where do you live? is it easy for you to move? do you have children and school concerns? is your spouse or significant other ready to move on a whim? are you yourself ready to pack all your shit sever your ties and try to find a new place you like as much as your current one?
what job do you work in? is it "tens of thousands" of other companies who would employ you? i guess you must be a short order cook or truck driver, careers like programming for example are niche: if you program web front ends you don't jump to OS programmer for example
do you have enough money to cushion the transition period form one job to the next? can you afford ancillary costs associated with the move?
how is the new job? the boss's personality? your work team, your work environment? job perks? business outlook of the new business sector?
if you aren't moving, how far away is the new job if you aren't moving? is the commute different (train/ car)? traffic jams? length of time commuting?
this is off of the top of my head. there are dozens more top level categories and thousands of specific concerns to each person
it is is EXTREMELY complex
you are either trolling and faking ignorance of something this obvious, or you are a genuine moron
the idea is to have the simplest system, so the tampering has the fewest and most labor intensive options only
electronic, and to a lesser extent mechanical, introduces more complexity, which means more attack vectors, more ways, and easier ways, to mess with the vote
with electronic one well placed hacker can sprinkle enough fake votes in a way that can escape even statistical analysis for tampering
there is no benefit to making the vote needlessly more complicated, go ahead, list all the benefits, that isn't massively outweighed by the decrease in trust by inserting a needlessly complex black box into the system
democracies need legitimacy. if no one trusts the voting method, you've destroyed faith in government. so why the fuck would anyone do that, except for blind, naive air head technophilia? doing something with more, unnecessary tech just because you can is no reason to do it
the most advanced society has no need to vote any more complicated than the most primitive one, and has much to lose in loss of legitimacy
the issue is trust. needless complexity is inherently untrustable
even open source
average joe isn't going to comb through source code and verify. he isn't even going to go "i don't understand it but pimply computer dweeb over there says it's ok." who fucking cares what some *other* guy says? you have to trust someone, and that's the problem
meanwhile, everyone can trust a piece of paper and a pencil
in most states a 12% fraudulent swing would give the Republicans a win. That is horrible. That is why paper voting is so bad.
hard core democrat here. you're pretty fucking stupid. you understand why voting by mail is so horrible, but you think that's a ding against paper voting. it's a ding against anything needlessly complex, like electronic or even mechanical
you want the voting system to be as little untrustworthy black box as possible. you understansd that with mail. good. but why the fuck you think that means paper sucks and that you can't fuck with electronic even easier than mail is beyond comprehension
we accommodate blind people in many ways, you are presenting a false dichotomy
turning our voting system into a needlessly complex untrustworthy blackbox system that can be leveraged by one hacker instead of a team of workers to destroy people's faith in their government, just so the handicapped have a slightly easier experience, is pretty fucking stupid
electronics, and to a lesser extent voting machines, just exponentially increase the amount of attack vectors
of course you can still fake votes with paper voting, but then you are talking about a crazy conspiracy involving delivery trucks and teams of people. it's a lot harder to hide
rather than one well placed hacker
the poorest democracy and the most advanced democracy should all vote the same way
the overriding point is legitimacy: people have to trust their vote counted. replacing paper and pencil with a black box of gears or electronics does not engender trust
this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier
training (including weeding out people who try to become cops for the wrong reasons) and effective management are 1/10th-1/1,000th the price of the status quo and the lawsuits
Tim Dees, Retired cop and criminal justice professor, Reno Police Department, Reno Muni...
Upvoted by Quora User, I live in the UK. Graeme Shimmin, I am British. Marc Bodnick, 15 years transactions experience
Tim has 12 endorsements in Police and Law Enforcement.
Speaking from the perspective of a U.S. cop, there are several areas with significant differences. I should point out that I've never been to the UK, but have read a lot about this issue and discussed it with cops and non-cops in the UK.
I believe the most critical difference is the amount of training required of UK police. New hires attend a "police college" course of several months before going into the field to work for another few months under close supervision (sorry, I don't have the precise durations here, but it's considerably more training than most U.S. police receive). They then return to the police college for several more weeks until they are assigned to their duty stations. From here, on-the-job training is similar to that in the U.S., where the new constable works with a senior partner for several months before he is given a solo assignment. He is still closely supervised and his performance reviewed frequently for his first year to two years of service.
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
used, like a tool. your head filled with nonsense that pushes your simpleminded predictable buttons, wound up like a little robot, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid
in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including you, idiot, except some plutocrats
you defend them. you tell the world they can be trusted not to pollute. and you attack the only thing we have to prevent them form polluting
a useful, fucking idiot, to the polluters. because they pay to make propaganda in media that pushes your easy-to-identify buttons
that's what you are, my yawning friend. that's the sum total of your contribution to this subject matter
know your pathetic self you ignorant piece of shit
what you want is respect. which you will not receive if you think and say things ridiculously out of connection with reality
companies will not spend extra money to protect the environment. unless forced to
they will happily pollute and avoid the consequences. because its cheaper
this is a fact of your reality
you can reject this fact, and thereby remain a propagandized retard people will just laugh at, or you can accept it and being to actually make sense in your opinions about topics you currently are nothing more than a joke in
choose
but if you continue to believe in moronic things, you will be called a moron. not a baseless insult, an objective truth, to have the retarded opinion you do. and thus, you will not receive the respect you think you deserve, but currently you do not. because you're DUMB
oh look, the propagandized retard knows rhetorical terms. unfortunately, the retard doesn't know what they mean or how to use them
you should have mindlessly regurgitated "strawman" into your comment too, just to spice things up and, you know, completely avoid actually fucking thinking about the actually valid point, like a good little propagandized retard
propagandized retard goes "all government bad, corporations good!"
so, let's say there is no EPA. so then companies pollute the fuck out of everything 1,000x worse than BP and this spill on the Colorado
right?
do you actually think before developing an opinion or do you just regurgitate what you hear on your corporate sponsored conservative media like a good little low iq tool? there, there, good angry right wing moron, agitating for your own impoverishment and poisoning so someone else can make millions more
but, nah: the EPA fucked up, so all government is bad and corporations are innocent angels devoid of harm (nevermind the fact they are the fucks that created the pools the EPA screwed up on)
and how would you describe of someone who would censor you in the name of freedom of speech, punch you in the face to teach you fighting is wrong, or cite religious freedom in denying your right to practice your own religious beliefs?
there is no "cut." request anything you like. this just shows what's been used before
although...
Generally the VA adds a new symbol a few months after receiving a petition from a faith group.[1] However, the Wiccan symbol was only added in 2007 to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of several families by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in November 2006.[1][2][3] A separate parallel lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Wiccan churches and three families by the American Civil Liberties Union in September 2006, which was resolved by the same settlement.[4][5][6]
they resisted the wiccans. and of course, they lost the suit
so yes, there are religious freedom-denying asshats all over
they cite the terminology "religious freedom," but with those two words, they seek to destroy actual religious freedom. pathetic morons
humanist, native american medicine wheel, wiccan pentacle, the farohar of zoroastrianism, infinity symbol (?), and a whole bunch of sects, obscure and mainstream
my favorite is a split between landing eagle and hammer of thor
but yeah, the asshat you responded to doesn't even know what he is talking about. even if the tombstones were crosses, then stars of david, muslim crescents, pentagrams, etc., would obviously also be allowed
which is the whole point of the comment the asshat was responding to: not to *censor* the christian cross, but to point out that christian symbols don't have a monopoly on public display
religious pinheads always frame more choices (homosexuals getting married, wiccan symbols allowed in public, women being able to control their own bodies rather than being forced to obey theocratic dictates, etc.) as some sort of persecution. as if denying someone a religious monopoly == persecution? it's a pridefully ignorant blind spot, stoked by propaganda and fearmongering demagogues: "if christianity isn't the only religion allowed, then da evil gubmint is out to destroy all christians"
fucking ignorant, yet firmly believed by many assholes: "if my ideology does not dominate, then it must mean i am being persecuted." no, religious freedom means "i can choose to follow any religion i want" not "someone in authority is 'free' to impose its religious beliefs on people against their will"
so when people cite "religious freedom" when opposing homosexuality. no, you fucking moron, religious freedom never meant, and never will mean, that you have the "freedom" to impose your beliefs on someone else. in fact that's pretty much the exact opposite understanding of what freedom is. yet "religious freedom" is the term they use when they wish to deny the freedoms of others! pathetic and sick
denying climate change is the exact same order of blind ignorant faith over overwhelming facts
In fact, given the way you just ran your opposition down, my guess is that you never mean to try to find a middle ground.
what the hell are you talking about? there is no middle ground. there is reality, and there is nothing else
there is magic middle ground between reality and propaganda or reality and wish fulfillment fantasy. i have to take such people seriously?
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but absolutely no one is entitled to their own magic facts
climate change is real and happening. there's no debate. there's no argument. either you accept that, and consider yourself someone who is in touch reality, or you deny that and be an idiot
an idiot: i'm not throwing around empty insults here. what else do you call someone who in their prideful ignorance rejects basic facts? someone who is a creationist for example and denies the established facts of evolution: this is a person i have to engage? no, this is a person who needs to be utterly rejected. they are not part of any reasonable debate. there is no help for them as they have substituted magic narrative for basic facts of reality
used, like tools. their heads filled with nonsense that push their simpleminded predictable buttons, and they're wound up like angry little robots, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid, in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including the idiots, except some plutocrats
my favorite are the articles that ridicule al gore for riding private jets
as if he had a choice and could use a magic carpet
he's stuck with the technology we have today, which does not preclude him from the valid observation that we are changing the climate, and that we should do something about it
even if he hiked from meeting to meeting the morons still wouldn't listen to him
the "logic" is:
"al gore rides a private jet, therefore we can ignore the evidence of climate change"
this is their actual thought process. "al gore is a hypocrite. therefore climate change isn't real" {end entire thought process on the topic}
dumbfounding. pathetic beyond words. as if one personality is central to the entire question of climate change. but, that's the way simple minds work. make cartoons out of someone you dislike, also for manipulated reasons, and that decides the entire issue for the tribal tools
they don't even notice they're swallowing propaganda paid for by industries that don't want to pay for carbon reductions. in return they get more violent weather and warmer temperatures, floods, etc. and they still swallow the propaganda, regurgigate it out, because it pushes their little small minded hateful buttons. perfect little tools, with simple minded concerns and prejudices, easily led, pointed in a direction and they scream in support of positions that really in the end, only hurts them. just like healthcare, just like taxes on rich, just like a whole host of issues
it's quite stunning how you can fool pinheads to agitate against their own self-interest
Slashdot Mirror
where do you live? is it easy for you to move? do you have children and school concerns? is your spouse or significant other ready to move on a whim? are you yourself ready to pack all your shit sever your ties and try to find a new place you like as much as your current one?
what job do you work in? is it "tens of thousands" of other companies who would employ you? i guess you must be a short order cook or truck driver, careers like programming for example are niche: if you program web front ends you don't jump to OS programmer for example
do you have enough money to cushion the transition period form one job to the next? can you afford ancillary costs associated with the move?
how is the new job? the boss's personality? your work team, your work environment? job perks? business outlook of the new business sector?
if you aren't moving, how far away is the new job if you aren't moving? is the commute different (train/ car)? traffic jams? length of time commuting?
this is off of the top of my head. there are dozens more top level categories and thousands of specific concerns to each person
it is is EXTREMELY complex
you are either trolling and faking ignorance of something this obvious, or you are a genuine moron
well said
people who paint complex issues as simple choices are merely revealing their ignorance of the topic, their propagandized state, and/ or their low iq
well if fat lazy stupid americans value convenience, they get the government they deserve and should stop complaining
any voting system can be tampered with
the idea is to have the simplest system, so the tampering has the fewest and most labor intensive options only
electronic, and to a lesser extent mechanical, introduces more complexity, which means more attack vectors, more ways, and easier ways, to mess with the vote
with electronic one well placed hacker can sprinkle enough fake votes in a way that can escape even statistical analysis for tampering
there is no benefit to making the vote needlessly more complicated, go ahead, list all the benefits, that isn't massively outweighed by the decrease in trust by inserting a needlessly complex black box into the system
democracies need legitimacy. if no one trusts the voting method, you've destroyed faith in government. so why the fuck would anyone do that, except for blind, naive air head technophilia? doing something with more, unnecessary tech just because you can is no reason to do it
the most advanced society has no need to vote any more complicated than the most primitive one, and has much to lose in loss of legitimacy
well come on: court challenge. demand the change. it's in your hands. apathy will mean it stays
the issue is trust. needless complexity is inherently untrustable
even open source
average joe isn't going to comb through source code and verify. he isn't even going to go "i don't understand it but pimply computer dweeb over there says it's ok." who fucking cares what some *other* guy says? you have to trust someone, and that's the problem
meanwhile, everyone can trust a piece of paper and a pencil
forced voting by mail? is that even legal?
i thought you were lying and trolling
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat...
nope, it's true
that's obviously moronic and should be overturned
someone has to mount a legal challenge
hilarious
hard core democrat here. you're pretty fucking stupid. you understand why voting by mail is so horrible, but you think that's a ding against paper voting. it's a ding against anything needlessly complex, like electronic or even mechanical
you want the voting system to be as little untrustworthy black box as possible. you understansd that with mail. good. but why the fuck you think that means paper sucks and that you can't fuck with electronic even easier than mail is beyond comprehension
absolutely. OCR it. but everything should still be done by hand, on paper, and that has to be kept
we accommodate blind people in many ways, you are presenting a false dichotomy
turning our voting system into a needlessly complex untrustworthy blackbox system that can be leveraged by one hacker instead of a team of workers to destroy people's faith in their government, just so the handicapped have a slightly easier experience, is pretty fucking stupid
well said, thank you
electronics, and to a lesser extent voting machines, just exponentially increase the amount of attack vectors
of course you can still fake votes with paper voting, but then you are talking about a crazy conspiracy involving delivery trucks and teams of people. it's a lot harder to hide
rather than one well placed hacker
the poorest democracy and the most advanced democracy should all vote the same way
the overriding point is legitimacy: people have to trust their vote counted. replacing paper and pencil with a black box of gears or electronics does not engender trust
this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier
well said
training (including weeding out people who try to become cops for the wrong reasons) and effective management are 1/10th-1/1,000th the price of the status quo and the lawsuits
europe has better training. being a police officer in europe is a much more highly professional attitude with much more rigorous training
http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK...
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
keep yawning, and know yourself:
a useful idiot
used, like a tool. your head filled with nonsense that pushes your simpleminded predictable buttons, wound up like a little robot, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid
in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including you, idiot, except some plutocrats
you defend them. you tell the world they can be trusted not to pollute. and you attack the only thing we have to prevent them form polluting
a useful, fucking idiot, to the polluters. because they pay to make propaganda in media that pushes your easy-to-identify buttons
that's what you are, my yawning friend. that's the sum total of your contribution to this subject matter
know your pathetic self you ignorant piece of shit
and yet you bothered to respond, so something is bothering you
perhaps it is the nagging idea that you are indeed, a pridefully ignorant moron on this topic
do you have the slightest bit of iq points inside that empty skull you stupid piece of shit?
you believe corporations won't pollute if no one polices them?
seriously, how fucking stupid are you you shitstain?
what you want is respect. which you will not receive if you think and say things ridiculously out of connection with reality
companies will not spend extra money to protect the environment. unless forced to
they will happily pollute and avoid the consequences. because its cheaper
this is a fact of your reality
you can reject this fact, and thereby remain a propagandized retard people will just laugh at, or you can accept it and being to actually make sense in your opinions about topics you currently are nothing more than a joke in
choose
but if you continue to believe in moronic things, you will be called a moron. not a baseless insult, an objective truth, to have the retarded opinion you do. and thus, you will not receive the respect you think you deserve, but currently you do not. because you're DUMB
oh look, the propagandized retard knows rhetorical terms. unfortunately, the retard doesn't know what they mean or how to use them
you should have mindlessly regurgitated "strawman" into your comment too, just to spice things up and, you know, completely avoid actually fucking thinking about the actually valid point, like a good little propagandized retard
propagandized retard goes "all government bad, corporations good!"
so, let's say there is no EPA. so then companies pollute the fuck out of everything 1,000x worse than BP and this spill on the Colorado
right?
do you actually think before developing an opinion or do you just regurgitate what you hear on your corporate sponsored conservative media like a good little low iq tool? there, there, good angry right wing moron, agitating for your own impoverishment and poisoning so someone else can make millions more
but, nah: the EPA fucked up, so all government is bad and corporations are innocent angels devoid of harm (nevermind the fact they are the fucks that created the pools the EPA screwed up on)
and how would you describe of someone who would censor you in the name of freedom of speech, punch you in the face to teach you fighting is wrong, or cite religious freedom in denying your right to practice your own religious beliefs?
there is no "cut." request anything you like. this just shows what's been used before
although...
they resisted the wiccans. and of course, they lost the suit
so yes, there are religious freedom-denying asshats all over
they cite the terminology "religious freedom," but with those two words, they seek to destroy actual religious freedom. pathetic morons
i was looking at the options awhile ago, it's actually a pretty cool list of symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
humanist, native american medicine wheel, wiccan pentacle, the farohar of zoroastrianism, infinity symbol (?), and a whole bunch of sects, obscure and mainstream
my favorite is a split between landing eagle and hammer of thor
but yeah, the asshat you responded to doesn't even know what he is talking about. even if the tombstones were crosses, then stars of david, muslim crescents, pentagrams, etc., would obviously also be allowed
which is the whole point of the comment the asshat was responding to: not to *censor* the christian cross, but to point out that christian symbols don't have a monopoly on public display
religious pinheads always frame more choices (homosexuals getting married, wiccan symbols allowed in public, women being able to control their own bodies rather than being forced to obey theocratic dictates, etc.) as some sort of persecution. as if denying someone a religious monopoly == persecution? it's a pridefully ignorant blind spot, stoked by propaganda and fearmongering demagogues: "if christianity isn't the only religion allowed, then da evil gubmint is out to destroy all christians"
fucking ignorant, yet firmly believed by many assholes: "if my ideology does not dominate, then it must mean i am being persecuted." no, religious freedom means "i can choose to follow any religion i want" not "someone in authority is 'free' to impose its religious beliefs on people against their will"
so when people cite "religious freedom" when opposing homosexuality. no, you fucking moron, religious freedom never meant, and never will mean, that you have the "freedom" to impose your beliefs on someone else. in fact that's pretty much the exact opposite understanding of what freedom is. yet "religious freedom" is the term they use when they wish to deny the freedoms of others! pathetic and sick
do we take creationists seriously?
do we take antivaxxers seriously?
do we take 9/11 truthers seriously?
denying climate change is the exact same order of blind ignorant faith over overwhelming facts
what the hell are you talking about? there is no middle ground. there is reality, and there is nothing else
there is magic middle ground between reality and propaganda or reality and wish fulfillment fantasy. i have to take such people seriously?
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but absolutely no one is entitled to their own magic facts
climate change is real and happening. there's no debate. there's no argument. either you accept that, and consider yourself someone who is in touch reality, or you deny that and be an idiot
an idiot: i'm not throwing around empty insults here. what else do you call someone who in their prideful ignorance rejects basic facts? someone who is a creationist for example and denies the established facts of evolution: this is a person i have to engage? no, this is a person who needs to be utterly rejected. they are not part of any reasonable debate. there is no help for them as they have substituted magic narrative for basic facts of reality
exactly
useful idiots
used, like tools. their heads filled with nonsense that push their simpleminded predictable buttons, and they're wound up like angry little robots, and let loose on facebook feeds and polling stations, rendering the country more stupid, in the service of an agenda that hurts everyone, including the idiots, except some plutocrats
my favorite are the articles that ridicule al gore for riding private jets
as if he had a choice and could use a magic carpet
he's stuck with the technology we have today, which does not preclude him from the valid observation that we are changing the climate, and that we should do something about it
even if he hiked from meeting to meeting the morons still wouldn't listen to him
the "logic" is:
"al gore rides a private jet, therefore we can ignore the evidence of climate change"
this is their actual thought process. "al gore is a hypocrite. therefore climate change isn't real" {end entire thought process on the topic}
dumbfounding. pathetic beyond words. as if one personality is central to the entire question of climate change. but, that's the way simple minds work. make cartoons out of someone you dislike, also for manipulated reasons, and that decides the entire issue for the tribal tools
they don't even notice they're swallowing propaganda paid for by industries that don't want to pay for carbon reductions. in return they get more violent weather and warmer temperatures, floods, etc. and they still swallow the propaganda, regurgigate it out, because it pushes their little small minded hateful buttons. perfect little tools, with simple minded concerns and prejudices, easily led, pointed in a direction and they scream in support of positions that really in the end, only hurts them. just like healthcare, just like taxes on rich, just like a whole host of issues
it's quite stunning how you can fool pinheads to agitate against their own self-interest