As long as the cops in the USA have the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, swatting will always be a problem. SWATing exploits the fact that cops are fucking stupid, scared animals, who are prone to alarmism, and itch for an excuse to use excessive force. They see no problem in roughing up many innocents to get a small handful of small time criminals. They are easy to trick, slow to think, quick to act.

The solution is to re-examine SWAT team usage nation wide, and how they are used and for what. Until we do, SWATing will always be a threat. The solution is to fix the vulernbility by replacing a dangerous and broken system with one that works better.

you're going to have to bring up some citations, because when the government gave AT&T a monopoly, they might have done some shitty things, and blocked some innovation, but the quality of service was second to none. They had a phrase called "five nines" to describe their uptime. To date, no other information system can match the 99.999% reliability of Ma Bell. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was always there. No exceptions. They also pushed innovation and gave back to the community. UNIX for example was given away for Free when they had a monopoly. They didn't care, they just wrote it off. AT&T Bell Labs was the envy of the fucking world, and the state of the art for electronic engineering for 5 fucking decades.

I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.

you made me laugh. FULL TITLE 2 REGULATION. Do you even know what that means. I mean, look how restrictive the phone system was regulated as title 2.

Don't say anything, because the internet was already tapped and regulated before title 2. The only thing title 2 did was prevent comcast from adding additional private regulations.

There is really no diffrence from the government dictating rules and comcast doing it, and the only person who really looses out is comcast, and only in their ability to fuck with the end user.

your concept of freedom fighter is limited to corporate influence aparantly.

I've been browsing slashdot since 1997, for most of history you goose-steppers where not welcome, and today again, you are not welcome, go back to stormfront.

Slashdot was always full of politics. Believe it or not, it use to be even more political, and even more radical. It is we, the originals who are taking it back, and you goosesteppers are the invaders who are no longer welcome.

I'm talking about the days when it was "geeks vs suits", the microsoft icon was the borg-bill gates, and the trolls where "natilie portman" and "hot grits". This is when "Free Kevin" stickers where the norm, and instead of PRiSM, it was CARNIVORE and RAPTOR.

another unlike association. Republicans again, seem to only really take a stand against "government regulation" when it suits them.

Except for a few spurts and a few people admittedly on the fringe of the party will we see anyone tackle the real issues.

Just like conspiracy theories will talk about mass internment camps being set up by FEMA, but no one wants to talk about the mass internment camps that are very real actual prisons and some of the silly things that get people sent to jail for very long sentances, and the very low burden of proof that a good chunk of these people didn't even do the petty crimes they are accused for for such long jail times.

No one wants to talk about the kangroo court systems, corrupt law enforcement agencies, private prisons, all of which is plainly obvious.

except its not in soviet russia. its right here in the USA, paid for by public relations agents.

What internet taxes and content control? I hope your not talking about net neutrality, because this is entirely unrelated. Stuff like this has been going on long before net neutrality.

Oh, it totally, is, but after re-reading Carly Fiorina's epic burn, I can't fault her on anything. Give the devil her due, she's actually right. We do business with far worse than the state of Indiana, and in the name of "religious tollerance", we tollerate far worse.

No, hardworking engineers made the devices possible. As much as I adore star trek, please give credit where credit is due.

your connecting dots that don't exist. I generally believe we call this paranoid schitzophrenia

the unlike association argument. Do you like trains running on time? Do you know who else liked the trains running on time. We all know why that didn't work. Please stop using logical fallicies.

The reason is because he was never serious about it in the first place, and anyone who understood his history knew that he was simply saying things to get elected. Your logic presumes that the current president is an infinite or even good spout of wisdom, which he was not and never was.

If nothing else, it signifies our political system is broken, and the population has no real dirrect effect on policy through election. If president Obama was sincere in his 2008 election promises, the most obvious answer to his "change of heart" is less "logic", something notoriously absent in politics, and more "special intrests demanded it", or "someone made him a deal he couldn't refuse".

I don't understand why you insinuate that political decisions are made with logic? Many are clearly not, given how often science and policy dirrectly clash, but special intrests and policy align.

perhaps you have heard about the old parable about the pot and the kettle?

I can think of one video game, "portal", where both the sole protagonist and antagonist are female.

They also seemed good enough to accept US aid durring the syrian civil war.

Cold hard reality is we support groups like this just as often as we oppose them.

The reason we have a problem with religious nuts is we allow it. Truth is, we tollerate religeious nuts far more than we tollerate secular nuts to the point all would be dissent knows that religeon is the only real path.

Its time to stop treating religeon as special from any other form of ideaology or philosophical creed.

No, your just being extremely shitty at explaining your point.

I understand this completely. I did not vote for the man either times. I niether said nor implied I did. I see someone is connecting dots that don't exist.

A politician goes back on his word and now is being described as a flash of insight? sweet shit. Did you graduate kingergarten?

What the fuck are you even talking about, how does this have to do with Obama, who was first elected quite a bit sooner than a decade, and why am I supposed to run for president with no money, no donors, no political standing and no visibility in the public.

Somewhere, somehow your logic train de-railed, you need to fix this.