If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.
Truly. I'm pretty sure the Right To Bear Cameras was written into the constitution for exactly this purpose. It's only in the last few decades that the government has started trying to take this Fundamental Right away from God Fearing Americans!
The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions.
One video shot by a bystander can lead to massive riots, cops thrown in jail for trying to do their jobs, and a serial-offender being given $3 million for resisting arrest.
It's a question of balance. Cameras lie, all the time, and people overreact all the time. I don't mind being shot at, spit on, verbally and physically assaulted, and exposed to various other risks as a part of my daily job - but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job to the best of my ability is the moment I find something less dangerous to do. I'm all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them..... that's wrong. Period.
That's the wrong lesson. What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.
Yeah, it's funny, when I was in school, every time I stood up in class and yelled "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST IMPERIALIST BRAINWASHING OF YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS MRS. B!!!", I'd get sent to the principals office and otherwise punished.
Fuckers. Abusing their authority to punish me for such a trivial thing.
This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?
People who aren't ignorant of the law "buy" it, sure. A police officer doesn't generally have to tell you why you're under arrest - they only have to tell you that you are under arrest. If you resist, that, in and of itself, is an arrestable offense.
Idiots get confused about this all the time. For instance, when I - many moons ago - was working as a rent-a-cop, a typical conversation might go like this:
me: "Sorry sir, you're going to have to leave the property" idiot: "Why, I didn't do anything wrong" me: "Sir, it doesn't matter why. The owners of this property have asked that you be removed. Please leave now or I will have to arrest you." idiot: "You can't arrest me, I didn't do anything wrong!"
this would get repeated a few times, until I finally break out the cuffs. Then he'd either run or fight, there'd be much merriment all around, with lots of cursing and the ol' left-right. It would inevitably end with:
idiot: "YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME! I HAVE RIGHTS! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME!" me: "well, resisting arrest, for one".
Hope that clears things up for you. Remember, kids, nobody likes a tap-room lawyer!
Scientists are bad at the gym? Is that a stereotype? Never heard that before. I know some marathon-running, rock-climbing scientists that would probably take issue with that.
Sure, and I know some slashdot readers who actually RTFA, but we're talking general trends here!
and yet we still cannot create a system where you understand the person taking your order for a simple burger and fries without having them repeat themselves and screaming into the loud speaker.
Sure we can; it's called "don't go through the drive-through".
I could name off at least 3 different ways to fix the problem you're bitching about, but nobody really cares enough to go to the expense of implementing them. The newer generations of smart-phones - with "swipe" payment and data-sharing abilities - open up some interesting possibilities, but it's still going to take time.
I don't suppose "MS, your security sucks" would qualify as new information, although that's "who's" ultimately responsible for the success of this botnet. Oh well.
Thank you for that "information". Your reward is a free kick in the balls with a frozen mukluk. Please post your address in a followup comment. Expedited delivery is available at a cost of $15. Thank you.
There was really nothing else to be said. You're clearly not speaking for me, or for anyone I know. Since you used the word "we", I drew the logical conclusion. I'm not sure where the "effort" is supposed to come in.
Way to misunderstand.. If we're so 'advanced' we shouldn't be acting the same way our 'savage' ancestors, which, unfortunately we are
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how I can help you, though. If you're so disgusted by your own behavior, I would think you'd be able to change it.
Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied
Nobody, anywhere, gave a shit about the natives. They weren't considered "civilized", and they were barely considered human. The only reason you criticize their actions today is because of the change in attitudes which occurred in the intervening centuries. I don't see the point. It's quite possible that our descendants will one day call us a bunch of brutal assholes because we kill those cute little moo-cows, but their judgment of us will be every bit as ignorant as your judgement of our ancestors. Context matters.
By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."
Fair enough - I figured you were referring to the more recent trend of pointing out such incidents any time someone uses the word "terrorism". You know, the way you just did.
It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.
It is tiresome that any attempt to criticize Americas enemies is immediately met with excuses and attempts to draw moral equivalence. This conversation wasn't about "early American history".
A matter of policy.
Citation?
Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty.
So you're comparing tarring and feathering to suicide bombings of mosques and markets?
Are you feeling alright? Make sure you're not running a fever.
Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists.
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
First, the military targets people in areas with poor quality education and therefore little hope of doing anything better than frying potatoes. This has been shown by many studies.
See, now you're just lying again. Or delusional. Whatever. Either way, a quick and simple google search would have shown you just how wrong you are.
Second, while the military does test for intelligence (brain power) and tries to push the high scorers towards Intelligence (secret stuff) and electronics, recruiters lie to potential recruits in what - to astute individuals - are obvious ways.
And what might those ways be, hrm?
Third, once in the military, there is a constant barrage of mis- and dis-information directed at the soldier
lol. You really are delusional:) but it's hilarious to watch you opine on a subject with which you have not even a smidgeon of familiarity.
Finally, I would call into any serious question any statistics presented by the military as to the intelligence of their members.
Of course you would. Paranoia often accompanies delusions. And when the numbers are against you, it's much easier to cry "CONSPIRACY!!!!" than it is to revise your views based on the data.
However, from my own direct observations it seems that the military actually selects for gullible people who will believe any absurd line of bull-shit if it is repeated often enough by people who claim to be in authority.
Yeah, it's true. Just the other day, I overheard a military recruiter telling an applicant "sorry sir, but you're just not near as gullible as we'd like. have you considered repeatedly running head-first into a wall? or perhaps getting a lobotomy?"
Since the intelligence/education statistics show the military scoring better than the general public, I'd tend to think that "gullibility" would follow a similar trend. I'd love to see the information you're using as the basis for your conclusion. But what I'd REALLY love to hear is an explanation of how you imagine such "selection" would be implemented. I have a feeling it would be quite amusing.
As it turns out, I am delusional
No worries - at least you're able to admit your mistakes and problems. Cheers.
Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.
Blah blah blah.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
And my other comment saying the same thing got modded down, too, so let's try again. Go ahead, assholes, I've got karma to burn.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time finding the part of the constitution where it says that you should give state secrets to an Australian megalomaniac. Could you point it out for me?
It's disgusting to me that gullible idiots like you are so common. Mannings betrayal of his nation resulted in practically zero new data; the vast majority - if not all - of the incidents contained within the reports had already been reported in the media. Yet twats like you will go to your grave insisting that he's some hero who exposed Teh Gubberments EEREEVIL CUVERUP!!!!! It's pathetic.
Where Manning made his mistake was in reporting to the wrong people
Where Manning made his mistake was in joining the military, instead of frying potatoes at the local burger-joint. Anyone who hears "you have a duty to report any illegal acts you witness" and thinks "hey, I'm going to take hundreds of thousands of field reports and diplomatic cables, and hand them to a shady group on the internet" is a fucking idiot, and has no business wearing a uniform. Period, full stop.
Granted, he saw widespread violations of the law
What a load of horse-shit. Being opposed to the wars doesn't give you the freedom to invent a whole new reality. Are you intentionally lying, or are you just delusional?
If your conscience is telling you to betray your country and endanger people just so you can impress your boyfriend, there is something very wrong with you.
Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.
Blah blah blah.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
And my other comment saying the same thing got modded down, too, so let's try again. Go ahead, assholes, I've got karma to burn.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
Slashdot Mirror
And the resident fascist checks in
It's cute when you use words which you don't understand :)
i dont remember any police force in any country having been given the authority to interpret laws.
You're joking, right? What do you think they're doing every time they make an arrest?
If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.
Truly. I'm pretty sure the Right To Bear Cameras was written into the constitution for exactly this purpose. It's only in the last few decades that the government has started trying to take this Fundamental Right away from God Fearing Americans!
The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions.
One video shot by a bystander can lead to massive riots, cops thrown in jail for trying to do their jobs, and a serial-offender being given $3 million for resisting arrest.
It's a question of balance. Cameras lie, all the time, and people overreact all the time. I don't mind being shot at, spit on, verbally and physically assaulted, and exposed to various other risks as a part of my daily job - but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job to the best of my ability is the moment I find something less dangerous to do. I'm all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them ..... that's wrong. Period.
That's the wrong lesson. What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.
Yeah, it's funny, when I was in school, every time I stood up in class and yelled "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST IMPERIALIST BRAINWASHING OF YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS MRS. B!!!", I'd get sent to the principals office and otherwise punished.
Fuckers. Abusing their authority to punish me for such a trivial thing.
This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?
People who aren't ignorant of the law "buy" it, sure. A police officer doesn't generally have to tell you why you're under arrest - they only have to tell you that you are under arrest. If you resist, that, in and of itself, is an arrestable offense.
Idiots get confused about this all the time. For instance, when I - many moons ago - was working as a rent-a-cop, a typical conversation might go like this:
me: "Sorry sir, you're going to have to leave the property"
idiot: "Why, I didn't do anything wrong"
me: "Sir, it doesn't matter why. The owners of this property have asked that you be removed. Please leave now or I will have to arrest you."
idiot: "You can't arrest me, I didn't do anything wrong!"
this would get repeated a few times, until I finally break out the cuffs. Then he'd either run or fight, there'd be much merriment all around, with lots of cursing and the ol' left-right. It would inevitably end with:
idiot: "YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME! I HAVE RIGHTS! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME!"
me: "well, resisting arrest, for one".
Hope that clears things up for you. Remember, kids, nobody likes a tap-room lawyer!
Scientists are bad at the gym? Is that a stereotype? Never heard that before. I know some marathon-running, rock-climbing scientists that would probably take issue with that.
Sure, and I know some slashdot readers who actually RTFA, but we're talking general trends here!
and yet we still cannot create a system where you understand the person taking your order for a simple burger and fries without having them repeat themselves and screaming into the loud speaker .
Sure we can; it's called "don't go through the drive-through".
I could name off at least 3 different ways to fix the problem you're bitching about, but nobody really cares enough to go to the expense of implementing them. The newer generations of smart-phones - with "swipe" payment and data-sharing abilities - open up some interesting possibilities, but it's still going to take time.
ENGLISH. DO YOU SPEAK IT?
I don't suppose "MS, your security sucks" would qualify as new information, although that's "who's" ultimately responsible for the success of this botnet. Oh well.
Thank you for that "information". Your reward is a free kick in the balls with a frozen mukluk. Please post your address in a followup comment. Expedited delivery is available at a cost of $15. Thank you.
I wonder if they rake in 250k a month (or week) renting such a botnet? May start leading to some entertaining extortion...
Well ...
1. It's a REALLY bad idea to try and extort criminals.
and
2. Personally, I'd rather report it Microsoft anyway. $250k is a big enough reward to allow morality to win out over greed ;)
There was really nothing else to be said. You're clearly not speaking for me, or for anyone I know. Since you used the word "we", I drew the logical conclusion. I'm not sure where the "effort" is supposed to come in.
Way to misunderstand.. If we're so 'advanced' we shouldn't be acting the same way our 'savage' ancestors, which, unfortunately we are
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how I can help you, though. If you're so disgusted by your own behavior, I would think you'd be able to change it.
Yes, I'm sure the founders had very high ideals of liberty and freedom for the natives of the land they occupied
Nobody, anywhere, gave a shit about the natives. They weren't considered "civilized", and they were barely considered human. The only reason you criticize their actions today is because of the change in attitudes which occurred in the intervening centuries. I don't see the point. It's quite possible that our descendants will one day call us a bunch of brutal assholes because we kill those cute little moo-cows, but their judgment of us will be every bit as ignorant as your judgement of our ancestors. Context matters.
By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."
Fair enough - I figured you were referring to the more recent trend of pointing out such incidents any time someone uses the word "terrorism". You know, the way you just did.
It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.
It is tiresome that any attempt to criticize Americas enemies is immediately met with excuses and attempts to draw moral equivalence. This conversation wasn't about "early American history".
A matter of policy.
Citation?
Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty.
So you're comparing tarring and feathering to suicide bombings of mosques and markets?
Are you feeling alright? Make sure you're not running a fever.
Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists.
The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.
Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.
Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?
These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.
First, the military targets people in areas with poor quality education and therefore little hope of doing anything better than frying potatoes. This has been shown by many studies.
See, now you're just lying again. Or delusional. Whatever. Either way, a quick and simple google search would have shown you just how wrong you are.
Second, while the military does test for intelligence (brain power) and tries to push the high scorers towards Intelligence (secret stuff) and electronics, recruiters lie to potential recruits in what - to astute individuals - are obvious ways.
And what might those ways be, hrm?
Third, once in the military, there is a constant barrage of mis- and dis-information directed at the soldier
lol. You really are delusional :) but it's hilarious to watch you opine on a subject with which you have not even a smidgeon of familiarity.
Finally, I would call into any serious question any statistics presented by the military as to the intelligence of their members.
Of course you would. Paranoia often accompanies delusions. And when the numbers are against you, it's much easier to cry "CONSPIRACY!!!!" than it is to revise your views based on the data.
However, from my own direct observations it seems that the military actually selects for gullible people who will believe any absurd line of bull-shit if it is repeated often enough by people who claim to be in authority.
Yeah, it's true. Just the other day, I overheard a military recruiter telling an applicant "sorry sir, but you're just not near as gullible as we'd like. have you considered repeatedly running head-first into a wall? or perhaps getting a lobotomy?"
Since the intelligence/education statistics show the military scoring better than the general public, I'd tend to think that "gullibility" would follow a similar trend. I'd love to see the information you're using as the basis for your conclusion. But what I'd REALLY love to hear is an explanation of how you imagine such "selection" would be implemented. I have a feeling it would be quite amusing.
As it turns out, I am delusional
No worries - at least you're able to admit your mistakes and problems. Cheers.
Here we go again...
Manning did nothing wrong.
Wired did everything wrong.
Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.
Blah blah blah.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
And my other comment saying the same thing got modded down, too, so let's try again. Go ahead, assholes, I've got karma to burn.
I'm not sure why I still come to this shit-pit.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time finding the part of the constitution where it says that you should give state secrets to an Australian megalomaniac. Could you point it out for me?
It's disgusting to me that gullible idiots like you are so common. Mannings betrayal of his nation resulted in practically zero new data; the vast majority - if not all - of the incidents contained within the reports had already been reported in the media. Yet twats like you will go to your grave insisting that he's some hero who exposed Teh Gubberments EEREEVIL CUVERUP!!!!! It's pathetic.
Where Manning made his mistake was in reporting to the wrong people
Where Manning made his mistake was in joining the military, instead of frying potatoes at the local burger-joint. Anyone who hears "you have a duty to report any illegal acts you witness" and thinks "hey, I'm going to take hundreds of thousands of field reports and diplomatic cables, and hand them to a shady group on the internet" is a fucking idiot, and has no business wearing a uniform. Period, full stop.
Granted, he saw widespread violations of the law
What a load of horse-shit. Being opposed to the wars doesn't give you the freedom to invent a whole new reality. Are you intentionally lying, or are you just delusional?
If your conscience is telling you to betray your country and endanger people just so you can impress your boyfriend, there is something very wrong with you.
Here we go again...
Manning did nothing wrong.
Wired did everything wrong.
Poor little Manning is being discriminated against and victimised.
Blah blah blah.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
And my other comment saying the same thing got modded down, too, so let's try again. Go ahead, assholes, I've got karma to burn.
I'm not sure why I still come to this shit-pit.
Awesome. You're getting modded down for accurately predicting what direction the comments would go in, while the idiot calling for Lamo to be murdered is getting modded up.
I'm not sure why I still come to this shit-pit.
I don't think civilian journalists can be awarded the Medal of Honour. But it's the thought that counts.