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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 1) 277

It appears we agree on the intimidation factor.
We can disagree if it's purely the perception on the part of the civilian or a tactic of law enforcement.

Either way: it remains a fact. Otherwise normal people do dumb things out of fear, which can cause a situation to escalate very quickly.

Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen.

False.
They may have no extra "rights" to do so; If a cop shoots someone, it's next to impossible to prove malice or incompetence on the part of the officer.
See Blue wall of silence.

You can also be detained/imprisoned/jailed/kidnapped based solely on Probable Cause. At minimum a nice way to ruin someones day.
Sounds like a lot of power to me.

I will add that I have been rather unhappy with the way it seem law enforcement has changed just over the past 5 to 7 years alone.

I'm also very sad to see this.
Think about it this way: What have we missed before cellphones became powerful and ubiquitous evidence collecting machines. I think that the only thing that has changed is that the public is able to police the police much better now.

Here are some fun numbers

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 5, Insightful) 277

Intimidation is a purposeful and deliberate tactic to gain compliance through fear of violence.
Everything about police is intimidating: the uniform, the car, driving tactics, visible weapons, approach and demeanor.
Here is an article delving into some of the psychology.

When the police approach you or pull you over there is always that fight or flight instinct that kicks in, even when you've done nothing wrong. Why? Because police are intimidating as hell and they have the power to either kill you or imprison you.
It is also contrary to the nature of the human male to submit: when you get pushed, you push back. This is why you see the backlash or attitudes from ordinary people against cops.

There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.

Comment Re:fix it first (Score 1) 55

epic whiz bang interface with pie charts and graphs and lots of blinking lights.

Executives eat this shit up.

This is exactly what they did in my company. They put all the security guys behind a glass wall with CSI style lighting and giant TV's with "realtime attack maps", "global security health checks" and other useless crap that's displayed n sexy graphs and EGC style graphics.

It's all a show.

Comment Re:It's the base assumption that its invalid (Score 1) 392

There needs to be no justification for someone encrypting their own data. It's yours. You can encrypt it, destroy it, delete it or do your taxes with it. Unless the phone / data was used in the crime, I don't see how it's relevant. Go get a warrant and ask the phone company for records.

Comment Re:Certifications are fine (Score 1) 296

That does not mean that they don't succeed elsewhere. It only means they didn't succeed at Google - nothing more.

Being successful and being qualified are two very different things.

I think the point GP was making is that (and my experience in IT confirms this) more often than not those that are certification heavy tend to be less qualified/talented/passionate than those with similar experience.

Comment Re:In short? (Score 3, Insightful) 318

Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.

Modded to 5 completely without citation and from what I assume is mostly conjecture. Nice job.

1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them.

I have seen this first hand. IBM came into our company, hired all of us and then sent everyone home to telecommute. About 1/3 of the people could not cope and got fired; Your statement seems to imply that people are inherently incapable of working remotely, which is complete crap. It's a learned behaviour. The other 2/3 of my colleagues and I went on to have lengthy productive tenures at IBM (without seeing an office or each other for up to 6-10 years at a time).

2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.

Citation please? I'll settle for an anecdote.
While this may be a way of "clearing your brain", "getting into the zone", or whatever you call it: It's a learned routine that tells your brain "it's time for work". You do this when working remotely as well. You get a routine in place that get's your mind ready for work (even when you work at home, it's very important).

3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead.

Cognitive overhead? If operating Skype is too difficult or a cognitive overhead for you, then yes you will need to remain on-site to flip the burgers and operate the fryer.
While I personally don't like Skype I feel that a telephone call is just as effective as an in person meeting (except I can't punch someone in the face... I'll let you decide if that's a positive or negative).

4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.

Again I'm going to have to ask for a study that says "corridor conversations" are more productive.
How many of you attend 15 minute meetings that regularly sprawl into an hour?
"Corridor conversations" happen all the time when you work remote: Believe it or not working remotely I've been able to establish close personal relationships with people I've never met in person, yet talk to on a daily basis (just shoot the shit for a couple minutes before or after a meeting).

The fact is trucking people and resources to a central point for a few hours a day only to then have a mass exodus in the evening is not sustainable. There are more drivers getting on the roads than getting off. We can't build lanes in big cities fast enough. People are going to have to go home.

I know that in my field (Software/Systems Engineering) people aren't all that social in the first place (everyone has their headphones on all day). Nothing I do requires me, my peers or our management to be located in any specific place. All of the tools required to do my job fit in a backpack and can be easily afforded by me if required.

I've been on-site the last 5 years (after a 12 year stretch remotely) and the co-workers I talk to are fairly miserable having to commute and then sit around in a sterile office environment. I see so many people that think because they show up to warm a chair everyday yet fail to produce anything meaningful they can hold a job (and they're mostly correct). When you telecommute the employer usually has strict expectations you need to meet (it's sink or swim).

The only people I know that really push for the 'on site' mentality in my field are the upper management or shareholders that just want to see their minions slaving feverishly beneath them.

The basic fact is that if you work remotely or commute to work on-site, both are a learned behaviours that require discipline.

Just my 2 cents.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...