To be honest (and not intending to, but expect I'll start getting insulted because of this) I don't know why this post was modded up insightful so much - other than fervor caused by the current goings-on.

1) The first two sentences are, in effect, a non-sequitur. If it said, "For taking a job, where you are supplied a gun, and often military grade equipment because your job is suppose to Serve and Protect the Public" it would be more correct for the sake of the statement but I'd argue it's still a fallacy.

2) Re: Secrecy, I'll get to that in a minute.

3) Yes, good cops should report bad cops. There's no arguing there.

4) Re: Governors and mayors - 100 percent agree. (Is that an option in every state? Or do local authorities need to be the ones to do it? Asking out of ignorance.)

5) Re: "too many people ..." Citation please? There might be one (e.g., a study), and if so, I'd love to see it so that it can possibly change my mind through facts. Personal observation from working alongside literally hundreds of honest and upstanding LEOs from many state, regional, local, tribal, territorial, national and international organizations has not shown that to be the case. That said, the statement "too many" is true in that in an ideal world, even one qualifies as "too many."

6) Re: Being open - Yes. 100 percent.

7) Re: "If there are some things" ... Not necessarily the case. And in a lot of cases, not true (source: My professional experience. Or maybe better phrased as "experience gained in my profession.") Too often there are concerns about sources and methods (and illegal ones would fall under No. 3, above. They need to be reported). But just because an investigation is completed and/or conviction acquired doesn't mean "all the info" can and/or should be released. Information provided to grand juries often shouldn't. Privacy issues of victims obviously requires extra scrutiny. Information from confidential informants needs to continue to be protected or else it can jeopardize future investigations.

My point in responding isn't an attempt at being pedantic; there are (rightly) a lot of emotions of anger in the world right now and a lot of actions happening and mindsets being established because of them. Despite over the years it becoming more troll'y, I still come to Slashdot in hopes of hearing logical and opposing viewpoints to my own. Yeah, that makes me naive, but I can always hope.

I used to joke that, with the exception of Southern California, you could tell whether you were in the North or South by the direction of the head nod. Northerners do the nod with head moving up ("Sup?") and Southerners go the opposite, "Howdy.")

In the headline: "Smart TVs, smart-home devices found to be leaking sensitive user data, researchers find" - Emphasis added

Because this is how you get imperial units.

So just because you don't have anything to say means you don't need the First Amendment? (I'm not saying your comment did or didn't add to the discussion. I meant it more "big picture.")

> So manager types who worked their way up into this system assume that everyone else should want to do the same thing.

I've got a lot of years of management experience and through it all I've maintained that if I'm not providing opportunities for the folks who work for me to be prepared for their next job, I'm failing in my role. If they want to move into management, I'll work with them to get them into management courses. If staying in positions that provide more opportunities to be hands-on with the technology, I'll help them find courses they feel will help them up those skills (whichever ones they find most interesting).

I never understood the mindset of "If we train them, they'll go elsewhere." It generally takes more than just a single factor for a coworker to go to another job. Providing training isn't any of them.

I would try calling them to discuss but I'm too busy streaming Game of Thrones and I don't have the bandwidth to do both.

Not if you throw enough Bothans at the problem.

>redistribute the magazine ... run into issues

I see what you did there ;)

Please don't tell me what "extra toppings" is code for ...

No. It was a very early version of the X-wing.

I'm amazed ISPs don't have acceptable use language against using VPNs, under some BS guise of claiming they can negatively affect the network. Regardless, next up will be legislation saying that using a VPN robs ISPs of potential revenue and so are no longer legal. Oh, and the children. Somethingsomethingsomething VPN's and children.

Wow. These jokes just keep going and going and going ...

>They already had this.

[citation needed]

> It's kernels all the way down...

Nope. It's all ball bearings nowadays.