Other countries have almost nobody killed by cops, and almost no cops killed by anyone - way lower per capita rates than the US. Fix your country or keep killing yourselves -
The problem here is threefold. Guns are legal, plentiful and easily obtained without even a background check if you buy from a gun show.
Almost anyone a police officer approaches could be armed. Of course they're jumpy and quick to reach for a gun. Any attempted arrest could be their last.
Secondly you have a police force that are TRAINED to think that any arrest could be their last. They are actively trained to treat every civilian as armed... because as stated in first point, more often than in other countries they ARE armed.
Finally, you have a large segment of the population that think it is cool to bash the police and not show respect. How many people call and think of them as "Pigs"? You get a twitchy cop who knows that anyone could be armed. He's be trained to treat the person as armed- and now he's trying to talk to a guy that is being verbally aggressive and disrespectful to him- what are his instincts going to be? This aggressive guy is probably armed and is going to try killing me!
It's a tough job and a tough situation. The one time he doesn't let those instincts rule him will probably the one time he ends up in a body bag.
You don't need a camera with face recognition to catch outstanding warrants. Just checking IDs will do that. That is currently standard practice.
It would be tedious and unconstitutional for officers to stop every person they pass and ask for ID. If they have a device scanning every single person they walk past it would be more efficient.
I suspect there would still be constitutional challenges. Does face recognition software violate the 4th constitution as an "unwarranted search"? I suspect a clever lawyer might be able to make a case.
You haven't seen his dozenother "police are bad" posts on this thread then?
Of course the police are killing way too many innocent people. One person would be one too many.
390 people killed by police on average a year. Over 1.2 million police officers. So on average only 1 out of about 3100 police officers killed someone. 390 people is too many... but it's not like your average policeman is going out there killing people all the time- only one out of 3100 make a kill (and that's assuming all the shots are fired by unique officers). The vast majority of those killings are probably justified.
If there are a dozen cases of a police office killing someone each year that wasn't called for, that's still only one out of 0.000001% of cops. Some would say that's still too high... and it probably is, my point is, let's not exaggerate the problem. The way some people carry on on slash dot you'd imagine cops just swing their weapon out and shoot people randomly every day.
Cops will ALWAYS carry the most powerful weapon possible until "the authorities" decide that overwhelming force is no longer the proper way to approach the situation.
Most countries without legal guns, the average police man doesn't carry a gun either. Only specially trained police carry guns- and trained as in, not to shoot people they don't have to shoot.
As long as guns exist anywhere, criminals will have guns too.
There FTFY and don't claim I'm lying, I'm a former criminal sorry to say.
Different topic for a different day... but yes guns can be smuggled into countries where they are outlawed. Definitely lowers their presence though. Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK or Australia nowadays. (and Australia had legal guns fairly recently)...... but yes, some criminals will always have guns regardless.
Want to reduce the number of killings? Rein in the cops. They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Of course police kill more civilians than the other way around! I know you're using that as a statistic to suggest the police are all corrupt, but even with 0% corruption where all the killings were bad guys trying to hurt good people, you'd still have more cops killing civilians than the other way around. They're organized, they outnumber the bad guys, they're better equipped and better trained.
I'm not saying there isn't police corruption. Any time you have power, you invite corruption. Obviously there is a problem with police corruption. Obviously, innocent people get killed by police each year. And certainly lethal force is used even when it needn't be in some cases. The vast majority of those killed aren't lily-white innocent.
Not saying we shouldn't avoid deaths, I think better training needs to be given the police to give alternatives to lethal force and every death should be investigated by an independent body; but if it's the choice between a cop (who 95% are decent people doing a job to protect us) and an armed robber- I'd rather the cop survive. (I'd rather they both survive, but if two people have guns out that's rarely going to happen).
As long as criminals have guns in this country, police officers will have guns too. There will be deaths. I certainly hope that those who (majority are decent guys) survive more often.
I can picture the first time calling someone an arsehole on the app and a wavy double blue line appears under the word... so you click it and it takes you to anal beads for sale.
In chronological order of when I started using it, I now need to use, at least occasionally,
...long list...
And....as soon as some idiot I know starts using it as their preferred form of communcation, drumroll please.....Amazon Messaging!
I'm honestly fine with Email, SMS/iMessage and Voice Calls. Because those systems are non-proprietary and basically universal.
Just because someone you know wants to communicate using some proprietary messaging system doesn't mean you have to sign up for it. You can say "I don't use that. Email me instead".
I'm not on any funky messaging system, just regular SMS. I'm not on Google or Facebook. People know if they want to reach me to text me or call me. Heck, even e-mail me. I don't do the whole sign up for flavor of the day crap.
If someone wants to use a messaging app, I'm sure by now they've decided on one they like. Unless this is linked into the reviews or questions on Amazon store I'm not sure the point.
If it IS linked into the Amazon store, I'm never asking/answering a question again and I'm not reviewing anything again.
Too many asleep while privacy was being destroyed. How many embrace sites like Facebook or Google and yet complain about ISP's? Really? What's the difference?
Playing devil's advocate. I can use the internet without using Facebook or Google. I have a choice.
I can't use the internet without using my state mandated monopoly ISP provider. I can't use an alternate source with better privacy because the government granted them a monopoly.
And for those who don't know, King Alfred in the son of Viking's Athelstan, so it's kind of like a sequel series. Not that Vikings has much real stuff in it.
And James Bond is like a sequel to the real-life King Alfred in a very stretched way... lol
The real life Alfred was a huge womanizer, an extremely refined and intelligent man for the era, and also his own super-spy. If ancient history is to be believed, Alfred was his own spy and would sneak into enemy land incognito to observe what they were up to so he could formulate plans and strategy better.
One of my favourite places to work quick turned into one of my least favourite. I had been their 3 years, loved my job, then the director of IT got promoted to VP and was replaced by this obnoxious Texan whose favourite phrase was "fucking retard" (he would call all the staff that, not me, he seemed to like me, but it made me cringe hearing him calling my coworkers that).
He changed the plan from a cube farm to an "open bull pen", no walls or privacy between staff. I couldn't stay- I had to get a new job. I refused to stay in an open floor setup like that. Seemed inhuman.
Of course, there were other factors, like him asking me to spy on my coworkers for him because he thought they weren't working properly.- but the open floor plan was enough for me to want to get out.
Season 1 of The Last Kingdom was interesting but not great. Everything after that was content mill writing. No amount of money spent on production can exceed the value of the writing.
Netflix had nothing to do with the first season. It was on BBC before it ever showed on Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon frequently brand things as "originals" if they are merely the first to show them in America, even if they had nothing to do with the production.
They were involved in the second season however. Both seasons though are based on the (excellent) books by Bernard Cornwall btw. The books are really good. The books themselves are also based around real history that was happening. (Utred is fictional, but the Danish lords and people like Alfred and Odda are very much real).
It makes no sense. Both have an 8.4/10 on IMDb and seem to be very well received. Sense8 clearly has a larger following than The Get Down, which also makes its cancellation surprising. Sense8's recent episode got a very good rating as well.
I guess viewership may have declined or something, but when you've got a good show running, I think it's a mistake to cancel prematurely. Especially when the show is well-received and it was supposed to run five full seasons (as is the case with Sense8).
I don't know the cost of those shows. I know Marco Polo had a huge global audience but they cancelled it anyway because it was a very expensive show to make.
A lot of the British "Netflix" original shows are just reruns of BBC, ITV, or channel 4 shows from Britain. They had nothing to do with the production, they just slap their name on when it comes to the US.
Likely they dumped the most expensive shows, hits or not.
This is probably why Doctor Who still exists. No offense intended, but it's obviously not done on a huge budget, and they get rid of the starring actors/actresses about once every year or two.
I mean, sometimes it feels like I'm watching a tv show made by The Asylum.
They don't exactly "get rid of the actors". The actors chose to leave to pursue other jobs so they don't get too type-cast.
Not to mention an air-conditioned office beats an uncooled home.
Err...why would you not have A/C in your home?
A lot of homes in Europe don't have air conditioning. The house I grew up in in England was well over 100 years old and it didn't have any air-conditioning. In truth, it only really would have been useful a few weeks out of the year. Of course, summers are warmer in England than they were in the 80's now so the number of weeks it would be useful have surely gone up.
That is entirely your problem, the lack of organization and separation. It was mine too (wife, 3 kids, farm) so I bought a $110/mo house to use for storage and work. It easily pays for itself and its just a few blocks from where i sleep.
Indeed it is a problem. Not something I can avoid though, and I suspect there are plenty of other people who can't avoid it too. If we could afford more space we would get more space. If I were single it wouldn't be an issue- but having a family means private space is at a premium.
Your $110/mo would be 10 times that price here for a cheap house, especially after I hooked up electricity and internet to the place. Cheapest broadband around here is about $70/month, or about 2/3rds the cost of your work-house.
It would be cheaper to live in a bigger house with a spare office- or a house in a neighbourhood that allowed me to install an office-studio in the back yard. Then it would to buy/rent a separate place.
Yes, I have the wife and kids- but also at work I have a nice large office that I can keep clean and clutter free- and that really helps me focus and concentrate.
At home I don't have a proper room set up as an office- we don't have any room spare. So the desk is just in a corner. It's a dumping ground for all sorts of junk. It's cluttered- and because my wife passes through it's not clean (I swear that woman just goes around dropping trash everywhere all day long- I do love her though lol).
So whereas I'm welcome to work from home occasionally, my house is too small and there's no comfortable spot for me to set up. Also, remote desktop to the office is slow as crap (yes I know other places have better solutions than remote desktop). The office for me is simply more comfortable. When I win the lottery (or the wife finishes college and starts working) and we can get a bigger house I may be able to claim a room that is just for me- and then I may work from home.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep....they don't want to be filmed going "pee-pee".
A valid point. You can't make them without off-switches.
You could however make it policy that not having your cam turned on without a valid excuse (such as going to the toilet) could be subject to a fine.
Other countries have almost nobody killed by cops, and almost no cops killed by anyone - way lower per capita rates than the US. Fix your country or keep killing yourselves -
The problem here is threefold. Guns are legal, plentiful and easily obtained without even a background check if you buy from a gun show.
Almost anyone a police officer approaches could be armed. Of course they're jumpy and quick to reach for a gun. Any attempted arrest could be their last.
Secondly you have a police force that are TRAINED to think that any arrest could be their last. They are actively trained to treat every civilian as armed... because as stated in first point, more often than in other countries they ARE armed.
Finally, you have a large segment of the population that think it is cool to bash the police and not show respect. How many people call and think of them as "Pigs"? You get a twitchy cop who knows that anyone could be armed. He's be trained to treat the person as armed- and now he's trying to talk to a guy that is being verbally aggressive and disrespectful to him- what are his instincts going to be? This aggressive guy is probably armed and is going to try killing me!
It's a tough job and a tough situation. The one time he doesn't let those instincts rule him will probably the one time he ends up in a body bag.
You don't need a camera with face recognition to catch outstanding warrants. Just checking IDs will do that. That is currently standard practice.
It would be tedious and unconstitutional for officers to stop every person they pass and ask for ID. If they have a device scanning every single person they walk past it would be more efficient.
I suspect there would still be constitutional challenges. Does face recognition software violate the 4th constitution as an "unwarranted search"? I suspect a clever lawyer might be able to make a case.
What about dogs? Very rarely are guns found on dogs after they're shot.
Dogs are just better at concealing them than people.
You haven't seen his dozenother "police are bad" posts on this thread then?
Of course the police are killing way too many innocent people. One person would be one too many.
390 people killed by police on average a year. Over 1.2 million police officers. So on average only 1 out of about 3100 police officers killed someone. 390 people is too many... but it's not like your average policeman is going out there killing people all the time- only one out of 3100 make a kill (and that's assuming all the shots are fired by unique officers). The vast majority of those killings are probably justified.
If there are a dozen cases of a police office killing someone each year that wasn't called for, that's still only one out of 0.000001% of cops. Some would say that's still too high... and it probably is, my point is, let's not exaggerate the problem. The way some people carry on on slash dot you'd imagine cops just swing their weapon out and shoot people randomly every day.
Cops will ALWAYS carry the most powerful weapon possible until "the authorities" decide that overwhelming force is no longer the proper way to approach the situation.
Most countries without legal guns, the average police man doesn't carry a gun either. Only specially trained police carry guns- and trained as in, not to shoot people they don't have to shoot.
I'm in Austin (the 2nd city served by Google Fiber) and I still can't get it in my home.
If Google can't get this done, who can?
Alphabet?
Can I be the next CEO please Larry?
Even if I only last a year I will earn more than I make in a lifetime as a programmer.
As long as guns exist anywhere, criminals will have guns too.
There FTFY and don't claim I'm lying, I'm a former criminal sorry to say.
Different topic for a different day... but yes guns can be smuggled into countries where they are outlawed. Definitely lowers their presence though. Gun crime is almost unheard of in the UK or Australia nowadays. (and Australia had legal guns fairly recently)... ... but yes, some criminals will always have guns regardless.
Want to reduce the number of killings? Rein in the cops. They kill more than 4x the number of civilians than total police killed by civilians..
Of course police kill more civilians than the other way around! I know you're using that as a statistic to suggest the police are all corrupt, but even with 0% corruption where all the killings were bad guys trying to hurt good people, you'd still have more cops killing civilians than the other way around. They're organized, they outnumber the bad guys, they're better equipped and better trained.
I'm not saying there isn't police corruption. Any time you have power, you invite corruption. Obviously there is a problem with police corruption. Obviously, innocent people get killed by police each year. And certainly lethal force is used even when it needn't be in some cases. The vast majority of those killed aren't lily-white innocent.
Not saying we shouldn't avoid deaths, I think better training needs to be given the police to give alternatives to lethal force and every death should be investigated by an independent body; but if it's the choice between a cop (who 95% are decent people doing a job to protect us) and an armed robber- I'd rather the cop survive. (I'd rather they both survive, but if two people have guns out that's rarely going to happen).
As long as criminals have guns in this country, police officers will have guns too. There will be deaths. I certainly hope that those who (majority are decent guys) survive more often.
I can picture the first time calling someone an arsehole on the app and a wavy double blue line appears under the word... so you click it and it takes you to anal beads for sale.
In chronological order of when I started using it, I now need to use, at least occasionally,
And....as soon as some idiot I know starts using it as their preferred form of communcation, drumroll please.....Amazon Messaging!
I'm honestly fine with Email, SMS/iMessage and Voice Calls. Because those systems are non-proprietary and basically universal.
Just because someone you know wants to communicate using some proprietary messaging system doesn't mean you have to sign up for it. You can say "I don't use that. Email me instead".
I'm not on any funky messaging system, just regular SMS. I'm not on Google or Facebook. People know if they want to reach me to text me or call me. Heck, even e-mail me. I don't do the whole sign up for flavor of the day crap.
If someone wants to use a messaging app, I'm sure by now they've decided on one they like. Unless this is linked into the reviews or questions on Amazon store I'm not sure the point.
If it IS linked into the Amazon store, I'm never asking/answering a question again and I'm not reviewing anything again.
Too many asleep while privacy was being destroyed. How many embrace sites like Facebook or Google and yet complain about ISP's? Really? What's the difference?
Playing devil's advocate. I can use the internet without using Facebook or Google. I have a choice.
I can't use the internet without using my state mandated monopoly ISP provider. I can't use an alternate source with better privacy because the government granted them a monopoly.
And for those who don't know, King Alfred in the son of Viking's Athelstan, so it's kind of like a sequel series. Not that Vikings has much real stuff in it.
And James Bond is like a sequel to the real-life King Alfred in a very stretched way... lol
The real life Alfred was a huge womanizer, an extremely refined and intelligent man for the era, and also his own super-spy. If ancient history is to be believed, Alfred was his own spy and would sneak into enemy land incognito to observe what they were up to so he could formulate plans and strategy better.
One of my favourite places to work quick turned into one of my least favourite. I had been their 3 years, loved my job, then the director of IT got promoted to VP and was replaced by this obnoxious Texan whose favourite phrase was "fucking retard" (he would call all the staff that, not me, he seemed to like me, but it made me cringe hearing him calling my coworkers that).
He changed the plan from a cube farm to an "open bull pen", no walls or privacy between staff. I couldn't stay- I had to get a new job. I refused to stay in an open floor setup like that. Seemed inhuman.
Of course, there were other factors, like him asking me to spy on my coworkers for him because he thought they weren't working properly.- but the open floor plan was enough for me to want to get out.
Season 1 of The Last Kingdom was interesting but not great. Everything after that was content mill writing. No amount of money spent on production can exceed the value of the writing.
Netflix had nothing to do with the first season. It was on BBC before it ever showed on Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon frequently brand things as "originals" if they are merely the first to show them in America, even if they had nothing to do with the production.
They were involved in the second season however. Both seasons though are based on the (excellent) books by Bernard Cornwall btw. The books are really good. The books themselves are also based around real history that was happening. (Utred is fictional, but the Danish lords and people like Alfred and Odda are very much real).
It makes no sense. Both have an 8.4/10 on IMDb and seem to be very well received. Sense8 clearly has a larger following than The Get Down, which also makes its cancellation surprising. Sense8's recent episode got a very good rating as well.
I guess viewership may have declined or something, but when you've got a good show running, I think it's a mistake to cancel prematurely. Especially when the show is well-received and it was supposed to run five full seasons (as is the case with Sense8).
I don't know the cost of those shows. I know Marco Polo had a huge global audience but they cancelled it anyway because it was a very expensive show to make.
Then you might enjoy Netflix's Jessica Jones. Oh, wait.
That is probably the single worst TV show ever made.
A lot of the British "Netflix" original shows are just reruns of BBC, ITV, or channel 4 shows from Britain. They had nothing to do with the production, they just slap their name on when it comes to the US.
Hulu does the same thing too... as does Amazon.
Marco Polo was definitely in the top 10 shows I've watched in the last decade. Was very annoyed they cancelled it.
Likely they dumped the most expensive shows, hits or not.
This is probably why Doctor Who still exists. No offense intended, but it's obviously not done on a huge budget, and they get rid of the starring actors/actresses about once every year or two.
I mean, sometimes it feels like I'm watching a tv show made by The Asylum.
They don't exactly "get rid of the actors". The actors chose to leave to pursue other jobs so they don't get too type-cast.
Err...why would you not have A/C in your home?
A lot of homes in Europe don't have air conditioning. The house I grew up in in England was well over 100 years old and it didn't have any air-conditioning. In truth, it only really would have been useful a few weeks out of the year. Of course, summers are warmer in England than they were in the 80's now so the number of weeks it would be useful have surely gone up.
That is entirely your problem, the lack of organization and separation. It was mine too (wife, 3 kids, farm) so I bought a $110/mo house to use for storage and work. It easily pays for itself and its just a few blocks from where i sleep.
Indeed it is a problem. Not something I can avoid though, and I suspect there are plenty of other people who can't avoid it too. If we could afford more space we would get more space. If I were single it wouldn't be an issue- but having a family means private space is at a premium.
Your $110/mo would be 10 times that price here for a cheap house, especially after I hooked up electricity and internet to the place. Cheapest broadband around here is about $70/month, or about 2/3rds the cost of your work-house.
It would be cheaper to live in a bigger house with a spare office- or a house in a neighbourhood that allowed me to install an office-studio in the back yard. Then it would to buy/rent a separate place.
I'm less productive at home.
Yes, I have the wife and kids- but also at work I have a nice large office that I can keep clean and clutter free- and that really helps me focus and concentrate.
At home I don't have a proper room set up as an office- we don't have any room spare. So the desk is just in a corner. It's a dumping ground for all sorts of junk. It's cluttered- and because my wife passes through it's not clean (I swear that woman just goes around dropping trash everywhere all day long- I do love her though lol).
So whereas I'm welcome to work from home occasionally, my house is too small and there's no comfortable spot for me to set up. Also, remote desktop to the office is slow as crap (yes I know other places have better solutions than remote desktop). The office for me is simply more comfortable. When I win the lottery (or the wife finishes college and starts working) and we can get a bigger house I may be able to claim a room that is just for me- and then I may work from home.
Right now- I hate working from home.