I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are.
Very, very good point, thanks. As I just mentioned to another poster, I wouldn't have been shooting to harm, but to warn. Still, a cellphone camera plus the web is the smarter weapon for everyone concerned. It's too damned easy these days to believe you're back in 1939 on the streets of Berlin.
I actually like cops and look up to them. I've met about two in my life that I didn't respect as individuals, but I still respected them for just having put on the uniform. I'm pretty much the least of their worries, and I'm grateful for them being there every day.
Just stop pepper spraying civilians, 'kay? Thanks.:-)
Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.
Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers.
I agree, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction on the part of the police.
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.
If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind.
Certainly, and I'd expect them to know what the meaning of the phrase "excessive force" is. Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from...
Given yourself enough weasel room there? Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops. If they act as bad as the tyrants who hired them, they are as bad as the tyrants who hired them. Civilization exists for civilians. Authoritarians go to the back of the bus. And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.
You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests.
Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.
Just because you are upset and protesting doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole.
Just because you're wearing a uniform and carrying a gun doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole. You were hired to protect civilians, not assault them, and especially when they're not resisting. Tell me how impossible it is for three cops to drag a kneeling civilian out of the way.
Defending that cop's action is despicable. You should be ashamed.
Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.
"Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.
I agree with the latter, but not the former. Terror, or terrorism, is the strategy of assholes (OBL, I'm lookin' at you). Civilized people don't attack unarmed civilians[*]. Full. Stop.
Anyone wearing a Big Brother uniform, fair game, but beware they're just as armed as you and probably better trained, and their buddies'll get you if they don't. Have fun.:-)
[* Dresden was an atrocity, as was Coventry, and those who perpetrated those crimes knew it at the time. They'd been worried it was eventually going to happen ever since the Wright Bros.]
Obviously, shooting rings of pepper spray at protesters is the only application of this technology.
You didn't even make it to the end of the summary? "What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide)..."
Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc.
The protesters are civilians. Police are supposed to be trained professionals. If you're a cop at a protest, you're wearing a face shield and helmet, you're armed and dangerous, and you can change out of your uniform at the end of your shift. Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably. It's what you were hired for. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me. I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
It's a common misconception that the luddites were against modern technology - in fact, their campaign was about job protection.
Yup.
They didn't ruin all of the texture factories - just ones where people were losing jobs as a protest against the loss of jobs - not against the (more) modern technology.
Also interesting/related, "sabotage." Who'da thunk of tossing their shoes (sabots) into machinery in order to fsck it up, as a job action? Damn, the French can be creative.
What's with Muslims tossing shoes? Did they get that from the French?
Do you really *need* to be running the newest, most beta, least bug tested version?
I'd rather my non-critical, Internet-exposed applications be just a TAD more unstable than have widely-known, unpatched security holes for any longer than absolutely necessary.
Fine, don't answer the question. Just fall back on fingers in ears and "lalalalalala".
If the developers of Firefox properly understood just how many things BREAK when upgrading a browser, maybe then they would design things to make it easy for two or more versions of Firefox to co-exist...
I... what?... Are you crazy?!?
Assuming you're a developer building apps for multiple versions of Firefox releases,... What!?!
You're woefully ignorant of basic features that your target platform provides out of the box. Got it.
For me because the new version locks up my PC if I left it open when it auto updates and after an update it resets back to some default settings which I have to keep turning back off.
I don't believe you. I do believe you're pissing into your hat.
I'm going to whine on/. on how betrayed I feel by a company whose free products I have enjoyed using in the past for free without having given back anything to them now that there are better alternatives and I don't feel like switching because I feel that company owes me for some reason.
After all, if we realistically have to choose between Firefox's poor imitation of Chrome, and Chrome itself, we might as well just use Chrome. At least it feels faster and seems to use less memory than Firefox does, even if it does have all of the same drawbacks.
I think you're both an !@#hole AND a fool (I wanted to say idiot, but that may be stretching).
I do not understand techie "bleeding edgers." Do you really *need* to be running the newest, most beta, least bug tested version? What the !@#$ for?!? Why? Really, what do you get out of doing that crap?
Also, as another poster said, (paraphrasing) it's a fscking web browser! Get a grip on yourself.
The box I'm typing this in is Debian stable/squeeze. Firefox/Iceweasel 3.5.16. It works. And you people think 3.6.x is ancient!?!
I think it needs to be flipped around, because I simply cannot accept that these people really are that mindblowingly stupid.
I once thought as well of my fellows, but I've learned it never pays to underestimate stupid. Stupid goes all the way down to the bottom. Half the population is stupider than the "average" person.
I'm sure some statistics nazi will be along any moment to prove me wrong too.
... the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.
What I don't get is why anyone thinks lobby groups buying legislation is the right way!
Godwin alert. Remember back in 1930s Germany, nobody took Hitler's crazy ideas seriously? They may not think buying legislation is the right way, but apathy and lethargy are so much easier than recognizing the problem and growing a backbone, and actually standing up to dictatorships and saying no.
So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing...
What've you got against Napoleon? Monarchies deserve nothing less than a headsman's axe. Go read this, then tell me he wasn't an improvement on what came before.
Cf. "Perfidious Albion" (Britain) at the time.
Okay, I'll admit "Emperor" is pretty much "Monarchy", but still...
When he says that SOPA was "a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", I tend to believe him over the RIAA shill.
From what I've seen, no one but *the* paid shills (Congress) believes anything the *AAs say. Whether that's ignorance or money talking is another question.
Bravo Wikimedia, et al, and thanks for all the fish.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that all the watertight doors of the "unsinkable ocean liner" were open sort of makes everything else irrelevant.
User error, in the extreme. Bad Captain!
Doesn't seem too long ago that I was having the same questions about Netscape Navigator 4.5.
So how did you get a coma in the first place?
Do you need your diaper changed?
Kids these days.
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are.
Very, very good point, thanks. As I just mentioned to another poster, I wouldn't have been shooting to harm, but to warn. Still, a cellphone camera plus the web is the smarter weapon for everyone concerned. It's too damned easy these days to believe you're back in 1939 on the streets of Berlin.
I actually like cops and look up to them. I've met about two in my life that I didn't respect as individuals, but I still respected them for just having put on the uniform. I'm pretty much the least of their worries, and I'm grateful for them being there every day.
Just stop pepper spraying civilians, 'kay? Thanks. :-)
Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.
Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers.
I agree, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction on the part of the police.
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.
If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind.
Certainly, and I'd expect them to know what the meaning of the phrase "excessive force" is. Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from ...
Given yourself enough weasel room there? Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops. If they act as bad as the tyrants who hired them, they are as bad as the tyrants who hired them. Civilization exists for civilians. Authoritarians go to the back of the bus. And no, I wouldn't use lethal force first. I'd plunk one down by their feet or off to their side; just enough to get them to duck or back off, or turn on me instead of the victim they're assaulting.
You don't really seem to be up to non-violent protests.
Roger that. Ghandi was a much better man than I'll ever be. Cops should worry about that. There's much worse people out there than me.
Just because you are upset and protesting doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole.
Just because you're wearing a uniform and carrying a gun doesn't mean you get to be a complete asshole. You were hired to protect civilians, not assault them, and especially when they're not resisting. Tell me how impossible it is for three cops to drag a kneeling civilian out of the way.
Defending that cop's action is despicable. You should be ashamed.
Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.
"Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.
I agree with the latter, but not the former. Terror, or terrorism, is the strategy of assholes (OBL, I'm lookin' at you). Civilized people don't attack unarmed civilians[*]. Full. Stop.
Anyone wearing a Big Brother uniform, fair game, but beware they're just as armed as you and probably better trained, and their buddies'll get you if they don't. Have fun. :-)
[* Dresden was an atrocity, as was Coventry, and those who perpetrated those crimes knew it at the time. They'd been worried it was eventually going to happen ever since the Wright Bros.]
Obviously, shooting rings of pepper spray at protesters is the only application of this technology.
You didn't even make it to the end of the summary? "What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) ..."
Sigh.
Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc.
The protesters are civilians. Police are supposed to be trained professionals. If you're a cop at a protest, you're wearing a face shield and helmet, you're armed and dangerous, and you can change out of your uniform at the end of your shift. Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably. It's what you were hired for. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.
Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me. I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
What exactly is a "hard-core" user?
Someone who remembers what it was like to use email to communicate. Ie., pre-Facebook.
It's a common misconception that the luddites were against modern technology - in fact, their campaign was about job protection.
Yup.
They didn't ruin all of the texture factories - just ones where people were losing jobs as a protest against the loss of jobs - not against the (more) modern technology.
Also interesting/related, "sabotage." Who'da thunk of tossing their shoes (sabots) into machinery in order to fsck it up, as a job action? Damn, the French can be creative.
What's with Muslims tossing shoes? Did they get that from the French?
Do you really *need* to be running the newest, most beta, least bug tested version?
I'd rather my non-critical, Internet-exposed applications be just a TAD more unstable than have widely-known, unpatched security holes for any longer than absolutely necessary.
Fine, don't answer the question. Just fall back on fingers in ears and "lalalalalala".
I can't believe you people.
If the developers of Firefox properly understood just how many things BREAK when upgrading a browser, maybe then they would design things to make it easy for two or more versions of Firefox to co-exist ...
I ... what? ... Are you crazy?!?
Assuming you're a developer building apps for multiple versions of Firefox releases, ... What!?!
You're woefully ignorant of basic features that your target platform provides out of the box. Got it.
This is the stupidest /. discussion EVAR!
For me because the new version locks up my PC if I left it open when it auto updates and after an update it resets back to some default settings which I have to keep turning back off.
I don't believe you. I do believe you're pissing into your hat.
In the past, upgrades usually brought at least some benefits. There'd be useful new features
The reason 3.6 can't render some web sites is because it doesn't have the new features.
May we please have some hard data? Please list websites that Firefox 3.6 can't render properly. Thx.
Preferably websites that actually matter, but any will do.
I'm going to whine on /. on how betrayed I feel by a company whose free products I have enjoyed using in the past for free without having given back anything to them now that there are better alternatives and I don't feel like switching because I feel that company owes me for some reason.
FTFY.
Seconded. All those in favour, say aye.
After all, if we realistically have to choose between Firefox's poor imitation of Chrome, and Chrome itself, we might as well just use Chrome. At least it feels faster and seems to use less memory than Firefox does, even if it does have all of the same drawbacks.
I think you're both an !@#hole AND a fool (I wanted to say idiot, but that may be stretching).
Doo. Fus!
I do not understand techie luddites.
I do not understand techie "bleeding edgers." Do you really *need* to be running the newest, most beta, least bug tested version? What the !@#$ for?!? Why? Really, what do you get out of doing that crap?
Also, as another poster said, (paraphrasing) it's a fscking web browser! Get a grip on yourself.
The box I'm typing this in is Debian stable/squeeze. Firefox/Iceweasel 3.5.16. It works. And you people think 3.6.x is ancient!?!
Jeebus. Im-BEC-iles; ultra-maroons!
Whoever thought this nonsense was a good idea is an idiot.
Hey, you elected them. :-P
I think it needs to be flipped around, because I simply cannot accept that these people really are that mindblowingly stupid.
I once thought as well of my fellows, but I've learned it never pays to underestimate stupid. Stupid goes all the way down to the bottom. Half the population is stupider than the "average" person.
I'm sure some statistics nazi will be along any moment to prove me wrong too.
... the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.
What I don't get is why anyone thinks lobby groups buying legislation is the right way!
Godwin alert. Remember back in 1930s Germany, nobody took Hitler's crazy ideas seriously? They may not think buying legislation is the right way, but apathy and lethargy are so much easier than recognizing the problem and growing a backbone, and actually standing up to dictatorships and saying no.
I think that I speak for everyone when I openly wonder : Should someone this mentally deficient really be the spokesperson of SOPA and the Congress?
You get what you pay for, and apparently they're not smart shoppers. "Can you lie?" "Yup." "Scruples?" "Nope." "You're hired."
Revolution isn't a one time thing, you have to keep doing it on a regular basis.
And you guys are way overdue. WTF's taking so long?!?
So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing ...
What've you got against Napoleon? Monarchies deserve nothing less than a headsman's axe. Go read this, then tell me he wasn't an improvement on what came before.
Cf. "Perfidious Albion" (Britain) at the time.
Okay, I'll admit "Emperor" is pretty much "Monarchy", but still ...
I've regularly asked my Senator for my constitution back, how about you?
Asked!?! For !@#$'s sake man! Any politico not upholding that thing deserves nothing less than a well aimed ice pick.
It's probably a good thing I don't own a sniper rifle and have no idea how to build bombs. Nowadays, I sure wish I did, a lot.
When he says that SOPA was "a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", I tend to believe him over the RIAA shill.
From what I've seen, no one but *the* paid shills (Congress) believes anything the *AAs say. Whether that's ignorance or money talking is another question.
Bravo Wikimedia, et al, and thanks for all the fish. :-)