Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.
Want to know why we're discussing this? Because it's a news article. It was news worthy. There are 657,000 calls to police every single day. The GP was dead on right with dismissing the linked article. It isn't any resemblance of reality, and just because it happened doesn't mean you can expect it to happen again.
Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty [tribunist.com] to do anything, but he does.
I love people citing supreme court rulings as evidence that people should be shit human beings. You don't need a supreme court to tell you that police have no duty to protect you, to expect them to do just that. As far as I can tell they don't have a duty to protect people in ANY country, yet they do just that, hundreds of thousands of times over on a daily basis.
But you're right, the OP didn't have a legal duty to do anything. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for being a worthless human being for his cowardice.
Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks
What about being a civilian means that he has no training? By the way, every state of the USA has some kind of Good Samaritan law. And being shot? Well let's just conclude that if there's one case like it every day, then the 1 in 657,000 odds are quite acceptable. Now getting hit by a car while crossing the street. oooh, now that one has me scared.
Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.
There's nothing internet tough guy about calling out a worthless coward for what they are, when they perpetuate the continual decline civil society because they are afraid of a statistically improbable event, and are too shitty of a human being to investigate a fellow person who may be in need of aid.
Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake
UK not US. The police don't have quotas on arresting people there and are generally far more respected as a functioning part of society compare to the brain-dead hitsquad that is the USA.
Train is by far the cheapest and most efficient way of transporting goods over land. If there was already a train track at the destination, they'd be using a train.
And there's a reason for their steady decline and banning them in many places. They are unstable. Start attaching 3 or more trailers to a vehicle and a little wobble gets amplified to a giant fishtailing caravan. Add some wind and you have a very risky situation on the highway. Even in AU the road trains are only used on low traffic country roads.
Largest I've overtaken was 6 trailers.
Platooning gets around a lot of these problems, plus each trailer can go its own way when you get to a city.
Such convoys all over the city could disrupt traffic flow.
If your city has such major trade routes that benefit from platooning "all over" then you're screwed either way. But you missed the point of the convoy, improve fuel economy by reducing air resistance. You won't be convoying in the city as it doesn't make any sense to do so.
Still, it seems that rather than get the minor fuel improvement of running three tractors tight on each other, it would be far less complicated--and probably more reliable and safer--to create road trains where each trailer has greater independence from each other.
Yeah I've got an idea for independence, we can give each trailer it's own drive and steering system. Then we could decouple the trailers and have them tail each other using a basic electronic following system.
Ok facetious moment over, this isn't "complicated". Far from it, there's barely more to this than a line-following algorithm, except you're following a truck in front. This is 2nd year university level of "complication" to get this working.
you end up with a train. And we already have those.
Yes but what we lack is train tracks going to every single pick-up and drop-off point. If you want your scenario then you're going to have to cough up a whole lot more taxes, and we all know how much everyone likes paying those.
I take it you haven't heard of "road trains" before?
Even impatient people on the road can live with an intersection being blocked for literally a couple of seconds. Heck given the number of people who run red lights it is already obvious how this "works".
What happens if the wifi signal is lost? Are the trucks smart enough to pull over and stop?
The driver is. The point of platooning is not to eliminate drivers, but it's to allow trucks to drive far closer together without the safety issue of not being able to see around the one in front or the stopping distance. It's actually quite a simple control scheme much like an autopilot on the plane that covers a small cruising scenario and then defers to the pilot for absolutely everything else.
Call me a luddite, but why make this legal while there is still a ban on any vehicle having more than one trailer.
It's a problem of dynamics when trailers are connected together. Independently controlled and steered units can compensate quite easily for any movement in the front. However when they are all connected together a wobble in the front can magnify quite badly in the back trailer, combined with some winds and these things are a nightmare on the road. I used to have to overtake road trains regularly on the way to work in Australia. The trick was, if you can overtake the rear trailer you're usually okay, but don't even consider doing it if it's windy or the road isn't perfectly straight.
Not at all. It's only recently that the pie got divided into something smaller (I'm happy with getting one of your products), and that it is facilitated by the internet.
The idea of gifting money to start a business is as old as business itself.
No, companies and startups need to start to learn how large companies develop products.
Companies and start-ups do. What is typically referred to as a "start-up" here in the crowdfunding realm, is a couple of kids with an idea. That doesn't make it a startup and one of the best ways of learning is actually by doing.
We make 1. Work it until it breaks.
Figure out what went wrong.
Then we make 100. And we break all of them again.
That is a great process if you have an investor that will invest in R&D. That is not how crowdfunding works.
If you got more material like this you could have a standup routine going by next weekend.
Producers of products ultimately aim to make a profit.
Are you really unable to connect the former with the latter? Even MBAs know the causal relationship between the two. The only businesses who break these causal relationship have some kind of market capture.
People don't know and I have the creeping suspicion that they don't want to know what security implications their actions have.
It's not that people don't want to know, it's that they are incapable of knowing the implications of their actions. People act like this the same when when they are presented with incredible low odds of something. The same is evident by people staring in their cellphones while behind the wheel of a car, or making dodgy investment decisions.
Then there's the implications of the security breach itself. The resulting damage is hard to quantify. You tell someone that their IoT device may turn into a spam bot and... "yeah so what?". You tell them it that may be bricked remotely "but I have warranty, and it only cost $100". You give them something real like: they can remotely hack your camera and see when you're not home and clean you out and you get "yeah but pfft what are the odds of that". And for the most part they are actually quite right.
The number of people directly harmed by their own poor security of IoT devices has been incredibly low. The harm for the most part so far has generally gone to the victims of pay per DDoS services. Until people get really harmed, they are not going to care about security.
Responsible? That would obviously be whoever is making the products, selling them, and turning a profit on it, period.
Negative. The only person responsible for security to your network is *you*. The problem is that these things are generally sold to a public that lacks the skills to responsibly manage their own network.
Alternatively, being subdued by 30 rounds of 9mm leads to a 99.999% fatality rate. I would say the Taser is an improvement.
What kind of improvement? The problem is that the rest of the world treats 9mm bullets a bit different to the USA. If a police officer discharges a firearm in most of the west, even for a warning shot it: a) makes the news b) gets heavily investigated c) causes the officer to get punished if the warning shot was not justified.
On the flip side tasers are sold to police forces as a "safe" compliance tool so they have no problem doing things like tasing 10 year old girls, because just tasing someone is easier than actually talking to them.
I would wager to you that in the rest of the world 99% of people who got tased wouldn't get shot.
None of these people were customers. They were charitable people donating to a yet unstarted business with the hope of getting something in return.
The sooner the media stops calling everyone who parts with money a "customer" the sooner people may start setting their expectations straight. Businesses have failed at inception for millennia. It's only recent that we decide that it's constantly newsworthy when a small insignificant one with little investment fails.
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary?
Why not? I mean it's a completely safe weapon to subdue someone. Just because they are unarmed doesn't mean you should meet them on equal footing. What happens if they are good fighters!/police industrial complex thinking
1) Remove all scenes of Jar Jar from Episode 1-3 2) Sell new de-Jarred version 3) Profit!!!
No profit. If you remove all the scenes of Jar Jar what you're left with is:
1. A whiny little kid. 2. A whiny little teenage creeper sexually harassing a politician. 3. An annoying robot. 4. Liam Neeson dying. 5. An animated Yoda talking politics. 6. A rendition of a Starcraft battle with only marginally better graphics. 7. An old man trying not to look evil with the worst poker face in evil person history.
so his part of the job was fine by an engineering standpoint.
Producing something that broke the law was and is not fine from an engineering standpoint regardless of who asked him to do it. Part of being a professional engineer is ethics and having a spine.
I guess everyone needs an indemnification clause in their contract.
In many countries of the world you can't indemnify the acts of an engineer. Professional registration and legislation specific to engineering doesn't allow for that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.
Want to know why we're discussing this? Because it's a news article. It was news worthy. There are 657,000 calls to police every single day. The GP was dead on right with dismissing the linked article. It isn't any resemblance of reality, and just because it happened doesn't mean you can expect it to happen again.
Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty [tribunist.com] to do anything, but he does.
I love people citing supreme court rulings as evidence that people should be shit human beings. You don't need a supreme court to tell you that police have no duty to protect you, to expect them to do just that. As far as I can tell they don't have a duty to protect people in ANY country, yet they do just that, hundreds of thousands of times over on a daily basis.
But you're right, the OP didn't have a legal duty to do anything. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for being a worthless human being for his cowardice.
Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks
What about being a civilian means that he has no training? By the way, every state of the USA has some kind of Good Samaritan law. And being shot? Well let's just conclude that if there's one case like it every day, then the 1 in 657,000 odds are quite acceptable. Now getting hit by a car while crossing the street. oooh, now that one has me scared.
Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.
There's nothing internet tough guy about calling out a worthless coward for what they are, when they perpetuate the continual decline civil society because they are afraid of a statistically improbable event, and are too shitty of a human being to investigate a fellow person who may be in need of aid.
Just because the police tell you some tricky statement to try and get you to make a mistake
UK not US. The police don't have quotas on arresting people there and are generally far more respected as a functioning part of society compare to the brain-dead hitsquad that is the USA.
Train is by far the cheapest and most efficient way of transporting goods over land. If there was already a train track at the destination, they'd be using a train.
Slashdot isn't going to change
Given what we have witnessed on this site in the past 10 years, how can you honestly say that with a straight face?
And there's a reason for their steady decline and banning them in many places. They are unstable. Start attaching 3 or more trailers to a vehicle and a little wobble gets amplified to a giant fishtailing caravan. Add some wind and you have a very risky situation on the highway. Even in AU the road trains are only used on low traffic country roads.
Largest I've overtaken was 6 trailers.
Platooning gets around a lot of these problems, plus each trailer can go its own way when you get to a city.
Such convoys all over the city could disrupt traffic flow.
If your city has such major trade routes that benefit from platooning "all over" then you're screwed either way.
But you missed the point of the convoy, improve fuel economy by reducing air resistance. You won't be convoying in the city as it doesn't make any sense to do so.
Still, it seems that rather than get the minor fuel improvement of running three tractors tight on each other, it would be far less complicated--and probably more reliable and safer--to create road trains where each trailer has greater independence from each other.
Yeah I've got an idea for independence, we can give each trailer it's own drive and steering system. Then we could decouple the trailers and have them tail each other using a basic electronic following system.
Ok facetious moment over, this isn't "complicated". Far from it, there's barely more to this than a line-following algorithm, except you're following a truck in front. This is 2nd year university level of "complication" to get this working.
you end up with a train. And we already have those.
Yes but what we lack is train tracks going to every single pick-up and drop-off point. If you want your scenario then you're going to have to cough up a whole lot more taxes, and we all know how much everyone likes paying those.
I take it you haven't heard of "road trains" before?
In addition to the fuel savings, you also save having a driver in 2 of the 3 trucks.
No you don't. This system can't replace the driver. It is only designed to allow close tailgating for otherwise non-autonomous vehicles.
I can't see how that would work.
Even impatient people on the road can live with an intersection being blocked for literally a couple of seconds. Heck given the number of people who run red lights it is already obvious how this "works".
What happens if the wifi signal is lost? Are the trucks smart enough to pull over and stop?
The driver is. The point of platooning is not to eliminate drivers, but it's to allow trucks to drive far closer together without the safety issue of not being able to see around the one in front or the stopping distance. It's actually quite a simple control scheme much like an autopilot on the plane that covers a small cruising scenario and then defers to the pilot for absolutely everything else.
Call me a luddite, but why make this legal while there is still a ban on any vehicle having more than one trailer.
It's a problem of dynamics when trailers are connected together. Independently controlled and steered units can compensate quite easily for any movement in the front. However when they are all connected together a wobble in the front can magnify quite badly in the back trailer, combined with some winds and these things are a nightmare on the road. I used to have to overtake road trains regularly on the way to work in Australia. The trick was, if you can overtake the rear trailer you're usually okay, but don't even consider doing it if it's windy or the road isn't perfectly straight.
Not at all. It's only recently that the pie got divided into something smaller (I'm happy with getting one of your products), and that it is facilitated by the internet.
The idea of gifting money to start a business is as old as business itself.
No, companies and startups need to start to learn how large companies develop products.
Companies and start-ups do. What is typically referred to as a "start-up" here in the crowdfunding realm, is a couple of kids with an idea. That doesn't make it a startup and one of the best ways of learning is actually by doing.
We make 1. Work it until it breaks.
Figure out what went wrong.
Then we make 100. And we break all of them again.
That is a great process if you have an investor that will invest in R&D. That is not how crowdfunding works.
If you got more material like this you could have a standup routine going by next weekend.
Producers of products ultimately aim to make a profit.
Are you really unable to connect the former with the latter? Even MBAs know the causal relationship between the two. The only businesses who break these causal relationship have some kind of market capture.
People don't know and I have the creeping suspicion that they don't want to know what security implications their actions have.
It's not that people don't want to know, it's that they are incapable of knowing the implications of their actions. People act like this the same when when they are presented with incredible low odds of something. The same is evident by people staring in their cellphones while behind the wheel of a car, or making dodgy investment decisions.
Then there's the implications of the security breach itself. The resulting damage is hard to quantify. You tell someone that their IoT device may turn into a spam bot and ... "yeah so what?". You tell them it that may be bricked remotely "but I have warranty, and it only cost $100". You give them something real like: they can remotely hack your camera and see when you're not home and clean you out and you get "yeah but pfft what are the odds of that". And for the most part they are actually quite right.
The number of people directly harmed by their own poor security of IoT devices has been incredibly low. The harm for the most part so far has generally gone to the victims of pay per DDoS services. Until people get really harmed, they are not going to care about security.
Responsible? That would obviously be whoever is making the products, selling them, and turning a profit on it, period.
Negative. The only person responsible for security to your network is *you*. The problem is that these things are generally sold to a public that lacks the skills to responsibly manage their own network.
Alternatively, being subdued by 30 rounds of 9mm leads to a 99.999% fatality rate. I would say the Taser is an improvement.
What kind of improvement? The problem is that the rest of the world treats 9mm bullets a bit different to the USA. If a police officer discharges a firearm in most of the west, even for a warning shot it:
a) makes the news
b) gets heavily investigated
c) causes the officer to get punished if the warning shot was not justified.
On the flip side tasers are sold to police forces as a "safe" compliance tool so they have no problem doing things like tasing 10 year old girls, because just tasing someone is easier than actually talking to them.
I would wager to you that in the rest of the world 99% of people who got tased wouldn't get shot.
Unless, of course, you were using "gorilla" as a racist reference to black people. But this is Slashdot, we're smarter than that, right?
Well we were... but then you went and posted that.
None of these people were customers. They were charitable people donating to a yet unstarted business with the hope of getting something in return.
The sooner the media stops calling everyone who parts with money a "customer" the sooner people may start setting their expectations straight. Businesses have failed at inception for millennia. It's only recent that we decide that it's constantly newsworthy when a small insignificant one with little investment fails.
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary?
Why not? I mean it's a completely safe weapon to subdue someone. Just because they are unarmed doesn't mean you should meet them on equal footing. What happens if they are good fighters! /police industrial complex thinking
I didn't forget anything. I simply used electrotherapy to forcefully remove those memories from my brain. :-)
1) Remove all scenes of Jar Jar from Episode 1-3
2) Sell new de-Jarred version
3) Profit!!!
No profit. If you remove all the scenes of Jar Jar what you're left with is:
1. A whiny little kid.
2. A whiny little teenage creeper sexually harassing a politician.
3. An annoying robot.
4. Liam Neeson dying.
5. An animated Yoda talking politics.
6. A rendition of a Starcraft battle with only marginally better graphics.
7. An old man trying not to look evil with the worst poker face in evil person history.
No one will pay to see that.
so his part of the job was fine by an engineering standpoint.
Producing something that broke the law was and is not fine from an engineering standpoint regardless of who asked him to do it. Part of being a professional engineer is ethics and having a spine.
I guess everyone needs an indemnification clause in their contract.
In many countries of the world you can't indemnify the acts of an engineer. Professional registration and legislation specific to engineering doesn't allow for that sort of thing.