The Ashley Madison hacks weren't about money... it was about righteous indignation. There is every reason to believe that when a high profile person with a "differing" point of view needs to go into the hospital for something, that this very thing could happen. Plus I'm sure there is some hacker out there who believes there is street cred to be had by being the first person to commit a murder *directly* through the internet.
I dunno... ask Kim Dotcom. Is it really a reliable archive if it disappears overnight? If the online host is the ONLY place you keep your archive, then it's really not anymore secure than keeping it at your house... and for the record, I've lost more data to belly-up hosts than I have to house fires and bad drives, so statistically speaking, my house is more secure. Granted this is just one data point, but who knows... maybe OP has had a lot of house fires or something.
One other point I'd like to make, is that if your cloud secured email backup needs to be easily accessible, then that implies that you are going to be carrying the key with you... either in the form of a memorizable and possibly guessable password, or a physical item that contains your key... again increasing your attack surface. If you don't carry the key with you, then how is that different than keeping your email on a disk at home? Hopefully your key is fireproof.
The only place where your email is guaranteed to exist is on NSA servers... ya know, it seems like they've got an untapped business model there.
Incorrect. The reason you see "Bob's Dodge" dealership instead of "Dodge" dealership is because states prohibit Dodge from opening a direct storefront. It's disingenuous to assume that if franchise dealerships went away that you'd have no access to a showroom or a test drive.
This is why you ALWAYS buy a car at the end of the month... because some stealership somewhere is DYING to make their sales goal, and will practially GIVE you the car in order to make that goal. There's an excellent This American Life podcast about it.
First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)?
How is that confusing? Both are absolutely accurate when viewed in the context of a single event... A person can act selfishly, and irrationally. When confronted with the possibility of death, the perp backs down... think about a high speed chase... perp is willing to risk their own life and the lives of everyone else on the road, until a PIT manuver shuts them down, and then the guns come out and low and behold... the perp is almost eager to get on the ground and be cuffed.
As for the rest of the stuff you said, I totally agree, but I think I may have understood the original question differently than you did, because I thought this was about what non-lethal technology is going to replace the gun. Your above statements are about inappropriate use of force, especially against minorities, and I agree we have a problem. But there is a difference between "threat of deadly force", and the "rules of engagement", with the latter ostensibly being a limit on the former.
False... absolutely false. Given enough time, some people might conclude that they don't want to do the time, so they won't do the crime, but in the heat of the moment the rationalization is of a more immediate nature. A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future. Even if death sentences were carried out immediately, there would still be a portion of the population that would think "I'll get away with it" or "that doesn't apply to me" and there will be a portion of the population that just doesn't think.
In my opinion, the death sentence is only useful to prevent people from re-offending. For the most part, it's not a deterrent for the first time. However, from your statement above it appears you may have confused the death penalty with a suspect being shot to death. Aside from the end result they have nothing in common. A police officer has a right to live, and a duty to protect others. Each of those is a different standard that must be measured in using lethal force. More latitude is going to be given in a self defense scenario than in a protecting others scenario, and if neither of those concerns are in play, there is really no legal justification for using deadly force. But a death sentence on the other hand fits neither of those situations, but is still permitted under rule of law.
Rage is an interesting emotion. Watch THIS and if you can tell me at what point has the _perpetrator_ reached their limit of force, then you can make the argument that police should obey a similar limit of force. Admittedly this is not a capital situation, but the victim in that video certainly could have died in that encounter, as well as innocent bystanders, so it's easy to imagine things turning into a "capital punishment" scenario.
My point is, for some people there is no limit to how far they will allow their emotions to take them, and in the calculus of things, if I am going to weigh the life of a law abiding police officer against the life of someone who has abandoned that limit, I'm going to take sides with the officer.
Ha! You're killin' me... no litterally... you're killin' me. Lolollllooool.
What does any of that have to do with the psychology of a criminal? Let me ask you... have you EVER stood face to face with someone who wants to do harm to you or your loved ones? Have you looked into their eyes? I know right now that you have not. Criminals don't see you as human, and your life means nothing to them. You are simply a piece of meat to them, and you are getting in the way of what they want. The sooner you realize that the premise of TFA is flawed, the more likely you are to survive an encounter like that, because you either have to dominate the situation or roll over and be their bitch.
When a cop comes face to face with a person like this, force must be used, because that is the level that the criminal is willing to take it to. If you are unwilling to use lethal force, then the criminal has a trump card... because they are willing to use lethal force.
I honestly don't think that "more guns" solves anything... I'm not a fan of the NRA to say the least... but assuming you can go toe to toe with a criminal element without lethal force is like playing chess with a 3 year old... you will get your ass handed to you every time if you play by your rules while letting them play by theirs.
Agreed!, And forcing people to vote introduces a new problem... people aren't random, and if people were FORCED to vote, some would go straight party votes, but others may just "randomly" check boxes... and a pattern would emerge from the non-random random box checking. As soon as someone figured out the pattern of likelihood, they'd game the system from the other side, by influencing how the ballot was designed in order to get the most votes. A similar effect is seen any time a "redistricting" takes place... there's always a huge fight about drawing district lines, because the incumbent usually gets to draw those lines in their favor. Don't force people to vote, and stop with the "rock the vote" "get out the vote" kinds of campaigns, because people who aren't naturally interested in voting typically wind up being proxy voters.
Exactly this... to some, only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause. Knowing they will be tazed and "live to crime another day" is enough to convince them that they are invincible. Sorry, but you can't remove the threat of death from a confrontation.
I'm not defending 16 hours as great battery time... but you may have missed the part where I said "4s". When new, it would run for several days, but I hammer on it pretty hard (pandora streaming + bluetooth headphones), Youtube videos, etc., mostly over 3g (no wi-fi at work) and it's showing it's age.
Eight and six hours (respectively) battery life is not very impressive... is that because they measured battery life through some standard benchmark? I've got a 4s that can still pull off a 16 hour day if I'm careful with my screen time.
I know I'll be accused of being a Tesla fanboy, but it's interesting to me that Bob Lutz failed to mention both Tesla and Pontiac (and Saturn) in that list... like he's an expert on what works and what doesn't?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you trust a journal that is so incompetent that they can't maintain something as simple as a domain?
The Ashley Madison hacks weren't about money... it was about righteous indignation. There is every reason to believe that when a high profile person with a "differing" point of view needs to go into the hospital for something, that this very thing could happen. Plus I'm sure there is some hacker out there who believes there is street cred to be had by being the first person to commit a murder *directly* through the internet.
I dunno... ask Kim Dotcom. Is it really a reliable archive if it disappears overnight? If the online host is the ONLY place you keep your archive, then it's really not anymore secure than keeping it at your house... and for the record, I've lost more data to belly-up hosts than I have to house fires and bad drives, so statistically speaking, my house is more secure. Granted this is just one data point, but who knows... maybe OP has had a lot of house fires or something.
One other point I'd like to make, is that if your cloud secured email backup needs to be easily accessible, then that implies that you are going to be carrying the key with you... either in the form of a memorizable and possibly guessable password, or a physical item that contains your key... again increasing your attack surface. If you don't carry the key with you, then how is that different than keeping your email on a disk at home? Hopefully your key is fireproof.
The only place where your email is guaranteed to exist is on NSA servers... ya know, it seems like they've got an untapped business model there.
... is just INCREASING your attack surface, not reducing it! I'd go with the local backup if I were you.
That made me snort... a literal grammar Nazi.
Incorrect. The reason you see "Bob's Dodge" dealership instead of "Dodge" dealership is because states prohibit Dodge from opening a direct storefront. It's disingenuous to assume that if franchise dealerships went away that you'd have no access to a showroom or a test drive.
This is why you ALWAYS buy a car at the end of the month... because some stealership somewhere is DYING to make their sales goal, and will practially GIVE you the car in order to make that goal. There's an excellent This American Life podcast about it.
Man I wish I could mod this up, but it's already at 5... so awesome I nearly sprayed Mt. Dew all over the screen.
In Space... no one can hear your tractor beam!
Self-defense cannot be used as your legal defense if it was done while committing a crime. The journalists don't have a leg to stand on.
First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)?
How is that confusing? Both are absolutely accurate when viewed in the context of a single event... A person can act selfishly, and irrationally. When confronted with the possibility of death, the perp backs down... think about a high speed chase... perp is willing to risk their own life and the lives of everyone else on the road, until a PIT manuver shuts them down, and then the guns come out and low and behold... the perp is almost eager to get on the ground and be cuffed.
As for the rest of the stuff you said, I totally agree, but I think I may have understood the original question differently than you did, because I thought this was about what non-lethal technology is going to replace the gun. Your above statements are about inappropriate use of force, especially against minorities, and I agree we have a problem. But there is a difference between "threat of deadly force", and the "rules of engagement", with the latter ostensibly being a limit on the former.
False... absolutely false. Given enough time, some people might conclude that they don't want to do the time, so they won't do the crime, but in the heat of the moment the rationalization is of a more immediate nature. A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future. Even if death sentences were carried out immediately, there would still be a portion of the population that would think "I'll get away with it" or "that doesn't apply to me" and there will be a portion of the population that just doesn't think.
In my opinion, the death sentence is only useful to prevent people from re-offending. For the most part, it's not a deterrent for the first time. However, from your statement above it appears you may have confused the death penalty with a suspect being shot to death. Aside from the end result they have nothing in common. A police officer has a right to live, and a duty to protect others. Each of those is a different standard that must be measured in using lethal force. More latitude is going to be given in a self defense scenario than in a protecting others scenario, and if neither of those concerns are in play, there is really no legal justification for using deadly force. But a death sentence on the other hand fits neither of those situations, but is still permitted under rule of law.
Rage is an interesting emotion. Watch THIS and if you can tell me at what point has the _perpetrator_ reached their limit of force, then you can make the argument that police should obey a similar limit of force. Admittedly this is not a capital situation, but the victim in that video certainly could have died in that encounter, as well as innocent bystanders, so it's easy to imagine things turning into a "capital punishment" scenario.
My point is, for some people there is no limit to how far they will allow their emotions to take them, and in the calculus of things, if I am going to weigh the life of a law abiding police officer against the life of someone who has abandoned that limit, I'm going to take sides with the officer.
Ha! You're killin' me... no litterally... you're killin' me. Lolollllooool.
What does any of that have to do with the psychology of a criminal? Let me ask you... have you EVER stood face to face with someone who wants to do harm to you or your loved ones? Have you looked into their eyes? I know right now that you have not. Criminals don't see you as human, and your life means nothing to them. You are simply a piece of meat to them, and you are getting in the way of what they want. The sooner you realize that the premise of TFA is flawed, the more likely you are to survive an encounter like that, because you either have to dominate the situation or roll over and be their bitch.
When a cop comes face to face with a person like this, force must be used, because that is the level that the criminal is willing to take it to. If you are unwilling to use lethal force, then the criminal has a trump card... because they are willing to use lethal force.
I honestly don't think that "more guns" solves anything... I'm not a fan of the NRA to say the least... but assuming you can go toe to toe with a criminal element without lethal force is like playing chess with a 3 year old... you will get your ass handed to you every time if you play by your rules while letting them play by theirs.
Agreed!, And forcing people to vote introduces a new problem... people aren't random, and if people were FORCED to vote, some would go straight party votes, but others may just "randomly" check boxes... and a pattern would emerge from the non-random random box checking. As soon as someone figured out the pattern of likelihood, they'd game the system from the other side, by influencing how the ballot was designed in order to get the most votes. A similar effect is seen any time a "redistricting" takes place... there's always a huge fight about drawing district lines, because the incumbent usually gets to draw those lines in their favor. Don't force people to vote, and stop with the "rock the vote" "get out the vote" kinds of campaigns, because people who aren't naturally interested in voting typically wind up being proxy voters.
Exactly this... to some, only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause. Knowing they will be tazed and "live to crime another day" is enough to convince them that they are invincible. Sorry, but you can't remove the threat of death from a confrontation.
C'mon man! Size Doesn't Matter!
Digit envy?
I'm not defending 16 hours as great battery time... but you may have missed the part where I said "4s". When new, it would run for several days, but I hammer on it pretty hard (pandora streaming + bluetooth headphones), Youtube videos, etc., mostly over 3g (no wi-fi at work) and it's showing it's age.
Eight and six hours (respectively) battery life is not very impressive... is that because they measured battery life through some standard benchmark? I've got a 4s that can still pull off a 16 hour day if I'm careful with my screen time.
Yes, because name-dropping a popular website would have elevated the public's consciousness about the press release.
This. Is. Awesome!
Finally someone has decided to return to the roots of hacking... making something change just to see the change happen!
In lieu of mod points... I offer you a slow clap. You... just... won... the... internet...
Oh shit... I'm in soooo much trouble now.
There is another salient movie about this... NEXT, in which "Frank Cadillac" says "Each time you look at the future, it changes"
I know I'll be accused of being a Tesla fanboy, but it's interesting to me that Bob Lutz failed to mention both Tesla and Pontiac (and Saturn) in that list... like he's an expert on what works and what doesn't?