It call comes down to not voluntarily putting yourself into a dangerous position.
If you dress like convicted criminals typically do, and then hang around in known high-crime areas, be prepared for the police to target you.
If you dress like a prostitute, and then hang around in seedy bars, be prepared for molesters to target you.
If you dress yourself in raw steaks, and then hang around in the lion's den at the zoo, be prepared for a lion to maul you.
So if you don't want to become a victim, don't go out of your way to do stupid shit that will greatly increase your likelihood of becoming a victim!
There are few things petty, small-minded people resent more than knowing you are right when they dislike your message. Nowhere is this more obvious than when you explain to a victim how they can take control over their situation so they don't have to be victims anymore (or can at least improve their chances). They will immediately frame the discussion not in terms of fact, but in terms of blame, with a childish concern for how to most favorably allocate it.
Victimhood was once viewed as an undesirable state in which any sort of improvement or advice is welcome. Now it's like a dysfunctional sainthood, as resistant to truth as any other form of idolatry.
I'll give another example of the same mentality. A long time ago, I was overweight. I didn't like it. I knew it would continue to get worse if I didn't change. So I did something about it. An acquaintance noticed that I became slim and fit, and, being overweight themselves, wanted to know how I did it. What they really wanted was a magic pill or shortcut. When I told this person that I started seriously exercising, learned to like vegetables, stopped eating junk food and lost my taste for sweets, they immediately became hostile. They resented the implication that their own actions contributed to their situation, even though changing those same actions is what worked so well for me.
This person doesn't have the emotional maturity to cope with the reality in front of them and do what it takes to change it. This person has continued to gain weight. I hope they enjoy their dysfunctional sainthood. I hope it comforts them when they achieve diabetes, heart disease, painful joints, various cancers, reduced quality of life, or any one of the other many health problems obesity causes or worsens.
This is the mentality you're dealing with. It's resistant to reality. It resents even the facts and logic it asks for because they aren't the cheap effortless quick-fixes it hoped they would be. I don't believe it's capable of improving. It must run its course until it reaches its inevitable failure. I think nothing less than natural selection will rid us of it. The best thing you can do for yourself is to recognize and avoid such people.
= "black youths" being stopped and searched by the police, because blacks are more likely to be carrying weapons, and commit crimes, than other racial groups...
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Um, because they're identifiable as tourists?
Explain how you could see a Japanese person walking down the street and know, with certainty, that they are a foreign tourist and not an American citizen who happens to be of Japanese descent? We are, after all, talking about how police target someone for an initial encounter. Any ID that is requested happens after that decision is made.
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Because you don't have to discriminate against all races, or all races but your own, to be racist; it's hardly a complex concept but you seem to have failed to grasp it.
I don't know if the kind of bollocks your on about gets much acceptance in the US, but fortunately there's a decent proportion of the population in the UK who think it's unacceptable for the police to target people because of the colour of their skin.
Playing devil's advocate here (you understand what that means, right?).
The cops would say they aren't targeting people because of skin color. They are targeting people who wear baggy pants several sizes too big so they can sag*, proudly sport gang-related tattoos (such as the teardrop tattoo, for fellow gangstas who got shot), wear big baggy jackets that could easily conceal weapons, throw gang signs, listen to gangsta rap, associate in large groups with likeminded people and often menace others on the streets, and hang out with known criminals.
That this happens to be popular among black youth is beyond the control of the police, and is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed within the black community. Fixing this is the job of parents, mentors, teachers, pastors, and neighbors. The job of the police is to go after criminals. Meanwhile, the cops know that people who go out of their way to dress like gangstas, talk like gangstas, act like gangstas, and hang out with gangstas are more likely than the general population to be criminals. The witness testimonies, court cases, court convictions, and experience on the street continuously back this up.
* Sagging is not just a fashion statement. You see, convicted criminals in jails and prisons are not allowed to have belts. A belt could be used to strangle another person. It could also be used to hang oneself. So they're denied to inmates. The purpose of sagging is so those who are not currently in prison can show their solidarity and support for those who are. It's a way of sympathizing with convicted violent criminals. Ask yourself if this is a healthy sentiment.
No, he was allowed to be killed because he tried to grab the cop's gun when they struggled in the police car, then charged back at the cop after he initially ran away.
Indeed, these are not the actions of a person who is concerned with self-preservation.
Claiming that because some group may have some percentage of bad actors does not justify the criminal behavior in any way by police officers. In Miami Beach, the PD has a documented history of attacking anyone documenting crimes by police officers and destroying evidence.
The lesson here? If you're going to record the abused of Miami cops, it's worthwhile to invest in a telephoto lens.
...get people killed? Why do software people think there's an app for ever problem? People are going to get shot reaching for their phone ('he was going for a gun...').
I see a market for a small camera that you mount inside your car that always points out the driver-side window. Press a button on your phone or on your dash and it starts streaming. By the time the cop walks to your car, you have your hands on the steering wheel where he can plainly see them.
I agree that surprising a cop by reaching for anything in front of him is a really, terribly bad idea. I'm not telling anyone else what they should or should not do, but I will say this much: I wouldn't try it. When they ask for registration or other documents, I tell them where I keep it before slowly reaching for it. I really want this armed person with no personal accountability to feel nice and secure and calm around me.
It's really a shame. Talk to old people sometime about what police used to be like. Back then, the police officer was your friend. If you had a problem, you could get their attention and they would try their best to help you out, like the peace officers and civil servants they're supposed to be. Regular civilians were glad to see them (believe it or not). There wasn't this climate of fear and intimidation like we have now. The hell of a thing is, violent crime has steadily declined since then but police have nonetheless grown more aggressive.
Not to be too cynical, but I don't suspect the company behind this app is so much a "moral company" as it is a front for a law firm(s). Not sure if it works the same in the UK, but in the U.S. at least, that kind of data would be very valuable to lawyers wanting to sue the city/state for damages; and it would also be very valuable as a way to connect with potential clients.
That's great news. It means this practice is more likely to spread and receive some serious financial and legal backing. You can't reasonably expect corporations to be moral entities, at least not under the system we have now.
If there's money (and good PR) to be made protecting citizens from the abuses of police, and providing police a strong incentive to obey the law they've sworn to uphold, then said law firms will have earned it by providing a useful service. That's exactly the way the system is supposed to work. I hope it proves to be a profitable venture, lucrative enough to entice many different law firms to compete with each other and find better ways to do it.
A lot of police are growing out of control. They currently have little or no accountability and in too many cases of suspected wrongdoing, a paid vacation ("paid suspension") is the worst penalty an officer ever faces for serious charges like excessive (even lethal) force. These are charges that would land any regular citizen in handcuffs, in jail, and facing a jury. See this story for just one example, and note that the ranking cop accused of anally raping a man (with strong evidence) received a promotion. People are getting tired of this. A legal, effective solution is long overdue.
More like Apple being Microsoft. Same thing I suppose.
The "type A" sociopaths who tend to run large corporations generally want the same thing. Microsoft just managed to actually do it. There's nothing special about Apple or (in the past) IBM, either. It's the position they all want to be in.
However, antitrust isn't always spontaneous. I believe illegal product tying must be the result of a complaint brought with the regulators by an impacted competitor.
Then that's the first convention that needs to change. Anyone should be able to file such a complaint and have it be investigated on its merits. The concept is that any sound and desirable business practice should be able to withstand a little scrutiny.
I'm also in favor of throwing out the concept of "standing" in court cases that challenge the Constitutionality of laws. Any citizen expected to obey the law should automatically have standing; the concept that one's life should first be in jeopardy facing serious charges due to bad laws is authoritarian and asinine. Likewise, any participant or potential participant in a given market should have standing to file an anti-trust complaint.
If it doesn't provide a "valuable solution" to a known problem, then why do it? It would just be an additional governmental expense that in the end is only useful to the government workers it employs and the identity thieves that will eventually gain access to the registration database.
Governments seek new things to control the same way that corporations seek new markets. It's just a different currency.
While I may agree with some of your post, What you smell is Airline Pilots Assoc. lobbying government to regulate them. Lets keep our eye on the ball here and not go off into the weeds shall we? CNN and FOX sensationalizing Airplane "close calls" Police complainging about drones "almost taking out" their choppers and again sensationalized by CNN/FOX et al and this is what you get. It has nothing with 'OMG the gubmint don't want the people to be informed by drones"
Actually there are not many governments who want the people to be properly informed by anyone. A tough-minded populace which understands how to think critically, deconstruct an argument, follow the money, and recognize propaganda tactics (aka "manufactured consent") is extremely undesirable to control freaks everywhere. The mindless drivel and selective reporting that comes from the government-friendly corporate media is what they like. A good sensational story about drones, or a huge phony debate about a nice distraction issue like abortion or stem cells, or the latest sex scandal, now those are useful for placating the masses and appealing to that tabloid desire to worry about how other people live.
What is the difference between "bad guy does illegal stuff" and "bad guy does illegal stuff with drone"?
Nothing. Doing illegal stuff is already against the law. This is right up there with... "on the internet" style patents IMHO.
What's the difference between "bad guy does illegal stuff" and "bad guy does illegal stuff with gun"?
The difference is that having a (legal) gun of your own makes it much harder for said bad guys to victimize you. Most criminals are bullies who want easy marks. They don't want a gunfight.
Having your own drone won't make much of a difference against some bad guy (or moron) with a drone. Therefore the analogy doesn't hold.
I agree with you- where I live they want you to buy registration stickers for off road vehicles, but enforcement is spotty to nonexistent at best. When you throw in the confusion over what is private/public land etc (I am in the Southwest) it get's really dicey. Checking drone registration is going to be at the very bottom of LE's list.
If it's a relatively harmless activity that generates a lot of revenue for the state, they will vigorously enforce it. It will be analogous to exceeding the speed limit in a passenger vehicle.
Just look here ===========> add the line drones 0.0.0.0 to your HOSTS files immediately to prevent them from encroaching on your personal space.
YOUR drone guns cannot STOP the drones while my HOSTS file script plugin tool addon can prevent them from even getting near you.
CAN your DRONE laws stop drones as well as my DRONE HOSTS FILE?? I THINK NOT!!!!!
HOSTS FILES!!!
~APK
That's a good imitation. You got the psychotic capitalization and the single-minded lunacy just fine. The only shortcoming? You forgot to pat yourself on the back while declaring victory without actually proving anything.
I think the most annoying thing about "human beings in general" is that they are self-important and thus, never seem to consider that their status quo isn't as important as they think, and the real problem is that they're Doing It Wrong.
Fixed that for you. Until US society can figure out this "doors to public buildings are shared spaces, stop blocking them" deal, the problem you mention won't be solved anytime soon.
Firearms should never be within reach of toddlers or young children. Giving them a hand grenade is safer as it takes some strength to remove the pin (don't try to pull it with your teeth unless you like dental work -- that is just for the cinema)
I can tell you what else is just for the cinema: the idea that you can put the pin back into the grenade and thereby deactivate it. Anyone who tries that definitely won't do it a second time.
I have a readme.txt on every usb with my name number and email if I lose it, but now if I find a usb I'm just going to ignore and someone might have to lose theirs D:
You could pry the cover off. If you see a flash chip and a controller chip, you're good. If you see anything else, like lots of capacitors, don't use it.
The USB spec requires that auto-resetting overcurrent protection be provided but it doesn't require it to be specific to an individual port. So a shorted USB device can knock out several ports but is unlikely to bring down the whole computer (unless it's something like a raspberry pi).
Wouldn't "overcurrent protection" in the USB spec mean, "shut off if a connected device is trying to drain too much power (amperage) from the USB power pins"? Akin to your home's circuit breaker that prevents overloads?
It apparently does not mean, "shut off if a connected device unexpectedly has its own independent power source and applies it to the data pins". Normally a device plugged into a USB port drains power from that port and does not independently supply it.
Sledge hammers, axes, picks, power drills, reciprocating saws...
All relatively simple tools that accomplish the same thing if you are close enough to stick a thumb drive into a port.
The idea is you trick someone into destroying their own computer by sending them an innocent looking device. From reading the comments here, I ask: how fucking hard to understand could this possibly be? Lots of people failed to grasp the concept and that's a shame because it's such a simple one.
Here's a hint for you, one of those life hints that will serve you well: if you think you found the great big obvious thing that everybody else overlooked because you are just so clever -- it usually means you don't understand and you're missing the point.
Its not quite that simple. Some parents think that a home invader is far more likely that an accidental shooting by a child. A safety class can clear up that misconception, get the risk / reward correct.
If I were really worried about that and had kids who were toddlers, the solution is simple. Sleep in a bedroom with a night-stand next to the bed. Keep the weapon on that night-stand or in a drawer, or atop a piece of furniture (in the same bedroom) much too tall for the child to reach. Wake up and take the gun with you (assuming a conceal-carry permit - if not, then it goes in locked gun safe). Sleep with the door locked, so any late-night nightmares etc require knocking to wake you up, at which time you can further secure the weapon. At no point does the child in another room have a way to get the weapon unsupervised. It's either within arm's reach of the parent or it's locked away. Combine this with teaching the kids that it's a very dangerous object, for adults only, similar to the way you would never pour a beer for that toddler.
This isn't some kind of sophisticated, highly technical problem. This is simply irresponsible adults being stupid and careless, even with what should be the most precious part of their lives. They're unfit parents, plain and simple.
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
What agenda? That a first time firearms owner should seek out safety instruction? Hardly a controversial agenda, even the NRA supports that.
If someone requires special instruction in order to realize that firearms must never be stored where a toddler can play with them, then that person is an unfit parent. This isn't a firearms issue. If an unfit parent allows small children to play near busy traffic and the child gets run over, you don't see people calling for a ban on automobiles. You rightly see people recognizing that he or she was an unfit parent.
A lot more than 43 young children are seriously injured or killed because of ingesting various poisons found in every household, like cleaning products, iron pills, prescription drugs, drain cleaners, etc. Lighters can be dangerous, too. But it so happens that there is no major political agenda to oppose cleaning products or lighters and both parties receive massive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
That is the only reason you don't see similar stories covering all of the other things a toddler with shitty parents might do to injure themselves or others. That, and a lot of people fear guns in a way that they don't fear Chlorox. Fear and the desire to tell others how to live (always in the name of safety) are irresistable to a large number of people. They're major political forces today. They also sell newspapers and increase page views.
What you won't see in mainstream news? "Responsible parent stores firearms in locking gun safe, teaches children how dangerous they are and that they are not toys as they grow old enough to understand, lives happily, and accepts the responsibility that comes with the freedom to bear arms."
Charging money doesn't always work. If you've paid money for something it becomes 'yours', and you 'deserve' it. You 'own' the charging point.
For example in kindergarten they started fining parents for picking up their children late. Although it was intended as a penalty, the parents started leaving their children more; after all, why not, they'd paid for it.
The reason it worked out that way? The charge was not intended as fair compensation for some incurred extra cost. It was intended to be a penalty. If people are to pay a penalty, they may as well have actually done whatever is being sanctioned. Since they're going to be made to pay anyway, they may as well get their money's worth, explaining the observed result. But the root of the problem is the needlessly punitive, asshole-ish mentality that comes up with useless "penalties" in the first place because of a desire to dictate.
Nothing 'cheap' about avoiding 5000x4 cups of coffee a day. Even at 10p per cup, that's getting close to half a million pounds a year. That's a sizeable chunk of cash.
Decent coffee costs more than 10p/cup.
Yes, but can you write it off by arguing that it's "a cost of doing business"?
It's a strawman because you've never seen even one such example. And you know it.
He was asking a question based on a theoretical model. Various scientific disciplines do this all the time. Schrodinger's Cat was not a literal feline - it was a thought experiment. No one was foolish enough to demand that he show us the cat, the box, and the particle. You are using a strawman because you know this or you are capable of knowing it and you proceed as though he were making a real-world claim. He clearly wasn't.
The major "fallacy" I keep seeing everywhere, not just on this site, is suble: you feel strongly about something in a negative way, so god dammit, it just HAS to be wrong! You don't like it, and of course, what you like and dislike has no emotional component at all and is based on hard facts, entirely and without singular exception. That means, every "fact" is accepted or rejected based on whether it furthers that goal, because if it doesn't, then it "just can't be so". And that's what it is. It's a goal. It's not inquiry of any honest sort.
The question of whether differences in race/gender would be exploited for political reasons and grossly distorted because it's done in a socially acceptable way? That hasn't been answered. You attempted to discredit the question but you did not even try to answer it. Bear in mind you don't know what my ethnicity or race is and it's hardly relevant. Anything I ask has a real answer or it doesn't. Any reasoning I do is valid or it isn't.The whole group-identity-politics deal is a construct designed to facilitate petty squabbling when the only real balance is the one between the average person and the elite ruling class.
The EV charging spots are the closest to the building, so no one wants to move out of their prime parking spot, even when charging is complete. You neglected to account for human laziness in your initial calculations.
Personally I like walking. I'm slim and it feels good to be slim and I want to stay that way. It also feels good knowing that people who have some type of physical challenge who might not easily be capable of walking can have a closer space because I'm not being such a self-centered douche as to unnecessarily claim it for myself. Not everyone with arthritis, other joint pain, or old age actually has a Handicapped placard so they can use the designated spaces.
A lot of people who wonder why their life is not joy never take a moment to honestly examine all the unnecessarily selfish little slights they inflict on others on a daily basis. I tell you, there is a definite connection, and if you do not believe me, I invite you to run an experiment by being blameless of such things for as long as possible and see if it makes you feel better than you did before.
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly sensible reasoning.
It call comes down to not voluntarily putting yourself into a dangerous position.
If you dress like convicted criminals typically do, and then hang around in known high-crime areas, be prepared for the police to target you.
If you dress like a prostitute, and then hang around in seedy bars, be prepared for molesters to target you.
If you dress yourself in raw steaks, and then hang around in the lion's den at the zoo, be prepared for a lion to maul you.
So if you don't want to become a victim, don't go out of your way to do stupid shit that will greatly increase your likelihood of becoming a victim!
There are few things petty, small-minded people resent more than knowing you are right when they dislike your message. Nowhere is this more obvious than when you explain to a victim how they can take control over their situation so they don't have to be victims anymore (or can at least improve their chances). They will immediately frame the discussion not in terms of fact, but in terms of blame, with a childish concern for how to most favorably allocate it.
Victimhood was once viewed as an undesirable state in which any sort of improvement or advice is welcome. Now it's like a dysfunctional sainthood, as resistant to truth as any other form of idolatry.
I'll give another example of the same mentality. A long time ago, I was overweight. I didn't like it. I knew it would continue to get worse if I didn't change. So I did something about it. An acquaintance noticed that I became slim and fit, and, being overweight themselves, wanted to know how I did it. What they really wanted was a magic pill or shortcut. When I told this person that I started seriously exercising, learned to like vegetables, stopped eating junk food and lost my taste for sweets, they immediately became hostile. They resented the implication that their own actions contributed to their situation, even though changing those same actions is what worked so well for me.
This person doesn't have the emotional maturity to cope with the reality in front of them and do what it takes to change it. This person has continued to gain weight. I hope they enjoy their dysfunctional sainthood. I hope it comforts them when they achieve diabetes, heart disease, painful joints, various cancers, reduced quality of life, or any one of the other many health problems obesity causes or worsens.
This is the mentality you're dealing with. It's resistant to reality. It resents even the facts and logic it asks for because they aren't the cheap effortless quick-fixes it hoped they would be. I don't believe it's capable of improving. It must run its course until it reaches its inevitable failure. I think nothing less than natural selection will rid us of it. The best thing you can do for yourself is to recognize and avoid such people.
= "black youths" being stopped and searched by the police, because blacks are more likely to be carrying weapons, and commit crimes, than other racial groups...
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Um, because they're identifiable as tourists?
Explain how you could see a Japanese person walking down the street and know, with certainty, that they are a foreign tourist and not an American citizen who happens to be of Japanese descent? We are, after all, talking about how police target someone for an initial encounter. Any ID that is requested happens after that decision is made.
Because you don't have to discriminate against all races, or all races but your own, to be racist; it's hardly a complex concept but you seem to have failed to grasp it. I don't know if the kind of bollocks your on about gets much acceptance in the US, but fortunately there's a decent proportion of the population in the UK who think it's unacceptable for the police to target people because of the colour of their skin.
Playing devil's advocate here (you understand what that means, right?).
The cops would say they aren't targeting people because of skin color. They are targeting people who wear baggy pants several sizes too big so they can sag*, proudly sport gang-related tattoos (such as the teardrop tattoo, for fellow gangstas who got shot), wear big baggy jackets that could easily conceal weapons, throw gang signs, listen to gangsta rap, associate in large groups with likeminded people and often menace others on the streets, and hang out with known criminals.
That this happens to be popular among black youth is beyond the control of the police, and is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed within the black community. Fixing this is the job of parents, mentors, teachers, pastors, and neighbors. The job of the police is to go after criminals. Meanwhile, the cops know that people who go out of their way to dress like gangstas, talk like gangstas, act like gangstas, and hang out with gangstas are more likely than the general population to be criminals. The witness testimonies, court cases, court convictions, and experience on the street continuously back this up.
* Sagging is not just a fashion statement. You see, convicted criminals in jails and prisons are not allowed to have belts. A belt could be used to strangle another person. It could also be used to hang oneself. So they're denied to inmates. The purpose of sagging is so those who are not currently in prison can show their solidarity and support for those who are. It's a way of sympathizing with convicted violent criminals. Ask yourself if this is a healthy sentiment.
No, he was allowed to be killed because he tried to grab the cop's gun when they struggled in the police car, then charged back at the cop after he initially ran away.
Indeed, these are not the actions of a person who is concerned with self-preservation.
Claiming that because some group may have some percentage of bad actors does not justify the criminal behavior in any way by police officers. In Miami Beach, the PD has a documented history of attacking anyone documenting crimes by police officers and destroying evidence.
The lesson here? If you're going to record the abused of Miami cops, it's worthwhile to invest in a telephoto lens.
...get people killed? Why do software people think there's an app for ever problem? People are going to get shot reaching for their phone ('he was going for a gun...').
I see a market for a small camera that you mount inside your car that always points out the driver-side window. Press a button on your phone or on your dash and it starts streaming. By the time the cop walks to your car, you have your hands on the steering wheel where he can plainly see them.
I agree that surprising a cop by reaching for anything in front of him is a really, terribly bad idea. I'm not telling anyone else what they should or should not do, but I will say this much: I wouldn't try it. When they ask for registration or other documents, I tell them where I keep it before slowly reaching for it. I really want this armed person with no personal accountability to feel nice and secure and calm around me.
It's really a shame. Talk to old people sometime about what police used to be like. Back then, the police officer was your friend. If you had a problem, you could get their attention and they would try their best to help you out, like the peace officers and civil servants they're supposed to be. Regular civilians were glad to see them (believe it or not). There wasn't this climate of fear and intimidation like we have now. The hell of a thing is, violent crime has steadily declined since then but police have nonetheless grown more aggressive.
Not to be too cynical, but I don't suspect the company behind this app is so much a "moral company" as it is a front for a law firm(s). Not sure if it works the same in the UK, but in the U.S. at least, that kind of data would be very valuable to lawyers wanting to sue the city/state for damages; and it would also be very valuable as a way to connect with potential clients.
That's great news. It means this practice is more likely to spread and receive some serious financial and legal backing. You can't reasonably expect corporations to be moral entities, at least not under the system we have now.
If there's money (and good PR) to be made protecting citizens from the abuses of police, and providing police a strong incentive to obey the law they've sworn to uphold, then said law firms will have earned it by providing a useful service. That's exactly the way the system is supposed to work. I hope it proves to be a profitable venture, lucrative enough to entice many different law firms to compete with each other and find better ways to do it.
A lot of police are growing out of control. They currently have little or no accountability and in too many cases of suspected wrongdoing, a paid vacation ("paid suspension") is the worst penalty an officer ever faces for serious charges like excessive (even lethal) force. These are charges that would land any regular citizen in handcuffs, in jail, and facing a jury. See this story for just one example, and note that the ranking cop accused of anally raping a man (with strong evidence) received a promotion. People are getting tired of this. A legal, effective solution is long overdue.
It's just apple being apple.
More like Apple being Microsoft. Same thing I suppose.
The "type A" sociopaths who tend to run large corporations generally want the same thing. Microsoft just managed to actually do it. There's nothing special about Apple or (in the past) IBM, either. It's the position they all want to be in.
However, antitrust isn't always spontaneous. I believe illegal product tying must be the result of a complaint brought with the regulators by an impacted competitor.
Then that's the first convention that needs to change. Anyone should be able to file such a complaint and have it be investigated on its merits. The concept is that any sound and desirable business practice should be able to withstand a little scrutiny.
I'm also in favor of throwing out the concept of "standing" in court cases that challenge the Constitutionality of laws. Any citizen expected to obey the law should automatically have standing; the concept that one's life should first be in jeopardy facing serious charges due to bad laws is authoritarian and asinine. Likewise, any participant or potential participant in a given market should have standing to file an anti-trust complaint.
If it doesn't provide a "valuable solution" to a known problem, then why do it? It would just be an additional governmental expense that in the end is only useful to the government workers it employs and the identity thieves that will eventually gain access to the registration database.
Governments seek new things to control the same way that corporations seek new markets. It's just a different currency.
While I may agree with some of your post, What you smell is Airline Pilots Assoc. lobbying government to regulate them. Lets keep our eye on the ball here and not go off into the weeds shall we? CNN and FOX sensationalizing Airplane "close calls" Police complainging about drones "almost taking out" their choppers and again sensationalized by CNN/FOX et al and this is what you get. It has nothing with 'OMG the gubmint don't want the people to be informed by drones"
Actually there are not many governments who want the people to be properly informed by anyone. A tough-minded populace which understands how to think critically, deconstruct an argument, follow the money, and recognize propaganda tactics (aka "manufactured consent") is extremely undesirable to control freaks everywhere. The mindless drivel and selective reporting that comes from the government-friendly corporate media is what they like. A good sensational story about drones, or a huge phony debate about a nice distraction issue like abortion or stem cells, or the latest sex scandal, now those are useful for placating the masses and appealing to that tabloid desire to worry about how other people live.
What is the difference between "bad guy does illegal stuff" and "bad guy does illegal stuff with drone"?
Nothing. Doing illegal stuff is already against the law. This is right up there with ... "on the internet" style patents IMHO.
What's the difference between "bad guy does illegal stuff" and "bad guy does illegal stuff with gun"?
The difference is that having a (legal) gun of your own makes it much harder for said bad guys to victimize you. Most criminals are bullies who want easy marks. They don't want a gunfight.
Having your own drone won't make much of a difference against some bad guy (or moron) with a drone. Therefore the analogy doesn't hold.
I agree with you- where I live they want you to buy registration stickers for off road vehicles, but enforcement is spotty to nonexistent at best. When you throw in the confusion over what is private/public land etc (I am in the Southwest) it get's really dicey. Checking drone registration is going to be at the very bottom of LE's list.
If it's a relatively harmless activity that generates a lot of revenue for the state, they will vigorously enforce it. It will be analogous to exceeding the speed limit in a passenger vehicle.
HOSTS FILES PREVENT DRONES NOW!
Just look here ===========> add the line drones 0.0.0.0 to your HOSTS files immediately to prevent them from encroaching on your personal space.
YOUR drone guns cannot STOP the drones while my HOSTS file script plugin tool addon can prevent them from even getting near you.
CAN your DRONE laws stop drones as well as my DRONE HOSTS FILE?? I THINK NOT!!!!!
HOSTS FILES!!!
~APK
That's a good imitation. You got the psychotic capitalization and the single-minded lunacy just fine. The only shortcoming? You forgot to pat yourself on the back while declaring victory without actually proving anything.
I think the most annoying thing about "human beings in general" is that they are self-important and thus, never seem to consider that their status quo isn't as important as they think, and the real problem is that they're Doing It Wrong.
Fixed that for you. Until US society can figure out this "doors to public buildings are shared spaces, stop blocking them" deal, the problem you mention won't be solved anytime soon.
Firearms should never be within reach of toddlers or young children. Giving them a hand grenade is safer as it takes some strength to remove the pin (don't try to pull it with your teeth unless you like dental work -- that is just for the cinema)
I can tell you what else is just for the cinema: the idea that you can put the pin back into the grenade and thereby deactivate it. Anyone who tries that definitely won't do it a second time.
I have a readme.txt on every usb with my name number and email if I lose it, but now if I find a usb I'm just going to ignore and someone might have to lose theirs D:
You could pry the cover off. If you see a flash chip and a controller chip, you're good. If you see anything else, like lots of capacitors, don't use it.
The USB spec requires that auto-resetting overcurrent protection be provided but it doesn't require it to be specific to an individual port. So a shorted USB device can knock out several ports but is unlikely to bring down the whole computer (unless it's something like a raspberry pi).
Wouldn't "overcurrent protection" in the USB spec mean, "shut off if a connected device is trying to drain too much power (amperage) from the USB power pins"? Akin to your home's circuit breaker that prevents overloads?
It apparently does not mean, "shut off if a connected device unexpectedly has its own independent power source and applies it to the data pins". Normally a device plugged into a USB port drains power from that port and does not independently supply it.
Sledge hammers, axes, picks, power drills, reciprocating saws... All relatively simple tools that accomplish the same thing if you are close enough to stick a thumb drive into a port.
The idea is you trick someone into destroying their own computer by sending them an innocent looking device. From reading the comments here, I ask: how fucking hard to understand could this possibly be? Lots of people failed to grasp the concept and that's a shame because it's such a simple one.
Here's a hint for you, one of those life hints that will serve you well: if you think you found the great big obvious thing that everybody else overlooked because you are just so clever -- it usually means you don't understand and you're missing the point.
Its not quite that simple. Some parents think that a home invader is far more likely that an accidental shooting by a child. A safety class can clear up that misconception, get the risk / reward correct.
If I were really worried about that and had kids who were toddlers, the solution is simple. Sleep in a bedroom with a night-stand next to the bed. Keep the weapon on that night-stand or in a drawer, or atop a piece of furniture (in the same bedroom) much too tall for the child to reach. Wake up and take the gun with you (assuming a conceal-carry permit - if not, then it goes in locked gun safe). Sleep with the door locked, so any late-night nightmares etc require knocking to wake you up, at which time you can further secure the weapon. At no point does the child in another room have a way to get the weapon unsupervised. It's either within arm's reach of the parent or it's locked away. Combine this with teaching the kids that it's a very dangerous object, for adults only, similar to the way you would never pour a beer for that toddler.
This isn't some kind of sophisticated, highly technical problem. This is simply irresponsible adults being stupid and careless, even with what should be the most precious part of their lives. They're unfit parents, plain and simple.
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
What agenda? That a first time firearms owner should seek out safety instruction? Hardly a controversial agenda, even the NRA supports that.
If someone requires special instruction in order to realize that firearms must never be stored where a toddler can play with them, then that person is an unfit parent. This isn't a firearms issue. If an unfit parent allows small children to play near busy traffic and the child gets run over, you don't see people calling for a ban on automobiles. You rightly see people recognizing that he or she was an unfit parent.
A lot more than 43 young children are seriously injured or killed because of ingesting various poisons found in every household, like cleaning products, iron pills, prescription drugs, drain cleaners, etc. Lighters can be dangerous, too. But it so happens that there is no major political agenda to oppose cleaning products or lighters and both parties receive massive funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
That is the only reason you don't see similar stories covering all of the other things a toddler with shitty parents might do to injure themselves or others. That, and a lot of people fear guns in a way that they don't fear Chlorox. Fear and the desire to tell others how to live (always in the name of safety) are irresistable to a large number of people. They're major political forces today. They also sell newspapers and increase page views.
What you won't see in mainstream news? "Responsible parent stores firearms in locking gun safe, teaches children how dangerous they are and that they are not toys as they grow old enough to understand, lives happily, and accepts the responsibility that comes with the freedom to bear arms."
Charging money doesn't always work. If you've paid money for something it becomes 'yours', and you 'deserve' it. You 'own' the charging point.
For example in kindergarten they started fining parents for picking up their children late. Although it was intended as a penalty, the parents started leaving their children more; after all, why not, they'd paid for it.
The reason it worked out that way? The charge was not intended as fair compensation for some incurred extra cost. It was intended to be a penalty. If people are to pay a penalty, they may as well have actually done whatever is being sanctioned. Since they're going to be made to pay anyway, they may as well get their money's worth, explaining the observed result. But the root of the problem is the needlessly punitive, asshole-ish mentality that comes up with useless "penalties" in the first place because of a desire to dictate.
Nothing 'cheap' about avoiding 5000x4 cups of coffee a day. Even at 10p per cup, that's getting close to half a million pounds a year. That's a sizeable chunk of cash.
Decent coffee costs more than 10p/cup.
Yes, but can you write it off by arguing that it's "a cost of doing business"?
It's a strawman because you've never seen even one such example. And you know it.
He was asking a question based on a theoretical model. Various scientific disciplines do this all the time. Schrodinger's Cat was not a literal feline - it was a thought experiment. No one was foolish enough to demand that he show us the cat, the box, and the particle. You are using a strawman because you know this or you are capable of knowing it and you proceed as though he were making a real-world claim. He clearly wasn't.
The major "fallacy" I keep seeing everywhere, not just on this site, is suble: you feel strongly about something in a negative way, so god dammit, it just HAS to be wrong! You don't like it, and of course, what you like and dislike has no emotional component at all and is based on hard facts, entirely and without singular exception. That means, every "fact" is accepted or rejected based on whether it furthers that goal, because if it doesn't, then it "just can't be so". And that's what it is. It's a goal. It's not inquiry of any honest sort.
The question of whether differences in race/gender would be exploited for political reasons and grossly distorted because it's done in a socially acceptable way? That hasn't been answered. You attempted to discredit the question but you did not even try to answer it. Bear in mind you don't know what my ethnicity or race is and it's hardly relevant. Anything I ask has a real answer or it doesn't. Any reasoning I do is valid or it isn't.The whole group-identity-politics deal is a construct designed to facilitate petty squabbling when the only real balance is the one between the average person and the elite ruling class.
The EV charging spots are the closest to the building, so no one wants to move out of their prime parking spot, even when charging is complete. You neglected to account for human laziness in your initial calculations.
Personally I like walking. I'm slim and it feels good to be slim and I want to stay that way. It also feels good knowing that people who have some type of physical challenge who might not easily be capable of walking can have a closer space because I'm not being such a self-centered douche as to unnecessarily claim it for myself. Not everyone with arthritis, other joint pain, or old age actually has a Handicapped placard so they can use the designated spaces.
A lot of people who wonder why their life is not joy never take a moment to honestly examine all the unnecessarily selfish little slights they inflict on others on a daily basis. I tell you, there is a definite connection, and if you do not believe me, I invite you to run an experiment by being blameless of such things for as long as possible and see if it makes you feel better than you did before.