While it is true that one is better safe than sorry, it is not the police who die by the thousands over nothing.
It is very, very clear from what we have seen, and what officers will even tell you, is that while they may reasonably act to lower the risk of being attacked that one time in a billion, their speech and behavior in these moments belies what is actually occurring. Much of the time, they don't act reasonably at all.
Readying oneself and stating a simple "no, don't reach for it yourself," in a calm manner will suffice. Shouting like lunatics and acting violently will not stop anyone who actually planned to take on a cop with a pocket knife.
So the police and trainers can tell themselves that their behavior is intended to stun and confuse a potential threat, but it is frequently clear that what happens is that 1) they are unfit to be a cop, and/or 2) they make a lot of noise to play up the "threat" for potential witnesses.
I am all for cops, good ones and rather poor or criminal one, surviving their day unharmed. But i am also for all citizens surviving their encounters with police and not being afraid to call upon them when necessary. Some cops are just bad, some of their exalted training is bad, pseudo-militarization is bad, and their culture is rather poisonous.
It also makes the putative job of the police harder when citizens are anywhere from leery to terrified of them. Perhaps if they translated the effort from getting "wins" (even utter crap ones) to show the public they are "doing something", over to being reasonable, accountable, and connected to the communities they supposedly serve, then things would go a lot better for them, as well as everyone else.
For the sake of clarity, i am obviously not talking about police or departments who are better and do good work. I am not suggesting that they "be so nice they get killed". I am suggesting that they should be more effective and less aggressive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and
Good comment though, and readable in it's current position.
Internet hobbyists already do that. Filmmakers (including the filmmakers who make the films which might be sampled, and also sample other films) are not hurting any market by doing something they are already allowed to do. It is being asked that an extra artificial barrier in the way of so exercising fair use be removed.
No one is going to skip watching The Matrix because they saw some clip in another film.
Unintended consequences: Sometimes FOIA "terrorism" causes the System to get a little better at its job, even when the requests are not entirely successful.
I can fully determine so often that i assume !00% of products i don't even know about come from an OEM or software vendor whose only concern over my privacy is that they know everything possible about me and have no regard for security.
The only downside i can imagine for 3rd party repair other than a poor job or failure is that they accidentally increase the security of a device by breaking something. If i send it to them with my data on it, i am an idiot, so that vector is ignored. Sure, some repair outfits or guys may do something evil, but i don't see how the same sort could not be working for the oh-so-trustworthy original vendor, so i find this point moot also.
Holding an invisible watermelon does not make your argument valid, The Security Innovation Center. Also, your entire cake is clearly a lie.
Governments, we demand you keep terrorists off our sites and services. Please drone bomb them within an hour of us - or you! - finding any terrorist or child porn content on our sites. Kthxbye.
It's not just in politics, that behavior pervades our culture. We institutionalize and even enshrine, sometimes, things based in one sort of behavioral tendency over others. Meanwhile, we constantly congratulate ourselves on being rational and empirical.
They can get the money from any other arbitrary source. Why should there be a 10% tax on games for mental health resources?
In politics, mental health is bullshit anyway. This is one of the first things that gets shitcanned by anyone "looking to save money". The tax itself would probably be diverted immediately anyway. And none of them care one whit about mental health until they try to blame that for shootings or whatever else. Various mass or spree killings might have a mental health component, but only in the loose sense. They actually invoke Teh Crazy as a scapegoat. Most people with clinically diagnosable issues are nonviolent and never get the help they need.
If this is a mental health issue, our entire culture needs enforced counseling.
i am thinking that one of the characters is more memorable than the other, and this actor is simply trying to leech off the other's fame any way he can, whether it is 259 mil or somewhat newsworthy association.
Yeah. Pretty sure most of those MLAT procedures that "don't work" never happened, or were simply so egregious that a foreign power (foreign foreigners who are not even blessed by our Exceptional Constitution, the poor savages) simply had to decline.
No, there is a clear difference between a person with different or directly opposing ideas, and trolls. I find much of the commentariat here is pretty well aware of the distinction.
On the post: After Controversial Traffic Stop, Police Chief Says He Won't Release Recordings To 'Anti-Police' Requesters
Re: Re:
Of course, one could have simply written a ticket and handed it to the driver without all the other opportunistic bullshit, but whatever.
On the post: After Controversial Traffic Stop, Police Chief Says He Won't Release Recordings To 'Anti-Police' Requesters
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: After Controversial Traffic Stop, Police Chief Says He Won't Release Recordings To 'Anti-Police' Requesters
Re: Re: stupidity
No.
While it is true that one is better safe than sorry, it is not the police who die by the thousands over nothing.
It is very, very clear from what we have seen, and what officers will even tell you, is that while they may reasonably act to lower the risk of being attacked that one time in a billion, their speech and behavior in these moments belies what is actually occurring. Much of the time, they don't act reasonably at all.
Readying oneself and stating a simple "no, don't reach for it yourself," in a calm manner will suffice. Shouting like lunatics and acting violently will not stop anyone who actually planned to take on a cop with a pocket knife.
So the police and trainers can tell themselves that their behavior is intended to stun and confuse a potential threat, but it is frequently clear that what happens is that 1) they are unfit to be a cop, and/or 2) they make a lot of noise to play up the "threat" for potential witnesses.
I am all for cops, good ones and rather poor or criminal one, surviving their day unharmed. But i am also for all citizens surviving their encounters with police and not being afraid to call upon them when necessary. Some cops are just bad, some of their exalted training is bad, pseudo-militarization is bad, and their culture is rather poisonous.
It also makes the putative job of the police harder when citizens are anywhere from leery to terrified of them. Perhaps if they translated the effort from getting "wins" (even utter crap ones) to show the public they are "doing something", over to being reasonable, accountable, and connected to the communities they supposedly serve, then things would go a lot better for them, as well as everyone else.
For the sake of clarity, i am obviously not talking about police or departments who are better and do good work. I am not suggesting that they "be so nice they get killed". I am suggesting that they should be more effective and less aggressive.
On the post: After Controversial Traffic Stop, Police Chief Says He Won't Release Recordings To 'Anti-Police' Requesters
I think i have their number.
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Recall that the entire purpose of copyright law in America is to promote the creation of more works for public consumption." --- Nope, it's to "secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right", and
On the post: MPAA Opposes Several Filmmaker Associations Request For Expanded Circumvention Exemptions
Re: Economics of movie creation
Internet hobbyists already do that. Filmmakers (including the filmmakers who make the films which might be sampled, and also sample other films) are not hurting any market by doing something they are already allowed to do. It is being asked that an extra artificial barrier in the way of so exercising fair use be removed.
No one is going to skip watching The Matrix because they saw some clip in another film.
On the post: Angry Pick-Up Artist Says He Won't Issue Bogus YouTube Claim On Critic's Video; Issues Bogus Claim On Critic's Video
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Hands Jason Leopold A Partial Victory In Case Involving Sealed Dockets And Electronic Surveillance
On the post: Wireless Carriers, Hardware Companies Use Flimsy IOT Security To Justify Attacks On Right To Repair Laws
The only downside i can imagine for 3rd party repair other than a poor job or failure is that they accidentally increase the security of a device by breaking something. If i send it to them with my data on it, i am an idiot, so that vector is ignored. Sure, some repair outfits or guys may do something evil, but i don't see how the same sort could not be working for the oh-so-trustworthy original vendor, so i find this point moot also.
Holding an invisible watermelon does not make your argument valid, The Security Innovation Center. Also, your entire cake is clearly a lie.
On the post: EU Commission Says Social Media Companies Must Take Down 'Terrorist Content' Within One Hour
Governments, we demand you keep terrorists off our sites and services. Please drone bomb them within an hour of us - or you! - finding any terrorist or child porn content on our sites. Kthxbye.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Buying A Bundle Of Diamonds
Re: Re: Re: Two wrongs do not a right make
On the post: Rhode Island Legislator Proposes A Tax On Video Games Based On Existing Entirely Voluntary Ratings System
Re: Two thoughts:
On the post: Rhode Island Legislator Proposes A Tax On Video Games Based On Existing Entirely Voluntary Ratings System
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rhode Island Legislator Proposes A Tax On Video Games Based On Existing Entirely Voluntary Ratings System
Re:
They can get the money from any other arbitrary source. Why should there be a 10% tax on games for mental health resources?
In politics, mental health is bullshit anyway. This is one of the first things that gets shitcanned by anyone "looking to save money". The tax itself would probably be diverted immediately anyway. And none of them care one whit about mental health until they try to blame that for shootings or whatever else. Various mass or spree killings might have a mental health component, but only in the loose sense. They actually invoke Teh Crazy as a scapegoat. Most people with clinically diagnosable issues are nonviolent and never get the help they need.
If this is a mental health issue, our entire culture needs enforced counseling.
On the post: AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal Of Frank Sivero's Publicity Rights Suit Against 'The Simpsons'
On the post: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Microsoft Email Case
Re: Re:
On the post: AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Re: Your daily reminder:
On the post: AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Re: Soo....
On the post: AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re:
It's far worse than when the original AT&T owned everything, plus they provide exactly zero innovation and research. We had a short honeymoon.
Next >>