Would you consider a nation that spies on it's entire population oppressive? Do you never think there will be a time in which our government overreach will land us in another McCarthy era and use this kind of monitoring to have witch hunts?
In my opinion the inability to securely communicate is as much of a suppression of free speech as direct suppression.
Did you actually read the article? They weren't his fare, he was not driving to, picking up, or scheduled to pick up a fare. There is no proof to the contrary.
The extra commercial coverage is for the passenger(s). I guess there's the fringe case where the driver actually runs over the fare but I would bet Uber would take the hit on that one.
But it's not in the handler's best interests to claim that their dog alerted them to the presence of drugs when they don't actually find any because that just makes them look stupid.
And you know this how?
All they need to say is that there *were* drugs in the car or that wad of cash has drug residue on it. There's no formal review process for use of the dogs and a lot of times they are used as a threat to people who refuse a voluntary search of their car without any real cause.
If you think a K9 is going to be called out and they are just going to walk away when he doesn't hit you are seriously deluding yourself.
No one here is questing the ability of the dogs, they are questioning the integrity of their handlers.
Yes. We should be privy to a hell of a lot more data outside of the police departments. It would go a very long way in fixing some very serious issues with accountability.
He's suggesting that dogs can easily be manipulated to do what their handler wants and only the handler is the one who interprets what the trigger means.
I can wink at my dog and it will sit, that took like a week and the dog is far from highly trained.
One reason: They, or the handling officer are held to no accountability if they are wrong.
We aren't privy to the data but I will bet the 'hit' rate when a dog is called to the scene of a traffic stop is nearing 100%. And god forbid if they really think they are right, they can take your car and dismantle it.
If they are wrong...then what? Sorry about your constitutional rights.
I'm all for dogs being used to assist in a search once probable cause is established. Using them and only them as probable cause obviously can cause problems because only the handle will know what that means.
Yea, the working class parents of four should pay more taxes than the DINK's that make 7 figures and save it all.
Seems like a very non-brain-dead policy.
Actually it's the way we are going anyway. Fees, fines, and local taxes keep going up to support the tax cuts given to businesses and the ultra-rich. It's about as regressive as you can get.
Good points, a single point of access to all of my passwords and the sites they go to makes me uneasy though.
I guess it's kind of moot anyway because people who actually think about password security in the slightest are very unlikely to have problems unless they are high profile and people are actively seeking for ways into their specific accounts.
It would seem like there would be a standard that all websites could adhere to instead of whatever the whim of the security guy is.
Base: correcthorsebatterystaple Site specific(first thrid and fifth chars of the domain (sah for slashdot.org)): sahcorrecthorsebatterystaple
Seems pretty ironclad even if the password gets exposed. I guess someone who really wanted *your* particular password could figure out the method but all of those things coming into alignment seems like the edge of edgiest cases.
The biggest problem I see is that a lot of the sites that really should have the most secure passwords (banks, etc) limit length for some unthinkable reason.
Plug into the IRS, punch in social security number get persons net/taxable income. Not too hard. This isn't about rich/poor it's about income.
People talk about people trying to hide their money to avoid these fines....I doubt they are going to risk tax evasion charge to avoid a %00.4 fine they *might* get if they break the law (which is what a 200$ ticket @ $50k works out to be). If you are hiding taxable income you're looking at serious prison time.
I wonder if there is any precedent for that. I would think somewhere along the line someone has tried to scale fines to income in the US and had it challenged.
In Virginia a speeding ticket of 20mph over is pretty much an insurmountable feat for a poor person while it's a weekend out for a middle/upper class person.
So people of wealth and means will be subject to the horrific process of policing for profit and be able to force change instead of ignoring it because to them the fines are equivalent to their meal that night instead of groceries for a month for a poor person.
Traffic fines are the number one most regressive system we have in the US. Outrageous fines is a huge trap for poor people because while they are generally law abiding citizens they simply can't pay them and get caught in a never ending cycles of fines/suspensions/warrants/etc. Most courts offer no alternatives to paying the fine like community service etc. The best they will do is offer some payment plan through a for profit company.
Of course, you would never see such a system in the US because the poor are the only ones who gain something in that scenario and we all know about how the ruling class feel about them.
If they can figure out all of the other objects I would assume sensing white/red/blue flashing lights and pulling over wouldn't be an issue.
The legal aspect of this is kind of cool when you think about it. If you are being pulled over for a BS reason (lane drift/illegal lane change/following to close/etc) you have a mountain of data to bring to court to refute the claim.
The most interesting thing to me will be the ability to handle a traffic jam situation where the car needs to get to an offramp but no one will honor the signal and let them in which is the case in most metro areas. You *have* to be a jerk to get things done sometimes.
I have adaptive cruise control and a lot of other technologies that projects like this use (lane assist, blind spot warning backup camera/radar etc) and I can honestly say it has made me a much worse/lazy driver. I find myself constantly relying on these solely instead of a check on my natural abilities. This is with me consciously knowing relying on them is a really bad thing.
My anecdote may not apply to all but it certainly concerns me to the point of wanting to not use it. It reminds me of people in Oregon traveling to other states who have no idea how to pump gas because they do it for you by law there.
They work great though and it would be awesome to actually be able to only rely on them but I worry about the hybrid approach because they are merely driving aids at this point and I can see people using them as pseudo automated cars and the long term negatives outweighing the positives.
Pointing out that MJ is relatively safe (from accidental overdose) after decades of propaganda showing it to be a "dangerous" drug and comparing it to other "dangerous" drugs is a pretty important message.
Especially when you drop alcohol underneath the really nasty stuff.
It's making a really valid point. You put alcohol abuse up against MJ and the others for long term health affects you will probably see smoking climb the chart and fight alcohol for top run while MJ stays the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you consider a nation that spies on it's entire population oppressive? Do you never think there will be a time in which our government overreach will land us in another McCarthy era and use this kind of monitoring to have witch hunts?
In my opinion the inability to securely communicate is as much of a suppression of free speech as direct suppression.
....and water will likely get wet.
Did you actually read the article? They weren't his fare, he was not driving to, picking up, or scheduled to pick up a fare. There is no proof to the contrary.
And....?
The extra commercial coverage is for the passenger(s). I guess there's the fringe case where the driver actually runs over the fare but I would bet Uber would take the hit on that one.
But it's not in the handler's best interests to claim that their dog alerted them to the presence of drugs when they don't actually find any because that just makes them look stupid.
And you know this how?
All they need to say is that there *were* drugs in the car or that wad of cash has drug residue on it. There's no formal review process for use of the dogs and a lot of times they are used as a threat to people who refuse a voluntary search of their car without any real cause.
If you think a K9 is going to be called out and they are just going to walk away when he doesn't hit you are seriously deluding yourself.
No one here is questing the ability of the dogs, they are questioning the integrity of their handlers.
Yes. We should be privy to a hell of a lot more data outside of the police departments. It would go a very long way in fixing some very serious issues with accountability.
He's suggesting that dogs can easily be manipulated to do what their handler wants and only the handler is the one who interprets what the trigger means.
I can wink at my dog and it will sit, that took like a week and the dog is far from highly trained.
One reason: They, or the handling officer are held to no accountability if they are wrong.
We aren't privy to the data but I will bet the 'hit' rate when a dog is called to the scene of a traffic stop is nearing 100%. And god forbid if they really think they are right, they can take your car and dismantle it.
If they are wrong...then what? Sorry about your constitutional rights.
I'm all for dogs being used to assist in a search once probable cause is established. Using them and only them as probable cause obviously can cause problems because only the handle will know what that means.
What was the reasonable cause?
...in a pretty blatant violation of the 4th. Pretty scary even though the case was won.
IANAL but from what I gather is basically the dissent is that the violation of the 4th isn't that *unreasonable* so it's ok.
(not to mention drug dogs are complete BS anyway)
Yea, the working class parents of four should pay more taxes than the DINK's that make 7 figures and save it all.
Seems like a very non-brain-dead policy.
Actually it's the way we are going anyway. Fees, fines, and local taxes keep going up to support the tax cuts given to businesses and the ultra-rich. It's about as regressive as you can get.
Good points, a single point of access to all of my passwords and the sites they go to makes me uneasy though.
I guess it's kind of moot anyway because people who actually think about password security in the slightest are very unlikely to have problems unless they are high profile and people are actively seeking for ways into their specific accounts.
It would seem like there would be a standard that all websites could adhere to instead of whatever the whim of the security guy is.
A site dependent key to your phrase?
Base: correcthorsebatterystaple
Site specific(first thrid and fifth chars of the domain (sah for slashdot.org)): sahcorrecthorsebatterystaple
Seems pretty ironclad even if the password gets exposed. I guess someone who really wanted *your* particular password could figure out the method but all of those things coming into alignment seems like the edge of edgiest cases.
The biggest problem I see is that a lot of the sites that really should have the most secure passwords (banks, etc) limit length for some unthinkable reason.
(90 day evaluation)
$250 night hotel
$150 day meals/drinks
$100 day etc
Pretty standard weekend out for a middle/upper class person.
Anyway it's an absurdly ridiculous fine. I will never drive through there and no one else should.
Community service and points.
I simply hire some poor guy with zero income to break the law when I need it done (driving me around when I'm in a hurry is a good one). .
I'm pretty much poor and I do that now. It's called a taxi.
Plug into the IRS, punch in social security number get persons net/taxable income. Not too hard. This isn't about rich/poor it's about income.
People talk about people trying to hide their money to avoid these fines....I doubt they are going to risk tax evasion charge to avoid a %00.4 fine they *might* get if they break the law (which is what a 200$ ticket @ $50k works out to be). If you are hiding taxable income you're looking at serious prison time.
Fixing the tax loopholes is another story.
I wonder if there is any precedent for that. I would think somewhere along the line someone has tried to scale fines to income in the US and had it challenged.
In Virginia a speeding ticket of 20mph over is pretty much an insurmountable feat for a poor person while it's a weekend out for a middle/upper class person.
Wish I had some mods points. That was a perfect reply.
So people of wealth and means will be subject to the horrific process of policing for profit and be able to force change instead of ignoring it because to them the fines are equivalent to their meal that night instead of groceries for a month for a poor person.
Traffic fines are the number one most regressive system we have in the US. Outrageous fines is a huge trap for poor people because while they are generally law abiding citizens they simply can't pay them and get caught in a never ending cycles of fines/suspensions/warrants/etc. Most courts offer no alternatives to paying the fine like community service etc. The best they will do is offer some payment plan through a for profit company.
Of course, you would never see such a system in the US because the poor are the only ones who gain something in that scenario and we all know about how the ruling class feel about them.
If they can figure out all of the other objects I would assume sensing white/red/blue flashing lights and pulling over wouldn't be an issue.
The legal aspect of this is kind of cool when you think about it. If you are being pulled over for a BS reason (lane drift/illegal lane change/following to close/etc) you have a mountain of data to bring to court to refute the claim.
The most interesting thing to me will be the ability to handle a traffic jam situation where the car needs to get to an offramp but no one will honor the signal and let them in which is the case in most metro areas. You *have* to be a jerk to get things done sometimes.
I have adaptive cruise control and a lot of other technologies that projects like this use (lane assist, blind spot warning backup camera/radar etc) and I can honestly say it has made me a much worse/lazy driver. I find myself constantly relying on these solely instead of a check on my natural abilities. This is with me consciously knowing relying on them is a really bad thing.
My anecdote may not apply to all but it certainly concerns me to the point of wanting to not use it. It reminds me of people in Oregon traveling to other states who have no idea how to pump gas because they do it for you by law there.
They work great though and it would be awesome to actually be able to only rely on them but I worry about the hybrid approach because they are merely driving aids at this point and I can see people using them as pseudo automated cars and the long term negatives outweighing the positives.
Pointing out that MJ is relatively safe (from accidental overdose) after decades of propaganda showing it to be a "dangerous" drug and comparing it to other "dangerous" drugs is a pretty important message.
Especially when you drop alcohol underneath the really nasty stuff.
It's making a really valid point. You put alcohol abuse up against MJ and the others for long term health affects you will probably see smoking climb the chart and fight alcohol for top run while MJ stays the same.