Posts by Michael 282 publicly visible posts • joined 4 May 2007
A lot of people are talking as if suicide bombers execute their missions in military fatigues, in a military jeep, etc etc etc.
The fact that this was an unarmed speedboat doesn't make it appear any more benign. The van that took out the Oklahoma City federal building was "unarmed". The airlines that took out the WTC were "unarmed". Hell, for all intents and purposes, the boat that blew a hole in the USS Cole was "unarmed".
You're an idiot to approach a warship without hailing them first, and given the radio transmissions, with a boat in the vicinity with uncertain intent, if I were the American watch officer, my sphincter would tighten up a little too.
Coming soon:
Man sues GM for selling him a car, which gave him the ability to have an accident at 117 MPH, leaving him paralysed.
Runner sues New Balance for selling her shoes which she was wearing when she tripped over a curb, spraining her ankle.
Patient sues physician for prescribing pain medication after patient complained of extreme chronic back pain.
Victim's family sues gun manufacturer after victim is shot by criminal (oh wait, that one already happened)
RIDICULOUS!!
First off, let me say with the utmost clarity that the fact that this child is dead is utterly tragic, and the people who said nasty things to her ought to be ashamed of themselves.
However, keep in mind there is no law against being mean to someone. IKT's certainly not nice, but there is nothing that says it's illegal for one person to tell another they think they're the scum of the earth. The danger here is for a precedent to be set, wherein you can be held responsible for someone else's actions merely for saying such hurtful things to them. Instead of "the devil made me do it" or worse, "god told me to do it", we'll start to see defenses like "my neighbor was mean to me", and while such a statement may be true, it is not an excuse or cause. If I tell you that the world would be a better place if you stole a car, and you actually went and did it, it'd be a difficult case indeed to try to hold me responsible for your actions. People are responsible for their own actions.
When terrible things happen, the natural human reaction is to assign blame. For many of us, it's the only way to cope with the grief. My concern here is that in their rush to assign blame, they will throw logic to the wind and find culpability where none exists. I'll say it again, people are responsible for their own actions.
I think the people "responsible" probably feel have enough to think about, pondering that their actions may have contributed to this child killing themself. Shouldn't this be left alone??
"A far better idea is to beam power from a solar power satellites into the already devastated strip mines and from there into the grid."
There's just one (gaping) problem with that. Science hasn't a clue how to transmit electricity wirelessly. I think you've been playing too much SimCity (microwave powerplants, anyone?). Maybe in 50 years we'll have something, but the electricity demand is here NOW.
Nuclear waste, when handled and disposed of properly isn't that big of a problem -- certainly less of an issue than you'd have from generating a comparable amount of energy from other sources. Not to mention the amount of waste/pollution per watt is dramatically less than other viable energy sources. (note the term "viable" -- as great as widespread wind/tidal/geothermal/solar could be, it's a bit pie-in-the-sky). Nuclear is the way to go, folks. Embrace it!
If you really want to make a point, go off the grid, turn off your computers, and spare everyone else the diatribes.
@AC:
"Forgive me if I am wrong but doesn't prison stop people from participating in 'the culture at large'? If you ignore your responsibilities to society then should you not expect restriction of your freedoms?"
Yes, it does, but these people have already been released from prison, having satisfactorily paid their debt to society, in accordance with the law.
Now, we've told them they've paid their debt, but only sort of, because we think they're still nasty, so we want to punish them some more, for what we think they're likely to do. I'm likely to speed on the way home from work tonight. Should my license be revoked NOW as a result of what I have not done (yet)? I think not.
@Bryce:
I was with you right up until you made it about gender. While the Penn & Teller example is entertaining, women not knowing that their right to vote was called "Suffrage" back in the day is hardly justification for removal of said right. Just as women tend to say "as a mother I know all about <insert subject here>", men tend to say or at the very least imply "as a man I know all about <insert subject here>". We're equally guilty.
What I agree on is that we, the populace, need to take control of what is happening. When I was in college, we had a man employed at the college who years before had been convicted of a "sex crime" and was labelled a sex offender after release. When the school found out, he was fired. I read the charges he was convicted of, and in no way should he have been labelled a level 3 sex offender or fired from the university. It's a complete joke what we do to these people.
RIghts violated by this law:
Freedom of speech and of the press -- other court cases established that safe harbor provisions extend to bloggers as de facto journalists. If that is the case, then banning someone from accessing the internet is to restrict their ability to express their view in a form of publishing that the government already acknowledges as a valid form of the press.
Freedom to peacefully assemble -- The constitution does not neccessarily limit the location of such assemblies to physical locations. One could argue that a person has the right to peacefully assemble in an online community, and that the government would have no right to abridge that right. (the proprietor of said community, however, would retain the right to deny access on whatever grounds it saw fit -- see myspace, banning of sex offenders' accounts)
Freedom from excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment:
A parolee may wish to engage in online business, and will be prohibited from doing so, which would potentially constitute an excessive fine. Also with the growing penetration of the internet into daily life, denying this to an individual may constitute cruel or unusual punishment.
I'm bloody well tired of telling someone they've paid their debt to society, yet still punishing them either for acts they've already served their time for, or acts they've not (yet) committed.
Everyone's is such a big hurry to grab their torch and pitchfork, that it seems they never bothered to read the article, which nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE mentions anything about unlimited usage.
From the article: "Ian signed up for a Vodafone Anytime 800 contract and added a £7.50 inclusive internet deal to let him use his phone for surfing the net."
Nothing about being unlimited.
After looking around vodafone.co.uk for mobile internet, I came across this page:
http://online.vodafone.co.uk/dispatch/Portal/appmanager/vodafone/wrp?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=template10&pageID=MI_0004&WT.svl=link1
Which pretty clearly discusses the 120 MB limitation. It also says you revert to £1 per day if you go over the 120, but the £1 per day is also pretty clearly delineated as being for up to 15 MB per day. After that, it's not clear on the site what the charge is, but it's pretty clear it's not the same.
This is a classic case where idiot doesn't read what he's signing, gets bitten in the ass for his stupidity, then wants sympathy for it. Do the telcos charge way too much for what costs them so little to provide? Absolutely, but this guy had the terms laid out in front of him, signed them, then ran up his bill. It's his own fault.
It's not the telco's responsibility to make sure you read and understand the contract before you sign it -- that's YOUR job. It's not the telco's responsibility to actively monitor your usage and poke you when there might be an issue -- it's YOUR job to monitor your usage. It's not the telco's responsibility to hold your hand to make sure you don't cross the street in front of traffic -- it's YOUR job to open your eyes!
Make the bloke pay.
>""what is the average IQ on the internet?"
>
>Easy one! It's 100 -- by definition.
Not true. 100 is supposed to be the average of the population. "The Internet" is a subset of that population. If "The Internet" is a proportionally representative of "The Population", then yes, by definition, you would be correct, however, the veracity of the distribution of people on the internet is not established. In fact it is THE question at hand.
Are "Internet Users" greater, lesser, or equally intelligent as the population at large?
Moreover, is such a conclusion even reachable or defensible? Given the relative anonymity with which we can all access the internet, or given at least the relative difficulty one would be required to endure to identify all internet users, it would be quite the task to ensure that all internet users were evaluated for their intelligence -- once, and only once.
If instead you take a small sample of internet users, you are then challenged with ensuring your sample is representative and unbiased, and given the sheer size of the population group (internet users, which is itself a sample of the larger population), assembling a sample group whose results could be considered anywhere near conclusive, representative, or authoritative remains impoddibly unwieldy.
Then there is the issue of the evaluation itself, and whether or not the evaluation constitutes and accurate and effective measure of an individual's intelligence.
So ultimately the question -- whether on average, internet users are more, less, or equally intelligent than the population at large -- goes the way of determining how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. The world may never know.
"Forgot to mention KPAX, a damn good film which is based on the first novel of a series of books by Gene Brewer, the books are good too. Anyway we are all talking of light years and being limited by our current understanding of physics however the alien (or not) in K-PAX claimed to hitchhike on light beams and could travel at multiple times the speed of light without a craft. He was contacted not by radio signals but by the thoughts of a disturb human friend. He could, he claimed, travel interstellar distances in a matter of minutes."
First, let's point out the obvious, the KPAX is a work of fiction, and is therefore, a completely useless reference.
Now, aside from that, if "we have a limited knowledge of <blah>" was anything remotely resembling defensible, I could claim your mother was, in fact, male, and you'd not be able to refute it "because we have a limited understanding of gender". Guess what? Light travels at the speed it travels by. That's not a function of our understanding of physics. It does what it does, irrespective of whether or not we understand it.
Hitchhiking on a beam of light, you say?? When's the last time you were able to move 80 mph whilst hitchhiking on a truck moving at 60 mph? Your velocity simply cannot exceed the speed of that which propels you.
There's a reason they're called "laws" of physics. They're not suggestions.
Really?? Radio waves don't travel at the speed of light?? You ARE aware that Radio waves and Visible light are just different parts of the same electromagnetic spectrum...right?? The wavelengths are different, but the speed at which the wave travels is the same.
According to the University of Colorado Physics Department, "all electromagnetic radiation -- from radio waves to x-rays -- travel at the speed of light. In empty space this speed is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second" http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html
Radio waves are merely a longer wavelength, but in the same way that a school bus is longer than a sedan, they both (for the purpose of this example) move at 60 mph on the highway. Assuming an empty highway (vacuum), and they obey the speed limit (the laws of nature).
So one last time, for the especially thick, radio waves and visible light are each forms of electromagnetic radiation, and it is a FACT that all EM radiation travels at the same speed in a vacuum.
While I do not expect Brits to know US geography, I do expect them to not PRETEND to know US geography. Someone was trying to sound like they knew their shit and decided to throw a state name in
If I knew something was in the UK (say, stonehenge), but didn't have a clue whether it was in England, Scotland, Wales, or N.I., I damn sure wouldn't say something like "You should build that next to stonehenge in Northern Ireland". Why? Because then I'd be a douchebag who while completely ignorant of the actual location, still pretends to have a clue.**
I don't expect anyone, really, to know US geography (Sadly, I can't even expect my fellow Americans to get it right), but if someone DOESN'T know US geography, they probably shouldn't use their (lack of) knowledge to tell someone else that their idea is crap. Just in general, if one doesn't know what s/he's talking about, one should resist the urge to talk.
As the phrase goes, better to let people think you're an idiot, than to speak and remove all doubt.
**And yes, I know that stonehenge is NOT in Northern Ireland, and is in fact located in the English county of Wiltshire, about 8 miles north of Salisbury. Took a total of some 30 seconds to look that up. Nifty thing, this interweb...
You're both a bit off. Yes, Death Valley is partially in Nevada, but over 90% of it lies in California.
It's no so much past the Sierra Nevada range, and more as the national park service notes, between the less known Amargosa and Panamint ranges.
If you doubt the feasibility of such an engineering project, take a look at how Los Angeles gets its water supply.
Las Vegas is a good 70 miles away from Death Valley...
Finally, regarding your sensationalist comments about how big such a project would, and how long the canal would be...
1.) The longest Canal in the world is the Grand Canal in China. The canal was completed in AD 609 and is over 1,000 miles long. As the crow flies, Death Valley is somewhere around 200 miles from the ocean.
2.) The US interstate system, the trans-siberian railway and the channel tunnel all required different amounts of men and machinery to complete, so it's curious that one project could simultaneously require 10 times the amount of each of them. if A > B > C, then 10 * C < 10 * A.
3.) As of 2004, the US Interstate system is 46,837 miles long.
Honestly, I'm not saying it's a great idea or even a viable one, but YOU ARE saying that it's NOT viable, on the basis of absurd claims that are not based on anything remotely resembling fact (read a map?), on sheer supposition, and on nothing short of complete sensationalst BS.
If you're going to tell someone their idea is crap, at least put the time in to make sure you're don't look like a complete idiot yourself.
http://www.nps.gov/deva/
What many are missing here is that this isn't something occuring in the US or UK, where free expression is a right guaranteed by our respective constitutions. This happened in Germany, where the law says Germans do NOT have unfettered freedom of expression.
Get off the idealistic high horse for two seconds and understand that when US documents talk about "all men [being] endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", it is a statement of belief, not necessarily one of fact. According to German law, to which Germans agree to live by, by continuing to reside in the country, They do NOT have the right to free expression when it comes to Nazi imagery. If Germans feel the law is unjust, they have two choices, vote it down, or leave the country.
When will people realize that different nations have different laws, and that we have no place imposing OUR beliefs upon them???
"There are people out there who play games without any real IT knowledge who couldn't even reinstall Windows, let alone restore boot.ini, they've be well within their rights to sue for having to take it to a shop to have it repaired for them."
Really?
I'll direct you to sections 12-15 of the EULA that each player agrees to when installing the game. Full EULA is at http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/eula.asp Sections 12-15 excepted below:
"12. NO WARRANTIES
The Software, System, Game and all Game Content, and all other services and material provided in connection therewith, are provided "AS IS," with all faults, and without warranty of any kind. You assume all risk of use and all risk associated with accessing the System and playing the Game.
CCP disclaims all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitation the warranties of merchantability, fitness for particular purpose and non-infringement. There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the Game. CCP does not warrant that the operation of the System or your access to the System, or that your use of the Software, will be uninterrupted or error-free, nor that the System or Software will be compatible with your hardware and software.
While CCP attempts to have the System available at most times, CCP does not guarantee that the System will always be available, or that the System will not become unavailable during Game play. The System may become unavailable for a number of reasons, including without limitation during the performance of maintenance to the System, for the implementation of new software, for emergency situations and due to equipment or telecommunications failures.
13. DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
In no event shall CCP, its affiliates, licensors or suppliers be liable to you or to any third party for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages (including without limitation, lost profits or lost data), arising out of or in connection with your Account, the System, Software, Game, Game Content, User Content, EULA, or any other services or materials provided in connection therewith, whether based on warranty, contract, tort or any other legal theory, and whether or not CCP is advised of the possibility of such damages, and even if any stated remedy fails of its essential purpose.
14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Except as set forth below, CCP's maximum liability for any and all claims arising out of or in connection with your Account, the Software, System, Game, Game Content, User Content, EULA, and any other services or materials provided in connection therewith, shall not exceed an amount equal to the value of one (1) month's subscription fees.
In the event of a material breach of CCP's obligations to provide access to and use of your Account, the System, Game, Game Content or User Content, your sole and exclusive remedy shall be a refund of any pre-paid subscription fees attributable to the period during which you were denied such access and use, or an amount equal to the value of three (3) months' subscription fees, whichever is less. In the event of a malfunction of or your inability to use the CD-ROM containing the Software, your sole and exclusive remedy shall be a replacement disk from the vendor that provided the CD-ROM in accordance with its replacement policy; CCP shall have no liability for the CD-ROM.
If any of the foregoing disclaimers or limitations of liability are declared to be void or unenforceable, then CCP's liability shall be limited to the maximum extent permissible under applicable law. The remedies set forth herein are exclusive and in lieu of all other remedies, oral or written, express or implied.
15. INDEMNITY
You shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CCP and its affiliates, licensors and suppliers, and their respective employees, contractors, officers and directors, from any and all claims, loss, damages and demands, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of: (i) your use or misuse of the Software; (ii) your access to the System; (iii) any activities conducted through your Account (whether by you or another person); and (iv) your playing of the Game."
You could sue CCP, but you'd lose. Badly.
"On both dual-boot machines, the best Vista performance was an amazing 70 per cent slower than XP. Put another way, XP was three times faster."
If to be slower is to take more time to complete a task, then this sentence is saying that it takes Vista 70 per cent more time to complete a task, which doesn't jive with XP being three times faster.
If Vista takes 100 seconds, then XP takes 30, which makes XP 70 per cent faster (takes 70 per cent less time) than Vista, while Vista is 300 per cent slower (takes 300 per cent more time) than XP.
This is an all too common mistake. When dealing with percentages, "A is 70 per cent faster than B" does NOT translate to "B is 70 per cent slower than A"
Sensitive data should at least use two-factor authentication. Truly critical data should use all three factors.
Something I know (password)
Something I have (security card)
Something I am (biometric)
Only the correct combination of all three factors should unlock sensitive data.
Aside from the whole no casualties if it gets shot down thing, the human being physically in the aircraft really is the weak link in terms of maneuverability. Many modern aircraft are capable of much greater maneuverability than we allow them to operate with. An aircraft could pull up in a 10 G climb, for example, and there wouldn't be concerns about a pilot blacking out. Even if the planes weren't completely autonomous, the pilot could be sitting in more or less a simulator, with a full cockpit only the aircraft being controlled is on the other side of the world.
Pretty slick stuff...
The real bitch about American politics, isn't that there aren't any worthwhile third-party candidates. It's that we'll never elect them. It's a movie quote, but is ever so tragically true:
"People are smart, they can handle it."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
On their own, Americans are idealistic, principled, and passionate. But collectively, we all too often act as sheep. A huge part of the population doesn't vote at all (yet still feels they have the right to complain about the outcome...), and the vast majority of those that DO get off their ass to cast their vote, do so based on what their chosen media outlet says about the candidates. Seeing how most people tend to favor media outlets that line up with their political views...well...you do the math...
So what you're left with is a small minority of voters that actually care enough to educate themselves about the candidates and issues, and who aren't just sheep filling in a bubble next to a D or R.
The real shame is when good candidates don't get elected because they refuse to conform to a democratic or republican party platform, and that's the fault of the stupid electorate, not the government we elected.
>Maximum data you can fit in one worksheet is 65536x65536 (I doubt HMRC know how to use multiple worksheets).
>My guess is this was an Access database ....
Wow, you're wrong twice.
First of all, in Excel 2003 and earlier, you had 65536 rows x 256 columns, not the 65536 x 65536 you mentioned.
Secondly, in Excel 2007, you can have 1048576 rows x 16384 columns.
If you're going to try to be clever, at least be correct.
To be fair, no version of Excel has space in one sheet for 25 million rows. Access, however, would choke on that much data as well. It's far more likely that the file in question would be a SQL server .mdf or backup file.
"Im not sure how you would obtain the md5 hashes for a specific wordpress/phpbb install unless there is a bigger security problem on that server, or you are the admin"
FFS, Did you READ the story?? Here's the first bloody line:
"A Cambridge University researcher successfully used Google to unearth a password used by an attacker to compromise its security blog."
So yes, he's the bloody admin!
Various sound bites (bytes?) come to mind reading this story.
I can't get the "losing" sound from The Price Is Right out of my head.
Then there's always the dude from the Simpons saying "HAHA!"
And come on mac fanboys, we know you're just waiting to strike, so in the words of some antiquated rap "music", JUMP ON IT!
It IS quite humorous that any time there's a story about windows sucking it up, the mac fanboys are right there to say "Get a Mac", but I don't see anyone here saying "Get a PC". And while mac users would say "that's because even pc users know that the mac is still better", I would dare to suggest that it's because in general, PC users aren't fanatical whack-jobs (pun definitely intended) who feel like they have to "convert" everyone from (to?) the dark side.
Come on kids, flame on, it's oh so entertaining to read!! :)
"If I get into a fight in a bar and punch someone and they die, I will not get done for murder, as there is no way one punch SHOULD kill someone, but I will still be done for manslaughter. Just because the police didn't mean to kill him doesn't mean they are free from blame, or consequences."
Fair enough, but they don't deserve to be crucified either.
"Being a member of the police force doesn't give you carte blanche to assault people,"
I never implied that it did.
"just the latitude to deal with circumstances in a reasonable manner. And that means bringing the SITUATION under control, not as too many police think these days, the PERSON under control."
I can think of lots of cases where the easiest way to control the situation IS to control the person. Particularly situations where the person and their actions ARE the situation.
"These "officers" didn't do that. They had no reason to taze the man. If he had been held for hours in this room, then all they had to do was leave the room when he became agitated. No danger to their lives was present."
Yes, but police are also charged with protection of property, which this man was wilfully destroying.
"If the penalty for vandalism is now death, with no judge or jury involved, then welcome to the middle ages."
Again, tazers are in the vast majority of cases non-lethal. You're making the same argument that because the outcome was death, that the action was too harsh. By your same argument, if I get shanked whilst spending an overnight in jail for petty theft, the punishment was too severe, because it resulted in my death. The logic just isn't there. I'm not saying your conclusion is necessarily invalid, merely that you've got to come up with a better way to substantiate it.
"And ironically, the fundamentalist moslems claim this type of action as the preferred one for the decadent west to adopt. Looks like they're getting their wish. Soon we'll be cutting off hands for crimes of theft (again)."
Sensationalism, so I'll ignore it, as it ultimately has no bearing on the discussion.
I'll tell you one thing, if I'm ever in the situation where it looks like I'm going to get hit by a tazer for no reason, then you can bet I'll make sure I get my punch in first, as it could be a fight to the death."
Throwing the punch will justify the tazer hit, so any sympathy or legal ground you will have had to stand on will vanish. Throwing a punch seems kind of silly vs a tazer, so this strikes me as being equally sensationalist.
"Or maybe I'll start to travel armed. Why should one side have all the firepower?"
By all means, do so. But that doesn't give you an excuse to 1) throw shit around in an airport, or 2) fire on police, so I again, fail to see the merit of the comment.
"The bloody police are supposed to work for US!"
First the technical argument: The RCMP work for Canadians, which this man was NOT.
Secondly, I agree, the police work for us. All of us. And that means getting a man who is becoming more volatile and potentially dangerous, out of a situation where can cause harm to others.
Perhaps this should have been accomplished by removing the public from the area.
Perhaps the RCMP should have merely guarded the man, to make sure he did not cause harm to anyone, pending the arrival of someone who can speak his language, which could take even longer.
Perhaps there was only one way out of the international terminal, and a few hundred people were waiting, and so to expedite things, the decision was made to detain the man (he DID break the law, after all) and then sort out an interpreter.
Ultimately, when you break the law and refuse to comply with police orders, you'll be detained, forcibly if necessary. Though what happened is tragic, and in hindsight, subjectively better methods of detainment may have resulted in a better outcome, given the information the RCMP would have had, in my opinion, their actions were not excessive.
As far as manslaughter goes, you're only likely to be charged if the death is a result of malice (you punch someone, and by some chance, it kills them), or negligence (you drive drunk and kill someone). The question of whether they were malicious or negligent, however, is one to be answered by the legal process, and not the court of public opinion.
While I agree that using excessive force is bad, the problem is that the only credible argument that excessive force was used in this case is that is resulted in the death of the man. Constantly people on these comments have said things like "did the man deserve to die?" and no, of course not. In that same regard, the officers weren't trying to kill him. The force used, tazing, was plenty warranted.
The problem is that too many posters here can't divorce the justification (or lack thereof) of the polices' actions from the outcome. Too many people here use the argument "the man died, therefore excessive force was used" completely ignoring the fact that the force used is in the vast majority of cases, NON-LETHAL. I agree that lethal force is excessive in this case. However, police didn't use lethal force. Because a man dies from "non-lethal force" does not make it the police's fault.
I could be one concussion away from a coma and you wouldn't know that, and if i resist arrest and get my head whacked by a police baton, putting me into a coma that I ultimately die from, is that also excessive force??? Clearly not.
You see, to properly evaluate whether the appropriate amount of force was used, one must ignore events transpiring AFTER the force was applied. In the same way that a cop must justify firing his sidearm -- "the suspect wasn't killed" doesn't get the officer out of jusitfying opening fire. Nor should "the man ended up dying" be damning to the officers' whose level of force was entirely appropriate, given the information available to them at the time.
"there are many who need to demonize this poor fellow in an effort to convince themselves that he was a trouble-maker, and not a victim."
He threw a computer on the ground, ostensibly smashing it in the process. That pretty much qualifies a person as being a troublemaker. Now you can argue that it's not his FAULT that he's a troublemaker, but of the fact that is IS a troublemaker, there can be no doubt, and if you're f*cking around in an airport, sh*t like this is gonna happen.
Yes, shame on the RCMPs for not figuring out that "hey, when we pump this guy full of electricity, he convulses, making him hard to cuff."
However, there is a misconception about when to use tazers. You people seem to think that tazers are for when the only other alternative is to shoot them. Not so. Most police departments have a policy to use a tazer when to subdue using a lesser method would either not adequately subdue the target, or when a lesser method would potentially endanger the safety of the officer.
Could the RCMPs have tackled the guy? Sure. Would the guy have kicked, clawed, scratched, and bitten? In all likelihood, yes. And that, in fact, is a life-threatening situation for a cop. Guy bites you. Guy has AIDS. Guy draws blood. Guess what?
In the vast majority of cases, tazers do not cause any long term injury.
So given that a lesser means of subduing the whack-job would be either ineffective (he's thrashing about, going mental) or would endanger the cops (s.o.b. freaking bit me!), AND given that tazers are in general quite effective, and relatively safe, their usage is, in my mind, completely justified.
Maybe you idiots would prefer rubber bullets (which can also kill if they hit the wrong part of the body), tear gas (causing respiratory distress...for everyone in the airport, thanks to the ventilation system), or bean bags (which again, can kill, and at the very least will leave some nasty bruising, and possibly broken bones)???
The fact is that under the circumstances, tazering isn't a half-bad idea. We all have the luxury of hindsight. We can all say "yeah, tazering doesn't usually kill, but it sure did with this guy", but that, frankly, doesn't matter. The intent to kill the man was not there, and though it is regrettable that the man died, the chances of that occuring were quite slim. So yeah, it sucks that this guy died, but that doesn't immediately translate into an excuse to crucify those men and women that will protect your ass, should the need arise. Maybe you should say thank you to them, every now and then...
Just a thought...
Is my computer "next-gen" because I put a new video card in it, some more RAM, and a beefier processor? Perhaps the answer is yes. Perhaps the answer is that no, nothing new has been done here.
On the other hand, if I invented a new interface that did away with the classic keyboard and mouse, would THAT be revolutionary??
If anything, Wii deserves to be called "next-gen" while 360 and PS3 deserve to be called "beefed-up-previous-gen".
In anything, Sony and MS shouldn't be upset that an "inferior" system is beating them out. They should be upset that Nintendo was able to innovate successfully while they're stuck in the same-shit-different-console rut they've put themselves in.
Yes, many psychologists consider alcoholism a disease. One problem though -- psychologists don't have M.D. at the end of their name. That's right, psychologists are not medical doctors. In fact, you don't even need a doctorate to become one. Many psychologists have only their Masters' in psychology. So honestly, I don't put too much stock into what a psychologist decides to call a disease.
The definition of "disease" is in two parts:
First: "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body..."
Then classification by cause: "...resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."
So certain qualifying EFFECTS of alcoholism (cirrhosis, etc) can be considered a disease, but the alcoholism itself does not qualify. In the same way, lung cancer and emphysema are diseases, but smoking a pack a day is not.
I would hesitate to call depression a disease as well, and think disorder would be a much more appropriate term.
In any case, none of this is to minimize the sheer destruction any of these things can wreak in a person's life. Nothing I've said is an attempt to marginalize the difficulties faced by alcoholics, smokers, or any other ailment. However, smokers and alcoholics are not victims either -- the alcohol doesn't pour itself down a person's throat. The cigarette doesn't light itself up. Make no mistake, there is a choice. It may be an insanely difficult choice, but it IS a choice.* And that's the real tragedy -- that those afflicted by these problems do it to themselves day after day, most of them know they're killing themselves, and most of them can't seem to build up the willpower to stop.
* As an economist, I argue that everything is a choice. You don't HAVE to do anything. You'd just rather do that thing than the alternative.
"I can drive perfectly while shit faced.... My wife will testify to that as I can get
the car into the drive no matter how much I've had to drink."
The fact that you know this makes me want to invent a device which would make it possible to punch people in the face via the internet. Everyone's a safe driver, even while drunk, until they have an accident. It's only a matter of time until they wreck, possibly injuring or killing themselves or someone else.
"Proved by the fact that she crashed my car while totally sober, while trying to
enter our driveway."
Because of course, your wife being a crap driver, by default makes you a good one...
"That said, I would never condone drink driving"
If you do it, your condone it by default.
"I have a clean licence thanks to the incompetance of the police trying to
do me for drink driving a few years ago."
I have dead friends thanks to the irresponsibility of people like you that think they're still safe when drunk behind the wheel of a car, based solely on having not gotten into a wreck yet. Not having wrecked yet doesn't mean you're a safe drunk driver -- it means the odds haven't bitten you in the arse yet.
People who drive drunk should be shot. I'd rather bury them than my friends, who did nothing to deserve getting decapitated by the bumper of a drunk driver's truck.
"So all chavs are alcoholics and drunk drivers now?"
Actually, no, that's not what he said. He did NOT say that ot that they're alcoholics and drunk drivers. What he said is that they like to think they can't be held responsible for their actions if they're drunk. And he didn't say ALL chavs -- he said the notion is popular with chavs. Just as saying that George W was popular with the American people (enough to get elected, anyway), doesn't mean that everyone in the US voted for him.
Pull your head out of your arse for 8 seconds and maybe the diarrhea of the tastebuds that you're so clearly afflicted by will clear up for you.
...for those who can afford it.
OR...
...unless you have enough money to escape aformentioned justice.
I love the guys comment that they release 30-50 early every day...
Oh, so the double standard isn't that you go easy on celebrities, it's that you go easy on women. Yeah, that's much better. Wankers.
@ Jon Green:
You're absolutely right. A non-allied fleet would know that the US Government thinks their sub is within 50 miles of the buoy, so hey, they only have to cover more than 150 square miles of ocean.
50 miles is probably not even close to accurate though. It's probably much more. Ohio class ballistic missile subs cruise at 20 knots*, so if it really was a 50 mile radius, the sub would cross it in less than 5 hours.** So either the range is significantly higher, or they'd drop several buoys, or both, which dramatically increases the area in which an enemy fleet would have to search. Given the stealthiness of US submarines, one could be within a mile of you, and you'd probably never know it. The terms needle and haystack suddenly spring to mind.
* The unclassified speed. Also, Los Angeles class fast-attack subs cruise at 20-25 knots, and Seawolf class subs cruise at 25+ knots. The seawolf has a maximum published speed of 35 knots (40 mph) while submerged.
** Keep in mind a nautical mile (6,076 feet) is longer than a statute mile (5,280 feet)
It'd be fun to make a text file with random characters in it, name it "jihadist_operatives.pgp" call in an anonymous tip about yourself, then slap the police around when they try to order you to give them the key for a file that's not actually encrypted. If you waste enough government resources making them chase this crap down, they'll see the law is ridiculous.
This really is a brilliant tactic. People tend to be willing to pay more for something, if they're not sure they'll get another chance. That translates to more people being willing to buy it at its fixed price, if they are under the impression that it's "the last available one".
Kind of funny they got "caught" though. And I put that in quotes because they're not really doing anything wrong.
You cocked up the Dirty Harry quote. Here it is, in it's unabridged form:
"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
...it really is.
According to German law, the movie-makers cannot assign their intellectual property rights to GW thus enabling GW to distribute the film. The only recourse, then, to still distribute the film would be for GW to give rights to the movie-makers, which under an antiquated German law, would cause GW to lose THEIR intellectual property rights to WH40k.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
