And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I really want to know how the Dartmouth protesters haven't been thrown out of school yet.

You know, it's a difficult topic. But the administration at Dartmouth has only said that no one has made an official complaint, so as far as they are concerned, the allegations made in this story and many others are fictitious.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

...but is the point that you lose a certain expectation of safety when you choose to commit a crime completely irrelevant?

I think if white people were gunned down for being stupid at the same rate, you'd have a point.

The problem being, if someone commits a petty crime, do they deserve the death penalty?

[Solecismic]

That's an easy question, though. No, our judicial system would hand down a relatively light sentence - probably not even including jail time - for the strong-arm robbery of a convenience store.

What do we want police to do, though, if the suspect resists apprehension? I think we're talking about more than being stupid here.

Do we have statistics on how many suspects resist arrest and in what manner?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's an easy question, though. No, our judicial system would hand down a relatively light sentence - probably not even including jail time - for the strong-arm robbery of a convenience store.

What do we want police to do, though, if the suspect resists apprehension? I think we're talking about more than being stupid here.

Do we have statistics on how many suspects resist arrest and in what manner?

I honestly can't believe a huge portion of white people behave any differently when confronted by cops. All one has to do is watch COPS or World's Dumbest.

We hold brown people to a different standard than white people. It is the way this country works.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I honestly can't believe a huge portion of white people behave any differently when confronted by cops. All one has to do is watch COPS or World's Dumbest.

Wouldn't you think black people, as a group, have more fear about confrontations with officers than white people?

There was an article going around facebook this week about a black professor who was briefly stopped by officers looking for a robbery suspect. The professor said that he thought he was going to die because he "wasn't going in that police car". It was just something he decided wasn't going to happen, because of his fears and attitudes about police officers. It was a race-based fear. They were white officers, he was black. So he was going to resist. Fortunately they didn't try to arrest him, and they let him go after they brought the victim by and she said he wasn't the guy.

If he did resist, odds are he wouldn't have been killed. Officers manage to safely arrest countless numbers of people of varying degrees of cooperation, and most officers have never "gunned down" anyone - but the fact that he assumed death tells you the state of his fear that led to the decision to resist. But, it could have gotten ugly. If the officers were great at their job, they would have taken him in quickly (the usual scenario), if they were inexperienced and/or not that great and the professor was strong, he could have been injured. And I can't blame the guy for his fear, I'll never be in his shoes. And fear isn't usually a choice.

Edit: I Fit the Description... -

Fear based on biases go both ways and that's something can make any situation more dangerous. Plenty of white people are afraid of police officers too, and that can lead to poor decisions, but there's just this entire category of race-based bias and fear that exists when it's white officers and black suspects. And the bias/fears can compound each other. A white officer might have a bias against blacks and assume they're more dangerous, but another officer might just be nervous that the black suspect will be more afraid because he's black and the officer is white. These are just the ways humans think and process things, and they all impact judgment in the moment. So I'd expect those scenarios to have more problems (though most of time, everything goes fine.)

Good officer training hits on this stuff. You don't necessarily have to be a racist to make race and fear based errors in judgment, and that goes for officers and suspects. Everybody has biases and fears, but it can be tough for people to acknowledge that about themselves. And most people don't really have to acknowledge it, because it's something that normally won't blow up on you the way it can blow up on officers and suspects if things aren't understood and those fears aren't kept in check.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So we've solved it. Brown people are safe as long as they're always at the library!

Passive aggressive much?

[Edward64]

Is it a wonder that people don't think of the GOP as being inclusive when Trump is the leading candidate.

He scares me but boy, his presidency would be "entertaining" as heck.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politi...ion/index.html

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

Trump, who has previously called for surveillance against mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the U.S., made his latest controversial call in a news release. His message comes in the wake of a deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, by suspected ISIS sympathizers and the day after President Barack Obama asked the country not to "turn against one another" out of fear.

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine," Trump said in a statement. "Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Passive aggressive much?

Nah, just sarcastic.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Nah, just sarcastic.

Good, didn't know you were just clowning around, for a second I thought you were seriously calling me a racist.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Nah, just sarcastic. thumbsup

Is your goal to help people come to solutions, or to make people who don't agree with you feel bad? There's so much that we need to study before we can conclude where we are as a society between racism exists in some places and institutional racism is everywhere. Yet people make these assertions and anyone who disagrees with those assertions is somewhat evil.

Originally Posted by Edwaard64

Is it a wonder that people don't think of the GOP as being inclusive when Trump is the leading candidate.

We get another debate a week from tomorrow. I'm sure terrorism will be the topic in the first segment.

Kasich tried to land blows the last time, but Trump seems impervious to that kind of challenge. The question is what will the 75% who don't see closing the borders to Muslims as a solution to this issue (maybe Trump will get Saudi Arabia to pay for this special wall) do when they start voting.

Unfortunately, it looks like eight will almost certainly qualify for the debate. Paul is on the cusp, and should stick unless there's bad news in NH in the next few days.

There's a secondary debate scheduled, but only Huckabee meets the criteria. Maybe they'll let him do a song-and-dance show if Paul doesn't drop back down.

It seems safe to ignore the other four candidates right now (Gilmore, Pataki, Santorum, Graham).

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is your goal to help people come to solutions, or to make people who don't agree with you feel bad?

I honestly don't think a bunch of sport sim fans who are all over the political spectrum are going to come up with a solution to this problem.

Then there is the "feel bad" part: I don't think anyone should ever walk away from here feeling bad. We're a passionate bunch that tends to speak their minds. I've been on the wrong end of some posts that were less than polite and never walked away from here feeling bad.

That people are passionate is one of the things I enjoy about this place.

[Solecismic]

I guess feeling bad is the wrong term. More that when someone doesn't treat those who differ with respect, you think less of that person and don't want to discuss interesting issues.

And don't sell us short as solution-providers. This is hardly your garden-variety sports radio crowd.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I guess feeling bad is the wrong term. More that when someone doesn't treat those who differ with respect, you think less of that person and don't want to discuss interesting issues.

I don't think I was disrespecting anyone by being sarcastic (kinda who I am). I'm not the first here to have used sarcasm and I doubt I'll be the last.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't think I was disrespecting anyone by being sarcastic (kinda who I am). I'm not the first here to have used sarcasm and I doubt I'll be the last.

Trust me, I don't feel bad. It's no big deal, it's coming from you after all, but your comment was disrespectful.

[cuervo72]

It depends on how you feel bad. If someone feels bad because they stopped to examine some of their positions and you feel an ounce of remorse or shame about them, that's probably good. You can change. If you are comfortable with your positions, then such discussions shouldn't bother you. (They might make you angry because you regard your verbal combatants as complete idiots, but you shouldn't feel bad at all about yourself. )

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It depends on how you feel bad. If someone feels bad because they stopped to examine some of their positions and you feel an ounce of remorse or shame about them, that's probably good. You can change. If you are comfortable with your positions, then such discussions shouldn't bother you. (They might make you angry because you regard your verbal combatants as complete idiots, but you shouldn't feel bad at all about yourself. )

My head hurts reading this. I think I feel bad now. Wait...what is this strange...feeling. It's a feeling! I can feel it! I've changed. Praise Jesus!

[Solecismic]

I don't see shame as a standard. The most self-righteous people don't seem to feel shame in those positions.

I read constantly - all sorts of stuff. My positions are often changing a little bit. The idea of belonging to a group that has positions defined for it is troubling.

I like discussing what I read without all the nattering. I miswrote when I said feeling bad is a standard. I keep an ignore list not because of what's written in response to me (though when I start to get frustrated with someone, I will often engage that person a little more crossly than usual); it's more to remind myself that the person doesn't seem interested in listening and often doesn't treat others with respect. I still see what they write - all it does is stop me from responding if I log in to comment. Which is exactly why I do it.

What's the point of being superior (viewing combatants as complete idiots) if you can't express that superiority in a respectful manner? We seek to protect ourselves far too much when it comes to the Internet. If you're genuinely a superior being, you can make a real difference convincing people, one-at-a-time, without being a jerk about it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

My head hurts reading this. I think I feel bad now. Wait...what is this strange...feeling. It's a feeling! I can feel it! I've changed. Praise Jesus!

See, this mocking didn't make me feel bad. It made me chuckle!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

See, this mocking didn't make me feel bad. It made me chuckle!

I'm here for you, man...here for you.

[cuervo72]

But yes, I think a lot of people hold or parrot beliefs without really thinking about why they believe something or examining the logic of their stance. I have respect for those who read, and read from a variety of sources, and are open to reexamining their opinions. If they do that but still apply a different logic or come to a different conclusion than I do? Well, that happens. And hey, I might even be proven wrong or reevaluate my own stance.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What's the point of being superior (viewing combatants as complete idiots) if you can't express that superiority in a respectful manner? We seek to protect ourselves far too much when it comes to the Internet. If you're genuinely a superior being, you can make a real difference convincing people, one-at-a-time, without being a jerk about it.

Because the flip side to that is 'you can't argue with idiots because they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' As someone who likes to bring up in other threads that the youth of today are overly PC and sheltered, wouldn't you think that calling people out for having a stupid opinion is at times necessary?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by nol

Because the flip side to that is 'you can't argue with idiots because they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' As someone who likes to bring up in other threads that the youth of today are overly PC and sheltered, wouldn't you think that calling people out for having a stupid opinion is at times necessary?

I don't think calling someone out as 'stupid' is useful or helpful in the main, some people may not be open minded enough to take on another opinion but calling them stupid is a good way of ensuring that is the case.

Generally I try and make people reconsider their opinions through open discussion and making them think logically about their stance .... and sometimes I find its myself who ends up reconsidering his opinion because of this discussion

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by nol

Because the flip side to that is 'you can't argue with idiots because they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' As someone who likes to bring up in other threads that the youth of today are overly PC and sheltered, wouldn't you think that calling people out for having a stupid opinion is at times necessary?

The first sentence is more an example of banging your head against a wall. Like walking into a church on Sunday and trying to prove that god doesn't exist.

I don't think you can "convert" people to your viewpoint when you treat them like idiots who can't think for themselves.

The second sentence is more about shutting down discussion. My complaint about sheltered students is that their "safe spaces" are specifically spaces where they don't have to listen. Someone who disagrees is evil. Administrators are afraid and take the easy approach of appeasement.

Point there being that our best and brightest are learning that open discussion is a negative.


If someone is an idiot, there's either no hope, or he's going to have to learn this on his own. Unfortunately, the more certain you are about something, the more likely it is that you're the one who's being an idiot.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is it a wonder that people don't think of the GOP as being inclusive when Trump is the leading candidate.

No, but it is a misunderstanding of his appeal, which has little to do with his actual policy proposals and a lot more to do with his defiant style of leadership.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am good with shotguns for home defense. I'm good with requiring a conceal carry permit for handguns. I'm good with rifles for hunting. That's about as "liberal" as I would go.

For the record, I'd support pretty much the same thing. With a permitting process that's a little more rigorous than what you go through to qualify for a mortgage.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, but it is a misunderstanding of his appeal, which has little to do with his actual policy proposals and a lot more to do with his defiant style of leadership.

Let's not underestimate the appeal of his attacks on immigrants and Muslims.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Let's not underestimate the appeal of his attacks on immigrants and Muslims.

...or the surging levels of fanaticism that is riding that wave into the west.

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/us/san...ing/index.html

Short version: the male shooter seems to have had jihadist leanings and connections dating back to at least 2012.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/us/san...ing/index.html

Short version: the male shooter seems to have had jihadist leanings and connections dating back to at least 2012.

Yeah, this was a terrorist attack, no question, and it definitely is no longer realistic to think it was some random insane person (or persons in this case) on a mass shooting binge because of liberal gun laws.

[NobodyHere]

So the FBI wants to coerce Apple into hacking the killers iPhone but Apple is resisting.

Here's why the FBI forcing Apple to break into an iPhone is a big deal

I can't believe that I actually find myself rooting for Apple here.

[EagleFan]

Can't they push the code to that one phone and be done with it?

[Groundhog]

Yeah, ditto... FBI has invested money into cracking Apple's encryption as it is, so this seems "a bit" opportunistic to me.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can't they push the code to that one phone and be done with it?

Do you think the FBI would delete the code after they access the data in the phone?

[jeff061]

Or that this wouldn't be precedent for a whole lot of other less clear cut scenarios.

Draw the hard line or don't draw one at all.

[stevew]

I feel like this would have been more worthwhile if done immediately after the attack. Now it's just troublesome and a bad idea.

[molson]

"The first is the question it raises about who can make this type of demand. If the U.S. government can force Apple to do this, why can't the Chinese or Russian governments?"

I'd say it's because the FBI and DOJ are the agencies that has jurisdiction over investigation of the attacks. If you murder some people, the state or federal investigative agency gets to search those boxes in your garage, not China.

I understand the second concern about giving the feds the keys to the kingdom, but there has to be a way to get the information on this particular phone without giving up all of Apple's secrets. Sometimes there's situations where the government has a warrant to search a hard drive that also likely contains confidential attorney-client information. In those situations, the judge works out a common-sense solution - tech experts are appointed, confidential information is protected, the government agencies get what they're entitled to. Usually that works out just fine unless one or both of the parties have some ulterior motive, which may be the case here.

[EagleFan]

Just seems there must be a common sense solution. If Apple can hack the phone to give them unlimited attempts at cracking the password it seems like a pretty easy one-off solution. Apple hacks it, FBI can try as many attempts as the want to get in. Move on.

I seriously doubt that a hack doesn't already exist.

[cartman]

I seem to be missing something in this. The court is saying that Apple needs to provide a custom IPSW file, which is basically an image of the OS for the phone. However, to install it, you wipe the phone, then restore the user data from a backup. So, unless they have a backup, then installing the new IPSW also deletes the data. But if they have a backup, then why do they need to get into the phone?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

"The first is the question it raises about who can make this type of demand. If the U.S. government can force Apple to do this, why can't the Chinese or Russian governments?"

I'd say it's because the FBI and DOJ are the agencies that has jurisdiction over investigation of the attacks. If you murder some people, the state or federal investigative agency gets to search those boxes in your garage, not China.

The reality is though that Apple does a lot of business in China (sells more iPhones in China than the USA, for starters), and has managed to avoid giving up the keys to the castle to the Chinese government up to this point (which in itself would not have been easy, to put it lightly). As an organisation if they do this for the USA, they will have little choice but to do so for China as well.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by cartman

I seem to be missing something in this. The court is saying that Apple needs to provide a custom IPSW file, which is basically an image of the OS for the phone. However, to install it, you wipe the phone, then restore the user data from a backup. So, unless they have a backup, then installing the new IPSW also deletes the data. But if they have a backup, then why do they need to get into the phone?

BECAUSE TERRORISM, THAT'S WHY.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Or that this wouldn't be precedent for a whole lot of other less clear cut scenarios.

Draw the hard line or don't draw one at all.

Sounds like we could apply this slippery slope concern to issues on all sides of the spectrum.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

The reality is though that Apple does a lot of business in China (sells more iPhones in China than the USA, for starters), and has managed to avoid giving up the keys to the castle to the Chinese government up to this point (which in itself would not have been easy, to put it lightly). As an organisation if they do this for the USA, they will have little choice but to do so for China as well.

I'd be surprised if China couldn't unencrypt I phone data, actually.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

"The first is the question it raises about who can make this type of demand. If the U.S. government can force Apple to do this, why can't the Chinese or Russian governments?"

Because they've already cracked it and dont need Apple's help.

[albionmoonlight]

The government gets warrants to access private things all the time. That part of this does not bother me.

The part that seems strange and unsettling to me is the government forcing a private company--that had nothing to do with the underlying crime--to make its product less helpful/useful in order to assist the government in a fishing expedition.

I mean, even in an election season, we can all agree on this one, right? Apple knows what the market wants better than the US government, right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd be surprised if China couldn't unencrypt I phone data, actually.

I'd be surprised if they could. Maybe for basic passwords but would take years on anything that is 6 or more characters.

[stevew]

The San Bernardino Terrorist's iCloud Password Was Accidentally Reset By His Employer

[Drake]

Of all the things in this election season that I would have expected to blow up my Facebook with crazies, this thing with Apple and the FBI was not one of them.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'd be surprised if China couldn't unencrypt I phone data, actually.

If they could, you have a lot more to worry about than what's on the phones of the shooters from San Bernardino, believe me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd be surprised if they could. Maybe for basic passwords but would take years on anything that is 6 or more characters.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Mr. and Mrs. Wiggins are now in their early 70s. They have both retired. They still live in that house. I try to go see them when I'm home. Their 864-square foot house is plenty for the two of them. All four of their girls and/or their husbands are gainfully employed, live in the Columbus area, and there are grandkids to enjoy now. Mr. Wiggins's brother bought a house on that same street in the late 60s/early 70s as well, and he and his wife are still there, too. Both of THEIR kids are also married, moved on, and gainfully employed. The Wiggins brothers and their wives aren't going anywhere. I doubt they can afford to. I just checked Zillow. The ZEstimate value of both homes is under $45K. I know for a fact that the next-door Mr. Wiggins keeps a loaded gun in his home to protect himself and his wife from the neighborhood thugs, and I would think that his brother does, too. If they didn't have guns, there's little/no question that the thugs who have basically taken over that neighborhood would come in and help themselves to their things.

Because there is zero chance that the hoodlum predators in that neighborhood are going to give up their weapons or their lifestyles of crime, I want Mr. Wiggins to be able to keep his gun. But if there was any way whatsoever to get the guns out of the hands of the thugs in EUH, I'd be the first to sign up for that.

...and here are the next-door Mr. and Mrs. Wiggins, briefly shown in this interview about a murder that took place across the street from them.



Neighbors speak on homicide on Urban Avenue in Columbus