Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:how does anyone make money off this? (Score 3, Insightful) 116

The Ashley Madison hacks weren't about money... it was about righteous indignation. There is every reason to believe that when a high profile person with a "differing" point of view needs to go into the hospital for something, that this very thing could happen. Plus I'm sure there is some hacker out there who believes there is street cred to be had by being the first person to commit a murder *directly* through the internet.

Comment Re:Using an Archive on a cloud provider... (Score 1) 74

I dunno... ask Kim Dotcom. Is it really a reliable archive if it disappears overnight? If the online host is the ONLY place you keep your archive, then it's really not anymore secure than keeping it at your house... and for the record, I've lost more data to belly-up hosts than I have to house fires and bad drives, so statistically speaking, my house is more secure. Granted this is just one data point, but who knows... maybe OP has had a lot of house fires or something.

One other point I'd like to make, is that if your cloud secured email backup needs to be easily accessible, then that implies that you are going to be carrying the key with you... either in the form of a memorizable and possibly guessable password, or a physical item that contains your key... again increasing your attack surface. If you don't carry the key with you, then how is that different than keeping your email on a disk at home? Hopefully your key is fireproof.

The only place where your email is guaranteed to exist is on NSA servers... ya know, it seems like they've got an untapped business model there.

Comment Re:Would No Lethal Force Work? (Score 1) 712

First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)?

How is that confusing? Both are absolutely accurate when viewed in the context of a single event... A person can act selfishly, and irrationally. When confronted with the possibility of death, the perp backs down... think about a high speed chase... perp is willing to risk their own life and the lives of everyone else on the road, until a PIT manuver shuts them down, and then the guns come out and low and behold... the perp is almost eager to get on the ground and be cuffed.

As for the rest of the stuff you said, I totally agree, but I think I may have understood the original question differently than you did, because I thought this was about what non-lethal technology is going to replace the gun. Your above statements are about inappropriate use of force, especially against minorities, and I agree we have a problem. But there is a difference between "threat of deadly force", and the "rules of engagement", with the latter ostensibly being a limit on the former.

Comment Re:Would No Lethal Force Work? (Score 1) 712

False... absolutely false. Given enough time, some people might conclude that they don't want to do the time, so they won't do the crime, but in the heat of the moment the rationalization is of a more immediate nature. A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future. Even if death sentences were carried out immediately, there would still be a portion of the population that would think "I'll get away with it" or "that doesn't apply to me" and there will be a portion of the population that just doesn't think.

In my opinion, the death sentence is only useful to prevent people from re-offending. For the most part, it's not a deterrent for the first time. However, from your statement above it appears you may have confused the death penalty with a suspect being shot to death. Aside from the end result they have nothing in common. A police officer has a right to live, and a duty to protect others. Each of those is a different standard that must be measured in using lethal force. More latitude is going to be given in a self defense scenario than in a protecting others scenario, and if neither of those concerns are in play, there is really no legal justification for using deadly force. But a death sentence on the other hand fits neither of those situations, but is still permitted under rule of law.

Rage is an interesting emotion. Watch THIS and if you can tell me at what point has the _perpetrator_ reached their limit of force, then you can make the argument that police should obey a similar limit of force. Admittedly this is not a capital situation, but the victim in that video certainly could have died in that encounter, as well as innocent bystanders, so it's easy to imagine things turning into a "capital punishment" scenario.

My point is, for some people there is no limit to how far they will allow their emotions to take them, and in the calculus of things, if I am going to weigh the life of a law abiding police officer against the life of someone who has abandoned that limit, I'm going to take sides with the officer.

Comment Re:Would No Lethal Force Work? (Score 1) 712

Ha! You're killin' me... no litterally... you're killin' me. Lolollllooool.

What does any of that have to do with the psychology of a criminal? Let me ask you... have you EVER stood face to face with someone who wants to do harm to you or your loved ones? Have you looked into their eyes? I know right now that you have not. Criminals don't see you as human, and your life means nothing to them. You are simply a piece of meat to them, and you are getting in the way of what they want. The sooner you realize that the premise of TFA is flawed, the more likely you are to survive an encounter like that, because you either have to dominate the situation or roll over and be their bitch.

When a cop comes face to face with a person like this, force must be used, because that is the level that the criminal is willing to take it to. If you are unwilling to use lethal force, then the criminal has a trump card... because they are willing to use lethal force.

I honestly don't think that "more guns" solves anything... I'm not a fan of the NRA to say the least... but assuming you can go toe to toe with a criminal element without lethal force is like playing chess with a 3 year old... you will get your ass handed to you every time if you play by your rules while letting them play by theirs.

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer