Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Always lock your phone! (Score 1) 225

by silfen (#47717669) Attached to: $125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

I'm sorry you have trouble using your phone. I have my phone in my car charger when I drive, and it's automatically unlocked. I just press an icon on the screen and it starts recording. It syncs automatically in the background. No need to lock it because the recording isn't even visible, but you could automate that too. Well, on Android; on iOS you're SOL.

Comment: Re:Leave New York (Score 1) 225

by silfen (#47717643) Attached to: $125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

IMO: if something is happening out in the open, and you are not actually in somebody's way, then you should be able to record it.

I absolutely agree.

Then why so camera shy?

Ferguson apparently had purchased cameras but not installed them yet. Generally, I think cameras are a very good idea, both for citizens and for police, and they should be mandatory. As far as I can tell, police officers are also generally in favor of them.

But police work does attract a certain percentage of jerks, bullies, and criminals. Some police officers don't just pull people from their cars, they bribe officials, buy/sell drugs, extort, and order/carry out hits. You can never eliminate that, but cameras should help. (For that matter, I think our president and top politicians should be recorded 24/7 while in office, with only a delay in making the recordings public.)

I wonder: Would the Ferguson incident have happened if the police knew they were on camera? What about Rodney King?

I think in both cases the answer is yes. The Ferguson officer will almost certainly be found not guilty based on what we know. The actions of the officers in the Rodney King case were found mostly in compliance with the law in two trials; they were found to have used excessive force only with the last few strikes. Police have a legal right to use deadly force in some cases even against non-violent innocent bystanders; public police forces can't function otherwise (there are other ways of dealing with criminals, but we aren't going to implement them any time soon).

Comment: Re:Spilling over to white people (Score 3, Insightful) 225

by silfen (#47710319) Attached to: $125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

And now with the cops feeling all big and powerful...

Nothing much has changed. Cops in the US have been killing about 400 people/year for decades, almost all of them people who attack them, threaten others, or suspects who run away from them. All of those are (generally speaking) legal justifications for the use of deadly force (of course, details matter).

We will start to see changes now - I hope

No, we will not, because the majority of people prefer it that way. If you look at polls, people more concerned about being hurt by criminals than they are about being hurt by police.

By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country

The president is only head of the federal government. Police is mostly local and state matter, and policies are set at the local and state level. Police operates the way it does either because local communities like it that way, or because local communities are too stupid to change it.

Don't hold your breath for any changes.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 698

by silfen (#47710241) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Well obviously, because you didn't actually hear what he had to say when he accused you of "are not providing a reasoned argument (and) labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society." I would call that an insult.

I think he was objectively correct. If you felt insulted by his statement, I think the error is with you.

I'm assuming, of course, you really are saying in good faith you were concerned at the time and expressed that concern.

I was "concerned" in the sense that Eich's actions (supporting Prop 8) affected me as a gay man and that I disagreed with them. I wasn't concerned in the sense of being "worried".

Eich's donation simply reflects the mainstream beliefs of the Mormon and Catholic churches. I happen to disagree with those beliefs (in fact, I think the theology of those churches are morally reprehensible in many ways), but that is no reason not to work with such people as long as they are willing to work with me on a professional basis.

Based on what I have seen, I would have no problem working with Eich, even though he may disapprove of my lifestyle. I would have a problem working at Mozilla, because while my coworkers may accept me as a gay man, they have shown that they are unwilling to separate their personal and professional lives, which is exactly the source of discrimination against gay men and women in the workplace in the first place.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 2) 698

by silfen (#47707129) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I can't really imagine how you could be openly gay and openly discriminated against, yet still be better off than you are today.

For starters, I much prefer open discrimination to hidden discrimination; I prefer hearing "we don't want to hire you because you're gay" to lame excuses, or worse, ending up in a workplace that doesn't accept me.

I could go on, but my general point is that the progressive activist approach of "demanding equality" through legislation is only one of many possible approaches, and one that I believe is ineffective and potentially harmful. So-called "LGBT rights activists" do not speak for all gay men and women, and their means aren't necessarily right just because they pursue ends I may agree with.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 698

by silfen (#47707067) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Do you really think that gay people want "equality of outcome" when they ask for the right to be married? Do you imagine they are demanding brides and husbands be allocated to them or something?

If you're not gay yourself, stop dehumanizing us by thinking of us as some homogeneous group. And if you are gay, grow up and stop assuming that your preferences represent the preferences of every gay person on the planet. Believe it or not, there are many good reasons for gay folks to oppose the push for gay marriage.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 698

by silfen (#47707017) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

These opinions are harmful to express in their current prevalence due to the harmful social effects on many gays (with consequences including poverty and suicide), and in that sense they are unacceptable.

Harmful social effects are when you get beaten up for being gay, as I was as a kid. Harmful social effects are not some Christian conservative voicing his disapproval of gay marriage. Perhaps you are too pampered to understand the difference.

Any imperative to accept all political opinions as valid doesn't apply. ... What draconian attempt?

You said "disliking homosexuals is not acceptable". That isn't a statement about "accepting a political opinion as valid" and sounds threatening to me. Maybe you can clarify what exactly you mean by "disliking homosexuals is not acceptable".

Disliking homosexuals is acceptable in the same way that disliking Catholics, disliking whiny progressives, or disliking having sex with women is acceptable. It may not be a feeling you share, you may prefer that other people didn't have these dislikes, but in the end, you better learn to live with them.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 698

by silfen (#47706869) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Well, take it from the founder of GOproud:

“I just came to the realization that the Republican Party doesn’t represent my principles and values,” LaSalvia told POLITICO. “I’m a small government conservative and they’re for big government. They’re happy to have big government as long as they’re in charge, More importantly, I don’t tolerate bigotry of any kind, whether it’s anti-gay bigotry, anti-Muslim bigotry. And they do and that’s just not OK with me.”

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 2) 698

by silfen (#47703467) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

What matters is that rather than addressing concerns that he might be non-inclusive, he insulted those who were concerned.

And who was "concerned" exactly? And how did he "insult" them?

I think I was "concerned" and I didn't feel "insulted", I simply thought he was wrong. If you can't work with or for people who hold political or religious beliefs you disagree with, you have a problem with professionalism.

Comment: Re: Sigh (Score 1) 698

by silfen (#47703269) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

By your reasoning, any rule that the state imposes could be justified. But just because the state takes my money and builds roads with it, hands it to crony capitalists, and forces me to register my business, doesn't make engaging in social engineering any more legitimate.

And, apart from legitimacy, the problem with the state "requiring that your business not be racist, sexist, etc." isn't that those aren't laudable goals, it's that as policies go, such policies end in failure, if not outright disaster.

If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.