> Well, I don't know about you, but if the police show up, act in a courteous and polite fashion, ask a > few questions, and then leave satisfied nothing bad is going on, I consider that a job well done. > They're out in the community, flying the flag, and helping people feel safe.
You should try living next door to my old neighbour. The problem here is the assumption that people who report things are reasonable and sane people.
Hell yea.
Anecdote: In my neighborhood, there's a crazy old woman who, annually, pays a visit to each household that has cats, and proceeds to scream at us and threaten to call Animal Control because apparently someone's kitty has taken to slaughtering the wild rabbits she harbors in her back yard (not mine, outside his territory). Hilariously, she claims that it's illegal to let cats roam free without leashes (it's not), meanwhile insisting that harboring wild animals and allowing them to breed uncontrollably is completely within the law (it is not).
Next time, I'm having her arrested for harassment and trespassing.
If he's just one person in the game not really distinguished from the others, then he is, in my opinion, roughly the equivalent of an extra in a movie.
EA created a player in the game that has his number, his stats, his physical likeness, and just so happens to play for the same team. So no, he's not "roughly the equivalent of an extra," he's the character in the game minus his actual name.
Side note: you don't know a whole lot about sports, do you? Each player has their own set of statistics, so each and every player is distinctly distinguished from each other.
Their fiscal security is based on their sports ability (both skill and fitness to perform), not their likeness. They aren't models.
When their likeness is used for profit, they very much are models, if not in title.
Get a bad injury while playing NCAA ball, no pro career, no matter how good you WERE.
Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that EA is making money off this dude's likeness, without his permission, and giving him precisely dick in exchange.
I am guessing by your use of the word "tits" you are not an American.
Matter o' fact I am a 'Merican, born and raised.
Our nation is rather large so for all but very few people going to Mexico is not an option, same for Canada.
Oh, malarkey - inconvenient, yes, but not unfeasible. Not to mention, it would probably only take one or two incidents of large groups of people leaving the country explicitly for intercontinental flights before someone with enough money and power to change things took notice.
If I was awesome in the game, I would be happy that I'm being portrayed as awesome to the world. If I was portrayed in a neutral light, I wouldn't have a reason to care all that much. If I was potrayed as lame, then it would obviously be some kind of parody or other transformation, so while I may be unhappy, I wouldn't have any just complaint.
Easy for some nobody, no-name neckbeard to say.
However, if your fiscal security was based on your own likeness, you'd probably be singing a different tune.
It might be a false dichotomy, but it's not a false dilemma. All your choices are bad. Voting for someone who has no chance of getting enough votes to get into office might be more respectable, but it's still a bad choice too.
Um... isn't that a prime example of circular reasoning? The reason that third party candidates "[have] no chance of getting enough votes" is because people, such as yourself, are constantly repeating that same tired statement.
Come to think of it, let's stick a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' label on top of the circular reasoning one.
The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
I do not disagree, but I don't see it happening - somebody's going to bitch about having to pay for it, either individually or through taxes; probably someone with more money and influence than every person on Slashdot combined.
Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population.
A large part of that is due to the lack of accountability in law enforcement. For example: several years ago, I was sitting at a red light. I watched as a cop with a cell phone attached to his ear entered the left turn lane in front of me; he then proceeded to pull out in front of oncoming traffic, causing a woman (who had the right of way) to collide with his patrol car.
3 months later I read in the local fishwrapper that the woman was blamed for the accident, but for some strange reason all charges were dropped. So, the distracted cop caused a crash, cost the taxpayers a few bucks in patrol car/street repairs, and the whole incident just kind of fell off the radar.
Granted, anecdotes are not evidence, and the training definitely helps, but the reality (that none of us can honestly deny) is that stupid/criminal shit that LEOs engage in is rarely reported, and even more rarely prosecuted, thus skewing the statistics.
It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety...
Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.
Again, seems a good idea in theory, but in practice might not be the magic bullet you think it is:
Consider, for a moment, the recent crash of an Asiana airline flight. Among the issues brought up as a result, there has been question as to whether or not commercial pilots rely too much on automation technology, as there is speculation (backed by flight-recorder evidence) that such a practice was partially to blame for the crash.
Keeping that in mind, consider this:
To become a commercial pilot, one has to go through countless hours of training, flights, exams, certifications, etc. [yes, this is an oversimplification, for brevity's sake; if you want specifics, look them up]
To become an automobile operator, the only requirements (in most of the US) are a short, written exam, a quick spin around the block, and a moderately successful parallel parking attempt.
Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.
I can think of one that definitely works, and another that might:
Definitely works - don't fly. If you absolutely, positively have to go to another continent, you may consider booking shipboard passage.
Might work - take terrestrial transport out of the country to one that doesn't rape you before boarding, and fly out of there.
How do you not put up with it?
Oh, it's super-easy - I don't so much as set foot on airport property. Problem solved.
Greyhound as far as I can tell lacks intercontinental service.
Hey, wouldn't that be tits! Maybe not intercontinental, but they do service Canada and Mexico as well as the US. How's Mexican airport security these days?
Slashdot Mirror
Its not like one would run around the woods with a pressure cooker bomb to hunt deer or a car bomb as a party favorite.
Someone doesn't know any rednecks
Obviously; OP pretty much described a particularly raucous Saturday night around my neck of the woods.
> Well, I don't know about you, but if the police show up, act in a courteous and polite fashion, ask a
> few questions, and then leave satisfied nothing bad is going on, I consider that a job well done.
> They're out in the community, flying the flag, and helping people feel safe.
You should try living next door to my old neighbour. The problem here is the assumption that people who report things are reasonable and sane people.
Hell yea.
Anecdote: In my neighborhood, there's a crazy old woman who, annually, pays a visit to each household that has cats, and proceeds to scream at us and threaten to call Animal Control because apparently someone's kitty has taken to slaughtering the wild rabbits she harbors in her back yard (not mine, outside his territory). Hilariously, she claims that it's illegal to let cats roam free without leashes (it's not), meanwhile insisting that harboring wild animals and allowing them to breed uncontrollably is completely within the law (it is not).
Next time, I'm having her arrested for harassment and trespassing.
Nobody gives a shit if the authorities are respectful and don't break your shit,
I would. If I have done nothing wrong I expect my privacy to be respected regardless of what other peoples nutty suspicions may be.
Agreed; "If you see something, say something" is eerily reminiscent of National Socialist propaganda.
Someone once called the fire department thinking I had recklessly left my kids in a hot car without supervision.
Unless they mistook some inanimate object in your car for children, then you fucking did.
Everyone should see this PSA about leaving kids in cars.
Um... well... they ARE editors...
Slashdot editors are like Congresscritters - the less shit they get done, the better off we all are.
Do you actually have an attorney ready to receive police inquires on your behalf?
Yes, I keep one on retainer.
If so, you'd be the only one I know who does.
Shame, that. Of course, if most attorneys didn't charge and arm, leg, and king's privilege on your first-born, maybe more people would.
Fortunately mine is a friend, so he's quite reasonable.
If he's just one person in the game not really distinguished from the others, then he is, in my opinion, roughly the equivalent of an extra in a movie.
EA created a player in the game that has his number, his stats, his physical likeness, and just so happens to play for the same team. So no, he's not "roughly the equivalent of an extra," he's the character in the game minus his actual name.
Side note: you don't know a whole lot about sports, do you? Each player has their own set of statistics, so each and every player is distinctly distinguished from each other.
Their fiscal security is based on their sports ability (both skill and fitness to perform), not their likeness. They aren't models.
When their likeness is used for profit, they very much are models, if not in title.
Get a bad injury while playing NCAA ball, no pro career, no matter how good you WERE.
Which has fuck-all to do with the fact that EA is making money off this dude's likeness, without his permission, and giving him precisely dick in exchange.
I am guessing by your use of the word "tits" you are not an American.
Matter o' fact I am a 'Merican, born and raised.
Our nation is rather large so for all but very few people going to Mexico is not an option, same for Canada.
Oh, malarkey - inconvenient, yes, but not unfeasible. Not to mention, it would probably only take one or two incidents of large groups of people leaving the country explicitly for intercontinental flights before someone with enough money and power to change things took notice.
Having access to a couple of data pins on a device is not "physical access" any more than being on the same wired/wireless network is.
You're kidding, right?
Tell me you're kidding.
Keller sued EA claiming that the game infringed his right of publicity
It's about the right for publicity, not the right for privacy.
Correct - it is against the law to use someone's likeness without getting their permission first; notable exceptions such as parody excluded.
As it should be.
If I was awesome in the game, I would be happy that I'm being portrayed as awesome to the world. If I was portrayed in a neutral light, I wouldn't have a reason to care all that much. If I was potrayed as lame, then it would obviously be some kind of parody or other transformation, so while I may be unhappy, I wouldn't have any just complaint.
Easy for some nobody, no-name neckbeard to say.
However, if your fiscal security was based on your own likeness, you'd probably be singing a different tune.
As soon as I heard him say, "WW3 is almostï upon us..." I decided I had a better use for my 3 minutes.
Developing a sense of humor, perhaps?
bu-dum psht!
The quickest way to get PWND is to give someone else physical access to your device.
Always has been true, and likely always will be.
Go check out the Tom Lehrer link at the bottom, that should make up for it.
I never said you said it was the best choice; I just pointed out that the statement is an example of circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophecy.
I, too, am a third-party voter... 'cuz why vote for evil in the first place?
... it's here.
google looks for suspicious searches
there was a case where a girl was killed. they caught the perp, another girl because she was searching how to kill people and not leave evidence
All of which could and should have been accomplished without fucking the entire populace out of our civil liberties.
Some shit ain't worth the cost. In the words of Sir William Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Exactly; here's how that conversation should always go down:
LEO: "May we search?"
Citizen: "Absolutely not."
LEO: "Why not?" (actually, at this point it doesn't really matter what they say, unless it's "OK, sorry for bothering you" as they exit the premises)
Citizen: "Ask my attorney."
It might be a false dichotomy, but it's not a false dilemma. All your choices are bad. Voting for someone who has no chance of getting enough votes to get into office might be more respectable, but it's still a bad choice too.
Um... isn't that a prime example of circular reasoning? The reason that third party candidates "[have] no chance of getting enough votes" is because people, such as yourself, are constantly repeating that same tired statement.
Come to think of it, let's stick a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' label on top of the circular reasoning one.
The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
I do not disagree, but I don't see it happening - somebody's going to bitch about having to pay for it, either individually or through taxes; probably someone with more money and influence than every person on Slashdot combined.
Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population.
A large part of that is due to the lack of accountability in law enforcement. For example: several years ago, I was sitting at a red light. I watched as a cop with a cell phone attached to his ear entered the left turn lane in front of me; he then proceeded to pull out in front of oncoming traffic, causing a woman (who had the right of way) to collide with his patrol car.
3 months later I read in the local fishwrapper that the woman was blamed for the accident, but for some strange reason all charges were dropped. So, the distracted cop caused a crash, cost the taxpayers a few bucks in patrol car/street repairs, and the whole incident just kind of fell off the radar.
Granted, anecdotes are not evidence, and the training definitely helps, but the reality (that none of us can honestly deny) is that stupid/criminal shit that LEOs engage in is rarely reported, and even more rarely prosecuted, thus skewing the statistics.
It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety...
Well, I would say that makes no sense, but
OOH SHINY!!!
Sorry, what was I saying? :)
If you want to argue the veracity of a particular report, you're more than welcome. Keep those fuckers honest.
If you're arguing that there's no correlation between distracted driving and an increased probability of incident, you're lying to yourself.
UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.
That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different.
Probably better to just ban driving by humans and let the car drive itself.
Again, seems a good idea in theory, but in practice might not be the magic bullet you think it is:
Consider, for a moment, the recent crash of an Asiana airline flight. Among the issues brought up as a result, there has been question as to whether or not commercial pilots rely too much on automation technology, as there is speculation (backed by flight-recorder evidence) that such a practice was partially to blame for the crash.
Keeping that in mind, consider this:
To become a commercial pilot, one has to go through countless hours of training, flights, exams, certifications, etc.
[yes, this is an oversimplification, for brevity's sake; if you want specifics, look them up]
To become an automobile operator, the only requirements (in most of the US) are a short, written exam, a quick spin around the block, and a moderately successful parallel parking attempt.
Considering the question of pilot reliance on automation, and the vast canyon of difference between the training they receive and that of a typical automobile operator, I fear this particular solution (self-driving cars) will only compound an existing problem.
UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous.
That's the theory, anyway; however, the reality is quite different.
What exactly is the alternative?
I can think of one that definitely works, and another that might:
Definitely works - don't fly. If you absolutely, positively have to go to another continent, you may consider booking shipboard passage.
Might work - take terrestrial transport out of the country to one that doesn't rape you before boarding, and fly out of there.
How do you not put up with it?
Oh, it's super-easy - I don't so much as set foot on airport property. Problem solved.
Greyhound as far as I can tell lacks intercontinental service.
Hey, wouldn't that be tits! Maybe not intercontinental, but they do service Canada and Mexico as well as the US. How's Mexican airport security these days?