuate. Called them when it was over and they said take the next week off, paid, as the city is in shambles (of course that was back when companies still cared about their employees).

      Now, granted, that as a child I already went through a Cat 2 typhoon (small) on Okinawa (now where to evacuate to) and saw the destruction it had caused and decided then, even as a child, that no inanimate object(s) is/are worth my or another person's life in situations like this. There are still some people that do not seem to grasp that concept.

      As for people that intended to stay, that is their choice but they should accept the responsibilities that are associated with their decision. They must live with the fact they could have been responsible for someone else's misfortune who actually needed the resources that they consumed. But, considering their actions to protect inanimate objects over life, I doubt anything anyone can say or do will make them realize their decision was probably not in the best interest of ANYBODY, including themselves. I would leave that type of thinking up to natural selection.

    54. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.jacksonvillebeach.org/government/departments/planning-development

      Jacksonville is smaller AND had zoning.

      Hurricanes don't care about zoning.

      Heavy snowmelt doesnt care about zoning.

      Heavy rain in the midwest doesnt care about zoning.

      A real issue is building codes, not zoning.

      Another real issue is climate change producing unprevedented rain events more and more frequently.

    55. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by stonedown · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of flood plains, earthquake zones, hurricane and tornado alleys, and fire-prone areas in this country. The idea that people could simply move out of all of those areas is not realistic.

    56. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      Huh?

    57. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of flood plains, earthquake zones, hurricane and tornado alleys, and fire-prone areas in this country. The idea that people could simply move out of all of those areas is not realistic.

      First, stop saying earthquake zones, for two reasons — both of which make you look dumb. Reason the first, nobody has to move out of those places when you can solve the problem with building codes. Reason the second, the whole planet is an earthquake zone. There are only places that have earthquakes regularly, and places that will have them eventually.

      Second, the idea that you shouldn't move out of places that are going to get obliterated by severe weather because it's expensive is a dumb one. It's more expensive not to move out of them, when they get wiped out. And that's going to happen more and more frequently now, so get used to it.

      Anyone with the wherewithal to move off of floodplains who doesn't do it is part of the problem, period, the fucking end. Anyone who chooses to build a flammable home in a forest is part of the problem. Anyone who chooses to live in a low-lying coastal city (yep, it's most of them) is part of the problem. People who can't afford to move have an excuse. People who are freely choosing to inhabit locations which are doomed just don't. I always hear a lot of talk about personal responsibility and personal freedom when it's what someone should be able to do with their land, but when it comes time to talk about whether that makes them a burden to someone else, there's always excuses and prevarication.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, passive self-defeating poor people get eaten. Lively poor people eat the passive. Or do the able waste their effort caring ... and have bitch Gaea eat THEM ? Remember the cuntlings many faces: Asteroid, volcano, plague, vermin, beast, earthquake, hurricane, tsunami, wildfire, solar storm ... robust human culture pushes ahead it best that a few might survive and summit Gaeas wrath.

    59. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      So let's see.. what about those zoning laws in Jacksonville and every other city under water? (and new york a few years back, and the midwest after the high snow melt flood.

      Zoning isn't the tool for flooding. It's the tool for restricting property use.

      Building construction standards are the proper tool for managing flooding.

      But in an age where 3.5 feet of water falls over several hundred square miles- unless everyone's houses and garages are 8' off the ground, things will be flooded. I helped gut a house last week which was 5' above street level and it still took 18" of water. Basically take the "1000" year flood plain, and add 3' to that.

      No zoning required.

      (and btw... zoning is rooted in racism and hurts the lower two income quintiles tremendously).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    60. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Except you know, actual literal precedents [wikipedia.org].

      Sure, Amelia (which was a TS and not a hurricane) hit Houston in 1978. It killed 33 people. The Houston MSA had a population of 2.8 million in 1978 vs 6.7 million today. Harvey killed 70 people. So, death toll scaled a little less than linearly with population expansion.

      >And Flooding [wikipedia.org] in general is not unprecedented, so...maybe you should think about what you claim is unprecedented.

      Flooding of that scale is quite rare. Unprecedented may be borderline hyperbole, but not by much.

      >and that military presence was needed to bring in supplies, which took somebody with the guts to think about the people to do(mostly because FEMA under Brown was dithering).

      FEMA under Brown wasn't dithering. Federal guidelines for hurricane response is that states and cities are on their own for at least 72 hours. New Orleans wasn't even in the main path of the hurricane, Mississippi was and was more devastated in the immediate aftermath. Additionally, the Interstate 10 bridges were down over Lake Pontchartrain to the north and over the bayou to the west, and pre-positioned elements further north in Arkansas were wrecked as well. That's the challenge with pre-positioning resources and supplies. Too close, and they get affected by the storm as well, too far away, and it takes time to deploy them to the disaster site(s). Blaming Katrina on Brown or Harvey on Trump is just moronic. But people who tend to politicize everything tend to be morons, so, there you go.

      >I'd be careful [fivethirtyeight.com] about that too, the deaths attributed [usnews.com] to Katrina include people who had heart attacks due to the stress, suicides and quite a few drug overdoses.

      The mortality rate for people over 70 was pretty damn high for Katrina. That's what happens when your respirator loses electricity for 2 weeks.

    61. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're not suggesting that the hurricane zones are places for the poor. They are some of the most expensive places in the US to live, what with being coastal.

      If you want a place for the poor, move to Nebraska or South Dakota or some shit. No hurricanes there. Not much of anything there, but it's cheap.

    62. Re: Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to Houston, and while I'm sure it is pretty bad, I don't think you'll find any large or even small city in the world which took "get entire population to go somewhere else on the same day" into account when they designed the transport system.

      Here in Zurich, Switzerland, on a daily basis, 450.000 passengers cross the city borders by public transport per day.
      From Wikipedia :
      TÃglich überquerten knapp 450'000 Passagiere die Zürcher Stadtgrenze mit dem Ãffentlichen Verkehr.

      Surely, that's back and forth for a lot of commuters, but it also happens mainly during peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon.

      Zurich has about 415.000 inhabitants.

      I'd venture to say that if Zurich had to be evacuated and the info got passed at 7am, it would be deserted before 14hrs.

      aRTee

    63. Re:Why rescue those who acted stupidly? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not suggesting that the hurricane zones are places for the poor. They are some of the most expensive places in the US to live, what with being coastal.

      If you want a place for the poor, move to Nebraska or South Dakota or some shit. No hurricanes there. Not much of anything there, but it's cheap.

      Did I say something that suggests I wanted to uproot poor people from wherever they live now and force them into containment camps out of the way of hurricans?

      Besides, why do you want to move them from hurricane country to tornado country? There are few places in the USA that are not subject to some natural disaster whether hurricanes, flooding, fires, tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

  6. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bad idea. Let the cops handle things. You won't be able to absorb the legal liability.

  7. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Registered handguns? There are an awful lot of guns around Texas and I guarantee that the the only registered ones are Title 3. Heck - there are an awful lot of guns on the room behind me right now and the only registered item is a Spectre 2 suppressor. Texas is a free state and allows its citizen the basic human right of self defense. You loot - they shoot. And it's amazing how little looting there was/is compared to Katrina. I think that having a well armed population cuts down on that crap considerably.

    A fellow .357 lover . . . that's a fine handgun sir!

  8. Re:Vigilante justice by Myrdos · · Score: 0

    Any help is better than no help.

  9. This is how I became an instant air traffic contro by Provocateur · · Score: 0

    This is how I became an instant air traffic controller. I stumbled upon this app, thinking it was a game, when suddenly I saidYou are cleared for takeoff

    I followed it up immediately with the clarification This channel is reserved for drones and drone pilots only. Please clear the channel for them. Thank you for your cooperation.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  10. The issue with Zello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that if you're in the affected areas it's pretty unlikely to work. You see they need either a good cellular connection of wifi to work. In a storm of the nature of Harvey and Irma one of the first things to go is electric power which renders both of those inoperable.

    Only thing that works somewhat is radio - I have analog and digital radios just for that purpose.

    1. Re:The issue with Zello by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Found the hammer struggling to stay relevant.

    2. Re:The issue with Zello by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Zello is already not working in many areas. Do you realize the amount of infrastructure required to transmit something as simple as a VOIP message over a cellular network?

      Do you realize that a simple handheld transceiver (with or without a repeater) can transmit analog voice traffic even when the cellular networks are completely down or overloaded and the internet infrastructure in an area has been destroyed?

      The internet is what will struggle to stay relevant when the shit hits the fan. Sure, it makes an analog handheld look like ancient technology on a sunny day, but when the central offices are underwater and cell sites are laying horizontally on the ground, you'll be glad someone has one.

    3. Re:The issue with Zello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the smartass not struggling enough to be relevant.

    4. Re:The issue with Zello by nasch · · Score: 1

      Is there something that makes analog signals more disaster resistant than digital?

    5. Re:The issue with Zello by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware of that. I've been an amateur radio operator for 20 years. And I spent four years writing software for wireless telephone basestations. When we had a screwup resulting in things like taking an entire island off of global telephone phone network, leaving things stranded without a software-patch, we'd just use a sat-phone.

    6. Re:The issue with Zello by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, but certain Amateur radio bands allow for packet-radio, some are reserved for voice only, and some used to be for morse-code only, but I think they did away with that. Morse has advantages over voice in emergencies in that it can be understood more easily than voice despite an extremely noisy/weak signal. But you get similar benefits by turning the baud-rate way down in packet-radio. Also, morse is no longer required for a license, so it might be more difficult to find people who can decipher you.

  11. Re:Vigilante justice by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not always. Plenty of times people who are not prepared can make a situation worse.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  12. SLASHVERTISMENT IN 3...... 2....... 1...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never seen a better advert on /.

  13. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Any help is better than no help.

    http://listverse.com/2013/11/19/10-attempts-at-charity-that-stupidly-made-things-worse/

  14. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honestly speaking, as a guy who is a firearms owner, I shoot better than any cops I have seen at my gun club (I have shot against them and they always lose) and I am probably NOT going to be shooting anyone in the back as they run away, unarmed, then walking up to them and shooting them in the head as they lay there.

    Also, cops in the USA seemed trained to start screaming at people (and thus escalating the level of anger/frustration/violence) when they arrive on site. Unlike guys like me that first seek to DE-ESCALATE those emotions, to try to get everyone to calm down. I guess 'real' cops like to de-escalate the situation by turning anyone angry, frustrated or annoyed into a dead body...

  15. Re:Vigilante justice by cdreimer · · Score: 0

    My brother was in the Guardian Angels in the early 1980's, doing neighborhood patrols in San Jose and finding himself in more trouble with the police than protecting citizens from criminals. He quit after a month or two. The police then and probably today would discouraged people from getting involved beyond calling 911.

  16. Re: Vigilante justice by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    All states have some kind of good Samaritan law.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  17. Re: Vigilante justice by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

    make sure its full time with bennies.

  18. Re:Vigilante justice by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing so helpful as an untrained stranger coming into an unfamiliar situation holding a lethal weapon, pumped up on the excitement of justice and at any second likely to be startled out of their wits.

    Think of the big headlines where someone unsure about a situation calls the police and an innocent person gets shot as part of a misunderstanding. Amplify that by a couple orders of magnitude and you have what crowd sourced police 'help' would look like.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  19. Re: Vigilante justice by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bad idea. Let the cops handle things. You won't be able to absorb the legal liability.

    During a large scale disaster, you may as well say "Let the people die". Police and other government agencies are completely overwhelmed in such situations. San Francisco and other cities in earthquake regions realize that and train local citizens in CERT/NERT classes to take part in a neighborhood emergency response team knowing that it can be days before rescuers outside the area can make it in.

  20. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering when you'd finally start posting affiliate links again. Guess the Twinkies fund finally ran out?

  21. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The police then and probably today would discouraged people from getting involved beyond calling 911."

    Good old creimer mangled grammar.

  22. Re:Vigilante justice by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Right, there are situations where you can be helpful and situations where you probably should leave it to the proper authorities.

    Grabbing a shovel to help fill sand bags, [great] pitch in.

    Rescuing someone being swept out to sea, [maybe] if you know you are a strong swimmer and perhaps have had some water front rescue training in the past. You need to be able to evaluate the risk you will yourself become a victim in need of rescue, if you are unsure you should probably just stay on shore keep your eyes on the victim or their last position so you can point them out when help arrives.

    Running into a situation that maybe unclear with intent to help by brandishing and potentially using a lethal weapon [almost never] a good idea. If you happen to be one the scene when the trouble starts and have a clear picture of whats going on and are also defending yourself fine, I think its right and proper for you to have a fire arm and using it for self defense. Going and seeking out trouble with it is another matter.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  23. Re:Vigilante justice by harperska · · Score: 2

    That may all be true, but it seems to me that the answer should be to increase enforcement of deescalation training and accountability among police forces since we have the authority to do so but for some reason haven't yet, rather than turning to a vigilante force that may or may not have deescalation skills but by definition has no means of enforcing those skills among those who currently lack it.

  24. Questioning charity by mi · · Score: 2

    What's the point of rescuing those people who [...]

    That's a good question. Fortunately, because the rescuers are volunteers, we do not have to answer it. If they feel like helping people, it is up to them — even if it can be argued, that they are rescuing fools, who'd be better off dead.

    And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own — without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Questioning charity by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hey, if we can stop funding the military-industrial complex first, I'm all for it. Compared to that, all the various aid programs combined amount to a drop in the bucket of what's confiscated in taxes - and it's spent far less effectively.

      Of course you must understand that when some disaster strikes your area, and the insurance companies all go "well shit, we can't actually pay for all this", then you're up shit creak and nobody else will help you, either.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Questioning charity by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, if we can stop funding the military-industrial complex first

      What's the connection?

      Compared to that, all the various aid programs combined amount to a drop in the bucket

      Are you delusional or are you lying? Here is the 2016's budget, for example:

      • Spending on Social Security, unemployment, and labor in 2016 was about 37%
      • Medicare and general health spending was about 28% of all outlays
      • Spending on national defense was about 15%
      • All other programs (agriculture, energy, commerce and housing credit, community and regional development, etc.) made up approximately 14%

      To be more wrong than you are, one would've have to claim, the Moon is made of cheese...

      Moreover, unlike any charity, maintaining capable military is, actually, a government's responsibility explicitly written in the Constitution while everything else is wrong:

      I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

      — James Madison

      and nobody else will help you, either.

      TFA is exactly about people helping others — saving their lives. So, you are wrong once again... How do you function day to day — or do you have a minder or something?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Questioning charity by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      And then we can revisit the mandatory charity of providing health care to the fools, who haven't bothered procuring health insurance in advance, school-lunches for kids, whose parents can't afford them, etc. Whoever feels those people should be helped, is welcome to do that on their own â" without the government confiscating money at the point of weapon from others.

      We've been doing this gunpoint-money-charity thing for a while, it's worked out pretty well so far. Your distress about this issue is presumably the result of the conflict between your frothing lunacy and how the world really works.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:Questioning charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if we can stop funding the military-industrial complex first

      What's the connection?

      Both are money pits that emotional appeals are used to compel upon innocent victims of their exploitative narratives.

      Are you delusional or are you lying?

      Are you? You're citing a website that deliberately concocts a false narrative, rather than an independent source. Social Security is people getting their already invested money back. Same with unemployment. Entirely different revenue streams. And your website doesn't even tell us what they mean by "Labor" so...I have to guess that they mean the Department of Labor with its ~40 billion dollar budget.

      You should look for a more honest picture, not one deliberately inculcated to spread lies.

      To be more wrong than you are, one would've have to claim, the Moon is made of cheese...

      No, you managed to do it by citing a site that's obviously lying with statistics.

      Moreover, unlike any charity, maintaining capable military is, actually, a government's responsibility explicitly written in the Constitution while everything else is wrong

      The Constitution is not the ultimate arbiter of anything, it is the words of a few dead men, who cannot speak for themselves today, or answer our questions. In fact, it's been used for quite a few abominations, see Taney's ill-famed Dred Scott Decision.

      TFA is exactly about people helping others — saving their lives.

      TFA is a feel-good sap story that is more cringe-worthy than meaningful. You know, they write a lot of stories about heroic firemen. Not so much about the fire marshals who prevent a disaster by fining the contractor who wanted to install unrated cladding on a building.

       

      So, you are wrong once again... How do you function day to day — or do you have a minder or something?

      Who is your Commissar, mi? Who dictates your inane prattle? You do seem to be quite diligent in it. He must be very good at cracking the whip.

    5. Re:Questioning charity by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Spending on Social Security, unemployment, and labor in 2016 was about 37%

      Calling social security or unemployment part of the federal budget is disingenuous, as is calling them social programs. They are risk pools (insurance programs), and they have entirely separate funding sources, paid for by the workers and employers that take advantage of them. People pay into those pools when they work, and they expect to get money back out of them at appropriate times (upon retirement, upon disability, upon losing a job, and so on).

      Neither is part of the federal budget. Money neither passes from the general budget into those programs nor vice versa. So from a federal budget perspective, spending on Social Security and Unemployment are both precisely zero, or at least within the margin of error. (Federal spending on paying back loans that they've taken out from the social security administration, on the other hand, is a large piece of the federal budget, but that's not a social program, either; it's paying the interest on government debt.)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Questioning charity by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      The Trust fund that comprises the SSA is however pretty much solely invested into government backed securities, that they regularly borrow from everyday. To this point they have always payed everything they borrowed back to the trust fund with interest. But unless there is significant legislation done to restore the long term solvency of the fund, they will run out somewhere in 2033 or there about. So invest wisely in the event the congress of then has the same competency as the one we have now.

    7. Re:Questioning charity by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a mess, because of a number of factors. Basically, both parties thoroughly screwed retirees:

      The Democrats:

      • provided funding to establish rural medical care, which extended life expectancy.
      • pushed for universal health insurance, which extended life expectancy.
      • Actively prevented increases to the retirement age to compensate.

      The Republicans:

      • told everybody that having lots of kids was bad, thus reducing the population growth that the Ponzi scheme depended on.
      • created tax rules that encouraged the use of stock options and stock grants as an alternative to wage increases, thus depressing the wage of high-salary workers and preventing the wage cap from going up as quickly as it otherwise would have.
      • actively prevented changes to the social security rates or caps to compensate.

      I guess it's going to take a news story every night about old people dying homeless and destitute because their Social Security dried up before our clown government will bother to get their act together. Either that or a million-geriatric march on Washington D.C. with pitchforks, burning torches, and nothing left to lose.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Questioning charity by mi · · Score: 1

      Calling social security or unemployment part of the federal budget is disingenuous

      No, it is not — because people do not pay into those "pools" voluntarily. Whatever you call them, they are taxes. Also, the actual Unemployment Insurance schemes are operated by the States — what propping they get from Federal budget is just that, a mandatory charity.

      But, hey, let's take the Social Security and Unemployment out of it. That still leaves "Medicare and general health spending", at 28% or nearly twice the defense spending — certainly more than that if combined with the agricultural subsidies and other crap from the last item (itself 14% or nearly the same as military).

      Oh, and then realize, that while States spend nothing on military, they do spend on the mandatory charity. So the total share of such charity in taxes is substantially more than twice the military, likely thrice more.

      Now note, that Immerman claimed, that the mandatory charity is, I quote, "a drop in the bucket" of the defense spending. Must be a very non-Newtonian and non-Euclidian bucket if 3/4 of it is called "a drop" compared to 1/4.

      He is still wrong, and now so are you...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Questioning charity by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The connection is your statement that citizens shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for parts of the government they disagree with. By your statement, people shouldn't be forced to support the military industrial complex.

      That connection seems pretty obvious to me. How could you not see it?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Questioning charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and then realize, that while States spend nothing on military, they do spend on the mandatory charity.

      Sorry dude, many State governments spend money on military units themselves. In fact, over 20 states maintain separate defense forces from their National Guard units. And yes, the National Guard also gets state funding. If you wanted to budget them in, you could, but you'd have to do a lot of legwork. You can't say nothing, that's a LIE.

      You really shouldn't demonstrate such ignorance, it discredits you.

    11. Re:Questioning charity by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your statements, or are you really that partisan? This is not a (D) or (R) issue. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

      Your statements above should at least give you a clue as to why the Democrat Party has shown decline in the past 10 years, just as there is growing discontent for the Republicans in their own party that is currently happening. It has now passed partisan politics and most people just want a government that will work for ALL the people, not just the people in their own party.

  25. Re:Vigilante justice by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    Events like Hurricane Harvey overwhelm local infrastructure and authorities abilities to manage the situation. Under normal circumstances, emergency dispatchers in the Houston MSA may be dealing with a few dozen emergency calls at a time. Harvey exploded that by a couple of orders of magnitude.

  26. Re: Vigilante justice by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is very different. Things like police auxiliaries and CERT/NERT where citizens are identified, credentialed and given training to help out with a limited range of common needs is great idea! As far as disaster preparedness and response goes.

    Having people download an app to play cop for a day in the way downloading uber lets you play cab driver is a different proposition entirely and sounds a lot more problematic to me.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  27. Very mixed feelings on this by mattr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow. This article describes what I tried to do in 1995 for the Kobe earthquake, 20 years ago. But it suggests ways things go wrong as well. In the linked article the journalist put massive effort in and helped some people. But she also told everyone repeatedly that help was coming, even when she knew there were no boats in the water. I do not want to judge, since it sounds like she was doing a superhuman feat that nobody else was there to do and that was the best that was humanly possible. In the end compassion directed her to make some decisions and compassion later haunted her enough to write the article, and explain everything so that others can help in the future.

    At that time I was at a new Internet provider that opened for business just before the quake, and I hoped to get Tokyo University to act as a call center to pick up calls for help. There was no news coming out of the area and no phones, but Internet lines were working. We would put it together on a web page and coordinate grassroots disaster relief, sharing people's needs and who could bring help there. In the end we couldn't do it for two main reasons. News organizations refused to cooperate by sharing what they saw from a helicopter, and Tokyo U. said there were too many bureaucratic problems with cooperating. In the end while I was able to provide some support on my own, mostly by relaying information and helping people who were in the area to upload pictures, there was a limit to what was possible. And then the most amazing site was created by a Stanford student if I remember correctly. Nowadays there are lots more systems. I believe the phone company or was it Yahoo made one that lets you say if you are safe.

    Since data connections are usually more resilient than voice service (and even voice over data apps degrade) there will likely continue to be a need for data-based systems in emergency situations. I don't know why the emergency support dropped to such a horrifying extent that nobody else could help. I hope the article stimulates more people to recognize the need for better support of communities in disaster areas. If 911 gets overloaded or ignores a key communications channel like this app, then perhaps there should be a way to bring more people on board from different walks of life in an emergency and coordinate online. In fact anyone online even far away from the disaster area could have done so. This journalist took up the challenge but it shouldn't have to happen that way ever again.

    1. Re:Very mixed feelings on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why the emergency support dropped to such a horrifying extent that nobody else could help.

      Because rich people realized that emergency support was for poor people so they decided to defund it.

    2. Re:Very mixed feelings on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm in Houston. I saw what happened.
      As for flooding, there are areas of town that often flood. Those living there are prepared and are used to it. But with Harvey, many areas of town flooded that had not flooded before. These were the areas where the rescues and Cajun Navy were most evident and needed. While I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find someone or some obscure report somewhere that predicted this would happen, it was mostly unexpected. Thus the mayor recommended people not to evacuate. We've done the evacuation thing before...it did not turn out well. Yes, there were instances of stupid but by far the problems and urgent needs were not unreasonable. What is really amazing, however, is how many volunteers have come to the aid. And, now nearly two weeks later, as the rebuilding goes on, there is still a huge amount of volunteering from the unharmed helping the harmed.

      So, to all you folks that have that sanctimonious smarter-than-everone opinions...you didn't live it, and you didn't walk in our shoes. And reading all the click-bait, breathless stories in the world, will not make you knowledgeable.

    3. Re:Very mixed feelings on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But she also told everyone repeatedly that help was coming, even when she knew there were no boats in the water.

      My reading is that once she found out there were no boats in the water yet she stopped saying that the boats were coming "soon" but continued to say that someone would come and help (not specifically when). I don't think she was lying on purpose.

      And she said repeatedly in the article that she wasn't trained, she wished someone else was doing it instead of her, and at the end of the article she said she doesn't know how people who have the job of dispatcher can cope with the job.

      This journalist took up the challenge but it shouldn't have to happen that way ever again.

      Agreed.

  28. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice about Christopher Dale Reimer:

    I am Nancy Guerrero, the Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
    http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

    Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
    https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

    Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
    https://school.discoveryeducat...

    But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.

    Thank You dear users,
    -Nancy Guerrero

  29. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true, which is why if you know such events are coming you prepare for them by drafting extra staff in to cope, through overtime, calling in extra shifters, or from out of state, or even just quickly day-train some volunteers. You know, be prepared, that thing that Trump lied about.

  30. and further more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To add to the Texan mentality; nearly 80% of Rockport Texas was destroyed by Harvey. This included the schools.

    The kids at these school had to register in other counties in order to continue their schooling.

    The football team of Rockport, in order to stay a foot ball team, has forgone going to school this year in order to stay registered in Rockport, so they can play football this season.

    A hurricane destroyed their entire home town, and they CHOOSE to be a year behind in school, just so they can play some football....

  31. Re:Vigilante justice by houghi · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. Especiallly not on such a large scale thing like this. You need to know the ability of the people. You need to know where they are going. You need to be able to see if they come back. You need to process the information that they bring back, so further help can be done.

    You need to see that you do not need to help the helpers, because that means you lose 3x the manpower, at least.

    This is not about 5 cars that collided and you need to pull out people. This is the coordination of several thousand people that need to work together as good as possible. Not just the people who get them, but medics, people who will provide food and what not.

    There are people who trained to do this. Offer your help and let them tell you what is needed.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  32. Re: Vigilante justice by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

    Credentialed! Because you will respect mah authoritah.

  33. Re:Vigilante justice by timholman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Plenty of times people who are not prepared can make a situation worse.

    Amateur radio operators provide life-saving emergency communications (EMCOMM) during a natural disaster. But the first rule that is emphasized to hams who participate in EMCOMM is this:

    "Don't become part of the problem. You are there to assist, not become a victim or act as a first responder."

  34. Re:Vigilante justice by wyHunter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Typically, it's Fire that does rescues, more than Police. I've done both jobs and have had little issue with the public doing stuff in parallel because , well, in our country the state and its organs should be under the jurisdiction of the people, not the other way around. Having said that, I think '2 minutes of training' isn't enough. Having said THAT, given that the Cajun Navy rescues folks where others don't, I think it's incredible and awesome.

  35. Re: Vigilante justice by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    And case law that went to the supreme court of the USA says that emergency services do NOT have a job of saving one person but to maintain society - which is quite different.

  36. Re: Vigilante justice by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    In theory it is more problematic. But, tell me, what is better? Having people drown or having citizen volunteers do this? I'd choose the latter, myself.

  37. Re:Vigilante justice by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    What makes you think those things weren't done?

  38. Re:Vigilante justice by wyHunter · · Score: 2

    With the exception of a few unAmerican places like New York, we do NOT have 'gun registration' in the USA.

  39. Re:Vigilante justice by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    Additionally, how do you conflate this into an anti-Trump screed? FEMA guidelines are that you are pretty much on your own for first 36-72 hours after landfall of a major hurricane. Hurricane Harvey response was a textbook cooperation between Federal and local authorities and citizen involvement.

  40. Ham Radio by MountainLogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To a great extent this is why ham radio is still around. I applaud folks good intentions to jump in and help, but counting on cell towers to stay up is courting a bigger disaster. There will be storms/earthquakes, etc that will take down the cell towers, the fiber that connects it, the electricity the supports it,and the diesel supply chain that keeps back-up generators running. Ham radio frequencies can reach hundreds and even thousands of miles to areas outside of an impacted area and are often the only line of communication in a disaster. We also need to enable the FM receivers that are built into modern cell to support broadcast of "critical, need to know information."

    1. Re:Ham Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      Plus, unlike what was said above, Voice and SMS have a much higher chance of getting through than data, with SMS being the winner. Living in an area with little cell signal at points, you have the best chance of an SMS making it out, followed by voice and THEN data.

      Same can be said when you're in a stadium full of 109,898 people. SMS can make it out but data is done for. Too many people utilizing too little capacity, the exact same thing you can very well end up with in an emergency situation like a hurricane or earthquake

    2. Re:Ham Radio by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In gods own country, yes.
      In Europe not so much.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Ham Radio by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, how much help did HAM's provide during Harvey. I'm generally skeptical of the bold claims made by the HAM's I've known (many look to be a couple bacon cheeseburgers away from needing a rescue themselves), so this sounds a good disaster to measure what percentage of the communications they handled for the Houston area. Where can we get some stats?

    4. Re:Ham Radio by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Out of curiosity, how much help did HAM's provide during Harvey.

      The Ham groups typically work with the state and local emergency management agencies directly.

      After the dust settles: I'm sure there will be the ARES division report summaries showing how much traffic the hams passed and how many man-hours their groups put into it, Although you might need to subscribe to QST or find the corresponding ARES groups and attend their meetings to learn the info; it's not like there will be press releases with a lot of fanfare about how these groups helped, they are not among those to brag.

      I am guessing probably of particular interest will be Aransas TX, where 18 out of 19 cell towers went down completely.

      I also wonder what happened when the Portland police department 911 PSAP went down completely with no reroute.

    5. Re:Ham Radio by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      Moof, Hams are perhaps a little too good at getting press coverage relative to their impact. I would agree that Ham radio is falling by the wayside, due to the ubiquity of cell phones. Without a doubt cell phone are ubiquitous, easier to use for the general population and provide much greater and richer range of services. Indeed cell should be the perfected initial line of communication. This wonderful cell technology is predicated on a brittle infrastructure of cell towers.

      I happen to live in the mountains along a the only east bound interstate out of Seattle which normally has great cell service. Even though I am only an hour away from Microsoft and Amazon HQ, several times a year we have weather events the close the roads and knocks-out power that results in loss of land, cable and cell service. Due to our continued power disruptions the cell providers have bolstered their back-up power, but power still runs out and we lose all "consumer" communication. I shudder to think what would happen in Seattle when the overdue big earthquake hits. We have another mountain pass that has had landlines taken-out by a 2015 landslide and is still waiting for landlines/Internet and local towers to be restored. This pass currently only has one distant cell tower that provides only weather dependent dodgy connectivity.

      The old AT&T infrastructure (circa 1950/60) was designed to even be replaceable after a nuclear attack. Go look at an old Ma'Bell microwave tower site. They were literally concrete bunkers. I just don't see modern quarterly profit driven cell providers building to survive 500 year events. Resiliency requires more and better fall back options. Infrastructure seems to work great until they suddenly don't.

    6. Re:Ham Radio by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      MySidia,

      Good point about the softer side of the network from the Portland 911 system event. On a larger scale, all it took was one a misplaced if/break statement to prove a "trivial" Unix patch can bring down even the most robust network. ( As a C programmer I have to take issue with the article blaming the compiler and not the programmer and their test tools/environment, but then than's just my world view).

    7. Re:Ham Radio by adolf · · Score: 1

      The Ma Bell microwave towers are magnificent structures. Many of them have their electronics mounted underground in a bunker that is mounted on springs -- even in tectonically boring regions.

      They're part of the Long Lines project, which was paid for in part by Cold War fears (and funding). They didn't create this robust microwave infrastructure for consumer profit; they created it for government cheese.

      The cell phone networks could be upgraded to be similarly robust/redundant, but we don't have any cheese to hand out right now.

  41. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is why in times of crisis like a natural disaster this makes all the sense in the world. Our country has shown time and time again that we pull together when help is needed.

    Flooding is a unique situation though, most boat owners are going to know how to use them so they are already more likely to be able to help than become victims themselves. As another post said, grab a shovel and start filling sand bags. Distribute food/water/clothing. When it comes to rescuing people if you're not sure you can help then don't, you'll just make it worse. But if you have a boat and see someone drowning then absolutely, you're much more like to make that problem better.

    Got a high voltage live wire down and someone trapped in a car, wait for the professionals.

  42. Ham radio by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Ham radio operators have a similar type thing we can use called echo-link. You can't download it unless you have a Ham radio license though. Sometimes I don't have my mobile radio with me, so instead of carrying a walkie-talkie around, I can punch up a repeater using echo-link and use it similar to a walkie-talkie. 99% of the time, I'm just copying the mail on the weather spotters repeater.

  43. Re:Cajun Navy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... the Cajun Navy is a bunch of 80+ year old black guys in jonboats..

  44. Re:Vigilante justice by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    "Any help is better than no help."

    You roll up on a nasty crawl, there are people with guns drawn and lots of yelling and screaming, maybe some blood on the ground. What should an over-armed under-trained local vigilante do?

    Half or more of the guns might be held by other vigilantes who heard the same call, but without uniforms or badges, who is to know? The perp (if any) might even claim to be one of you. Hysterical and angry people screaming are hardly error-free sources of data.

    Now the cops roll up and find out that not only do they have to deal with the original assault between two drunks, but have to sort out a dozen gun wielding local rednecks hopped up on adrenaline waving guns around spouting off about being sovereign citizens and who gets credit for the citizen arrest. If the locals have the wrong skin color they might "fear for their life" and just start shooting everyone.

    Great.

  45. Re: Vigilante justice by Strider- · · Score: 2

    It all depends on the situation, I suppose. One of my hobbies is sailing (I have a 27' sloop), and the basic rule on the water is that if someone is in distress, you respond to it if you are able, and it is safe to do so. This is a tradition that is almost as old as history itself. The last one I responded to was a guy in a power vessel with a dead engine, and slowly drifting towards rocks. I passed within a few feet of him, tossed him a line, and took him under tow.

    That said, in the modern era, this is usually done in coordination with the coast guard. When a distress call comes in, they're up on the radio asking for any available vessel to respond. In some cases, they just want to have additional eyes on the scene, and in other cases to search and/or perform what rescue is possible until they arrive on scene.

    One of the more interesting calls I ever heard, though, was the Coast Guard looking for someone who would be willing/able to take command of a 35' sailboat in one of the local bays. From what I could gather, what was going on is that a husband and wife had been out, he got injured and subsequently evacuated, and she wasn't comfortable single-handing the boat to get herself and it to the nearby town so she could join her husband. I was already 3 hours away at that point, but otherwise I'd have offered my services.

    Is this the same as a disaster area? No, but it is a situation where "civilians" are performing rescue/safety type tasks, at the direction and usually in coordination with the authorities.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  46. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was probably spending more time "doing the deed" with bees in knotholes, that's why he was in trouble with the police.

  47. I stayed at the Holiday Inn last night by ugen · · Score: 1

    I am not a rescue dispatcher but...

  48. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That probably explains why a few decades ago power companies and emergency services worked until winds were up in the 50 mph range. Now they fold up at 40 mph here in FL. Incidently this allows more looting and similar because its easy enough to be out in that level of weather.

  49. Re: Cajun Navy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only appy apps apps can help the Cajun Navy, not LUDDITE human rescue dispatchers.

    Apps!

  50. Re:Vigilante justice by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Not always. Plenty of times people who are not prepared can make a situation worse.

    In this type of situation: probably not. If local authorities are way undermanpowered, and if you have a boat and know how to use it to help someone in dire need, then USE IT. Just do Not go out and self-deploy to a scene. Make sure you have someone else coordinating and supporting your activities who knows where you are and maintains contact where you can get a call for additional resources if needed: make sure you have a backup plan, and understand the risks for each situation before going into it, so you don't suddenly put yourself in need of rescue too.

  51. Re: Vigilante justice by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Yes, the best way you can help in an emergency is to apply your field of expertise if it is in any way relevant to the situation. This may mean operating a boat, or it may mean getting a balky Internet connection working.

  52. strangely entrancing by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Try this then: trance music + police band.
    You have to play with the volumes of both until you get the right balance, but once you do it's strangely pleasant to listen to. Obviously, cities like Baltimore and Chicago have more chatter than Halifax.

    I actually use this as background when I played Eve, it was a perfect level of 'activity' that made it seem so much less of a boring empty universe.

    Probably NOT as entertaining if you are, in fact, an emergency services dispatcher.

    http://youarelistening.to/chic...

    Lots of cities available: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Brisbane, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Halifax, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, Montréal, Newark, New York, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, St. John's, St. Louis, Saint Petersburg, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, Wichita

    EDIT: nice. Slashdot can't be bothered to use a posting system from THIS century, but they can detect and abort my post because I dared to paste a list! OMG.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:strangely entrancing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Soma FM's SF 10-33 station. Or Mission Control.

      They've been doing it for a while.

  53. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No actually it is not.

    Literally the first thing they teach you in emergency response training is not to "make another victim" (that is if you dive in to save them and can't get out now whoever comes next has 2 people to save not 1), and the same would apply to law enforcement.
    Adding more people to a volatile situation make sit more volatile and the cops don't need to sort out who's a "citizen responder" from who's "a loudmouth threatening people with a gun".

  54. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, no different than what some of the news-making police responses have been, where their training let them to converge with a full tactical team on a suicidal man, shoot him, and leave. Can we dare hope that these disasters involving trained officers are a minority?

  55. Re:Vigilante justice by SacredNaCl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is why groups like the: III%, Cajun Navy, American Freedom Keepers, Highwaymen, Riders of the Confederacy -- go out in groups, set up a base of operations with a logistical support network, and generally have some training. Many of them are also ex military, ex police, ex medics, worked in logistics, and many of them are techs as well. They also usually have human intelligence on the ground before they get there, tend to make contact with law enforcement when they arrive so they know who they are so they don't freak out with a mess of guys in gear show up. You don't want people to mistake you for an armed group of looters! They try to connect with businesses and church people ahead of going. They tend to take multiple forms of communications gear, extra fuel, and whatever other resource they can with them that might not be available that they can carry.

    That does not mean its always perfectly organized, pretty, free from chaos, nor that it is free from danger. If your area of operations is bacteria infested water, that alone is a danger. It does not mean you cannot end up a part of the problem even after successfully being a part of the solution. Especially if there is no logistical support available to you easily beyond what you can carry. Situations can change rapidly. A levee breaks or a river crests or a road is completely washed out after you get in. Stuff happens. I've seen some of these groups do some pretty amazing things with what they have to work with. Sometimes that is the only support that will exist.

        An example of that danger from Hurricane Harvey is where several people took the only good option available when effecting a rescue or bringing in supplies would otherwise have to be brought in by air -- the monster truck or 5 tons with very high intakes and exhausts. These could get into areas that boats could not, and other vehicles definitely could not. They were even in areas that helicopters would be useless in. However, wheels have wheel bearings. They don't perfectly seal. At best they can be packed with grease to keep some of the mud and cruddy water out. After a few days of operating these in that water while sometimes carrying in heavy loads of supplies and ferrying people out, they literally drove them until the wheels came off. The issue of logistical support being unavailable put at least one of them in a bad situation. They did way more good than bad, but not having that support when the rest of society is washing away down the river is never a good thing, especially when the waters are rising all around you and you cannot effect a roadside repair.

    All of that being said: A lot of rescue, national guard and support organizations simply bypassed the smaller towns leaving them to fend on their own. The militias and other groups saved a lot of people, coordinated their own usually completely free of your tax dollars support of communities, ran and helped organize the only distribution points available, coordinated with other charities, trucking companies (which is what I did on this end) to get supplies in and help stabilize things. They also did it faster than government response and resources could allow in a great many cases. Many of them are sticking around for as long as they are financially able to to continue providing support during the clean up phase. Or at least sticking around until that mission can be handed off to someone else.

    People having downloaded zello provided a way to communicate where people had little else. It also led to a fair amount of duplicate calls for assistance because not everyone is on the same networks. Its still a great resource to have. The more options you give yourself ahead of a crisis the better.

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  56. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's all be glad bush wasn't in office.

  57. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        The big shootout in downtown Dallas a few years back had several civilians with weapons, but none of them tried to use them since the police were already dealing with it, and no innocent civilians got shot.

  58. Re:Cajun Navy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds a little bullshitty to me.

    Guy installs chat app and becomes a rescue dispatcher by listening to conversations between people caught in hurricane. It's like saying I became a cop because I have a scanner and listen to police transmissions. If he wasn't physically out there helping, then he wasn't helping at all.

    Stupid millennials, always trying to claim credit for shit they didn't do.

  59. The difference I see in two hurricanes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With New Orleans, most people were "My home is flooded. Im gonna wait for the guvmint come rescue me".

    In Houston, most people were "My home is flooded. How can I help my fellow neighbors in this time of need?"

  60. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False choice. An untrained volunteer dispatching other people in a disaster area can easily make the situation worse, causing even more people to need rescue, inefficient allocation of resources (ie. sending several boats to rescue the same persons or to the wrong location), etc.

  61. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's a police officer with a badge and authority given by the law, I'd happily cooperate.

    If a non-police officer came up to me and tried to impose some kind of false authority by "citizen's arrest" or ordering me around, I'd shoot them in the face.

  62. Re:Cajun Navy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the shilling for the spyware/malware known as Zello, which requires the following ridiculous list of permissions by the way:

    Identity
    find accounts on the device

    Contacts
    find accounts on the device
    read your contacts

    Location
    approximate location (network-based)
    precise location (GPS and network-based)

    Phone
    read phone status and identity

    Photos/Media/Files
    read the contents of your USB storage
    modify or delete the contents of your USB storage

    Storage
    read the contents of your USB storage
    modify or delete the contents of your USB storage

    Camera
    take pictures and videos

    Microphone
    record audio

    Wi-Fi connection information
    view Wi-Fi connections

    Device ID & call information
    read phone status and identity

    Other
    prevent app switches
    receive data from Internet
    view network connections
    pair with Bluetooth devices
    access Bluetooth settings
    send sticky broadcast
    connect and disconnect from Wi-Fi
    control flashlight
    full network access
    change your audio settings
    run at startup
    control vibration
    prevent device from sleeping
    read Google service configuration

  63. Re:Cajun Navy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds a little bullshitty to me.

    Guy installs chat app and becomes a rescue dispatcher by listening to conversations between people caught in hurricane. It's like saying I became a cop because I have a scanner and listen to police transmissions. If he wasn't physically out there helping, then he wasn't helping at all.

    Stupid millennials, always trying to claim credit for shit they didn't do.

    Firstly it's a gal not guy, and if you'd read the fucking article you'd know she did a lot more than that. Although how much it actually helped I'm not sure.

  64. Sounds Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This... just sounds all too familiar.

    I get the human interest angle, and there's Disaster, and Hurricanes, and Courage, and Resilience Under Pressure.

    However promoting the Zello angle seems a little lame. How exactly is this different than listening in on a police scanner? Or ham radio? An old-fashioned party line or a telegraph station? Doing a ride-along? Because Internets?

    Adding "internets", "by computer", or "app" to a story does not fundamentally change the story. It's still about citizens asking for help. And rescue authorities, or courageous citizens coming to their rescue.

    Am I being too cynical about the focus on the app?

  65. Neck-Deep In Water - I Evacuated Myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so then I was neck-deep in water with a turd floating around me.

    I fail to see how this betters my situation. Please enlighten.

  66. Re:Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't obey the orders of the police, then you deserve to get shot. Even if they wrongly detain or arrest you, cooperate with them. You can get back at them later, legally. Your justice is not on the street, but in a court of law.

  67. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be like Mark Discordia. Make sure it's $37.50 with bennies and lots of drugs and video games. Oh and don't forget the girls constantly tugging at your penis.

  68. Re: Vigilante justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly in the USA, it is might be better to not help the victim. This is due to how their legal system allow victim to sue the helper, and how the victim in the USA mentality willing to sue the helper. (search on google, you'll know 1, 2, 3)

    So if you helped someone in the USA, you can be sued even if you are genuinely trying to help to save lives. it might be better to "Let the people die".

  69. Re: Vigilante justice by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Prowess on the range has zero correlation on results in the field. Zero. There are a number of studies for this. Even the run and gun... They do them to maintain weapon familiarity. On the range, nobody is shooting back at you.

    Watch fewer movies.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  70. Re:Vigilante justice by Junta · · Score: 1

    Can we dare hope that these disasters involving trained officers are a minority?

    Though those events are tragic, the one solace is that they are relatively rare. Steps need to be taken to further mitigate the risk of such tragedies, but encouraging totally untrained or ill trained civilians would be exacerbating the problem rather than helping.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  71. Re: Vigilante justice by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    The key is willing AND ABLE. You are clearly an experienced sailor, and would not go into a situation where you would yourself likely go from rescuer to victim.

    Would you respond to a distress call from someone who was being attacked by a band of armed pirates? If you were captaining a large vessel with a sizeable crew that was also armed, maybe, but I doubt you'd charge in there just you and a buddy on your 27' sloop. It would be a mistake to do so you'd end up just being another victim and needed rescue yourself.

    Here again its about capability. What concerns me here is that lots idiots have a handgun and a smart phone and will think that makes them them a John Wayne character.

    The population of people with 27' sloops attempting water rescues is smaller and probably mostly with people responsible enough to do the things needed to own a keep boat like that, a strong indicator they have above average sense and decision making.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html