Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:People like you... (Score 3, Interesting) 643

by clarkkent09 (#47770835) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

Ok, so here are some counter arguments to cop cameras:

1) Officer discretion is gone. Jay walking? Have a tiny amount of pot? Prosecute everything since it's on camera and cop might conceivably get into trouble if he lets it go.

2) Potential for privacy invasion. The cameras don't just record the cops actions, they record everything in their line of sight. 800,000 cops in the US = 800,000 cameras on the street and inside people's houses with data stored on government servers.

3) Slippery slope. If you can put camera on cops, why not put them on other government employees? How about post office workers - mail theft is a serious crime. How about private sector employees.

4) More criminals let out on a technicality. This footage is a gift to the Saul Goodman type lawyers who can now pore over every single thing an officer does or says.

5) Cops are people too. How would you like wearing a camera on your job? Would you behave differently? Idk, I think this has subtle implications on good officer retention and also performance as they avoid every even smallest risk in everything they do.

This is more or less off the top of my head. There are probably many more. I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it, but it's ridiculous to say this is obviously a good idea, no discussion necessary.

Comment: Re:Edward Snowden's Plan B? (Score 1) 167

by clarkkent09 (#47587335) Attached to: Law Repressing Social Media, Bloggers Now In Effect In Russia

It's a place to put enemy combatants to whom you don't want to allow the status of POWs (which they are not under international law) but at the same time you don't want to give them access to the US court system by charging them as common criminals (which realistically they also are not as they are waging war on the US). Not really a bad idea.

Comment: Re:theres no money in procedural rigour. (Score 4, Informative) 166

by clarkkent09 (#47570561) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

FDA does actually require testing of the efficacy (in phase 2) as well as safety (phase 1) so you are wrong there. Testing drugs in the US is nothing but thorough. It takes on average 12 years and $350 million dollars to test a new drug and in some cases even longer and over a billion. After the 12 years of testing, the application for final approval (100,000+ pages) takes the FDA on average another 2.5 years to process.

The reasons for this excruciating process are obvious: approve an unsafe drug and your ass is on the line. Delay a life saving drug by years and you are just ensuring safety. People die in both cases but one is a lot more career threatening to than the other.

I'm not saying that testing drugs is not necessary but you have to look at both side of equation. Excessive requirements for testing and bureaucracy involved mean:

1, more expensive drugs
2. fewer drugs brought to market as many are not worth the expense
3. more people dying while waiting 15 years or more for a life saving drug to be approved
4. drug research is cost prohibitive for smaller companies leading to less competition

Comment: Re:Put it another way... (Score 1) 160

by clarkkent09 (#47538379) Attached to: Soccer Superstar Plays With Very Low Brain Activity

The interesting part is are some people really born with the ability to "do it". There is a lot of research that disputes that. Even studies of child prodigies like Mozart show that they have actually put in their 10,000 hours, it's just that they started at a very young age and had an opportunity for a very high quality practice (Mozart father was a famous music teacher and he started from the day Mozart was born).

Comment: Re:Cost (Score 0) 184

by clarkkent09 (#47528571) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

We plan to buy roughly 2,400 of them, plus our allies are buying a whole bunch, so they will hardly be outnumbered by the enemy the way Tiger and Panther were. Also, it is not about speed and maneuverability, its about combination of sensor fusion and advanced networking to maximize situation awareness, also combined with denying the enemy the same through stealth and most advanced electronic warfare ever built into a fighter.

Situational awareness is what warfare is about. Think about how US infantry in Iraq routinely routed Iraqis in ground battles and city fighting especially at night with 10-1 or better ratio. Are US soldiers 10 times faster than Iraqis or is AR-15 10 times better than AK-47? No, it's the fact that our guys from the command down to squad level knew where they were and where the enemy was and they could choose the time and place of engagement and the enemy had no clue what was going on that made all the difference. Night vision equipment made more difference than guns.

I think building this from the ground up sets us up better for the next 50 years than trying to hang more and more stuff off the existing platforms. Now, was it worth this much money. Idk, maybe not, maybe something else could have been built that wasn't quite so expensive but its kinda too late now.

Comment: Re:Wait for it... (Score 4, Interesting) 752

by clarkkent09 (#47478575) Attached to: Malaysian Passenger Plane Reportedly Shot Down Over Ukraine

I highly doubt that this would be a deliberate act by pro-Russian separatists. If it does turn out that this was done by them, this is a HUGE PR disaster for them. They have nothing to gain by it. I see three possibilities:

1 - separatists shot it down accidentally (unlikely as a crew trained to use a highly sophisticated SA-11 system would also know how to tell a civilian airliner from a military transport turboprop)

2 - false flag operation by Ukrainians in order to blame pro-Russians (unlikely as they are too incompetent to pull this off without the word leaking out)

3 - Ukrainians "tricked" the separatists into shooting down the plane. Only couple of days ago separatists shot down an An-26 military transport plane and warned Ukraine not to fly over the region anymore. Two days later a civilian airliner is sent (by the Ukraine flight-control?), 100km away from it's usual flight-path and straight over the separatist area. (Most likely in my opinion)

Comment: Re:Ah. (Score 1, Informative) 752

by clarkkent09 (#47476033) Attached to: Malaysian Passenger Plane Reportedly Shot Down Over Ukraine

Either Russia has given the insurgents some very high tech MANPADS or Russia shot the plane down using an air defense system like the S300.
Those are not the only two possibilities. Ukraine was complaining about Russian planes intruding on it's airspace just yesterday and it possesses plenty of weapons capable of shooting down a plane at that altitude.

Comment: Re:Wait for it... (Score 5, Interesting) 752

by clarkkent09 (#47475791) Attached to: Malaysian Passenger Plane Reportedly Shot Down Over Ukraine

Too much of a coincidence for a plane to crash in a war zone where a fighter was shot down just the other day and a transport aircraft An-26 was shot down by a missile at 25,000ft couple of days ago. And by the way, why would a commercial airliner fly through such an airspace anyway?

Comment: Re:One's "god's will" the other isn't (Score 1) 1330

by clarkkent09 (#47360197) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

And yet we strive to prevent heart attacks, despite their natural nature.

We strive to prevent heart attacks but we don't consider them a crime. Saying that a lot of natural "abortions" happen therefore it is ok to cause a few more is the same thing as saying a lot people die in accidents so its ok to kill a few more.

Logically the religious view is consistent here, and this argument is as silly as the one often made about the alleged hypocrisy of religious people caring fanatically about fetus right to life and yet supporting the death penalty - not inconsistent where you realize that "right to life" is a shorthand for right to life of innocent people, in this case the unborn ones, not an absolute in all cases.

I think the correct argument for abortion is the libertarian one of absolute property right over one's own body. Fetus may have the right to life or not, but it does not have the right to use another person's body in order to survive without that person's consent.

Comment: Re: "Immigration Reform". (Score 1) 341

by clarkkent09 (#47338491) Attached to: If Immigration Reform Is Dead, So Is Raising the H-1B Cap

BS, they are not refugees. Mexico is a middle income country with per capita GDP higher than some European countries (mostly due to being close to the USA). Yes there is a lot of crime and the GDP doesn't give the full picture due to inequality but still a person is far better off there than almost any African country and a lot of countries in Asia, S. America, etc. If the purpose of immigration is to help the immigrants escape danger at home, then lets send the Mexicans back and bring a whole bunch of people from Africa.

Comment: Re:No, they're replacing. (Score 0) 341

by clarkkent09 (#47338463) Attached to: If Immigration Reform Is Dead, So Is Raising the H-1B Cap

Native Americans are a great example of the dangers of remaining a primitive civilization using stone tools, failing to invent the wheel, non-magic medicine, education, roads, bridges, decent agriculture, legal system, government, housing solutions better than primitive huts and caves etc etc.

What do you expect the world to do, leave an enormous continent full of natural resources to a few million savage who didn't know what to do with it. Of course it got taken from them, and look at it now.

Nothing is faster than the speed of light ... To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before the light comes on.