My guess is that if you looked at statistics, you'd see a higher incidence of death from tasers, but a lower incidence of injuries.
And I would guess that both would be lower. It's meaningless guesswork without some numbers. This (obviously biased source) agrees with me. I'm not going to quote anything from such a source, but I am going to point out that a cursory search for a rebuttal to it didn't find anything. I do expect that watchdog groups would be quick to tear apart such a paper, so lack of rebuttal lends it some small amount of credence for me.
Few people die from being hit once with a nightstick in a controlled manner (I don't mean a wild swing in a melee), but an awful lot of people seem to be dying from single taser shots.
I'd really like to see some statistics for this. I've heard it before, but I find it hard to believe. Something to compare deaths and injuries caused by each out of total uses would be a good starting point.
A poorly trained nightstick wielder will cause a lot more damage than a poorly trained taser wielder. This is a problem when you realize that there will always be poorly trained (or untrainable) people out there. The taser is the lowest common denominator tool. It's also useful for several in between situations where an officer pulls out the nightstick, but then discovers they needed a gun out as the situation quickly elevates.
That said, you're right that a nightstick is a much more versatile tool, and not having one is a hindrance for many the odd situation.
(I work with police officers, and there are some I'd trust with my life, and others I wouldn't trust with the life of a pet hamster. They run the whole scale, just like every other profession. In my own unprofessional opinion, if they all have to carry the same weapon, I 'd rather have them carrying a taser. Some places have their officers carry a gun, taser, nightstick, and pepperspray so that they always have the right tool for the job.)
Tasers are also intended to be used as a substitute for nightsticks. Shocking someone is generally considered quite a bit safer than beating them into submission using a heavy stick. Considering the wide range of uses they cover, I believe they're use is a good thing.
This compares in stark contrast to these new VWS. They sound significantly more dangerous than a taser, and the chances of shooting someone with the wrong setting or ammunition is quite a bit higher.
Pick up a taser and you know the result. Pick up one of these and the results may be quite a bit different.
Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
802.11s defines a default mandatory routing protocol (Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol, or HWMP), yet allows vendors to operate using alternate protocols. HWMP is inspired by a combination of AODV (RFC 3561) and tree-based routing. An alternate protocol may be based on OLSR (RFC 3626).
To me that sounds like OLSR can be used as part of 802.11s. Would there still be node limits in this case?
While much more rare, there are people in that type of situation. I can assure you that there are people for whom saying anything more about their job than they work for the government isn't allowed (even the location of their work). Granted, not a lot of jobs at the CIA are that way, but some certainly are.
On a side note, the best way to hear about these things is to talk to retired people who are too old to care what happens to them now. I've heard some pretty incredible things that I've been able to corroborate amongst other old people.
As for "not being able to tell anyone", that's just ridiculous, somebody is making excuses.
Umm, no. At a certain level in these organiztions (a level that is pretty much entry level) most of the information is classified. It doesn't matter if it's something so mundanely simple as the shape of a piece of machined metal seen by tens of workers in a manufacturing plant. If you tell someone about a classified topic, you can be put away in prison for the rest of your life, or possibly executed. You may work in the CIA your entire life without doing anything interesting, but you sure as heck aren't going to tell somebody about your work if it's labeled classified (which it likely is).
I'd be a lot more concerned about the various exotic poisons the Amazon contains and the habit for some native tribes to tip their arrows with said poisons. You don't need to get an arrow between their eyes if they won't make it ten feet after getting nicked in the arm.
Strange, my Portal save games are 100KB - 1MB in size, and a quick test on a 1MB file shows it compressing down to 100KB with ZIP compression. As long as it only transfers the saved games once you've exited, you'll probably be fine.
I would imagine that save games are not very big. You only have to save information for the current level (as you can't go back to previous levels). I'm sure they would also compress the saved games before transmission.
We did have an issue initially with the Windows drivers being installed for our iSCSI virtual tape library. Once we removed those and reinstalled the Symantec drivers, everything seemed fine. We've only been playing with it for a few weeks though, so there is still time for something to go wrong.
Even if they offloaded 90% of the work, it'd still probably require more CPU than the ATOM can provide for 1080p. Decoding 1080p h.264 is not a simple task.
Are you sure? Because I heard from a friend that President Kimball once told his family in a secret meeting that...
Seriously though, simplifying words down below their true meaning is necessary when having conversations with people that have a different (or a complete lack) of understanding of the terminology, is completely appropriate. You didn't say anything wrong (and in fact seem to have done a truly excellent job throughout the discussion), I just wanted to add a footnote for clarification, just in case.
They are clearly "doctrinal" in the sense of "conveying official doctrine", but they are not canonical.
That is true, but a whole interesting discussion of itself. Take Alma 40:20.
Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.
Here, in a piece of LDS canon, a prophet is clearly stating that what he is writing down is his opinion, which means it couldn't be taken as "doctrine". (I'm ignoring the fact that his statement is backed up later.) It's important to note that just because a prophet wrote something a long time ago, and people still reprint it, does not make it doctrinal. They were writing down and preaching their opinions all the time.
This should be much less of a problem in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants as they are essentially a "Best of" compiled by later prophets. This is in contrast to the Old Testament and New Testament which were more a compile of "Greatest Hits" by people with the spiritual credentials of a blueberry muffin. (Nothing against blueberry muffins, they're great, but they may not be your best source for spiritual enlightenment.)
So while something may be doctrinal and not canonical, the reverse is true that something may be canonical and not doctrinal. Given that, the need to use the correct terms becomes very clear. It can also, in certain circumstances, help to make the distinction "official" and "unofficial", although if you do then you must be consistent in it's use to be clear.
It is also worth noting that the handbooks are guidelines, or a starting point. What to do in a given situation can, and often does, vary depending on many things (specifically guidance from the Spirit).
It can become an issue when people read the list of "what to do in X situation" and then freak out when the one in authority does something completely different. Many people have difficulty understanding that every situation is different.
This is all in addition to what was said about people needing to work things out, and not try to see how close to the line they can get.
Joseph Smith was something of a treasure hunter. At least he thought that there was treasure buried in the ground that could bail the LDS church out of financial difficulties. Possibly he believed gold plates in the ground were much more common than they were. Either way, he was obviously wrong in his thoughts that he could find valuable treasure in the ground, whatever the reasons.
I've seen you mention the doctrine thing several times, and I felt the need to offer some small correction.
Whatever publications the LDS church is currently placing it's name on is usually considered doctrinal. Manuals, magazines, books, etc.
Note that this wasn't always the case. It also only applies in the case of where it is presenting doctrinal ideas. This obviously wouldn't include publications for historical purposes, press releases, memos, news, etc. This also doesn't mean that whatever they have their name on is without error, whether grammatical or the meaning of a statement.
I'll just add another "Me too." We purchased a Barracuda Spam Filter, and it's been working quite well. You also have the option of integrating with LDAP/Active Directory and letting users check their own spam lists if they think they missed something. I believe there is even an Outlook integration client, but I haven't used it.
Another nice thing is that it has a virus filter which is an excellent first line of defense. It means those virus emails don't create an extra load on the Exchange server by making the virus software there remove them.
We actually pulled a REGEX list of rules that someone posted on their forums which significantly increased the effectiveness of the filtering. It was a little heavy handed, but checking for incorrectly labeled ham showed up which expressions to remove for our organization.
As another person noted, it is expensive. For our organization it was certainly worth the peace of mind for the money. If your organization is strapped for cache, then I'm certain you could put together your own box using freely available tools (which is essentially what Barracuda builds their boxes using). For us though, the maintenance headache wasn't worth it.
It sounds almost like a fresnel lens, but with parts being opaque. Wouldn't this cause diffraction patterns like in a double-slit experiment? Wouldn't having this pattern everywhere screw up your image?
Eh? Dumble clearly states that he wasn't a "paragon of virtue" virtue at the time, but that he was a bit self centered. And he also makes it clear that he bonded over idealistic views, later falling out due to diametrically opposing means. I think that this happens quite a bit, and I'm not really sure how him being homosexual makes things any more understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that's a Star Control 2 reference.
And I would guess that both would be lower. It's meaningless guesswork without some numbers. This (obviously biased source) agrees with me. I'm not going to quote anything from such a source, but I am going to point out that a cursory search for a rebuttal to it didn't find anything. I do expect that watchdog groups would be quick to tear apart such a paper, so lack of rebuttal lends it some small amount of credence for me.
I'd really like to see some statistics for this. I've heard it before, but I find it hard to believe. Something to compare deaths and injuries caused by each out of total uses would be a good starting point.
A poorly trained nightstick wielder will cause a lot more damage than a poorly trained taser wielder. This is a problem when you realize that there will always be poorly trained (or untrainable) people out there. The taser is the lowest common denominator tool. It's also useful for several in between situations where an officer pulls out the nightstick, but then discovers they needed a gun out as the situation quickly elevates.
That said, you're right that a nightstick is a much more versatile tool, and not having one is a hindrance for many the odd situation.
(I work with police officers, and there are some I'd trust with my life, and others I wouldn't trust with the life of a pet hamster. They run the whole scale, just like every other profession. In my own unprofessional opinion, if they all have to carry the same weapon, I 'd rather have them carrying a taser. Some places have their officers carry a gun, taser, nightstick, and pepperspray so that they always have the right tool for the job.)
Tasers are also intended to be used as a substitute for nightsticks. Shocking someone is generally considered quite a bit safer than beating them into submission using a heavy stick. Considering the wide range of uses they cover, I believe they're use is a good thing.
This compares in stark contrast to these new VWS. They sound significantly more dangerous than a taser, and the chances of shooting someone with the wrong setting or ammunition is quite a bit higher.
Pick up a taser and you know the result. Pick up one of these and the results may be quite a bit different.
The Wikipedia article says:
To me that sounds like OLSR can be used as part of 802.11s. Would there still be node limits in this case?
What you want is FlashBlock.
You're not from around here, are you?
While much more rare, there are people in that type of situation. I can assure you that there are people for whom saying anything more about their job than they work for the government isn't allowed (even the location of their work). Granted, not a lot of jobs at the CIA are that way, but some certainly are.
On a side note, the best way to hear about these things is to talk to retired people who are too old to care what happens to them now. I've heard some pretty incredible things that I've been able to corroborate amongst other old people.
Umm, no. At a certain level in these organiztions (a level that is pretty much entry level) most of the information is classified. It doesn't matter if it's something so mundanely simple as the shape of a piece of machined metal seen by tens of workers in a manufacturing plant. If you tell someone about a classified topic, you can be put away in prison for the rest of your life, or possibly executed. You may work in the CIA your entire life without doing anything interesting, but you sure as heck aren't going to tell somebody about your work if it's labeled classified (which it likely is).
And lets not forget both the PQI Intelligent Drive i820 or the Kingmax Super Stick, both about the same size as the Sony. All three are much smaller than the article's.
I'd be a lot more concerned about the various exotic poisons the Amazon contains and the habit for some native tribes to tip their arrows with said poisons. You don't need to get an arrow between their eyes if they won't make it ten feet after getting nicked in the arm.
Strange, my Portal save games are 100KB - 1MB in size, and a quick test on a 1MB file shows it compressing down to 100KB with ZIP compression. As long as it only transfers the saved games once you've exited, you'll probably be fine.
I would imagine that save games are not very big. You only have to save information for the current level (as you can't go back to previous levels). I'm sure they would also compress the saved games before transmission.
We did have an issue initially with the Windows drivers being installed for our iSCSI virtual tape library. Once we removed those and reinstalled the Symantec drivers, everything seemed fine. We've only been playing with it for a few weeks though, so there is still time for something to go wrong.
We're using version 12 and haven't experienced any issues yet. *knocks on wood*
Even if they offloaded 90% of the work, it'd still probably require more CPU than the ATOM can provide for 1080p. Decoding 1080p h.264 is not a simple task.
Are you sure? Because I heard from a friend that President Kimball once told his family in a secret meeting that...
Seriously though, simplifying words down below their true meaning is necessary when having conversations with people that have a different (or a complete lack) of understanding of the terminology, is completely appropriate. You didn't say anything wrong (and in fact seem to have done a truly excellent job throughout the discussion), I just wanted to add a footnote for clarification, just in case.
That is true, but a whole interesting discussion of itself. Take Alma 40:20.
Here, in a piece of LDS canon, a prophet is clearly stating that what he is writing down is his opinion, which means it couldn't be taken as "doctrine". (I'm ignoring the fact that his statement is backed up later.) It's important to note that just because a prophet wrote something a long time ago, and people still reprint it, does not make it doctrinal. They were writing down and preaching their opinions all the time.
This should be much less of a problem in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants as they are essentially a "Best of" compiled by later prophets. This is in contrast to the Old Testament and New Testament which were more a compile of "Greatest Hits" by people with the spiritual credentials of a blueberry muffin. (Nothing against blueberry muffins, they're great, but they may not be your best source for spiritual enlightenment.)
So while something may be doctrinal and not canonical, the reverse is true that something may be canonical and not doctrinal. Given that, the need to use the correct terms becomes very clear. It can also, in certain circumstances, help to make the distinction "official" and "unofficial", although if you do then you must be consistent in it's use to be clear.
It is also worth noting that the handbooks are guidelines, or a starting point. What to do in a given situation can, and often does, vary depending on many things (specifically guidance from the Spirit).
It can become an issue when people read the list of "what to do in X situation" and then freak out when the one in authority does something completely different. Many people have difficulty understanding that every situation is different.
This is all in addition to what was said about people needing to work things out, and not try to see how close to the line they can get.
Joseph Smith was something of a treasure hunter. At least he thought that there was treasure buried in the ground that could bail the LDS church out of financial difficulties. Possibly he believed gold plates in the ground were much more common than they were. Either way, he was obviously wrong in his thoughts that he could find valuable treasure in the ground, whatever the reasons.
I've seen you mention the doctrine thing several times, and I felt the need to offer some small correction.
Whatever publications the LDS church is currently placing it's name on is usually considered doctrinal. Manuals, magazines, books, etc.
Note that this wasn't always the case. It also only applies in the case of where it is presenting doctrinal ideas. This obviously wouldn't include publications for historical purposes, press releases, memos, news, etc. This also doesn't mean that whatever they have their name on is without error, whether grammatical or the meaning of a statement.
I'll just add another "Me too." We purchased a Barracuda Spam Filter, and it's been working quite well. You also have the option of integrating with LDAP/Active Directory and letting users check their own spam lists if they think they missed something. I believe there is even an Outlook integration client, but I haven't used it.
Another nice thing is that it has a virus filter which is an excellent first line of defense. It means those virus emails don't create an extra load on the Exchange server by making the virus software there remove them.
We actually pulled a REGEX list of rules that someone posted on their forums which significantly increased the effectiveness of the filtering. It was a little heavy handed, but checking for incorrectly labeled ham showed up which expressions to remove for our organization.
As another person noted, it is expensive. For our organization it was certainly worth the peace of mind for the money. If your organization is strapped for cache, then I'm certain you could put together your own box using freely available tools (which is essentially what Barracuda builds their boxes using). For us though, the maintenance headache wasn't worth it.
It sounds almost like a fresnel lens, but with parts being opaque. Wouldn't this cause diffraction patterns like in a double-slit experiment? Wouldn't having this pattern everywhere screw up your image?
Eh? Dumble clearly states that he wasn't a "paragon of virtue" virtue at the time, but that he was a bit self centered. And he also makes it clear that he bonded over idealistic views, later falling out due to diametrically opposing means. I think that this happens quite a bit, and I'm not really sure how him being homosexual makes things any more understandable.