Then there are those who do a minor offense that would know if they sped up the would almost certainly get away. Think of these scenarios; Without police chases; I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run at high speed I will get away because the police won't chase me and not have to pay the fine. I'll run at high speed. With police chases; I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run I will probably be caught and go to jail or possibly die in an accident. I'll pull over and pay the damn fine.
And you have never had a technical difficulty with a piece of hardware. I agree that if there is a pattern of missing footage there is probably an issue but one incident is not proof of lying. For example, the camera and recording could have been damaged in the altercation. I agree that the reason behind the missing footage needs to be addressed and brought up in court but automatically concluding the officer is lying is going to far.
The issue is that the video didn't show the previous couple minutes where the police had the suspect on the ground and the suspect broke away and started fighting again or had bitten, scratched, kneed, etc officers as they were trying to cuff him. Videos that show only the end of a confrontation are usually hiding something.
I do welcome the additional cameras and hope they will be deployed in such a way that they are always rolling and can't be selectively turned on/off.
I to think the cameras should be able to be turned off when there is an expectation of privacy such as in a restroom or when on lunch break. I agree that when interacting with the public the cameras should be turned on.
The point is that the drug gangs are killing competitors and generally not the police who are enforcing the fact that the drugs are illegal. It is quite possible for illegal drugs to be sold without gang violence. I live in a city where one can get just about any illegal drug one wants and there is no gang violence. The difference is that gangs enforce monopolies with guns instead of competing for customers like legitimate businesses. The gang violence is more about the greed and disdain for life on the part ofthe gangs than the illegality of the drugs.
If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.
But fleeing from the scene after one of their fellows were shot by an officer of the law is pretty normal.
Wow you sure picked an interesting point to start a scenario. How about you start at the beginning. 1. police come upon a scene that appears to be illegal activity. 2. A confrontation between the police and the suspects occur. 3. The police shoot one person. 4. Some suspects flee. This complete scenario is not common. Why did you start at step 3? Was that to make the police look bad. What is most common is for people who are wanted for serious crimes who get in armed altercations with police and flee. Police officers have to work with the information they have at hand and all indications were that these were serious criminals. The police are there to catch suspects. It is not their job to weigh the severity of the crime but to follow procedure. Suspects that have shot at police and flee are generally chased.
But I would have let them go for anything less than murder.
They had fired at police officers with the intent to kill. Would you let them off because they were bad shots?
If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.
The issue is with scale. In a 9 year period 1088 people lost their lives outside the pursued vehicle in the US. Considering the number of pursuits over that period of time 121 per year is a pretty small number. If no high speed chases were done I bet more than 121 deaths per year would result just from the drunk drivers who didn't get caught This is the same logic that comes with many life saving medications. All medications have a chance of saving a life and a small chance of complications that will take a life. So in effect all medications are saving lives and risking them at the same time.
In this case the police didn't have a chance to fall back as the accident occurred 1.2 miles from the start of the pursuit. That is about a minute into the pursuit.
For them to be tracked down later the suspects have to be positively identified first. That is not the case in most high speed chases. Also, considering the number of fugitives at large in the US, that "we'll catch them later" idea does not work very well.
The police are also putting their loves at risk during police chases and they know it. Of the 1088 deaths that occurred outside the pursued vehicle in a nine year period, 40 were of the pursuing officers. There were many more injured in accidents. Both the public and police are at risk.
The accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than 2 minutes into the chase. The police would have had not not even start a chase for this to not happen.
Intra gang violence is caused when one gang tries to protect it's territory from another gang. How is that related to whether or not the substance is illegal? Do you see Ford dealers shooting at Chevy dealers?
1. They do chase from helicopters when available. The patrol cars need to stay in contact with the fleeing vehicle until the helicopter arrives. In this case the accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than two minutes into a chase and a helicopter would not have been on scene yet. 2. Felons know about helicopters and try to out run them too. 3. Police do call off chases in certain circumstances. In this case the fleeing suspects had just shot at police and would be a high priority to apprehend..
So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.
The deaths are not needless; they are a byproduct of catching criminals. We also accept similar risks every day just crossing the street. On the other hand are we to just accept that suspects who flee will almost always get away? The police are in a hard spot. If they pursue and someone dies they are the bad guys. If they don't pursue and the felons kill someone later, they are the bad guys. It is a no win situation and one can't please everyone all the time.
In the nine year period 1994 through 2002 1088 deaths were of people not in the fleeing vehicle, That is 121 deaths per year in the entire United States. Considering the number of high speed pursuits that occur that is a very small number. That may sound harsh but the benefits of apprehending criminals, who have demonstrated their lack of respect for their lives and the lives of others by entering the high speed chase, outweigh the costs.
For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights,
A similar thing could be said for police chases. "For the most part police chases only effect the people being chased."
I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.
Tell that to the bystander killed in their next shootout.
There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence. I seem to remember a child being killed in a crib when a bullet came through the wall during a drive by shooting.
It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.
The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.
I agree completely. That would also require adding all those factors to the production of electricity from natural gas and coal which would then be added to the footprint of the electric vehicles. An additional factor would be the construction of dams which require millions of tons of concrete. One should analyse all factors before coming to a conclusion.
My biggest issue with the marketing of all plug in electric vehicles is that they tout them as zero emission.While their emissions they cause are less than that of an SUV they are not zero. The production of electricity causes emissions because much of it is produced by burning fossil fuels. So every time an electric car is charged fossil fuels are burned and emissions are generated.
Electric cars are not zero emissions; they just move the emissions elsewhere.
This supposes that Country leaderships care about their populations. Look at the Korean war. Mao is reported to have replied to the statement that he would loose a million soldiers dead with "I have three million more". Look at the Iran/Iraq war that nearly wiped out all males in a generation on both sides.
The other issue is that it gives the advantage to the country with the larger military. So if a larger country with larger military wants to take over a smaller country they just overwhelm them with numbers.
Autonomous defenses, mines and robots, level the playing field for small countries (Israel, Taiwan, South Korea) against countries or alliances with much larger militaries(Most of the Middle East, China, North Korea).
Even In the Vietnam War there were times when killing became automatic. They were called free fire zones. Aircraft patrolled the area and any.movement of humans was fired upon. All people in the area were considered combatants and valid to target.
It also assumes that everyone will follow the UN's rules. That had not worked so far with Iran or North Korea on the issue of nuclear weapons why should it work any better on the subject of robots? To me the best thing to fight a robot is another robot.
A human programs the mission parameters into the robot
The cruise missile did not choose to launch, nor did it choose its target.
Neither did the robot. The missile did recognize that it's current location matched it programmed parameters and decided to explode. How different is that from shooting at something if it matches with with the robot's programmed parameters? The missile did not check out the local conditions to see if is should explode.
The duration argument also has issues as a Tomahawk missile can stay aloft for almost 5 hours. A lot can change in that time.
I can just see the brochures. Go to Mars on a one way trip. Live in close proximity with the same few people for the rest of your life. Never again feel real sun or wind on your skin or swim on a natural body of water. Spend most of your life underground. Continually hope that funding does not get cut and the supplies keep coming from earth. Hope that there are no problems with the shipments or you may starve. Never be able to touch most of the people you love. Probably die of cancer due to radiation. Realize that thousands of lives could have been saved on Earth for the cost of putting you on and keeping you alive on Mars.
The NYT article notes that hospital workers wash their hands as little as 30 percent of the time that they interact with patients.
Actually the hospital workers wash their hands as little as 30 percent of the time that they interact with patients if not encouraged to wash hands.
The other issue is that every interaction with a patient does not necessitate washing of hands. For example, walking into a treatment room and stating "the doctor will be in in a minute" does not require washing of hands.
More weight means more energy to move the vehicle. An EV with a swap-able battery will require additional structure and will be heavier than an EV with an integral battery. The heavier EV will will have a shorter range.
I was talking about the vehicle performance (range acceleration, carrying capacity, etc) not necessarily the battery performance. For example, by integrating the battery into the chassis the battery container can do double duty as part of the structure of the vehicle. If that battery container has to be removable the surrounding structure would need to be stronger and heavier. Heavier cars have less performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Then there are those who do a minor offense that would know if they sped up the would almost certainly get away. Think of these scenarios;
Without police chases;
I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run at high speed I will get away because the police won't chase me and not have to pay the fine. I'll run at high speed.
With police chases;
I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run I will probably be caught and go to jail or possibly die in an accident. I'll pull over and pay the damn fine.
And you have never had a technical difficulty with a piece of hardware. I agree that if there is a pattern of missing footage there is probably an issue but one incident is not proof of lying. For example, the camera and recording could have been damaged in the altercation. I agree that the reason behind the missing footage needs to be addressed and brought up in court but automatically concluding the officer is lying is going to far.
The issue is that the video didn't show the previous couple minutes where the police had the suspect on the ground and the suspect broke away and started fighting again or had bitten, scratched, kneed, etc officers as they were trying to cuff him. Videos that show only the end of a confrontation are usually hiding something.
I do welcome the additional cameras and hope they will be deployed in such a way that they are always rolling and can't be selectively turned on/off.
I to think the cameras should be able to be turned off when there is an expectation of privacy such as in a restroom or when on lunch break. I agree that when interacting with the public the cameras should be turned on.
The point is that the drug gangs are killing competitors and generally not the police who are enforcing the fact that the drugs are illegal. It is quite possible for illegal drugs to be sold without gang violence. I live in a city where one can get just about any illegal drug one wants and there is no gang violence. The difference is that gangs enforce monopolies with guns instead of competing for customers like legitimate businesses. The gang violence is more about the greed and disdain for life on the part ofthe gangs than the illegality of the drugs.
If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.
But fleeing from the scene after one of their fellows were shot by an officer of the law is pretty normal.
Wow you sure picked an interesting point to start a scenario. How about you start at the beginning.
1. police come upon a scene that appears to be illegal activity.
2. A confrontation between the police and the suspects occur.
3. The police shoot one person.
4. Some suspects flee.
This complete scenario is not common. Why did you start at step 3? Was that to make the police look bad. What is most common is for people who are wanted for serious crimes who get in armed altercations with police and flee. Police officers have to work with the information they have at hand and all indications were that these were serious criminals. The police are there to catch suspects. It is not their job to weigh the severity of the crime but to follow procedure. Suspects that have shot at police and flee are generally chased.
But I would have let them go for anything less than murder.
They had fired at police officers with the intent to kill. Would you let them off because they were bad shots?
If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.
The issue is with scale. In a 9 year period 1088 people lost their lives outside the pursued vehicle in the US. Considering the number of pursuits over that period of time 121 per year is a pretty small number. If no high speed chases were done I bet more than 121 deaths per year would result just from the drunk drivers who didn't get caught This is the same logic that comes with many life saving medications. All medications have a chance of saving a life and a small chance of complications that will take a life. So in effect all medications are saving lives and risking them at the same time.
In this case the police didn't have a chance to fall back as the accident occurred 1.2 miles from the start of the pursuit. That is about a minute into the pursuit.
For them to be tracked down later the suspects have to be positively identified first. That is not the case in most high speed chases. Also, considering the number of fugitives at large in the US, that "we'll catch them later" idea does not work very well.
The police are also putting their loves at risk during police chases and they know it. Of the 1088 deaths that occurred outside the pursued vehicle in a nine year period, 40 were of the pursuing officers. There were many more injured in accidents. Both the public and police are at risk.
The accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than 2 minutes into the chase. The police would have had not not even start a chase for this to not happen.
Intra gang violence is caused when one gang tries to protect it's territory from another gang. How is that related to whether or not the substance is illegal? Do you see Ford dealers shooting at Chevy dealers?
1. They do chase from helicopters when available. The patrol cars need to stay in contact with the fleeing vehicle until the helicopter arrives. In this case the accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than two minutes into a chase and a helicopter would not have been on scene yet.
2. Felons know about helicopters and try to out run them too.
3. Police do call off chases in certain circumstances. In this case the fleeing suspects had just shot at police and would be a high priority to apprehend..
So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.
The deaths are not needless; they are a byproduct of catching criminals. We also accept similar risks every day just crossing the street. On the other hand are we to just accept that suspects who flee will almost always get away?
The police are in a hard spot. If they pursue and someone dies they are the bad guys. If they don't pursue and the felons kill someone later, they are the bad guys. It is a no win situation and one can't please everyone all the time.
In the nine year period 1994 through 2002 1088 deaths were of people not in the fleeing vehicle, That is 121 deaths per year in the entire United States. Considering the number of high speed pursuits that occur that is a very small number. That may sound harsh but the benefits of apprehending criminals, who have demonstrated their lack of respect for their lives and the lives of others by entering the high speed chase, outweigh the costs.
For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights,
A similar thing could be said for police chases. "For the most part police chases only effect the people being chased."
I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.
Tell that to the bystander killed in their next shootout.
There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence. I seem to remember a child being killed in a crib when a bullet came through the wall during a drive by shooting.
It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.
The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.
I agree completely. That would also require adding all those factors to the production of electricity from natural gas and coal which would then be added to the footprint of the electric vehicles. An additional factor would be the construction of dams which require millions of tons of concrete. One should analyse all factors before coming to a conclusion.
My biggest issue with the marketing of all plug in electric vehicles is that they tout them as zero emission.While their emissions they cause are less than that of an SUV they are not zero. The production of electricity causes emissions because much of it is produced by burning fossil fuels. So every time an electric car is charged fossil fuels are burned and emissions are generated.
Electric cars are not zero emissions; they just move the emissions elsewhere.
The point is that he could have done it and the country would have gone along.
This supposes that Country leaderships care about their populations. Look at the Korean war. Mao is reported to have replied to the statement that he would loose a million soldiers dead with "I have three million more". Look at the Iran /Iraq war that nearly wiped out all males in a generation on both sides.
The other issue is that it gives the advantage to the country with the larger military. So if a larger country with larger military wants to take over a smaller country they just overwhelm them with numbers.
Autonomous defenses, mines and robots, level the playing field for small countries (Israel, Taiwan, South Korea) against countries or alliances with much larger militaries(Most of the Middle East, China, North Korea).
Even In the Vietnam War there were times when killing became automatic. They were called free fire zones. Aircraft patrolled the area and any.movement of humans was fired upon. All people in the area were considered combatants and valid to target.
It also assumes that everyone will follow the UN's rules. That had not worked so far with Iran or North Korea on the issue of nuclear weapons why should it work any better on the subject of robots? To me the best thing to fight a robot is another robot.
The cruise missile is fired by a human.
The robot's program is initiated by a human.
The cruise missile's target is set at launch.
A human programs the mission parameters into the robot
The cruise missile did not choose to launch, nor did it choose its target.
Neither did the robot. The missile did recognize that it's current location matched it programmed parameters and decided to explode. How different is that from shooting at something if it matches with with the robot's programmed parameters? The missile did not check out the local conditions to see if is should explode.
The duration argument also has issues as a Tomahawk missile can stay aloft for almost 5 hours. A lot can change in that time.
By the posted definition every light that goes on when the sun goes down is "self aware".
I can just see the brochures.
Go to Mars on a one way trip.
Live in close proximity with the same few people for the rest of your life.
Never again feel real sun or wind on your skin or swim on a natural body of water.
Spend most of your life underground.
Continually hope that funding does not get cut and the supplies keep coming from earth.
Hope that there are no problems with the shipments or you may starve.
Never be able to touch most of the people you love.
Probably die of cancer due to radiation.
Realize that thousands of lives could have been saved on Earth for the cost of putting you on and keeping you alive on Mars.
and if they were, the second guy would figure that out.
Humans are not a hive mind. The person who ate tpe puffer fish in Japan has no connection the the person who might eat the frog in the Amazon.
The NYT article notes that hospital workers wash their hands as little as 30 percent of the time that they interact with patients.
Actually the hospital workers wash their hands as little as 30 percent of the time that they interact with patients if not encouraged to wash hands.
The other issue is that every interaction with a patient does not necessitate washing of hands. For example, walking into a treatment room and stating "the doctor will be in in a minute" does not require washing of hands.
More weight means more energy to move the vehicle. An EV with a swap-able battery will require additional structure and will be heavier than an EV with an integral battery. The heavier EV will will have a shorter range.
I was talking about the vehicle performance (range acceleration, carrying capacity, etc) not necessarily the battery performance. For example, by integrating the battery into the chassis the battery container can do double duty as part of the structure of the vehicle. If that battery container has to be removable the surrounding structure would need to be stronger and heavier. Heavier cars have less performance.