If there is a small subset in the NYPD, then, it is likely that this is reproduced nation-wide.
If it were, it would've, probably, been reproduced by now. Wake me up, when it is. But remember the saying: New York is not America, and Manhattan is not New York.
it is likely that nation-wide the excessive force complaints are against a subset of officers in every city
Sure. But your statement — thanks to its caveat-words like "likely" and "subset" — is non-falsifiable and thus non-scientific. And therefore it can not be debated.
What all police-critics ought to remember, however, is that "excessive force" is a term, that's even harder to define than "pornography" (as opposite to "erotic art"). One "knows it when one sees it" — at best, and sometimes not even then — and otherwise reasonable people may disagree, whether a particular encounter involved excessive violence or not.
Another thing to remember is that any time a citizen disobeys a policeman's order, violence becomes justified. The cop(s) should still try to limit it, but any consequences are the citizen's to bear: if one suffers, say, a heart-attack during a violent arrest — remember the "I can't breathe" meme? — it is not the cops' fault. They may (or may not) be breaking some police department regulation, but they are committing no crime...
Whether or not to stop, detain, punch or shoot a suspect is always a judgement call — calculations weighting pros and cons, risk and reward are automatically made in our heads.
The additional scrutiny — and TFA talks about all kinds of scrutiny, not just video, that's Hugh Pickens' manipulations — shifts that balance towards the safer (for the policeman) course of action. Because if they do apprehend a dangerous criminal cleanly, at most, they'll get a pat on the back. But if they screw up, or even if they don't, but merely appear to — the entire "Hands up don't shoot" meme is based on a lie, remember? — their lives will change dramatically. For the worse.
The scrutiny is not going anywhere and that, on balance, is a good thing, in my opinion. The public — and the police — just need to learn not to rush to judgement. And the wronged cops need to receive their days in court — of public opinion — not merely "left alone", when they are exonerated. That might push the balance back a little...
The first post requested a link on Obama's view on the subject — and got a +1 Interesting upvote. The reply — with a level-5 moderation — quoted a promise by the then junior Senator from Illinois thus:
Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me
All of you, fellow Slashdotters, who voted for the post-racial Nobel Peace Prize winner based on that (or similar) promise, should ask for your money back. Public self-flagellation is optional.
it won't make any difference in murder / crime rate though
I know. But our government likes to destroy weapons, that were confiscated, bought back or otherwise obtained by the law-enforcement — instead of auctioning them off like other property.
Because:
“The weapons to be destroyed will never be used again to commit a crime, or to threaten, intimidate or harm an innocent victim,” the Sheriff’s Department news release read.
A smaller body is an advantage in situations like stealth, low cover, small access, and generally present a smaller target to hit.
I think, you are describing special forces requirements, not infantry... But, yes, smaller can be useful. Just not often enough...
Females also tend to have an advantage in situational awareness, target tracking, and not getting 'locked in' on targets the way men tend to.
Citations?
Firing a hand gun is certainly not a situation where they should have issues.
Maybe. But it is still not sexist — contrary to your accusation — to point out, that the "smaller hand" mentioned in TFA and the write-up is an euphemism for "female hand".
Before we go any further, please, state for the record, whether or not it is sexist (in your opinion) to point out, that only women can give birth?
People come in all shapes/sizes [...] uniquely suited to certain situations
Yes, they do. But the humans have what is called sexual dimorphism: males of the species are, on average, larger than females. And the GP's point was, infantry service still calls for larger and stronger bodies. Because an infantry soldier (or Marine) still carries weapons (both personal and otherwise larger) and ammunition for them on his person.
Airforce, where weapons tend to be self-propelling and person-to-person combat is non-existent, may have women. Infantry — should not. As long as the goal is to have a strong army, rather than a diverse one, of course.
If they're in combat zones, they need weapons they can shoot
Begs the question, does not it? Maybe, they should simply not be in a combat zone to begin with, huh? Unless, that is, they can shoot the standard-issue weapon and perform other tasks a soldier is expected to perform.
The corporation-hired folks are paid to write a paper (called a deliverable) with arguments supporting the theory of their sponsors while government scientists are paid to do research regardless of the result
False. Both are hired to do research. If the results do not indicate a need for more work, both lose their jobs.
So on one side we have plenty of proof that a few dozens of scientists are being paid to deny or minimize AGW
No, we don't have a proof, we have suspicions. But that's not the topic — the topic is the people paid to "raise awareness" of AGW.
scientists producing lies supporting AGW but we have not a single shred of evidence that anyone is pushing them to lie
Except proving an actual lie is not necessary. It is enough to show, a conflict of interest exists. And it unquestionably does — case closed.
So Lindzen is your best example
I don't know, if he is the best, but the article I linked to certainly contains enough vitriol to exemplify, what any "denier" will face for going against the groupthink. A tenured professor can shrug it off. A grad-school student will not be able too.
And you were the one who talking about conflicts of interests
That what's-his-name has a conflict of interest is not the topic. The topic is, his opponents do — an obvious fact, which you deny with a religious zeal.
Not doing so would be failing to take into account the existence of all the groups funded by ExxonMobil, the Koch foundations and others
See? I think, you got the idea... Great!
So you would have us believe that the thousands of scientists [...] are all corrupt and not one of them spilled the beans
Well, first of all, you would have us believe the same about the scientists funded by ExxonMobil. Koch brothers, et cætera. Why is suspicion more believable about the corporation-funded folks, than about the government-funded ones?
No, I don't think, they are all lying through their teeth. But flat-out stating: "we are wasting time and money," is very difficult even for a reasonably honest person, for it would mean admitting picking a wrong career and wasting years of one's youth. Most people would go into sincere denial. But the way the system is set up, the would-be "rebels" get screened-out long before making a name for themselves — if you argue in your papers, that AGW is insignificant and a misplaced concern, what are the chances of making it into a grad-school today? A seasoned and established tenure-professor might be able to get away with it, but not scratch-free.
I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex"
What will you accuse me of next?
"Accuse"? Not being concerned over Military-Industrial Complex is a folly — that concern is real and existed since WWI! That was not an accusation... What was an accusation is that you deny the similar conflict of interest inherent in the AGW research — but you do deny it, this whole sub-thread is about that.
Even if a climate scientist proves there's no warming interest in the subject will not vanish overnight.
The same can be said about oil companies' profits if the AGW is real. But any sceptic today is immediately suspected of being on Big Oil's payroll anyway. What's good for the gander, is good for a rooster.
So there's really no conflict of interest.
In 2012 US Federal government budgeted $19.78 bln for climate change research and "clean energy". In 2014 the figure was already $21,408 bln (and it was even greater in 2013). The $1.5 bln would buy a lot of scientists — especially those, who already think AGW is a real concern and whose conscience would thus be a lot cheaper.
But that delta is insignificant compared to the rise in expenditures compared to prior years — in 1998, for example, the US has only spent about $8 bln, if I read the CBO-document correctly — and that was when AGW was believed to be a concern.
You are right, that interest in the subject will not "vanish overnight". But the expenditures will most certainly fall to before 1998-levels and that will mean a lot of unemployed "climate scientists" — at least a half of them. Any judge or politician with a conflict of interest of such magnitude, that wouldn't recuse himself, would be impeached — and for a good reason.
I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex" influencing the government towards "perpetual war" so it can forever sell the armaments. Why can't you recognize the same thing in other walks of life?
But in the IOP paper they only used the projections up to 2015
Great! 2015 is coming to end — which of the projections have come true? Please, state the numbers and provide the links to where the numbers were posted.
I doubt you have the scientific chops to understand them.
Yeah, wouldn't it be nicer, if the omniscient and benevolent government could simply force all of the chops-lacking stupid peasants to comply with its wishes? Alas, we live in a reasonable approximation of Republic, so you have to convince us.
It's difficult enough for me too [...] take me several weeks
Well, if it is so difficult even for a fellow practitioner of the same Art to understand, does it still qualify as a prediction then? Seems more like something a Delphi-oracle would "predict", which could be interpreted to mean directly opposite things...
You seem to think idle predictions made in the popular press are the same as predictions made by models?
Well, they may not be the same, but, unless they meet the same (or, at least, similar) opposition from the proponents of AGW as "deniers" do, one must conclude, the said proponents endorse them.
"could be ice free" instead of "will be ice free"
Oh, I see. So, you are saying, these pseudo-scientists are using the same technique Geico's newt uses in leading us to believe something, while in fact making completely non-committal (non-falsifiable) statements: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance". Nice.
you don't know the arguments being made, that you want to deceive people, or that you are just incredibly sloppy with your arguments.
But you are wrong in your dismissal of all such publications as marketing weaselese. At least some of the numerous statements made about Arctic becoming ice-free in the press were falsifiable: here is a nice collection somebody put together. And, as we know, all ended up falsified.
But that's normal for some of the scientific predictions to fail. What is abnormal is the observable dearth of successful ones. Calling me names will not change that — may as well abuse Freeman Dyson, see if he cares.
This would've worked, if I could find an actual prediction there. Can you help? What are you referring to — what is being predicted there successfully? I don't want to make my own conclusion and end up fighting strawmen of my own creation...
Again, the same problem. What are they predicting? I see the acknowledgement of difficulties in making predictions:
Uncertainty in predictions of anthropogenic climate change arises at all stages of the modelling process described in Section 10.1. [...] At each step, uncertainty in the true signal of climate change is introduced both by errors in the representation of Earth system processes in models and by internal climate variability
But I can not identify an actual prediction in the rest of the chapter... Please, help. Thank you.
As far as I can determine, this prediction's time is still in the future and thus it simply could neither have come true nor failed yet. From the abstract (emphasis mine):
We expect global mean temperatures in the decade 2036-46 to be 1-2.5 K warmer than in pre-industrial times under a 'business as usual' emission scenario.
Sorry, I do not see anything predicted in this document at all. It is lengthy, so I may have missed it. Would you mind clarifying — and adding references to the particular pages, where the successful prediction is made?
Only a fucking asshole would call an opponent names during argument. Fuck you, asshole.
complain that the argument against them is "semantics."
When I spoke of "salt", it was, quite clearly, the kitchen kind. You chose to pretend, I meant the generic term from Chemistry and based your (fraudulent) argument on that. A classic semantic change, you underhanded asshole.
Why wouldn't you likewise redefine the "space helicopter" to mean something, that can move in airless space — and deal with my other example with the same semantics-argument? Wouldn't that be a winner, you fucking asshole?
In 1979, carbon dioxide (annual average) was 336.8 ppm; in 2014 concentration was 398.6 ppm... That's an increase of 118%
No, that's an increase of 18%.
The prediction of 0.81 plus or minus 0.4
Ok, even if the Math is correct, it really, is not much of a prediction though, is it? I mean, with the "error bars" being so huge and the predicted delta — so small... So small, in fact, it is just on the border of the other "error bar" — that of the measuring apparatus...
And so small, one can be forgiven for wondering, what the heck the whole brouhaha is about — especially considering the much more profound climate phenomena in Earth's recent history (like Ice Age).
So I will rate this as a correct prediction.
Hardly... Oh, and it is not even a bona-fide prediction, for it was conditional... But, yeah, I'll accept that, Ok. Is there anything else? For the amounts of tax-payer money paid for this branch of science, there really ought to be many successful predictions — not just a single (tortured) one, don't you agree?
"Three words, dear Romeo, and good night indeed.
If that thy bent of love be honourable,
Thy purpose marriage, send me word to-morrow,
By one that I'll procure to come to thee,
Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite;"
Slashdot Mirror
If it were, it would've, probably, been reproduced by now. Wake me up, when it is. But remember the saying: New York is not America, and Manhattan is not New York.
Sure. But your statement — thanks to its caveat-words like "likely" and "subset" — is non-falsifiable and thus non-scientific. And therefore it can not be debated.
What all police-critics ought to remember, however, is that "excessive force" is a term, that's even harder to define than "pornography" (as opposite to "erotic art"). One "knows it when one sees it" — at best, and sometimes not even then — and otherwise reasonable people may disagree, whether a particular encounter involved excessive violence or not.
Another thing to remember is that any time a citizen disobeys a policeman's order, violence becomes justified. The cop(s) should still try to limit it, but any consequences are the citizen's to bear: if one suffers, say, a heart-attack during a violent arrest — remember the "I can't breathe" meme? — it is not the cops' fault. They may (or may not) be breaking some police department regulation, but they are committing no crime...
Sure. The amount and measure of violence — is a judgement call too.
If it is a "small subset", then it is automatically off-topic where a nation-wide trend is discussed... Please, do not filibust.
Whether or not to stop, detain, punch or shoot a suspect is always a judgement call — calculations weighting pros and cons, risk and reward are automatically made in our heads.
The additional scrutiny — and TFA talks about all kinds of scrutiny, not just video, that's Hugh Pickens' manipulations — shifts that balance towards the safer (for the policeman) course of action. Because if they do apprehend a dangerous criminal cleanly, at most, they'll get a pat on the back. But if they screw up, or even if they don't, but merely appear to — the entire "Hands up don't shoot" meme is based on a lie, remember? — their lives will change dramatically. For the worse.
The scrutiny is not going anywhere and that, on balance, is a good thing, in my opinion. The public — and the police — just need to learn not to rush to judgement. And the wronged cops need to receive their days in court — of public opinion — not merely "left alone", when they are exonerated. That might push the balance back a little...
In 2008, when this very site discussed John McCain's opinion on warrantless wiretapping, his views were sufficiently unpopular for TFA to be tagged voteobama...
The first post requested a link on Obama's view on the subject — and got a +1 Interesting upvote. The reply — with a level-5 moderation — quoted a promise by the then junior Senator from Illinois thus:
All of you, fellow Slashdotters, who voted for the post-racial Nobel Peace Prize winner based on that (or similar) promise, should ask for your money back. Public self-flagellation is optional.
You mean, the .45s originally and sold to and used by the US military? I didn't know about such a thing...
This post below seems to disagree — and with a show of reason...
I know. But our government likes to destroy weapons, that were confiscated, bought back or otherwise obtained by the law-enforcement — instead of auctioning them off like other property.
Because:
I think, you are describing special forces requirements, not infantry... But, yes, smaller can be useful. Just not often enough...
Citations?
Maybe. But it is still not sexist — contrary to your accusation — to point out, that the "smaller hand" mentioned in TFA and the write-up is an euphemism for "female hand".
Before we go any further, please, state for the record, whether or not it is sexist (in your opinion) to point out, that only women can give birth?
Yes, they do. But the humans have what is called sexual dimorphism: males of the species are, on average, larger than females. And the GP's point was, infantry service still calls for larger and stronger bodies. Because an infantry soldier (or Marine) still carries weapons (both personal and otherwise larger) and ammunition for them on his person.
Airforce, where weapons tend to be self-propelling and person-to-person combat is non-existent, may have women. Infantry — should not. As long as the goal is to have a strong army, rather than a diverse one, of course.
Begs the question, does not it? Maybe, they should simply not be in a combat zone to begin with, huh? Unless, that is, they can shoot the standard-issue weapon and perform other tasks a soldier is expected to perform.
Will the market see a large influx of surplus M9s? Or will they all be destroyed under the pretence of "fighting crime"?
False. Both are hired to do research. If the results do not indicate a need for more work, both lose their jobs.
No, we don't have a proof, we have suspicions. But that's not the topic — the topic is the people paid to "raise awareness" of AGW.
Except proving an actual lie is not necessary. It is enough to show, a conflict of interest exists. And it unquestionably does — case closed.
I don't know, if he is the best, but the article I linked to certainly contains enough vitriol to exemplify, what any "denier" will face for going against the groupthink. A tenured professor can shrug it off. A grad-school student will not be able too.
That what's-his-name has a conflict of interest is not the topic. The topic is, his opponents do — an obvious fact, which you deny with a religious zeal.
See? I think, you got the idea... Great!
Well, first of all, you would have us believe the same about the scientists funded by ExxonMobil. Koch brothers, et cætera. Why is suspicion more believable about the corporation-funded folks, than about the government-funded ones?
No, I don't think, they are all lying through their teeth. But flat-out stating: "we are wasting time and money," is very difficult even for a reasonably honest person, for it would mean admitting picking a wrong career and wasting years of one's youth. Most people would go into sincere denial. But the way the system is set up, the would-be "rebels" get screened-out long before making a name for themselves — if you argue in your papers, that AGW is insignificant and a misplaced concern, what are the chances of making it into a grad-school today? A seasoned and established tenure-professor might be able to get away with it, but not scratch-free.
"Accuse"? Not being concerned over Military-Industrial Complex is a folly — that concern is real and existed since WWI! That was not an accusation... What was an accusation is that you deny the similar conflict of interest inherent in the AGW research — but you do deny it, this whole sub-thread is about that.
The same can be said about oil companies' profits if the AGW is real. But any sceptic today is immediately suspected of being on Big Oil's payroll anyway. What's good for the gander, is good for a rooster.
In 2012 US Federal government budgeted $19.78 bln for climate change research and "clean energy". In 2014 the figure was already $21,408 bln (and it was even greater in 2013). The $1.5 bln would buy a lot of scientists — especially those, who already think AGW is a real concern and whose conscience would thus be a lot cheaper.
But that delta is insignificant compared to the rise in expenditures compared to prior years — in 1998, for example, the US has only spent about $8 bln, if I read the CBO-document correctly — and that was when AGW was believed to be a concern.
You are right, that interest in the subject will not "vanish overnight". But the expenditures will most certainly fall to before 1998-levels and that will mean a lot of unemployed "climate scientists" — at least a half of them. Any judge or politician with a conflict of interest of such magnitude, that wouldn't recuse himself, would be impeached — and for a good reason.
I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex" influencing the government towards "perpetual war" so it can forever sell the armaments. Why can't you recognize the same thing in other walks of life?
Great! 2015 is coming to end — which of the projections have come true? Please, state the numbers and provide the links to where the numbers were posted.
Yeah, wouldn't it be nicer, if the omniscient and benevolent government could simply force all of the chops-lacking stupid peasants to comply with its wishes? Alas, we live in a reasonable approximation of Republic, so you have to convince us.
Well, if it is so difficult even for a fellow practitioner of the same Art to understand, does it still qualify as a prediction then? Seems more like something a Delphi-oracle would "predict", which could be interpreted to mean directly opposite things...
Shouting from one hamlet to another:
Well, they may not be the same, but, unless they meet the same (or, at least, similar) opposition from the proponents of AGW as "deniers" do, one must conclude, the said proponents endorse them.
Oh, I see. So, you are saying, these pseudo-scientists are using the same technique Geico's newt uses in leading us to believe something, while in fact making completely non-committal (non-falsifiable) statements: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance". Nice.
But you are wrong in your dismissal of all such publications as marketing weaselese. At least some of the numerous statements made about Arctic becoming ice-free in the press were falsifiable: here is a nice collection somebody put together. And, as we know, all ended up falsified.
But that's normal for some of the scientific predictions to fail. What is abnormal is the observable dearth of successful ones. Calling me names will not change that — may as well abuse Freeman Dyson, see if he cares.
I may be both, but you are neither — presumably. And you've accepted the challenge, so go on.
Great, now we've made some progress.
This would've worked, if I could find an actual prediction there. Can you help? What are you referring to — what is being predicted there successfully? I don't want to make my own conclusion and end up fighting strawmen of my own creation...
Again, the same problem. What are they predicting? I see the acknowledgement of difficulties in making predictions:
But I can not identify an actual prediction in the rest of the chapter... Please, help. Thank you.
Fuck you, you name calling asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse, crotch-stink?
As far as I can determine, this prediction's time is still in the future and thus it simply could neither have come true nor failed yet. From the abstract (emphasis mine):
Sorry, I do not see anything predicted in this document at all. It is lengthy, so I may have missed it. Would you mind clarifying — and adding references to the particular pages, where the successful prediction is made?
Thank you.
Considering the fact, that the set of assertions I made is empty, you can both trust and distrust them at the same time! Congratulations!
Only a fucking asshole would call an opponent names during argument. Fuck you, asshole.
When I spoke of "salt", it was, quite clearly, the kitchen kind. You chose to pretend, I meant the generic term from Chemistry and based your (fraudulent) argument on that. A classic semantic change, you underhanded asshole.
Why wouldn't you likewise redefine the "space helicopter" to mean something, that can move in airless space — and deal with my other example with the same semantics-argument? Wouldn't that be a winner, you fucking asshole?
Please, don't hate!
No, that's an increase of 18%.
Ok, even if the Math is correct, it really, is not much of a prediction though, is it? I mean, with the "error bars" being so huge and the predicted delta — so small... So small, in fact, it is just on the border of the other "error bar" — that of the measuring apparatus...
And so small, one can be forgiven for wondering, what the heck the whole brouhaha is about — especially considering the much more profound climate phenomena in Earth's recent history (like Ice Age).
Hardly... Oh, and it is not even a bona-fide prediction, for it was conditional... But, yeah, I'll accept that, Ok. Is there anything else? For the amounts of tax-payer money paid for this branch of science, there really ought to be many successful predictions — not just a single (tortured) one, don't you agree?
So, all you have is semantics? Figures...
Ah, yes, sure. Pure legalese, this:
Funny, how you don't demand references from the other AC — the one, who made the unsubstantiated statement about 2014 being "the hottest" on record.
Will you also insist on life-long incarcerations for people, whose children killed with their cars ?
A self-contradicting — meaningless — term like "space helicopter", "low-sodium salt", or "gay marriage".