I basically did the same thing with my forced upgrade to Vista. Bought a Dell XPS with Vista already on it (XP was not an option or I wouldn't have even had to deal with it). Figured what the heck, we will try this, but after a few days on a dual core 2.0ghz system with 4gb of ram running like a dog I....turned of UAC, turned of Aero, set optimize for performance..applied it and put back a couple things I did like. The system runs like a bat out of hell ever since.
That said, after that experience with this latest "offering" from MS when the time came to get my wife a Laptop and upgrade my son's computer they both got Macs. When the time comes for this system to be upgraded it will go the same route. I shouldn't have to micro optimize a system that should run adequately right out of the box, there is no reason for that. Both of the Macs I bought run smoothly from the time I first powered them on and with bootcamp and XP they run games as fast if not faster than their PC counterparts.
I still don't care for how pricey some macs can be, but I consider the fact that I have less headaches with the OS than I had with Windows (so far anyway) the premium on the price. Like their ads say, things just work...period.
I already have the basic configuration for my MacPro saved and ready to go when this system goes out of warranty. Except for having to deal with windows servers at work I hope I will never have to buy another PC based computer again.
But, you know, conversely, the present US government has expressed a desire to go in the direction of hydrogen. Mostly because it's a byproduct of petroleum production, so they'd not be seeing that cash cow go dry. By extention, this should mean the US government will get behind making nanoparticle-driven hydrogen cars... further marginalizing actual clean energy sources like electricity even further.
Exactly how clean is electricity when there are still a lot of coal fired power plants all over the country. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in ages let alone get any other green power source to a level to replace them.
Hydrogen is absolutely clean and the production has oxygen as a by-product. Electricity (and don't think that I am against electric power by no means, but let's be realistic) is generated using a still dirty process. Hydrogen, from production to burn, is much cleaner. That is not even taking into account the environmental footprint that production of electric cars produces. This (hydrogen cars) would not significantly change the footprint of existing vehicle production (this could be wrong, but it doesn't seem it would alter it that much) and reduce the emissions to 0. Electric cars significantly increase the vehicle production footprint to achieve the same thing. Over time both are better than current petroleum based vehicles, but which one is really the cleaner option?
Until we have dependable and cleaner electricity production, hydrogen cars will be the cleaner solution for the total life-cycle of the product and maybe even if electricity is cleaned up.
No, I wouldn't. Because I think a per-byte model will destroy innovation on the internet. Besides which, I've made the argument in the past that it's not the bytes themselves that cost money -- it's the underlying capacity needed to transfer them. A 100mbits pipe costs the same whether or not you are using it.
..and you would be free to make that decision being fully informed about the service being offered. The problem I have with Comcast is that they are NOT disclosing their bandwidth limits, not that they are limiting them in the first place. That and their service sucks beyond this issue, but that's another matter.
Whether or not the market will accept a tiered system is another argument that will be decided in the marketplace regardless of whether we agree with the fee per byte model or not.
There's nothing stopping them from doing this. The only issue they have is the capacity of the shared last mile. But cable-modems already have provisions for 'capping' the amount of bandwidth that you can get.
Only having experience building and servicing DSLAM cabinets for DSL implementations I can't comment on how they may or may not implement caps. I don't know the technology well enough, except in passing, to comment on it. It shouldn't be that difficult, but it is different than DSL.
I wouldn't be agreeable to those. The applications that are used by the minority of internet users today are going to become mainstream tomorrow. Everybody is slamming bittorrent but missing the point that internet video is probably going to be the next killer app.
You wouldn't be agreeable even if they sold you that service in that manner from the start? The problem isn't that they are limiting bandwidth, it's that they are not forthcoming about the policy from the start. If they sold tiered service and you choose to take the restricted service, then you can't complain to anyone when they limit you. That type of tiered service would allow the few that want or need higher bandwidth to pony up the funds to purchase it, but their policies need to be forthright and not hidden somewhere that only they know about.
Internet video and movies are coming and service providers will need to adjust their business practices accordingly. Selling tiered service is one way to address that. I personally have DSL and they provide 6 levels of service from 256k up to a 15mb option. Their service levels were totally up front so I could pick the level I needed. If I find out I am having bandwidth issues I just call them up and pay for the next level up and go again. Granted, DSL is a different technology and Cable does have different issues implementing a tiered system, but if they are going to engage in bandwidth limiting they need to provide the same tiered service that DSL does, advertise the rates, limitations etc and these complaints will cease or at least be seen as no merit (you signed up for that level of service, go away).
fairplay yahoo, their webmail is already alot more user friendly than gmail
Are there two Yahoos and two Gmails? Or are you writing to us from a parallel universe where Yahoo isn't an evil company whose bloated, slow, flashing ad, spam filled, privacy disrespecting email system actually works well?
I was thinking the same thing. All their neat little features mean little less than nothing if I have to wade through 15-20 spam mails about V!A@rA and other such nonsense. Oh wait, maybe they just want to sort all the spam with the same subject. All the V!a@rA spam in one section all the pr0n in another. There is a method to their madness it seems.
I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination
The article specifically references the issue of the prosecutors demanding the key.
They can demand all they want. Police can also demand that you confess to all the crimes they know you are guilty
of as well. That doesn't mean they have the authority to force you to do so. They can't force you to do anything that violates either the 5th or the 4th Amendments.
Now should they get a warrant from a judge, then matters become a little more shaky. They could argue that the laptop is locked and that you are in contempt by refusing to unlock it for search as ordered by the court the same as they would do for someone refusing to unlock a building or safe, etc. That is where a good encryption software comes in. Unless they can prove that the drive is encrypted, that you know it is encrypted and you are in possession of said keys to decrypt it. They get nowhere.
Citizens can push this issue since they can't exactly refuse them entry. Visitors legally can do the same, but being refused entry can have ramifications as others have mentioned previously. IMO they are using that last item as a method to coerce disclosure of laptop contents even though they have no legal grounds to demand the same. Normal caveat - IANAL.
Not only that, but considering they had permission, that removes it from the graffiti category and pushes it into the alternative art category. Then there's the fact that they had some pics showing them cleaning it up afterwards. Oh wait, that would require actually RTFA....nevermind I forgot where I was....again.
Do you suppose this will cause contention between Google and Mozilla? I thought they had a mutually beneficial arrangement going... but what happens when Google owns DoubleClick, when one of Firefox's most popular add-ons--AdBlock--works to help us ignore DoubleClick ads? Will we see any sort of friction?
Maybe, but since I set ads.doubleclick.net to 127.0.0.1 in my HOSTS file I don't think I will notice much either way.
Okay, stop and think for a second. What's Blizzard going to steal? Your credit card number? They already have that. You gave it to them when you signed up. They have your CC number, your billing address and your name. If they REALLY want to steal from you, they don't need to sneak information out of your computer to do it. I suppose someone there could go for your social security number, but what do thieves do with those? They get credit cards. Once again, Blizzard doesn't need to do that.
Wrong, they do not have your CC number, they have a hash of that number. CC numbers are not transmitted during secure internet sessions, only the hash. A disgruntled employee or whoever else might have compromised the algorithm will need more than that so getting that from your computer where it is most likely not hashed is the best bet. Now, that employee can either try to get the other personal information from the corporate DB server or, hmm let's see, pull it off your computer as well? Oh and one other thing, considering that Taxes are going to be due here shortly in the US what chance do you think there will be of SSNs being available on people's PCs in the coming months?
Oh, and what about those people that use game cards instead of CC's? Blizzard has neither their CC number or even their contact information if the person signing up doesn't want to give it to them. There is no requirement when using a game card to provide a real name. Oh, they get my email, big whoop, I drop it into my spam account and forget it. But now they can troll my system and grab that information any time they want and there is no way to tell if they are doing it, a third party that has hacked the algorithm or some employee gone off the deep end.
Nobody is claiming that Blizzard would engage in fraud itself, but this alteration to the Warden program opens up a security hole with no oversight that could be exploited since there is no way to tell what the algorithm is extracting from your system. It has the potential to violate every user's privacy regardless of whether or not Blizzard or any other entity ever use it as such.
There is no way to tell if the program has been compromised since the algorithm is encrypted. Blizzard has every right to keep their game from being hacked and cheated in, but not at the expense of opening up a path where their user's private information could be violated. They at least need to be a little more transparent in how they verify that the algorithm being used has not been compromised either internally or externally.
The users aren't the ones engaged in using the pictures in advertising, Facebook is. There is no requirement, that I can find, that the photos you upload are of yourself. It becomes their responsibility to determine the authorization, or lack thereof, if they are using the images in revenue generating activities. If all they are doing is re-presenting the pictures around other Facebook pages sans ads, that would be covered under the TOS. Once they progress to advertising with those pictures, that TOS is no longer sufficient to defend their use.
The TOS doesn't mention anything about using images in advertising, and just because you or any user may have the rights to distribute an image that does not give you the right to grant authorization to use images in advertising of anyone other than yourself contained in those images unless you have written permission to do so and Facebook would need a copy of that release.
Model releases are very specific about this. You cannot do an end around these requirements by claiming that user x agreed by clicking here that they had the right to distribute this image containing a picture of your client that we then used in an ad campaign. Distribution and use of image in advertising are not the same.
Two issues here. The use of user photos coupled with advertising and reuse of user photos in other parts of the site. One is going to give them some legal issues the other will not. If Facebook does not require release documents for every photo containing a picture of a person that is uploaded, they cannot claim to have any rights whatsoever to use images of those persons in any advertising.
The problem lies in what some other users have mentioned. If you post someone else's picture, Facebook may have the right to copy the picture for other uses, but to use it in any advertising they must prove they have authorization to do so from the person pictured. They cannot verify that the person pictured is the user who posted it, so they can be held liable for its use since they are the one using it for advertising.
Not only that but if the picture contains multiple people, they may have the rights to use the one image of a person associated with the user account (provided they can even prove that), but they have no rights at all to use images of the rest of the people contained in the photo.
It all comes down to if they are using the images in advertising or not. If they are, they could be heading for some serious legal issues. Of course, IANAL so your mileage may vary.
Shorting stock though is the other way around. Your profit is capped and your potential for loss virtually unlimited. Taking the parent's example where you get $1000 from a short sale, that is your maximum profit (again assuming the value goes to zero when you have to "buy" the shares). On the other hand your lose can be virtually unlimited if the stock value rises.
And this is where the difference between shorting stock and buying put options becomes apparent. While some have equated them as the same they are actually quite different. At best you might call them equivalent except for how they play out in the above scenario. Buying options, whether you are buying long or short (calls or puts), never expose you to loss more than your original investment. If you were to buy 10 put contracts of SCO at $5.00 premium per contract your only exposure would be the $5,000 you initially invested (1 contract = 100 shares, $5 per share*1000). Even if SCO were to jump $20-30 you could only lose your initial $5,000. Same goes for calls in the other direction.
There are option strategies that have much higher levels of risk, but that is another discussion. This is all assuming the SCO was optionable to begin with, not all stocks are. The unlimited downside of selling short also assumes that the investor did not place any stop loss orders on the position. While there may be reasons to do that I consider it very foolish.
It sounds like he was clearly restrained, it was just getting the cuffs on that was a problem. Had the cops warned him repeatedly that he was going to be shot if he did not stop resisting, and then killed him when he refused, I doubt there would be much argument that excessive force was used.
He was not clearly restrained. He was clearly still fighting. He was putting himself and the officers in risk of further injury. Should the officers just allow him to continue to fight and possibly injure either themselves or others just because this person refuses to be arrested? As for being shot, officers do in fact warn offenders that they will shoot if they are armed and advancing. It is hardly a similar situation to simple resisting. The force applied was appropriate to the level of resistance he was putting forth. Had he been armed your scenario above may well have played out as you indicate with him being shot instead of tasered. The longer he continued to resist the higher the possibility that either himself or the officers would be injured. Then we would be here yet again wondering why the officers did not take steps to prevent his or their injury.
Which was what I was getting at with my original question... is a taser an acceptable use of force when police are having difficulty cuffing someone who has already been subdued and is no longer a threat? It sounds more like a convenience than a necessity. Prior to tasers, would they have just let him go? shot him? or just kept working at it until they had him in cuffs? My guess is the latter.
Hardly. Prior to tasers they would have pulled out the nightsticks and beat him into submission a la Rodney King. That or used choke holds which might lead to brain damage or death. The fact is that restraining someone who is continuing to resist is an ugly business. Since you have not seen the video yet you don't have the necessary information to see that he was clearly not subdued and still fighting with the police. The student orchestrated this confrontation. He escalated it multiple times to produce this result. He fought with police and continued to fight even after being wrestled to the ground. Even after being warned he would be tasered he continued to fight. What exactly are the police supposed to do?
These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't being second guessed by people who have never worn a police uniform. If you think it is so easy to keep a person restrained who does not want to be, try it then come back and tell us how you fare. They can't use a nightstick because that is too brutal, they can't use a taser because that is torture, even though they have to be shot themselves before they ever use one. They give the suspect every opportunity to stop resisting then still get raked over the coals when they get a non-lethal end to the confrontation.
If you feel it was an unacceptable escalation I would love to hear how you would have handled it considering 6 officers were unable to keep this young man down long enough to get two arms handcuffed. Once you are able to view the video I think your opinion will change.
Can't watch the video since youtube is blocked at work, but were six (theoretically) trained police officers really unable to cuff a single college student? If the student is convicted of resisting arrest, will he be deported back to Krypton?
Restraining anyone is difficult at best when they don't want to be restrained. You really only can get one officer on each limb, which is what appears to be how they did it. One was trying to talk to him and get him to stop resisting and the last one probably was the one that fired the taser when he refused. He never stopped fighting and resisting the police until he was tasered. If he had complied they would have been able to handcuff him and lead him away. It appears that they were able to get one arm handcuffed, but he continually fought against them preventing the other arm being restrained.
The fact that he was warned repeatedly that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered is lost on everyone. He had every chance to defuse this situation and elected to escalate instead.
The subject was down on the ground, handcuffed, and had six officers sitting on him, and you're going to tell me he was a threat? In case you haven't seen the actual incident (no knife, no baby) there are some YouTube videos linked in an earlier submission.
Excuse me? He was NOT handcuffed when he was tasered. They were attempting to handcuff him and he was resisting. He was warned, several times, that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered. He acknowledged this threat and continued to resist. ONLY after being tasered were they able to handcuff him and lead him out. This punk got what he deserved. He continued to resist and was the SOLE cause of the escalation to being tasered.
I suggest you go watch it again and listen closely to what the officers are saying to him. They tried to peacefully lead him away from the mic and he got combative. He escalated to being placed under arrest and then resisted further. They tried to handcuff him using physical force only and could not. He was warned repeatedly to stop resisting and got tasered for his trouble. The police officers showed IMMENSE restraint, but had no other choice.
And for those claiming First Amendment violations, your rights stop where mine begin. He has every right to have his own event to voice his opinions. He has NO right to disrupt someone else's event. He orchestrated this confrontation IMO. He could have easily and peacefully left the mic but chose not to.
I'm pretty sure the EULA states somewhere MS can do this. You agree to it when clicking that little checkbox for accepting the license when installing the damn OS.
Really? I would like you are anyone else to point out where it says that. I just took the time to go to M$'s site and downloaded and read the EULA that pertains to Vista. I couldn't find a single sentence that indicates they have the right to pro-actively patch my system without my consent. There was a mention of patching IR firmware but NOTHING else that I could find that allows them to stealth patch my system. There are allot of restrictions in it and it is quite lengthy, but I couldn't find a single word regarding allowing them to patch or modify the system files without consent.
That said, I haven't seen this stealth patch yet, possibly since I block any and all incoming ports other than 80 and a few others for specific reasons at my firewall. Then again, I may need to go look and see if I did get patched since up until now I have never had the need to go look.
Many states in the US have anti-gouging laws in place to prevent exactly what the GP mentions, so it is illegal in some instances. There is also an indication that a Federal anti-gouging law will be passed this year. I can't speak for other countries, but in the US it is definately not OK to slap a 500% "margin" on gas for no reason.
I think 1/5th of the time wasted is a huge underestimate. At my former job (IT), I easily spent the greater part of my days idly surfing the web. I wasn't avoiding work either - I really just had nothing else to do, but if in those situations I asked my boss for some more work, he would just give me some BS busy work like organizing a file cabinet. So after a few instances of that I just stopped asking him for things to do.
This is typical in the IT field. Short of active projects you are more or less an insurance policy. I spend the better part of my day browsing the web, checking the stock market while glancing at my monitoring software to check on the 12 SQL servers housing 6TB of data on them. I spend about 30-60 minutes each morning going over logs, disk capacity charts and backup statuses from the previous night. After that, if there is nothing with little red flags waving over them I am free to either sit back and relax or try to find another project to do. That and the training I try to put in as often as I can get it rounds out my year.
However, should anything go in the toilet, I will be the one putting in an all-niter getting those systems back online or rebuilt then restored from backup. Because I am good at my job and build my servers well, I haven't had a major system outage in quite some time (hurriedly knocking on wood while tossing salt over shoulder carrying a rabbit's foot).
There have been times my manager has walked up on me while I was playing some online game. All my servers were up, no performance issues and all my backups were current and tested. He has never said a word about it and all my performance reviews have always been above average. Then again, my manager was a tech long before he got manager and knows that even when we slack from time to time, when works need to get done we get it done, quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
I basically did the same thing with my forced upgrade to Vista. Bought a Dell XPS with Vista already on it (XP was not an option or I wouldn't have even had to deal with it). Figured what the heck, we will try this, but after a few days on a dual core 2.0ghz system with 4gb of ram running like a dog I....turned of UAC, turned of Aero, set optimize for performance..applied it and put back a couple things I did like. The system runs like a bat out of hell ever since.
That said, after that experience with this latest "offering" from MS when the time came to get my wife a Laptop and upgrade my son's computer they both got Macs. When the time comes for this system to be upgraded it will go the same route. I shouldn't have to micro optimize a system that should run adequately right out of the box, there is no reason for that. Both of the Macs I bought run smoothly from the time I first powered them on and with bootcamp and XP they run games as fast if not faster than their PC counterparts.
I still don't care for how pricey some macs can be, but I consider the fact that I have less headaches with the OS than I had with Windows (so far anyway) the premium on the price. Like their ads say, things just work...period.
I already have the basic configuration for my MacPro saved and ready to go when this system goes out of warranty. Except for having to deal with windows servers at work I hope I will never have to buy another PC based computer again.
Optical data...hmm...did they just download all the pr0n on the internet at once?
Can I get a copy of that?
Hydrogen is absolutely clean and the production has oxygen as a by-product. Electricity (and don't think that I am against electric power by no means, but let's be realistic) is generated using a still dirty process. Hydrogen, from production to burn, is much cleaner. That is not even taking into account the environmental footprint that production of electric cars produces. This (hydrogen cars) would not significantly change the footprint of existing vehicle production (this could be wrong, but it doesn't seem it would alter it that much) and reduce the emissions to 0. Electric cars significantly increase the vehicle production footprint to achieve the same thing. Over time both are better than current petroleum based vehicles, but which one is really the cleaner option?
Until we have dependable and cleaner electricity production, hydrogen cars will be the cleaner solution for the total life-cycle of the product and maybe even if electricity is cleaned up.
Unfortunately, every time Clippy's race attempts to leave the planet their spaceships are bombarded by the flying chairs in perpetual orbit around it.
Whether or not the market will accept a tiered system is another argument that will be decided in the marketplace regardless of whether we agree with the fee per byte model or not.
Only having experience building and servicing DSLAM cabinets for DSL implementations I can't comment on how they may or may not implement caps. I don't know the technology well enough, except in passing, to comment on it. It shouldn't be that difficult, but it is different than DSL.
Internet video and movies are coming and service providers will need to adjust their business practices accordingly. Selling tiered service is one way to address that. I personally have DSL and they provide 6 levels of service from 256k up to a 15mb option. Their service levels were totally up front so I could pick the level I needed. If I find out I am having bandwidth issues I just call them up and pay for the next level up and go again. Granted, DSL is a different technology and Cable does have different issues implementing a tiered system, but if they are going to engage in bandwidth limiting they need to provide the same tiered service that DSL does, advertise the rates, limitations etc and these complaints will cease or at least be seen as no merit (you signed up for that level of service, go away).
I was thinking the same thing. All their neat little features mean little less than nothing if I have to wade through 15-20 spam mails about V!A@rA and other such nonsense. Oh wait, maybe they just want to sort all the spam with the same subject. All the V!a@rA spam in one section all the pr0n in another. There is a method to their madness it seems.
Now should they get a warrant from a judge, then matters become a little more shaky. They could argue that the laptop is locked and that you are in contempt by refusing to unlock it for search as ordered by the court the same as they would do for someone refusing to unlock a building or safe, etc. That is where a good encryption software comes in. Unless they can prove that the drive is encrypted, that you know it is encrypted and you are in possession of said keys to decrypt it. They get nowhere.
Citizens can push this issue since they can't exactly refuse them entry. Visitors legally can do the same, but being refused entry can have ramifications as others have mentioned previously. IMO they are using that last item as a method to coerce disclosure of laptop contents even though they have no legal grounds to demand the same. Normal caveat - IANAL.
I get a nice big flashdrive and I don't have to fight with him over the MMO account. Wow, this is the best new years ever!
Oh, and what about those people that use game cards instead of CC's? Blizzard has neither their CC number or even their contact information if the person signing up doesn't want to give it to them. There is no requirement when using a game card to provide a real name. Oh, they get my email, big whoop, I drop it into my spam account and forget it. But now they can troll my system and grab that information any time they want and there is no way to tell if they are doing it, a third party that has hacked the algorithm or some employee gone off the deep end.
Nobody is claiming that Blizzard would engage in fraud itself, but this alteration to the Warden program opens up a security hole with no oversight that could be exploited since there is no way to tell what the algorithm is extracting from your system. It has the potential to violate every user's privacy regardless of whether or not Blizzard or any other entity ever use it as such.
There is no way to tell if the program has been compromised since the algorithm is encrypted. Blizzard has every right to keep their game from being hacked and cheated in, but not at the expense of opening up a path where their user's private information could be violated. They at least need to be a little more transparent in how they verify that the algorithm being used has not been compromised either internally or externally.
The users aren't the ones engaged in using the pictures in advertising, Facebook is. There is no requirement, that I can find, that the photos you upload are of yourself. It becomes their responsibility to determine the authorization, or lack thereof, if they are using the images in revenue generating activities. If all they are doing is re-presenting the pictures around other Facebook pages sans ads, that would be covered under the TOS. Once they progress to advertising with those pictures, that TOS is no longer sufficient to defend their use.
The TOS doesn't mention anything about using images in advertising, and just because you or any user may have the rights to distribute an image that does not give you the right to grant authorization to use images in advertising of anyone other than yourself contained in those images unless you have written permission to do so and Facebook would need a copy of that release.
Model releases are very specific about this. You cannot do an end around these requirements by claiming that user x agreed by clicking here that they had the right to distribute this image containing a picture of your client that we then used in an ad campaign. Distribution and use of image in advertising are not the same.
Two issues here. The use of user photos coupled with advertising and reuse of user photos in other parts of the site. One is going to give them some legal issues the other will not. If Facebook does not require release documents for every photo containing a picture of a person that is uploaded, they cannot claim to have any rights whatsoever to use images of those persons in any advertising.
The problem lies in what some other users have mentioned. If you post someone else's picture, Facebook may have the right to copy the picture for other uses, but to use it in any advertising they must prove they have authorization to do so from the person pictured. They cannot verify that the person pictured is the user who posted it, so they can be held liable for its use since they are the one using it for advertising.
Not only that but if the picture contains multiple people, they may have the rights to use the one image of a person associated with the user account (provided they can even prove that), but they have no rights at all to use images of the rest of the people contained in the photo.
It all comes down to if they are using the images in advertising or not. If they are, they could be heading for some serious legal issues. Of course, IANAL so your mileage may vary.
There are option strategies that have much higher levels of risk, but that is another discussion. This is all assuming the SCO was optionable to begin with, not all stocks are. The unlimited downside of selling short also assumes that the investor did not place any stop loss orders on the position. While there may be reasons to do that I consider it very foolish.
Hardly. Prior to tasers they would have pulled out the nightsticks and beat him into submission a la Rodney King. That or used choke holds which might lead to brain damage or death. The fact is that restraining someone who is continuing to resist is an ugly business. Since you have not seen the video yet you don't have the necessary information to see that he was clearly not subdued and still fighting with the police. The student orchestrated this confrontation. He escalated it multiple times to produce this result. He fought with police and continued to fight even after being wrestled to the ground. Even after being warned he would be tasered he continued to fight. What exactly are the police supposed to do?
These types of attitudes are what hamstring the police. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't being second guessed by people who have never worn a police uniform. If you think it is so easy to keep a person restrained who does not want to be, try it then come back and tell us how you fare. They can't use a nightstick because that is too brutal, they can't use a taser because that is torture, even though they have to be shot themselves before they ever use one. They give the suspect every opportunity to stop resisting then still get raked over the coals when they get a non-lethal end to the confrontation.
If you feel it was an unacceptable escalation I would love to hear how you would have handled it considering 6 officers were unable to keep this young man down long enough to get two arms handcuffed. Once you are able to view the video I think your opinion will change.
The fact that he was warned repeatedly that if he did not stop resisting he would be tasered is lost on everyone. He had every chance to defuse this situation and elected to escalate instead.
I suggest you go watch it again and listen closely to what the officers are saying to him. They tried to peacefully lead him away from the mic and he got combative. He escalated to being placed under arrest and then resisted further. They tried to handcuff him using physical force only and could not. He was warned repeatedly to stop resisting and got tasered for his trouble. The police officers showed IMMENSE restraint, but had no other choice.
And for those claiming First Amendment violations, your rights stop where mine begin. He has every right to have his own event to voice his opinions. He has NO right to disrupt someone else's event. He orchestrated this confrontation IMO. He could have easily and peacefully left the mic but chose not to.
That said, I haven't seen this stealth patch yet, possibly since I block any and all incoming ports other than 80 and a few others for specific reasons at my firewall. Then again, I may need to go look and see if I did get patched since up until now I have never had the need to go look.
Many states in the US have anti-gouging laws in place to prevent exactly what the GP mentions, so it is illegal in some instances. There is also an indication that a Federal anti-gouging law will be passed this year. I can't speak for other countries, but in the US it is definately not OK to slap a 500% "margin" on gas for no reason.
However, should anything go in the toilet, I will be the one putting in an all-niter getting those systems back online or rebuilt then restored from backup. Because I am good at my job and build my servers well, I haven't had a major system outage in quite some time (hurriedly knocking on wood while tossing salt over shoulder carrying a rabbit's foot).
There have been times my manager has walked up on me while I was playing some online game. All my servers were up, no performance issues and all my backups were current and tested. He has never said a word about it and all my performance reviews have always been above average. Then again, my manager was a tech long before he got manager and knows that even when we slack from time to time, when works need to get done we get it done, quickly.
That recall is gonna cost them an arm and a....oh, uh nevermind.