typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

## Comment Re:Good (Score 1)372

(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)

Your 'killed by police' number seems wildly off. I have found no 'definitive' source but the best numbers I have seen say between 350 to 750 people a year are killed by officers. I would be interested where your number for this actually came from as you are putting this at 2x the high number I have been able to find.

Your first two stats show a clear risk assessment. The average person is over 10x more likely to be killed by a non-cop than a cop. This takes into account everything. Add in other forms of crimes and they are clearly the greater risk. After this at best you could classify people into 'more likely' and 'less likely' groups.

After this you supply 'arrests per year' and 'number of police' do derive 'arrests per officer per year'. Mathematically valid up to this point but meaning less when compared with murdered numbers per year.

Now you perform your magic 'adjustment'. Here is where I cant even fathom what you are thinking. So, per every 100,000 officers you hare a 5.6% chance of one of the people they arrest being murdered? I think maybe that is what you are saying? What does that even mean?

I am sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend the numbers to meet your preconceived notion here.

If you wanted something to support where I think you were going you should compare felons vs murders and cops vs murders. At 20m felons presumably committing 5 murders per 100,000 people we get .25 murders/1m felons/100,000 people/year. This is obviously less than the cop number.

Now that we have some fact that seems to support that cops kill more people per capita than felons do, I can now say: Who care? Be good and you will have limited interactions with cops. When you interact with cops be aware and don't do anything aggressive and you have a very low chance of being hurt by a cop. Yes, there is always a chance, but the chance is small.

I have in the past (and chances are it will continue into the future) been the victim of several moderate to petty bad crimes. The worst I have gotten from a cop is tongue lashing. I am sorry, but criminals are a much greater danger than the cops (at the current time, in the USA).

## Comment Re:Good (Score 1)372

(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)

Not sure what is strange about of sense of reality. I can watch these videos and compare them to the actions I would have taken (on either side) and see what the outcomes are. I have yet to see one that would conform even remotely to what I would do so none of them concern me greatly.

From the non-cop side I would say several mistakes were made. I was taught as a youngster to stay calm, make no quick movements and comply with officers. If you think s/he did something wrong that is something to take up with their boss not them. (presuming the cop flashed lights/siren to pull the guy over) His first mistake was getting out of the car, you should always let the cop come to you. (presuming there was no weapon in the car) His second mistake was quickly spinning around and reaching for something in the car. His mistakes were minor but not something that applies to my family as we just wouldn't do these things.

From the cop side I would say he made several mistakes as well. If an officer does not feel in control of the situation he shouldn't start by asking for documentation to be provided. He should take the time to get comfortable (get the guy to move away from the car or get in the car) before proceeding. Second, "get out of the car" is not the instruction he should have given when the non-cop made the sudden move. If the guy is pulling a gun it does no good. If the guy is honest it will be moving him into a confrontational stance which will get him shot anyway.

At this point there are mistakes on both sides. Now you have the interesting part. The non-cop turns back around (in compliance with what the officer says) and the officer fires two shots. I can't know what the cop thought he saw so I have no idea if this was legit or not. If it would have stopped right here I would say the non-cop needs a talking to and the cop needs some training on clear communications and situation control. However, at the point the non-cop does exactly what he was supposed to. He puts his hands up and complies in a non-aggressive manner. The cop however, shoots twice more. This is clearly wrong.

At the minimum the cop needs to get fired (clearly unable to calm down in dangerous situations). At the maximum the cop should be gotten with attempted murder (presuming this is a pattern). I did a touch of searching and can't find out what actually happened to the cop so I don't know if there was a miscarriage of justice or not here.

All of that being said, none of this applies to me or my family. In any situation with a police officer we always follow instructions and do whatever we can to make sure we are clearly not a threat. When I get pulled over, hands stay clearly on the wheel so they can see them. When they come up to the window if they ask for something that I must reach for I clearly state what I am doing before I do it. The one abusive cop I have run into I continued to comply until the cop went away and then I went down to the station and talked to her boss. I heard that a couple years later she ended up getting enough complaints that they booted her.

Be calm, be polite, be helpful. Clearly communicate about anything that you think might be misconstrued.

So, you get the criminals to conform to the same standards and I will start going downtown again after sundown (one too many run-ins with shady people). Until then, they are still a wildly larger threat than any officer I meet.

## Comment Re:Good (Score -1, Flamebait)372

Sorry, the reality is that I don't put myself or my family in a situation where a cop is likely to kill us. I am at far more risk from people who do things that get themselves killed by cops than I am by the cops. Show me a video of a cop gunning down someone who is calm and following directions and then I will be worried. The reality is that cops don't appear to be just shooting people for no reason at the moment. In fact, I am about as likely to get killed in a high speed pursuit as I am to be purposefully killed by a cop. Oddly enough we are in the 'struck by lightning' sort of percentages here.

Because I can control myself I am pretty sure I am far less likely than the average to be killed by a cop (like a .0001% chance a year). If I just compare that to my chance of being murdered by a bad guy/girl (.004%) than it could be concerning (yes its a fraction but a measurable fraction) but add in other crimes and its not even close (2.9%). Now a cop on the other hand has a much higher chance of getting killed (.014%).

The 'facts' clearly show that if cops suddenly became more aggressive and killed 2x the numbers they currently do and if it reduced just the murder rate by 5% the average person would be better off. Hell, for the most law-abiding citizens even 1% or a .1% change would probably be beneficial.

## Comment Re:"Regulation is not a good in itself." (Score 1)385

I agree with his statement but think there is more nuance than you obviously give it credit for. The phrase "All regulations are an affront to individual freedoms and as such they are all bad." is like; All murder is inherently an affront to freedom and as such is bad. It is true, but being bad does not mean that it might not be the best choice in some situations.

Few people believe there should be no government. Few people believe there should be a government that controls all aspects of your life. I would like to believe that his statement is supporting something on the 'less government' side not absolute anarchy. He rightly brings up that all regulations are forcing someone to do something (at the point of a gun being the end result of all government force) and as such are a limitation of personal freedom.

At the complete absurd end imagine a law that stated that everyone must do something that everyone already does. Lets say that the law says that everyone must take one breath every half hour. The current world record is 20 minutes so you would think this law while not doing anything at least would avoid doing harm. This however is not true. Just by existing the law adds legal burdens and compliance costs, restricts people from even attempting some things and adds to the ever increasing list of things you can get prosecuted for that you would never know is illegal.

All regulations start as a negative, the real question is how to you decide which ones have enough positive to outweigh this.

## Comment Re: Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops th (Score 1)298

Awesome, so now Biden gets to decide who's traffic goes first... I hope all your emails start with your professed love for the Democrats or its the 10kbps bucket for you.

## Comment Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops thi (Score 1)298

Oh my, that is probably the best use of that quote I have seen in ages.

--Thanks!

## Comment Re:Not quite that (Score 2)269

Why would we want them to get lasting things done? About the only thing that makes those that want to govern tolerable is that they are generally too stupid to get anything done. Nobody who wants to govern should ever be intrusted with any real power. The more they argue about worthless things they less they are able to hurt us.

## Comment Re:Who are you talking about? (Score 1)683

Ah, so we should all be C-Sections to avoid your truly awesome prophetic abilities? Or not.

In reality for all quintiles of the income spectrum 30-40% of people stay in the same quintile as their parents. For the middle quintiles it appears to be a 20% chance to move to each of the adjacent quintiles. So, while there is a strong association between your parents income and what you will make your own hard work appears to be a huge factor. Better yet, in raw purchasing power approximately 80% of people will make more than their parents did (yep, even losing ground in % race usually still leaves you better off than your parents).

While nothing guarantees success you can (and many do) guarantee their mediocrity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

## Comment Re:Oy (Score 1)683

Free market... In education? In the united states? I have to ask what century you are from as there hasn't been anything even passing for a free market in education in my lifetime, my parent's lifetime or my grandparent's lifetime. Few things are controlled by the government with such glee as education.

## Comment Re:Oy (Score 2)683

Ok sorry your points are silly.

(a) Part of why the Jews were persecuted due to their un-due economic and political power.
(b) Additionally they were automatically suspect as they tended to cling to their communities and not intermingle (can you say 'bubble').
(c) Jewish hate was widespread and common in the 1920s (and for much of history).

That is not to say that the previous posts arguments were much better. In fact the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler really are closer to each other in cause and effect than they are to modern America. In fact if you were to read Mien Kampf you would find several places where Hitler talks about using the French Revolution as a model for 'social change'.

From what I have read starvation is really what lead to the French Revolution and the rise of Hitler. Fortunately deaths in the USA due to starvation are so rare that they figure anorexia contributes most of them. It takes energy to break social inertia and thought history it appears that flaming hate at a specific group is the easiest way to generate that energy.

As far as I can tell this is just (hopefully) the last vestiges of the 'down with The Man' mentality out on the wacky coast.

## Comment Re:Actually it starts at conception (Score 1)489

Sorry, but someone has to call BS so here we go.

First, presuming you are living in the 2000s and not a time traveler recent data suggests the average working woman makes 23% less than the average man. This DOES NOT try to control for any factors. When you control for factors even AAUW can only find at best a 7% difference. Some reports show the difference as low as 4.3%. Is there a detectable difference in pay between the sexes? Yes, but just barely. Obviously, as people have a hard time understanding these numbers, "Math is hard" is probably a real thing.

Second, the rest of your argument is not a complete lie so I have no problem with it. The argument, and studies, about how much is nature and how much is nurture have been going on for a really long time so there is probably substantial truth in both positions. That being said in the US the 'Tom Boy' description is a great example of how your 'freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture' is a bit over exaggerated. (As a side note did you know that pink used to be a masculine color it wasn't till the early 1900s that it was considered feminine).

## Comment Re:Fuel efficiency is nice, but... (Score 2)368

Chance to die in a car accident in a year (last 5 year average): .01%

Lets say you come up with a magic technology that can reduce that to 0 deaths and in this ridiculous future the average life expectancy is 100 years. Presuming an even age distribution of deaths you should see about 1% of people die with an average of 50 years wasted. Lets presume that all of this is quality life and lets use the high end estimates on a value of a life (\$100k/year). Each person saved should be worth on average about \$5m. The average saved across the entire USA would be \$50,000 per person per LIFETIME. Yep that would make it about \$500 per year (again assuming 100 year average lives).

So, yes I can look at the numbers and put a price on safety. Given the difference between the cost of my used car and the cost of a new one is several multiples of this statistical savings I would have to say this is a suckers bet.