Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by chiefcrash (#49442879) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"
No, I'm simply limiting my comments to legal justification, since otherwise it's a subjective ethical debate that I don't have a particular desire to engage in. Seeing as you yourself admitted there clearly are cases that would be justifiable in an ethical sense, it would appear that you agree with my point in an ethical context as well.

Clearly, there are situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is legally justifiable. As you stated, there are clearly situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is ethically justifiable. Therefore, my point that Scribe's comment is inaccurate seems to be correct in both a legal and ethical context...

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by chiefcrash (#49441199) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"
An unarmed suspect can certainly still meet the definition of someone who poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Hence why you yourself said "almost by definition"...

Scribe's point was that NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away. The fleeing felon rule, when properly applied, does exactly this. Think of it as a "never say never" point. Because, just as cops have been found not to be justified in shooting armed suspects approaching them while brandishing, other cases have found cops to be justified in shooting fleeing unarmed suspects. So, legally speaking, something DOES justify shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back (at least some of the time), despite Scribe's statement...

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 1) 489

by chiefcrash (#49439919) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.

Except, legally, the fleeing felon rule does just that:

The Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

Granted, this doesn't mean the fleeing felon rule applies in this case (especially considering the seemingly false statements made by the officer), but saying NOTHING justifies it isn't quite accurate...

Comment: Elected by RNG (Score 1) 1089

by chiefcrash (#49298707) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US
I have to imagine that mandatory voting would simply replace our current system with a human-powered random number generator...

either that, or folks will skew towards the top/bottom/middle option. I could see a lot of candidates changing their names to Aaron Aabraham and such...

What I don't see happening is a large impact in voter turnout: http://www.idea.int/vt/images/...

Comment: Re:Hmm? (Score 2) 112

by chiefcrash (#49095909) Attached to: TrueCrypt Audit Back On Track After Silence and Uncertainty
Isn't that a bit like saying someone auditing Java must also audit the Linux kernel because Java can run on Linux? After all, compromised HDD firmware would affect more than just TrueCrypt. PGP/GPG, Bitlocker, etc... I think it's reasonable to say compromised HDD firmware, while a serious problem, is outside the scope of a TC audit...

Comment: Re:Repeat after me... (Score 2) 315

by chiefcrash (#47560763) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)
He's not splitting hairs...

HTML doesn’t really “do” anything in the sense that a programming language does. HTML contains no programming logic. It doesn’t have common conditional statements such as If/Else. It can’t evaluate expressions or do any math. It doesn’t handle events or carry out tasks. You can’t declare variables and you can’t write functions. It doesn’t modify or manipulate data in any way. HTML can’t take input and produce output. Think of it this way: you can’t compute the sum of 2 + 2 in HTML; that’s not what it’s for. This is because HTML is not a programming language.

Comment: Re:So am I. Specifically, violated how? (Score 1) 928

No first amendment rights were violated. But, it appears that extortion may have been committed:

In Colorado: 18-3-207. Criminal extortion – aggravated extortion

(1) A person commits criminal extortion if:

(a) The person, without legal authority and with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to perform an act or to refrain from performing a lawful act, makes a substantial threat to confine or restrain, cause economic hardship or bodily injury to, or damage the property or reputation of, the threatened person or another person; and

(b) The person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) by:

(I) Performing or causing an unlawful act to be performed; or

(II) Invoking action by a third party, including but not limited to, the state or any of its political subdivisions, whose interests are not substantially related to the interests pursued by the person making the threat.

(1.5) A person commits criminal extortion if the person, with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to give the person money or another item of value, threatens to report to law enforcement officials the immigration status of the threatened person or another person.

(2) A person commits aggravated criminal extortion if, in addition to the acts described in subsection (1) of this section, the person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by means of chemical, biological, or harmful radioactive agents, weapons, or poison.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “substantial threat” means a threat that is reasonably likely to induce a belief that the threat will be carried out and is one that threatens that significant confinement, restraint, injury, or damage will occur.

(4) Criminal extortion, as described in subsections (1) and (1.5) of this section, is a class 4 felony. Aggravated criminal extortion, as described in subsection (2) of this section, is a class 3 felony.

Comment: Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 682

by chiefcrash (#47271919) Attached to: IRS Recycled Lerner Hard Drive

So, unless there is some compelling reason to think that the drive was corrupted purposefully, or the recovery was disingenuous, then all you have here is SOP for any IT department (fix what's broke).

Hmm, all the IT departments I've worked for always had an SOP to fix what's broke, then store the broken hard drive rather than toss it. Sometimes we end up having to send the drives off to a clean-lab recovery outfit to grab important stuff.

Is it necessarily a conspiracy that the IRS IT Department tossed a drive? No. Is it something that at the very list indicates a need for a policy change? Possibly.

Comment: Secure against Cylons (Score 2) 142

You'll see things here that look odd, even antiquated to modern eyes, like phones with cords, awkward manual valves, computers that, well, barely deserve the name. It was all designed to operate against an enemy who could infiltrate and disrupt even the most basic computer systems. Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection...

Comment: Re: Fishy (Score 1) 566

by chiefcrash (#47120095) Attached to: TrueCrypt Website Says To Switch To BitLocker
> ... the amount of reputation harm that Microsoft would endure would literally be crippling.

I'm not so sure. After all, Microsoft seems to have survived despite virtually each of its cryptographic solutions having serious vulnerabilities, often breakable in a trivial manner. Kerberos, encryption of Microsoft Office documents, PPTP VPN, NTLM authentication protocol, SysKey, EFS encryption in Windows 2000, RNG implementations in Windows 2000/XP/Vista, and so on...

Comment: Re:Most gun ban advocates aren't rational about it (Score 1) 584

I'd like to point out that there are a LOT of unhinged gun control proponents out there as well. Like the guy who suggested dragging Republicans behind a truck until they "see the light on gun control". Or the guy who explicitly threatened to kill recall activists taking signatures in Colorado. It may be less publicized, but it's there: http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/...

They're armed too. And they have funny ideas about what a right means. And they are also paranoid! Oh and they're pandered to by a major political party.

I won't lump all gun control proponents in with the likes of them. But rest assured, both sides of this fight have unhinged crazies. And they're both just as dangerous...

Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955

Working...