This sounds very good. I see a calendar icon but wonder what the calendar actually looks like. A limited trial may help potential users answer questions like that. Either way, impressive and will keep an eye on this.
"You've ignored that, and instead chosen to beat up a straw man: the idea that I give credence to everything in the indictment..."
They may have been confused by you writing, "Here's the indictment. It's quite straightforward." Either way, point is this is yet another NSA thread derailed by a smaller issue (insider trading vs. 4th amendment, domestic spying, etc). It's too bad people choose to engage and let it happen over and over.
Ideological purity tests, references to communist witch hunts and a plea to unite? Interesting framing of this. Noticed another commenter mention you're mixing views & actions. It's like naming a fast food CEO to the Department of Health or someone who worked to undermine safety standards to OSHA. I really don't care whether it's a man or woman, black or white, republican or democrat, christian or atheist - it's about the product and the message this sends to users isn't good.
Because less people will click on an article titled "Six Ways America Could Improve". I don't know how Rolling Stone handles it, but often journalists and people writing op-eds don't even come up with the titles.
"The sworn officer would focus on helping local schools increase their safety and prevent student truancy and on working with the area's large businesses to improve their security"
This really means harassing and arresting problem students and undesirables who are loitering near businesses. I say that because if you want to address the underlying issues and really "solve" the problem, you wouldn't do it with police. It sounds like they want their own private security but one that has police powers.
What comes to mind is cities that try and fix issues related to the homeless with police because it's a complex human problem that some people & businesses try to solve with punishment/enforcement. At the least, I'll venture to say there's more effective ways to combat truancy than unleashing police on them.
> This really means harassing and arresting problem students and undesirables who are loitering near businesses.
It's also probably unconstitutional, on the ground that it produces at least the appearance of selective enforcement. This kind of goal is usually achieved by hiring a private security guard, rather than paying a (normally) taxpayer-funded police department to focus its attention on a specific zone.
I'm not really not sure about the unconstitutional argument, but it's extremely common. Normally it's done more explicitly by hiring off duty officers. NYPD has the paid detail unit to organize private details for businesses. Where I live in Atlanta, every neighborhood you'd want to live in has their own privately paid force of off-duty officers patrolling. I'm more surprised that facebook is basically offering a grant/donation than outright hiring their own off-duty officers.
I'm not sure if you're referring to a certain jurisdiction in the US, another country, or speaking "theoretically per your interpretation of the US constitution if a case made it to the supreme court", but that is not accurate for the majority of the states in the US. Most US states I'm aware of currently grant officers police authority on and off duty per state law.
Hm, I see that police in Norway also seem to have the same authority off-duty as while at work (and certain obligation to intervene if they happen upon serious crime, as well as the option to intervene as if they where on duty (as long as they are able to identify themselves as police officers, and are sober)). They are prohibited against taking other jobs (moonlighting) without approval from the police commissioner, however.
> By off duty, I mean fully in department issued uniform, badge, gun, and radio with full police authority same as on duty.
Don't you understand that an off-duty police officer may not be in uniform, that that's illegal? In some jurisdictions an off-duty police officer is expected to carry his gun, but he may not exercise police powers.
In short, when a police officer goes off shift, he loses his police powers. Being a policeman is a job, not an identity.
> Normally it's done more explicitly by hiring off duty officers.
That's different. An off-duty police officer isn't acting in his official capacity as an agent of the police force, under oath. While off duty, he's just another trained civilian, suitable for private security duty.
> I'm more surprised that facebook is basically offering a grant/donation than outright hiring their own off-duty officers.
So am I -- what they're suggesting appears to be a violation of the law.
As I mentioned to the other poster, off duty officers here (and many/most places) work in their department issued uniform with their badge/radio/gun with full police powers/immunity. Besides neighborhood patrols, another common use is parking garages or high end shopping centers hiring officers to stop traffic to let people in/out of their location on busy streets. It's not just ATL, NYPD paid detail unit supplies off duty in unform officers with dept insurance. Many police department websites even have online forms to fill out if you want to hire officer/s with standard rates.
I believe there are a few states/jurisdictions that restrict off duty officers from working in uniform w/police power, but that's probably a minority. With budgets being cut everywhere, officers being able to earn an extra 50% or more of their normal salary working off duty gigs is a "free benefit" the department can offer, or like in NYC where the NYPD charges a 10% admin fee ($1.18m earned in 2011) it's extra income for the dept.
> As I mentioned to the other poster, off duty officers here (and many/most places) work in their department issued uniform with their badge/radio/gun with full police powers/immunity [emphasis added].
Your claim is false, and you need to learn constitutional law. A police office working as a private security guard is not acting as an agent of the police, he is acting as an agent of whomever hired him, and he does not have police powers. He can make the same arrests that a citizen can make, but has no official police powers.
Quote: "Private police lack the same arrest powers of government law enforcement, but do have the right to make a citizens arrest if they actually witness a crime happening."
The above means that off-duty police officers are citizens, not police officers. It's considered desirable to learn a topic before posting about it, not after.
Quote: "Q: Does a security officer have the police power to make an arrest in new jersey? A: No, NJ does not give Private Security officers/guards any special police powers to execute an arrest. You only have the power to make a citizens arrest."
You'd first need to show at least one state where off duty officers lack arrest authority.
NJ Statute Quote: "40A:14-152.1. Municipal police officer; power of arrest for crime committed in his presence anywhere within state. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S. 40A:14-152 or any other law to the contrary, any full-time, permanently appointed municipal police officer shall have full power of arrest for any crime committed in said officer's presence and committed anywhere within the territorial limits of the State of New Jersey."
There is no mention of requiring the officer to be on duty, and plenty of cities in NJ off in-uniform off duty officers. For example, Jersey City municipal code, § 3-85.1 Off-duty employment, includes:
"Purpose. For the convenience of those persons which utilize the services of off-duty law enforcement officers of the Jersey City Police Department, and to authorize the outside employment of Police while off-duty, the City of Jersey City hereby establishes a policy regarding the use of off-duty officers in compliance with Attorney General Formal Opinion 1997-No. 23."
If you want to make some type of claim that any of the extensive off duty police employment (or even arrest powers) that happens is somehow theoretically unconstitutional at a federal or state level, I'd love to hear that argument and reasoning, but it's important to separate legal theory with the practiced and enforced laws. In most states, officers have their police authority on and off duty.
This really means harassing and arresting problem students and undesirables who are loitering near businesses.
It's also safer if they let the cops do the skull-cracking. This way Zuck doesn't have to give an awkward press conference about why his security guards were filmed beating up some teenagers in the parking lot.
Great idea and thanks for sharing. We've been trying different methods to teach savings but so far the pure excitement of "I want it!" has defeated all logic. We've been stuck making choices for him instead of him learning to make them on his own. Definitely going to use this the rest of the year. Will be easy to keep track of on the phone.
You say you're concerned about perception and trying to help him. Honestly, do you think people perceive someone who makes a typo worse or the person who is repeatedly correcting them on an internet forum worse?
It's not a typo, it's a repeated grammatical error. I perceive someone repeatedly correcting someone else's errors as probably having too much time on their hands. I perceive someone repeatedly making grade-school level errors (as covered elsewhere, this is not a common ESL error) as not worth my time to even read. Up to you which of those is worse.
Was wondering if anyone would correct me for calling it a typo instead of a grammar error since if I wrote "your" instead of "you're" it would have been too obvious. Seriously though, I used to judge people the same way right after undergrad. I was young and thought people who made such errors were stupid. But, over the years I encountered some very successful people that could barely write and had to reflect a bit. "How is guy is a self-made multimillionaire when he can barely write?" I realized that my dismissing of people like that made me feel superior but it wasn't actually a good filter. Obviously you've reached a different conclusion by deciding that people who make grammar errors on internet forums aren't worth your time, so to each his own.
There are enough independent correlates of success that any given successful person will almost certainly be missing one of them, if not several. Writing well is one example. That said, it does still correlate to success, and therefore still functions as evidence. There are too many comments on the internet to act as though every one is equally worth reading. It makes more sense to do a quick Bayesian update on the available evidence and move on to a comment that is more likely to be valuable. This isn't a value judgment about the person who made the comment, it's just pragmatism.
Oh, I misinterpreted what you meant then. Regardless, your logic is sound and has lead me to think about things I hadn't considered. So, from now on I won't disregard grammar errors but will instead use them as evidence. That said, I'm kind of stuck on how to proceed when the ideas in a comment are trending towards valuable but I reach a grammar error. Maybe how to handle those is just a function of personal preference or available time? Also, based on your experience, should I consider user names as part of the available evidence?
They're weak evidence. If the first half of a comment is valuable it's probably worth reading the rest. And yes, username is strong evidence. I read every comment I see from patio11, for example.
If you understood how customer service business runs, you'd know that this is most definitely a systematic failure. I'm shocked how many people on HN seem to think that customer service reps act on their own volition.
There is no uniform customer service business or uniform training. Having worked in companies with support departments, there is a wide variance. Some are tightly scripted, others are given almost free reign and simply told to resolve issues quickly. edit: of course, password through email is big no-no.
No. There are plenty of services where your pw is encrypted locally, so your service provider CAN'T access your account to fix something without your password.
Many of the cloud storage providers do this. You want your files recovered, you'll have to hand over your pw (or not have the problem fixed).
Hero worship is not the answer and may actually contribute to the problem. The solution is basic accountability ie police do not investigate themselves and a change of culture from "war on crime" to community policing. As someone else commented here, the police training actually turns well meaning future officers against the average citizen. An example re: accountability is the California city that significantly reduced complaints by requiring officers to wear cameras. Small sample size but encouraging.
I first heard someone mention something like this maybe 1-2 months ago and think it's great. The person compared it to being bonded like an electrician or plumber. The process to fire police officers in many districts is very difficult so this could be one method to get control of the situation.
The other great thing about this is when you read about a cop shooting someone for no cause, usually there were warning signs like he escalated a ton of situations with other suspects. This makes a third party (that is interested in not loosing millions to a victims family) start running psych tests and algorithms against arrest and escalation records. At some point the data will get good enough that people will be un-insurable before they kill someone.
