The problem with the police is that as it is now, they become ElCheapo contract killers and a danger to everyone. That is in no way acceptable. If you kill without very good reason, you must face the music. And this must even be more true for a cop, who has training and special powers and hence must be held to a higher standard. Instead, as it is now, they can be almost sure to walk away without even get sacked from what would be called murder by any sane person. That does contribute to the problem. If you are not willing to occasionally risk your life to make sure you need to kill the other person before doing it, then do not become a cop. The job is very safe as it is, but some level of personal courage is needed and it seems more and more cops do lack that. And some just seem to be killers that finally found a way that allows them to get away with it.
Indeed. Cops must not be allowed to escalate to lethal until they have solid evidence it is needed. Otherwise they become a massive danger to everyone.
First entirely sane posting, I think. The swatters did indeed try to inflict serious harm and accepted that there would be a killing. The cops did kill when there was zero need to and no good, solid evidence saying otherwise. I think a charge of voluntary manslaughter for both the shooter and the swatters would be pretty appropriate. The cops have to be held to a higher standard, of course, because they have training and special powers.
Sounds pretty much like a bunch of homicidal cowards vastly overestimating their understanding of the situation. Just the people you do _not_ want to see armed under any circumstances.
There is not really a way around this and there are numerous ways to bypass any protection mechanism. This is hardly news, except to the clueless that believe the marketing hype.
It is probably a case where a lot of pressure to perform was applied to the engineers by some clueless MBA bean-counter and, in addition, nobody apparently had the experience and training to realize how woefully inadequate a "safety driver" is in such a set-up actually is.
Indeed. And apparently a mindset of "it is only software", just that it is not your browser that crashes here. The MBAs are the Plague and Cholera rolled all in one.
Paying attention all the time while driving is hard if you do the driving yourself. When you are just watching for problems, it becomes pretty much impossible. Whoever thought his set-up was a good idea is the one that actually is responsible for the kill.
It did drive by itself, obviously. It drove over somebody, but it was clearly self-driving doing that. I think you are confused about the terminology used here.
Einstein was a product of his time in that. Translated to today he was pretty much an atheist as he did not belief in a personal God that concerned itself with individuals an their fate. He believed such a stance to be naive and childish.
Just continue to be stupid. It is no use arguing with people like you, you have all the answers and no clue. There is just no basis to explain actual reality to you, you are utterly disconnected.
Naaa, cannot be. This does not fit the political narrative, so it must obviously be untrue. Lets see what the liar-in-chief tweets about it, then we will know what to believe!
Alternatively, they just have terminally incompetent and grossly underfunded IT people. That strikes me as a massively bigger risk than the alleged (but not really credible) risks from Kaspersky.
Indeed. Fortunately, it still looks like Kaspersky's collusion with the Russian government is about as real as the WMDs in Irak. My personal take is still that Kaspersky is likely the only AV vendor that flat-out refused to work for the either NSA and that the US government is pissed at that.
What "rapid advancement"? No such thing is happening. It is still the same dumb automation that was available 30 years ago, just a lot faster and cheaper. It is not suitable to solve the malware problem as that is not a question of speed.
If I get something that I want and would not have gotten otherwise and I get it at a much lower price, I am stupid? I think you are confused as to what "stupid" means.
Np. An "investor" is somebody that gives money to something expecting some chance of some return. You seem to have trouble understanding the English language.
Neither. I fund things that have a realistic chance of working from the history of the people working on it and the description of the project. In fact, I have funded almost everything I am interested in. The problem is that a) the risk of crows-funding gets vastly overstated in the press and b) it is not hard to spot the ones that have really no chance to deliver c) many people do crowd-funding that do not understand the risk is theirs, obvious as it is. Group c) then complains loudly when reality reminds them of the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the police is that as it is now, they become ElCheapo contract killers and a danger to everyone. That is in no way acceptable. If you kill without very good reason, you must face the music. And this must even be more true for a cop, who has training and special powers and hence must be held to a higher standard. Instead, as it is now, they can be almost sure to walk away without even get sacked from what would be called murder by any sane person. That does contribute to the problem. If you are not willing to occasionally risk your life to make sure you need to kill the other person before doing it, then do not become a cop. The job is very safe as it is, but some level of personal courage is needed and it seems more and more cops do lack that. And some just seem to be killers that finally found a way that allows them to get away with it.
Indeed. Cops must not be allowed to escalate to lethal until they have solid evidence it is needed. Otherwise they become a massive danger to everyone.
First entirely sane posting, I think. The swatters did indeed try to inflict serious harm and accepted that there would be a killing. The cops did kill when there was zero need to and no good, solid evidence saying otherwise. I think a charge of voluntary manslaughter for both the shooter and the swatters would be pretty appropriate. The cops have to be held to a higher standard, of course, because they have training and special powers.
You are incorrect, stupid and disconnected from reality. Well, just a typical "AC" in fact.
Sounds pretty much like a bunch of homicidal cowards vastly overestimating their understanding of the situation. Just the people you do _not_ want to see armed under any circumstances.
Because people are stupid.
There is not really a way around this and there are numerous ways to bypass any protection mechanism. This is hardly news, except to the clueless that believe the marketing hype.
Indeed. I would go so far that the whole idea of a "superfood" is a marketing construct that does not make much sense and is actually pretty stupid.
It is probably a case where a lot of pressure to perform was applied to the engineers by some clueless MBA bean-counter and, in addition, nobody apparently had the experience and training to realize how woefully inadequate a "safety driver" is in such a set-up actually is.
Indeed. And apparently a mindset of "it is only software", just that it is not your browser that crashes here. The MBAs are the Plague and Cholera rolled all in one.
Paying attention all the time while driving is hard if you do the driving yourself. When you are just watching for problems, it becomes pretty much impossible. Whoever thought his set-up was a good idea is the one that actually is responsible for the kill.
It did drive by itself, obviously. It drove over somebody, but it was clearly self-driving doing that. I think you are confused about the terminology used here.
I would say just human average. Which is pretty damn stupid.
Ah, yes, the Slashdot Effect. Good times!
Einstein was a product of his time in that. Translated to today he was pretty much an atheist as he did not belief in a personal God that concerned itself with individuals an their fate. He believed such a stance to be naive and childish.
Childish, but that seems to be the level politics is made at today.
Just continue to be stupid. It is no use arguing with people like you, you have all the answers and no clue. There is just no basis to explain actual reality to you, you are utterly disconnected.
Naaa, cannot be. This does not fit the political narrative, so it must obviously be untrue. Lets see what the liar-in-chief tweets about it, then we will know what to believe!
Alternatively, they just have terminally incompetent and grossly underfunded IT people. That strikes me as a massively bigger risk than the alleged (but not really credible) risks from Kaspersky.
Indeed. Fortunately, it still looks like Kaspersky's collusion with the Russian government is about as real as the WMDs in Irak. My personal take is still that Kaspersky is likely the only AV vendor that flat-out refused to work for the either NSA and that the US government is pissed at that.
What "rapid advancement"? No such thing is happening. It is still the same dumb automation that was available 30 years ago, just a lot faster and cheaper. It is not suitable to solve the malware problem as that is not a question of speed.
If I get something that I want and would not have gotten otherwise and I get it at a much lower price, I am stupid? I think you are confused as to what "stupid" means.
You think of a specific type of investor. The word is far more general than your limited understanding.
Np. An "investor" is somebody that gives money to something expecting some chance of some return. You seem to have trouble understanding the English language.
Neither. I fund things that have a realistic chance of working from the history of the people working on it and the description of the project. In fact, I have funded almost everything I am interested in. The problem is that a) the risk of crows-funding gets vastly overstated in the press and b) it is not hard to spot the ones that have really no chance to deliver c) many people do crowd-funding that do not understand the risk is theirs, obvious as it is. Group c) then complains loudly when reality reminds them of the facts.