Because Liberals, like O'Malley, believe in a police state.
Obviously no Conservatives (note capital 'C') would push us in that direction, which explains the ruling of the Conservatives (note capital 'C') on the court, save Scalia.
That's not really relevant seeing as it would be the court that does the exonerating.
If you want to play pedant, come back on Tuesday when I play it too. I suspect you understood what I meant.
The cameras ultimately, function to protect both the officer as well as the people that the officer comes into contact with.
You're overlooking the big issue on this thread, that the cameras are turned on by the officer, so there can be lots of "I forgot in the heat of the moment". Alternatively there can be technical difficulties at convenient times. If it weren't for that issue, I'd be 100% in favor of the cameras.
How much do they like being monitored? Do you know, or are you just guessing based on a few sensational news stories?
I don't know of any studies on the matter, so yes it's based on anecdotes. There have been a lot of what you call "sensational news stories" about police "objecting" to being photographed or video recorded, where "objecting" can anything from falsely yelling that it's illegal (in fact it's expressly protected) to illegally grabbing the camera to finding some excuse to arrest the person (which means their equipment is confiscated and erased, if not damaged). Mysteriously the charges are usually dismissed, which often means there were no grounds for them in the first place.
I even witnessed one such event as a teenager where my friend started photographing someone getting arrested (in the park, not at some demonstration) and was told in no uncertain terms to get lost or risk being arrested.
I also worked on an early vehicle locating system, that would report back to base station where a vehicle was. This was a long time ago when such an idea was novel. Pilot systems were installed in ambulances in one city and patrol cars in another. The ambulance drivers never had any problem with it. Units were returned from patrol cars with anything from wires ripped out to, in one case, a shotgun blast though it.
It could be completely opposite of what you think, as this guy [slashdot.org] suggests with his anecdote.
He wrote:
A lot of our officers just recently got uniform-mounted cameras and the footage always shows that the complaints are completely unfounded.
First, how do I know he isn't talking about selective monitoring (use it when police are innocent, don't turn it on or "lose" it when they're not)? That's the biggest issue on this thread. Second, he wrote "always shows that the complaints are completely unfounded". Always?
if you read the plan, the push for the cameras is being accompanied by pushing a new law that would make evidence from the cameras inadmissible in cases AGAINST the cops, but admissible without question in cases against YOU (i.e. it can't be thrown out of court for any reason).
Do you have a link for that? I didn't see it in any of TFA's.
they get blamed for a lot of ridiculous (and completely false) stuff - I've seen officers get accused of assaults (and then exonerated when surveillance footage from a building shows they didn't even touch the suspect)
I don't doubt that, and I, and I suspect most of the people here, have no problem with video being used to exonerate police of false charges. My concern, and that of many others here, is whether it will be reliably used in the other direction, to exonerate people accused of assaulting the police, resisting arrest, etc., or whether "technical difficulties" will frequently arise. I don't think that's an unreasonable suspicion.
BTW, your sig says you're an attorney, and you refer to yourself "as somebody who frequently works with law enforcement". In what capacity? That's hardly an accusation, but would be reasonable in terms of full disclosure.
The union says in other jurisdictions where police officers are equipped with point-of-view cameras, the use of force by officers and assaults on officers drops by as much as 60%.
That's a meaningless "statistic", because it's actually two statistics combined. How much did "the use of force by officers" drop by and how much did "assaults on officers" drop by? Considering how much the police love to be monitored when on duty, I wouldn't trust any proposal like this coming from a police union.
Anyone who believed, at anytime since the Beginning of Java, that it would remain reliably "open", in the sense of Sun or now Oracle not at some point playing legal games like this, was being naive and unjustifiably optimistic. Even if Sun management was sincere, management can change, by for example being bought by Oracle. Even if this silly suit doesn't succeed, or even if it was never brought, there would always be the cloud over Java that it could happen.
Ron Fouchier is the same guy that was burnt to the ground by the US government when he and his lab wanted to publish that dangerous virus recipe in Nature... It's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands
Apparently your definition of "burnt to the ground" includes "publication was delayed". You make it sound like he was tortured by the Inquisition. Also that paper was not about a virus that exists in the wild (like this one), but about how to modify a dangerous virus so that it was more communicable to people. While his intent was scientific, it does sound a lot like how to build a better biological weapon. Publishing about a virus that already exists does not.
t's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands
Bombast from congress? Who would've imagined. Being Dutch rather than American, the hot air probably dissipated before it could hit Fouchier on the other side of the Atlantic.
Why, because they put in the effort to sequence the virus - an investment of labor that does entitle them to some of the proceeds that derive from that work.
Erasmus is a public university, not a for-profit corporation. Fouchier, et al, get salaries. Universities regularly publish information from research that cost millions of euros, because that's what universities exist for.
Well, the MTA is also about agreeing on limiting the distribution of a potential new plague. It would be pretty embarassing to have it end up in N. Korea through a chain of companies. This way, the signing party will be liable and Ron Fouchier won't get "renditioned" to Guantanamo for being a bio-terrorist if something goes wrong.
You keep talking about the CYA aspect of it, which is straw man of your making since no one objects to that aspect. What you don't address is the "MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products... without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory".
As for the seizing of property: if there was a clear need for the data and this lab was sitting on it, the Dutch government could have a chat with their own university council to get it released. [emphasis added]
Could doesn't mean they will, nevertheless you make a good point. Always twist somebody's arm first. If that doesn't work you can always break it.
Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.
Quoting in full because I don't have mod points today and the PP shouldn't languish at score 0.
Actually according to Bloomberg they have patented the virus.
"Dutch scientists who took out a patent on the novel coronavirus that’s killed 22 people since emerging in Saudi Arabia last year defended the move after the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak."
So my question stands, What right do these organizations have to apply for a patent or claim ownership. They neither invented nor discovered the virus. So how can they claim ownership?
I guess if I ever contract SARS I will sue the CDC as according to them they are responsible.
impeding an effective response is a dispute over rights to develop a treatment for the virus
the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory
Boo-boo: strike out "(not the genetic sequence)". They're claiming rights on that too. What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.
the information sent to the Dutch lab wasn't sent legally in the first place
So they're claiming rights to something that was obtained illegally. That could be an interesting legal situation.
Is anyone really saying he should now suddenly send off his known-to-be-lethal virus sequence to all and sundry without even limiting his liability? That's incredibly hypocritical and also quite stupid.
It would be incredibly hypocritical if anyone was saying that, but since they're not, you're being incredibly disingenuous in attacking this straw man. This is about making a buck off samples of a virus (not the genetic sequence), which, for good measure, they obtained illegally.
Follow you own logic. This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus, which will reduce the financial incentive for creating a treatment.
Yes, Saudi Arabia screwed up (what a surprise) by trying to keep the problem under wraps. However, it's disingenuous to say there is no problem with the "Dutch lab that asks for payment in return for results and a cut of the potential profit". FTA:
the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory
They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment. Why, because they received a sample first? Forget debating the so-called intellectual property rights aspect of this. Regardless of how Saudi Arabia screwed up, this is a serious threat to public health. Currently in Saudi Arabia, and potentially the rest of the planet. I don't know what you'd have to do under Dutch law, but if it were in the US it should be seized under eminent domain. Before some "property rights" fanatic gets their panties in a twist, I'll say the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London was absurd. Transferring private property from one private owner to another isn't a public purpose. However dealing with anything that's a threat to the public health is very much a public purpose.
First source puts it at 20%, but I think they goofed. "Chart showing carbon dioxide emissions by source" (presumably for the whole world and "Chart showing carbon dioxide emissions by source for industrial countries" are identical, so I'm going to guess that 20% is for the industrial world.
Both show transportation as a whole. Where are numbers giving personal transport as percentage of all transportation?
Cite? The source below seems to say otherwise. It's just a pie chart and that sector includes all transport, but it still seems a lot larger than you're claiming. http://www.whatsyourimpact.eu.org/co2-sources.php
The key ingredient that you are missing here is that the advocates are agreeing to increase the result of an emissions calculation by including the power plant emissions.
You act as if that's something new. As far back as I can remember the advocates have included power plant emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Liberals, like O'Malley, believe in a police state.
Obviously no Conservatives (note capital 'C') would push us in that direction, which explains the ruling of the Conservatives (note capital 'C') on the court, save Scalia.
True ... for now.
How would you not see higher fatalities with a skeleton crew?
Does that mean surgery is limited to orthopedics?
That's not really relevant seeing as it would be the court that does the exonerating.
If you want to play pedant, come back on Tuesday when I play it too. I suspect you understood what I meant.
The cameras ultimately, function to protect both the officer as well as the people that the officer comes into contact with.
You're overlooking the big issue on this thread, that the cameras are turned on by the officer, so there can be lots of "I forgot in the heat of the moment". Alternatively there can be technical difficulties at convenient times. If it weren't for that issue, I'd be 100% in favor of the cameras.
How much do they like being monitored? Do you know, or are you just guessing based on a few sensational news stories?
I don't know of any studies on the matter, so yes it's based on anecdotes. There have been a lot of what you call "sensational news stories" about police "objecting" to being photographed or video recorded, where "objecting" can anything from falsely yelling that it's illegal (in fact it's expressly protected) to illegally grabbing the camera to finding some excuse to arrest the person (which means their equipment is confiscated and erased, if not damaged). Mysteriously the charges are usually dismissed, which often means there were no grounds for them in the first place.
I even witnessed one such event as a teenager where my friend started photographing someone getting arrested (in the park, not at some demonstration) and was told in no uncertain terms to get lost or risk being arrested.
I also worked on an early vehicle locating system, that would report back to base station where a vehicle was. This was a long time ago when such an idea was novel. Pilot systems were installed in ambulances in one city and patrol cars in another. The ambulance drivers never had any problem with it. Units were returned from patrol cars with anything from wires ripped out to, in one case, a shotgun blast though it.
It could be completely opposite of what you think, as this guy [slashdot.org] suggests with his anecdote.
He wrote:
A lot of our officers just recently got uniform-mounted cameras and the footage always shows that the complaints are completely unfounded.
First, how do I know he isn't talking about selective monitoring (use it when police are innocent, don't turn it on or "lose" it when they're not)? That's the biggest issue on this thread. Second, he wrote "always shows that the complaints are completely unfounded". Always?
if you read the plan, the push for the cameras is being accompanied by pushing a new law that would make evidence from the cameras inadmissible in cases AGAINST the cops, but admissible without question in cases against YOU (i.e. it can't be thrown out of court for any reason).
Do you have a link for that? I didn't see it in any of TFA's.
they get blamed for a lot of ridiculous (and completely false) stuff - I've seen officers get accused of assaults (and then exonerated when surveillance footage from a building shows they didn't even touch the suspect)
I don't doubt that, and I, and I suspect most of the people here, have no problem with video being used to exonerate police of false charges. My concern, and that of many others here, is whether it will be reliably used in the other direction, to exonerate people accused of assaulting the police, resisting arrest, etc., or whether "technical difficulties" will frequently arise. I don't think that's an unreasonable suspicion.
BTW, your sig says you're an attorney, and you refer to yourself "as somebody who frequently works with law enforcement". In what capacity? That's hardly an accusation, but would be reasonable in terms of full disclosure.
The union says in other jurisdictions where police officers are equipped with point-of-view cameras, the use of force by officers and assaults on officers drops by as much as 60%.
That's a meaningless "statistic", because it's actually two statistics combined. How much did "the use of force by officers" drop by and how much did "assaults on officers" drop by? Considering how much the police love to be monitored when on duty, I wouldn't trust any proposal like this coming from a police union.
This is a problem which can easily be dealt with in the courts. Footage missing? Cop must be lying.
Can be and will be are two very different things.
Anyone who believed, at anytime since the Beginning of Java, that it would remain reliably "open", in the sense of Sun or now Oracle not at some point playing legal games like this, was being naive and unjustifiably optimistic. Even if Sun management was sincere, management can change, by for example being bought by Oracle. Even if this silly suit doesn't succeed, or even if it was never brought, there would always be the cloud over Java that it could happen.
Ron Fouchier is the same guy that was burnt to the ground by the US government when he and his lab wanted to publish that dangerous virus recipe in Nature ... It's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands
Apparently your definition of "burnt to the ground" includes "publication was delayed". You make it sound like he was tortured by the Inquisition. Also that paper was not about a virus that exists in the wild (like this one), but about how to modify a dangerous virus so that it was more communicable to people. While his intent was scientific, it does sound a lot like how to build a better biological weapon. Publishing about a virus that already exists does not.
t's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands
Bombast from congress? Who would've imagined. Being Dutch rather than American, the hot air probably dissipated before it could hit Fouchier on the other side of the Atlantic.
Why, because they put in the effort to sequence the virus - an investment of labor that does entitle them to some of the proceeds that derive from that work.
Erasmus is a public university, not a for-profit corporation. Fouchier, et al, get salaries. Universities regularly publish information from research that cost millions of euros, because that's what universities exist for.
Well, the MTA is also about agreeing on limiting the distribution of a potential new plague. It would be pretty embarassing to have it end up in N. Korea through a chain of companies. This way, the signing party will be liable and Ron Fouchier won't get "renditioned" to Guantanamo for being a bio-terrorist if something goes wrong.
You keep talking about the CYA aspect of it, which is straw man of your making since no one objects to that aspect. What you don't address is the "MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products ... without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory".
As for the seizing of property: if there was a clear need for the data and this lab was sitting on it, the Dutch government could have a chat with their own university council to get it released. [emphasis added]
Could doesn't mean they will, nevertheless you make a good point. Always twist somebody's arm first. If that doesn't work you can always break it.
Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.
You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.
Actually according to Bloomberg they have patented the virus. "Dutch scientists who took out a patent on the novel coronavirus that’s killed 22 people since emerging in Saudi Arabia last year defended the move after the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/coronavirus-found-in-saudi-patented-by-dutch-scientists.html
as does the New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23593-saudis-say-dutch-patent-on-mers-virus-hampers-research.html
and while this has nothing to do with the Saudi virus, it seems like the CDC is claiming ownership of the SARS virus.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076748/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/scientists-race-patent-sars-virus/#.UaprRWTf_bo
So my question stands, What right do these organizations have to apply for a patent or claim ownership. They neither invented nor discovered the virus. So how can they claim ownership?
I guess if I ever contract SARS I will sue the CDC as according to them they are responsible.
impeding an effective response is a dispute over rights to develop a treatment for the virus
the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory
Boo-boo: strike out "(not the genetic sequence)". They're claiming rights on that too. What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.
the information sent to the Dutch lab wasn't sent legally in the first place
So they're claiming rights to something that was obtained illegally. That could be an interesting legal situation.
Is anyone really saying he should now suddenly send off his known-to-be-lethal virus sequence to all and sundry without even limiting his liability? That's incredibly hypocritical and also quite stupid.
It would be incredibly hypocritical if anyone was saying that, but since they're not, you're being incredibly disingenuous in attacking this straw man. This is about making a buck off samples of a virus (not the genetic sequence), which, for good measure, they obtained illegally.
Follow you own logic. This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus, which will reduce the financial incentive for creating a treatment.
the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory
They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment. Why, because they received a sample first? Forget debating the so-called intellectual property rights aspect of this. Regardless of how Saudi Arabia screwed up, this is a serious threat to public health. Currently in Saudi Arabia, and potentially the rest of the planet. I don't know what you'd have to do under Dutch law, but if it were in the US it should be seized under eminent domain. Before some "property rights" fanatic gets their panties in a twist, I'll say the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London was absurd. Transferring private property from one private owner to another isn't a public purpose. However dealing with anything that's a threat to the public health is very much a public purpose.
Once you understand differential equations, they're really cool!
A geek's geek. Ok, I also found DE's cool, but not so much linear algebra.
Thanks.
First source puts it at 20%, but I think they goofed. "Chart showing carbon dioxide emissions by source" (presumably for the whole world and "Chart showing carbon dioxide emissions by source for industrial countries" are identical, so I'm going to guess that 20% is for the industrial world.
Both show transportation as a whole. Where are numbers giving personal transport as percentage of all transportation?
Cite? The source below seems to say otherwise. It's just a pie chart and that sector includes all transport, but it still seems a lot larger than you're claiming. http://www.whatsyourimpact.eu.org/co2-sources.php
The key ingredient that you are missing here is that the advocates are agreeing to increase the result of an emissions calculation by including the power plant emissions.
You act as if that's something new. As far back as I can remember the advocates have included power plant emissions.
that's how these lever machines work? you pull a lever and it increases a number on the machine and that's it?
Yup.