Yea, but that's like saying I'm a Mariners fan because I grew up near Seattle.
Not at all. We have the Second Amendment precisely because we had the experience of violently rebelling against tyranny, and recognized the benefits of ensuring that it would be able to happen again, if/when the time came. That is an experience the British and Canadians never had, and that makes us different.
It's fine to be patriotic and all, but do you actually have something against being British or Canadian in modern times, or are your thought processes unchanged from a few centuries ago?
Thought process only need to be changed when they've been proven incorrect. The thought processes that produced the Second Amendment remain correct.
Information that could make civilians more dangerous to police or military should not be available to civilians at all, obviously.
Indeed, that is obvious -- obviously WRONG!
The police and military exist for the benefit of civilians, and for no other reason whatsoever. The second they forget that is the second they should be put down like rabid dogs.
Your statement might be the most dangerously wrongheaded totalitarian bullshit I've read so far this year.
Tamir Rice "waved around" precisely nothing, and "refused to drop" precisely nothing. He was in fact shot to death before he would have even had a chance to do anything remotely resembling that!
I'd never suggest the cops have an easy job, or that most of them aren't really trying to help clean up the neighborhoods of crime and violence. The problem is, the negative focus on officers today comes from stories on practically a weekly basis where police corruption, misbehavior or mishandling of evidence or people is uncovered. I don't know what exact percentage that works out to, but it's far too great of one -- even if by the numbers, it's only 1% of the police on the force.
The problem is that even if only 1% of the cops are directly corrupt, the other 99% of cops who fail to report them -- and that number apparently really is damn close to 99% -- are indirectly corrupt too.
I've seen a good number of YouTube videos where someone appeared to be videotaping the police primarily to try to make the police look bad. They added their own narrative/commentary to what was being recorded and in some cases, even tried to provoke a negative reaction towards their filming so they could show people "part of the problem".
And if the officer falls for it, then it proves that he was in fact bad! It is quite literally the police's job to deal with asshats, and to deal with them appropriately, fairly, and with care to respect their civil rights. If the officer fails to do that, then he deserves to look bad.
Of course, if arresting the person doing the filming is genuinely justified, then when the public sees the video they'll agree the officer was being reasonable and it'll make the person doing the filming look bad, not the officer.
It makes the cops distrust and dislike the people filming them
Boo fucking hoo. Being accountable is part of the job. Cop doesn't like it? Then he should turn in his damn badge and GTFO!
What part of Baltimore is racist? The black run Police Dept? The Black run City Council? The Black Representation in the state? Three of the six police charged in Grey's death?
Yes. It's obviously possible to be biased against your own group. The only question you need to ask is "would these [black] people have acted the same way if Freddy Gray were white?" If the answer is "no" -- and IMO, it almost certainly is -- then there is racism at work.
It's fun to pretend that we have a police racism issue, but it's really a general police brutality issue.
Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.
As a white person myself, I'd like to believe it's not a racism issue... but I can't because the evidence is overwhelming.
(That is not to say it isn't probably also a general police brutality issue, but the vast majority of that police brutality appears to be directed towards minorities and that isn't a coincidence.)
All-party consent (rather than one-party consent) for recording has always been a stupid fucking brain-dead policy, but the proliferation of cameras means we ought to be making getting those laws repealed a high priority.
That's not true. They do care about privacy, which is why they have that tracking antifeature that I mentioned before. You can't discount that! The only difference between what they're doing and what you apparently want them to be doing is that they don't assume that just because something is using an unnecessary permission it means it's violating the user's privacy. You can argue that maybe they're wrong for failing to assume that, but you have to acknowledge that there's a difference between F-Droid not being perfect vs. F-Droid not giving a shit.
Have you ever tried bringing this issue up with the F-Droid folks? If you haven't, I wouldn't be surprised if they're more receptive to it than you think, especially since you have patches to submit instead of just an idea.
They flag git apps for having github integration with giant "promotes non-free services" ads, even if there is no actual promotion, just API support, and yet they have versions of things where the effort has been made to compile without google libs, but that still ask for device ID. For example, their version f the google sky map app, they go to the trouble to compile with certain libraries replaced, but they leave in the part where it asks for the device ID, etc. It is a totally passive app with no legit use at all for device ID. No warnings.
I've just done a search in F-Droid for 'git' and looked through all the results. I found the following:
Github, the "official Github Android App" has a red warning that says "This app promotes non-free network services."
OctoDroid, described as a "GitHub Client" (not a "git client," a "GitHub client") which says that it "supports all the basic github.com features" does NOT have a red warning.
Having never used either app I don't know how fair F-droid's choice to display the warning in one case but not the other actually was, but it at least seems plausible to me that the "official" app would be more likely to "promote" the service than other apps.
As for Sky Map, if the program is indeed using the Device Id for some nefarious purpose, I'd expect a red warning saying "this app tracks and reports your activity" (or whatever message was appropriate). In the absence of such a message, I would assume that either the app isn't actually doing anything (and the F-droid people think it's sufficient to let the Android permissions dialog handle informing the user of a permission that doesn't matter) or the lack of warning is an oversight on F-droid's part (I mean, clearly, if F-droid has an tracking anti-feature, failing to mark an app that does tracking with it is certainly a bug).
I would also say that even if we don't *know* that the app is doing something nefarious, the existence of unnecessary permissions itself merits a red warning message (or at least a yellow caution message), and would like to see such a policy/feature implemented. However, I don't think the lack of such a feature constitutes "false claims" on the F-Droid maintainers' part.
The bottom line is that if your allegations about F-droid are true, then you're justified in being upset, but I'm not sure those issues deserve to be ascribed to malice when there's still enough reasonable doubt (IMO) to ascribe them to accident.
Don't let them give you a set-top box. Make them give you a CableCard instead, and take a stand for the spirit of "any lawful device" (which should have been applied to cable companies, but hasn't).
Also, they'll tell you the box is "free," but if you swap it for a CableCard they should give you a discount.
I'm honestly not even sure where the cable box is; I asked them not to send me one but they did anyway.
Send it back and demand a CableCard. Not only is it a good "fuck you" to those who hate the idea of people having the audacity to hook up their own equipment, it should also get you a small discount (because contrary to what they tell you, that first cable box is only "free" in the sense that the rental fee is built into the advertized price).
This is not an issue of incapable hardware. That's proven both by the fact that there's no reason why Google couldn't have kept the minimum system requirements the same from 2.2 to 5, and the fact that plenty of manufacturers were already abandoning their 2.2 shit before 2.3 came out, let alone anything actually more advanced!
FYI, you'd be (in a similar sense) "broadcasting" your location when using your home landline too (i.e., the fact that you're at home). But they still need a fucking warrant for that!
Alright, here are some of my experiences with Comcast's evilness (not including the "normal" and endemic DNS hijacking, Bittorrent and Netflix throttling, and secret data cap issues that Slashdot has reported on, of course):
1. I called up Comcast to negotiate my rate, and the customer service rep offered me $19.99/month (for I think 20Mbps internet). When I got my first bill, it was for $60+. I called to complain, and (after escalating to a manager) was basically told that they did not offer such a rate, that I was a liar for claiming to have been offered such a rate, and that they refuse to go listen to their own recording of the phone call (which would have proven that I was correct). Once I filed the BBB complaint, I was contacted by somebody higher up in Comcast (some kind of VP... it was over a year ago and I'm going by memory) who said they'd reviewed the recording of the call and would honor the rate for one year. Then, after 6 months, they jacked up the rate again, so I filed a second BBB complaint to get them to finish honoring their original agreement.
2. After that previous rate had ended, I changed my plan to a $39.99 plan that included Internet + basic cable TV (because Comcast is so desperate to inflate their TV subscriber numbers that they often offer that plan cheaper than Internet by itself). I refused to let them give me a cable box, opting instead to use my digital-cable ready TV's built-in QAM tuner instead. Then my PERFECTLY-GOOD built-in tuner stopped working, because Comcast decided to start encrypting the signal (which is nothing more or less than a blatant power and money grab, to force people to use set-top boxes and drive business for 'on demand'). Of course, Comcast will tell you the government forced them to do it -- trying to conflate it with the over-the-air digital transition -- but that's a big fat fucking lie. Long story short, I ended up filing the following FCC complaint:
Per FCC 12-126, Comcast is required to provide free set-top-boxes (STBs) OR CABLECARDS (CCs) to those affected by basic-tier encryption. However, Comcast appears to have a systematic corporate policy of making it as difficult as possible to obtain a CC, including lying to customers.
1. Comcast began encrypting WGTV weeks BEFORE sending the notice required by Title 47 SS. 76.630 (a)(1)(vi)
2. Service call technician would not admit that encryption caused the WGTV outage but only told me to use a STB
3. I called to request equipment compatible with my HTPC (without specifically asking for a CC). The rep insisted that Comcast did not support non-TV equipment, and that the only thing available was a STB
4. Comcast mailed me an unsolicited and unwanted STB
5. I called to request a CC (and return the STB). Several reps and supervisors insisted variously that a) unlike STBs, CCs could not be mailed (CC users are 2nd-class), or b) there would be a monthly fee (variously $5 or $10) for using a CC
Once I eventually obtained a CableCard -- which required physically going to a Comcast office, and was such a painful experience that I started yelling at the service rep and almost got arrested by the county sheriff's deputy that Comcast apparently employs to keep the peace because their customer service is apparently THAT BAD! -- I found out that having the CableCard actually entitled me to a discount vs. having the "free" set-top box. In other words, 1. the "free" set-top box isn't actually free, and 2. Comcast overcharged me for the several months between signing up for the plan and getting the CableCard registered on my account.
Are there any? negative externalities that people have an obligation not to impose on others
There are a couple of ways to answer that:
One answer could be "no, by definition." If the person has an obligation not to impose it on others, then it's internalized and no longer counts as an externality.
Another answer could be "yes, namely, the set of externalities that are regulated by government." For example, car owners are prohibited from imposing excessive pollution on others via emissions laws.
Of course, these are really the same answer (because in answer #1, it would be the government who created the obligation); it just depends on perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. We have the Second Amendment precisely because we had the experience of violently rebelling against tyranny, and recognized the benefits of ensuring that it would be able to happen again, if/when the time came. That is an experience the British and Canadians never had, and that makes us different.
Thought process only need to be changed when they've been proven incorrect. The thought processes that produced the Second Amendment remain correct.
We fought Because we didn't want to pay the king. We won because we had guns.
Now you're lying, too. Tamir Rice never reached for a damn thing.
Indeed, that is obvious -- obviously WRONG!
The police and military exist for the benefit of civilians, and for no other reason whatsoever. The second they forget that is the second they should be put down like rabid dogs.
Your statement might be the most dangerously wrongheaded totalitarian bullshit I've read so far this year.
Our commitment to gun ownership is WHY we're Americans (and not British subjects, or even Canadians) in the first place.
You are continuing to blatantly lie.
Tamir Rice "waved around" precisely nothing, and "refused to drop" precisely nothing. He was in fact shot to death before he would have even had a chance to do anything remotely resembling that!
That depends on how onerous and anti-democratic the ballot access laws are, and how gerrymandered the district is.
The problem is that even if only 1% of the cops are directly corrupt, the other 99% of cops who fail to report them -- and that number apparently really is damn close to 99% -- are indirectly corrupt too.
And if the officer falls for it, then it proves that he was in fact bad! It is quite literally the police's job to deal with asshats, and to deal with them appropriately, fairly, and with care to respect their civil rights. If the officer fails to do that, then he deserves to look bad.
Of course, if arresting the person doing the filming is genuinely justified, then when the public sees the video they'll agree the officer was being reasonable and it'll make the person doing the filming look bad, not the officer.
Boo fucking hoo. Being accountable is part of the job. Cop doesn't like it? Then he should turn in his damn badge and GTFO!
Yes. It's obviously possible to be biased against your own group. The only question you need to ask is "would these [black] people have acted the same way if Freddy Gray were white?" If the answer is "no" -- and IMO, it almost certainly is -- then there is racism at work.
Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.
As a white person myself, I'd like to believe it's not a racism issue... but I can't because the evidence is overwhelming.
(That is not to say it isn't probably also a general police brutality issue, but the vast majority of that police brutality appears to be directed towards minorities and that isn't a coincidence.)
THAT IS A LIE, AND YOU ARE A LIAR. Counterexample: Tamir Rice.
If police in the '50s were like they are now, I wouldn't be surprised if Rosa Parks would have been summarily shot.
All-party consent (rather than one-party consent) for recording has always been a stupid fucking brain-dead policy, but the proliferation of cameras means we ought to be making getting those laws repealed a high priority.
For US President, sure. For state and local elections, there often actually isn't a third-party candidate at all (at least in my area).
Let's be honest here: the biggest risk to you is that they beat you to death and then concoct some bullshit to justify it after-the-fact.
That said, if you let that scare you so that you "COMPLY", then you've let the totalitarians win.
That's not true. They do care about privacy, which is why they have that tracking antifeature that I mentioned before. You can't discount that! The only difference between what they're doing and what you apparently want them to be doing is that they don't assume that just because something is using an unnecessary permission it means it's violating the user's privacy. You can argue that maybe they're wrong for failing to assume that, but you have to acknowledge that there's a difference between F-Droid not being perfect vs. F-Droid not giving a shit.
Have you ever tried bringing this issue up with the F-Droid folks? If you haven't, I wouldn't be surprised if they're more receptive to it than you think, especially since you have patches to submit instead of just an idea.
I've just done a search in F-Droid for 'git' and looked through all the results. I found the following:
Having never used either app I don't know how fair F-droid's choice to display the warning in one case but not the other actually was, but it at least seems plausible to me that the "official" app would be more likely to "promote" the service than other apps.
As for Sky Map, if the program is indeed using the Device Id for some nefarious purpose, I'd expect a red warning saying "this app tracks and reports your activity" (or whatever message was appropriate). In the absence of such a message, I would assume that either the app isn't actually doing anything (and the F-droid people think it's sufficient to let the Android permissions dialog handle informing the user of a permission that doesn't matter) or the lack of warning is an oversight on F-droid's part (I mean, clearly, if F-droid has an tracking anti-feature, failing to mark an app that does tracking with it is certainly a bug).
I would also say that even if we don't *know* that the app is doing something nefarious, the existence of unnecessary permissions itself merits a red warning message (or at least a yellow caution message), and would like to see such a policy/feature implemented. However, I don't think the lack of such a feature constitutes "false claims" on the F-Droid maintainers' part.
The bottom line is that if your allegations about F-droid are true, then you're justified in being upset, but I'm not sure those issues deserve to be ascribed to malice when there's still enough reasonable doubt (IMO) to ascribe them to accident.
Don't let them give you a set-top box. Make them give you a CableCard instead, and take a stand for the spirit of "any lawful device" (which should have been applied to cable companies, but hasn't).
Also, they'll tell you the box is "free," but if you swap it for a CableCard they should give you a discount.
Send it back and demand a CableCard. Not only is it a good "fuck you" to those who hate the idea of people having the audacity to hook up their own equipment, it should also get you a small discount (because contrary to what they tell you, that first cable box is only "free" in the sense that the rental fee is built into the advertized price).
This is not an issue of incapable hardware. That's proven both by the fact that there's no reason why Google couldn't have kept the minimum system requirements the same from 2.2 to 5, and the fact that plenty of manufacturers were already abandoning their 2.2 shit before 2.3 came out, let alone anything actually more advanced!
FYI, you'd be (in a similar sense) "broadcasting" your location when using your home landline too (i.e., the fact that you're at home). But they still need a fucking warrant for that!
Alright, here are some of my experiences with Comcast's evilness (not including the "normal" and endemic DNS hijacking, Bittorrent and Netflix throttling, and secret data cap issues that Slashdot has reported on, of course):
1. I called up Comcast to negotiate my rate, and the customer service rep offered me $19.99/month (for I think 20Mbps internet). When I got my first bill, it was for $60+. I called to complain, and (after escalating to a manager) was basically told that they did not offer such a rate, that I was a liar for claiming to have been offered such a rate, and that they refuse to go listen to their own recording of the phone call (which would have proven that I was correct). Once I filed the BBB complaint, I was contacted by somebody higher up in Comcast (some kind of VP... it was over a year ago and I'm going by memory) who said they'd reviewed the recording of the call and would honor the rate for one year. Then, after 6 months, they jacked up the rate again, so I filed a second BBB complaint to get them to finish honoring their original agreement.
2. After that previous rate had ended, I changed my plan to a $39.99 plan that included Internet + basic cable TV (because Comcast is so desperate to inflate their TV subscriber numbers that they often offer that plan cheaper than Internet by itself). I refused to let them give me a cable box, opting instead to use my digital-cable ready TV's built-in QAM tuner instead. Then my PERFECTLY-GOOD built-in tuner stopped working, because Comcast decided to start encrypting the signal (which is nothing more or less than a blatant power and money grab, to force people to use set-top boxes and drive business for 'on demand'). Of course, Comcast will tell you the government forced them to do it -- trying to conflate it with the over-the-air digital transition -- but that's a big fat fucking lie. Long story short, I ended up filing the following FCC complaint:
Once I eventually obtained a CableCard -- which required physically going to a Comcast office, and was such a painful experience that I started yelling at the service rep and almost got arrested by the county sheriff's deputy that Comcast apparently employs to keep the peace because their customer service is apparently THAT BAD! -- I found out that having the CableCard actually entitled me to a discount vs. having the "free" set-top box. In other words, 1. the "free" set-top box isn't actually free, and 2. Comcast overcharged me for the several months between signing up for the plan and getting the CableCard registered on my account.
He overstated it a little bit: if you're dealing drugs in 'cyberspace,' they'll just arrest you. It's only 'meatspace' drug dealers that get shot.
There are a couple of ways to answer that:
Of course, these are really the same answer (because in answer #1, it would be the government who created the obligation); it just depends on perspective.