The only problem with your "nerd rage" is that having a common power cable to mobile phones is a very recent thing.
I wasn't aware that I was experiencing nerd rage. I was just merely commenting on the fact that the lightning connector has no advantage in my opinion, and that Apple has done many things to break compatibility with their own accessories over the past ~2 years. I am not commenting on the power adapters of any brand but Apple's. And that has been the same since the original iPod came out (well now with USB instead of firewire only). So I'm not sure what your father's Nokia or your wife's Samsung phones have anything to do with Apple's 30-pin to lightning bolt switch that I am discussing.
unlike plain USB the nice thing about it is that you can plug it into your idevice any way. you don't have to line it up correctly like you do with USB. the pins are interchangable so if you need to say charge your iphone at night and its dark and you just want to plug it in the dark, you just plug it in any way the connector is facing. no need to turn it the right way like with the old one or USB
I wouldn't give up compatibility with all my existing docks just to be able to do that. If I can't plug it in in the dark, I flip it around and plug it in the second time. No big deal at all. And don't mention an adapter to me because the plug itself is not the only way they broke compatibility. I have a dock that works with anything iPhone 4 or older, but not with anything iPhone 4S or newer. That includes the new iPod models as well.
My point was that if I were behind enemy lines in Germany or the Pacific, I would have not removed that spring any more than I had to. I wouldn't want to be ambushed by the enemy with my weapon inoperable. I'm not saying that someone outside of a war zone should neglect to do that (though I don't believe the spring is designed to be removed frequently, I think it causes undue wear and tear). The army came up with that procedure for combat readiness purposes, I am sure. You can reassemble the rest of the gun in seconds.
As I said, it's not absolute - there are things unspoken involved. Firearms are not always disassembled when cleaning. For instance, the US Army Field Manual for the M1 Garand, does not advise disassembly prior to chamber and bore cleaning.
Of course, the same applies when transporting a firearm - they are frequently pointed at things you won't want to shoot. The unwritten part is that if it's unloaded, on safe, and encased, you're OK.
With good reason. If you've ever disassembled an M1 you know that its a pain in the butt to put the spring back in. If my life depended on using that weapon, I'd not want to take the spring out very often at all. You could spend 20 minutes just trying to get the spring in if you're not very well practiced.
Rule 4 is just a subset of rule 2. Rules 1 and 2 are not absolute, they are violated any time someone cleans a firearm.
I wouldn't even point the barrel of a disassembled gun at someone. And certainly would not point the weapon in an unsafe direction during assembly and disassembly. The first thing you do (after pointing it in a safe direction) before cleaning a weapon is to clear the chamber. If its a semi-auto, you should remove the magazine and work the slide several times. If a bolt/pump action, then remove the action continuously until nothing comes out. After that, you visually look inside the chamber, no matter what kind of action the weapon has. If it a revolver, then it should be safe once the cylinder is out. You should still check the cylinders to make sure no ammo is left inside while cleaning (though it would be hard to clean the cylinder with a shell in it!).
I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER, you keep the safety catch on at all times except just before you fire, and after firing you check the chamber (receiver?) for a round before you do anything else, just in case you miscounted how many shots you fired.
Guns are always loaded. I don't care if the slide is back, or the cylinder is out, or there is no magazine. You don't point a gun at anyone ever, unless your intent is to "stop" them (The current opinion of law enforcement is that you never say that you shoot to kill, but that you shoot until the person stops whatever threatening behavior they are exhibiting, but that is a side note).
The first thing you do with any weapon is to point it in a safe direction. There are weapons that are capable of being fired without a magazine installed. I would not trust a mechanical safety either. You don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to discharge the weapon, safety or not. Theoretically a mechanical safety could break (though one that blocks the firing pin should be infallible, so long as it gets in front of the firing pin).
In general I believe that reasonable gun control is not only smart, but an ethical responsibility. That reasonable gun control doesn't end at the store. It ends when the weapon has been rendered inoperable. Between the time it is manufactured, and the time it is destroyed, it should be kept in a safe and secure location. The only time it should not be secured, is when it is in use. If you believe guns make valuable self-defense weapons, then in use would mean on your person. Not in your night stand, under your pillow, or on top of the cabinets. If it is not on your person, it needs to be locked up.
I've only seen a compiler issue once in my entire career. Granted, I have probably worked on more mature platforms than some of the cowboys that started the industry but here is what it was: It was using GCC 3 on MontaVista 2.4 Linux. I was building an insanely complex system library w/ a lot of templated code and a large number of classes inheriting from a parent. The problem is that a pthread_mutex_t was not being constructed properly. When we would try and lock the mutex, it would crash the entire application. The exact same code worked flawlessly on our MontaVista 2.6 toolchain, but our flash drive was too small to fit a 2.6 install. We spent weeks working with MontaVista to build a test case that reproduced the issue and could not. So how do we know it was a compiler issue? Well like I said, we knew it worked on all of our other Linux/Windows platforms. We also told the compiler not to assemble the code, and we looked at the assembly output by the compiler. Sure enough it was doing something stupid (I can't remember what). MontaVista said that they had no idea how to fix it. We ended up doing #ifdef for that particular platform and using sem_t in place of pthread_mutex_t and it worked like a champ.
Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.
The background checks are supposed to already take your mental health into account. You also have to self-certify that you do not have any mental illnesses (though really, how can anyone really know if they have a mental illness, unless they were diagnosed and told said diagnosis?). In any event, Federal law prevents a 20 year old from buying any weapon with a pistol grip, including the Bushmaster.223 and the two semi-automatic pistols he was reported to have on his person. His mom could buy those items, and transfer them to him after his 18th birthday, but that can also be illegal if she thinks he has a mental illness or if it falls under the rules and regulations barring a straw-man purchase.
In any event, I would not consider the mom to be a responsible gun owner. You should have everything properly secured that you are not presently using. If she was using one of those weapons for self-defense, it should have been on her person. If you leave your guns out, they can be used against you, as she likely learned prior to her death./P.
I quickly switched to the Google public DNS servers. Since then I've had much more up time and way less ads. Netflix is almost twice as fast too. Don't let COX sell your privacy up the river I recommend for everyone to drop their COX DNS servers starting today.
*raises eyebrow* Are you sure you didn't accidentally hit the fast forward button? I don't see why Google's DNS would cause videos to play almost twice as fast... But I suppose they could be injecting JS to hit the fast forward button for you.;)
Selling pistol to anyone who wishes to have one doesn't.
Not just anyone can buy a pistol in the United States. You have to be legally eligible to own any firearm, and must be 21 years or older. There are all sorts of other restrictions, as well. Furthermore, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon in the United States, unless it was specifically manufactured before a certain time period. Those weapons are very rare and expensive. Anyone who wants to own an automatic weapon in the US must have a Class III license from the federal government, which is very difficult to get. In fact, a person cannot get a class III license. Only a registered business / shooting club / etc, can obtain one. They may only obtain one if the local and state governments authorize it (zoning, etc).
The parent post was "+5 informative" but also incomplete. Yes, McVeigh was able to kill many without using a gun. But we're arguing about ease of acquisition here.
To do what McVeigh did you have to be pretty smart, do some clever planning, get large quantities of materials, and basically put a lot of stuff together.
To kill a bunch of school-age children like this all you need are assault weapons and a credit card, both of which are readily available and take little smarts, planning, or money.
That's the issue at stake here. Yes, making guns harder to get doesn't solve the problem. But it sure as hell raises the bar on being a casual mass murder (plus coward: I'm so sick of these guys offing themselves so they can't be punished for what they do. I want technology that brings them back to life so we can feed them into a wood chipper, feet first, dammit). Suddenly, in an American world where' it's f*king hard to get assault weapons, if you want to go cause mayhem in a kindergarten you're going to have to spend more money and time, do a lot more planning, and so on. Some of these nutcases will surely say, "nah, not worth it." Instead, one quick phone call and a credit card number, and you've got a murder on deck.
Anyone can look up the recipe for bomb making on the internet. I doubt that it is very hard. Connecticut appears to have a 2 week waiting period on all weapons purchases, except in certain exceptions. Unless the gunman already had the weapon laying around, it's possible that he had been planning this for some time. If he did not already have a weapon, and purchased one legally, he could have used that same time to plot and plan a bombing. He could have also gotten a nice big truck and ran kids down while they were on the playground for recess. There are a lot of things he could have done that require only a credit card.
In the UK we had strong gun laws introduced each time a crazy did something like this but the truth is that each of those crazies had done lesser crazy shit before they went postal. The guy who did the Hungerford massacre in 1987 had take a gun into work to threaten someone and the police had not taken his guns or his license away from him. It should have been the police that were looked at for not enforcing the law as it was rather than introducing new laws. New laws will not make things better. Teachers should not be carrying guns, that is more stupid. Do you really think that teachers never go crazy? I am one and I often want to kill a student. We should have more steps to look at who, good or bad, has a gun. It should not be right, it should be a privilege that can be revoked.
It is a right that can be revoked. Federal law bars anyone from owning a gun who has committed a felony, or had their constitutional rights revoked. You are also not allowed to buy a gun if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder, have been convicted of domestic violence, and a few other crimes that may not be felonies. There are plenty of people that are legally restricted from buying a gun, and many states have far more restrictions than those imposed by the federal government. Its quite possible that this guy was already legally barred from buying a gun in the US in the first place.
Because your examples are false equivalency. Just because each party produces some waste doesn't mean both are equally bad. There's only one party that put two wars on the credit card while cutting taxes. It wasn't the democrats. And there's only one party that continually tries to either lower tax rates or rebate taxes on every surplus. It isn't the Democrats. Just because both make mistakes doesn't mean they're equally bad, one can definitely be far worse.
So you don't count the 82 democrats that voted for Iraq? What about the invasion of Afghanistan, which only had one representative out of the entire house (and no senators) oppose it? Do none of these people count as democrats? In fact, the Democrats could have stopped the Iraq resolution from passing in the Senate, since they controlled 50% of the vote, and several Republicans and an Independent voted against it.
Oh I didn't know Grey Davis was a republican. How many billions of dollars of a California budget surplus did he spend on Enron in just a few short months? Wasn't it $40B? Why do you guys always throw politics into places they don't belong? Both parties waste. Both parties make dumb decisions. The fact of the matter is that neither party seems to show the fiscal responsibility that we need, and most of the constituents have such limited understanding of finance that they don't know what to ask for.
*Shrug* Every time I've used it, it has only shown me Prime eligible movies and shows. There is a filter option for that, I know. I don't use it that much, but I don't really watch a lot of TV. I do know that they always have at least 1 big new release movie that is prime eligible, but I never watch those either.
but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right
Actually, it's completely right.
This is one of those situtations where 'context' is just muddying the issue.
The key question is: At the point where the officer took the decision to fire the Taser, was she posing a sufficient threat the the officer, or someone else (within the officer's reasonable, articulable, perception) to justify its usage?
I hope, for your sake, you are never accused of and tried for criminal charges. Context is key. The lady had already been tasered and was on the ground in the video. You have no idea what happened to lead to them using the taser. Perhaps she did threaten someone, attacked someone, or even attacked the officers? If she did any of those things, the taser use may have been justified.
I say context is key because you could have 3 teenage thugs jump you some day. Perhaps you will defend yourself and one of them ends up in the hospital. Now all 3 of them turn around and say that you attacked them without cause. Would you want a bunch of internet pundits accusing you of assaulting poor teenagers? You're a grown adult. You shouldn't have to hit 3 teenagers. Yet if someone made a video of just 2 minutes of you beating the kids senseless, you would certainly look like the wrongdoer, wouldn't you?
This is no different. The nice thing here is that the mall and Apple store should both have plenty of surveillance video where we can really see what the woman did and how she acted before the officers even reached for the taser. If she did nothing but refuse to leave the store, then yes they used excessive force. But until everyone gets to see the video and the woman has a chance to sue (or ask for criminal charges), the officers should be given the same innocent until proven guilty rights that everyone else in the US deserves.
IncomingNumber:= GetIncomingCallNumber();
RejectCall:= SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber);
If (RejectCall)
RejectIncomingCall();
else
AnswerIncomingCall();
There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?
Except that I don't think that is what the patent covers at all. First of all, the iPhone does not let you create a filter list that automatically rejects calls. At least not until iOS 6 (and I doubt the lawsuit was filed since the release of iOS 6 and has a judgement). Instead, I think this is a patent covering the ability to tell the cell tower to stop ringing your phone because you're not going to bother answering. That, at the time it was added to cell phones, was certainly novel as far as I know. I had never seen a POTS phone that let you reject a call instead of just muting the ringer. I didn't bother reading the patent, so I could be wrong. But my guess is the patent actually comes from the Erickson side of the house, and not actually from Sony as it existed at the time of the filing.
This would also save two Nashua cops from the public humiliation of not being able to handcuff a middle-aged asian woman (I saw the video - there's no fear that she's a kung-fu master).
You saw the surveillance video? Or the 2 minutes of YouTube recorded by a cell phone? Because supposedly she resisted for ~15 minutes. I am not saying that what the police did is right, but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right. This is just like that "Collateral Murder" video where they conveniently edited the video to make it as inciting as possible. If you aren't going to look at the entire incident, then you are in no position to opine. We can certainly speculate that the officers probably used excessive force. It's likely that they did.
>Here's a crazy idea: instead of starting to shout "private property" and having the hired guns tackle a woman and break out their weapons - just ignore her. Don't take her money, don't ring up her sale. She'll either give up and go away or try to steal the phones and then it's cut-and-dry. Plus no news stories with bad publicity during the Christmas shopping season.
Certainly that is a logical course of action. However, we don't know exactly what the woman was doing inside the store without the surveillance video. If she was not threatening or harassing to customers and employees then you are right.
Only in a police state like the US could people be in such denial about being in a police state.
Something like 25% of the world's cops and soldiers are in the US. And 50% of the weapons. The US is the ultimate police state.
Can you provide a reference for that? China has a ~2.2M strong army, while the US is ~1.4. So Already that puts us at about 33% of the world's soldiers. If you count reserve troops then the US is #7 overall in the world with less than 33% of the largest army, in North Korea. That means the US must have a whole hell of a lot of police officers.... Source
I guarantee there are plenty of women out there who could beat the crap out of you and me both. I am not saying this Chinese woman was one of them, and I am not saying that taser should have been used, but I would not use the sex of a person to determine their level of threat. Certainly they could have overpowered her given enough people. I would wait to see the video surveillance before I decide whether excessive force was used.
Hmm someone posted a link in response to me indicating that Intel says that TDP and the current draw are different. I know that the TDP is used as an indication of how much cooling you need. I also know that you will not see 100% of the W being converted to heat, so I could be wrong. I posted that based on my own testing with a Watt meter when trying to build a very low power box. I did various tests of idle and max usage consumption and never saw the W go above the TDP. For my 35W TDP processor I believe the max I ever saw was 40W with all peripherals, etc. But that was a year ago so perhaps I am misremembering, too.
Well I know the TDP has to do with the heat released by the processor. But I can only tell you that my watt meter suggests that the TDP is ~ what kind of load I see on the meter. Of course there are other peripherals drawing power as well, and the motherboard uses some itself. Also you will not see 100% of the W being converted to heat, so I suppose that its possible that the TDP would be somewhat lower than the actual draw. But I was specifically trying to create a low W system and had the meter hooked up through various tests of idle and max output. If Intel says differently than I must be wrong.
What do you mean? I got streaming on Amazon for a $20 Amazon Prime student account (after a free year). And if you pay the $79 for Amazon Prime you get free streaming and free 2 day shipping for a year. That's less than $8 a month.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with your "nerd rage" is that having a common power cable to mobile phones is a very recent thing.
I wasn't aware that I was experiencing nerd rage. I was just merely commenting on the fact that the lightning connector has no advantage in my opinion, and that Apple has done many things to break compatibility with their own accessories over the past ~2 years. I am not commenting on the power adapters of any brand but Apple's. And that has been the same since the original iPod came out (well now with USB instead of firewire only). So I'm not sure what your father's Nokia or your wife's Samsung phones have anything to do with Apple's 30-pin to lightning bolt switch that I am discussing.
unlike plain USB the nice thing about it is that you can plug it into your idevice any way. you don't have to line it up correctly like you do with USB. the pins are interchangable so if you need to say charge your iphone at night and its dark and you just want to plug it in the dark, you just plug it in any way the connector is facing. no need to turn it the right way like with the old one or USB
I wouldn't give up compatibility with all my existing docks just to be able to do that. If I can't plug it in in the dark, I flip it around and plug it in the second time. No big deal at all. And don't mention an adapter to me because the plug itself is not the only way they broke compatibility. I have a dock that works with anything iPhone 4 or older, but not with anything iPhone 4S or newer. That includes the new iPod models as well.
My point was that if I were behind enemy lines in Germany or the Pacific, I would have not removed that spring any more than I had to. I wouldn't want to be ambushed by the enemy with my weapon inoperable. I'm not saying that someone outside of a war zone should neglect to do that (though I don't believe the spring is designed to be removed frequently, I think it causes undue wear and tear). The army came up with that procedure for combat readiness purposes, I am sure. You can reassemble the rest of the gun in seconds.
As I said, it's not absolute - there are things unspoken involved. Firearms are not always disassembled when cleaning. For instance, the US Army Field Manual for the M1 Garand, does not advise disassembly prior to chamber and bore cleaning. Of course, the same applies when transporting a firearm - they are frequently pointed at things you won't want to shoot. The unwritten part is that if it's unloaded, on safe, and encased, you're OK.
With good reason. If you've ever disassembled an M1 you know that its a pain in the butt to put the spring back in. If my life depended on using that weapon, I'd not want to take the spring out very often at all. You could spend 20 minutes just trying to get the spring in if you're not very well practiced.
Rule 4 is just a subset of rule 2. Rules 1 and 2 are not absolute, they are violated any time someone cleans a firearm.
I wouldn't even point the barrel of a disassembled gun at someone. And certainly would not point the weapon in an unsafe direction during assembly and disassembly. The first thing you do (after pointing it in a safe direction) before cleaning a weapon is to clear the chamber. If its a semi-auto, you should remove the magazine and work the slide several times. If a bolt/pump action, then remove the action continuously until nothing comes out. After that, you visually look inside the chamber, no matter what kind of action the weapon has. If it a revolver, then it should be safe once the cylinder is out. You should still check the cylinders to make sure no ammo is left inside while cleaning (though it would be hard to clean the cylinder with a shell in it!).
I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER, you keep the safety catch on at all times except just before you fire, and after firing you check the chamber (receiver?) for a round before you do anything else, just in case you miscounted how many shots you fired.
Guns are always loaded. I don't care if the slide is back, or the cylinder is out, or there is no magazine. You don't point a gun at anyone ever, unless your intent is to "stop" them (The current opinion of law enforcement is that you never say that you shoot to kill, but that you shoot until the person stops whatever threatening behavior they are exhibiting, but that is a side note).
The first thing you do with any weapon is to point it in a safe direction. There are weapons that are capable of being fired without a magazine installed. I would not trust a mechanical safety either. You don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to discharge the weapon, safety or not. Theoretically a mechanical safety could break (though one that blocks the firing pin should be infallible, so long as it gets in front of the firing pin).
In general I believe that reasonable gun control is not only smart, but an ethical responsibility. That reasonable gun control doesn't end at the store. It ends when the weapon has been rendered inoperable. Between the time it is manufactured, and the time it is destroyed, it should be kept in a safe and secure location. The only time it should not be secured, is when it is in use. If you believe guns make valuable self-defense weapons, then in use would mean on your person. Not in your night stand, under your pillow, or on top of the cabinets. If it is not on your person, it needs to be locked up.
I've only seen a compiler issue once in my entire career. Granted, I have probably worked on more mature platforms than some of the cowboys that started the industry but here is what it was: It was using GCC 3 on MontaVista 2.4 Linux. I was building an insanely complex system library w/ a lot of templated code and a large number of classes inheriting from a parent. The problem is that a pthread_mutex_t was not being constructed properly. When we would try and lock the mutex, it would crash the entire application. The exact same code worked flawlessly on our MontaVista 2.6 toolchain, but our flash drive was too small to fit a 2.6 install. We spent weeks working with MontaVista to build a test case that reproduced the issue and could not. So how do we know it was a compiler issue? Well like I said, we knew it worked on all of our other Linux/Windows platforms. We also told the compiler not to assemble the code, and we looked at the assembly output by the compiler. Sure enough it was doing something stupid (I can't remember what). MontaVista said that they had no idea how to fix it. We ended up doing #ifdef for that particular platform and using sem_t in place of pthread_mutex_t and it worked like a champ.
Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.
The background checks are supposed to already take your mental health into account. You also have to self-certify that you do not have any mental illnesses (though really, how can anyone really know if they have a mental illness, unless they were diagnosed and told said diagnosis?). In any event, Federal law prevents a 20 year old from buying any weapon with a pistol grip, including the Bushmaster .223 and the two semi-automatic pistols he was reported to have on his person. His mom could buy those items, and transfer them to him after his 18th birthday, but that can also be illegal if she thinks he has a mental illness or if it falls under the rules and regulations barring a straw-man purchase.
In any event, I would not consider the mom to be a responsible gun owner. You should have everything properly secured that you are not presently using. If she was using one of those weapons for self-defense, it should have been on her person. If you leave your guns out, they can be used against you, as she likely learned prior to her death./P.
I quickly switched to the Google public DNS servers. Since then I've had much more up time and way less ads. Netflix is almost twice as fast too. Don't let COX sell your privacy up the river I recommend for everyone to drop their COX DNS servers starting today.
*raises eyebrow* Are you sure you didn't accidentally hit the fast forward button? I don't see why Google's DNS would cause videos to play almost twice as fast... But I suppose they could be injecting JS to hit the fast forward button for you. ;)
Bath works at Newport News naval ship yard will take car of all our spaceship needs.
Selling pistol to anyone who wishes to have one doesn't.
Not just anyone can buy a pistol in the United States. You have to be legally eligible to own any firearm, and must be 21 years or older. There are all sorts of other restrictions, as well. Furthermore, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon in the United States, unless it was specifically manufactured before a certain time period. Those weapons are very rare and expensive. Anyone who wants to own an automatic weapon in the US must have a Class III license from the federal government, which is very difficult to get. In fact, a person cannot get a class III license. Only a registered business / shooting club / etc, can obtain one. They may only obtain one if the local and state governments authorize it (zoning, etc).
The parent post was "+5 informative" but also incomplete. Yes, McVeigh was able to kill many without using a gun. But we're arguing about ease of acquisition here.
To do what McVeigh did you have to be pretty smart, do some clever planning, get large quantities of materials, and basically put a lot of stuff together.
To kill a bunch of school-age children like this all you need are assault weapons and a credit card, both of which are readily available and take little smarts, planning, or money.
That's the issue at stake here. Yes, making guns harder to get doesn't solve the problem. But it sure as hell raises the bar on being a casual mass murder (plus coward: I'm so sick of these guys offing themselves so they can't be punished for what they do. I want technology that brings them back to life so we can feed them into a wood chipper, feet first, dammit). Suddenly, in an American world where' it's f*king hard to get assault weapons, if you want to go cause mayhem in a kindergarten you're going to have to spend more money and time, do a lot more planning, and so on. Some of these nutcases will surely say, "nah, not worth it." Instead, one quick phone call and a credit card number, and you've got a murder on deck.
Anyone can look up the recipe for bomb making on the internet. I doubt that it is very hard. Connecticut appears to have a 2 week waiting period on all weapons purchases, except in certain exceptions. Unless the gunman already had the weapon laying around, it's possible that he had been planning this for some time. If he did not already have a weapon, and purchased one legally, he could have used that same time to plot and plan a bombing. He could have also gotten a nice big truck and ran kids down while they were on the playground for recess. There are a lot of things he could have done that require only a credit card.
In the UK we had strong gun laws introduced each time a crazy did something like this but the truth is that each of those crazies had done lesser crazy shit before they went postal. The guy who did the Hungerford massacre in 1987 had take a gun into work to threaten someone and the police had not taken his guns or his license away from him. It should have been the police that were looked at for not enforcing the law as it was rather than introducing new laws. New laws will not make things better. Teachers should not be carrying guns, that is more stupid. Do you really think that teachers never go crazy? I am one and I often want to kill a student. We should have more steps to look at who, good or bad, has a gun. It should not be right, it should be a privilege that can be revoked.
It is a right that can be revoked. Federal law bars anyone from owning a gun who has committed a felony, or had their constitutional rights revoked. You are also not allowed to buy a gun if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder, have been convicted of domestic violence, and a few other crimes that may not be felonies. There are plenty of people that are legally restricted from buying a gun, and many states have far more restrictions than those imposed by the federal government. Its quite possible that this guy was already legally barred from buying a gun in the US in the first place.
Because your examples are false equivalency. Just because each party produces some waste doesn't mean both are equally bad. There's only one party that put two wars on the credit card while cutting taxes. It wasn't the democrats. And there's only one party that continually tries to either lower tax rates or rebate taxes on every surplus. It isn't the Democrats. Just because both make mistakes doesn't mean they're equally bad, one can definitely be far worse.
So you don't count the 82 democrats that voted for Iraq? What about the invasion of Afghanistan, which only had one representative out of the entire house (and no senators) oppose it? Do none of these people count as democrats? In fact, the Democrats could have stopped the Iraq resolution from passing in the Senate, since they controlled 50% of the vote, and several Republicans and an Independent voted against it.
Oh I didn't know Grey Davis was a republican. How many billions of dollars of a California budget surplus did he spend on Enron in just a few short months? Wasn't it $40B? Why do you guys always throw politics into places they don't belong? Both parties waste. Both parties make dumb decisions. The fact of the matter is that neither party seems to show the fiscal responsibility that we need, and most of the constituents have such limited understanding of finance that they don't know what to ask for.
*Shrug* Every time I've used it, it has only shown me Prime eligible movies and shows. There is a filter option for that, I know. I don't use it that much, but I don't really watch a lot of TV. I do know that they always have at least 1 big new release movie that is prime eligible, but I never watch those either.
but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right
Actually, it's completely right.
This is one of those situtations where 'context' is just muddying the issue.
The key question is: At the point where the officer took the decision to fire the Taser, was she posing a sufficient threat the the officer, or someone else (within the officer's reasonable, articulable, perception) to justify its usage?
I hope, for your sake, you are never accused of and tried for criminal charges. Context is key. The lady had already been tasered and was on the ground in the video. You have no idea what happened to lead to them using the taser. Perhaps she did threaten someone, attacked someone, or even attacked the officers? If she did any of those things, the taser use may have been justified.
I say context is key because you could have 3 teenage thugs jump you some day. Perhaps you will defend yourself and one of them ends up in the hospital. Now all 3 of them turn around and say that you attacked them without cause. Would you want a bunch of internet pundits accusing you of assaulting poor teenagers? You're a grown adult. You shouldn't have to hit 3 teenagers. Yet if someone made a video of just 2 minutes of you beating the kids senseless, you would certainly look like the wrongdoer, wouldn't you?
This is no different. The nice thing here is that the mall and Apple store should both have plenty of surveillance video where we can really see what the woman did and how she acted before the officers even reached for the taser. If she did nothing but refuse to leave the store, then yes they used excessive force. But until everyone gets to see the video and the woman has a chance to sue (or ask for criminal charges), the officers should be given the same innocent until proven guilty rights that everyone else in the US deserves.
IncomingNumber := GetIncomingCallNumber();
RejectCall := SearchRejectedNumbersList(IncomingNumber);
If (RejectCall)
RejectIncomingCall();
else
AnswerIncomingCall();
There I just wrote the code to reject incoming calls if the number is in the rejected numbers list. How is this patentable?
Except that I don't think that is what the patent covers at all. First of all, the iPhone does not let you create a filter list that automatically rejects calls. At least not until iOS 6 (and I doubt the lawsuit was filed since the release of iOS 6 and has a judgement). Instead, I think this is a patent covering the ability to tell the cell tower to stop ringing your phone because you're not going to bother answering. That, at the time it was added to cell phones, was certainly novel as far as I know. I had never seen a POTS phone that let you reject a call instead of just muting the ringer. I didn't bother reading the patent, so I could be wrong. But my guess is the patent actually comes from the Erickson side of the house, and not actually from Sony as it existed at the time of the filing.
This would also save two Nashua cops from the public humiliation of not being able to handcuff a middle-aged asian woman (I saw the video - there's no fear that she's a kung-fu master).
You saw the surveillance video? Or the 2 minutes of YouTube recorded by a cell phone? Because supposedly she resisted for ~15 minutes. I am not saying that what the police did is right, but I am saying you cannot use 2 minutes of video to indicate whether or not this was right. This is just like that "Collateral Murder" video where they conveniently edited the video to make it as inciting as possible. If you aren't going to look at the entire incident, then you are in no position to opine. We can certainly speculate that the officers probably used excessive force. It's likely that they did.
>Here's a crazy idea: instead of starting to shout "private property" and having the hired guns tackle a woman and break out their weapons - just ignore her. Don't take her money, don't ring up her sale. She'll either give up and go away or try to steal the phones and then it's cut-and-dry. Plus no news stories with bad publicity during the Christmas shopping season.
Certainly that is a logical course of action. However, we don't know exactly what the woman was doing inside the store without the surveillance video. If she was not threatening or harassing to customers and employees then you are right.
Only in a police state like the US could people be in such denial about being in a police state.
Something like 25% of the world's cops and soldiers are in the US. And 50% of the weapons. The US is the ultimate police state.
Can you provide a reference for that? China has a ~2.2M strong army, while the US is ~1.4. So Already that puts us at about 33% of the world's soldiers. If you count reserve troops then the US is #7 overall in the world with less than 33% of the largest army, in North Korea. That means the US must have a whole hell of a lot of police officers.... Source
I guarantee there are plenty of women out there who could beat the crap out of you and me both. I am not saying this Chinese woman was one of them, and I am not saying that taser should have been used, but I would not use the sex of a person to determine their level of threat. Certainly they could have overpowered her given enough people. I would wait to see the video surveillance before I decide whether excessive force was used.
Hmm someone posted a link in response to me indicating that Intel says that TDP and the current draw are different. I know that the TDP is used as an indication of how much cooling you need. I also know that you will not see 100% of the W being converted to heat, so I could be wrong. I posted that based on my own testing with a Watt meter when trying to build a very low power box. I did various tests of idle and max usage consumption and never saw the W go above the TDP. For my 35W TDP processor I believe the max I ever saw was 40W with all peripherals, etc. But that was a year ago so perhaps I am misremembering, too.
Well I know the TDP has to do with the heat released by the processor. But I can only tell you that my watt meter suggests that the TDP is ~ what kind of load I see on the meter. Of course there are other peripherals drawing power as well, and the motherboard uses some itself. Also you will not see 100% of the W being converted to heat, so I suppose that its possible that the TDP would be somewhat lower than the actual draw. But I was specifically trying to create a low W system and had the meter hooked up through various tests of idle and max output. If Intel says differently than I must be wrong.
I was hoping they would use 867-5309... I miss Jenny.
What do you mean? I got streaming on Amazon for a $20 Amazon Prime student account (after a free year). And if you pay the $79 for Amazon Prime you get free streaming and free 2 day shipping for a year. That's less than $8 a month.