Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Systemic and widespread? (Score 2) 489

by crtreece (#49440015) Attached to: The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

LEOs have to worry about that every single time they pull someone over. Is it a soccer mom, a businessman, or a three strikes felon who doesn't want to go back inside? They don't know.

Sorry, but any LEO that gives this line is flat out wrong. Since 1980, there have been only 2 years, 1980, and 2001, where there were more than 200 officer deaths. In 2013, there were 100 deaths, and 51,625 assaults, and 14,857 assaults with injury. Last year, out of over 900,000 sworn officers, there were 117 fatalities (didn't find the assault numbers). Of those dealths, 49 were related to a vehicle crash, 20 of which involved 1 vehicle. It sounds like driver training might be what they are lobbying for.

Top 10 deadliest jobs by death/hr worked include things like logger, fisherman, construction, farming/ranching, powerline techs, miners, and truck drivers.

there's a line of duty death in the United States nearly every day of the week. Statistically speaking law enforcement is safer today than it has been in a long time,

hmmm, the math doesn't seem to add up there. If there was one every day, then total officer deaths should exceed 365, which hasn't happened since...ever. 1930 was the last time the number was over 300.

The War on Drugs also alienates the police from our poorest and most vulnerable communities. The same thing happened during prohibition, this is not a new societal phenomenon. Nor can you blame the police, they enforce the law, legislators write it.

I'll give you the first two, but not "I only enforce the law" part. Police unions, owners of private, for profit prisons, and prison guard unions are the largest contributors to campaigns intended to roll back drug prohibitions. There is also a profit motive, at the department level at least, on the law enforcement side. Civil Forfiture allows police to confiscate personal property with no trial or conviction.

These people are a minority, out of the dozens of LEOs I know I can only name one that falls into this category. Short tempered and thin skinned are bad personality attributes for LEOs.

You have the beginning of a point there. The rest of the point is, the so called "good" officers won't cross the blue line of silence by reporting and testifying against the problem officers. Instead, you get the opposite. Just this week in South Carolina, officer Michael Slager shot and killed an unarmed man, Walter Scott, who was originally accused of trying to take the officers taser. Another officer statement confirmed this report. But wait, independent video later showed that Scott was unarmed, running away, and didn't have the taser. Well, he didn't have it until officer Slager dropped it near the dead body.

Until the LEO community is willing to apply the law to themselves, they will continue to have a reputation as corrupt thugs.

the media and body politic never make a story out of LEOs doing their jobs correctly.

They also never tell a story about a positive outcome from drug use, citizen use of a firearm in self defense, and plenty of other stuff. So how does that make the police shooting case much different?

Law enforcement is a customer service orientated business; unfortunately, all of the customers are assholes."

So LEO have just as many stereotypes as the general public? If your friend doesn't want to deal with types of people and situations that come up in that job, they should look for something different. A drunk shouldn't be a bartender, a junkie shouldn't be a doctor or pharmacist, and people with short tempers and an us vs. them attitude shouldn't be LEO.

Comment: Re:A great deal of your life? (Score 1) 394

by crtreece (#49414343) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?
NoScript is an add on to the firefox web browser. By default it blocks all javascript from running in your browser session, which is how all the social media buttons on websites track you as you click links and move around web pages. I normally set it to temporarily allow scripts from the base domain of sites I visit. So, for example, javascript would be allowed from *.slashdot.org, but if pages on slashdot try to load additional scripts from third party sites like linkedin or facebook , those are blocked.

Using noscript does lead to some compatibility/useability issues, as a lot of the interactive crap built into websites works via calling scripts from other sites. There is an option in the noscript toolbar button to temporarily enable scripts from individual sites. By carefully allowing temp loading of scripts from (non-social media) partner or CDN domains, usually most of the functionality can be regained, while still not loading the tracking scripts from social media sites.

For the /etc/hosts part, there is a tutorial that covers multiple operating systems here. Another alternate hosts file, minus the turorial part, can be found here.

Comment: Re:A great deal of your life? (Score 4, Interesting) 394

by crtreece (#49393537) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

The only winning move is to install noscript.

Or redirect their entries in /etc/hosts to 127.0.0.1.

That way myspace, digg, reddit, twitter, google+, pinterest, linkedin, and every other social site that's managed to get tracking scripts installed in other sites won't be able to track you.

Comment: Re:We the Government (Score 1) 204

Access? Infrastructure costs? Wireless only requires the operator to have enough towers to cover their area, and get the signal back to wherever their connection to ATT was located. Currently, fiber requires you run a line to every location you will be providing service because any incumbant isn't going to lease their lines to a third party, or the lines aren't there in the first place.

What you are suggesting sounds like the essence of most of the municipal broadband plans I have seen. The city runs cables from homes to a central location(s). A company/co-op/ambitious guy buys upstream bandwidth from the central location to the internet, and uses it to service the customers they have recruited and have access to via the city owned cable plant. Some will bundle additional service on top of that, such as email, a website, a news portal, etc. Others can provide IP connectivity and get out of the way.

For a while, DSL worked like this (I did it from 98-05 or so, IIRC). I paid the ILEC for a "naked" DSL line, but they provided no IP service on the line. I then paid the ISP of MY choice for internet services. If you only wanted IP connectivity, not any bundled VOIP, streaming video, etc, you found an ISP that provided the service you wanted, at the price you were willing to pay and signed up. The ILEC also ran ISP services with all the "value added" crap, so they weren't especially interested in making it widely known that you could use someone else, but it could be done.

I moved out to the country, where no one could spell DSL, then somewhere along the line, the requirement for the ILEC to provide third party access to their copper lines was removed.

Comment: Re:We the Government (Score 2) 204

If there are so many people wanting another provider, another company would show up and eat the existing one's lunch.

If I get together with a group of like minded individual with the goal of creating a local fibre ISP, we will fail for the simple lack of access. In most areas, governments have given a local monopoly to an incumbent cable and/or telephone company, and they have exclusive access to the infrastructure needed to run new cables.

Even if it was physically possible, do we really want 47 different sets of cables run up and down every street?This sounds like a huge waste of resources, and a logistical nightmare to me.

I'm no fan of big government. I do think that government should work to manage community resources that are considered essential, electricity, water, roads; in the past, phone service. Does government get it right, and efficient, every time? No. Is government regulation better than the pure free market approach? I expect yes, but since we don't have a truly free market, we may never know.. What is considered essential changes over time. Either we are now, or will soon be, at the point where internet service is essential.

Comment: Re:Assholes, indeed - NRA doesn't like them. (Score 1) 573

by crtreece (#48775173) Attached to: Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol

Soldiers are trained to ignore the internal conflicts and follow orders.

True, most people, christians or not, would hesitate to kill another person without some form of training. But, there are different levels of internal conflict. Following the order to kill a foreigner, while deployed outside the country, doesn't present the same conflict that following the order to kill citizens of your own country would.

If a soldier will kill people under orders, what makes you think they'd hesitate to take away someone's guns when ordered to do so?

Do you understand the concept of legal and illegal order? The Uniform Code of Military Justice (which is a sub-set of United States federal law, not some seperate guidelines invented by the military), Title 10 - Subtitle A - Part II - Chapter 47 - Subchapter X - section 892 provides for punishment of soldiers who fail to carry out lawful orders. There is no requirement to carry out illegal orders, and soldiers from private to general have been prosecuted for issuing or carrying out illegal orders.

I expect that some of them would attempt to carry out that order. I also expect that they would face resistance from others within their ranks that understand the ramifications of such an action. Those being, we are now initiating an armed takeover of the country that we signed up to defend, and going against some of the foundational elements of that country.

It's no different than a gun nut saying in one breath that he "supports the troops" and in the next saying he's going to shoot any soldiers who come to take away his guns.

Why do you keep going to the "Support our troops = believes in 2nd amendment rights" story? Why would you think that "supports troops in (sorta, kinda) legal actions in a foreign country" is the same as "supports troops when they are taking illegal action in the US"? Those are certainly different scenarios.

Your fantasies about citizen-soldiers are nothing more than dreams. If the federal government ever decided to take away your guns, they won't have any problem getting soldiers to do it, and you'll be massively outgunned.

Wow, I though I was a pessimist. Hopefully I can keep dreaming, and don't have to find out how this plays out. I don't know what your definition of "won't have any problem" is, but I guess we'll have to agree-to-disagree about the level of commitment to the rule of law and the constitution that is present in the armed forces. I'm sure it's not 0% would or 0% would not obey those orders, and based on what the actual numbers are, so goes the chances of such a thing happening or not.

For the sake of discussion, what does it look like when 30% of the soldiers given these orders refuse them, and take action to keep them from being implemented. At the same time, approximately 30% of US households own firearms, at a rate of more than 1 per household. I don't think that is "won't have any problem" territory. Sure, some of those people will willfully turn them over, but lets talk about those who don't. Are you suggesting that troops with rocket launchers, or an air strike, are going to be called against some person or group that refuses to turn over their firearms? Now you're getting into Civil War territory, and the only people wishing for that are far out on the fringe. Being "massively outgunned" means less than you might think, see US vs. North Vietnam, USSR vs. Afganistan, Israel vs. Palestinians . You have to factor in the "will to fight". There would be doubt in the minds of soldiers, and much less in their opponents.

Comment: Re:Assholes, indeed - NRA doesn't like them. (Score 1) 573

by crtreece (#48768765) Attached to: Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol
Sorry, I don't know where you are getting any idea that I buy into the "soldier=hero" bullshit. I think protest, resistance and exerting my rights are patriotic, not just parroting whatever the regime-du-jour is spouting. It can't come from making a statement of fact that the majority of the members of the US armed forces are US citizens, and thus will have family and friends that are also US citizens.

If the job assigned to an armed forces member is "deploy inside the United States, and forcefully take weapons from the citizens", then that assignment sets up a conflict, both for the soldiers, and the citizens.

For the soldier, it conflicts with their oath to protect the US and its Constitution, which explicitly states citizens may own firearms. Some will rebel against this type of order, others will not. Whether it moves beyond the order being issued would revolve around the percentages of each, and how they react amongst themselves. Refusing an unlawful order is, IIRC, still a legal action for a soldier.

If soldiers actually get to the point of trying to implement those orders, the conflict is less confusing, yet more severe, for citizens. The soldier is no longer a "American citizens who are just doing their jobs", they are now an invading force attempting a military coup, and there goes the reason for not shooting back.

Comment: Re:Assholes, indeed - NRA doesn't like them. (Score 1) 573

by crtreece (#48746953) Attached to: Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol

loaded rifle on the hood of his truck and it's pointing at me.

Violating the 4 basic rules of firearms? Yea, I would GTFO too.

jet planes and flame throwers and guided fucking missles and grenades

The armed forces are currently composed of your brothers, sisters, uncles, cousins, and friends. These people still have some compunction to not shoot at American citzens. They do still swear an oath to defend the country and the constitution. When war-bots start taking over the front line roles that humans currently occupy, THEN this argument starts making a lot more sense. Hopefully there is never a need for a hot engagement, but history has shown over and over again that people will face those long odds when things get bad enough.

Ferguson riots where the masses threw rocks

Where were the fucking gun rights assholes?

I wasn't aware that the purpose of the protests in Ferguson was to shoot police officers. If that would have happened, we would be in a VERY different place right now. Luckily no one went there.

A number of gun rights groups (sorry, refuse to use your ad-hominem attack terms) were protecting local businesses from being attacked. Just like a number of local business owners did during the LA riots in 1992.

Comment: Re:Pay with the pension fund! (Score 1) 515

by crtreece (#48585335) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

It's a shitty, thankless job where you get to enjoy the worst of human behavior.

They should get a different job then. When you find one that isn't shitty and thankless, let us know.

and occasionally your life is on the line

The job of police officer is not nearly as dangerous as your friends would have you believe. Again, if they don't like it, they can GTFO.

Many of them were soldiers who enlisted, had a gun put in their hand at 18 years old, and taught to kill other people.

If they enlisted, the gun wasn't put in their hands, they reached out and grabbed it. Yet again, their personal choice.

A lot of them are pretty nice work-a-day randos just trying to get through life like the rest of us.

Randos, with guns, authority, and an us vs. them attitude. If you are talking about the so-called "good cops", then show me the story where the "good cop" turned in his co-worker for corruption, violence, etc, and wasn't persecuted by his remaining co-workers. Until police end the Blue Code of Silence (Blue Wall, Blue Shield), then there is no such thing as a good cop. Police who won't enforce the law against other police are just as bad as the law breaker.

Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line

Working...