it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun
I don't think that's reasonable at all, but lets pretend you're a paranoid murdering police officer for a moment and agree: So you suspect someone may be potentially going for a gun.
The correct course of action here is heightened alertness, not killing an innocent unarmed man.
The US desperately needs the UK's ability to bring private prosecutions, so that the man's family can bring criminal charges against the murdering cunt that killed him.
Yeah, I've dropped many Android phones over the years. HTC, LG and Samsung 'top of range' models and the only one that's ever suffered screen damage is a Samsung S7.
Even there, it's suffered two chips to the bezel with no visible impact to the screen itself.
The bit that confuses me is how the hell I managed to drop my phone on the only bloody rock in the Sahara desert.
I've designed a device that will explode, killing several thousand people. It's easy to stop though, all you have to do is walk over to it and press the secret button.
If you fail to press the button, you're telling me that you're responsible for the death of thousands of people.
Design something inherently fucking flawed, don't go blaming the user.
Possible. If they omitted the link to another search engine then the court would itself be on dodgy grounds - you'd be entering super injunction territory and parliament really don't like those.
Well, Google are playing too nicely here. They absolutely should return results to a search for this individual's name with "The UK High Court has ruled that we must not provide you with a result to your search query. Click here to execute this search on Bing"
Nice comparison there between apples and sausages.
What's the human driven death rate per billion miles driven on highways in 0-4 year old $70k cars? I'm guessing it's significantly lower than 15/billion.
reddit wants to take no responsibility for moderation
That's not strictly true. Reddit admin will step in and ban people for (e.g.) requesting violence - apparently even where it's impractical or not credible.
Speech that people disagree with he's comfortable with. Speech that damages his business, less so. Speech that breaks the law, oddly enough he'll do his best to prevent.
That doesn't mean he isn't protecting speech, it just means the world is rather nuanced. I disagree that he's found a good balance, but that doesn't mean it's a binary scenario.
Even in the UK for example, it's perfectly legal for me to call you a fucking idiot. Especially when I have the evidence of your post to which I'm replying, which protects me should you want to claim libel.
It's ok though, I'm not trying to intimidate you. Just educate.
I'd need more context. It could be satire, it could be another form of comedy, it could be simple idiocy, it may even - unlikely as this sounds - be actual racism. Without additional context the one thing it sure as fuck isn't it a threat.
I'm also going to Germany next week and I'll count how many holes are in the shower head..
The websites that have policies against derogatory screaming and enforce them based on derogatory screaming and not on who is doing it don't get called out for being biased cesspools of political bias.
No. It may be hateful but that doesn't necessarily make it a crime.
You could tell me you hate me, and that as part of that hate you want me to know that you think I should die in a fire. Pretty hateful, but it's not a crime.
Heavy traffic isn't nerve wracking, and is also when I need the fewest reasons to lose concentration.
If the traffic is light I'll be going fast, and that immediately raises my concentration levels anyway. I don't use cruise control at high speeds because it's easier to just drive.
Slashdot Mirror
if you think a cop is going to risk his own life when dealing with some lowlife idiot
The cop's life was not at risk, and he was not dealing with some lowlife idiot.
He _is_ the lowlife idiot.
it is reasonable to suspect someone reaching towards their wasteband to be potentially going for a gun
I don't think that's reasonable at all, but lets pretend you're a paranoid murdering police officer for a moment and agree: So you suspect someone may be potentially going for a gun.
The correct course of action here is heightened alertness, not killing an innocent unarmed man.
The US desperately needs the UK's ability to bring private prosecutions, so that the man's family can bring criminal charges against the murdering cunt that killed him.
Yeah, I've dropped many Android phones over the years. HTC, LG and Samsung 'top of range' models and the only one that's ever suffered screen damage is a Samsung S7.
Even there, it's suffered two chips to the bezel with no visible impact to the screen itself.
The bit that confuses me is how the hell I managed to drop my phone on the only bloody rock in the Sahara desert.
Even in that scenario, he's not violating trademark, the person putting the Apple trademarks on the box is.
in the age of ransomware, who trusts running a content viewer?
The 70% of web users that use Chrome.
Google could tell the other 30% that they can't view these emails.
I've designed a device that will explode, killing several thousand people. It's easy to stop though, all you have to do is walk over to it and press the secret button.
If you fail to press the button, you're telling me that you're responsible for the death of thousands of people.
Design something inherently fucking flawed, don't go blaming the user.
I think I'd be perfectly comfortable with having that level of wealth.
I mean, I'm already that many orders of magnitude ahead of the average villager in botswana and I don't send all my belongings over there.
Possible. If they omitted the link to another search engine then the court would itself be on dodgy grounds - you'd be entering super injunction territory and parliament really don't like those.
Well, Google are playing too nicely here. They absolutely should return results to a search for this individual's name with "The UK High Court has ruled that we must not provide you with a result to your search query. Click here to execute this search on Bing"
I yearn the wealth to be able to say, "Only a couple of us, lets take the small one today" and walk over to my 777.
Tesla is not responsible for your ignorance about the features or your lack of attention to their warnings.
Predictable repeated operational failure is a design issue, so yes, Tesla are responsible.
Nice comparison there between apples and sausages.
What's the human driven death rate per billion miles driven on highways in 0-4 year old $70k cars? I'm guessing it's significantly lower than 15/billion.
Hoping someone dies a painful death is not a threat, especially over the internet.
Not to mention why Slashdot is censoring the butzwonker from your name.
reddit wants to take no responsibility for moderation
That's not strictly true. Reddit admin will step in and ban people for (e.g.) requesting violence - apparently even where it's impractical or not credible.
White people.
Men.
Wealthy people that aren't themselves.
Native Europeans.
Is that a long enough list? I've already covered well over half the world's population..
He's choosing which speech to protect.
Speech that people disagree with he's comfortable with. Speech that damages his business, less so. Speech that breaks the law, oddly enough he'll do his best to prevent.
That doesn't mean he isn't protecting speech, it just means the world is rather nuanced. I disagree that he's found a good balance, but that doesn't mean it's a binary scenario.
Slurs however, are.
Even in the UK for example, it's perfectly legal for me to call you a fucking idiot. Especially when I have the evidence of your post to which I'm replying, which protects me should you want to claim libel.
It's ok though, I'm not trying to intimidate you. Just educate.
I'd need more context. It could be satire, it could be another form of comedy, it could be simple idiocy, it may even - unlikely as this sounds - be actual racism. Without additional context the one thing it sure as fuck isn't it a threat.
I'm also going to Germany next week and I'll count how many holes are in the shower head..
Who's a near monopoly, now? Reddit? Facebook?
Would you disagree that Facebook is a monopoly?
The websites that have policies against derogatory screaming and enforce them based on derogatory screaming and not on who is doing it don't get called out for being biased cesspools of political bias.
Unlike, to pick an example, Twitter.
Erm.. bad example. Because yes, they do.
(So do the rest of us. Innate survival trait.)
Hate speech is a hate crime.
No. It may be hateful but that doesn't necessarily make it a crime.
You could tell me you hate me, and that as part of that hate you want me to know that you think I should die in a fire. Pretty hateful, but it's not a crime.
No. Emergency stops incur a number of risks that would be unnecessary in this situation. A controlled and steady slow to a halt would suffice.
Heavy traffic isn't nerve wracking, and is also when I need the fewest reasons to lose concentration.
If the traffic is light I'll be going fast, and that immediately raises my concentration levels anyway. I don't use cruise control at high speeds because it's easier to just drive.