Yes there is! It's called LEGISLATION in a democracy. If you codify laws to expressly delineate where lethal force is appropriate and not appropriate for law enforcement along with revising investigative procedure for malfeasance and judicial conduct you could very quickly see a sea change in how our justice system works. The problem is, the police policing their own doesn't work any more than businesses regulating themselves does; some of us just can't see the parallels nor the problem to begin with!

Your whole argument is a ridiculous strawman. Those are NOT the only two choices that free citizens have when confronted by police malfeasance, nor should they be. The police do not have the legal right to use their gun under any situation they determine to be right. Police procedure is very specific about the use of deadly force and they are trained in where it is and isn't appropriate. Threatening someone with a gun is NOT their first taught, nor first line of defense and the officers that choose to act in that way should be prosecuted accordingly to the full extent of the law. The unfortunate thing is that the corruption in our legal system allows this to go unchecked and in some cases (like Tamir Rice) unjustly exonerated by their law enforcement peers in the judiciary. The case of Tamir Rice should not have been investigated by law enforcement and judiciary at the state level and should have been investigated by the DoJ, or at least by an investigative team and judiciary outside the state where the incident occurred. There is too much face saving corrupt bullshit that goes on within the same jurisdiction that there is little chance of a fair and full investigation. This is what is criminally wrong with our current justice system at the local level. Back to the bullying, bullies need to be checked in the moment of their bullying actions or any correction to that behavior will have little to no effect. There are legal and non-suicidal ways of confronting a bully cop and making an example of them, getting them removed from duty and the community trust and peace restored. We see it all the time with cell phone videos, dashcams and the like. So, the first thing to do when confronted by a bully cop is start recording, or have someone that's with you start recording, or as someone nearby to start recording. In a democracy the power lies in the people, unless they voluntarily yield it. You seem to want to live in a police state and not a democracy, if so, I'd say move to North Korea and live a wonderful life. Me and mine are gonna stick it out here and weild the powers we have for the better good.

Only if the HARDWARE requires a signed binary to run. Does that settle this stupidity?

Sorry, I had the comments all displayed and clicked on the wrong reply link. It should have been under raymorris's comment not yours.

OFFS, again! See this!

Boy is moderation being used improperly in this thread. Disagree with what I say all you want, but I said nothing that wasn't verifiable fact, nor did you. Disagree doesn't mean mod down.

That company's name didn't start with an 'R' by any chance did it? If so, I may have known some of the people you're describing...and by association, you!

Here's some more info for you.

And since you're obviously too lazy to bother to follow links to find information on the web, here:

I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?
(#GiveUpKeys)
No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.

There is NOTHING in the GPL (v1, v2 nor v3, nor any sub license alternative) that says the source code has to compile or that an executable be supplied with source code to use the GPL. The quote you reference (and I read it too, I've read the GPL numerous times!) states that if you DO supply a binary, i.e., "executable work", you must also supply all the source files including compiler scripts used for that binary when you distribute under the GPL. There is nothing in the GPL that says the code has to be executable, has to function correctly, nor has to compile from what you distribute under the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, not a consumer protection law. It just states that if you code it, the source is made available to anyone that wants to use it or modify it, and that the modifications stay under the ascribed GPL license. That's all, nothing else, thank you for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yup. Not an inexpensive uh-oh.

No it doesn't! You can publish code snippets under the GPL that don't compile at all until incorporated into something else. It's a source code license, not a binary license. If a binary is supplied it's a courtesy not a requirement.

Where, exactly did you look and find that misinformation? The word "compiler", not even compile, occurs once in the entire text of the GPL in the definitions section.

As you mentioned any follow up investigation of the people that had their data stolen would identify any possible soft target and it would have been taken care of within a few weeks, i.e., the person would be moved out of their current position or would have been made to clean up whatever actionable info was on their record or be dismissed. As for the "super secret" remark, I was being sarcastic as the data that was stolen from OPM was of non-classified employees to begin with. I know many people that hold security clearances for their jobs, and they are the squeakiestly clean people I know when it comes to financial and addiction related behavior (alcoholism, gambling and the like). They have to be as they are reviewed every few years to maintain their clearances. They can't even bounce a check without red flags going up all over the place. I think the official review period is every five years, but with all the international turmoil I can guarantee you that DHS is keeping much closer tabs on people with clearances. The days of the 1980s bought out mole are all but over, especially since the Patriot Act.

Anyone with a security clearance (even low level clearances) have to have clean credit histories and have annual drug tests to maintain them. Your examples work for extorting money from individuals in non-classified positions in the government, not compromising national security. You also watch too much TV if you believe otherwise. The data stolen from OPM was for non-classified government employees. I can assure you that any post breach investigation would have found any possible soft targets and the problems would have been taken care of.

You can get herpes from a drinking glass. You can get AIDS from infected blood. The chances are small, but STDs can infect healthy monogamous people. Watch less TV and read more!

The difference is the type of airport. You reference a general aviation example, while the article is talking about a commercial airport. Sundsvall airport handles over a quarter million passengers per year.