Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 1) 567

Actually, what we've seen is - as a function of how many times the police interact with other people every day all across the country - a very, very small number of such incidents. Vanishingly small fractions of one percent. Which doesn't make such things OK. But it hardly adds up to "the police are killing everybody!" ... which is what one would conclude if one took some of these deliberately hyperbolic idiot activists at their words.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 1) 567

The police need to choose if they only want to interact with violent people or they want to assume people are innocent and peaceful.

What? That doesn't even make sense. The police deal peacefully with peaceful people untold thousands of times every day. I know that doesn't fit the narrative of the BLM types, but of course it's the lion's share of their daily interactions with the public. Alas, a lot of them that are killed on the job are killed while assuming that the person they're approaching isn't going to be violent.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 2, Insightful) 567

So you treat a cop like you treat a poisonous snake or a wild animal.

No, you treat them like people who, every week, are killed for doing things like pulling people over in stolen cars or because they just drunkenly ran a red light. You treat them like people who are routinely assaulted with weapons as they try to do things like stop some guy from killing his wife. You treat them like someone who has just spent their entire week dealing with idiots, violent asshats, people who try to run them down with cars, people who abuse kids, people who actually say out loud that they want to kill them and encourage others do so so and march in the street shouting about how they should be killed. You know, treat them like they are people who aren't paid very much to do a thankless job that gets many of them hurt and killed every year ... and ask yourself if you're helping matters by reaching into your coat suddenly in a poorly lit situation after having forced a cop to chase you down for doing some stupid crap.

Comment Re:Did they realize they were in a National Park? (Score 3, Insightful) 57

Apparently not. All RC aircraft, of any kind, are completely banned from use in any area managed by the parks department. That includes thousands of miles of coastline and riverfronts, huge swaths of unoccupied forest, large areas of unoccupied desert, and so on. We certainly can't have some photographer using a 4-pound plastic quad copter to take pictures from 50' feet in the air out in the middle of a huge forest. But we can allow your visit to a national monument to be disrupted by a pack of screaming children, or someone wearing toxic levels of perfume, or people jousting with selfie sticks in front of Abraham Lincoln, because that's different.

Comment Re:give it a rest (Score 1) 760

So I haven't earned your respect by pointing out the obvious about most people's behavior. That's fine. I don't want the respect of someone whose standards about what's respectable are based on fundamental dishonesty about the world around them. You obviously don't respect me. Fine! Did you respect me before you'd ever heard me say anything? If not, then you're just like me. If yes, then you were proven wrong, and your strategy is incorrect.

Comment Re:give it a rest (Score 1) 760

No, respect should be a default that you can lose by acting like an asshole.

No. Practical experience shows that the vast majority of people are fools, assholes, hypocrites, just plain dim, or otherwise unlikable if not outright reprehensible. The default position certainly should be to expect a demonstration of why respect is worth dispensing. Such displays are far less common than the ample, recurring evidence that most people neither deserve nor understand what respect actually is.

Comment In fact a new version often is how it should be (Score 3, Insightful) 262

Companies should regularly update their products to use the latest tech. There is no reason to freeze a product and not update it for a long time just to make owners feel like they still have the "latest". Rather they should update as often as changes in available technology/manufacturing/etc dictate. Customers then buy new ones as often as they feel it useful.

That's how it has been with desktop computers, excluding Apple, forever. Few, if any, people upgrade every time something new comes out because the changes are usually minor. They buy something, stick with it for a few years, then buy something new when they feel like they want or need it.

The problem is that Apple devices seem to be something that some people wrap their ego in. They feel a need to have the newest device to be "cool" or some such and thus get mad when a newer device comes out that they cannot or do not wish to purchase since they feel it somehow lessens what they do have.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 363

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Prove to who, by what standards? Maybe a legislator should be good at understanding the constitution, the wheels of policy making, the nature of government finance, etc., and then do what committees do ... bring in experts to testify so they'll hear from experts who specialize in the subject matter. An elected representative is supposed to be an expert at being a legislator. Expecting them to be fully formed IT experts or doctorate level virologists or masters of manufacturing processes is completely missing the point.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 5, Funny) 363

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent.

Does that mean that my vote will count more than yours, because I know the difference between "intelligent" and "intelligence?"

Be careful how you tell other people to measure things.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 450

To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals.

No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem. But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime. I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns. They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

It doesn't NEED to be. Unless you're suggesting that gun control laws make guns MORE available in the areas where they are used frequently in crimes. Is that really your contention? Otherwise guns are uniformly available across the country, but at least somewhat less so in areas like Chicago because of the draconian laws (which is why people who wanted to own them for self defense in their homes there had to take the matter to court).

First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

Why? We already see that crime level are much, much lower in most areas where guns are readily available. Guns are harder to legally purchase in Chicago, where they have a huge crime problem. Guns are readily available in other cities, where they do not have that problem. What if Chicago's laws have NO impact on gun ownership levels. So what? Let's say it is has zero effect, and that guns are just as available there as the are in, say, San Diego or Hartford. So what? The differential in crime is enormous. If you're really going to pretend that can't grasp that, then there's little point in continuing the conversation, because you're not fooling anybody.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 450

You're not understanding the difference between long guns and pistols. Which is why I mentioned rifles, and specifically talked about the constantly pointless gun control focus on "assault weapons" (which aren't actually assault rifles, but look scary to people who don't understand that replacing wood with plastic doesn't change the way a semi-auto gun works).

Comment Ya I'm having trouble imagining it (Score 2) 173

Everyone I know, even the cheap types, keeps some kind of wired Internet. It is usually faster than wireless and always cheaper per GB. If you were an EXTREMELY light user I suppose you could go all wireless all the time, but even for the casual user who likes to surf the web on a daily basis and watch cat videos, you'll easily use more data than a wireless provider is interested in letting you have cheap and they'll charge and/or throttle.

Simple example: T-Mobile gives me phone, text, and 1GB of data for $50/month. It would run me $30/month more to get unlimited data (they'll throttle if you get too excessive though). That's for a single device, and gives 7GB of tethering. Speeds are in the realm of 40mbits max, 20-30mbits normally. So that'd work only if your phone is going to be the one-and-only device you use for most things, and do a little surfing on something else. If you want to add a tablet to it you'd be talking adding another line/device which brings it up to about $100/month with 10GB of data per device.

Ok well then having a look at the cable company for about $60/month they'll sell you a 50mbit connection with a 350GB soft cap (meaning if you go over they complain at you and try to upsell you, they don't charge or throttle). You'll really get those kinds of speeds too, pretty much all the time.

That's more money, but not a ton more. Presuming you would have the basic phone plan anyhow you pay about $30/month more than the unlimited or $10/month more than the two devices. With that you get a faster connection, the ability to connect as many devices as you like, enough data to watch Netflix, download games, and so on. Also, you can, of course, upgrade your speed. They'll happily sell you 100mbit or 300mbit for a bit more per month (about $75 and $100 respectively) whereas the mobile speed is what it is.

Not surprising then that all the people I know keep a wired connection. Personally I don't find I need much LTE data, I use WiFi most of the time at work and home, so the 1GB cap is fine for me (more than fine actually) but I need a lot more on another connection. Looking at my usage I used about 350GB last month. Not the kind of thing a wireless provider would be ok with.

"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz