Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson... (Score 1) 326

by bledri (#48669679) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

...

Obviously this is all anecdotal and not "scientific" compared with the study in the summary, but it should be clear that this problem of police violence is not going to be completely solved until the cultures of "shoot first and ask questions later" and "protect each other" within law enforcement are changed.

The study does not claim that cameras eliminate the problem. To quote the summary:

use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59%.

That's a good thing, even if it's not perfect. And it provides information to help understand when excesive force is being used, and provides evidence in cases when it is used. Unbiased evidence to help get to the actual truth. All of this is a Good Thing (tm).

Or should we let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Comment: Re:The more interesting part (Score 1) 326

by bledri (#48668879) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

and reports against officers dropped by 87% While most people on here are focusing on the police portion, the civilian portion is more damning. It shows the amount of crap police have to put up with by people who think they'll file a brutality report so they can not be held responsible for their actions.

Because the police have the power of the state behind them and have sworn to "protect and serve," they are held to a higher standard.

I don't have the link, but some on here will remember the video of the woman who was in the back of a police car yelling and screaming for the police to stop hitting her without realizing a camera was recording the whole thing. When she claimed police brutality, the video was shown and the charges were thrown out.

Sounds like a win-win. So why are so many in law enforcement opposed to the cameras?

While there is certainly some police abuse going on, there are much more claims by people of police abuse where none exists. Just like dashboard cameras, it works both ways so when people claim they weren't doing anything when they were shot, the camera will show them reaching for their gun (see the most recent shooting in Missouri though we don't have video of the incident).

Some people lie to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. Some of those people a are criminals, some of those people a police. Like I said, cameras sound like a win-win.

Comment: Re:Dear SONY: (Score 2) 172

by bledri (#48663203) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

How about because they are part of the MPAA cartel? Suing grandmas and kids all over the world. But yeah, their dubious "family members" (aka Sony Music, Sony Computer Entertainment) doesn't really contribute to their reputation, whether Sony Pictures have control over them or not. Watching Sony bleed has really been the greatest xmas gift of this year.

I don't think it makes much sense to hate Sony Pictures because of the actions of Sony BMG. And I don't think it makes much sense of hate Sony Pictures because 9 out of 10 theater chains are chicken shit.

SOPA, MPAA, DCMA, copyright extensions, etc. are excellent reasons to hate the entire industry (Sony included). I just think singling out Sony is a bit ridiculous, as is the general over the top hatefest. So we can all pretend we're "shoving it to the man" when we watch a movie by some other major corporation doing the same shit. Or people pretending that pirating a movie is some nobel act rather than just being cheap and bored.

Comment: Re: They realized how badly they screwed up (Score 1) 172

by bledri (#48663093) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

I don't care what part of Sony it is, Sony A is Sony B is Sony C is all goddamned Sony.

And you admit it: they caved due to fear of lawsuits due to fear of terrorists. Which is still caving due to fear.

Shocking that a corporation would try to avoid losing money. Shocking!!!

Comment: Re:I never have understood (Score 5, Informative) 252

by bledri (#48663059) Attached to: Serious Economic Crisis Looms In Russia, China May Help

I never have understood the world's fetish with the US dollar. Every nation has a currency. The US economy is just as prone to stagnation, deficit, over, and under valuing as any other currency.

I'd like nothing better than to see the Rothschild's hold on international markets broken. If it takes China to do that, then all power to China in the endeavour.

You can thank Harry Dexter White for that. (And if you're American, you should thank him. Otherwise, maybe not.) See: The Battle of Bretton Woods. It really is pretty fascinating.

Comment: Re:Limited Theatrical Release (Score 4, Informative) 172

by bledri (#48662607) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

Uh, Sony pulled the plug too.

It may have been after the major movie chains did so, but Sony didn't let it go to anyone else either. Until now.

Actually, 9 out of the top ten chains pulled the movie. Only #6, Marcus Theaters, didn't. They are less than half the size of #5 (Cineplex Entertainment). They have about 3% of the screens of the top five.

It's hard to have a "blockbuster" release by opening only in the midwest on a limited number of screens. So Sony pulled it until they could negotiate with enough small players to make it worthwhile. I don't get all the hate toward Sony over this. It just seems like mob mentality to me, along with conflating Song Pictures with Sony BMG.

Comment: Re:They realized how badly they screwed up (Score 2) 172

by bledri (#48662495) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

But they can't force theater chains to show the movie

Uh, yeah that can. They had contracts with the theaters to show the movie with penalties for the theaters if they backed out.

The theaters backed out anyway, and Sony waived the penalties for doing so. Sony caved, no matter what their rootkitting CEO wants you to think.

You're an AC, so I shouldn't bother. First, but Sony Pictures is a different company from Sony BMG. Second, Sony could try force theaters to show the movie but all they have to do is say the withheld it for the public safety and odds are Sony would lose the legal battle. And if someone stubbed their toe during a showing of "The Interview", or a gun tooting wack-o has a hayday, Sony gets sued into oblivion.

Comment: Re:They realized how badly they screwed up (Score 1, Informative) 172

by bledri (#48662461) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

Wrong. That is Sony propaganda. Everything the Sony CEO said was in service of his own cowardice. Yes, some theaters backed out. Others major movie theater chains BEGGED Sony to release the film.

More importantly, Sony could have released it direct to Video, to HBO, etc. You don't need to 'look for other ways' and if Netflix, HBO, and Hulu were 'afraid of getting hacked' They could simply have given it to the Pirate Bay.

This was a decision made by Sony, not anyone else. You on the other hand have fallen for a pack of lies.

"Some" theaters backed out? Bullshit, 9 out of the top ten theater chains in North America pulled out. They own a bunch of theaters that you probably think are "independent." They own virtually all the mega-plexes. Only Marcus Theaters (#6 and well under half the size of #5, or about 3% the size of the top five combined) didn't back out. Which is awesome but they are small potatoes for a "blockbuster" where you make most of your money on the opening weekend.

Why the fuck would they give it to pirate bay? They spent $44 million making the movie, they aren't going to fucking give it away. Sony wants to make money with the movie. Right, Son'y's evil. That's why.

Comment: Re:Dear SONY: (Score 4, Insightful) 172

by bledri (#48662055) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

Go fuck yourself.

Because some douchebags hacked them? Or because they have a sibling company (which they have no control over) that created a rootkit? Or because the five largest theater chains (which they have no control over) are too chicken shit to show their movie? Or because the large on demand streaming services (which they have no control over) are afraid of getting hacked and won't show the movie?

All this hatred directed at Sony Pictures is ridiculous.

Comment: Re:They realized how badly they screwed up (Score 4, Insightful) 172

by bledri (#48661885) Attached to: Sony: 'The Interview' Will Have a Limited Theatrical Release

The movie probably sucks. But bowing down to pressure from North Korea is ridiculous.

I am sure Hitler did not like The Great Dictator, but if he had tried to blackmail a US company into cancelling it, we would have laughed at him.

Sony should have done the same. I don't care what they got from the stolen emails, the only way to deal with terrorists demanding obedience is a bullet to their head, not a bow to to their feet.

Sony is not who bowed down to pressure. The 5 largest movie theater chains refused to show the movie out of fear, not Sony. Why can't anyone understand this? I was listening to an interview with the CEO of Sony Pictures and he made this perfectly clear, numerous times. But the interviewer kept coming back to "won't people see this as Sony backing down to terrorists?" And then the CEO would repeat, "we are looking for other ways to release the movie, but the large streaming services are afraid of getting hacked, etc..."

Just because it's popular to hate Sony, does not change the actual facts. Sony wants to release the movie. They want to make back the money they spent on it. But they can't force theater chains to show the movie and their normal model is to do release in a ton of theaters at once and have a big openning weekend. It looks like enough independent chains have come forward that Sony gets a Christmas present.

Comment: Re:Get Out of Your Bubble (Score 1) 268

by bledri (#48648345) Attached to: Dish Pulls Fox News, Fox Business Network As Talks Break Down

What you actually need are impartial and unbiased news networks who report news in a genuinely unbiased way, strictly separate their reporting from their editorialising and ask hard questions of whomever happens to be in charge and the opposition. Preferably this would codified with broadcast standards that they would be required to stick to.

I agree. But sadly that requires a demand for real journalism, but sensationalism and anger-porn are what people tend to gravitate toward.

Comment: Re:Pulled Fox News ... (Score 1) 268

by bledri (#48648307) Attached to: Dish Pulls Fox News, Fox Business Network As Talks Break Down

No, it isn't a "great service" since a significant number of Dish customers are going to want to watch that programming and now won't be able to do so. That is the opposite of "great service."

Don't worry. Fox will cave and people will get their highly editorialized "news" to keep them happily enraged about all the wrong stuff. And Dish's tactics means they get all that spin without paying the higher rates that would be required by Fox's current demands. It's a win-win.

Comment: Re:503 (Score 1, Insightful) 394

by bledri (#48623111) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

... You've already done that once already by pushing forward an SSL-related change far ahead of when it really needed to be, and now it looks like you're floating a trial balloon to go one step further.

Am I overreacting here? Or is Google going too far, too fast with this?

You are overreacting. It's a positive step and there is no good reason in 2014 that all internet traffic should not be encrypted. Oh, and it's a free browser and there are other options both free and proprietary.

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 2) 191

by bledri (#48614775) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

because the DRM has long since been dropped in the music space.

This is not true, even if Apple insists on saying it is. As near as I can tell, what they mean is that they aren't putting DRM on music that was added after the DRM-free date. However, the iTunes library is full of music that is as "protected" by DRM as it ever was. Or at least that was true three years ago, when I spent far too much time working out how to strip the DRM off of a song I downloaded from it.

No, they removed the DRM from the vast majority of their catalog and automatically upgraded songs in the iTunes library back in 2009. The reason that not all music is DRM free is not all labels and artists agreed to sell non-DRM music. Apple has to abide by it's contracts, even if it pisses a few people off.

C for yourself.

Working...