... he decided to allow police officers to carry PR-24s again.
Despite what you might think, having a non-lethal baton gives a police officer an immediate non-lethal option to something less than a knife or gun in the fight. Well-trained and experience police officers with a PR-24 are easily a match for a knife as well, but that's besides the point. Point: once departments ditched batons, PR-24s, and other kinetic options, the move went to sprays -- which really don't work in all situations and comically get misued -- and technology like tasers and stun guns.
Training is important. Having trained officers makes a huge difference in how they police. Training them to engage without killing is kinda obvious, but the move to point-and-click policing is making it easier to simply harm people who don't comply fast enough, and that removes a bit of humanity from the encounter.
Good luck.
-C
"...t the city did not have jurisdiction over utility poles -- and that the policy change violates contract law. "
This is how Robert Moses, and his authorities, were able to ensconce themselves in the state of New York and build, without any regard for what legislators or executive branches wanted.
I think, however, the city still has eminent domain in its back pocket for extreme cases. Now's a good time to use it.
-C
... this dumb line: " Amadou Diallo, the man assassinated by the NYPD in 1999"
Assassinated? Really? This ceiling on your credibility keeps getting bumped by these cheap shots. Hey, have a good day, hope you don't get pulled over!
-C
I've never thought of it this way, but yes, being self-owned and having a logistics solution that is resistant to outside influence is definitely freeing, and marvelously so.
I just wish this could scale down to individuals, i.e. my freedom of speech could have far less restrictions on it with respect to workplace.
-C
I was with you until you decided to pull out the "serve" argument.
Police officers serve the public good, not people. This is why a police officer is justified in punching you in the face if you order him or her to get you a glass of water. They aren't those kinds of servants.
-C
Given the appointment of an obvious Verizon puppet to the head of the FCC, and given the real lack of interest by the current executive office of the US to protect ordinary citizens, what realistic choices do we have?
The author states: "That leaves us with two choices: improving market competition to increase organic pressure until Verizon behaves, or leaning on some fairly basic regulatory oversight to ensure consumer privacy is protected by some basic rules of the road."
Putting aside the fallacy of two choices, what are the realistic chances of improving organic market conditions? Zero, I'll just skip to the answer.
What are the chances of any basic regulatory oversight during the next three years? Zero.
So, unless someone can show another way to break this, I don't see any way to stop them. Writing letters to the FCC means nothing -- they don't have to listen, and from what I can see, no one can compel them to work for our interests.
So someone please explain how to force the FCC to protect us... because if we're forced to fight state-by-state against VZ, were going to lose.
-C
It's simply put, and impossible to achieve in America now, but you need to regulate business. All business. Everywhere. Even if it's the lightest possible regulation like registering and paying taxes, regulate. There is no such thing as free capitalism here, and there's even less support for that than regulation.
In this specific example, the first and best step would be to separate carriers from content. ABSOLUTELY. Oh, you maintain the wires? You can't offer media. At all. And not holding companies either, we find that out and you're fined $50k a day for each violation.
You'd get your net neutrality for sure. There's plenty of good money -- not great, but good money -- in being in infrastructure. It requires capital to invest, but you have a captive audience of sorts. But if your only interest is maintaining the wires, you can't get involved in the fuckery of limiting TV channels, Internet sites, and so forth.
Oh yeah.
-C
More like CompEng but not even that... software dev maybe?
-C
Your warrant forces you to deal with the situation; you're not entitled to some benefits if you have this open issue.
It's legal, and it's proper.
As for the argument about putting deputies at risk for rescuing people with warrants... let's have some statistics on that risk, otherwise your thought experiment is a bag of hot air.
-C
" This was an attempt to mine for dirt that might be used to justify an unjustifiable shoot."
Clearly it was justified. Your opinion isn't greater than the findings of a jury in the trial. Too bad for you and your agenda!
-C
What's the EU going to do? What *can* they do? Block Google at the endpoints?
If Google tells Canada to go jump off a cliff, what is Canada going to do to enforce its ruling? What *can* they do?
I don't understand the implications if Google simply decided to defy them.
"Good cops are a relative rarity."
That, right there, is why you're a bad author, and unqualified to talk about the subject. You clearly don't know any.
-C
The only proper response to such a request is "Fuck you"
What if the FCC doesn't listen? Is there an actual negative outcome possible for the FCC chair and FCC itself? I don't see one, not with this administration.
Maybe re-read Mark Twain's "Roughing It" to see how tolerant Mormons were.
-C
Prove it or STFU. PTSD is a real thing, police brutality is a real thing, but each is individual, not systemic. And no, police brutality is not systemic, despite what the anti-cop authors say.
Your reputation will eventually weight your determination of an article as "fake/not fake"over time, and as you become a trusted moderator, you'll be invested in the ethics of the role.
It's not perfect, but it keeps FB from having to build teams to act as arbiters for this.
-C
The FCC could ask for how they calculate the data charges, then everyone will see how AT&T values the data and content, separately.
-C
Declare it for any property that could be re-used by competitors. See how they like that.
Then cancel the contract and open it up to Google. Watch how fast Verizon rolls trucks.
-C
Right up until you assert,,,
"To ensure someone gets tossed in jail for breaking the chain of planned obsolescence, Microsoft (and prosecutors) want the court to believe the existence of recovery disks that do nothing unless a person already has a licensed copy of Windows has somehow made the company $700,000 poorer."
Was the planned obsolescence proved? No. You can't state it as fact.
-C