Agreed, 100%. Every time a cop is dumb enough to commit a crime on camera, I notice something disturbing: they're never looking around in nervous anticipation of encountering one of those many "good cops." They know damn well that even cops who are too honest to initiate criminal activity, will turn a blind eye to the crimes of their co-workers, and probably even lie to cover up those crimes.
No one expects every cop to be a perfect little angel. No one expects that from any group. But when Hans Reiser murdered his wife, he got put behind bars where he belongs, and so no pervasive mistrust or hatred of programmers arose from that trajedy. If every programmer could count on the police to cover up their crimes, people would harbour just as much animosity towards programmers as the police are currently facing, if not more.
It's about accountability. You can't trust someone who flaunts their unaccountability, and cops have been doing that more and more.
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless".
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law.
The main thrust of my first paragraph was that tribal affiliation tends to drive our judgement of how many facts are sufficient to reach a conclusion. "None" isn't good enough, and "all" is too much to expect. Where to draw the line in between is the point of contention.
My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
I have sympathy for innocent victims.
Of course you do. Everyone does. Unfortunately, you also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those...
Of course we don't care about those. Of course we don't criticize justified use of force. Of course we focus on the UNjustified use of force. Does something about that seem inappropriate to you?
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed?
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but the genius of his candidacy is that he's treating it like a branding campaign, instead of a political campaign. He basically looked at the political playbook, said "nah, wrong sport" and substituted his branding playbook. That's why his shit is working when conventional wisdom says it shouldn't.
Tanks are more vulnerable to infantry than most people realize. Sure, you're never going to win a 1-on-1 fight in open country, but in a shelled-out urban landscape, a guy with two sticks of dynamite and a greased-up sock can make a tank throw a track, and another guy with a can of gasoline and a lighter can make things pretty unpleasant for the occupants of the now-immobile steel-and-ceramic crematorium.
"You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
I've noticed that when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians, some people say we're quick to blame the cops, even though there's a pile of evidence of police wrongdoing. Then, without a shred of evidence to support it, they cast aspersions on the victim. Suddenly, there's no problem with being quick to blame. It quickly becomes clear that tribal, us-v-them thinking is really what's at play, here, not evidence or the presumption of innocence.
There also seems to be no connection between the control the police claim they must maintain, and responsibility for outcomes. "I did this thing to maintain control of the situation, but cannot be blamed for its outcome, because I did not control the situation. Pin a medal on me."
It's certainly true that many cops put their own safety at risk in order to serve their communities day in and day out, often working some pretty rough overtime. They will arrest the guy who burglarized your home, they will investigate your brother's murder, they will speak to you with respect, and you will be inclined to respect them in return, both for their hard work and professional behaviour. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead, and both will claim that you put your hands in your pockets and sprinted straight at them. Neither will be punished with anything worse than a paid vacation, but your loved ones will be told that you're a violent criminal who deserved to be put down for attacking a police officer. The cops who murdered you and defamed your memory will go on to take dangerous criminals off the streets, and maybe also murder a few more innocent civilians.
We'll continue to be protected from the worst of society, by the worst of society, until we learn how to hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
I mostly use Mac OS, so "alt" is called "option" and I don't have to touch it to see the menu bar, because that's just how Macs are. This isn't about the hamburger menu.
The current Firefox UI is intolerable to me. So is the current OS X Safari version (I want my goddamn title bar back!) The only browser I can stomach right now is Vivaldi.
The thought of Google being so aware of the moment-to-moment context of my life that it can make accurate inferences about what I mean by "this" or "that" makes me want to buy a gun and go live in the woods until I die of something preventable.
Being drunk/high while *at work* is unacceptable, but after I got home from work last night, I drank a six pack. I was pretty buzzed by the time I went to bed. Woke up this morning with a clear head, even got to work a little early. A drug test would show that I'd recently consumed alcohol to excess (I think it would, anyway -- I don't know a lot about the chemistry involved) but it had no detrimental impact on my work.
If someone in your office is staggering or slurring their speech or is otherwise clearly impaired, a drug test may be warranted, so that you can fire the person for cause, or attempt to compel treatment, or some kind of other remedy to your "impaired employee" problem. Pre-emptive testing is just an exercise in humiliation and control, though.
Battlefield: Vietnam was a masterpiece. I still remember messing up a hard bank in a helo and half-crashing onto my landing skids as the chopper screeches to a halt in front of a building with a collapsed wall, full of enemy troops. They blink. I blink. Then, as one, they turn their weapons towards me. Too damaged to fly, and too pinned-down to run, I just held down the trigger and fired a rocket salvo straight forward. I only killed one of them, but it kicked up enough dust and debris to cover my hasty retreat on foot.
Haven't played BF3/4 because I don't want Origin. Probably, I won't make an exception for BF1, but anything is possible.
At the risk of coming off like a cranky, digital-age hermit, I increasingly feel like I'm just done with this shit. The more big companies try to entrench the value of their product, the less value it holds for me. When you just let me have the thing I paid for, we can remain on good terms, but when you place a higher premium on locking things down than you do on the experience of consuming them, I start looking for alternatives. Now, I'm not even that disappointed when I can't find an alternative. The hassle reduction I experience by canceling my sub and being done with it, outweighs the satisfaction I'd have gotten by consuming your stupid fucking content. Good riddance.
If Snowden retains control of any information or documents he has _not_ already revealed
It's wildly, fantastically unlikely that he's retained anything at all. He's repeatedly said that he no longer has control of the material. If he's lying, why? It would have to be for a reason that overcomes the bad PR of being caught in a lie. What could that possibly be? This seems more like a paranoid fantasy than a sensible look at plausible risks.
They often leave out details in written documentation, other interviewers may not know the right questions to ask or to report.
Yeah, so? People can infer things from things. If this is an indictment, at the very least, it's against all national security reporting, if not journalism in general. While good journalism might not be entirely 100% devoid of all unfortunate consequence, it's benefit to a free society is far greater than... whatever you're guessing the FSB is guessing.
Analysis of NSA's abusive practices also provides metadata about the working technologies to follow those practices.
Yeah, and how to defeat them. "Don't fight oppression." "Why not?" "Even if you win, you're showing your playbook to other oppressors." "Uh, I guess, but the alternative is forfeit to oppressions, so... no. But thanks for the tip." Honestly, I think you're ignoring the important, confirmed stuff so you can focus on trivial fluff and guesswork. I'm not trying to get personal or anything, but your line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me unless I strip away all relevant context.
How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?
None. As Snowden himself has repeatedly explained, that would be fucking stupid. Lots of people want to see more of the documents than Snowden is willing to show, and those people could get their wish simply by killing him, if he had some kind of deadman's switch set up. He's not dumb enough to incentivize his own murder.
How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?
Well, if Snowden's saying it to the press, I'm not sure the Russians will be able to deduce any more than the Chinese or Saudis or anyone else. Not sure why you think Russia's intelligence community has privileged access to news published for public consumption.
What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?
Hopefully not much. What many people are hoping, is that its policies will change instead of being protected.
What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
Uh, are we accusing him of inspiration via minor details now? That's... pretty specious. Just gonna leave it at that.
He's ill at ease with being the product Facebook sells to its customers, and skeptical of Facebook's ability to treat its product (its users' eyeballs) like paying customers. Seems reasonable to me. I want to know exactly what category I fall into when I deal with a company. If I'm the product, fine, I have one set of expectations. If I'm the customer, fine, I have a different set. I don't know what to make of attempting to blend those, and I don't blame anyone for being apprehensive about how that might turn out. Probably not fair to put that on par with "despair" at all, much less "the earth's quota of despair." It's a pretty small proportion of the earth's deflated enthusiasm.
Uh, the AC I'm criticizing was succinct in expressing his point, which was that people who spell Linux in all-caps don't know enough about Linux to comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood...
The fact that you spelled "linux" in all-caps gives away the fact that your experience with linux is very limited. Oddly, you have rather strong opinions for someone with limited experience.
Seriously, that's the whole thing. I'm afraid that to me, it still sounds like being a spelling Nazi was the totality of his point.
Yeah, but when a word is generally spelled in title case, you can't spell it all lowercase while actively mocking someone else for using uppercase. It's a bit of a cheap shot in the first place, and with the element of hypocrisy thrown in, it's pretty hard to resist saying something.
Okay, that makes sense now. There's no SRPM for Chrome, so it's binary-only, which means circumstances restrict it to distros which are large and stable enough to be tested upon as a binary. Thanks!
Fair enough; on those specific points, I stand corrected. That said, I know Valve has some Source Engine games ported to Linux, so I still feel like this doesn't make as much sense as it ought to.
The fact that you, twice, failed to capitalize it at all, forces me to wonder if you're applying your case-based experience divination method to yourself.
I must admit, I don't do gaming on my Linux rig, but... aren't there major 3D games being published for Linux via Humble Bundles, Steam, GoG, and no doubt others as well? Is this a support nightmare for those companies? And if not, how is it that they can work with GPUs in Linux, but the living gods of code over at Google can't hack it? I'm at work and can't be bothered to look up compelling examples, but I'm pretty sure The Witcher 2 runs on Linux, and that's a pretty GPU-intensive title. When something like this doesn't add up, it usually means I'm missing something. Like maybe Witcher 2 requires a specific distro that uses proprietary drivers or something, but Google's talking about Linux in general? Can anyone clue me in?
I wanted to like Hawken, but to me, there was no sense whatsoever of being in a vehicle. You accelerate like a person, you run like a person, you stop like a person. I didn't feel like I was in a mech, I felt like I was wearing a weird helmet and had a jetpack. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I went in looking for a mech game, and Hawken simply is not a mech game, it's a straightforward first-person shooter where the player models look like mechs.
DCS World. The game (with one plane, a Russian Su-25 ground attack aircraft) is free on Steam, with other aircraft available as modules. Although it's still in beta, I recommend the UH-1 Huey module. I just take off and cruise around. Sometimes I'm doing 200kph just ten feet above the ground, sometimes I soar up and over mountains and drift down into canyons at a lazy 60kph and then touch down on a rooftop in a small town. Sometimes I stick some enemy trucks a couple hundred kilometers away, and when I notice them, I tell the gunners to fire at will, just so I can see four miniguns firing before calling it a night. It's very immersive and relaxing. (It has a campaign, but if I just want to chill, I use the mission editor to create a mostly-empty map.)
Slashdot Mirror
They tried that back in the 1860s. Didn't go to plan.
Agreed, 100%. Every time a cop is dumb enough to commit a crime on camera, I notice something disturbing: they're never looking around in nervous anticipation of encountering one of those many "good cops." They know damn well that even cops who are too honest to initiate criminal activity, will turn a blind eye to the crimes of their co-workers, and probably even lie to cover up those crimes. No one expects every cop to be a perfect little angel. No one expects that from any group. But when Hans Reiser murdered his wife, he got put behind bars where he belongs, and so no pervasive mistrust or hatred of programmers arose from that trajedy. If every programmer could count on the police to cover up their crimes, people would harbour just as much animosity towards programmers as the police are currently facing, if not more. It's about accountability. You can't trust someone who flaunts their unaccountability, and cops have been doing that more and more.
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless".
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law.
The main thrust of my first paragraph was that tribal affiliation tends to drive our judgement of how many facts are sufficient to reach a conclusion. "None" isn't good enough, and "all" is too much to expect. Where to draw the line in between is the point of contention.
My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
I have sympathy for innocent victims.
Of course you do. Everyone does. Unfortunately, you also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those ...
Of course we don't care about those. Of course we don't criticize justified use of force. Of course we focus on the UNjustified use of force. Does something about that seem inappropriate to you?
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed?
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
Who do you think arranged for all those CH "accidents?" Most hitmen won't take themselves out for any price.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but the genius of his candidacy is that he's treating it like a branding campaign, instead of a political campaign. He basically looked at the political playbook, said "nah, wrong sport" and substituted his branding playbook. That's why his shit is working when conventional wisdom says it shouldn't.
Tanks are more vulnerable to infantry than most people realize. Sure, you're never going to win a 1-on-1 fight in open country, but in a shelled-out urban landscape, a guy with two sticks of dynamite and a greased-up sock can make a tank throw a track, and another guy with a can of gasoline and a lighter can make things pretty unpleasant for the occupants of the now-immobile steel-and-ceramic crematorium.
"You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
I've noticed that when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians, some people say we're quick to blame the cops, even though there's a pile of evidence of police wrongdoing. Then, without a shred of evidence to support it, they cast aspersions on the victim. Suddenly, there's no problem with being quick to blame. It quickly becomes clear that tribal, us-v-them thinking is really what's at play, here, not evidence or the presumption of innocence.
There also seems to be no connection between the control the police claim they must maintain, and responsibility for outcomes. "I did this thing to maintain control of the situation, but cannot be blamed for its outcome, because I did not control the situation. Pin a medal on me."
It's certainly true that many cops put their own safety at risk in order to serve their communities day in and day out, often working some pretty rough overtime. They will arrest the guy who burglarized your home, they will investigate your brother's murder, they will speak to you with respect, and you will be inclined to respect them in return, both for their hard work and professional behaviour. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead, and both will claim that you put your hands in your pockets and sprinted straight at them. Neither will be punished with anything worse than a paid vacation, but your loved ones will be told that you're a violent criminal who deserved to be put down for attacking a police officer. The cops who murdered you and defamed your memory will go on to take dangerous criminals off the streets, and maybe also murder a few more innocent civilians.
We'll continue to be protected from the worst of society, by the worst of society, until we learn how to hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
I mostly use Mac OS, so "alt" is called "option" and I don't have to touch it to see the menu bar, because that's just how Macs are. This isn't about the hamburger menu.
The current Firefox UI is intolerable to me. So is the current OS X Safari version (I want my goddamn title bar back!) The only browser I can stomach right now is Vivaldi.
The thought of Google being so aware of the moment-to-moment context of my life that it can make accurate inferences about what I mean by "this" or "that" makes me want to buy a gun and go live in the woods until I die of something preventable.
Being drunk/high while *at work* is unacceptable, but after I got home from work last night, I drank a six pack. I was pretty buzzed by the time I went to bed. Woke up this morning with a clear head, even got to work a little early. A drug test would show that I'd recently consumed alcohol to excess (I think it would, anyway -- I don't know a lot about the chemistry involved) but it had no detrimental impact on my work. If someone in your office is staggering or slurring their speech or is otherwise clearly impaired, a drug test may be warranted, so that you can fire the person for cause, or attempt to compel treatment, or some kind of other remedy to your "impaired employee" problem. Pre-emptive testing is just an exercise in humiliation and control, though.
If the children in question qualify as "inanimate objects," you're probably too late to save them.
Battlefield: Vietnam was a masterpiece. I still remember messing up a hard bank in a helo and half-crashing onto my landing skids as the chopper screeches to a halt in front of a building with a collapsed wall, full of enemy troops. They blink. I blink. Then, as one, they turn their weapons towards me. Too damaged to fly, and too pinned-down to run, I just held down the trigger and fired a rocket salvo straight forward. I only killed one of them, but it kicked up enough dust and debris to cover my hasty retreat on foot. Haven't played BF3/4 because I don't want Origin. Probably, I won't make an exception for BF1, but anything is possible.
At the risk of coming off like a cranky, digital-age hermit, I increasingly feel like I'm just done with this shit. The more big companies try to entrench the value of their product, the less value it holds for me. When you just let me have the thing I paid for, we can remain on good terms, but when you place a higher premium on locking things down than you do on the experience of consuming them, I start looking for alternatives. Now, I'm not even that disappointed when I can't find an alternative. The hassle reduction I experience by canceling my sub and being done with it, outweighs the satisfaction I'd have gotten by consuming your stupid fucking content. Good riddance.
If Snowden retains control of any information or documents he has _not_ already revealed
It's wildly, fantastically unlikely that he's retained anything at all. He's repeatedly said that he no longer has control of the material. If he's lying, why? It would have to be for a reason that overcomes the bad PR of being caught in a lie. What could that possibly be? This seems more like a paranoid fantasy than a sensible look at plausible risks.
They often leave out details in written documentation, other interviewers may not know the right questions to ask or to report.
Yeah, so? People can infer things from things. If this is an indictment, at the very least, it's against all national security reporting, if not journalism in general. While good journalism might not be entirely 100% devoid of all unfortunate consequence, it's benefit to a free society is far greater than ... whatever you're guessing the FSB is guessing.
Analysis of NSA's abusive practices also provides metadata about the working technologies to follow those practices.
Yeah, and how to defeat them. "Don't fight oppression." "Why not?" "Even if you win, you're showing your playbook to other oppressors." "Uh, I guess, but the alternative is forfeit to oppressions, so ... no. But thanks for the tip." Honestly, I think you're ignoring the important, confirmed stuff so you can focus on trivial fluff and guesswork. I'm not trying to get personal or anything, but your line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me unless I strip away all relevant context.
How much additional information does Snowden have squirreled away in dead drops, that will be revealed if he is killed or imprisoned?
None. As Snowden himself has repeatedly explained, that would be fucking stupid. Lots of people want to see more of the documents than Snowden is willing to show, and those people could get their wish simply by killing him, if he had some kind of deadman's switch set up. He's not dumb enough to incentivize his own murder.
How much information can Russian personnel gather about subtle policies of NSA, by indirect deduction of what Snowden says to press or to his handlers?
Well, if Snowden's saying it to the press, I'm not sure the Russians will be able to deduce any more than the Chinese or Saudis or anyone else. Not sure why you think Russia's intelligence community has privileged access to news published for public consumption.
What has, or can, the NSA do to protect its revealed policies and assets?
Hopefully not much. What many people are hoping, is that its policies will change instead of being protected.
What inspiration do minor details about NSA monitoring provide for Russian surveillance?
Uh, are we accusing him of inspiration via minor details now? That's ... pretty specious. Just gonna leave it at that.
He's ill at ease with being the product Facebook sells to its customers, and skeptical of Facebook's ability to treat its product (its users' eyeballs) like paying customers. Seems reasonable to me. I want to know exactly what category I fall into when I deal with a company. If I'm the product, fine, I have one set of expectations. If I'm the customer, fine, I have a different set. I don't know what to make of attempting to blend those, and I don't blame anyone for being apprehensive about how that might turn out. Probably not fair to put that on par with "despair" at all, much less "the earth's quota of despair." It's a pretty small proportion of the earth's deflated enthusiasm.
The fact that you spelled "linux" in all-caps gives away the fact that your experience with linux is very limited. Oddly, you have rather strong opinions for someone with limited experience.
Seriously, that's the whole thing. I'm afraid that to me, it still sounds like being a spelling Nazi was the totality of his point.
Yeah, but when a word is generally spelled in title case, you can't spell it all lowercase while actively mocking someone else for using uppercase. It's a bit of a cheap shot in the first place, and with the element of hypocrisy thrown in, it's pretty hard to resist saying something.
Okay, that makes sense now. There's no SRPM for Chrome, so it's binary-only, which means circumstances restrict it to distros which are large and stable enough to be tested upon as a binary. Thanks!
Fair enough; on those specific points, I stand corrected. That said, I know Valve has some Source Engine games ported to Linux, so I still feel like this doesn't make as much sense as it ought to.
The fact that you, twice, failed to capitalize it at all, forces me to wonder if you're applying your case-based experience divination method to yourself.
I must admit, I don't do gaming on my Linux rig, but ... aren't there major 3D games being published for Linux via Humble Bundles, Steam, GoG, and no doubt others as well? Is this a support nightmare for those companies? And if not, how is it that they can work with GPUs in Linux, but the living gods of code over at Google can't hack it? I'm at work and can't be bothered to look up compelling examples, but I'm pretty sure The Witcher 2 runs on Linux, and that's a pretty GPU-intensive title. When something like this doesn't add up, it usually means I'm missing something. Like maybe Witcher 2 requires a specific distro that uses proprietary drivers or something, but Google's talking about Linux in general? Can anyone clue me in?
I wanted to like Hawken, but to me, there was no sense whatsoever of being in a vehicle. You accelerate like a person, you run like a person, you stop like a person. I didn't feel like I was in a mech, I felt like I was wearing a weird helmet and had a jetpack. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I went in looking for a mech game, and Hawken simply is not a mech game, it's a straightforward first-person shooter where the player models look like mechs.
DCS World. The game (with one plane, a Russian Su-25 ground attack aircraft) is free on Steam, with other aircraft available as modules. Although it's still in beta, I recommend the UH-1 Huey module. I just take off and cruise around. Sometimes I'm doing 200kph just ten feet above the ground, sometimes I soar up and over mountains and drift down into canyons at a lazy 60kph and then touch down on a rooftop in a small town. Sometimes I stick some enemy trucks a couple hundred kilometers away, and when I notice them, I tell the gunners to fire at will, just so I can see four miniguns firing before calling it a night. It's very immersive and relaxing. (It has a campaign, but if I just want to chill, I use the mission editor to create a mostly-empty map.)