Want body cam footage? Or a mug shot? Or an arrest history? Get a subpoena, and it better be relevant.
No, don't make it that complicated.
At the very least, allow me (or my lawyer, or my surviving family members) to request footage where I am the one being video-recorded. This should actually be easy to initially automate as well (if the officer actually took down my details, or my license plate number, to run a check on it). The time of the lookup should give us the identity of the police officer (or possibly partnering police officer) who did the lookup. From there allow me to make a follow-up request in case the body-cam footage points to other officers coming on the scene with their own body-cams or dash-cams, or in case I believe some other footage is missing.
After all, this is the primary reason we want the police to wear body-cams. Do not believe the false dichotomy played up by the police PR spinning machine. The police actually loves receiving requests from third parties for Terabytes/Petabytes of information. This is a form of project of scope-creep that can only slow down the wide-scale adoption of mandatory body-cams in the US and/or possibly cripple the initial intent of those body-cams by allowing the police officer/department to become the editors of those videos themselves.
Yes, appealing to the school board is another thing entirely.
Ideally, that student should try to resolve this disagreement privately and through the back channels first. If you ask to be put on the school board agenda right away, you may back the Principal into a corner and if you win like that, you may even make him lose face.
It's better you ask a school board parent (or a normal parent) to appeal to the Principal privately first. Use the least amount of force necessary to reverse the decision, and no more. The Principal may still lose face privately, but at least, his loss of face will have been kept to a minimum.
Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..
Don't call his bluff.
A principal has all kinds of power over your life as a student. Litigation takes time. And a principal can easily destroy your chances of getting into college or tarnish your record (before litigation can straighten everything out)
Get a school board parent on your side, preferably someone with a law degree, or married to someone with a law degree. Or barring that, find a regular parent at your school with a law degree. The principal won't refuse to talk to a parent, especially someone who appears neutral and who appears to know what he's talking about.
If the principal still doesn't want to listen to reason, I suppose the student could file an injunction to prevent retaliatory actions against him by the Principal, but that should really be his last resort. These types of misunderstandings usually work themselves out by getting enough parents on your side, without ever needing to go to court.
The article labels them "anti-terrorism experts" but the mere fact that they even considered this long enough for there to have been a written record belies that title and proves instead that they are "anti-terrorism idiots".
Or they could just be sci-fi wannabe writers themselves.
Not everyone can write a good sci-fi conspiracy theory, but many people still try anyway.
Yes, weight plays a factor, but chains play a huge role too.
If nothing else, they should increase the gas tax during the winter time when roads get damaged the most, but then again people might start storing gas tanks in their bathtubs or in their garages, so I don't know.
It's too bad I wasn't included in this survey. Because I do report all my security breaches.
Nothing beats a 6pt dark Papyrus font at the end of a boring 400 slides powerpoint presentation. I also email that powerpoint presentation to everyone using the "To:" field. In my experience, the more people I include in an email, the less likely anyone is going to read what I have to say. I may get a few hate emails as a result, but that's good. I print those out, and I keep them just in case I need corroborating evidence that my presentation was actually received by some of my coworkers.
Yes, it's propaganda, but it doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth somewhere in there.
As a young French person who had the option to work in either France, or the United States, I can tell you that it's damn difficult for young people to find jobs in France (precisely because it's so expensive to hire workers, or even fire them). I can't tell you how humiliating it can be to look for a job in France for a young person. It's like they're doing you a favor (the risk is so high to them, so they might as well make you grovel for the opportunity).
So then, since there are so many jobless because of the high minimum wages (and other government programs), the government invents government internship programs to get around the minimum wage. So you end up getting paid less than the minimum wage, you still end up working for a private company, but this way the pay check comes from the government and the money you receive is called a stipend which is technically not a wage since you're in an internship (never mind that 40 years olds and 50 years olds can still be stuck in rotating internships all their lives of course).
Australia has a minimum wage of around $17USD/hour (around $20AUD) which increases 20% if you are a casual.
What's a casual? In the US, we use that word for sex, as in "casual sex".
Do you have casual sex workers? Are those like Uber sex workers? Where they work a regular job full time at some company, but do sex work during their lunch break? or do sex work during smoke breaks to round out their income?
Are they insane? that BYOD better not be any where near any nuke launcher systems
No, I don't think Apple can sue.
The iTunes app store terms and conditions only says:
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
No development, no design, no manufacture, no production.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
Let's go to the actual claim he made which was recorded by the tech media, long before he was arrested for his tweet.
He claims he was able to hack the simulator of a plane to access the thrust (not a real plane mind you, the simulator of a plane). Is the simulator as good and as realistic as he claims it to be? or not?
Since you seem to be an expert yourself on this subject, please tell us. Are the electronics of the simulator he used a good replica of the electronics found on an actual plane? Or did the guy just play Microsoft SimFlight and found a way to hack Windows XP?
"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more.
I think you misunderstood what I said, and that we're in agreement on some level.
Assuming you're not working for BMW or Gucci, I believe that having no graphics at all can be much better than purchasing a bunch of royalty-free perfect-looking insincere photographs from some stock photography web site.
The same goes for special animations and perfect-looking videos. Barring a few exceptions, I don't believe those effects are necessary to make a web site useful and valuable to users.
And throwing out all those stock photographs and those unnecessary effects may actually improve the usability of a web site, not just for disabled people, but may be even for everyone (and at very little cost, since it's the effects that usually cost money, and it's the more basic web sites that usually cost less money).
We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
Are those images you're tossing out stock photography images? Because believe me, those may look super cool and super useful to web site designers, but stock photos are not only bland and cliche, they actually look super insincere to the user who is inundated by them on every company web site.
users can enjoy a custom and connected Web experience and take their favorite content (apps, videos, photos, websites) across devices without being locked into one proprietary ecosystem or brand.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time.
That's not the point I was making.
All it takes is one smart kid to screw around. Then, he'll be so proud of himself if he finds something, that he'll find ways to show off his trick to as many other kids as possible (especially to the other kids with Chromebooks).
The same goes for a kid that finds the workaround online, or stumbles onto it through social media. He'll brag to other kids as if he invented the workaround himself.
...we need computing platforms that are restricted in the use of the computer, to make it function better as an educational platform.
Cheap Chromebooks the sim card explicitly removed and without the wifi password used to fill that niche, but now most new Chromebooks are touch-enabled and they'll be able to run Android soon. In other words, Google is about to mess it all up for parents.
And it won't be long until one kid figures out how he can download an apk to a usb stick or a memory card, and can play it on a friend's Chromebook. By the time 5th period rolls around, everyone in his school will have seen it done. And within a week or two, all kids who use Chromebooks in the entire United States will have seen it done (even if they themselves do not have direct internet access).
At that point, parents will just have resell their Chromebooks on Ebay and trade them in, for either paper notepads or old-fashioned electric type-writers. Or they'll be forced to just place the Chromebooks under lock and key like they've been forced to do with the wifi hub, the router, and everything else.
This movie, Mad Max: Fury Roads, looks extremely well crafted from the previews. It looks like a cross from Cirque du Soleil and the old Mad Max. I've only watched the previews, and I can't tell for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called activist wasn't getting paid for his manufactured "outrage" as a form of guerrilla tactic by the movie creators themselves.
If you guys really want to watch a movie that's upsetting for men's rights to watch. Watch Hitch. The main character, Hitch, is supposedly the one exploiting women, and there is a political message obviously embedded in there, but somehow, the smart hot woman he is after is the one who is constantly treating him like crap. And the more she treats him like crap, the more he falls in love with her. In the end, they end up together, but I'm not even sure why that is. He's obviously in love with her, but there is no indication she even likes the guy (except for the jet ski sessions and all the other free stuff he gives her may be?).
And before someone starts criticizing my observation because the pathetic character in Hitch was the male this time, I can think of quite a few movies where it's the woman who is stuck in a one-sided love and the situation is the complete opposite. It's just that in those other movies, that kind of pathetic behavior doesn't get celebrated by the audience and those other movies do not come out specifically on Valentine's day as a model for couples to watch together and emulate.
Asians aren't black. They get better test scores than black. They don't fall under affirmative action so they aren't admitted even though they have the test scores. There are many studies showing that Asians are disproportionately negatively affected by affirmative action.
Yes, but the lawsuit doesn't compare black student's test scores with asian test scores, it specifically compares white people's test scores with asian test scores instead. In other words, this lawsuit has nothing to do with black people taking the places of asians. It's only addressing the issue of white people with significantly lower test scores taking the places that should be going to asians instead.
And that's the thing, why do white people need to be protected from asians? And why are we even pretending that there was never any racism against the Chinese or the Japanese for instance? Because, there sure was. From the building of the railroads, to the internment camps of Chinese immigrants, to the internment camps and confiscation of assets of the Japanese (but not the Germans). There sure was plenty of discrimination against asians, not to mention plenty of discrimination at the University and school level.
Why can't anyone just admit that this policy of discrimination from Harvard is just a longterm continuation (not a reparation) of the discrimination that asians faced in the past (and it has nothing to do with black people, since black people's test scores are not even mentioned in the lawsuit at all).
In fact, the very same language used against asians is also constantly used against black people. Not long ago, white people used to complain about the invasions of black people into their neighborhoods and into their schools. In the 1920s, it was the invasions of Jews into their schools. Now, the target has shifted once more. It's the invasions of asians into their schools that have white people worry the most about.
No. Though some people feel that way. Affirmative action is what t says it is; instead of passively assuming that civil rights makes people equal overnight, there needed to be an active response to try and make things equal.
No. Affirmative action is racist, not because it's trying to protect black students, but it's because it's protecting the status quo and the racism that occurred in the past.
If we were really trying to fix things, the answer would be super simple. We know the people who benefited from racism in the past. Their names and their pictures are already published in the old Harvard year books. The answer is as simple as that. The children of Alumni, and their children's children's shouldn't be allowed to attend Harvard again. And those spots should be reallocated to blacks students.
Instead, Affirmative Action targets the children of immigrants, the outsiders, and the people who look different. In other words, it's targeting the very people that have absolutely nothing to do with the racism of the past.
Racism 2.0. That's what Affirmative Action really is. It's really about protecting the people and the families who benefited the most from racism in the past.
people do insane things. all the time. if your argument depends upon how someone you don't know is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks
I don't know. What Roberts did sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Roberts had previously told WIRED that he caused a plane to climb during a simulated test on a virtual environment he and a colleague created, but he insisted then that he had not interfered with the operation of a plane while in flight.
If you ask me, it's the FBI that sounds completely insane.
And if your argument is that the FBI is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Want body cam footage? Or a mug shot? Or an arrest history? Get a subpoena, and it better be relevant.
No, don't make it that complicated.
At the very least, allow me (or my lawyer, or my surviving family members) to request footage where I am the one being video-recorded. This should actually be easy to initially automate as well (if the officer actually took down my details, or my license plate number, to run a check on it). The time of the lookup should give us the identity of the police officer (or possibly partnering police officer) who did the lookup. From there allow me to make a follow-up request in case the body-cam footage points to other officers coming on the scene with their own body-cams or dash-cams, or in case I believe some other footage is missing.
After all, this is the primary reason we want the police to wear body-cams. Do not believe the false dichotomy played up by the police PR spinning machine. The police actually loves receiving requests from third parties for Terabytes/Petabytes of information. This is a form of project of scope-creep that can only slow down the wide-scale adoption of mandatory body-cams in the US and/or possibly cripple the initial intent of those body-cams by allowing the police officer/department to become the editors of those videos themselves.
Yes, appealing to the school board is another thing entirely.
Ideally, that student should try to resolve this disagreement privately and through the back channels first. If you ask to be put on the school board agenda right away, you may back the Principal into a corner and if you win like that, you may even make him lose face.
It's better you ask a school board parent (or a normal parent) to appeal to the Principal privately first. Use the least amount of force necessary to reverse the decision, and no more. The Principal may still lose face privately, but at least, his loss of face will have been kept to a minimum.
Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..
Don't call his bluff.
A principal has all kinds of power over your life as a student. Litigation takes time. And a principal can easily destroy your chances of getting into college or tarnish your record (before litigation can straighten everything out)
Get a school board parent on your side, preferably someone with a law degree, or married to someone with a law degree. Or barring that, find a regular parent at your school with a law degree. The principal won't refuse to talk to a parent, especially someone who appears neutral and who appears to know what he's talking about.
If the principal still doesn't want to listen to reason, I suppose the student could file an injunction to prevent retaliatory actions against him by the Principal, but that should really be his last resort. These types of misunderstandings usually work themselves out by getting enough parents on your side, without ever needing to go to court.
The article labels them "anti-terrorism experts" but the mere fact that they even considered this long enough for there to have been a written record belies that title and proves instead that they are "anti-terrorism idiots".
Or they could just be sci-fi wannabe writers themselves.
Not everyone can write a good sci-fi conspiracy theory, but many people still try anyway.
In Oregon, four-wheel drive is your friend.
Yes, weight plays a factor, but chains play a huge role too.
If nothing else, they should increase the gas tax during the winter time when roads get damaged the most, but then again people might start storing gas tanks in their bathtubs or in their garages, so I don't know.
Those volunteers are probably convicted child molesters or convicted drunk drivers.
It's amazing how quickly you can get someone to volunteer, if you're willing to forego some prison time.
It's too bad I wasn't included in this survey. Because I do report all my security breaches.
Nothing beats a 6pt dark Papyrus font at the end of a boring 400 slides powerpoint presentation. I also email that powerpoint presentation to everyone using the "To:" field. In my experience, the more people I include in an email, the less likely anyone is going to read what I have to say. I may get a few hate emails as a result, but that's good. I print those out, and I keep them just in case I need corroborating evidence that my presentation was actually received by some of my coworkers.
Thanks for posting propaganda as "news".
Yes, it's propaganda, but it doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth somewhere in there.
As a young French person who had the option to work in either France, or the United States, I can tell you that it's damn difficult for young people to find jobs in France (precisely because it's so expensive to hire workers, or even fire them). I can't tell you how humiliating it can be to look for a job in France for a young person. It's like they're doing you a favor (the risk is so high to them, so they might as well make you grovel for the opportunity).
So then, since there are so many jobless because of the high minimum wages (and other government programs), the government invents government internship programs to get around the minimum wage. So you end up getting paid less than the minimum wage, you still end up working for a private company, but this way the pay check comes from the government and the money you receive is called a stipend which is technically not a wage since you're in an internship (never mind that 40 years olds and 50 years olds can still be stuck in rotating internships all their lives of course).
Australia has a minimum wage of around $17USD/hour (around $20AUD) which increases 20% if you are a casual.
What's a casual? In the US, we use that word for sex, as in "casual sex".
Do you have casual sex workers? Are those like Uber sex workers? Where they work a regular job full time at some company, but do sex work during their lunch break? or do sex work during smoke breaks to round out their income?
Are you sure? I thought this was a pretty lame attempt at getting traffic to hit dice.com (from a writer who's non-technical).
It's not like C# developers on Windows don't know which IDE to use already.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
I'm not sure you understand what "without limitation" means.
Limitation means the Air Force. "without limitation" means "without the Air Force".
Certainly, the Navy knows these things.
Are they insane? that BYOD better not be any where near any nuke launcher systems
No, I don't think Apple can sue.
The iTunes app store terms and conditions only says:
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
No development, no design, no manufacture, no production.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
Let's go to the actual claim he made which was recorded by the tech media, long before he was arrested for his tweet.
He claims he was able to hack the simulator of a plane to access the thrust (not a real plane mind you, the simulator of a plane). Is the simulator as good and as realistic as he claims it to be? or not?
Since you seem to be an expert yourself on this subject, please tell us. Are the electronics of the simulator he used a good replica of the electronics found on an actual plane? Or did the guy just play Microsoft SimFlight and found a way to hack Windows XP?
"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more.
I think you misunderstood what I said, and that we're in agreement on some level.
Assuming you're not working for BMW or Gucci, I believe that having no graphics at all can be much better than purchasing a bunch of royalty-free perfect-looking insincere photographs from some stock photography web site.
The same goes for special animations and perfect-looking videos. Barring a few exceptions, I don't believe those effects are necessary to make a web site useful and valuable to users.
And throwing out all those stock photographs and those unnecessary effects may actually improve the usability of a web site, not just for disabled people, but may be even for everyone (and at very little cost, since it's the effects that usually cost money, and it's the more basic web sites that usually cost less money).
We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
Are those images you're tossing out stock photography images? Because believe me, those may look super cool and super useful to web site designers, but stock photos are not only bland and cliche, they actually look super insincere to the user who is inundated by them on every company web site.
users can enjoy a custom and connected Web experience and take their favorite content (apps, videos, photos, websites) across devices without being locked into one proprietary ecosystem or brand.
Except for the newly-introduced Firefox DRM from Adobe that is.
Don't you love the new double-speak.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time.
That's not the point I was making.
All it takes is one smart kid to screw around. Then, he'll be so proud of himself if he finds something, that he'll find ways to show off his trick to as many other kids as possible (especially to the other kids with Chromebooks).
The same goes for a kid that finds the workaround online, or stumbles onto it through social media. He'll brag to other kids as if he invented the workaround himself.
...we need computing platforms that are restricted in the use of the computer, to make it function better as an educational platform.
Cheap Chromebooks the sim card explicitly removed and without the wifi password used to fill that niche, but now most new Chromebooks are touch-enabled and they'll be able to run Android soon. In other words, Google is about to mess it all up for parents.
And it won't be long until one kid figures out how he can download an apk to a usb stick or a memory card, and can play it on a friend's Chromebook. By the time 5th period rolls around, everyone in his school will have seen it done. And within a week or two, all kids who use Chromebooks in the entire United States will have seen it done (even if they themselves do not have direct internet access).
At that point, parents will just have resell their Chromebooks on Ebay and trade them in, for either paper notepads or old-fashioned electric type-writers. Or they'll be forced to just place the Chromebooks under lock and key like they've been forced to do with the wifi hub, the router, and everything else.
What is an "underachieving" driver? Someone who doesn't know how to park in parallel? Someone who only drives a few miles per year?
Well since they're testing for the metabolites of the stuff, probably not unless you're in the habit of eating $100 bills.
Either that, or it would be easy enough for someone to frame you by making sure you touch those metabolites before getting tested.
This movie, Mad Max: Fury Roads, looks extremely well crafted from the previews. It looks like a cross from Cirque du Soleil and the old Mad Max. I've only watched the previews, and I can't tell for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called activist wasn't getting paid for his manufactured "outrage" as a form of guerrilla tactic by the movie creators themselves.
If you guys really want to watch a movie that's upsetting for men's rights to watch. Watch Hitch. The main character, Hitch, is supposedly the one exploiting women, and there is a political message obviously embedded in there, but somehow, the smart hot woman he is after is the one who is constantly treating him like crap. And the more she treats him like crap, the more he falls in love with her. In the end, they end up together, but I'm not even sure why that is. He's obviously in love with her, but there is no indication she even likes the guy (except for the jet ski sessions and all the other free stuff he gives her may be?).
And before someone starts criticizing my observation because the pathetic character in Hitch was the male this time, I can think of quite a few movies where it's the woman who is stuck in a one-sided love and the situation is the complete opposite. It's just that in those other movies, that kind of pathetic behavior doesn't get celebrated by the audience and those other movies do not come out specifically on Valentine's day as a model for couples to watch together and emulate.
Asians aren't black. They get better test scores than black. They don't fall under affirmative action so they aren't admitted even though they have the test scores. There are many studies showing that Asians are disproportionately negatively affected by affirmative action.
Yes, but the lawsuit doesn't compare black student's test scores with asian test scores, it specifically compares white people's test scores with asian test scores instead. In other words, this lawsuit has nothing to do with black people taking the places of asians. It's only addressing the issue of white people with significantly lower test scores taking the places that should be going to asians instead.
And that's the thing, why do white people need to be protected from asians? And why are we even pretending that there was never any racism against the Chinese or the Japanese for instance? Because, there sure was. From the building of the railroads, to the internment camps of Chinese immigrants, to the internment camps and confiscation of assets of the Japanese (but not the Germans). There sure was plenty of discrimination against asians, not to mention plenty of discrimination at the University and school level.
Why can't anyone just admit that this policy of discrimination from Harvard is just a longterm continuation (not a reparation) of the discrimination that asians faced in the past (and it has nothing to do with black people, since black people's test scores are not even mentioned in the lawsuit at all).
In fact, the very same language used against asians is also constantly used against black people. Not long ago, white people used to complain about the invasions of black people into their neighborhoods and into their schools. In the 1920s, it was the invasions of Jews into their schools. Now, the target has shifted once more. It's the invasions of asians into their schools that have white people worry the most about.
You are an idiot. All white folks (me included) have benefited from racism.
You're posting on the wrong thread. The main story is about asians, being discriminated against, for racism that they had nothing to do with.
No. Though some people feel that way. Affirmative action is what t says it is; instead of passively assuming that civil rights makes people equal overnight, there needed to be an active response to try and make things equal.
No. Affirmative action is racist, not because it's trying to protect black students, but it's because it's protecting the status quo and the racism that occurred in the past.
If we were really trying to fix things, the answer would be super simple. We know the people who benefited from racism in the past. Their names and their pictures are already published in the old Harvard year books. The answer is as simple as that. The children of Alumni, and their children's children's shouldn't be allowed to attend Harvard again. And those spots should be reallocated to blacks students.
Instead, Affirmative Action targets the children of immigrants, the outsiders, and the people who look different. In other words, it's targeting the very people that have absolutely nothing to do with the racism of the past.
Racism 2.0. That's what Affirmative Action really is. It's really about protecting the people and the families who benefited the most from racism in the past.
people do insane things. all the time. if your argument depends upon how someone you don't know is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks
I don't know. What Roberts did sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Roberts had previously told WIRED that he caused a plane to climb during a simulated test on a virtual environment he and a colleague created, but he insisted then that he had not interfered with the operation of a plane while in flight.
If you ask me, it's the FBI that sounds completely insane.
And if your argument is that the FBI is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks.