So then, the question becomes: are the companies selling these systems doing their due diligence and making sure that they can only be triggered by those specific characteristics... or are they half-assing it, off-shoring the programming and pocketing the rest of that juicy government contract? A la the assholes who first built the Obamacare site?
You think that's bad, you should have heard my neighbor's 8-year-old when she was telling me about how they're "teaching" her third grade class about copyright - basically that anything someone else had done can't be done again because it's illegal, no exceptions.
Poor thing was devastated, because she thought she couldn't do a report on her favorite book because a classmate already did one. I'd be raising hell if she were my kid.
Actually he has a point - every mass killer in the past 30 years has been prescribed some sort of psychotropic SSRI. It's the "other connection" anti-gun folks never seem to want to talk about.
You can go to any gun show and pick up a crate full of Mosin Nagant pistols for as cheap as 20 bucks each, No background check.
If "availability of guns" was really an issue, why is it nobody commits crimes with Mosin Nagant pistols? By your theory every crime would be committed with one, since they're so abundantly available.
I certainly hope you're not implying that US police are in a position to justly determine who qualifies, considering recent history.
Seriously, I figured after the government's reaction to the Occupy and Ferguson protests, the left-wingers would have realized that maybe Big Brother isn't the trustworthy soul they always believed in.
Also, per the Constitution, self defense is a legitimate reason to own guns... hell, "I like guns" is a legitimate reason. Don't like it, move to Amend. Its your only legal avenue.
And you feel free keep being a childish racist who blames "the white man" for all your own failings (though I do congratulate you on successfully proving OP's point that there's a double standard regarding who it's "OK" to mock because of their race and/or gender) and can't handle reading a contradictory response without mentally retarding yourself to around the third grade level.
Chief Townsend believes it is a huge privacy concern, as officers often see people on their worst days. "People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; do we really want to have to put that video out on YouTube for people? I think that's pushing it a little bit,"
Wow, I'm a bit shocked to see he showed enough restraint to not spout some bullshit about "terrorists" too.
Plus, cops have had cameras in their patrol cars for decades, yet people mass-requesting videos from bodycams is some sort of new thing? Um, wouldn't the same laws apply to those videos as do the ones from dashcams? Shouldn't the police chief know that?
The more I think about this, the more it starts to smell like bullshit.
No. Absolutely not. There should not be more than a reasonable fee for a copy.
$1 per page is pretty standard for copying paper documents, a minute of footage costs considerably more.
You haven't demonstrated that $10/Minute is an unreasonable fee for the purpose of limiting the amount of content that will be exported.
It would only limit access to people of limited means, and when it comes to public record you're not allowed to dick people over just because they're too poor.
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like.
Really? So implying that I don't use my brain, and saying "people like you are what's wrong with this country," isn't supposed to be an attack? That's bullshit, and you know it.
I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
So, then, you're doing all this in a mirror? Because reading the thread, you're the only one I see who spouted off without any real knowledge of the topic.
However, blanket statements like the GP's:
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
But asshole personal attacks (or "chastising," as you call it) do? What part of your post adds value? Considering your own useless contribution, who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what is or isn't valuable to the conversation?
You claim I haven't been paying attention,
You made the exact same claim about me in your post, fuckhead! So what, it's OK for you to be a useless cock and insult people knowing fuck-all about that person, but if they return the favor suddenly you're a victim? More bullshit.
but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself)
Hey, dude, if you're going to blow yourself, please do so in private. None of us want to see that shit.
Seriously - if you're going to baselessly insult someone, expect a response. If you can't handle what you dish out, and choose to be a bitch about it when someone calls you on your bullshit, maybe you shouldn't be in these discussions to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, it's not the idea I'm against. My problem is, considering their track record, trusting Congress to do the right thing and not sacrifice our rights to the corporate gods so they can "wet their beaks."
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
Well I for one sure as hell don't trust our bought-and-paid-for "leadership" to regulate it in any way that's reasonable or fair to the common man. Their track record in that regard kinda sucks.
Maybe we should let Canada regulate it for us, they seem like a bunch of right agreeable fellows...
... and expanding the PATRIOT Act, and signing the NDAA complete with extraordinary rendition of American clause, and claiming that the murder of innocent women and children via drone is entirely justifiable because "maybe there was a bad guy there once," etc., etc.
Obama's true legacy, the one history will remember, won't be healthcare or net neutrality - he'll be remembered as "Shrub's third and fourth terms."
Slashdot Mirror
So then, the question becomes: are the companies selling these systems doing their due diligence and making sure that they can only be triggered by those specific characteristics... or are they half-assing it, off-shoring the programming and pocketing the rest of that juicy government contract? A la the assholes who first built the Obamacare site?
Yea, some people forget that the only reason more kids didn't die at Columbine is the fact that the pipe bombs the killers tried to set off were duds.
You think that's bad, you should have heard my neighbor's 8-year-old when she was telling me about how they're "teaching" her third grade class about copyright - basically that anything someone else had done can't be done again because it's illegal, no exceptions.
Poor thing was devastated, because she thought she couldn't do a report on her favorite book because a classmate already did one. I'd be raising hell if she were my kid.
Actually he has a point - every mass killer in the past 30 years has been prescribed some sort of psychotropic SSRI. It's the "other connection" anti-gun folks never seem to want to talk about.
You can go to any gun show and pick up a crate full of Mosin Nagant pistols for as cheap as 20 bucks each, No background check.
If "availability of guns" was really an issue, why is it nobody commits crimes with Mosin Nagant pistols? By your theory every crime would be committed with one, since they're so abundantly available.
If we treated mental illness like, you know, a disease rather than a crime, a lot of those mentally ill convicts wouldn't be in prison to begin with.
I certainly hope you're not implying that US police are in a position to justly determine who qualifies, considering recent history.
Seriously, I figured after the government's reaction to the Occupy and Ferguson protests, the left-wingers would have realized that maybe Big Brother isn't the trustworthy soul they always believed in.
Also, per the Constitution, self defense is a legitimate reason to own guns... hell, "I like guns" is a legitimate reason. Don't like it, move to Amend. Its your only legal avenue.
I don't think any legislation can prevent idiotic overreactions. Hell, that term defines a fair amount of what gets proposed in Congress.
An armed school resource officer would only cost about 60K/yr, for the sake of comparison.
And you feel free keep being a childish racist who blames "the white man" for all your own failings (though I do congratulate you on successfully proving OP's point that there's a double standard regarding who it's "OK" to mock because of their race and/or gender) and can't handle reading a contradictory response without mentally retarding yourself to around the third grade level.
Fuckin' bigot.
Chief Townsend believes it is a huge privacy concern, as officers often see people on their worst days. "People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; do we really want to have to put that video out on YouTube for people? I think that's pushing it a little bit,"
Wow, I'm a bit shocked to see he showed enough restraint to not spout some bullshit about "terrorists" too.
Plus, cops have had cameras in their patrol cars for decades, yet people mass-requesting videos from bodycams is some sort of new thing? Um, wouldn't the same laws apply to those videos as do the ones from dashcams? Shouldn't the police chief know that?
The more I think about this, the more it starts to smell like bullshit.
No. Absolutely not. There should not be more than a reasonable fee for a copy.
$1 per page is pretty standard for copying paper documents, a minute of footage costs considerably more.
You haven't demonstrated that $10/Minute is an unreasonable fee for the purpose of limiting the amount of content that will be exported.
It would only limit access to people of limited means, and when it comes to public record you're not allowed to dick people over just because they're too poor.
Well, in theory, anyway.
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like.
Really? So implying that I don't use my brain, and saying "people like you are what's wrong with this country," isn't supposed to be an attack? That's bullshit, and you know it.
I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.
So, then, you're doing all this in a mirror? Because reading the thread, you're the only one I see who spouted off without any real knowledge of the topic.
However, blanket statements like the GP's:
do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.
But asshole personal attacks (or "chastising," as you call it) do? What part of your post adds value? Considering your own useless contribution, who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what is or isn't valuable to the conversation?
You claim I haven't been paying attention,
You made the exact same claim about me in your post, fuckhead! So what, it's OK for you to be a useless cock and insult people knowing fuck-all about that person, but if they return the favor suddenly you're a victim? More bullshit.
but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself)
Hey, dude, if you're going to blow yourself, please do so in private. None of us want to see that shit.
Seriously - if you're going to baselessly insult someone, expect a response. If you can't handle what you dish out, and choose to be a bitch about it when someone calls you on your bullshit, maybe you shouldn't be in these discussions to begin with.
You realize that by denigrating all white males in such a fashion, you prove yourself to be no different than the people you're detracting, right?
Contrary to popular misconception, having Caucasian skin combined with a penis does not, in fact, magically afford you every advantage in life.
Only one real competitor (ATT), but it seems enough to keep them in their place.
Someone else put it best, on an earlier article about racial crap:
"which group is more diverse: 20 people of all races and genders who grew up in the same town, or 20 white guys who grew up all over the world?"
Maybe if we didn't focus so much on race when we talk about "diversity," race would cease to be such a major issue for society.
Obama's true legacy, the one history will remember, won't be healthcare or net neutrality - he'll be remembered as "Shrub's third and fourth terms."
...despite that they gave him a Nobel prize specifically for not being Bush.
That was a pre-emptive strike.
Don't get me wrong, it's not the idea I'm against. My problem is, considering their track record, trusting Congress to do the right thing and not sacrifice our rights to the corporate gods so they can "wet their beaks."
That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!
Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.
You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.
My ISP once told me I can't run a server.
I replied, "then cancel my account, and I'll give my money to your competitors"
They haven't said much since then.
Note, my ISP is not Comcast or Time Warner
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
Well I for one sure as hell don't trust our bought-and-paid-for "leadership" to regulate it in any way that's reasonable or fair to the common man. Their track record in that regard kinda sucks.
Maybe we should let Canada regulate it for us, they seem like a bunch of right agreeable fellows...
... and expanding the PATRIOT Act, and signing the NDAA complete with extraordinary rendition of American clause, and claiming that the murder of innocent women and children via drone is entirely justifiable because "maybe there was a bad guy there once," etc., etc.
Obama's true legacy, the one history will remember, won't be healthcare or net neutrality - he'll be remembered as "Shrub's third and fourth terms."
I'm afraid you, sir or madam, appear to be suffering the effect of the brain-damaging algea mentioned in a previous article.
That, or you stopped actually paying attention to American politics on Jan 20 2008. Either way, I recommend professional assistance.