Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score 2) 498

In a civilised society

Well, there's your mistaken assumption right there. In a civilized society, cops don't kick homeless people in the face; they don't rally 'round the abuser and protect them when someone reports such an act; they don't fire the person reporting the act, and they don't intentionally wipe out their reputation. In a civilized society, all of the above go differently.

But in the society we actually have, this kind of thing, and this, is endemic, and eventually the people being abused, while being told to act civilized by the people committing the abuses, will decline to co-operate, and then the rest of us start having discussions like this one.

Comment Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score 1) 498

Well the alternative to execution is generally life in prison (if they're not exonerated) so even if they commit more crimes it will just be against other criminals (which I'm guessing you wouldn't mind).

You've wandered off topic by following my comparison into a new conversation. You had originally said:

Killing bad cops won't get rid of bad cops

While the point I was making when I said "And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes." was: dead cops will not commit more abuses; they're dead.

agent provocateurs are proof that the government will actually encourage violent escalations against them in order to discredit you or take away your rights.

Well, in that case, I'm saying that doesn't seem relevant to this situation.

Uhhh no, that's when boatloads of people will start getting prosecuted for shooting down drones.

The one does not preclude the other.

Neither are binary problems, you can make them a little better, or a little worse, this dude made both worse.

Disagree.

Cheers. :)

Comment Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score 4, Interesting) 498

Well I don't think it's well established that executions deter crime

It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.

I'm sure you've heard of agent provocateurs, the reality is if someone is really looking to take your rights away they're not going to take away your guns, they're going to try to goad you into using them.

So... you figure his trainer was kicking that homeless person in the head in order to goad the (then) trainee cop into later attacking the police department? I have to say, that's a stretch. Not buying it. :)

we've just lost the right not to be policed by drones

We never had such a right. After all the flowery verbiage dissipates, rights actually exist only in the context of someone with violent recourse available to them willing to stand up for a claim to a right. Almost always a group standing up for a member; (this case is particularly interesting because it's a member standing up for a group.) That's never been the case with drones; the government has repeatedly said it's ok to use them, and, they were already in use. When people start shooting drones down (and it's an absolute certainty that they will), that's when you'll develop some rights in the matter.

good cops have lost some ability to speak up about abuse without colleagues comparing them to this guy

As clearly demonstrated, there was no ability to speak up, to be lost. There can only be a gain in this department.

we've lost some right to walk down the street without being shot by some crazy cop

No, again, we didn't have any such right. Happens all the time. Rarely is there any blowback to the cop. And then there's this.

just like the 9/11 bombers made airports a hell of a lot less free

No, that was your legislature. Had nothing to do with the bombers, other than as an excuse. It'll backfire anyway. I stopped flying then; so did a lot of other people. We keep electing stupid, rich people. We keep getting stupid laws designed to benefit the rich. Eventually the public will figure it out.

This isn't a war you'll win, the most you'll do is create an enemy.

Not my war; it's this cop's. And near as I can tell, he's already won. He got his message out, he's generated a huge upwelling of sympathy, there's a lot of discussion of just how bad the cops really are, they haven't even caught him but he's already done more damage to them than remains available to do to him, he may yet do more, and the very, very large number of people who have been handled unfairly by the cops are all watching, no doubt while they take notes. A *lot* of people perceive him as a hero.

Finally, the police have been the enemy for many decades, and we didn't create the situation. They did. From bashing heads in Chicago to the "silent blue line" to beating "suspects", to confiscating people's cameras, money and property, they created the enemy that is them. Now some reaping comes, and in the final analysis, I can't say I'm the least bit surprised, except perhaps only in that it took so long.

Comment Re:Indeed. (Score 1) 498

Which is a hell of a lot less than 34,500 police officers in NYPD today.

I didn't suggest reducing their numbers. You did. Straw man.

You'd only have to accept certain compromises of such a "lean local law enforcement".

No, you wouldn't; these compromises arise from your cutting the workforce. I didn't suggest that.

All criminals are pedestrians anyway, right?

Irrelevant. Criminals can have access to all manner of faster transport, that doesn't mean we provide the cops with same. Furthermore, chases cause tons of collateral damage. We need those to stop as well.

a response time of an hour or so

Oh, you mean like now? LOL. There's a truism about cops: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." I submit to you and all that if they're minutes late or hours late, it makes no substantial difference. They're always there after the crime is done; catching criminals in the act requires being on the street and paying attention to the neighborhood, not insulated in a car, windows up, AC on, radio squawking, looking to deal out a traffic ticket. The cop on the street will learn to know what looks right, who's normally cheerful, who's normally taciturn, what businesses are busy and which aren't, etc. All the things they've completely lost touch with. That at least gives the cop an edge if the officer is in the area when something goes down. If not, it's no different than now.

And there are 12000 signalized intersections in NYC.

Remove them. Studies show they work better that way anyhow. Anyone can direct traffic if need be, but probably, it isn't needed anyway.

Comment Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score 4, Interesting) 498

If you want to be righteous and violent then their families are fair game, and then you'll get a lot of other opportunities to be a hero when they re-escalate in response.

No, it actually works like this.

If you want to actually reduce the violence and killing, of both the cops and innocents, then you need to show restraint and fight them within the system.

The system doesn't work. As this fellow has been telling you. Also, he tried to use the system. It chewed him up and spit him out, as it tends to do when it is challenged in any way. He's moved on to another methodology now. The system has only itself to blame.

Killing bad cops won't get rid of bad cops so only the good ones are left, it will just turn good cops borderline and borderline cops bad.

That's an assumption, one that goes counter to the ones this society is based upon. It has its corollary in "executing criminals and the consequent huge collateral damage to their families won't deter crime, it'll just turn others borderline and the borderline into criminals."

But in fact, what it does is breeds restraint and caution, which moves the borderline away from criminality, and keeps those who weren't even borderline well aware that living right is worth the candle. And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes.

What you want to avoid doing is executing the innocent (or doing anything else to them, for that matter) because they and their families tend to get righteously pissed. Whereas the families of murderers and rapists also get hurt and pissed, but generally speaking, at the criminal, not the system. "YOU brought this on us!" "How could you!" and similar reactions.

Now, if the cops know that engaging in fuckery will get them targeted, and that everyone will suffer if they act like jackasses, not just them, and their families know that such fuckery will also likely get them targeted, the most likely result is that they will begin to actually do their jobs as they were intended to be done.

This is the way of war against something. You go after everything to do with the enemy that has besieged you. You take out the infrastructure, you blockade supplies, you drop on cities and you drop on industry and you drop on troops. You make the cost of being your enemy so high that no one wants to be your enemy. You do it until the other side cries "no more, no more" and convinces you they mean it. Then you occupy them and watch them for a while. In the interim, everyone else watches and goes "good grief, I don't want to be their enemy!"

This guy hasn't decided to play tit-for-tat. He's gone to war. And I'm not talking about modern, trained-to-fail warfare designed to use up munitions and equipment and keep the trough full for the military industrial complex; I'm talking about fuck-we're-facing-hitler-and-tojo all-out nuke-em burn-em where they stand war. And just like that war, the boys in blue started this one. He's already done far more damage to them than they can do to him; will he be able to do enough to make a difference in the sick, decayed culture of police officers? Remains to be seen. I rather think he may have already done so. Odds are good there's at least a spark of awareness already circulating among the police (and not just in LA) that when you step on people unjustly, they may bite back in a way the system can't insulate them from. The more so, now that a powerful example is being set.

It's revolution, writ small. Been a long time coming.

Comment Re:Cloud (Score 1) 173

Because if you can't sell that item you are out the money?

What part of "retail chops" did you fail to understand? If you stock items you can't sell, you have very poor, or no, retail chops, and you shouldn't be working the retail angle.

Any website offering 10% return rates is a scam.

prosper.com has been doing better than that for some time. If it's a scam, the other shoe has yet to drop. Methinks thou doth protest too much. Perhaps it's the financial barrier to entry that actually bothers you.

In any case, none of your objections, even if they had merit, are justification for keeping money in a bank. Banks don't exist to make you money. They exist to make money off of you. And they're very, very good at it. The optimum place to put money is where it will make more money. The answer to that is never "bank."

Comment Re:Cloud (Score 1) 173

As a matter of fact, I don't. There are many reasons to avoid this: avoiding surveillance, prophylactic action against seizure whether accidental or intentional, bank failure or malfeasance, extremely low rate of return (or outright loss, in the case of checking accounts), poor accessibility, vulnerability to inflation, etc.

Now consider inventory: On the average inventory item, the margin is 30 to 50%. This allows money to earn at a rate ten or more times that of any savings account. With an inventory you can keep turning over, the rate of return is spectacular by comparison. If you have even minor retail chops, this is a much better bet than any bank.

Or, just look at the average rate of return on small lending; Sites like prosper.com offer net spreads in excess of 10%. You can do even better in the private loan segment, if you have some people skills.

So let me ask you in return: Why would I keep my money in a bank?

Comment Re:Ethanol from corn is height of stupidity (Score 1) 419

You have air filters fine enough to stop pollen and flow enough air to keep your garden cool?

No, but I would if I were growing.

BTW outdoor 'valuable crops' are the superior product. The quality is all genetics.

Which has zero to do with "outdoors"

Sol is the best sun shining on this planet.

Dur?

What is the ratio of the distances between the light and the top and the middle of an indoor plant?

Light, singular? Budget op, then? LOL. Protip: You don't mount, shine, or weight artificial lights as if they were sunlight equivalent. Shadows are your enemy. Also, protip #2, the sun moves in the sky. The takeaway from that is left as an exercise for the student.

Want to buy some used HPS lamps?

Not until it's legalized, no. But thanks anyway. :)

Comment Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score 3, Insightful) 498

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

Cops murder people all the time. And they send innocent people off to their slaughterhouse prisons to die all the time. And they ruin innocent people's lives all the time. Families are hurt by that all the time. How is that a legitimate fight against crime? And why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance, if the lives of the families of the people they abuse are not?

Actions have consequences. That's the lesson here. Not "omg, innocents!" And where were you when the lives of innocents were being ruined by these cops? Eh? Have you been pointing the finger at the cops for their daily, nay, hourly, maltreatment of innocents?

Comment Re:I wish (Score 2) 498

None of that is nearly as bad as actual murder.

I think that's rather a matter of individual perspective. A life of misery compared with a quick death? It's not cut and dry.

So all you have really accomplished by killing a family member is remove a strategic asset of theirs. And one that is replacable. There is no way that murdering the families of the corrupt, sadistic cops is justified in any way.

I think you're being more than a little disingenuous there. One of the things being accomplished, or at least how it looks from here, is that it is unsafe for everyone involved when a cop is being evil. Not only are they at risk, but their families as well. Now, while a cop may be a sociopath, the family now considers themselves at risk if he or she misbehaves, and additional pressure to behave may come out of that. And if not, well, good riddance to them anyway. Anyone who figures cops, legislators and lawyers should be free to do anything they want -- or who supports them in such fuckery -- should probably die in a fire anyway.

Comment Cloud (Score 4, Insightful) 173

You have to be very naive to trust your data to "the cloud."

So I doubt that anyone significant is moving to it. For the clueless hordes on Faceplant, already accustomed to handing over everything about themselves, maybe so... but the people who actually run things, and do big things... they'll be keeping their data where they have control over it.

They don't trust it to the IT department, either. They're more likely to run, or own, the IT department. And they have your data. But you don't have theirs.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...