I think you missed the point. GP was stating if the roles were reversed, i.e. if there was a group of six "perps" beating on a single cop, how many of those perps would have made it to the station unharmed (once the cop's buddies arrived, of course).
So six perps beating a cop would get treated worse than one perp pumping six bullets into a cop?
Huh?
And "licensed to kill" does not imply "to serve and protect means licensed to kill", which was the basis for the GP's question. Killing is not part of the job, though it may as a last resort occasionally be necessary. Subduing with minimum force is the requirement.
Again - they wouldn't carry firearms if killing wasn't part of the job. We don't give weapons to firefighters, because we don't expect them to kill. I'm not sure how you're failing to understand this.
So you're trying to discount the Stanford Experiment because leadership creates the bias in an environment that subordinates emulate?
No, I'm discounting it as it relates to his claim that "it's almost inevitable for the police to turn into sadistic bullies". For it to have any validity at all, he would first need to show that all - or nearly all - police forces are structured to encourage and institutionalize sadism and bullying. Without that, he may as well be quoting Barney's "I Love You" song.
Corruption and abuse are practically inherent in the leadership of large police departments
[citation needed]
My sig should be an IQ test, I swear (why does everybody seem to miss the importance and meaning of 'labelled'?).
I got the word - I've just yet to see anyone being labelled a "conservative" for being pro-liberty. Not sure what kind of people you've been hanging out with. I find I get labelled a conservative by the left, and a liberal by the right, but that's because each side disagrees with some of my beliefs, and neither of them can see past the left/right dichotomy.
I don't like conservatives either, but at least they are more philosophically consistent.
Hardly. They'll go on all day about their rights and freedoms and the importance of the constitution, then turn right around and try to take away the rights of women and homosexuals, and completely ignore the 1st amendment. They may be no worse than the "liberals", but they're in no way consistent.
You're right, I am feeling lazy, so I'll just point you here and here.
Also, I think your sig makes no sense whatsoever. "Conservatives" are generally in favour of criminalizing everything, from gay marriage, drugs, and prostitution, to abortions, sex education, and the teaching of evolution. Sure, that's a broad generalization (for instance, fiscal conservatives such as myself tend not to share the social conservatives values) but it's a much more accurate generalization than the one in your sig. Liberals and libertareans are the ones in favor of legalizing everything - not conservatives. Either I'm missing something, or there's something very wrong with you.
Nope. Don't care. Camera footage is often misleading. I'll wait until more information is available.
Now what do you think would have happened if some of the witnesses had decided not just to be bystanders but to intervene to tell the cops to stop?
They'd be in jail, obviously.
Or imagine that it was a cop who had been assaulted in that fashion - do you think the perps would all make it to the station, let alone trial?
Yes, and yes. As a matter of fact, one of the officers involved in this altercation was the victim of a shooting back in the '90s. Got shot in the face, losing his eye in the process, and then got shot 5 times in the back. The perp made it back to the station just fine, and to trial. Got life in prison, if I remember correctly. So yeah, your conspiracy-mongering is foolish, and completely unsupported by evidence.
And did you notice I wrote "Face the electric chair", not "string 'em up from the nearest tree"? I do want them to face trial - for murder in the 1st degree.
I noticed you wrote "murdered". You've already tried and convicted them - now you want a show trial to confirm your decision. If they're found to be innocent, I'm sure you'll be on here bitching about how the system is fixed and cops never get punished.
What will it take for the Blue Brotherhood to realize that "to serve and protect" doesn't mean "licensed to kill".
They ARE licensed to kill. You think those firearms on their belts are just there to look pretty? Killing is part of the job - how and why are the legitemate questions.
We're talking at least 12 years before the thing was considered anything more than an easily-dismissed conspiracy theory, and at least 7 years of operational activity.
Well, no. It became operational in 1983 and was "revealed" to the world in 1988 - that's more like 5 years of operational activity before everyone knew about it. There were certainly hints about it's existence prior to that, though, and there's little doubt in my mind that foreign governments knew about it well before the general public did.
More importantly, though, there's a WEEEE bit of a difference between "let's make a plane and not tell anyone" and "let's murder NASA scientists and then create a secret program to recover an alien space ship from Mars". The former is doable, if quite difficult - the latter is impossible.
I'd say that if the government was dead serious about a project, they could certainly pull it off. All they'd really ahve to do is fold it into some distractive left-right issue and the public would happily not know for a very long time.
Heh. I can just see it now. Obama standing behind his podium, saying "Yeah, it's true, we executed a bunch of scientists. But they were Republican scientists, dammit!".
Not sure how you'd wrap something like that into a left-right issue:p Anyway, while it may be easy to fool the public, it's much harder to fool your political opponents, or foreign governments.
Every spacefaring nation on earth would be building a mars ship starting this afternoon if that were the case.
Unfortunately, every spacefairing nation on Earth would also be shooting down anything launched by another spacefairing nation. That kind of discovery would either lead to an international mission based on mutual cooperation, or WW3.
Not quite. More like a bunch of NASA scientists disappearing or turning up dead, followed by a massive increase in the black ops budget and a mysterious tent built over half of New Mexico, guarded by some very serious men in suits. We'd hear about it in 10 years, maybe.
You're another one of those guys who think the X-Files was based on true stories, aren't ya?
If you think the government is competent enough to pull off any kind of serious conspiracy, you've obviously never worked with any government organization...
Nope, what has happened here is that the developer was surprised by the number of free downloads and used RIAA logic to convince themselves that they are out of pocket by $50k fairy dollars. What I see is that they've got an overnight customer base for word-of-mouth promotion plus 14 days of free advertising in a location seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day.
It's true - I've been looking for a good Podcast app, and this one seems to have some pretty kick-ass features. I'm tempted to buy it... the only thing holding me back is their take-my-ball-an-go approach to dealing with unanticipated problems. If they're willing to flip out on amazon and pull their product from the market, how do I know they won't just call it quits entirely a week after I buy the app?
Variety would worm its way into the system. Plus they would lose their precious total control over the "full user experience".
Again - I see no indication of this, nor a mechanism by which it might happen. You're saying the same thing as the first time, just using different words. Rephrasing your original point doesn't make it any more valid.
And for that matter why pick and choose when you can dictate.
If you have a large enough user base, you can do that anyway - just pick a manufacturer and tell him what you want. Better yet, put out a bid and see which manufacturer offers you the best deal. Just because you're not doing it in-house doesn't mean you can't get hardware made to spec.
Um, DC-AC inverters have existed for a long, LONG time. I have a 1,500W inverter for my car - it cost $120 on sale. You can pick up a 3,000W inverter for about $300. The only limitation is the power-rating of the car's generator; mine produces a maximum of 1,920W and is a bit on the beefy side - most cars would produce less. Still, 1,500W is plenty to power the basics.
the DA should be serving LIFE for this. with no parole. then maybe the rich white fucks will think again before ruining a guy's life!
Thaks for that calm, reasonable assesment of the situation, and for not resorting to race-baiting or a lynch-mob mentality. Individuals such as yourself are an invaluable part of the slashdot community. Keep up the good work!
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium. Not an energy "source".
Everything - from gasoline and methane, to uranium and the Sun - is an energy storage medium. If you don't understand this, you don't understand thermodynamics.
Much as I hate apple, the tie in that have with software and hardware is one of the advantages they have over PC from (most) consumer perspectives. The operating system works nearly perfectly with the hardware because they define the hardware. They don't have to deal with a bazillion unique configurations.. only a few that they've chosen.
And how, exactly, do you think that splitting up their hardware division from their software division would effect this? Why couldn't they simply continue to pick and choose which hardware they support?
The problem with MS, Linux, and other such OS vendors/models is that they advertise the ability to support a large variety of hardware. There's nothing stopping MS from saying "screw this, from now on we'll only support a small number of machines which have gone through our certification process". If they did, they'd have the same "advantage" as Apple, without having to start cranking out their own PC's.
How relatively low on comparative indices of economic mobility and relatively high on comparative indices of economic inequality do we have to be before "pessimistic bastards" get to be "empiricists"?
If you'd quoted wikipedia for both of your links, I might take you seriously. Of course, for economic mobility you chose not to link to wikipedia because it provides counter-arguments to the study you quote. So, given the way you're cherry-picking your sources, can you give me a reason why I should answer your question?
I'm acknowledging the end-game of free-for-alls where no one gives a shit about their fellow man.
Again, you're either trolling, or you're seriously out of touch with reality. If the former, please, go away. If the latter, do yourself a favor and try either reading some books on the subject, or having an honest discussion with a libertarian. Either way, your current strawman arguments are completely pointless.
Depends on the price and durability. If I could get the discs for $5 a piece or less, and if they managed to write properly and survive sitting on a shelf for a few years (unlike all my old DVDs) I'd certainly buy them. I could back up my 13 terabyte file server with 26 discs - well worth it for the added redundancy.
No, I don't have any great solution to propose, but telling those less well off something like "hey, this slop is better than the stuff they get in that other country over there" doesn't seem like it is likely to have much success.
*shrug* ok, so don't tell them anything. "Shut up and work" seems to have gotten us through the centuries rather well.
I think you're wrong, by the way - monitary inequality doesn't neccessarily lead to social unrest. As long as peolpe believe that they, too, are able to become rich, the inequality tends to spur work and innovation rather than starting revolutions. It only becomes a problem if there is no "upward mobility" for the middle and lower-class, or if most of your citizens are pessimistic bastards who think that there's no upward mobility. Slashdot seems to suffer from the latter.
I'm willing to bet that if the findings had shown that solar was way behind other energy sources then many (if not most) of the people who post 'Jobs per watt, what a bullshit metric' would be posting instead about the absolute value of the metric rather than the metric itself. There'd be quite a few more posts of the 'See solar is bullshit'.
I'll take that bet. Larger number of jobs per unit output gives more cause to claim that solar is bullshit. If it only provided one job per gigawatt, I'd be saying "hrm, maybe this solar thing is a good idea after all". The fewer jobs it takes to produce energy, the cheaper it will be; THAT is why everyone is bitching about this "jobs/megawatt" metric. If you don't realize that, you must not have been reading the comments.
That may have some basis it truth, but it ignores the psychological effect that people tend to compare themselves not with 99% of humanity, but with the people right next to them. If a large fraction of a country's population thinks it is being given the shaft, social unrest can become a real problem.
NEWSFLASH: People are stupid, irrational, and prone to violence. Film at 11.
What's the solution? Segregate the classes? Maybe we can have a caste system, like India.
No, that's not what he said. If we assume monopolistic control, then yes, the average person has no interest in efficiency, at least for the short term. However, he wasn't speaking about monopolies - he was making a broad generalization, stating that the average Joe doesn't care about efficiency because it might put him out of a job. While there's some truth to that, he misses the larger point which was made earlier; that improved efficiency raises the average quality of life simply by providing more goods and/or services at a lower cost. While it may negatively impact a small percentage of the population, temporarily, it has a positive impact on everyone else. This is how the human species got to where we are today - those who argue against it are fools, at best.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the point. GP was stating if the roles were reversed, i.e. if there was a group of six "perps" beating on a single cop, how many of those perps would have made it to the station unharmed (once the cop's buddies arrived, of course).
So six perps beating a cop would get treated worse than one perp pumping six bullets into a cop?
Huh?
And "licensed to kill" does not imply "to serve and protect means licensed to kill", which was the basis for the GP's question. Killing is not part of the job, though it may as a last resort occasionally be necessary. Subduing with minimum force is the requirement.
Again - they wouldn't carry firearms if killing wasn't part of the job. We don't give weapons to firefighters, because we don't expect them to kill. I'm not sure how you're failing to understand this.
Will you just fuck off and find another website to be a lazy useless cunt on?
[citation needed]
So you're trying to discount the Stanford Experiment because leadership creates the bias in an environment that subordinates emulate?
No, I'm discounting it as it relates to his claim that "it's almost inevitable for the police to turn into sadistic bullies". For it to have any validity at all, he would first need to show that all - or nearly all - police forces are structured to encourage and institutionalize sadism and bullying. Without that, he may as well be quoting Barney's "I Love You" song.
Corruption and abuse are practically inherent in the leadership of large police departments
[citation needed]
My sig should be an IQ test, I swear (why does everybody seem to miss the importance and meaning of 'labelled'?).
I got the word - I've just yet to see anyone being labelled a "conservative" for being pro-liberty. Not sure what kind of people you've been hanging out with. I find I get labelled a conservative by the left, and a liberal by the right, but that's because each side disagrees with some of my beliefs, and neither of them can see past the left/right dichotomy.
I don't like conservatives either, but at least they are more philosophically consistent.
Hardly. They'll go on all day about their rights and freedoms and the importance of the constitution, then turn right around and try to take away the rights of women and homosexuals, and completely ignore the 1st amendment. They may be no worse than the "liberals", but they're in no way consistent.
You're right, I am feeling lazy, so I'll just point you here and here.
Also, I think your sig makes no sense whatsoever. "Conservatives" are generally in favour of criminalizing everything, from gay marriage, drugs, and prostitution, to abortions, sex education, and the teaching of evolution. Sure, that's a broad generalization (for instance, fiscal conservatives such as myself tend not to share the social conservatives values) but it's a much more accurate generalization than the one in your sig. Liberals and libertareans are the ones in favor of legalizing everything - not conservatives. Either I'm missing something, or there's something very wrong with you.
Did you watch the clip?
Nope. Don't care. Camera footage is often misleading. I'll wait until more information is available.
Now what do you think would have happened if some of the witnesses had decided not just to be bystanders but to intervene to tell the cops to stop?
They'd be in jail, obviously.
Or imagine that it was a cop who had been assaulted in that fashion - do you think the perps would all make it to the station, let alone trial?
Yes, and yes. As a matter of fact, one of the officers involved in this altercation was the victim of a shooting back in the '90s. Got shot in the face, losing his eye in the process, and then got shot 5 times in the back. The perp made it back to the station just fine, and to trial. Got life in prison, if I remember correctly. So yeah, your conspiracy-mongering is foolish, and completely unsupported by evidence.
And did you notice I wrote "Face the electric chair", not "string 'em up from the nearest tree"? I do want them to face trial - for murder in the 1st degree.
I noticed you wrote "murdered". You've already tried and convicted them - now you want a show trial to confirm your decision. If they're found to be innocent, I'm sure you'll be on here bitching about how the system is fixed and cops never get punished.
What will it take for the Blue Brotherhood to realize that "to serve and protect" doesn't mean "licensed to kill".
They ARE licensed to kill. You think those firearms on their belts are just there to look pretty? Killing is part of the job - how and why are the legitemate questions.
Many police are sadistic bullies, and even the "good cops" accept it, so the good cops in their complicity are bad cops too.
[citation needed]
People who are framed by the cops usually go to jail, sometimes to death row.
[citation needed]
If you look at Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment you'll see that it's almost inevitable for the police to turn into sadistic bullies.
[citation retarded]
Yeah, who needs a trial, anyway. Just hang them right now. The slashdot lynch-mob is never wrong!
We're talking at least 12 years before the thing was considered anything more than an easily-dismissed conspiracy theory, and at least 7 years of operational activity.
Well, no. It became operational in 1983 and was "revealed" to the world in 1988 - that's more like 5 years of operational activity before everyone knew about it. There were certainly hints about it's existence prior to that, though, and there's little doubt in my mind that foreign governments knew about it well before the general public did.
More importantly, though, there's a WEEEE bit of a difference between "let's make a plane and not tell anyone" and "let's murder NASA scientists and then create a secret program to recover an alien space ship from Mars". The former is doable, if quite difficult - the latter is impossible.
I'd say that if the government was dead serious about a project, they could certainly pull it off. All they'd really ahve to do is fold it into some distractive left-right issue and the public would happily not know for a very long time.
Heh. I can just see it now. Obama standing behind his podium, saying "Yeah, it's true, we executed a bunch of scientists. But they were Republican scientists, dammit!".
Not sure how you'd wrap something like that into a left-right issue :p Anyway, while it may be easy to fool the public, it's much harder to fool your political opponents, or foreign governments.
They finally located the great stone ass of Mars!
Naw, we found that years ago. His name is Richard Hoagland.
Every spacefaring nation on earth would be building a mars ship starting this afternoon if that were the case.
Unfortunately, every spacefairing nation on Earth would also be shooting down anything launched by another spacefairing nation. That kind of discovery would either lead to an international mission based on mutual cooperation, or WW3.
Not quite. More like a bunch of NASA scientists disappearing or turning up dead, followed by a massive increase in the black ops budget and a mysterious tent built over half of New Mexico, guarded by some very serious men in suits. We'd hear about it in 10 years, maybe.
You're another one of those guys who think the X-Files was based on true stories, aren't ya?
If you think the government is competent enough to pull off any kind of serious conspiracy, you've obviously never worked with any government organization ...
Nope, what has happened here is that the developer was surprised by the number of free downloads and used RIAA logic to convince themselves that they are out of pocket by $50k fairy dollars. What I see is that they've got an overnight customer base for word-of-mouth promotion plus 14 days of free advertising in a location seen by hundreds of thousands of people a day.
It's true - I've been looking for a good Podcast app, and this one seems to have some pretty kick-ass features. I'm tempted to buy it ... the only thing holding me back is their take-my-ball-an-go approach to dealing with unanticipated problems. If they're willing to flip out on amazon and pull their product from the market, how do I know they won't just call it quits entirely a week after I buy the app?
Variety would worm its way into the system. Plus they would lose their precious total control over the "full user experience".
Again - I see no indication of this, nor a mechanism by which it might happen. You're saying the same thing as the first time, just using different words. Rephrasing your original point doesn't make it any more valid.
And for that matter why pick and choose when you can dictate.
If you have a large enough user base, you can do that anyway - just pick a manufacturer and tell him what you want. Better yet, put out a bid and see which manufacturer offers you the best deal. Just because you're not doing it in-house doesn't mean you can't get hardware made to spec.
Um, DC-AC inverters have existed for a long, LONG time. I have a 1,500W inverter for my car - it cost $120 on sale. You can pick up a 3,000W inverter for about $300. The only limitation is the power-rating of the car's generator; mine produces a maximum of 1,920W and is a bit on the beefy side - most cars would produce less. Still, 1,500W is plenty to power the basics.
the DA should be serving LIFE for this. with no parole. then maybe the rich white fucks will think again before ruining a guy's life!
Thaks for that calm, reasonable assesment of the situation, and for not resorting to race-baiting or a lynch-mob mentality. Individuals such as yourself are an invaluable part of the slashdot community. Keep up the good work!
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium. Not an energy "source".
Everything - from gasoline and methane, to uranium and the Sun - is an energy storage medium. If you don't understand this, you don't understand thermodynamics.
Much as I hate apple, the tie in that have with software and hardware is one of the advantages they have over PC from (most) consumer perspectives. The operating system works nearly perfectly with the hardware because they define the hardware. They don't have to deal with a bazillion unique configurations.. only a few that they've chosen.
And how, exactly, do you think that splitting up their hardware division from their software division would effect this? Why couldn't they simply continue to pick and choose which hardware they support?
The problem with MS, Linux, and other such OS vendors/models is that they advertise the ability to support a large variety of hardware. There's nothing stopping MS from saying "screw this, from now on we'll only support a small number of machines which have gone through our certification process". If they did, they'd have the same "advantage" as Apple, without having to start cranking out their own PC's.
How relatively low on comparative indices of economic mobility and relatively high on comparative indices of economic inequality do we have to be before "pessimistic bastards" get to be "empiricists"?
If you'd quoted wikipedia for both of your links, I might take you seriously. Of course, for economic mobility you chose not to link to wikipedia because it provides counter-arguments to the study you quote. So, given the way you're cherry-picking your sources, can you give me a reason why I should answer your question?
I'm acknowledging the end-game of free-for-alls where no one gives a shit about their fellow man.
Again, you're either trolling, or you're seriously out of touch with reality. If the former, please, go away. If the latter, do yourself a favor and try either reading some books on the subject, or having an honest discussion with a libertarian. Either way, your current strawman arguments are completely pointless.
Depends on the price and durability. If I could get the discs for $5 a piece or less, and if they managed to write properly and survive sitting on a shelf for a few years (unlike all my old DVDs) I'd certainly buy them. I could back up my 13 terabyte file server with 26 discs - well worth it for the added redundancy.
I read that Pakistan is closer to the libertarian ideal than Somalia, btw.
Yeah, because what Libertarians advocate for is a power-hungry theocracy which executes rape victims.
You're either trolling, or you're seriously out of touch with reality.
No, I don't have any great solution to propose, but telling those less well off something like "hey, this slop is better than the stuff they get in that other country over there" doesn't seem like it is likely to have much success.
*shrug* ok, so don't tell them anything. "Shut up and work" seems to have gotten us through the centuries rather well.
I think you're wrong, by the way - monitary inequality doesn't neccessarily lead to social unrest. As long as peolpe believe that they, too, are able to become rich, the inequality tends to spur work and innovation rather than starting revolutions. It only becomes a problem if there is no "upward mobility" for the middle and lower-class, or if most of your citizens are pessimistic bastards who think that there's no upward mobility. Slashdot seems to suffer from the latter.
I'm willing to bet that if the findings had shown that solar was way behind other energy sources then many (if not most) of the people who post 'Jobs per watt, what a bullshit metric' would be posting instead about the absolute value of the metric rather than the metric itself. There'd be quite a few more posts of the 'See solar is bullshit'.
I'll take that bet. Larger number of jobs per unit output gives more cause to claim that solar is bullshit. If it only provided one job per gigawatt, I'd be saying "hrm, maybe this solar thing is a good idea after all". The fewer jobs it takes to produce energy, the cheaper it will be; THAT is why everyone is bitching about this "jobs/megawatt" metric. If you don't realize that, you must not have been reading the comments.
That may have some basis it truth, but it ignores the psychological effect that people tend to compare themselves not with 99% of humanity, but with the people right next to them. If a large fraction of a country's population thinks it is being given the shaft, social unrest can become a real problem.
NEWSFLASH: People are stupid, irrational, and prone to violence. Film at 11.
What's the solution? Segregate the classes? Maybe we can have a caste system, like India.
No, that's not what he said. If we assume monopolistic control, then yes, the average person has no interest in efficiency, at least for the short term. However, he wasn't speaking about monopolies - he was making a broad generalization, stating that the average Joe doesn't care about efficiency because it might put him out of a job. While there's some truth to that, he misses the larger point which was made earlier; that improved efficiency raises the average quality of life simply by providing more goods and/or services at a lower cost. While it may negatively impact a small percentage of the population, temporarily, it has a positive impact on everyone else. This is how the human species got to where we are today - those who argue against it are fools, at best.