You are really really reaching for a way to blame the police for this and you didn't succeeded.
That's funny. I see you narrowly focusing on just one aspect of the entire situation as a way to blame an unarmed driver for getting herself shot after she exited her car. I don't think you've succeeded at all, nevermind the specific details you got wrong in your narrow analysis.
What would you like the cops to do when, after drawing weapons and ordering a suspect to get out, they instead spin their wheels and drive off?
You do understand that the reports are that she did eventually stop, did exit the vehicle and then was shot. How do you reconcile that with the above?
Have you run the numbers on that?
Yes I have. There have been precisely zero attempted attacks there - ok there was a crazy guy who tried to climb the fence a few years back, but he was just crazy not malicious. That makes pretty much every other scenario more likely. However, I do find your hyper-specific categorization disingenuous to the point of being intellectually dishonest.
If you are saying Biometric systems are not foolproof from a security perspective I agree. But if you extrapolate that to "biometric data used in Aadhar will make the scheme fail" - then you have no clue whatsoever about the existing system and how Aadhar uses biometric data.
So you are claiming that the intent of the system is not to combat fraud but to simply replace an old paper-based identification (not authentication) system? That's not at all what I remember reading about the system a few years back when they were trying to justify it.
There is no village / town / city in India where you present a photo ID and a machine scans it and gives you benefits - there is a person behind the counter. Thats the first step. There are other checks and balances.
Yeah, so now you are talking authentication, but all you've done is mention a human in the loop, which I already addressed in my original post. Perhaps you could elaborate on these additional "checks and balances" (which is not a term that I think even applies to a welfare system, what is being balanced?)
This system is guaranteed to fail. As I understand it, the problem it is meant to address is welfare fraud - criminals collecting the welfare of the poor for themselves.
Best case, this works for a year or two as the criminals figure out how to spoof the biometrics. Maybe local gangsters force the poor people to give up their biometrics - take their prints and photos of their irises and then use copies (ala the recent iphone hack and the similar spoof via a photograph of the original iris). If the scanners at the welfare locations are manned, they just need to bribe the guy manning them into letting them use the spoofs. Undoubtedly the guy manning the system is going to be some low-paid peon anyway.
Just to be clear, (3) is wrong.... not one plain-clothes officer with a gun
Just to be clear, if you watch the whole video without cnn's weird edit cuts, right around the 17 second point you can see two plain-clothes cops, one in a white shirt with plaid shorts and the other in a black shirt with khaki shorts draw pistols on her. There are indeed other cops in some sort of uniform that consists of dark pants and white shirts, but that's not what a normal beat cop looks like either.
The woman was surrounded by marked lit-up cruisers, rammed one of them,
I think you are vastly over-estimating the situational awareness of someone in the throes of a fight-or-flight reaction. For one thing, she backed into the vehicle that she "rammed" - she probably saw it in her rearview-camera, which shows the ground not the tops of vehicles, if she even saw it at all.
It is deceptively easy to assume calm, clear-headed and rational behavior while sitting behind a keyboard. In real life, under immense stress, all that goes out the window. That's why good cops are trained in de-escalation, they get to practice such things over and over again until they can maintain their calm in those situations.
It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...
It is looking even more like:
1) a distraced mother with a baby in the backseat took a wrong turn driving in DC 2) accidentally ran into some low-visibility short-height pole barriers
(see this view on google streetview) 3) was confronted by plain-clothes police brandishing firearms 4) was scared shitless for herself and her baby and took off 5) was chased for a while until she got out of the car 6) was shot dead
To me, this looks like a case of cops who have been militarized to the point of neglecting training on de-escalation. Hyped to believe that terrorists are hiding under every rock, they over-reacted when they should have realized that it was just the far more likely scenario of a regular citizen finding herself in an unfamiliar and threatening situation.
So what? You didn't dispute the basis of my post, are you doing so now? Under what rationale? Or was it really just another way for your to be snippy about some group you don't like?
Pissing off the US Govt. may mean that Snowden is happy with that
Yes, that was clearly Snowden's goal. Social change, government by consent, he didn't even think about that hippy-dippy stuff.
No award is going to protect that girl from more attacks by the Taliban. They don't give a damn about what the west thinks about her, if anything they'll see it as a challenge - once again the west trying to attack their religion. But if the award goes to Snowden it makes it that much harder for the US to put him in prison.
If the US tried to put Mandela in prison for being a terrorist, the way SA did before he received the award, the political blow-back would be enormous.
What governments would those be which are restrained by the law, let alone common decency?
A representative government is a product of the law so of course it is restrained by the law. Just because individual actors within the government aren't 100% restrained by the law does not invalidate the principle that a representative government operates within the law.
The alternative to your nihilism is pure might-makes-right. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The tea party tactic of obstructing the government funding in order to bully their agenda into place is EXPLICITLY terrorism. The creation of terror for political gain.
Baloney. You've watered down the word "terrorism" to mean everything and nothing. Nobody is "terrified" about the government funding. That's just political brinkmanship.
You really are part of the problem with that kind of crap.
Quite a few Americans are terrorists. They are called Tea Party members or NSA employees.
I think the Tea Party are mostly toolbags, but fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. That kind of hyperbole only serves to pull focus from the problem of the NSA - assholes like you are aiding the NSA, not fighting them.
So Ted Cruz just fauxilibustered for like 24 hours trying to convince us that Obamacare is Nazism on steroids. If he had any sense of strategy he would have been pointing at the NSA and saying that they are going to slurp up every bit of medical data that Obamacare creates, that the NSA is going to have your most intimate medical details on file at their fingertips.
Even if you don't tell anyone that you've got herpes the NSA will know it. They will know when you are pregnant, when you miscarry, when you decide to have an abortion because your fetus tests positive for down syndrome. They will know the results of any DNA parentage tests even when you don't tell your own family.
Which means you get sneaker scoundrels, which is what they want, I guess.
You get more extremes - more people who are utterly bland (and thus only suited for cog-in-the-machine type work that doesn't require any creativity) and more people who are devious enough to fool the system into being utterly bland. Which may well have the effect of pushing for even more invasive background investigations. Pretty much a fail all around.
Now how about some research on actually persuading your child to have a nap, rather than a protracted battle of wills that gets everyone on edge.
The article actually covers that. It may even be the most practical information in the entire thing - rub their feet. They report that it was surprising how well it worked. Sounds like it is the next best thing to an "off" switch.
Slashdot Mirror
You are really really reaching for a way to blame the police for this and you didn't succeeded.
That's funny. I see you narrowly focusing on just one aspect of the entire situation as a way to blame an unarmed driver for getting herself shot after she exited her car. I don't think you've succeeded at all, nevermind the specific details you got wrong in your narrow analysis.
What would you like the cops to do when, after drawing weapons and ordering a suspect to get out, they instead spin their wheels and drive off?
You do understand that the reports are that she did eventually stop, did exit the vehicle and then was shot. How do you reconcile that with the above?
Have you run the numbers on that?
Yes I have. There have been precisely zero attempted attacks there - ok there was a crazy guy who tried to climb the fence a few years back, but he was just crazy not malicious. That makes pretty much every other scenario more likely. However, I do find your hyper-specific categorization disingenuous to the point of being intellectually dishonest.
If you are saying Biometric systems are not foolproof from a security perspective I agree. But if you extrapolate that to "biometric data used in Aadhar will make the scheme fail" - then you have no clue whatsoever about the existing system and how Aadhar uses biometric data.
So you are claiming that the intent of the system is not to combat fraud but to simply replace an old paper-based identification (not authentication) system? That's not at all what I remember reading about the system a few years back when they were trying to justify it.
There is no village / town / city in India where you present a photo ID and a machine scans it and gives you benefits - there is a person behind the counter. Thats the first step. There are other checks and balances.
Yeah, so now you are talking authentication, but all you've done is mention a human in the loop, which I already addressed in my original post. Perhaps you could elaborate on these additional "checks and balances" (which is not a term that I think even applies to a welfare system, what is being balanced?)
I stole it from this guy.
This system is guaranteed to fail. As I understand it, the problem it is meant to address is welfare fraud - criminals collecting the welfare of the poor for themselves.
Best case, this works for a year or two as the criminals figure out how to spoof the biometrics. Maybe local gangsters force the poor people to give up their biometrics - take their prints and photos of their irises and then use copies (ala the recent iphone hack and the similar spoof via a photograph of the original iris). If the scanners at the welfare locations are manned, they just need to bribe the guy manning them into letting them use the spoofs. Undoubtedly the guy manning the system is going to be some low-paid peon anyway.
Just to be clear, (3) is wrong. ...
not one plain-clothes officer with a gun
Just to be clear, if you watch the whole video without cnn's weird edit cuts, right around the 17 second point you can see two plain-clothes cops, one in a white shirt with plaid shorts and the other in a black shirt with khaki shorts draw pistols on her. There are indeed other cops in some sort of uniform that consists of dark pants and white shirts, but that's not what a normal beat cop looks like either.
The woman was surrounded by marked lit-up cruisers, rammed one of them,
I think you are vastly over-estimating the situational awareness of someone in the throes of a fight-or-flight reaction. For one thing, she backed into the vehicle that she "rammed" - she probably saw it in her rearview-camera, which shows the ground not the tops of vehicles, if she even saw it at all.
It is deceptively easy to assume calm, clear-headed and rational behavior while sitting behind a keyboard. In real life, under immense stress, all that goes out the window. That's why good cops are trained in de-escalation, they get to practice such things over and over again until they can maintain their calm in those situations.
Yes, I did:
1) There are non-uniformed people drawing down on her too
2) Even the uniformed people aren't wearing traditional uniforms - they have white shirts.
It's looking more and more like all the shots fired were by the Police...
It is looking even more like:
1) a distraced mother with a baby in the backseat took a wrong turn driving in DC
2) accidentally ran into some low-visibility short-height pole barriers
(see this view on google streetview)
3) was confronted by plain-clothes police brandishing firearms
4) was scared shitless for herself and her baby and took off
5) was chased for a while until she got out of the car
6) was shot dead
To me, this looks like a case of cops who have been militarized to the point of neglecting training on de-escalation. Hyped to believe that terrorists are hiding under every rock, they over-reacted when they should have realized that it was just the far more likely scenario of a regular citizen finding herself in an unfamiliar and threatening situation.
I replied to correct your error. I was quite specific in my response and you inappropriately tried to turn that into a generalization.
Yep, I tried to draw meaning from your snippy retort. Guess there wasn't any there to begin with.
have no interest in debating the position of every past, present, or future recipient of the award
So why did you even respond a second time? Denying the applicability to the other nominees sure sounds like debate.
So what? You didn't dispute the basis of my post, are you doing so now? Under what rationale? Or was it really just another way for your to be snippy about some group you don't like?
An award will make no difference whatsoever in prosecuting Snowden
So your position is that the award is of no value to any of the recipients. Thanks for sharing.
Awards are for those that need them.
Pissing off the US Govt. may mean that Snowden is happy with that
Yes, that was clearly Snowden's goal. Social change, government by consent, he didn't even think about that hippy-dippy stuff.
No award is going to protect that girl from more attacks by the Taliban. They don't give a damn about what the west thinks about her, if anything they'll see it as a challenge - once again the west trying to attack their religion. But if the award goes to Snowden it makes it that much harder for the US to put him in prison.
If the US tried to put Mandela in prison for being a terrorist, the way SA did before he received the award, the political blow-back would be enormous.
Forget little dinky nano-tubes in your ears, a real man would put plasma arcs in their headphones. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyVTvtgm11o
What governments would those be which are restrained by the law, let alone common decency?
A representative government is a product of the law so of course it is restrained by the law. Just because individual actors within the government aren't 100% restrained by the law does not invalidate the principle that a representative government operates within the law.
The alternative to your nihilism is pure might-makes-right. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sounds like the Multics Cookie Monster.
The Wikipedia entry has a slightly different take on the story.
The tea party tactic of obstructing the government funding in order to bully their agenda into place is EXPLICITLY terrorism. The creation of terror for political gain.
Baloney. You've watered down the word "terrorism" to mean everything and nothing. Nobody is "terrified" about the government funding. That's just political brinkmanship.
You really are part of the problem with that kind of crap.
Quite a few Americans are terrorists. They are called Tea Party members or NSA employees.
I think the Tea Party are mostly toolbags, but fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. That kind of hyperbole only serves to pull focus from the problem of the NSA - assholes like you are aiding the NSA, not fighting them.
Measures could have been taken...
Any system with an IOMMU can be made immune to this sort of attack.
So Ted Cruz just fauxilibustered for like 24 hours trying to convince us that Obamacare is Nazism on steroids. If he had any sense of strategy he would have been pointing at the NSA and saying that they are going to slurp up every bit of medical data that Obamacare creates, that the NSA is going to have your most intimate medical details on file at their fingertips.
Even if you don't tell anyone that you've got herpes the NSA will know it. They will know when you are pregnant, when you miscarry, when you decide to have an abortion because your fetus tests positive for down syndrome. They will know the results of any DNA parentage tests even when you don't tell your own family.
I think you're confusing responsibility with blandness. It's perfectly possible to be creative and responsible. And bland and irresponsible.
No, conforming to societal expectations is not about being responsible, it is about being a conformist which is antithetical to being creative.
Which means you get sneaker scoundrels, which is what they want, I guess.
You get more extremes - more people who are utterly bland (and thus only suited for cog-in-the-machine type work that doesn't require any creativity) and more people who are devious enough to fool the system into being utterly bland. Which may well have the effect of pushing for even more invasive background investigations. Pretty much a fail all around.
Now how about some research on actually persuading your child to have a nap, rather than a protracted battle of wills that gets everyone on edge.
The article actually covers that. It may even be the most practical information in the entire thing - rub their feet. They report that it was surprising how well it worked. Sounds like it is the next best thing to an "off" switch.
Mods are on conspiracy crack tonight too.