If many of those 602 used life-threatening resistance, they weren't nearly as effective as the police in using deadly force.
So you want police to use less effective tactic to even out the statistics?
they are more likely to die from accidents than targeted violence?
From your own numbers 46 were killed by accidents. I believe that 65 is a much larger number than 46. Another issue is that police have control over their own actions but have no control over accidents. Any human being will do their best to protect their own life. If you look like you are going to kill me and I have the means I will kill you first. I have no control over the bus I didn't see coming and accept that risk.
Me personally, I'd rather take a bullet and die from it than shoot a 12 year old over my own fear. Especially if it was my job to protect innocent lives.
I guess you don't have a family. Most cops want to do their jobs and get home to their families.
The extra privileges are very few and strictly defined.
So we agree that police have extra privileges. Do you really think the police should have parked in the lot and ran towards someone reportedly brandishing a firearm and aiming it at people? They needed to get close as quickly as possible under as much protection as possible.
The police weren't out of their car for longer than about 2 seconds before they shot.
He sees the cop car coming so instead of standing still he walks toward the officers and tries to take the gun from his waistband. If that had been a real gun, which it looked like, the kid could have shot in the next second.
I don't give a damn if they irrationally feared for their lives under these circumstances.
From hindsight it may appear irrational but considering the number of cops that die or are injured each yearI think you are way off. Did you also miss the point that earlier the kid was pointing the gun and scaring people in the park?
Put yourself into a situation where you have 2 seconds to make a life or death decision. Given the information the officer had and the actions of the kid he made the correct one.
There is a huge body of evidence that shows a hell of a lot of police abuse their powers and violate peoples constitutional and legal rights all the time just for the hell of it.
There is a much bigger body of evidence that show most cops are the exact opposite of that statement.
Not addressing this aspect of policing escalates the problem.
So does teaching people to disobey all cops, treat them with disrespect and/or not talk to police who are trying to solve crimes. Both sides need to change. Better yet how about we work together instead of blaming each other?
I am a white male and when I see police officers approaching I face them and keep my hands visible. I do this to show I am not a threat. Since I am not a threat to them they don't threaten me.
I agree with the GP. Kids need to be taught how to deal with authority. Sorry but "F*UCK YOU" is not the proper response to "take your hands out of your pockets". Also the bad cops need to be weeded out. Two sides moving further apart is a recipe for disaster.
To go a little further into what the OP is saying, the "for now" seems to be a criticism that there is not a law outlawing the requirement. This is a false premise. A law is not permanent. It is only in effect until another government comes along and changes it. Even a constitutional amendment can be changed (see prohibition). In effect everything a government does is "for now". The only difference is how easy it is to make a change. With no law it is very easy. With a law it is a bit harder. With a constitutional amendment it is very hard.
If you don't understand that everything a government does is "for now" you have a problem.
You say this, but then you follow it up with making it a gender issue by saying this:
The issue about whether bullying is acceptable is not a gender issue in that both men and women are put off by such speech. The backlash is a gender issue in that I have only seen men say "suck it up".
In a meritocracy, which all technical projects should strive to be, being right is directly equated with your worth as far as the project's concerned.
There should be a lot of merit in saying "yup your idea is better than mine" rather than browbeating someone else into submission. The problem with having to be right all the time is that some people defend wrong ideas just so they are not seen as wrong. It reminds me of a Klingon programmer quote "How dare you question my code. I should kill you where you stand."
As for Linus, he gets a pass as he is the creator and should be using the cluebat. When too many other start acting like him it becomes a toxic environment. There has to be some compromise between "fluffy bunny" and "whoever shouts the loudest wins".
Three Mile Island was 1979 and Chernobyl was 1986. Don't you think technology has advances in 30 years. Even Fukushima is minor compared to the number of people killed by emissions from coal plants. The difference is when nuclear goes bad the damage can be very big. People get used to a few thousand extra people dying every month due to coal plant emissions.
There is a place for profanity laced arguments. There are times when the cluebat need to be applied. They should be the exception and preferably done in private. The problem comes when every discussion quickly devolves into name calling and profanity. It has the following effects; 1. Less discussion as people drop out as vitriol ensues. 2. Fewer participants as people never come back. 3. Distraction from the real subject. It becomes an insult contest rather than a discussion. 4. Fewer discussions as many don't want to start arguments. In the end it created smaller communities and worse code. Just because you can bully someone into agreeing does not make you right; just a more effective bully.
Just because a woman has brought it up does not make it a gender issue. In the end this is not a man or woman issue it is a civility issue.
To all those who say "women should get thicker skins and not take things personally" I say "certain men should stop equating being right with their worth/masculinity or go back to the cave where they belong".
If they are obviously trying to hijack you then yes. Relying on AI to differentiate between hijacking and simple traffic if not a good idea. It would take 3 cars to stop an AI transport truck.
Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.
Uber is "ride sharing" in the same way pizza delivery is "food sharing". Namely it is not. With Uber you hire a vehicle and driver to take you from one location to another. There is no "sharing" involved. Sharing would be if the driver planned to go from A to B and picked up someone else who happened to be going the same way. For example, many non-profit commuter services are ride sharing as do just that. That is not what Uber does.Being an Uber driver is a part time job and nothing else.
How about these requirements that taxi companies have to adhere to. - Availability of handicap accessible vehicles. - Minimum number of cars on the road. - Minimum wages for drivers. - Vehicle inspections. I know safety may not be an issue now but give it a few years when Uber drivers wear out their current cars but can not afford a new one. - The requirement to pick up anyone regardless of race, colour, gender, etc. - A company responsible for the behavior of the driver. Uber is not as they say their review system will handle it. It may in the long run by there is no one to make drivers clean up their act. Right now Uber is in a honeymoon state. Most of their drivers are happy and courteous. Wait about ten years when drivers have been jaded by low fares and bad customers. Then there will be even worse problems finding a cab. Today's regulations didn't just spring out of thin air. They were built up over years to deal with issues in the industry. Uber ignores those regulations and therefore their costs are lower.
For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.
It works until Uber gets too many complaints and they can not keep enough drivers on the road to service their customers. When making a choice between minor complaints and not enough drivers Uber will probably ignore the complaints.
Which has no economic benefit to Earth and in fact has a drain as it has to be maintained by future missions.
in the short term we get lots of science and the off-shoots of that science.
That science could also be obtained by spending much less money on direct funding of that science rather than as an offshoot. I also wonder how the science and design around many of the technologies needed in space will have application on Earth.
I would rather spend 10% of the Mars costs on direct research that waste the 90% on science for science sake.
There isn't a limited tax fund from which different things must be picked.
On a year by year basis there is a limited amount of money that is received by the government through taxes. How can you say that is not a limited tax fund?
The taxes that are currently flowing in to government are currently flowing out of government and more. That is what is called a deficit. That deficit has to be paid back eventually and interest on the accumulated debt paid. Governments get in trouble when significant portions of the tax flow are diverted to pay interest on accumulated debt.
Don't think of it as a fixed project cost, government agencies don't work that way. Rather, they have an annual budget that is approximately the same from year to year, and projects are spread out to fit within that budget.
You do need a project cost so you can figure out how many years the project will take. For example, if the plan calls for missions every 2 years but the cost divided by the budget can only afford a mission every four years then there is a problem. Missions to space only work on a schedule.
What of the project cost for the next 50 years would eat up the budget for the next 100 years? I don't know if that is true because I have not seen a full project cost.
We need number so we can make a valid decision. Do we have enough tax money to divert to this project without crippling government services? Without numbers we have no idea.
The thing about paying scientists and engineers and then reaping taxes is that it is diminishing returns. The money is not gone from the economy but it is gone from government control. We may not have enough tax money to fund things like health care, roads, etc. Most things are built to further growth. Material sent to Mars just becomes something needing to be maintained.
Your argument sounds a lot like the broken window theory. The money spent on a Mars outpost could be better spent to make life better on Earth. A Mars outpost is a luxury not a necessity. The main issue is that the ultimate outcome from a manned Mars mission are the following; 1. Science that can be done much cheaper by robots. 2. Junk on Mars.
Notice I am saying "outpost" and not "colony"? A colony is self sufficient and an outpost on Mars will not be for many decades if ever. There are too many different high tech items that can not be built on Mars for a reasonable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Police have been charged with murder for on duty shootings so your premise is false.
If many of those 602 used life-threatening resistance, they weren't nearly as effective as the police in using deadly force.
So you want police to use less effective tactic to even out the statistics?
they are more likely to die from accidents than targeted violence?
From your own numbers 46 were killed by accidents. I believe that 65 is a much larger number than 46. Another issue is that police have control over their own actions but have no control over accidents. Any human being will do their best to protect their own life. If you look like you are going to kill me and I have the means I will kill you first. I have no control over the bus I didn't see coming and accept that risk.
Me personally, I'd rather take a bullet and die from it than shoot a 12 year old over my own fear. Especially if it was my job to protect innocent lives.
I guess you don't have a family. Most cops want to do their jobs and get home to their families.
Police officers are more likely to die from causes other than gunfire.
From your citation of 1330 officers killed in 2014 47 were killed by gunfire. That is 42% of the total and the single largest cause of death.
the number of officers killed by gunfire continues to decrease over time.
Perhaps that is due to the offenders not getting a chance to shoot first?
Yet we still see numerous stories of police actions that result in unarmed people being killed.
If you are unarmed then follow police orders and don't act like you are armed.
The extra privileges are very few and strictly defined.
So we agree that police have extra privileges. Do you really think the police should have parked in the lot and ran towards someone reportedly brandishing a firearm and aiming it at people? They needed to get close as quickly as possible under as much protection as possible.
The police weren't out of their car for longer than about 2 seconds before they shot.
He sees the cop car coming so instead of standing still he walks toward the officers and tries to take the gun from his waistband. If that had been a real gun, which it looked like, the kid could have shot in the next second.
I don't give a damn if they irrationally feared for their lives under these circumstances.
From hindsight it may appear irrational but considering the number of cops that die or are injured each yearI think you are way off. Did you also miss the point that earlier the kid was pointing the gun and scaring people in the park?
Put yourself into a situation where you have 2 seconds to make a life or death decision. Given the information the officer had and the actions of the kid he made the correct one.
There is a huge body of evidence that shows a hell of a lot of police abuse their powers and violate peoples constitutional and legal rights all the time just for the hell of it.
There is a much bigger body of evidence that show most cops are the exact opposite of that statement.
Not addressing this aspect of policing escalates the problem.
So does teaching people to disobey all cops, treat them with disrespect and/or not talk to police who are trying to solve crimes. Both sides need to change. Better yet how about we work together instead of blaming each other?
I am a white male and when I see police officers approaching I face them and keep my hands visible. I do this to show I am not a threat. Since I am not a threat to them they don't threaten me.
I agree with the GP. Kids need to be taught how to deal with authority. Sorry but "F*UCK YOU" is not the proper response to "take your hands out of your pockets". Also the bad cops need to be weeded out. Two sides moving further apart is a recipe for disaster.
Nowhere can you drive a car on to the grass (already illegal for a civilian),
Police on a call can do many things that civilians can not do. Speeding for example.
pull a gun on a 12 year old
The kid did have what appeared to be a gun.
and fire first.
It is difficult to fire second if the first shot killed you.
To go a little further into what the OP is saying, the "for now" seems to be a criticism that there is not a law outlawing the requirement. This is a false premise. A law is not permanent. It is only in effect until another government comes along and changes it. Even a constitutional amendment can be changed (see prohibition). In effect everything a government does is "for now". The only difference is how easy it is to make a change. With no law it is very easy. With a law it is a bit harder. With a constitutional amendment it is very hard.
If you don't understand that everything a government does is "for now" you have a problem.
What are you basing your "100 years" on? The US dollar went fiat curency in 1971. What fiat currencies lasted about 100 years?
Bitcoin has been around for six years. When does it stop bean able to use the "it's an experimental currency" excuse?
You say this, but then you follow it up with making it a gender issue by saying this:
The issue about whether bullying is acceptable is not a gender issue in that both men and women are put off by such speech. The backlash is a gender issue in that I have only seen men say "suck it up".
In a meritocracy, which all technical projects should strive to be, being right is directly equated with your worth as far as the project's concerned.
There should be a lot of merit in saying "yup your idea is better than mine" rather than browbeating someone else into submission. The problem with having to be right all the time is that some people defend wrong ideas just so they are not seen as wrong. It reminds me of a Klingon programmer quote "How dare you question my code. I should kill you where you stand."
As for Linus, he gets a pass as he is the creator and should be using the cluebat. When too many other start acting like him it becomes a toxic environment. There has to be some compromise between "fluffy bunny" and "whoever shouts the loudest wins".
Considering the proliferation of like in the Chernobyl area ecosystems can absorb radiation too.
Three Mile Island was 1979 and Chernobyl was 1986. Don't you think technology has advances in 30 years. Even Fukushima is minor compared to the number of people killed by emissions from coal plants. The difference is when nuclear goes bad the damage can be very big. People get used to a few thousand extra people dying every month due to coal plant emissions.
There is a place for profanity laced arguments. There are times when the cluebat need to be applied. They should be the exception and preferably done in private. The problem comes when every discussion quickly devolves into name calling and profanity. It has the following effects;
1. Less discussion as people drop out as vitriol ensues.
2. Fewer participants as people never come back.
3. Distraction from the real subject. It becomes an insult contest rather than a discussion.
4. Fewer discussions as many don't want to start arguments.
In the end it created smaller communities and worse code. Just because you can bully someone into agreeing does not make you right; just a more effective bully.
Just because a woman has brought it up does not make it a gender issue. In the end this is not a man or woman issue it is a civility issue.
To all those who say "women should get thicker skins and not take things personally" I say "certain men should stop equating being right with their worth/masculinity or go back to the cave where they belong".
If they are obviously trying to hijack you then yes. Relying on AI to differentiate between hijacking and simple traffic if not a good idea. It would take 3 cars to stop an AI transport truck.
You just box it in and it will have to stop as it is illegal to run into you.
You need to look into trademark law. One of the precepts is that if you do not defend the trademark it becomes invalid.
Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.
Uber is "ride sharing" in the same way pizza delivery is "food sharing". Namely it is not. With Uber you hire a vehicle and driver to take you from one location to another. There is no "sharing" involved. Sharing would be if the driver planned to go from A to B and picked up someone else who happened to be going the same way. For example, many non-profit commuter services are ride sharing as do just that. That is not what Uber does.Being an Uber driver is a part time job and nothing else.
How about these requirements that taxi companies have to adhere to.
- Availability of handicap accessible vehicles.
- Minimum number of cars on the road.
- Minimum wages for drivers.
- Vehicle inspections. I know safety may not be an issue now but give it a few years when Uber drivers wear out their current cars but can not afford a new one.
- The requirement to pick up anyone regardless of race, colour, gender, etc.
- A company responsible for the behavior of the driver. Uber is not as they say their review system will handle it. It may in the long run by there is no one to make drivers clean up their act.
Right now Uber is in a honeymoon state. Most of their drivers are happy and courteous. Wait about ten years when drivers have been jaded by low fares and bad customers. Then there will be even worse problems finding a cab. Today's regulations didn't just spring out of thin air. They were built up over years to deal with issues in the industry. Uber ignores those regulations and therefore their costs are lower.
For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.
It works until Uber gets too many complaints and they can not keep enough drivers on the road to service their customers. When making a choice between minor complaints and not enough drivers Uber will probably ignore the complaints.
Because the alternative to Uber and surge pricing is nobody being there to pick you up...
That sounds much the Yogi Berra saying "Nobody goes there because it is too crowded".
You have no idea how an economy works so I will no longer respond to you.
in the long term we get a Mars Outpost
Which has no economic benefit to Earth and in fact has a drain as it has to be maintained by future missions.
in the short term we get lots of science and the off-shoots of that science.
That science could also be obtained by spending much less money on direct funding of that science rather than as an offshoot. I also wonder how the science and design around many of the technologies needed in space will have application on Earth.
I would rather spend 10% of the Mars costs on direct research that waste the 90% on science for science sake.
There isn't a limited tax fund from which different things must be picked.
On a year by year basis there is a limited amount of money that is received by the government through taxes. How can you say that is not a limited tax fund?
The taxes that are currently flowing in to government are currently flowing out of government and more. That is what is called a deficit. That deficit has to be paid back eventually and interest on the accumulated debt paid. Governments get in trouble when significant portions of the tax flow are diverted to pay interest on accumulated debt.
Sorry, wrong "broken window theory". I meant this one.
Don't think of it as a fixed project cost, government agencies don't work that way. Rather, they have an annual budget that is approximately the same from year to year, and projects are spread out to fit within that budget.
You do need a project cost so you can figure out how many years the project will take. For example, if the plan calls for missions every 2 years but the cost divided by the budget can only afford a mission every four years then there is a problem. Missions to space only work on a schedule.
What of the project cost for the next 50 years would eat up the budget for the next 100 years? I don't know if that is true because I have not seen a full project cost.
We need number so we can make a valid decision. Do we have enough tax money to divert to this project without crippling government services? Without numbers we have no idea.
The thing about paying scientists and engineers and then reaping taxes is that it is diminishing returns. The money is not gone from the economy but it is gone from government control. We may not have enough tax money to fund things like health care, roads, etc. Most things are built to further growth. Material sent to Mars just becomes something needing to be maintained.
Your argument sounds a lot like the broken window theory. The money spent on a Mars outpost could be better spent to make life better on Earth. A Mars outpost is a luxury not a necessity. The main issue is that the ultimate outcome from a manned Mars mission are the following;
1. Science that can be done much cheaper by robots.
2. Junk on Mars.
Notice I am saying "outpost" and not "colony"? A colony is self sufficient and an outpost on Mars will not be for many decades if ever. There are too many different high tech items that can not be built on Mars for a reasonable cost.