A library shelf is a public space and so is a museum wall. Are you claiming that anybody has the right to walk in, take pictures or photocopies of anything in those public spaces and resell those copies and that they are not violating current law? I would be asking those several lawyers that you consulted with for a refund.
But Google is doing something of which LinkedIn approves and has given Google permission to do. hiQ, on the other hand, is doing something of which LinkedIn does not approve and has not given hiQ permission to do. That is entirely the difference here. LinkedIn believes that they benefit from the way Goole indexes their pages and allows them to be searched but LinkedIn believes that what hiQ does is harmful to LinkedIn as it will tend to drive people away.
I understand that people who have never created anything of value or who believe strongly in socialism have no concept of ownership of property (aka, property rights) so they cannot distinguish between the two usages but, until such a time as the whole world has descended into the dystopian hellholes you have name Utopia, please try to follow along.
but the "less" and "effectively speaking" are the keys to the whole thing. Along with that pesky little thing called copying without permission for the intended usage. For some concrete, everyday examples, wander into any Catholic or Methodist or LDS (Mormon) church and look through the hymnal. You will find something at the beginning explaining how all the music can be copied for non-commercial use except as otherwise noted. And then you will find that some of the songs are marked with phrases that fit the "otherwise noted" category. This is the exact same situation applied to the content on a web-site instead of the content in a book of music.
They do not violate copyright if the copyright holders says they don't violate copyright. Kind of like how the police cannot charge my neighbor for stealing my lawnmower if I don't care that he has borrowed it even if I didn't give my express permission to him prior to the police asking me about it.
No, they have given permission to search engines to do what search engines do which is to direct traffic to the website from which the data was collected. The search engines are operating within the license given to them by LinkedIn.
LinkedIn has not given hiQ permission to do what it is doing. Kind of like how a songwriter or copyright holder can give permission to an organization to reprint songs/music in a songbook but restrict others from reprinting those same songs or even photocopying them out of the authorized book even if other music in that book is openly allowed to be copied.
You assume it is wrong because it "discriminated" against a particular group. The claim is that your assumption is wrong.
I never said that the groups called out by the AI should learn to game the AI. I said they should learn what they are doing that the other groups aren't or what they aren't doing that the other groups are. It really is very simple. If you go begging somebody for something and they are not willing to give it to you because of your behaviors, you should change your behaviors.
When the definition of "equitable outcome" is such that it means that the outcome is affected only by relevant factors then the inclusion of race and gender as a required factor with a reciprocal weighting is just wrong.
If an AI can correctly predict the results when comparing heterosexual, white males with each other (or homosexual black females or any other grouping) and then it goes on to give preferences to bisexual Asian females when all groups are put into the mix, the correct response should not be to start tweaking the algorithms to artificially deflate scores for bisexual Asian females. The correct response would be for all the other groups to learn what it is that bisexual Asian females are doing better so that they can improve themselves.
This thread was about more than one incident. If we are going to use a single incident to demand an overall change, then we can just as easily use one of the many incidents of people having used deadly force against people who were slow to react to prove that people should react quicker; thus proving that the Philando Castille incident was justified because of other incidents where the lack of a quick reaction resulted in a bad outcome for the officers.
The question is whether usually use deadly force when not justified or rarely use deadly force when not justified. So far, the evidence says very rarely.
Yes, punishments handed down from the courts do need to be proportional to the crime. However, we are not talking about punishments handed down by the courts here. We are discussing the right of people, including law enforcement personnel, to protect themselves when others are attacking them. The legal standard in the United States is that deadly force may be used to prevent death or great bodily harm. US law (and traditional British common law upon which US law is based) never bothered with fine-grained proportionality. If it is reasonable to assume that taking no action will lead to death or great bodily harm being done to yourself, then deadly force is allowed. It is not up to the attacker to decide what avenues of response the victim is allowed. That would be insane.
"Deadly force is only meant to be used to save lives." Agreed. The reason that "great bodily harm" is legally included is because it is impossible until after an altercation to determine whether great bodily harm will lead to death. Therefore, a reasonable person is allowed the privilege of assuming that great bodily harm will lead to death so preventing it is preventing death. As a concrete example using the knife brandishing... How do I know the person coming at me with a knife intends only to put a few surface scratches on me and is not intending to stab into my internal organs or slice a carotid or other artery? Your vision of the world, ghoul, is to give every benefit of the doubt to the attacker and let innocent victims die. US law and tradition give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.
"Even if its a serial killer who will be given the death penalty at trial, its not the police's right to kill him at arrest time. They are not Judge, jury and executioner." Correct. As long as the serial killer is not attacking the police with deadly force. Once the person being arrested begins to use deadly force, then the police are acting in self defense and not as "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."
How many instances of police shooting into cars without either a weapon being clearly visible and brandished are there? Seriously, how many? Once a person has brandished a weapon at the police, society should assume that the person intends to follow through on that threat and we should not care that they have been removed from society.
The courts could have made that same argument in this case. The 10th amendment is very explicit about what rights the citizens have and what rights the government is allowed to curtail. The 14th is very explicit in saying that the 10th applies to all states as well as the federal government.
Using sophistry to make the 1st amendment seem to apply is just a way for the courts to continue perpetuating the myth that the government gives us rights and we only have those rights clearly listed in the Constitution or granted by law and court decisions. It would have been far easier to use the 10th amendment and require the governments to show where in the US and state constitutions they have been granted the authority to restrict the public from filming in public spaces as long as that filming is not creating a hazard or interference (such as in the officer's face, trampling evidence or commercial filming that blocks roads and sidewalks).
The ACLU goes along with perpetuating the myth because if they started winning 10th amendment cases, everybody would catch on and stop violating our rights and we would need the ACLU less and people wouldn't donate to them as much. That and the fact that the ACLU is against the 10th amendment because following the 10th amendment makes things like welfare payments, universal health care and gun control hard to manage.
Yes, using a bunch of sophistry to make a point instead of reminding us that the 10th Amendment is the reason why.
Moral of the story... Just because the courts make the correct decision in this limited case, does not mean that they really wrote the correct decision.
Seeing as how the NRA has been involved in 1st Amendment cases (campaign finance, documentary film distribution, etc.) and some 4th amendment cases (restricting rights without trial-no fly lists and property confiscation without trial-CA,CT, CO, NY magazine capacity laws) it pretty much is the Conservative Civil Liberties Union. In fact, the ACLU is on the same side as the NRA in regards to the no fly lists. The proper question is really why does the ACLU not fight against those violations?
How about this. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment but the courts don't want you to know the real reason that you have a right to film/video the police when they are in public doing their job. The real reason is that because nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the government the power to prevent you from doing that and most states copied the Bill of Rights into their constitutions and the 14th copied them even if they hadn't.
But, we can't go around reminding the citizenry that they have all manner of rights that have yet to be enumerated and that the Constitution is only there to very explicitly clue the government in as to the few rights it is allowed to take away and under what circumstances it may do so.
No, if the government were to start reminding the citizenry about that, then whole sections of the government would have to cease functioning. Better to just tell a little white lie about how the citizenry is too dumb to be bothering with this is if it can't clearly see how the 1st amendment applies here.
The logic is self-evident. The BLM knows that as soon as the majority of police interactions are filmed, their narrative of "the majority of police are out of line" dries up. They know that as soon as 3 people have a video that the hands were not up or that the only non body cam videos in existence don't start until after the shooting that they won't be believed when they say "no, really, his hands were up before they shot that poor innocent kid and he only brought them down because it hurt when the shot him".
Why did you ask the question when you already knew the obvious answer?
The right to self-defense disappears once you have engaged in committing a crime. That may not be the situation you were describing but you weren't really clear. You seem to have been suggesting that every time a police interaction ends in death it is completely unjustifiable and is basically premeditated murder. Such a position is ridiculous so it is hard to tell where the ridiculousness ends.
And this is why the courts were still wrong even when making the correct ruling. In making the correct ruling in this limited circumstance, they still perpetuated the myth that the 10th amendment does not exist or does not mean what is plainly written in it.
As much as I think the police are in a difficult situation with the use of force thing, I have to agree on this point. I pissed off some SJW types on the internet a while back and a few days later a police officer shows up at my work to have a chat. He starts off asking if I know why he is there? Couldn't think of a reason because my wife is out of state working and my kids are either on their own in other cities working or at college so any type of accident notification is going to be by phone.
Then he starts asking whether I've been talking to people online. Well, duh. I had been commenting on Facebook posts during the weekend. Asks me if I had been "communicating" with Betty (or whatever the name he used was). Told him that the name didn't ring a bell but I could look through some Facebook comments. Then I asked if he was seriously following up because somebody complained that I was mean on a Facebook post. I might have called somebody an idiot or SJW. Then he starts asking me about pictures and emails and dating sites. Mind you, the whole time he has been interrogating me he keeps giving me the "it will go easier for you if you just admit your wrongdoing up front" bullshit.
Once he asks about naked pictures and dating sites, I stop being helpful because I realize that I had already said enough that he could have honestly claimed that I admitted guilt. "Yes, your honor. I asked him if he had been talking to a woman online and he said yes."
At that point, I realized that the best way to deal with officers asking questions is about the same as being a prisoner of war. "Yes, sir, that is my name." "Yes sir, that is my address." "Yes sir, you can reach me at 123-123-1234". "No sir, I don't think I'll answer any other questions at this time. If you would like to fill me in on what it is you'd like to know, I'll think about it and get back to you. Would you mind writing all those questions down, please. Now, how long before you will be contacting me again, just so I know when you want these answers. Are you suggesting that you suspect me of a crime and have some evidence or are you just phishing? Why would I ask that, sir. Just trying to judge whether I need proper representation, sir."
Yup, make the police tell you exactly what they want and make them decide whether it is worth their effort to drag you somewhere and fill out a bunch of paperwork. They won't do that on something as flimsy as a message left on the HR voicemail that "So and so, who I understand to be an employee has been sending me nude pictures of himself and won't leave me alone." Didn't even leave a name. The head of HR told me that the police must have got the name from the phone company because there was not one in the message. The police officer told me that they had tried calling her back a few times but got no answer.
Yeah, those SJW types actually believe that they can tell any lie and commit any crime as long as it furthers their cause which that day was silencing a white male.
Can you point to a single case of the police shooting anyone who is no longer breathing (that wasn't breathing before the shooting began)?
Or are you suggesting that the police are frequently using "the Black person was breathing" as the reason why they shot the Black person. If so, then why are there so damn few shootings of Black people? hell, if police were in the habit of shooting Black people simply for breathing then Black people have either learned to hold their breath for extreme periods of time or the police are covering up way more shootings than most people could possibly imagine. Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton must be as dumb as they look to have not noticed all that.
You do understand that "open carry" means visible in a holster or slung over the shoulder and not being held ready to fire (finger near the trigger), right? Carrying it with the finger near the trigger is called "brandishing" and is a crime and will get an officer to draw regardless of color.
When officers get a call about an armed person walking around, they assume brandishing, especially in states where open carry is legal. Even when the caller has bothered to specify race and the dispatcher has passed that along. (Not so) well-meaning liberal idiots have called in "person with a gun" reports when seeing a white person walking down the street with a properly holstered firearm in open carry states and the police arrive and draw quickly unless they can very clearly see empty hands while on the approach. Perhaps you have heard of the term "swatting". I have read where anti-gun liberals suggest it as a proper response that will convince law-abiding citizens to stop openly carrying.
"Unions help grease the gears." Funny, but that sound a whole lot like "greasing the wheels" which is a euphemism for bribery. So you argument about unions being necessary is that they add to the corruption. Awesome argument you've got going. I haven't seen a pro-union argument this honest before.
Why is the goal to prevent obviously violent criminals from dying? Why should I care that someone has to be within 15 feet or 10 feet or whatever of a police officer with an undrawn weapon before the police officer doesn't have a chance? The person threatening an officer with a knife has shown himself to be violent. I think society should have fewer violent people in it. Why exactly is it that you believe that violent people should be treated as if they weren't violent?
Why do I care if the police harm some piece of crap. Either call the pieces of shit or call them Black. or tell us exactly which color they are at least.
Slashdot Mirror
A library shelf is a public space and so is a museum wall. Are you claiming that anybody has the right to walk in, take pictures or photocopies of anything in those public spaces and resell those copies and that they are not violating current law? I would be asking those several lawyers that you consulted with for a refund.
But Google is doing something of which LinkedIn approves and has given Google permission to do. hiQ, on the other hand, is doing something of which LinkedIn does not approve and has not given hiQ permission to do. That is entirely the difference here. LinkedIn believes that they benefit from the way Goole indexes their pages and allows them to be searched but LinkedIn believes that what hiQ does is harmful to LinkedIn as it will tend to drive people away.
I understand that people who have never created anything of value or who believe strongly in socialism have no concept of ownership of property (aka, property rights) so they cannot distinguish between the two usages but, until such a time as the whole world has descended into the dystopian hellholes you have name Utopia, please try to follow along.
but the "less" and "effectively speaking" are the keys to the whole thing. Along with that pesky little thing called copying without permission for the intended usage. For some concrete, everyday examples, wander into any Catholic or Methodist or LDS (Mormon) church and look through the hymnal. You will find something at the beginning explaining how all the music can be copied for non-commercial use except as otherwise noted. And then you will find that some of the songs are marked with phrases that fit the "otherwise noted" category. This is the exact same situation applied to the content on a web-site instead of the content in a book of music.
They do not violate copyright if the copyright holders says they don't violate copyright. Kind of like how the police cannot charge my neighbor for stealing my lawnmower if I don't care that he has borrowed it even if I didn't give my express permission to him prior to the police asking me about it.
No, they have given permission to search engines to do what search engines do which is to direct traffic to the website from which the data was collected. The search engines are operating within the license given to them by LinkedIn.
LinkedIn has not given hiQ permission to do what it is doing. Kind of like how a songwriter or copyright holder can give permission to an organization to reprint songs/music in a songbook but restrict others from reprinting those same songs or even photocopying them out of the authorized book even if other music in that book is openly allowed to be copied.
This really is not a new concept.
You assume it is wrong because it "discriminated" against a particular group. The claim is that your assumption is wrong.
I never said that the groups called out by the AI should learn to game the AI. I said they should learn what they are doing that the other groups aren't or what they aren't doing that the other groups are. It really is very simple. If you go begging somebody for something and they are not willing to give it to you because of your behaviors, you should change your behaviors.
When the definition of "equitable outcome" is such that it means that the outcome is affected only by relevant factors then the inclusion of race and gender as a required factor with a reciprocal weighting is just wrong.
If an AI can correctly predict the results when comparing heterosexual, white males with each other (or homosexual black females or any other grouping) and then it goes on to give preferences to bisexual Asian females when all groups are put into the mix, the correct response should not be to start tweaking the algorithms to artificially deflate scores for bisexual Asian females. The correct response would be for all the other groups to learn what it is that bisexual Asian females are doing better so that they can improve themselves.
This thread was about more than one incident. If we are going to use a single incident to demand an overall change, then we can just as easily use one of the many incidents of people having used deadly force against people who were slow to react to prove that people should react quicker; thus proving that the Philando Castille incident was justified because of other incidents where the lack of a quick reaction resulted in a bad outcome for the officers.
The question is whether usually use deadly force when not justified or rarely use deadly force when not justified. So far, the evidence says very rarely.
Yes, punishments handed down from the courts do need to be proportional to the crime. However, we are not talking about punishments handed down by the courts here. We are discussing the right of people, including law enforcement personnel, to protect themselves when others are attacking them. The legal standard in the United States is that deadly force may be used to prevent death or great bodily harm. US law (and traditional British common law upon which US law is based) never bothered with fine-grained proportionality. If it is reasonable to assume that taking no action will lead to death or great bodily harm being done to yourself, then deadly force is allowed. It is not up to the attacker to decide what avenues of response the victim is allowed. That would be insane.
"Deadly force is only meant to be used to save lives." Agreed. The reason that "great bodily harm" is legally included is because it is impossible until after an altercation to determine whether great bodily harm will lead to death. Therefore, a reasonable person is allowed the privilege of assuming that great bodily harm will lead to death so preventing it is preventing death. As a concrete example using the knife brandishing... How do I know the person coming at me with a knife intends only to put a few surface scratches on me and is not intending to stab into my internal organs or slice a carotid or other artery? Your vision of the world, ghoul, is to give every benefit of the doubt to the attacker and let innocent victims die. US law and tradition give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.
"Even if its a serial killer who will be given the death penalty at trial, its not the police's right to kill him at arrest time. They are not Judge, jury and executioner." Correct. As long as the serial killer is not attacking the police with deadly force. Once the person being arrested begins to use deadly force, then the police are acting in self defense and not as "Judge, Jury, and Executioner."
How many instances of police shooting into cars without either a weapon being clearly visible and brandished are there? Seriously, how many? Once a person has brandished a weapon at the police, society should assume that the person intends to follow through on that threat and we should not care that they have been removed from society.
The courts could have made that same argument in this case. The 10th amendment is very explicit about what rights the citizens have and what rights the government is allowed to curtail. The 14th is very explicit in saying that the 10th applies to all states as well as the federal government.
Using sophistry to make the 1st amendment seem to apply is just a way for the courts to continue perpetuating the myth that the government gives us rights and we only have those rights clearly listed in the Constitution or granted by law and court decisions. It would have been far easier to use the 10th amendment and require the governments to show where in the US and state constitutions they have been granted the authority to restrict the public from filming in public spaces as long as that filming is not creating a hazard or interference (such as in the officer's face, trampling evidence or commercial filming that blocks roads and sidewalks).
The ACLU goes along with perpetuating the myth because if they started winning 10th amendment cases, everybody would catch on and stop violating our rights and we would need the ACLU less and people wouldn't donate to them as much. That and the fact that the ACLU is against the 10th amendment because following the 10th amendment makes things like welfare payments, universal health care and gun control hard to manage.
Yes, using a bunch of sophistry to make a point instead of reminding us that the 10th Amendment is the reason why.
Moral of the story... Just because the courts make the correct decision in this limited case, does not mean that they really wrote the correct decision.
Seeing as how the NRA has been involved in 1st Amendment cases (campaign finance, documentary film distribution, etc.) and some 4th amendment cases (restricting rights without trial-no fly lists and property confiscation without trial-CA,CT, CO, NY magazine capacity laws) it pretty much is the Conservative Civil Liberties Union. In fact, the ACLU is on the same side as the NRA in regards to the no fly lists. The proper question is really why does the ACLU not fight against those violations?
How about this. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment but the courts don't want you to know the real reason that you have a right to film/video the police when they are in public doing their job. The real reason is that because nothing in the Constitution of the United States gives the government the power to prevent you from doing that and most states copied the Bill of Rights into their constitutions and the 14th copied them even if they hadn't.
But, we can't go around reminding the citizenry that they have all manner of rights that have yet to be enumerated and that the Constitution is only there to very explicitly clue the government in as to the few rights it is allowed to take away and under what circumstances it may do so.
No, if the government were to start reminding the citizenry about that, then whole sections of the government would have to cease functioning. Better to just tell a little white lie about how the citizenry is too dumb to be bothering with this is if it can't clearly see how the 1st amendment applies here.
The logic is self-evident. The BLM knows that as soon as the majority of police interactions are filmed, their narrative of "the majority of police are out of line" dries up. They know that as soon as 3 people have a video that the hands were not up or that the only non body cam videos in existence don't start until after the shooting that they won't be believed when they say "no, really, his hands were up before they shot that poor innocent kid and he only brought them down because it hurt when the shot him".
Why did you ask the question when you already knew the obvious answer?
No, Byrd did none of that. He changed his name so he could avoid doing any of that.
The right to self-defense disappears once you have engaged in committing a crime. That may not be the situation you were describing but you weren't really clear. You seem to have been suggesting that every time a police interaction ends in death it is completely unjustifiable and is basically premeditated murder. Such a position is ridiculous so it is hard to tell where the ridiculousness ends.
And this is why the courts were still wrong even when making the correct ruling. In making the correct ruling in this limited circumstance, they still perpetuated the myth that the 10th amendment does not exist or does not mean what is plainly written in it.
As much as I think the police are in a difficult situation with the use of force thing, I have to agree on this point. I pissed off some SJW types on the internet a while back and a few days later a police officer shows up at my work to have a chat. He starts off asking if I know why he is there? Couldn't think of a reason because my wife is out of state working and my kids are either on their own in other cities working or at college so any type of accident notification is going to be by phone.
Then he starts asking whether I've been talking to people online. Well, duh. I had been commenting on Facebook posts during the weekend. Asks me if I had been "communicating" with Betty (or whatever the name he used was). Told him that the name didn't ring a bell but I could look through some Facebook comments. Then I asked if he was seriously following up because somebody complained that I was mean on a Facebook post. I might have called somebody an idiot or SJW. Then he starts asking me about pictures and emails and dating sites. Mind you, the whole time he has been interrogating me he keeps giving me the "it will go easier for you if you just admit your wrongdoing up front" bullshit.
Once he asks about naked pictures and dating sites, I stop being helpful because I realize that I had already said enough that he could have honestly claimed that I admitted guilt. "Yes, your honor. I asked him if he had been talking to a woman online and he said yes."
At that point, I realized that the best way to deal with officers asking questions is about the same as being a prisoner of war. "Yes, sir, that is my name." "Yes sir, that is my address." "Yes sir, you can reach me at 123-123-1234". "No sir, I don't think I'll answer any other questions at this time. If you would like to fill me in on what it is you'd like to know, I'll think about it and get back to you. Would you mind writing all those questions down, please. Now, how long before you will be contacting me again, just so I know when you want these answers. Are you suggesting that you suspect me of a crime and have some evidence or are you just phishing? Why would I ask that, sir. Just trying to judge whether I need proper representation, sir."
Yup, make the police tell you exactly what they want and make them decide whether it is worth their effort to drag you somewhere and fill out a bunch of paperwork. They won't do that on something as flimsy as a message left on the HR voicemail that "So and so, who I understand to be an employee has been sending me nude pictures of himself and won't leave me alone." Didn't even leave a name. The head of HR told me that the police must have got the name from the phone company because there was not one in the message. The police officer told me that they had tried calling her back a few times but got no answer.
Yeah, those SJW types actually believe that they can tell any lie and commit any crime as long as it furthers their cause which that day was silencing a white male.
Can you point to a single case of the police shooting anyone who is no longer breathing (that wasn't breathing before the shooting began)?
Or are you suggesting that the police are frequently using "the Black person was breathing" as the reason why they shot the Black person. If so, then why are there so damn few shootings of Black people? hell, if police were in the habit of shooting Black people simply for breathing then Black people have either learned to hold their breath for extreme periods of time or the police are covering up way more shootings than most people could possibly imagine. Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton must be as dumb as they look to have not noticed all that.
You do understand that "open carry" means visible in a holster or slung over the shoulder and not being held ready to fire (finger near the trigger), right? Carrying it with the finger near the trigger is called "brandishing" and is a crime and will get an officer to draw regardless of color.
When officers get a call about an armed person walking around, they assume brandishing, especially in states where open carry is legal. Even when the caller has bothered to specify race and the dispatcher has passed that along. (Not so) well-meaning liberal idiots have called in "person with a gun" reports when seeing a white person walking down the street with a properly holstered firearm in open carry states and the police arrive and draw quickly unless they can very clearly see empty hands while on the approach. Perhaps you have heard of the term "swatting". I have read where anti-gun liberals suggest it as a proper response that will convince law-abiding citizens to stop openly carrying.
"Unions help grease the gears." Funny, but that sound a whole lot like "greasing the wheels" which is a euphemism for bribery. So you argument about unions being necessary is that they add to the corruption. Awesome argument you've got going. I haven't seen a pro-union argument this honest before.
Why is the goal to prevent obviously violent criminals from dying? Why should I care that someone has to be within 15 feet or 10 feet or whatever of a police officer with an undrawn weapon before the police officer doesn't have a chance? The person threatening an officer with a knife has shown himself to be violent. I think society should have fewer violent people in it. Why exactly is it that you believe that violent people should be treated as if they weren't violent?
Why do I care if the police harm some piece of crap. Either call the pieces of shit or call them Black. or tell us exactly which color they are at least.
Apt comparison to what?