Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Why do I get the feeling... (Score 2) 255

Why do I get the feeling a lawsuit isn't far behind this announcement? The parent's description of the child's horror and emotional turmoil seem ready made for a lawyer to grab up and sue Knightscope, the mall, and every business (with money) in earshot and eyesight of the event.

Comment Re:karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

They probably had it in their minds that this was a guy with a gun, and a black guy with a gun, therefore they felt he MUST be arrested or shot with no other alternatives allowed.

Umm...he DID have a gun. That's why the cops were called in the first place, as he was reported to be threatening people with it. At that point it didn't matter whether he was black, white, red, yellow, or indigo. An armed person confronting police automatically brings lethal force into the situation. Police tried every non-lethal method available to them to subdue Sterling, including physical restraint. During the attempt to restrain him, Sterling disobeyed commands to keep his hands away from his weapon and gave every appearance of reaching for it. In such a situation, lethal force is authorized and legal.

Moral of the story: don't be a fucking idiot. Don't be a felon with an illegal firearm. Don't wave it around at people. Don't fight with police. Don't reach for your weapon when the cops have drawn on you and have you at point blank range. Sterling is dead because he took MULTIPLE steps to create the situation.

Comment Re:karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

Try digging into the case a little more than watching the video. Sterling was a convicted felon. He had a gun on him, which is illegal for a convicted felon. He knew if he was caught and searched, they'd find it and he'd be headed back to jail.

When police are struggling with a person who has a gun, they have every right to assume that person intends to use it. The escalation to lethal force was due to Sterling's actions. No prosecutor is going to make murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or anything else stick because none of it is true. Sterling was armed, fighting with police, and reached for his weapon. Shooting him at that point was justified NO MATTER WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON.

Comment Re:karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

I've been stopped for speeding on more than one occasion and I carry at all times. Each time, as soon as the officer approaches, I make sure both hands are on the wheel and announce I am carrying. I tell the officer where my weapon is and offer to let them take possession of it for the duration of the stop if it will make THEM feel safer. I'm neither rich nor delusional. It's simply a matter of understanding the cop doesn't know me, doesn't know my intentions, and doesn't want to be shot in the line of duty. Since I'm not a fool like Sterling (who, as a convicted felon, illegally possessed a firearm), I don't want to be shot either. Simple communication and respect for both sides of the situation keeps things from escalating. Sterling knew if he complied with the cops he'd be searched, they'd find his weapon, and he'd be headed to jail again. Like I said, he was stupid and now he's dead because of it.

Comment Re:karma's a bitch (Score 1) 393

The Philando Castile shooting was a definite case of the cop acting improperly. "Improperly" doesn't sound strong enough but I'm unable to come up with the right word at the moment. However, if you listen to the video afterwards the cop is absolutely distraught to the point of tears. It's clear he overreacted and thought Castile was going for a weapon. He will be put on trial and face the consequences, and Castile's death is an unmitigated tragedy. That said, the situation could have been avoided if Castile had announced what he was about to do asked the cop if he was OK with it first. Not BLAMING Castile. Fault is definitely with the officer. I'm merely offering a suggestion on ways this could have been avoided.

Sterling is a different case entirely despite attempts to conflate the two simply because both victims were black. Sterling was a convicted felon. He had a gun on him, which is illegal for a convicted felon to possess. Police were responding to a call where Sterling was reported to be waving a gun and threatening people with it so they had every reason to suspect it was a very dangerous situation. Sterling refused verbal commands to stand down and be searched, no doubt because he knew if they found his weapon he'd be going back to jail. Police used Tasers on Sterling to little effect. Seeing that, they attempted to restrain him physically. He fought them, no doubt because he knew he was headed to jail if they succeeded. During the fight he was pinned to the ground, his left arm was pinned, but his right arm -- the arm nearest his gun -- was free. Sterling was verbally ordered not to use his hands. Sterling instead moved his hand towards his waistband, this even after the cop had pulled his weapon and had it point blank on Sterling. Cops had every reason to suspect they had an armed, belligerent suspect who was going for his weapon. Lethal force was called for.

The moral of Sterling's story is he acted stupidly and is dead because of it. DON'T fight with police, especially when you have a weapon on you, legally or otherwise. I'm not arguing people need to knuckle under to bullying cops, but it's important to consider the situation from the cop's perspective. If you have a weapon on you -- or they have strong suspicion you have one on you -- any threatening move you make can look like you're preparing to escalate. Do everything you can to assure the cop you're NOT a threat. If you have a weapon, state that fact clearly. Tell the officer where the gun is while your hands are in plain view. Offer to temporarily give up the weapon while you're being questioned. Make no sudden moves, especially if they involve moving your hands out of view of the officer. None of this is "being a pussy." It's acknowledging the cop DOESN'T know your intentions and, like all of us, would like to go home to his/her family at the end of the day alive instead of to the morgue.

Comment Re:That point is not in sight (Score 1) 499

It's an industry wide problem that has been getting worse for decade in a feedback loop. Word about women not getting jobs got around so as you've described they are not even trying in some situations.

So what you're saying is women aren't being hired because women are hearing women aren't being hired, thus they don't apply, thus they don't get hired. From this I can deduce two things:

1. You need to shut the fuck up saying women aren't being hired because they're women, as you're perpetuating the problem by promulgating a false narrative based on counterfactual information, thus reinforcing a feedback loop that wouldn't exist in the first place without SJW's like you.
2. Women need to stop being so passive and malleable that they let someone else -- especially a male like yourself -- tell them what they can and can't be hired for.

This whole "bias against women" thing is crap. While I'm sure somewhere there's some crusty old CIO who won't "hire one of them gals," the vast, overwhelming majority of the IT workforce doesn't give one damn about your genitalia. They care if you can do the job. Period. If you can, you're hired. If not, you're not. People like yourself who try to read into it beyond that have a preconceived agenda that always surfaces no matter the actual facts of the situation. You're convinced a bias exists, therefore you see it even when you have zero conclusive evidence to support its existence.

Comment Re:That point is not in sight (Score 1) 499

Now now..no point in cluttering dblll's mind with actual facts from the real world. As he stated after not even bothering to read my original post, the only reason you and I don't acknowledge bias is because we're part of the misogynistic, paternalistic, male-dominated "bro" culture. It can't possibly be because, for reasons known only to them, women do not flock to the IT fields in equal numbers as men. It must be because men are engaged in some invisible-yet-omnipotent process somewhere, somehow, someplace, someway that's keeping qualified, intelligent women out of IT even though there's absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion and plenty of evidence to contradict it. In other words, it's a conspiracy, just like chemtrails, the moon landing hoax, and aliens at Area 51.

For the record, I have three daughters, no sons. The oldest is 14 and has an interest in coding...an interest I have coddled since she was nine. So yeah, it's totally believable that I have no interest in finding bias and want her to fail. Yup. Gotta keep that "bro culture" thing going, keep those females barefoot, pregnant, and subservient their whole lives so men stay in charge just like The Good Lord Baby Jesus God wanted! (/sarcasm)

Comment At what point (Score 2) 499

At what point do we simply accept what is blatantly obvious: there is, by and large, no "bias" against women in the tech sector. Women aren't under-represented because men are pigs and want to preserve some paternalistic male bastion. Women do poorly because women have historically shunned the tech and engineering fields. Most women don't like the field despite how much feminism tells us they do. As a result, they're usually less experienced and have less education in the field.

Note I'm speaking in generalities. This does not mean women are somehow intellectually inferior to men or otherwise unable to do the job. I've come across women in this field who are every bit as savvy as men, but I've come across very few women in total. As a percentage of their gender, I'd say there are far more women in the tech/engineering fields who know what they're doing than a percentage of males, probably because the women to do choose this field do it out of a genuine interest in the field and not some "if a guy can do it, I can do it better" impulse.

The tech industry, in my experience, is a very good example of a meritocracy. People who are good at what they do get promoted on ability with little or no thought to their gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, or anything else (except age, and ageism is a problem in our field regardless of these factors). This constant cry for "diversity" and "equality" is a call to dumb down and water down this very meritocracy and it should be resisted at every possible turn.

We don't need more women, or more minorities, or more anything other than more well-qualified, competent technicians and engineers. If they happen to be women, or minorities, or [insert aggrieved group of choice here], great, but they have to be good at their jobs first.

Comment What everyone is asking for (Score 1) 771

So what Apple is essentially saying is "hey, even though nobody asked us to delete the headphone jack, we're gonna do it anyway. So we can make the phone thinner, which is also something nobody is asking for. Meanwhile, everyone IS asking for greater battery life in our mobile devices, but we don't give a shit because we're Apple. We tell CUSTOMERS what they want and they LIKE it that way!"

Does this not strike anyone else as ridiculously arrogant? Would we tolerate this kind of behavior out of ANY other OEM on the planet besides Apple?

Comment Re: Meanwhile ... (Score 1) 117

There's a valid and useful solution to the problem you state: you burn your waste actinides in a fast breeder. It generates power, vastly depletes the amount of waste you need to dispose of, and the remaining waste is far less hazardous. It's a win-win across the board.

Too bad then-President Carter killed all research into the technology back in the 1970's, not because it didn't work but because he feared nuclear proliferation. Of course, that's worked wonders to keep nukes out of the hands of the North Korean's, Iranian's, etc., right? If you ask me, killing fast breeder tech was too high a price to pay for such little returns.

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

Guns were invented to kill people.

No, guns were invented to kill the enemy. They were a military invention first, designed to supplant other ranged weapons like bows. And if they could be kept in the hands of non-crazies and non-criminals then you'd have no reason to quarrel with their existence. Your prime objection is the "bad guys" can get guns, therefore having guns PERIOD is not worth the danger, therefore these guns should be banned.

This brings up the big question: exactly how do you plan to keep criminals and crazies from STILL getting guns or keeping the ones they have?

If you can answer this one simple in such a fashion that, for the rest of my life and the lives of all my descendants, they never find themselves in a situation where they are assailed by someone having a firearm while they're legally unable to have the same, then I'll support you. Until then, I'll keep my guns and oppose you and anyone else who thinks they're making the world "safer" by implementing bans and laws that have failed miserably on both large and small scales.

The patrons in Pulse in Orlando subcontracted out their safety to the club and to the city police department, thinking those organizations along with blind chance would keep them safe. Their luck ran out, and the two places that were most intimately involved in keeping them safe (a) demanded they disarm before entering the club, (b) were incapable of responding to the club fast enough to prevent a hostage situation and subsequent killings. The patrons paid for their lax value of safety with their lives. You may be willing to make such a gamble with your life, but I will not. You can bet the fallen in Pulse wished they hadn't.

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

And yet, if I misuse the cake, I can easily kill you with it. Likewise, a petite female being threatened with rape by a large male could use an item "with the express purpose of killing things" to defend herself in a way that would otherwise be impossible.

A gun is a tool. An inanimate collection of metal an plastic. Like any tool, like any inanimate ITEM, it can be used for good or ill. That does not make the tool culpable, anymore than cakes are culpable for your death if I smother you with one, or choke you on one. What's culpable is the HUMAN BEING performing the action.

You anti-gun people seem to forget that a gun put an end to the Orlando shooter. Guns are not unbridled engines of evil and destruction. There are almost 300 million guns in America right this very minute. Yesterday, none of them were used in a mass killing. Nor the day before. And if you add up all the days they WEREN'T used as such, you find an almost infinitesimal number are used improperly, well under 1%, whereas the vast overwhelming majority are used for benign (sporting/hunting) or defensive purposes.

Comment Re:frist post (Score 1) 569

There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.

Oh you're looking for a LOGICAL argument from an anti-gun liberal? Come on now, you know you're not going to get that. He's going to come up with a FANCIFUL argument, deny your LOGICAL one exists or is valid, and claim victory.

And if he can't do that he'll just call you racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, and a bully, and then he'll take his ball and go home.

Comment And yet... (Score 2) 142

And yet if you search for things like "Trump" and "racist" like SourceFed did, you sure get results from Google. Ditto for stuff on Bernie. To me, the damning evidence is the "trending" searches on each candidate. Hillary searches are very much linked with things like Benghazi and her email scandal, yet those results just aren't showing like "racist Trump," even though searches for those terms are just as popular.

If Google has a policy about pushing down search results for ANYTHING, regardless of who or what it is, that's a bad thing. Search engines should be as neutral as humanly and algorithmically possible. Otherwise, even if this is a perfectly innocent "mistake" by Google, it gives the APPEARANCE of bias.

Comment Why not just (Score 1) 371

Why not just tell them you don't have any social media accounts? Unless you're one of those fools who keeps your FB open to the entire world, the best they can do is say "well what about this page with your name on it?" and you say "must be somebody else!" How are they going to prove otherwise?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...