In some states, like NH, the default is that you can even hunt on other people's (privately-owned) land, unless it is posted. As a landowner, you are encouraged to allow free, recreational use of your land by others.
France also has very strong gun controls. It is of course, more complicated than that. And, by the way, a man shot and killed 12 people in the UK in 2010 with legally held rifles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
France's gun controls are looser than the UK's, but more importantly they don't have a defensible border. Laws are one thing: successful implementation of them is something quite different. The EU has a very weak border in general and especially once former eastern bloc countries joined Schengen, stockpiles of former Soviet weapons overnight went from one side of the border to the other.
"Cops are trained to push peoples buttons and make them lose control"
They are? I could see why, say, detectives interviewing a suspect might use that approach to try to get them to say something incriminating, but for regular cops I would think their job is made much easier if the people they interact with are calm.
Think of executing searches. A cop needs a reason to search someone (their person, their car, etc.), beyond just being suspicious. Frequently they can prod people into providing them such a reason.
Yes and it is for a good reason. Earlier today in New Jersey:
> A jury yesterday found Spolizino, 37, not guilty of death by auto and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death of 24-year-old Stephen Clifford on April 19, 2013. An aggravated manslaughter charge had been tossed earlier by the judge.
> Authorities said Spolizino was driving 60 miles per hour -- 35 MPH over the speed limit -- when his vehicle struck Clifford on Kennedy Boulevard. The state argued Spolizino caused Clifford's death through the recklessness of the speed at which he was driving.
> The jury disagreed.
> Video showed the pickup continue north on Kennedy Boulevard where it went through a red light at Montgomery Street before pulling over.
> The video then showed the pickup go into reverse and back up to Montgomery, the officer quickly dialed 911 and a witness said he saw the officer at the scene of the crash within five to 10 minutes of the impact.
> During the trial, Garrigan noted that Clifford was crossing against the green, implying that Clifford bore some of the responsibility. He also noted that speeding on Kennedy Boulevard is common.
I don't have any insight into the case in particular but I really doubt the outcome would have been the same if the person driving were not a police officer.
In other news, the NJ police had choice words for Tarantino.
> The New Jersey State Policeman’s Benevolent Association has become the latest police organization to call for a boycott of Quentin Tarantino’s films, following the director’s participation in an anti-police brutality march in New York last weekend.
[...]
>“Quentin Tarantino needs to understand that as a public figure his voice is one that people listen to,” Colligan’s statement continued. “He has an obligation to be more responsible. This is not a movie, this is real life where police officers lives are impacted by his words.”
You know what impacts police officers' credibility more than a director's words? The benches of police officers that filled up in solidarity of a police officer who doesn't deny that he was behind the wheel of a car in a hit and run case driving 60 miles per hour on a 35 miles per hour area. Would any of the police officers be there if it was... I don't know... an undocumented immigrant without a license or an out of state driver or anyone who was not a police officer?
It isn't a value judgement, but I would certainly prefer a system that is structured to reward rational actors and execute the stated mission. The current design seems pretty ironic to me.
Spinal cords, marrow, organs (especially brains) tend to be very nutrious in fact. When given a choice, most wild animals will preffer what we call the waste.
There is a theory that falconry developed in part because birds of prey will first eat the nutritious parts of prey (i.e. the spinal cords, marrow, organs, etc.) leaving the muscle for the very last. Since humans largely prefer the muscle, it forms the basis for a lovely friendship.
Hell, the wolves dogs are descended for preferentially go for the dead, dying, diseased, and disabled animals (and the young). They're easier and safer to hunt.
>> broken beaks, brain, spinal cord tissue, bones, lungs, intestinal tracts from slaughterhouse wastes of dead, dying, diseased or disabled animals
>I'm no zoologist, but this seems exactly the kind of thing that a carnivorous/omnivorous wild animal would happily eat.
it is just pretty naive pastoral picture that many fall victims to. To start - beaks, feathers, hoofs, horns and many other pieces the cats/dogs wouldn't eat naturally. The second, most important - that stuff is flooded with strong chemicals to avoid perishing until it reaches the pet food manufacturer. This isn't preservatives from your canned food. It is basically unregulated industrial toxic stuff. And thus it ends up in the stomachs of the cats and dogs. And thus the epidemic of various autoimmune and cancer diseases.
A cautionary tale: Echo starts recording when it hears the "wake" word ('Alexa' or 'Amazon'), but it can mistake other words or parts of speech for a wake word (for example, consider how close the phrase "he likes her" is to "Alexa"). Browsing through the history I have found snippets of conversations that Echo had no business listening to, and which the recorded subjects certainly did not wish to send to Amazon.
I've had Echo ever since it was first released for Prime members. I live in a small studio apartment. Not once has it ever accidentally turned on. Not from me, guests, or the tv.
I've had maybe 3-4 times in the same period, but they were understandable. Like "a mess of" triggered it once. We just laugh and move on. I do think the "always listening" argument has some merit, because it seems to me it must keep a buffer of sound to recognize so that it always catches the "A" part of Alexa. But that's not "always listening to everything", versus "always listening for a very specific initial trigger sound".
Why is this hard to understand? The map is not the territory! Any data you didn't record yourself may not be complete.
If you controlled the firmware of a device that surreptitiously records more than it should be recording, would you show those "extra" recordings to the mark nicely chronologically sorted with the legitimate recordings?
If you were a criminal (or government agency) attacking these devices with bad firmware or buffer overrun, would you have even the slightest care about making sure echo.amazon.com is updated to show your eavesdropping?
// only five karmas and a username that is a googlewhack (!) bringing up exactly 5 posts and nothing else smells a bit like JTRIG
...I guess i just misunderstood the nature of your question. Yeah there's no way to tell if the history is everything they send or just the commands it heard. But at least it's something. Guess you're looking for something more along the lines of this type stuff
I'd heard that users can see a complete history of all commands "heard" by Alexa. I was also told that you can "delete" entries from this history (similar to cleaning your browser history). Is that true, and is that the history you're referring to?
Although it doesn't undo the creepyness of an always-on microphone picking up your conversations, it's an interesting way for Amazon to mitigate that.
Yes, you can list (and listen to) your Echo voice command history, and delete them. Frustratingly, there is no bulk delete that I have found - you have to go through them individually.
