Listen... I am willing to give officers the benefit of the doubt... if there is doubt. The problem is I have seen too many times when officers are given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt. If cops assault someone without provocation or they use what is clearly excessive force they should be punished for it.
If someone escalates a situation with a cop, it is supposed to be law enforcement's job to de-escalate it. If things get out of hand momentarily that's one thing, but if law enforcement escalates the situation themselves they aren't any better than a criminal in that situation.
I can't wait to hear what really happened here. It's wouldn't be so outlandish if Watts' version of the story is entirely true, especially with the number of police beatings that get online where the exact same thing has happened (i.e. someone not resisting at all, getting beaten up, and then charged with resisting arrest).
Over 10 years ago now, Indianapolis had the infamous "police street brawl" incident where a group of off duty drunk policemen went around picking fights with guys and harassing women in down town Indianapolis. Everyone that tried to protect women in that situation ended up in jail with a bunch of bruises on resisting arrest charges. I don't believe even one of the cases ever made it to court. Still the police union backed their boys to the very end. I believe they even called the mayor a commie at one point...
The world "wholesome" needs to be retired. It has been misused for decades now.
It's also one of those words what indicate that you should listen with skepticism. It differs greatly from person to person and generation to generation. I'm sure that in pre-civil rights era south (and even today as we see sometimes) they considered their antics "wholesome."
No... I think you're wrong here. The so-called capitalism that huge multinationals aspire to IS perverted capitalism. I've become convinced of this after becoming aware of the very cognitive dissonance you describe.
Real capitalism is the shopkeeper on the corner that is trying to compete by doing a better job. When compared to a huge multinational he seems to have very little control of his situation. The control he has rests in being able to provide a better service than the guy in the shop on the corner a couple of blocks away.
Multinationals are "perverting" capitalism because they have way to much control of the situation. They have wads of cash that allow them to influence government in a big way. They are able to buy or destroy competitors. When their business model fails they are often able to get the law changed to their advantage. They can write contracts that take an individual's rights away and then buy more lawyers to prevent the contract being struck down in court. Multinationals are HUGE concentrations of power, and this skews everything surrounding them, including the ideas behind capitalism.
I am pro-capitalism. I am for the shopkeeper on the corner. As far as I can tell, the "capitalism" that huge businesses aspire to has very little to do with what the constitutional idea of capitalism is.
I am not sure anyone can choose to ignore Verizon, customer or not. Plus, on a non-mobile phone related note, there are people who can't ignore Verizon at all because that's the company that provides their local phone service (and some people can't afford NOT to have a land line).
On top of that, these huge companies are so big that they create their own gravity. They are concentrations of power, and the government is supposed to counterbalance concentrations of power, whether it be a huge guy with baseball bat who extorts protection money or a huge corporation who can force money out of you in other ways.
On top of that, these corps are actively trying to limit competition, making the vote with your feet argument even weaker.
According to Wikipedia, "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912. It shouldn't belong to anyone but the world now. The fact that anyone can make 2mil a year off of it shows how wrong the system is. So does this story.
Murdock has ushered in the era of factless journalism and pure opinion as news. Right wing slashdotters might not like that, but that's what it looks like from my POV, ergo this isn't a Troll.
Reporters (in my personal tech experience which includes a stint at a metro newspaper) are one of the groups that understand Tech the least. When coupled with the self-importance and arrogance that is present in most journalists it means they can't even be bothered to go down the hall and ask the publication's own techs if their story makes any sense. So you have this idiotic type of hand-waiving reporting. Watch CNN when there is a tech-related security story. Jeanne Meserve will come on and spout psudo-technical garbage that makes no sense at all.
Anyone using the words "Apple" and "one mouse button" in a slashdot comment should be banned for 2 weeks and the comment should be set at an automatic -1. I am not a huge Apple fan anymore, but this argument is so tired and idiotic that it has to be a mark of a troll or a moron.
If the Chinese consumer was anything like the U.S. consumer I would think this was another cloaked embargo/tariff and argue we should try our luck with the WTO. However, they're not. Most are pretty close to slave status which is why it's so hard for U.S. labor to compete with them.
I'll lean more toward the government corruption angle.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen... I am willing to give officers the benefit of the doubt... if there is doubt. The problem is I have seen too many times when officers are given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt. If cops assault someone without provocation or they use what is clearly excessive force they should be punished for it.
If someone escalates a situation with a cop, it is supposed to be law enforcement's job to de-escalate it. If things get out of hand momentarily that's one thing, but if law enforcement escalates the situation themselves they aren't any better than a criminal in that situation.
I got a tweet about this earlier today.
I can't wait to hear what really happened here. It's wouldn't be so outlandish if Watts' version of the story is entirely true, especially with the number of police beatings that get online where the exact same thing has happened (i.e. someone not resisting at all, getting beaten up, and then charged with resisting arrest).
Over 10 years ago now, Indianapolis had the infamous "police street brawl" incident where a group of off duty drunk policemen went around picking fights with guys and harassing women in down town Indianapolis. Everyone that tried to protect women in that situation ended up in jail with a bunch of bruises on resisting arrest charges. I don't believe even one of the cases ever made it to court. Still the police union backed their boys to the very end. I believe they even called the mayor a commie at one point...
but all those moralists that are actually sick minded pervs can see the fitting of tetris pieces together to be a vaguely sexual act!
With all those pieces fitting perfectly together it's probably the most sexual game ever! Oh baby!
The world "wholesome" needs to be retired. It has been misused for decades now.
It's also one of those words what indicate that you should listen with skepticism. It differs greatly from person to person and generation to generation. I'm sure that in pre-civil rights era south (and even today as we see sometimes) they considered their antics "wholesome."
Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? It does mean changing the bulb."
No... I think you're wrong here. The so-called capitalism that huge multinationals aspire to IS perverted capitalism. I've become convinced of this after becoming aware of the very cognitive dissonance you describe.
Real capitalism is the shopkeeper on the corner that is trying to compete by doing a better job. When compared to a huge multinational he seems to have very little control of his situation. The control he has rests in being able to provide a better service than the guy in the shop on the corner a couple of blocks away.
Multinationals are "perverting" capitalism because they have way to much control of the situation. They have wads of cash that allow them to influence government in a big way. They are able to buy or destroy competitors. When their business model fails they are often able to get the law changed to their advantage. They can write contracts that take an individual's rights away and then buy more lawyers to prevent the contract being struck down in court. Multinationals are HUGE concentrations of power, and this skews everything surrounding them, including the ideas behind capitalism.
I am pro-capitalism. I am for the shopkeeper on the corner. As far as I can tell, the "capitalism" that huge businesses aspire to has very little to do with what the constitutional idea of capitalism is.
I am not sure anyone can choose to ignore Verizon, customer or not. Plus, on a non-mobile phone related note, there are people who can't ignore Verizon at all because that's the company that provides their local phone service (and some people can't afford NOT to have a land line).
On top of that, these huge companies are so big that they create their own gravity. They are concentrations of power, and the government is supposed to counterbalance concentrations of power, whether it be a huge guy with baseball bat who extorts protection money or a huge corporation who can force money out of you in other ways.
On top of that, these corps are actively trying to limit competition, making the vote with your feet argument even weaker.
According to Wikipedia, "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912. It shouldn't belong to anyone but the world now. The fact that anyone can make 2mil a year off of it shows how wrong the system is. So does this story.
Troll?? Really?
Murdock has ushered in the era of factless journalism and pure opinion as news. Right wing slashdotters might not like that, but that's what it looks like from my POV, ergo this isn't a Troll.
...has been more deadly to the art of journalism than all of the technical innovations in the last 200 years put together.
It came from the same ass that the "piracy loss" numbers come from.
Oregon Trail ran a whole five seconds slower!!
Sounds like the Super is your typical blowhard administrator big-fish-in-little-pond-and-I-know-EVERYTHING type. There is a lot of THAT about.
Reporters (in my personal tech experience which includes a stint at a metro newspaper) are one of the groups that understand Tech the least. When coupled with the self-importance and arrogance that is present in most journalists it means they can't even be bothered to go down the hall and ask the publication's own techs if their story makes any sense. So you have this idiotic type of hand-waiving reporting. Watch CNN when there is a tech-related security story. Jeanne Meserve will come on and spout psudo-technical garbage that makes no sense at all.
Unless you make above 500k a year, then he was the best president ever.
You are asking someone in government to understand something slightly technical.
YOU FAIL. Try again.
Buying from smaller businesses (which are more likely to keep some more of the money HERE in the U.S.) is Political Correctness???
Because everyone knows all smaller distributors are untrustworthy. Come on.
Huge Corporate-think is really seeded deeply now, isn't it.
What's 000? I'm British.
I'm so sorry for you...
Except for the fact that during the Bush administration no business (especially big ones) was regulated, ever.
"You deaded me, you swine, you! - Bluebottle"
Anyone using the words "Apple" and "one mouse button" in a slashdot comment should be banned for 2 weeks and the comment should be set at an automatic -1. I am not a huge Apple fan anymore, but this argument is so tired and idiotic that it has to be a mark of a troll or a moron.
Want a multi-button mouse? Go buy one!
send us your real name and we'll make sure there is no help for you when you get into some catastrophic situation...
sorry to talk semantics, but that those most of those are more about Communist values, not necessarily socialist values.
Still funny, though.
If the Chinese consumer was anything like the U.S. consumer I would think this was another cloaked embargo/tariff and argue we should try our luck with the WTO. However, they're not. Most are pretty close to slave status which is why it's so hard for U.S. labor to compete with them.
I'll lean more toward the government corruption angle.