Like I said: go ahead. I was offering you the opportunity to start. Instead of taking about it, you instead went off on a rant again.

You're basically seeing feminist conspiracies where there are none.

Like I said, this is a tech website. I know I abstract that a large gender gap in nursing in primary education is a bad thing. However, I know little about either field and frankly aren't very interested in them either. I like machines and tech things, which is why I flame here rather than on some nursing website.

But instead of accepting the obvious truth that slashdotters are generally interested in tech, you decided yet again to give your axe a good old grind. You sure it's not you who has the agenda and biases.

Well, true, up to a point.

On the other hand, how would an American have looked at the same issue, if just after the 9/11 attack, somebody had joked about 'and they say Muslims don't do any good, hur hur'? The tosser who posted the 'joke' about the accident in Glasgow is not going to jail or get a fine, which is what 'freedom of speech' promises - nobody promised that you have a right to use a site, hosted by another party, to post your idiocy.

Well, they had to do something to cater to the mostly American audience, right?

I suspect arson was somewhat frowned on then as it is now.

lol. If it "creates jobs" - then it is pretty much accepted with open arms, if not worshiped and deified.

make movies look like they were shot on a daytime TV cam to me. I saw Braveheart on one of those modern tvs and I suppose the lighting was more natural, but it was considerably less dramatic. It just killed it for me. Also (and this is mostly just me) I can perceive noticeable drops in framerate on those newer tvs. The rate goes up and down like crazy. Drives me nuts.

Absolutely unless the camera showed Wilson executing brown and then Wilson wasn't prosecuted.

If the camera showed that Brown aggressively grabbed for the gun and hit Wilson for only telling Brown to "get off the street" then there would have been no riots.

People would have been talking about how stupid Brown was to behave that way.

at worst some would be upset that wilson kept shooting after Brown was down but the camera would have shown that was a matter of a couple seconds.

Cameras protect the police.
Cameras protect the public.
Cameras protect businesses and cities.

all police should have a camera. all police vehicles should have multiple cameras with wifi-uploaded backup that's resistant to tampering the officers involved.

Correct, Michael Brown's initial offense was that he walking on the street instead of the sidewalk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...

"But for some experts, the shooting and the events that preceded it raised broader policy questions, particularly about how officers engage with communities they patrol. In his initial encounter with Mr. Brown and his friend in the street, Officer Wilson never exited his vehicle, voicing commands through the window of his cruiser instead.

âoeThe notion of riding through neighborhoods yelling, âGet up on the curbâ(TM) or âGet out of the street,â(TM) is not where you want your officers to be,â Mr. Bealefeld said. âoeYou want them out of their cars, engaging the public and explaining to people what it is you are trying to do. Drive-by policing is not good for any community.â

Basically the officer drew his gun when Brown wouldn't get off the street.

Nancy Grace (pretty darn conservative and an ex prosecutor) found the officer's story rehearsed and not credible. Basically his testimony was a lie.

A CAMERA would have negated all the ambiguity and saved hundreds of thousands in property damage and perhaps even saved lives.

Cameras protect the public AND cameras protect the police.

They say, 'Wow that kid was stupid. What was he thinking attacking the cop like that? I can see why the cop shot him!"

Or they'll say, "What the hell? Why did the cop shoot that kid who did nothing?"

Or (unfortunately) they'll say, "Man, the cop waited too long and died. I hope the kid gets the chair."

Police lie.

Retired police officer say "Police are legally allowed to lie. Police do lie- frequently. Do not talk to the police without a lawyer."

As it is, just a couple months after the police shot a 7 year old black girl, they shot an 18 year old black boy and then they shot a 12 year old black boy. The video of the 12 year old black boy shows they pulled of way to close way to fast and basically shot him in under 10 seconds while another video of a drunk white guy with an AK 47 officers of a different department shows they stopped at range - negotiated for over 10 minutes and avoided shooting him.

Cameras protect police.
Cameras protect the public.

Cameras protect civilians (and the police are CIVILIANS. They are not MILITARY).

Almost all sports are judged to some degree, even if it is only a referee making decisions. In any case, those sports are all in there because they have large international competitions and structures, with well defined rules that many athletes feel are worth competing under. If they were just a pure judgement call people wouldn't bother participating since there would be no clear and objective way to measure and improve their performance, but that's not how they work.

The judges use very specific criteria, just like an examiner does to mark papers in an academic setting. For example, in rhythmic gymnastics there is a list of moves, ranked by difficulty and judged on how well the athlete meets the prescribed forms. It's not about looking good, it's about doing the motions correctly and with a high level of skill.

You can try with the dunce cap, but you'll have to be quicker than that.

If you actually read my post, instead of assuming a meaning and replying to that, you'll see that you've mostly posted non sequiturs. I did not label the situation add good or bad, so you cannot accuse me of bias in that regard.

It is indisputably not due to genetics as ten years is too short. So, I ask again, what had changed?

The fact that you jumped from that question to one of your customary rants indicated very singly that you have a substantial axe to grind.

Um... The picture you linked to doesn't show a peep sight. Could you perhaps circle it and post the image somewhere? I'm interested to know what you think a peep sight it.

There are still big problems with this.

1. The police were warned not to go after people for this kind of thing, with specific advice from the Attorney General. Yet, they carry on doing it.

2. They don't seem to understand Twitter. The laws they are using are anti-harassment laws, designed to stop people trolling the families of victims and the like. This guy didn't send his joke to those people, and they would probably have never heard it if the police hadn't brought it to their attention.

3. While the tweet was public, so are billions of others made every day. It's akin to saying something distasteful but not illegal to your friends while walking down the street, and being arrested because someone somewhere could have been offended by it.

Democracy = each *vote* has equal power
Capitalism = each *dollar* has equal power

We're just seeing the first half of "capitalist democracy" in action. It's how capitalism has always worked and will always work.

This is the new Godwin. And in this case, you are wrong. This is the police being dumb fucks, as usual. They have been given specific advice about this sort of thing, but are ignoring it.

It's actually the people who oppose the social justice warriors who are calling for this kind of things: the Daily Mail readers. The ones who wanted the porn filters. The ones were are permanently offended about everything, especially other people people's offence.