They're stupid. As a matter of fact, GUIs are stupid too. So are command lines. If you're a REAL geek, you'll do your computer work with a punch card. If it can't be done with that, well, it must not be worth doing.
Bah, newbie! We still use coconuts and long vines here. You kids have everything so easy with your punchcards.
So if you're an employee who values privacy and wants to send a bit of private personal email once in a while on your personal web mail account (say, gmail), the only way to retain that privacy is to either do all that mail through a cell phone, or install an OS that the IT people don't have a keystroke logger for. Where I work all our computers have the corporate spyware installed from day one. To have privacy, you have to find some obscure Unix distro (Red Hat isn't obscure enough; they have that covered too) and use it.
In order to get keystroke logging they need to have access to the system. If you are installing RedHat o ranythign else on your own, they can not install corporate spyware until they get access to it. Not that I am advocating not providing them access (unless you happen to be one of the many using personal laptops as your work machine because you work from home frequently and they don't provide you one). I am merely pointing out the *lack* of insight in the parent post.
The easy way to solve this problem is so obvious most miss it. Why give everybody public email? Why give them internet access?
The real solution to this problem is to only provide internet access to those who need it as a job requirement. This solves many problems:
Bandwidth usage Email/Spam costs Internet browsing costs
Why does the janitor need public email and internet? Why does the secretary? Why the middle manager? I've done consulting work where I've saved the company a lot of money by pointing this out.
You can still have internal email for everyone. But only those who have a business need get externally available mail addresses. This goes along with "Why give everyone the entire [office suite]?".
Everyone doesn't need a computer, and everyone doesn't need a general purpose computer. This is where the real costs are coming into play. The idea that everyone needs everything. Even Microsoft had to admit this a bit in the case of the city of Munich when they came back with a counter to the opensource office option of not giving all employees all of MS Office.
As I understand it (warning: non-USAian), the 5th Ammendment only applies to testifying, and then only to speech - you'd have a hard time claiming exhaling was speech, unless you're prepared to claim "Hhhhhuuuuuhhhhhhh" is meaningful communication. And they'd probably want an unvoiced exhalation when testing you for DUI anyway.
I also don't think the 5th Ammendment applies to incriminating yourself in any way, only about testifying - I doubt you could take the fifth to avoid giving fingerprints when arrested, could you?
Nope, it applies to self-incrimination, not just testimony. Specifically:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
It does not limit it to testimony.
That said, there isn't really any way to prove alcohol consumption without your voluntary participation (and breathalyzers don't store any identifiable data on you)... So it's basically a toss-up between "risking making you incriminate yourself before you're even charged", and "letting every single drunk-driver in the world get away with it", and with that choice I think it's the lesser of two evils...
Yet we had successful cases and convictions for DUI prior to brethalyzers and blood tests. Your assertion that it is eitehr break the rules or let everyone go is a fallacy of false dillema or false dichotomy. Those are NOT the only two options.
This is where modern government/law has screwed itself up. It fails to focus on the acts themselves. Driving recklessly is driving recklessly with or withour influence of drugs. I was pulled over for an alleged DUI once. I was stone cold sober. Why was I pulled over? Well an off duty deputy tried to race me on the interstate and lost. So when he saw a state trooper at the scene of an accident he pulled over. Next thing I know a state troper is waiting for me before the next exit. Pulls me over and says they had a report of me "weaving and drifting across the road like you were drunk".
Why not "you were reported speeding and racing?" you ask. That would require the off duty sheriff to admit his guilt and that wasn't going to happen. So he figured he coud get me on DUI. Didn't happen. Indeed the trooper seemed visibly upset he was called out for such a clear non-DUI case. Did I resist any testing? Absolutely. The officer had zero evidence to support the allegation. If laws like many places now have were on the books then I'd have had to go to court to appeal the non-due-process administrative suspension of my license/liberty.
This is exactly what the Fifth is about.
We've moved from penalizing action to penalizing circumstances, and that is wrong. The underlying problem is not the drinking and driving. I tis the driving recklessly and willfull endagerment of others. That is where the direction should go. People have been shown to be affected by varius levels of aclohol in their system in different ways. Some can drive w/o impairment at the legal levels in some places (some have/are moving to.06 which only increases this). Again, if the point is *significant* impairment it must be demonstrated. This is what brought us field sobriety tests.
I say significant impairment for a reason. At any given time, mos tof us are driving with some level of impairment. Emotional impairment is the largest. The "don't drive angry" line is most common but other emotions are equally if not more so impairing. Yet we don't have laws (yet) about that. This is despite the evidence that shows emotional impairment to be a greater cause of accidents than DUI.
Ever wonder why you don't get miranda rights read to you before a breathalyzer or field sobriety test? Presumption of guilt.
Compelling evidence is compelling evidence whether it be verbal or not. The protections in the fifth are not limited to speech. That is the way it is written. It says nothing about protecting speech.
You've got some good points, and you've certainly made me reassess what I saw in the video.
WHoa re you and what have you done being reasonable on/.;) Seriously though, this is quite commendable in my opinion. Maybe because I changedmy opinion after carefully reviewing the video. Seeing the netirety is definitely important. As you said the presentation was less than stellar especially given the link as it was presented.
Regardless of the cops' response, she was doing nearly twice the speed limit.
True.
She did have a broken windscreen. Which is not necessarily illegal. Here, at least this is not a pull-over offense, nor an offense at all unless it significantly blocks driver view. Perhaps the UK is different, I'll grant that. But this isn't the UK.;)
She did have broken taillights
Actually she had a brakelight out. Here this is a "fixit ticket" it is not a criminal offense. Nor should it be.
She was talking on a mobile while driving
Actually we don't know that. She was not talking on the phone in the early part of the video, and the cop did not mention the phone. Her response to him mentioning it was that she was *making* a phone call. Thus, we don't know that she was talking on the phone while driving and there is evidence to say she was not doing so. Remember, the mentioning of the phone was over four minutes into the traffic stop. *IF* she was on the phone durign that I'd assume the cop would have mentioned it and asked her to get off the phone immediately as opposed to four minutes later. If not, her being on the phone during the stop was tacitly approved by the cop.
and she didn't ring off when they started talking to her, which is pretty much common courtesy
I suspect you watched the video that started with that part. I did too initially, and it was quite confusing. Start with the first video and go through the entire sequence and you'll see what I indicated above. At this point she likely figured she was going to get busted, if she knew that DWP was an arrestable offense. Here, it is not. Here, DWP (Driving Without Privileges) is a misdemeanor. In many places it is a misdemeanor offense, not a take-your-butt-to-jail-now offense.
She also didn't get out of the car when they asked, repeatedly.
What's your name? What's your name What's your name? I've asked you three f*ing times! You have had no time to respond. Around here, the cops are taught to give plenty of time for compliance and have been hit hard for not doing so.
I've taken lessons from the state police force escalation instructor here. In non-violent cases such as this there is no cause for rapid requirements. I've been schooled by said instructor for not properly escalating the force level, though in the opposite direction. I didn't use lethal force when it was appropriate I still chose non-lethal force. Escalation of Force procedures are limit cases: they define when you *can* not when you *must*. Nonetheless I got admonoished over not using it. So it isn't like this guy is a softie.;)
The drawing of a weapon *is* an escalation of force. By the cop's own account he escalated before she got allegedly violent. He asserts she swung at the other cop. He already had the taser out when this was to have occurred.
Further, if she is "taking a swing" at the other cop over the seat/center console (whichever it had) she is specifically occupied and in a physically vulnerable position. If he had nto had the taser drawn, the initial cop culd have subdued her with little to no risk to either of them given the position she'd have to be in to do what was described. And she may have, as I said we can't say for sure. But if she did she had placed herself in an subduable vulnerable position someone w/o a weapon drawn could have efficiently used to subdue her.
If you look at their wiki, they have not released all the componets as Open Source yet. So, they had to have an exception or they themeselves would be linking non-free with free and in violation.
The owner of the code is not bound to the license terms others have to agree to to use the code! If I write something and GPL it, I, as owner, can sell a proprietary app using said GPLed code w/o violating the GPL license you have to obey.
I've yet to find a mail client that I like that can write to LDAP address books. Read? Sure. Write? Nope. Apple's Address Book application is great for searching directories, but don't expect to use it to update entries (AFAIK - I'd love to be proven wrong!).
Well we cant deal with the "like" aspect, but I've set up OpenLDAP to store my addressbook in using Evolution. I create new contacts there and they show up in the db.
It was either that, or being dragged from the car by the cops and given the 'nightstick tango'. Which would have placed the cops in unnecessary danger.
Or inform her she was under arrest, let her finish her phone call and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
What would they have done before the taser? Probably exhausted non-violent means which was not done here.
Let's see, she's talking on her mobile phone and speeding, with a suspended licence, which is both stupid and illegal.
Agreed.
The cop then asks her politely to get out of the car. She ignores him and carries on talking on her phone, which is stupid.
Agreed - though she didn't ignore him.
He asks her repeatedly to hang up and get out of the car, and she refuses. She could even get out of the car while still talking on the phone, which would at least show willing, but she doesn't. This is stupid, and (IIRC) tantamount to resisting arrest.
Bullshit. Resisting arrest is resisting arrest period. And it is not always illegal. In order to be resisting arrest one must be being arrested. You can not resist what is not happening. You can't bend a spoon that does not exist. Being asked to get out of a car and refusing is not resisting arrest nor equivalent/tantamount.
If an officer walks up to you and tries to make an unlawful arrest, you are not only within your legal right to resist you are obligated to. Supreme Court decisions have upheld this.
If a cop asks you to pull your pants down and walk the white line, you can refuse. Refusal is not tantamount to resisting arrest. This woman did nto resist arrest, nor does the officer in question claim she did. She was actually never given a chance to.
Ostentatiously break the law. (Driving on a suspended licence? And speeding with it?)
Interesting choice of words. Did the car have a bumper sticker saying she had a suspended license? Nope, she was speeding. Merely driving on a suspended license is far from ostentatious, even if the car is. Especially when the cop was in an unmarked car.
I've seen what you describe. I've seen a line of cars cruising down an interstate at 80 MPH behind a clearly marked state trooper unit (speed limit was 55 btw). A driver pulled up to the unit quickly and then realized what he was about to pass so he backed off and got in line like everyone else. About ten minutes goes by and he decides to then pass the unit. As soon as the front bumper of the car passed the trooper, the lights went on.
The cop then asks her politely to get out of the car.
Why? I watched the video. Why did he ask her to get out of the car? He pulled her over for speeding and a defective taillight. There is no requirement she get out of the car for that. He intended to arrest her, but had not yet done so or informed her of it. She likely knew she was oging to be arrested which explains the phone call she made, listen to what she says on the phone.
He asked her one time to get out and hang up. She said she was making a phone call. Watch the video. He then proceeds to draw the taser, open the door and threaten her with the taser. She didnt ignore him, she responded. You can hear it on the video. Your description of the event is incorrect. Look again. He says she is making a phone call (which she may have started as she got pulled over) and she immediately drew and opened. Where is the threat from her at this point? That there is an open phone line? He drew the taser, opened the door and attempted to either remove her from the car or remove the phone from her.
Then the other cop which she likely didnt know about opens the door, reaches in from the passenger side and apparently tried to remove the cell phone from her. We don't see clearly enough to know if she turned to swing at him or not. i can see either way. She could have responded involuntarily to the sudden attempt to dis-phone her and that could have involved a self-defense like action or could be interpreted as an attempt to strike at whomever was doing it.
Nor was she a threat either. She was clearly on the phone, he knew that. One officer was on the other side, he had view of what was in reach there as well.
He did not tell her, despite her claims on the phone, that he was arresting her. He wanted her out of the car so he asked. He changes why
So, are they releasing it as an actual product that can/will be supported by Red Hat's support & support contracts, or are they just saying "Ok, Fedora project, you can have this. Have fun!" and letting it go at that?
Go read the docs, you'll find it is released as both Fedora-DS and RH-DS. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is a supported (as in pay and get a tech) and which is not.
yeah, I know, the "if you had competant admins you wouldn't need support" line,
Do you know the "yeah if you read the website you'd have known the answer" line?;^)
Hmm, in reply to all those who claim that you don't learn anything, and that you're just following instructions, and who recommend Gentoo, how about putting your money where your mouth is and building it yourself? (and pasting the proof here, which will usually take the form of "oh fsck this......how do i fix this?")
Take it from me, when you've stayed up to 2am trying to figure out why this fsck-ing package won't install, and why you keep getting "Error 1:...blah blah", then when you finally figure out why, it tends to stick in your head.
No, not necessarily. It is not necessarily true that banging your head over something for a while and finally fixing it will teach you how to fix things. You have to understand why it failed and why the fix worked. You can effect a specific fix without either of those. Up till 2am? Please. I'm just getting to lunch at 2am.;) Most admins trying to figure out why something is broke during compilation do the smart thing: they turn to google, to usenet, and email.
They do the smart thing and ask others who may have already solved the problem. They don't beat their head against the wall trying to figure it out to the wee hours of their next morning. I've been at this "Linux thing" for ten years laddie. I've also worked a good amount of time as a Q&A and qualification test engineer. Learning how to compile something is not the same as learning how to fix something. Often the things that go wrong on a system, have nothing to do with compiling them. It is interaction among processes and limited resources in strange ways that tend to cause problems. Or removing something that something else needed.
Sure, if you copy and paste everything from the single-html file, you won't learn much - the learning comes from actually *reading* the document instead of mindlessly pasting/copying, and skimming through the mailing lists, to see why they chose to do things a certain way, and hanging on the IRC channel.
Seeing how something is done does not get you any understanding on *why* it was done.
I've bult Linux installs since before "LFS" was born. One of which was on one of the early Alpha 4/233 stations to hit ebay _many_ years ago. That machine is still running from that install base. LFS is not some rite of passage, nor is it particularly useful in "learning Linux" any more so than any other distribution. It doesn't make you a better admin or any better at understanding "Linux". You can "learn Linux" using the same method of trial/error/ask/learn that you can with LFS. If you can't "learn Linux" using a canned distribution, you will have issues with LFS or Gentoo if you seek to use them as your learning tool. *Every* technique you think makes LFS help you learn is available on *any* Linux install/distribution.
Windows 2000 is (allegedly) an operating system. Internet Explorer is (allegedly) an *application* that runs on the (alleged) operating system.
MS claims they won't be releasing IE7 for W2K because the (alleged) OS allegedly can't support IE7 becuase it 9allegedly) is missing features needed for it.
However, other browsers (allegedly) run on Windows2K and are more secure than IE, and offer (allegedly) tabbed browsing.
Your analogy fails because the Car would be the OS, and the brakes would be the application. Even then I'd say it is the radio that would be the application.
And Windows 2K is still a current (alleged) OS. XP is old too. Linux is an OLD operating system (older than Windows2000 even!) yet new browsers run on it as well. Linux even gets new operating systems -- on older versions of Linux no less!
If you can follow directions you can get LFS up and running. That is all you need to know how to do. Complete newbies get Gentoo or LFS working simply by following directions.
LFS is cool and has a place for those willing and able to make decisions on how base libraries and apps are compiled. Speed? Sometimes, but only of import in limited applications. None of which newbies should be involved with.
I teach Linux use and administration, as well as security. LFS doesn't exactly provide you the opportunity to learn how to secure your system any more than SuSE, Redhat, or Gentoo for example, or even Slackware.
Further, there are many choices you have to make right from the get go. This merely teaches you a way (assuming you are doing more than following the directions), not the way. There are few "the way it works" out there. And that is how it works on nearly all distributions. LFS provides no advantage there.
Indeed, security-wise unless you already know what you are doing, LFS provides you a prime opportunity to leave your system open. Most modern distributions come fairly well locked down out of the box. LFS, by definition doesn't. While you are downloading the packages you are potentially exposed. So you have to follow the step by step directions. Which puts us back to merely following directions.
When I want/need to teach people the nitty gritty, I turn to gentoo, not LFS. I gave LFS a long trial and it failed in comparison to gentoo for this purpose. I've been "doing Linux" for about ten years, so the idea behind LFS isn't new to me. Gentoo provides a solid base on which to build a custom "distribution" (it isn't a distribution if it is for your own purposes/company/use - you have to distribute it to be a distribution).
LFS has it's place, but not as a teaching you how Linux works and how to make it fast and secure standpoint. It is mainly aimed at/useful for the hardcore or people who have very specific unmet software set needs.
It will do 16:9 or 4:3, has picture in picture, multi-input (DVI, VGA, S-Video), USB Hub and built in speakers. Great colors, excellent brightness (important to me because my window faces the morning sun), good response times, and very nice video quality.
That said, even NewEgg has 20" LCDs for under 600.
To get a 20" viewable screen in CRT you need to go to a 21" CRT. Of course there will be price differences. What's a 21" going for?
Samsung, NewEgg, 21" flat screen: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16824001149 459 smackers. Definitely not a third of 600, actually comparable to what you can get a 20" viewable LCD w/extras. You got higher resolution but less space to use it with.
Comparing the price of an 18" viewable CRT to the price of a 20" viewable LCD is an invalid comparison.
While it is testing new, cheaper space travel technologies, I don't see how it can do what the ISS can do, namely, extended experiments in space. Get your facts straight.
Ahh the irony of someone who doens't know what the X37 is telling someone who does to get their facts straight. One of the purposes of the X37 is long term space experimentation.
The X-37 is intended to be (initially) lifted to LEO by the shuttle. It has a 7'x4' bay for carrying up to 500 pounds of experiments for durations of up to 21 days. Three times longer than STS experiments can be. And without the billions of dollars the ISS will cost when/if it is completed.
So yes, it as a matter of factcan do much of what the stated goals of the ISS can do, and can do it cheaper.
As far as launch methods, not exactly "newer" but good old fashioned rocket payload lifts are cheaper than the STS. A Delta IV heavy, or Delta IV can lift payloads to LEO cheaper, by far then the STS can. You can launch 2-3 Delta IV-heavys for the cost of a single shuttle launch. Not to mention a failure at launch doesn't stall all further launches for years after. IIRC, both the Atlas V and the Delta IV can fit the diameter of the X-37 though I don't recall if the length is in the range but I think it is. And finally, you can launch more Atlas and Delta rockets per year than the Shuttle.
If the X-37 can be launched via Atlas/Delta rockets, you could have half a dozen up in a single year for slightly more than the cost of launching a single shuttle payload. Using teleoperation you could use transfer experiment payloads from one X-37 to another to provide longer than 21 day orbits if needed and the experiment was capable of such.
Any experiment going to ISS will require basically two launches, not including the launches to build the ISS. An experiment launched and ran on the X-37 requires only the one.
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere 2) File some patents 3) Allow open source software to use your patents 4) ???
So, if patents are a "good thing" that encourages innovation, why is nokia allowing open source (ie: anyone) to use them for free? As far as I can see, they're contradicting themselves
Actually it can be good business to allow open source to have free use of your patents. Open source is spreading very rapidly. Eventually, it won't be a matter of is opensource apps are compatible with your proprietary app, it will be the inverse:
With this in place, if OSS uses your patented stuff then anyone who wants a proprietary app will have to get your permission. It can be a way of establishing a monopoly on the proprietary apps for that particular segment.
Laws are there to STOP people from taking things too far.
No, laws are there to provide a means of retribution of some sort. Laws stop nothing. If laws stopped things, there'd be no prisons, no jails, and no executions. But laws don't stop anything. Laws serve to give a government power over people, nothing more.
Fair enough, but coding with "Joe" (disclaimer: I am Joe) in mind is what could make the difference between your project languishing on sourceforge with only three users (two of whom could have written it themselves), or being the next big thing in OSS. So you're really only restricting yourself if you take this attitude. Of course, I recognize that as a FOSS coder your time is not being compensated, so "Joe" does NOT have the right to expect that you'll drop everything to code/update that nice UI.
This is another common misconception: that the projects on Sourceforge are intended for Joe. I personally know a lot of people and groups with projects on sourceforge. I even had one there myself. But 90%+ of these projects (that I speak of) are merely using the development tools at sourceforge (my solitary SF project is one of them). They aren't trying to be there for Joe Enduser (I'm also a Joe, btw). Sourceforge provides the development tools they need, nothing more.
So it is not a fair assessment to say that various projects on SF are "languishing" unless they are specifically stated to be for general public. And yes, there are several of those languishing but it isn't for UI reasons in many of those cases. I've volunteered to help out with some projects only to find they don't have any idea how to do the backend. Naturally the FE is irrelevant when there is no BE. And many have a FE but no backend.
Most projects on SF are languishing for reasons that have nothing to do with end user input, pretty interfaces, etc.. It has to do with the skill of the peope involved, or finding another projects is farther along and satsifies their needs.
Most people on sourceforge share their code just in case someone finds it useful. Whether or not people do is largely irrelevant to us. Kind of like coments on slashdot. If people like them, that's great. If not, oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
They're stupid. As a matter of fact, GUIs are stupid too. So are command lines. If you're a REAL geek, you'll do your computer work with a punch card. If it can't be done with that, well, it must not be worth doing.
Bah, newbie! We still use coconuts and long vines here. You kids have everything so easy with your punchcards.
Use Illustrator and only your keyboard. Go!
Using vi and only your mouse, give me a corporate logo in SVG, PS, PDF, or BMP. Go!
Keystroke logging.
So if you're an employee who values privacy and wants to send a bit of private personal email once in a while on your personal web mail account (say, gmail), the only way to retain that privacy is to either do all that mail through a cell phone, or install an OS that the IT people don't have a keystroke logger for. Where I work all our computers have the corporate spyware installed from day one. To have privacy, you have to find some obscure Unix distro (Red Hat isn't obscure enough; they have that covered too) and use it.
In order to get keystroke logging they need to have access to the system. If you are installing RedHat o ranythign else on your own, they can not install corporate spyware until they get access to it. Not that I am advocating not providing them access (unless you happen to be one of the many using personal laptops as your work machine because you work from home frequently and they don't provide you one). I am merely pointing out the *lack* of insight in the parent post.
The easy way to solve this problem is so obvious most miss it. Why give everybody public email? Why give them internet access?
The real solution to this problem is to only provide internet access to those who need it as a job requirement. This solves many problems:
Bandwidth usage
Email/Spam costs
Internet browsing costs
Why does the janitor need public email and internet? Why does the secretary? Why the middle manager? I've done consulting work where I've saved the company a lot of money by pointing this out.
You can still have internal email for everyone. But only those who have a business need get externally available mail addresses. This goes along with "Why give everyone the entire [office suite]?".
Everyone doesn't need a computer, and everyone doesn't need a general purpose computer. This is where the real costs are coming into play. The idea that everyone needs everything. Even Microsoft had to admit this a bit in the case of the city of Munich when they came back with a counter to the opensource office option of not giving all employees all of MS Office.
McGuyver did this in Ep. 26 with a matchbox, two cotton buds, a filling from his tooth and some scotch tape.
Clearly you never watched the show. He used duct tape.
I also don't think the 5th Ammendment applies to incriminating yourself in any way, only about testifying - I doubt you could take the fifth to avoid giving fingerprints when arrested, could you?
Nope, it applies to self-incrimination, not just testimony. Specifically:
It does not limit it to testimony.
That said, there isn't really any way to prove alcohol consumption without your voluntary participation (and breathalyzers don't store any identifiable data on you)... So it's basically a toss-up between "risking making you incriminate yourself before you're even charged", and "letting every single drunk-driver in the world get away with it", and with that choice I think it's the lesser of two evils...
Yet we had successful cases and convictions for DUI prior to brethalyzers and blood tests. Your assertion that it is eitehr break the rules or let everyone go is a fallacy of false dillema or false dichotomy. Those are NOT the only two options.
This is where modern government/law has screwed itself up. It fails to focus on the acts themselves. Driving recklessly is driving recklessly with or withour influence of drugs. I was pulled over for an alleged DUI once. I was stone cold sober. Why was I pulled over? Well an off duty deputy tried to race me on the interstate and lost. So when he saw a state trooper at the scene of an accident he pulled over. Next thing I know a state troper is waiting for me before the next exit. Pulls me over and says they had a report of me "weaving and drifting across the road like you were drunk".
Why not "you were reported speeding and racing?" you ask. That would require the off duty sheriff to admit his guilt and that wasn't going to happen. So he figured he coud get me on DUI. Didn't happen. Indeed the trooper seemed visibly upset he was called out for such a clear non-DUI case. Did I resist any testing? Absolutely. The officer had zero evidence to support the allegation. If laws like many places now have were on the books then I'd have had to go to court to appeal the non-due-process administrative suspension of my license/liberty.
This is exactly what the Fifth is about.
We've moved from penalizing action to penalizing circumstances, and that is wrong. The underlying problem is not the drinking and driving. I tis the driving recklessly and willfull endagerment of others. That is where the direction should go. People have been shown to be affected by varius levels of aclohol in their system in different ways. Some can drive w/o impairment at the legal levels in some places (some have/are moving to
I say significant impairment for a reason. At any given time, mos tof us are driving with some level of impairment. Emotional impairment is the largest. The "don't drive angry" line is most common but other emotions are equally if not more so impairing. Yet we don't have laws (yet) about that. This is despite the evidence that shows emotional impairment to be a greater cause of accidents than DUI.
Ever wonder why you don't get miranda rights read to you before a breathalyzer or field sobriety test? Presumption of guilt.
Compelling evidence is compelling evidence whether it be verbal or not. The protections in the fifth are not limited to speech. That is the way it is written. It says nothing about protecting speech.
You've got some good points, and you've certainly made me reassess what I saw in the video.
/. ;) Seriously though, this is quite commendable in my opinion. Maybe because I changedmy opinion after carefully reviewing the video. Seeing the netirety is definitely important. As you said the presentation was less than stellar especially given the link as it was presented.
;)
;)
WHoa re you and what have you done being reasonable on
Regardless of the cops' response, she was doing nearly twice the speed limit.
True.
She did have a broken windscreen.
Which is not necessarily illegal. Here, at least this is not a pull-over offense, nor an offense at all unless it significantly blocks driver view. Perhaps the UK is different, I'll grant that. But this isn't the UK.
She did have broken taillights
Actually she had a brakelight out. Here this is a "fixit ticket" it is not a criminal offense. Nor should it be.
She was talking on a mobile while driving
Actually we don't know that. She was not talking on the phone in the early part of the video, and the cop did not mention the phone. Her response to him mentioning it was that she was *making* a phone call. Thus, we don't know that she was talking on the phone while driving and there is evidence to say she was not doing so. Remember, the mentioning of the phone was over four minutes into the traffic stop. *IF* she was on the phone durign that I'd assume the cop would have mentioned it and asked her to get off the phone immediately as opposed to four minutes later. If not, her being on the phone during the stop was tacitly approved by the cop.
and she didn't ring off when they started talking to her, which is pretty much common courtesy
I suspect you watched the video that started with that part. I did too initially, and it was quite confusing. Start with the first video and go through the entire sequence and you'll see what I indicated above. At this point she likely figured she was going to get busted, if she knew that DWP was an arrestable offense. Here, it is not. Here, DWP (Driving Without Privileges) is a misdemeanor. In many places it is a misdemeanor offense, not a take-your-butt-to-jail-now offense.
She also didn't get out of the car when they asked, repeatedly.
What's your name? What's your name What's your name? I've asked you three f*ing times! You have had no time to respond. Around here, the cops are taught to give plenty of time for compliance and have been hit hard for not doing so.
I've taken lessons from the state police force escalation instructor here. In non-violent cases such as this there is no cause for rapid requirements. I've been schooled by said instructor for not properly escalating the force level, though in the opposite direction. I didn't use lethal force when it was appropriate I still chose non-lethal force. Escalation of Force procedures are limit cases: they define when you *can* not when you *must*. Nonetheless I got admonoished over not using it. So it isn't like this guy is a softie.
The drawing of a weapon *is* an escalation of force. By the cop's own account he escalated before she got allegedly violent. He asserts she swung at the other cop. He already had the taser out when this was to have occurred.
Further, if she is "taking a swing" at the other cop over the seat/center console (whichever it had) she is specifically occupied and in a physically vulnerable position. If he had nto had the taser drawn, the initial cop culd have subdued her with little to no risk to either of them given the position she'd have to be in to do what was described. And she may have, as I said we can't say for sure. But if she did she had placed herself in an subduable vulnerable position someone w/o a weapon drawn could have efficiently used to subdue her.
someone who can take you down the station an
If you look at their wiki, they have not released all the componets as Open Source yet. So, they had to have an exception or they themeselves would be linking non-free with free and in violation.
The owner of the code is not bound to the license terms others have to agree to to use the code! If I write something and GPL it, I, as owner, can sell a proprietary app using said GPLed code w/o violating the GPL license you have to obey.
I've yet to find a mail client that I like that can write to LDAP address books. Read? Sure. Write? Nope. Apple's Address Book application is great for searching directories, but don't expect to use it to update entries (AFAIK - I'd love to be proven wrong!).
Well we cant deal with the "like" aspect, but I've set up OpenLDAP to store my addressbook in using Evolution. I create new contacts there and they show up in the db.
It was either that, or being dragged from the car by the cops and given the 'nightstick tango'. Which would have placed the cops in unnecessary danger.
Or inform her she was under arrest, let her finish her phone call and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
What would they have done before the taser? Probably exhausted non-violent means which was not done here.
Let's see, she's talking on her mobile phone and speeding, with a suspended licence, which is both stupid and illegal.
Agreed.
The cop then asks her politely to get out of the car. She ignores him and carries on talking on her phone, which is stupid.
Agreed - though she didn't ignore him.
He asks her repeatedly to hang up and get out of the car, and she refuses. She could even get out of the car while still talking on the phone, which would at least show willing, but she doesn't. This is stupid, and (IIRC) tantamount to resisting arrest.
Bullshit. Resisting arrest is resisting arrest period. And it is not always illegal. In order to be resisting arrest one must be being arrested. You can not resist what is not happening. You can't bend a spoon that does not exist. Being asked to get out of a car and refusing is not resisting arrest nor equivalent/tantamount.
If an officer walks up to you and tries to make an unlawful arrest, you are not only within your legal right to resist you are obligated to. Supreme Court decisions have upheld this.
If a cop asks you to pull your pants down and walk the white line, you can refuse. Refusal is not tantamount to resisting arrest. This woman did nto resist arrest, nor does the officer in question claim she did. She was actually never given a chance to.
Ostentatiously break the law. (Driving on a suspended licence? And speeding with it?)
Interesting choice of words. Did the car have a bumper sticker saying she had a suspended license? Nope, she was speeding. Merely driving on a suspended license is far from ostentatious, even if the car is. Especially when the cop was in an unmarked car.
I've seen what you describe. I've seen a line of cars cruising down an interstate at 80 MPH behind a clearly marked state trooper unit (speed limit was 55 btw). A driver pulled up to the unit quickly and then realized what he was about to pass so he backed off and got in line like everyone else. About ten minutes goes by and he decides to then pass the unit. As soon as the front bumper of the car passed the trooper, the lights went on.
The cop then asks her politely to get out of the car.
Why? I watched the video. Why did he ask her to get out of the car? He pulled her over for speeding and a defective taillight. There is no requirement she get out of the car for that. He intended to arrest her, but had not yet done so or informed her of it. She likely knew she was oging to be arrested which explains the phone call she made, listen to what she says on the phone.
He asked her one time to get out and hang up. She said she was making a phone call. Watch the video. He then proceeds to draw the taser, open the door and threaten her with the taser. She didnt ignore him, she responded. You can hear it on the video. Your description of the event is incorrect. Look again. He says she is making a phone call (which she may have started as she got pulled over) and she immediately drew and opened. Where is the threat from her at this point? That there is an open phone line? He drew the taser, opened the door and attempted to either remove her from the car or remove the phone from her.
Then the other cop which she likely didnt know about opens the door, reaches in from the passenger side and apparently tried to remove the cell phone from her. We don't see clearly enough to know if she turned to swing at him or not. i can see either way. She could have responded involuntarily to the sudden attempt to dis-phone her and that could have involved a self-defense like action or could be interpreted as an attempt to strike at whomever was doing it.
Nor was she a threat either. She was clearly on the phone, he knew that. One officer was on the other side, he had view of what was in reach there as well.
He did not tell her, despite her claims on the phone, that he was arresting her. He wanted her out of the car so he asked. He changes why
So, are they releasing it as an actual product that can/will be supported by Red Hat's support & support contracts, or are they just saying "Ok, Fedora project, you can have this. Have fun!" and letting it go at that?
;^)
% 2Band%2BEvents/Red%2BHat%2BPress%2BRelease%2BArchi ve/2005/Red%2BHat%2BAnnounces%2BDirectory%2BServer .html
Go read the docs, you'll find it is released as both Fedora-DS and RH-DS. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is a supported (as in pay and get a tech) and which is not.
yeah, I know, the "if you had competant admins you wouldn't need support" line,
Do you know the "yeah if you read the website you'd have known the answer" line?
http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/Home/Company/News
They did both. That isn't difficult to understand.
We spend all this time sending up little probes when what is needed is not Martian air samples, but Martian soil samples.
/ rtr/rs33.html
Using ISPP (In situ Propellant Production) an Mars Sample Return mission is feasible today.
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree
One was planned for 2003 but it got bumped. There is a lot more life in good old fashioned rocket technology yet.
Damn! Now I must rip my doctoral thesis of how farting Martians have caused the methane.
Not if they have olavine stomachs! Or are made of it.
his is only the second post saying that LFS is not new. It's not really redundant yet.
Was it said already? Yes? Then yes it was redundant.
redundant:
adj 1: more than is needed, desired, or required;
Only one post stating that is needed, desired or required.
Hmm, in reply to all those who claim that you don't learn anything, and that you're just following instructions, and who recommend Gentoo, how about putting your money where your mouth is and building it yourself? (and pasting the proof here, which will usually take the form of "oh fsck this......how do i fix this?")
;) Most admins trying to figure out why something is broke during compilation do the smart thing: they turn to google, to usenet, and email.
Take it from me, when you've stayed up to 2am trying to figure out why this fsck-ing package won't install, and why you keep getting "Error 1:...blah blah", then when you finally figure out why, it tends to stick in your head.
No, not necessarily. It is not necessarily true that banging your head over something for a while and finally fixing it will teach you how to fix things. You have to understand why it failed and why the fix worked. You can effect a specific fix without either of those. Up till 2am? Please. I'm just getting to lunch at 2am.
They do the smart thing and ask others who may have already solved the problem. They don't beat their head against the wall trying to figure it out to the wee hours of their next morning. I've been at this "Linux thing" for ten years laddie. I've also worked a good amount of time as a Q&A and qualification test engineer. Learning how to compile something is not the same as learning how to fix something. Often the things that go wrong on a system, have nothing to do with compiling them. It is interaction among processes and limited resources in strange ways that tend to cause problems. Or removing something that something else needed.
Sure, if you copy and paste everything from the single-html file, you won't learn much - the learning comes from actually *reading* the document instead of mindlessly pasting/copying, and skimming through the mailing lists, to see why they chose to do things a certain way, and hanging on the IRC channel.
Seeing how something is done does not get you any understanding on *why* it was done.
I've bult Linux installs since before "LFS" was born. One of which was on one of the early Alpha 4/233 stations to hit ebay _many_ years ago. That machine is still running from that install base. LFS is not some rite of passage, nor is it particularly useful in "learning Linux" any more so than any other distribution. It doesn't make you a better admin or any better at understanding "Linux". You can "learn Linux" using the same method of trial/error/ask/learn that you can with LFS. If you can't "learn Linux" using a canned distribution, you will have issues with LFS or Gentoo if you seek to use them as your learning tool. *Every* technique you think makes LFS help you learn is available on *any* Linux install/distribution.
Windows 2000 is (allegedly) an operating system. Internet Explorer is (allegedly) an *application* that runs on the (alleged) operating system.
MS claims they won't be releasing IE7 for W2K because the (alleged) OS allegedly can't support IE7 becuase it 9allegedly) is missing features needed for it.
However, other browsers (allegedly) run on Windows2K and are more secure than IE, and offer (allegedly) tabbed browsing.
Your analogy fails because the Car would be the OS, and the brakes would be the application. Even then I'd say it is the radio that would be the application.
And Windows 2K is still a current (alleged) OS. XP is old too. Linux is an OLD operating system (older than Windows2000 even!) yet new browsers run on it as well. Linux even gets new operating systems -- on older versions of Linux no less!
If you can follow directions you can get LFS up and running. That is all you need to know how to do. Complete newbies get Gentoo or LFS working simply by following directions.
LFS is cool and has a place for those willing and able to make decisions on how base libraries and apps are compiled. Speed? Sometimes, but only of import in limited applications. None of which newbies should be involved with.
I teach Linux use and administration, as well as security. LFS doesn't exactly provide you the opportunity to learn how to secure your system any more than SuSE, Redhat, or Gentoo for example, or even Slackware.
Further, there are many choices you have to make right from the get go. This merely teaches you a way (assuming you are doing more than following the directions), not the way. There are few "the way it works" out there. And that is how it works on nearly all distributions. LFS provides no advantage there.
Indeed, security-wise unless you already know what you are doing, LFS provides you a prime opportunity to leave your system open. Most modern distributions come fairly well locked down out of the box. LFS, by definition doesn't. While you are downloading the packages you are potentially exposed. So you have to follow the step by step directions. Which puts us back to merely following directions.
When I want/need to teach people the nitty gritty, I turn to gentoo, not LFS. I gave LFS a long trial and it failed in comparison to gentoo for this purpose. I've been "doing Linux" for about ten years, so the idea behind LFS isn't new to me. Gentoo provides a solid base on which to build a custom "distribution" (it isn't a distribution if it is for your own purposes/company/use - you have to distribute it to be a distribution).
LFS has it's place, but not as a teaching you how Linux works and how to make it fast and secure standpoint. It is mainly aimed at/useful for the hardcore or people who have very specific unmet software set needs.
Okay, I'll admitt that I use IE. And I know it's full of bugs and glitches. Most of which I never see.
No, you see them. You just don't realize it.
In order to get 1600x1200, I would have had to buy at least a 20". And judging from the current prices at NewEgg, that's at least $600.
1 1044707&whse=&topnav=&cat=&s=1
s /spec_x20g_NagaII.htm
2 E16824001149
So shop other than at NewEgg.
20" pretty decent 1600x1200 20 inch LCD:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=
I picked up one of these babies for less than the above price last summer, and they've come down further since (under 500 now if you know when/where to look):
http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specification
It will do 16:9 or 4:3, has picture in picture, multi-input (DVI, VGA, S-Video), USB Hub and built in speakers. Great colors, excellent brightness (important to me because my window faces the morning sun), good response times, and very nice video quality.
That said, even NewEgg has 20" LCDs for under 600.
To get a 20" viewable screen in CRT you need to go to a 21" CRT. Of course there will be price differences. What's a 21" going for?
Samsung, NewEgg, 21" flat screen:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8
459 smackers. Definitely not a third of 600, actually comparable to what you can get a 20" viewable LCD w/extras. You got higher resolution but less space to use it with.
Comparing the price of an 18" viewable CRT to the price of a 20" viewable LCD is an invalid comparison.
We have cheap LCD's
Buying cheap LCD monitors and then griping about them is a tad ridiculous, no? If you buy cheap, expect cheap.
While it is testing new, cheaper space travel technologies, I don't see how it can do what the ISS can do, namely, extended experiments in space. Get your facts straight.
Ahh the irony of someone who doens't know what the X37 is telling someone who does to get their facts straight. One of the purposes of the X37 is long term space experimentation.
The X-37 is intended to be (initially) lifted to LEO by the shuttle. It has a 7'x4' bay for carrying up to 500 pounds of experiments for durations of up to 21 days. Three times longer than STS experiments can be. And without the billions of dollars the ISS will cost when/if it is completed.
So yes, it as a matter of fact can do much of what the stated goals of the ISS can do, and can do it cheaper.
As far as launch methods, not exactly "newer" but good old fashioned rocket payload lifts are cheaper than the STS. A Delta IV heavy, or Delta IV can lift payloads to LEO cheaper, by far then the STS can. You can launch 2-3 Delta IV-heavys for the cost of a single shuttle launch. Not to mention a failure at launch doesn't stall all further launches for years after. IIRC, both the Atlas V and the Delta IV can fit the diameter of the X-37 though I don't recall if the length is in the range but I think it is. And finally, you can launch more Atlas and Delta rockets per year than the Shuttle.
If the X-37 can be launched via Atlas/Delta rockets, you could have half a dozen up in a single year for slightly more than the cost of launching a single shuttle payload. Using teleoperation you could use transfer experiment payloads from one X-37 to another to provide longer than 21 day orbits if needed and the experiment was capable of such.
Any experiment going to ISS will require basically two launches, not including the launches to build the ISS. An experiment launched and ran on the X-37 requires only the one.
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere
2) File some patents
3) Allow open source software to use your patents
4) ???
So, if patents are a "good thing" that encourages innovation, why is nokia allowing open source (ie: anyone) to use them for free? As far as I can see, they're contradicting themselves
Actually it can be good business to allow open source to have free use of your patents. Open source is spreading very rapidly. Eventually, it won't be a matter of is opensource apps are compatible with your proprietary app, it will be the inverse:
With this in place, if OSS uses your patented stuff then anyone who wants a proprietary app will have to get your permission. It can be a way of establishing a monopoly on the proprietary apps for that particular segment.
Laws are there to STOP people from taking things too far.
No, laws are there to provide a means of retribution of some sort. Laws stop nothing. If laws stopped things, there'd be no prisons, no jails, and no executions. But laws don't stop anything. Laws serve to give a government power over people, nothing more.
Fair enough, but coding with "Joe" (disclaimer: I am Joe) in mind is what could make the difference between your project languishing on sourceforge with only three users (two of whom could have written it themselves), or being the next big thing in OSS. So you're really only restricting yourself if you take this attitude. Of course, I recognize that as a FOSS coder your time is not being compensated, so "Joe" does NOT have the right to expect that you'll drop everything to code/update that nice UI.
This is another common misconception: that the projects on Sourceforge are intended for Joe. I personally know a lot of people and groups with projects on sourceforge. I even had one there myself. But 90%+ of these projects (that I speak of) are merely using the development tools at sourceforge (my solitary SF project is one of them). They aren't trying to be there for Joe Enduser (I'm also a Joe, btw). Sourceforge provides the development tools they need, nothing more.
So it is not a fair assessment to say that various projects on SF are "languishing" unless they are specifically stated to be for general public. And yes, there are several of those languishing but it isn't for UI reasons in many of those cases. I've volunteered to help out with some projects only to find they don't have any idea how to do the backend. Naturally the FE is irrelevant when there is no BE. And many have a FE but no backend.
Most projects on SF are languishing for reasons that have nothing to do with end user input, pretty interfaces, etc.. It has to do with the skill of the peope involved, or finding another projects is farther along and satsifies their needs.
Most people on sourceforge share their code just in case someone finds it useful. Whether or not people do is largely irrelevant to us. Kind of like coments on slashdot. If people like them, that's great. If not, oh well.
Cheers
Right. Foreign, married men _never_ use prostitutes.
...
In Soviet Russia the prostitute uses you.
hmm now that don't seem too bad