You're not going to miss anything. Dell doesn't want to be beholden to brain dead market ""analysts" that still think Dell is a company that does nothing other than selling desktops. The reigns are being passed from stock holders back to Michael Dell with some money from Silver Lake and Microsoft. Microsoft's investment is a small portion. That isn't going to give them much control, if any, over Dell. It remains to be seen what their involvement is all about, but Dell couldn't walk away from Linux (especially for servers) even if it had a desire to. This may be an attempt by MS to find a less expensive way to manufacture Win RT devices. Everyone makes Android devices, why would Dell fight for scraps there when it could lead the market for Win RT? Love or hate RT, following everyone else's lead with Android wouldn't be the best strategy, IMO.
It comes down to one thing. Who do you have faith in more? Wall Street or Michael Dell? Which one do you think is best for Dell's customers?
the US seems to have terrorized a youth into killing himself.
I'd seek gitmo for the US 'official' who performed this act of terrorism.
if we don't stop the american terrorists (gov hacks who can ruin lives at-will for essentially no good reason at all) then we all have BECOME part of them.
a message needs to be sent. TO THE GOVERNMENT. stop being asshats wrapped in the false flag of 'justice'.
I think you just became part of them.
You're proposing the same type of vendetta that the officials are alleged to be guilty of. If any of those officials were to commit suicide as a result, what should we do with you?
Having all of your developers in a single office all the time is increasingly uncommon, especially on open-source projects. Even fairly stodgy companies often have remote workers nowadays, all the way down to cutting-edge startups where practically nobody lives in the same city.
Even if they're not all in the same offices, chances are they're in some sort of office, even if it's a home office (home as in where you live). I've known very few software developers that do their development work primarily on a laptop, and none who did so without having a docking station setup with additional hardware. It sounds like we live in different parts of the coding universe. Not surprising considering how many different types of industries need software.
However, conforming to a line-length limit is comparatively easy. Required scaffolding and forbidden constructs, function-length and even variable-naming conventions can all be much more of a pain.
Yep. But I don't need a business equivalent of a AD&D rulebook to throw at my peers. A simple "dude, knock it off with the acronyms already" or "if you used RAII there, you wouldn't need all this other code". Frankly, at the rate languages, platforms, frameworks, and techniques are changing, any sort of coding commandments are probably going to get outdated rather quickly. Unless it is just vapidly simple things like line width and noMoreCamelCasePlease.
Part of teams being professional is respecting your colleagues and putting needs before whims. If you can't do that, or if staying within a length limit is so hard for you, then - to borrow your phrase - you have bigger problems.
Respect is earned. Part of that is knowing what your team's strengths and weaknesses are. If they don't need to be harassed about trivial shit, then they shouldn't be harassed about trivial shit. It's bad for morale if people feel like they're all treated like interns. To me, issues like this should be handled informally between peers. That gives them ownership of it, and they're best suited to agree to a solution rather than be forced into one. If they can't work as peers in that way, then the team is probably doomed to failure when it comes to the bigger stuff.
Sometimes the most senior developers on a project might have to review code while on the road, e.g. visiting customers or presenting at conferences.
Agree to disagree, but that is not a significant enough concern to base a standard on. If one developer is that critical within your organization, you've got bigger issues than source code line width.
Also, people who study reading have known for half a century that long lines are hard to scan accurately without a saccade leaving the reader's eyes on the previous or next line, which means that they're bad for readability even on wide monitors. [..] You'll need a much better reason than personal aesthetics to do something that's bad for readability and a pain for other members of your team.
I'm not suggesting that every line needs to be 320 characters wide. What I am suggesting is that there's no need to force a strict this-number-of-characters policy. Developers know what works best.
I can easily counter your traveling coder example. Think of the majority of developers that are sitting in an office environment. You're most likely talking one or more widescreen LCDs. A narrow width coding standard is going to punish them by forcing them to scroll vertically while seeing a good chunk of their display real estate go unused. You could argue that rotating the monitor to be vertical is a solution, but many are going to find that too unnatural.
Perhaps IDEs should support a multi-column view similar to newspapers. Personally, I don't see an issue with wide code. If I can't follow the text, I can arrow up or down to have the IDE alter the background color of that row for easier reading. Many diff tools have the same feature. We tend to favor smaller functions, so that too is going to help your eyes follow along. If a block of code is just too painful, someone can and will break it into two or more. No standard required.
selfish and immature
That's generally how I feel about contrived coding standards. I've seen this kind of thing kill code reviews. Instead of looking for logic problems or design flaws, you'll get that one guy being anal retentive about line width or ratio of one thing to something else. That kind of distraction doesn't generally serve the best interests of the organization. I'm not saying we should all be code-cowboys, but I think a team should treat themselves as professionals and deal with issues like this only if there's a serious need. Even then, just sitting down with the person responsible and explaining it should be sufficient.
You admit that Dell treats the server market differently. Why is that? It's not because Microsoft has surrendered in the server market. If anything, Windows Server 2012 shows a lot of effort to compete in that space. Dell handles multiple environments in the server market because that's where the demand is. Dell's number one job is to make money. Linux makes money in the server realm.
Why is the consumer market different? It's because Dell's consumer customers are balls-to-the-wall Microsoft, even if they don't realize it. They want a PC that works like those their peers have and is a natural migration from their last PC. PC manufacturers targeting the consumer mass market aren't going to want to spend a fortune to generate demand for another operating system. This makes me think back to when IBM went to great lengths to get OS/2 into homes. It didn't work, and they went at it "full-hearted". It's a high risk in a market where the margins are razor thin. The slightest misstep can cost big time.
The fact that I cringe even using the term "Linux" doesn't help. I'm sure there's a small army of geeks that are ready to say it's the wrong term to use. Consumers are going to walk away if you start battles like that. That's not even getting into issues such as KDE vs Gnome vs Unity or this distro versus that distro and so on.
Every new computer at the store includes Windows, so you have to pay for it even if you don't want it.
That must suck for people buying Macs.
Face it, the demand isn't there. That's the problem that's being ignored. Big names like Dell have tried to market systems with alternative operating systems, but the sales don't justify it. I can't see how sending two guys and a furry to intercept shoppers is going to help either. If anything, having people see them getting hauled off by security is going to put a negative image in people's minds.
You're either commenting from the 1900s or you're that one guy that rotates his widescreen monitors to be vertical rather than horizontal. I'm leaning to the former given the printer comment. How often does anyone print code anymore? The only times I can think of are either sample code to give to interviewing candidates or the rare occasion of trying to reverse engineer a tricky code shit ball.
The only issue I have is with code diff utilities that don't work well with multi-monitor setups. They need an option to treat "maximize" as a request to maximize across two monitors. Trying to review code on someone's machine that isn't setup for two displays can be quite cringe-worthy. Especially considering that nearly everyone in our engineering org has at least three displays on their desk.
If HP actually wanted to do something interesting for once, how about a Bluetooth HP calculator keyboard? Have your touchscreen phone and your calculator keyboard.
Oddly enough, it seems the keys are what tends to kill the HP48s. I still have my old HP48GX. It powers on and the display comes up, but most of the buttons don't work.
You're making the false assumption that there are always alternatives available that are lower risk. These devices, demonstrably, are extremely unlikely to cause lasting harm to anyone. Resisting the police is a dangerous activity, tasers help ensure safety for both the police and the criminal.
But hey, maybe next time they'll just shoot her, beat her with clubs, mace her, or manhandle her. Wouldn't that be swell.
Talk about misdirection. The argument has gone from seven hundred something down to one case. One. Screwdrivers have killed more people than that.
However, the only reason why this is a big story in the first place is because she got tased; otherwise it would, at best, warrant a headline in some local newspaper.
It's not a big story. The only reason it has so many comments here is that it counters the war against personal responsibility that seems to be increasingly prevalent among the readership here. People like you are attempting to sensationalize the police arresting a violent subject using such minimal force that there were no injuries. How people can despise the officers for not hurting the woman, I'll never know.
I mean, you could just as well ask me to say that water is wet...
An article like that here would get at least a couple hundred comments, half asking for a federal ban on dihydrogen monoxide.
The notion that disobeying lawful orders of the police is an excuse for police to go as harsh on you as they want is ridiculous.
Oh the humanity! They arrested her without harm. Those evil, evil, fascist woman haters.
I'm surprised you haven't turned this into a "war on women" thing yet.
You're very much downplaying the risks involved with tasers. Go read this first, then we can talk.
There are no surprises in that link. Organizations like Amnesty International make big claims, yet other organizations state little to no injury and no deaths that can be linked. Perhaps you should re-read it, because it doesn't exactly defend your position.
Resisting arrest itself isn't exactly a safe option, yet she chose to resist arrest anyway.
That's bullshit argument. Resisting arrest should not automatically give the cops carte blanche to resort to as much violence as they want - they should use the minimum required to subdue and prevent major harm to themselves. Most certainly, using a device that is potentially lethal should be out of question unless the person resisting arrest does it in a way that's actually life-or-limb threatening to the cops.
They did use the minimum force possible. That's why the officers and the subject are both unharmed. That would likely not be the case if they had to wrestle with her for any length of time. The taser is no more lethal than any other option they had available, and in fact, was probably their best option.
The police can only react if they're at risk of death or limb loss? That's absurd. We can't ask them to let people beat on them until they're almost dead, and then give them permission to react. All she had to do was leave. This is on her, not them. The Nashua Police did not initiate this confrontation, and they added it in a safe and efficient manner.
Why will you say nothing against this lady? Are you so blinded by your hatred of tasers that you can't even see her part in this?
Most people don't actually know if they're in the risk group or not. For starters, most people don't expect to get tased, so they don't bother to find out; and then, even if you don't have any obvious heart diseases, that still doesn't mean that your heart can handle the voltage.
All the more reason to obey the lawful orders of the police.
I'm not, precisely because we've seen a stream of reported events where police are using tazers willy nilly. Go look it up on YouTube. I recall one case where a guy was tazed for not getting out of his car fast enough.
There's six billion people on the planet. I could probably find videos on the Internet of people using tasers for sexual gratification. That wouldn't mean it's common.
Even a weaker person can put up a fight, and that can lead to either self-injury or inadvertent injury from the officers.
Sure, and tazer can lead to death.
Resisting arrest itself isn't exactly a safe option, yet she chose to resist arrest anyway. The odds of being killed by a taser are absurdly minute. This isn't a case of a cop shocking the perp over and over nonstop. I'd have to check the video again, but I'm pretty sure I only heard the buzzing sound of the taser once.
The funny thing about the tazer is that either you recover fairly fast, or you get cardiac arrest. She's lucky that she is not in the risk group for the latter (or that it wasn't strong enough), but there's no way the cops could have known that.
No luck necessary. The numerical odds were extremely well in her favor. Perhaps more so than any other techniques the police would use to subdue a combative subject. If she was actually in a risk group, she shouldn't have resisted arrest. The way the police wear the taser makes it very obvious they have one.
Nowhere near. Find me a statistic that says police officers have killed 750+ people by picking them up and force-walking them to the squad car. This is a quote that's often bandied around, but it has no substance - weasel words like "could" creep in so that the intent of the phrase is actually to mislead rather than communicate.
We don't know that the police could have gotten this lady to their cruiser (or their substation in the mall) without subduing her first. Pheasant Lane is a fairly large mall. They would have needed to make her compliant before moving her, or they would have been risking the general public they would have encountered along the way.
I don't see that your stats against tasers even matter in this context. I see nothing in that video that shows that the officers acted inappropriately. You appear to have a grudge against one of the tools of their trade, and you don't appear to be considering any other aspects of what happened. She could have left when asked by the store. She could have left when ordered to by the police. She could have complied with the arrest. That's three missed opportunities.
The video, from what I can see, shows her physically resisting the two officers. If you do that, the police will do what it takes to secure the arrest. They did. The police don't exactly conceal the tools they use. She no doubt knew they were armed yet she defied them anyway. And here you are, arguing about what the police did!
Death by taser is extremely unlikely. The odds are absurd. She was probably more likely to die in a freak traffic accident on the way to the police station than by the taser, and if I had the stats to prove it, I'm sure you wouldn't condemn the use of motor vehicles.
You're missing my point completely. The UK police *carry* truncheons as a part of the symbol of their authority. They very rarely get *used*. The US police appear to electrocute people who they really have no reason to.
That may be the appearance, but it's not the reality. No one in Nashua is hiding in their homes afraid that if they go outside the police will suddenly appear and taser them. Until now, I've never even heard of the Nashua Police using a taser on someone. I've known that they had them, but as you said about billy-clubs, they're mostly decorative.
Being electrocuted is worse than getting a bruised arm (bones are significantly harder to break than you seem to think) because of the much greater possibility of killing the suspect.
It's not unthinkable that two large policemen tussling with a smaller framed individual would cause a broken bone. You know what is extremely unlikely to cause a broken bone? A taser.
The firearms was relevant in the context of the other site, but be that as it may, I fail to see how an unarmed policeman who can't (and won't) electrocute you is appalling compared to an armed policeman who can and does.
What other site?
As for the appalling bit, that's not what I meant. European nations seem to have little regard for the safety of their police. I would never want to see our officers doing the job they do without the necessary tools to keep themselves and the law-abiding public safe.
You're correct, by the way. I used to be far more pro- the USA than I am having lived here for almost a decade. At the moment, I'm not really sure your society does function. It gets by, and from my perspective it seems to be eating itself to do so. I'm presumably someone the US wants very much to stay here - I pay a lot of taxes for example, but I'm seriously starting to think about the exit strategy. Maybe the year coming, maybe the year after, but I'm not long for this place.
The grass is always greener elsewhere. It's human nature. I wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone would blame the police for an incident such as this and not the lady who actually caused it. New Hampshire is a fine state, and I can tell you that of the people I've talked to here in Nashua (I both work and live here), not one claimed any sort of outrage over the police subduing an individual that was fighting with them.
The same can be said of physically handling a person while they're resisting.
As far as we know, this was the last resort. Unless you think she has the right to refuse to leave when asked and to disobey police whenever she wants. What would you do, bake her a delicious cake?
She could have ended this whole situation before the police even got involved. Does that even factor into your thought process?
She was filmed by a news crew at home later that night. She did not appear to be injured in any way. There are no reports that the officers were injured either.
Therefore, the police did make the arrest with minimum injuries. In fact, it would appear that there were NO injuries.
You just need to force their hands together behind their back, which is perfectly achievable by normal means - you just have to be stronger than they are.
If it were that simple, I'm sure the officers would have done so. Even a weaker person can put up a fight, and that can lead to either self-injury or inadvertent injury from the officers.
She had the power. She could have left when asked to. She could have cooperated with the arrest once the cuffs came out. Even if there was actually a language barrier, either can easily be expressed without words.
She's fine, as far as the video at her home later that night showed. The officers appear to be fine. Hopefully she won't put herself in this situation again. For all the animosity expressed towards the police, I see little directed at the actual culprit. That's rather disappointing.
Tasers kill in very rare cases. If the officers had tried to man-handle this lady, that could also result in death. Just as unlikely. But man-handling could very likely cause non-lethal injury to both her and the officers. That's why I said that the officers were in a no-win situation. The blame here, from what is known, should be solely on the suspect. She refused to leave. She wrestled with the officers as they attempted to handcuff her. Once she was finally in custody, she was bailed out and sent home. It was her choice to refuse to leave. It was her choice to resist arrest. I saw news footage of her at home that very night, she's fine. Of course she's playing it up as best she can, I'm sure she'll be filing law suits any day now.
"You are *not* supposed to use them like glorified cattle prods[.]"
There's nothing to indicate the police used the taser for such a reason. They used it to subdue a subject that was physically resisting arrest. That's what they're for. It doesn't appear that she was harmed, otherwise the footage that night would have been from a hospital bed. The officers don't appear to have been harmed either. The device worked.
Your anecdote adds little. We don't know precisely what led to the take-down. The video that circulated conveniently left that part out. For all we know, the officers did attempt to take control the same way you describe. That approach isn't always going to work, especially if she intended to cause trouble. The taser was the officer's truncheon. I'd argue it's less violent, there's no impact. Electric shock isn't fun, but any effects dissipate rapidly.
As for firearms, that was not an element of the story, so why even bring it up? Makes me think you might be participating in this discussion mostly because you don't agree with the way our society functions. You should understand that to many of us, your officers running around without firearms is probably as appalling as you view our own. I have no issue with a well-armed citizenry. I fear a government that forbids it.
What's the alternative? Should they have wrenched her arm out of her shoulder joint in order to get the other cuff on? She was resisting arrest after refusing to leave. The cops can't just walk away.
While the taser is going to hurt like hell while it's on, there's only the most remote possibility of lasting physical injury. Using manual force, on the other hand, is high risk. You can dislocate things, break bones, cause soft tissue damage, and so on. The cops can't win in a situation like this, because there isn't any option that wouldn't be ridiculed, other than to let her continue to trespass and ignore the police's lawful order to vacate the property. It sounds to me like they used the least amount of force necessary.
I'm not exactly a fan of the Nashua police either. I submitted a story like this on another issue involving them where they quite clearly did wrong. Here, based on the information we have available, I don't see that they did anything wrong.
I ordered one recently too, they now have a "none" selection for the McAfee. So you can buy it, get the trial, or not have it at all. There was very little else installed outside of the OS and the utilities included with the hardware (usable Bluray software, nvidia stuff, etc).
Macrovision acquired TV Guide On Screen, who had acquired Videoguide. Videoguide was the company behind the VCR+ codes that used remote controls to "program" devices to record.
For the older devices, Sony was most likely dealing with TVGOS, which had every intent to maintain the guide listing service. TVGOS faltered when cable companies started removing their analog channels because they didn't have a digital version ready in time. The guide data was carried over analog exclusively at that time. That's when Macrovision came in, most likely for the patents. I very much doubt that Sony could have seen that coming, because the TVGOS folks sure didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Permitting the sale is a different thing than requiring software companies to allow for such sales.
Earlier than that. Unless there's some sci-fi aspect of wrestling that I'm unaware of.
You're not going to miss anything. Dell doesn't want to be beholden to brain dead market ""analysts" that still think Dell is a company that does nothing other than selling desktops. The reigns are being passed from stock holders back to Michael Dell with some money from Silver Lake and Microsoft. Microsoft's investment is a small portion. That isn't going to give them much control, if any, over Dell. It remains to be seen what their involvement is all about, but Dell couldn't walk away from Linux (especially for servers) even if it had a desire to. This may be an attempt by MS to find a less expensive way to manufacture Win RT devices. Everyone makes Android devices, why would Dell fight for scraps there when it could lead the market for Win RT? Love or hate RT, following everyone else's lead with Android wouldn't be the best strategy, IMO.
It comes down to one thing. Who do you have faith in more? Wall Street or Michael Dell? Which one do you think is best for Dell's customers?
the US seems to have terrorized a youth into killing himself.
I'd seek gitmo for the US 'official' who performed this act of terrorism.
if we don't stop the american terrorists (gov hacks who can ruin lives at-will for essentially no good reason at all) then we all have BECOME part of them.
a message needs to be sent. TO THE GOVERNMENT. stop being asshats wrapped in the false flag of 'justice'.
I think you just became part of them.
You're proposing the same type of vendetta that the officials are alleged to be guilty of. If any of those officials were to commit suicide as a result, what should we do with you?
It'd be funny if it was since it was the showcase of Youtube's year in review 2012 video.
Having all of your developers in a single office all the time is increasingly uncommon, especially on open-source projects. Even fairly stodgy companies often have remote workers nowadays, all the way down to cutting-edge startups where practically nobody lives in the same city.
Even if they're not all in the same offices, chances are they're in some sort of office, even if it's a home office (home as in where you live). I've known very few software developers that do their development work primarily on a laptop, and none who did so without having a docking station setup with additional hardware. It sounds like we live in different parts of the coding universe. Not surprising considering how many different types of industries need software.
However, conforming to a line-length limit is comparatively easy. Required scaffolding and forbidden constructs, function-length and even variable-naming conventions can all be much more of a pain.
Yep. But I don't need a business equivalent of a AD&D rulebook to throw at my peers. A simple "dude, knock it off with the acronyms already" or "if you used RAII there, you wouldn't need all this other code". Frankly, at the rate languages, platforms, frameworks, and techniques are changing, any sort of coding commandments are probably going to get outdated rather quickly. Unless it is just vapidly simple things like line width and noMoreCamelCasePlease.
Part of teams being professional is respecting your colleagues and putting needs before whims. If you can't do that, or if staying within a length limit is so hard for you, then - to borrow your phrase - you have bigger problems.
Respect is earned. Part of that is knowing what your team's strengths and weaknesses are. If they don't need to be harassed about trivial shit, then they shouldn't be harassed about trivial shit. It's bad for morale if people feel like they're all treated like interns. To me, issues like this should be handled informally between peers. That gives them ownership of it, and they're best suited to agree to a solution rather than be forced into one. If they can't work as peers in that way, then the team is probably doomed to failure when it comes to the bigger stuff.
Sometimes the most senior developers on a project might have to review code while on the road, e.g. visiting customers or presenting at conferences.
Agree to disagree, but that is not a significant enough concern to base a standard on. If one developer is that critical within your organization, you've got bigger issues than source code line width.
Also, people who study reading have known for half a century that long lines are hard to scan accurately without a saccade leaving the reader's eyes on the previous or next line, which means that they're bad for readability even on wide monitors. [..] You'll need a much better reason than personal aesthetics to do something that's bad for readability and a pain for other members of your team.
I'm not suggesting that every line needs to be 320 characters wide. What I am suggesting is that there's no need to force a strict this-number-of-characters policy. Developers know what works best.
I can easily counter your traveling coder example. Think of the majority of developers that are sitting in an office environment. You're most likely talking one or more widescreen LCDs. A narrow width coding standard is going to punish them by forcing them to scroll vertically while seeing a good chunk of their display real estate go unused. You could argue that rotating the monitor to be vertical is a solution, but many are going to find that too unnatural.
Perhaps IDEs should support a multi-column view similar to newspapers. Personally, I don't see an issue with wide code. If I can't follow the text, I can arrow up or down to have the IDE alter the background color of that row for easier reading. Many diff tools have the same feature. We tend to favor smaller functions, so that too is going to help your eyes follow along. If a block of code is just too painful, someone can and will break it into two or more. No standard required.
selfish and immature
That's generally how I feel about contrived coding standards. I've seen this kind of thing kill code reviews. Instead of looking for logic problems or design flaws, you'll get that one guy being anal retentive about line width or ratio of one thing to something else. That kind of distraction doesn't generally serve the best interests of the organization. I'm not saying we should all be code-cowboys, but I think a team should treat themselves as professionals and deal with issues like this only if there's a serious need. Even then, just sitting down with the person responsible and explaining it should be sufficient.
You admit that Dell treats the server market differently. Why is that? It's not because Microsoft has surrendered in the server market. If anything, Windows Server 2012 shows a lot of effort to compete in that space. Dell handles multiple environments in the server market because that's where the demand is. Dell's number one job is to make money. Linux makes money in the server realm.
Why is the consumer market different? It's because Dell's consumer customers are balls-to-the-wall Microsoft, even if they don't realize it. They want a PC that works like those their peers have and is a natural migration from their last PC. PC manufacturers targeting the consumer mass market aren't going to want to spend a fortune to generate demand for another operating system. This makes me think back to when IBM went to great lengths to get OS/2 into homes. It didn't work, and they went at it "full-hearted". It's a high risk in a market where the margins are razor thin. The slightest misstep can cost big time.
The fact that I cringe even using the term "Linux" doesn't help. I'm sure there's a small army of geeks that are ready to say it's the wrong term to use. Consumers are going to walk away if you start battles like that. That's not even getting into issues such as KDE vs Gnome vs Unity or this distro versus that distro and so on.
Every new computer at the store includes Windows, so you have to pay for it even if you don't want it.
That must suck for people buying Macs.
Face it, the demand isn't there. That's the problem that's being ignored. Big names like Dell have tried to market systems with alternative operating systems, but the sales don't justify it. I can't see how sending two guys and a furry to intercept shoppers is going to help either. If anything, having people see them getting hauled off by security is going to put a negative image in people's minds.
You're either commenting from the 1900s or you're that one guy that rotates his widescreen monitors to be vertical rather than horizontal. I'm leaning to the former given the printer comment. How often does anyone print code anymore? The only times I can think of are either sample code to give to interviewing candidates or the rare occasion of trying to reverse engineer a tricky code shit ball.
The only issue I have is with code diff utilities that don't work well with multi-monitor setups. They need an option to treat "maximize" as a request to maximize across two monitors. Trying to review code on someone's machine that isn't setup for two displays can be quite cringe-worthy. Especially considering that nearly everyone in our engineering org has at least three displays on their desk.
If HP actually wanted to do something interesting for once, how about a Bluetooth HP calculator keyboard? Have your touchscreen phone and your calculator keyboard.
Oddly enough, it seems the keys are what tends to kill the HP48s. I still have my old HP48GX. It powers on and the display comes up, but most of the buttons don't work.
At least there's an HP50 out there. And Droid48.
You're making the false assumption that there are always alternatives available that are lower risk. These devices, demonstrably, are extremely unlikely to cause lasting harm to anyone. Resisting the police is a dangerous activity, tasers help ensure safety for both the police and the criminal.
But hey, maybe next time they'll just shoot her, beat her with clubs, mace her, or manhandle her. Wouldn't that be swell.
Talk about misdirection. The argument has gone from seven hundred something down to one case. One. Screwdrivers have killed more people than that.
However, the only reason why this is a big story in the first place is because she got tased; otherwise it would, at best, warrant a headline in some local newspaper.
It's not a big story. The only reason it has so many comments here is that it counters the war against personal responsibility that seems to be increasingly prevalent among the readership here. People like you are attempting to sensationalize the police arresting a violent subject using such minimal force that there were no injuries. How people can despise the officers for not hurting the woman, I'll never know.
I mean, you could just as well ask me to say that water is wet...
An article like that here would get at least a couple hundred comments, half asking for a federal ban on dihydrogen monoxide.
The notion that disobeying lawful orders of the police is an excuse for police to go as harsh on you as they want is ridiculous.
Oh the humanity! They arrested her without harm. Those evil, evil, fascist woman haters.
I'm surprised you haven't turned this into a "war on women" thing yet.
You're very much downplaying the risks involved with tasers. Go read this first, then we can talk.
There are no surprises in that link. Organizations like Amnesty International make big claims, yet other organizations state little to no injury and no deaths that can be linked. Perhaps you should re-read it, because it doesn't exactly defend your position.
Resisting arrest itself isn't exactly a safe option, yet she chose to resist arrest anyway.
That's bullshit argument. Resisting arrest should not automatically give the cops carte blanche to resort to as much violence as they want - they should use the minimum required to subdue and prevent major harm to themselves. Most certainly, using a device that is potentially lethal should be out of question unless the person resisting arrest does it in a way that's actually life-or-limb threatening to the cops.
They did use the minimum force possible. That's why the officers and the subject are both unharmed. That would likely not be the case if they had to wrestle with her for any length of time. The taser is no more lethal than any other option they had available, and in fact, was probably their best option.
The police can only react if they're at risk of death or limb loss? That's absurd. We can't ask them to let people beat on them until they're almost dead, and then give them permission to react. All she had to do was leave. This is on her, not them. The Nashua Police did not initiate this confrontation, and they added it in a safe and efficient manner.
Why will you say nothing against this lady? Are you so blinded by your hatred of tasers that you can't even see her part in this?
Most people don't actually know if they're in the risk group or not. For starters, most people don't expect to get tased, so they don't bother to find out; and then, even if you don't have any obvious heart diseases, that still doesn't mean that your heart can handle the voltage.
All the more reason to obey the lawful orders of the police.
I'm not, precisely because we've seen a stream of reported events where police are using tazers willy nilly. Go look it up on YouTube. I recall one case where a guy was tazed for not getting out of his car fast enough.
There's six billion people on the planet. I could probably find videos on the Internet of people using tasers for sexual gratification. That wouldn't mean it's common.
Even a weaker person can put up a fight, and that can lead to either self-injury or inadvertent injury from the officers.
Sure, and tazer can lead to death.
Resisting arrest itself isn't exactly a safe option, yet she chose to resist arrest anyway. The odds of being killed by a taser are absurdly minute. This isn't a case of a cop shocking the perp over and over nonstop. I'd have to check the video again, but I'm pretty sure I only heard the buzzing sound of the taser once.
The funny thing about the tazer is that either you recover fairly fast, or you get cardiac arrest. She's lucky that she is not in the risk group for the latter (or that it wasn't strong enough), but there's no way the cops could have known that.
No luck necessary. The numerical odds were extremely well in her favor. Perhaps more so than any other techniques the police would use to subdue a combative subject. If she was actually in a risk group, she shouldn't have resisted arrest. The way the police wear the taser makes it very obvious they have one.
Nowhere near. Find me a statistic that says police officers have killed 750+ people by picking them up and force-walking them to the squad car. This is a quote that's often bandied around, but it has no substance - weasel words like "could" creep in so that the intent of the phrase is actually to mislead rather than communicate.
We don't know that the police could have gotten this lady to their cruiser (or their substation in the mall) without subduing her first. Pheasant Lane is a fairly large mall. They would have needed to make her compliant before moving her, or they would have been risking the general public they would have encountered along the way.
I don't see that your stats against tasers even matter in this context. I see nothing in that video that shows that the officers acted inappropriately. You appear to have a grudge against one of the tools of their trade, and you don't appear to be considering any other aspects of what happened. She could have left when asked by the store. She could have left when ordered to by the police. She could have complied with the arrest. That's three missed opportunities.
The video, from what I can see, shows her physically resisting the two officers. If you do that, the police will do what it takes to secure the arrest. They did. The police don't exactly conceal the tools they use. She no doubt knew they were armed yet she defied them anyway. And here you are, arguing about what the police did!
Death by taser is extremely unlikely. The odds are absurd. She was probably more likely to die in a freak traffic accident on the way to the police station than by the taser, and if I had the stats to prove it, I'm sure you wouldn't condemn the use of motor vehicles.
You're missing my point completely. The UK police *carry* truncheons as a part of the symbol of their authority. They very rarely get *used*. The US police appear to electrocute people who they really have no reason to.
That may be the appearance, but it's not the reality. No one in Nashua is hiding in their homes afraid that if they go outside the police will suddenly appear and taser them. Until now, I've never even heard of the Nashua Police using a taser on someone. I've known that they had them, but as you said about billy-clubs, they're mostly decorative.
Being electrocuted is worse than getting a bruised arm (bones are significantly harder to break than you seem to think) because of the much greater possibility of killing the suspect.
It's not unthinkable that two large policemen tussling with a smaller framed individual would cause a broken bone. You know what is extremely unlikely to cause a broken bone? A taser.
The firearms was relevant in the context of the other site, but be that as it may, I fail to see how an unarmed policeman who can't (and won't) electrocute you is appalling compared to an armed policeman who can and does.
What other site?
As for the appalling bit, that's not what I meant. European nations seem to have little regard for the safety of their police. I would never want to see our officers doing the job they do without the necessary tools to keep themselves and the law-abiding public safe.
You're correct, by the way. I used to be far more pro- the USA than I am having lived here for almost a decade. At the moment, I'm not really sure your society does function. It gets by, and from my perspective it seems to be eating itself to do so. I'm presumably someone the US wants very much to stay here - I pay a lot of taxes for example, but I'm seriously starting to think about the exit strategy. Maybe the year coming, maybe the year after, but I'm not long for this place.
The grass is always greener elsewhere. It's human nature. I wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone would blame the police for an incident such as this and not the lady who actually caused it. New Hampshire is a fine state, and I can tell you that of the people I've talked to here in Nashua (I both work and live here), not one claimed any sort of outrage over the police subduing an individual that was fighting with them.
The same can be said of physically handling a person while they're resisting.
As far as we know, this was the last resort. Unless you think she has the right to refuse to leave when asked and to disobey police whenever she wants. What would you do, bake her a delicious cake?
She could have ended this whole situation before the police even got involved. Does that even factor into your thought process?
She was filmed by a news crew at home later that night. She did not appear to be injured in any way. There are no reports that the officers were injured either.
Therefore, the police did make the arrest with minimum injuries. In fact, it would appear that there were NO injuries.
You just need to force their hands together behind their back, which is perfectly achievable by normal means - you just have to be stronger than they are.
If it were that simple, I'm sure the officers would have done so. Even a weaker person can put up a fight, and that can lead to either self-injury or inadvertent injury from the officers.
She had the power. She could have left when asked to. She could have cooperated with the arrest once the cuffs came out. Even if there was actually a language barrier, either can easily be expressed without words.
She's fine, as far as the video at her home later that night showed. The officers appear to be fine. Hopefully she won't put herself in this situation again. For all the animosity expressed towards the police, I see little directed at the actual culprit. That's rather disappointing.
Tasers kill in very rare cases. If the officers had tried to man-handle this lady, that could also result in death. Just as unlikely. But man-handling could very likely cause non-lethal injury to both her and the officers. That's why I said that the officers were in a no-win situation. The blame here, from what is known, should be solely on the suspect. She refused to leave. She wrestled with the officers as they attempted to handcuff her. Once she was finally in custody, she was bailed out and sent home. It was her choice to refuse to leave. It was her choice to resist arrest. I saw news footage of her at home that very night, she's fine. Of course she's playing it up as best she can, I'm sure she'll be filing law suits any day now.
"You are *not* supposed to use them like glorified cattle prods[.]"
There's nothing to indicate the police used the taser for such a reason. They used it to subdue a subject that was physically resisting arrest. That's what they're for. It doesn't appear that she was harmed, otherwise the footage that night would have been from a hospital bed. The officers don't appear to have been harmed either. The device worked.
Your anecdote adds little. We don't know precisely what led to the take-down. The video that circulated conveniently left that part out. For all we know, the officers did attempt to take control the same way you describe. That approach isn't always going to work, especially if she intended to cause trouble. The taser was the officer's truncheon. I'd argue it's less violent, there's no impact. Electric shock isn't fun, but any effects dissipate rapidly.
As for firearms, that was not an element of the story, so why even bring it up? Makes me think you might be participating in this discussion mostly because you don't agree with the way our society functions. You should understand that to many of us, your officers running around without firearms is probably as appalling as you view our own. I have no issue with a well-armed citizenry. I fear a government that forbids it.
What's the alternative? Should they have wrenched her arm out of her shoulder joint in order to get the other cuff on? She was resisting arrest after refusing to leave. The cops can't just walk away.
While the taser is going to hurt like hell while it's on, there's only the most remote possibility of lasting physical injury. Using manual force, on the other hand, is high risk. You can dislocate things, break bones, cause soft tissue damage, and so on. The cops can't win in a situation like this, because there isn't any option that wouldn't be ridiculed, other than to let her continue to trespass and ignore the police's lawful order to vacate the property. It sounds to me like they used the least amount of force necessary.
I'm not exactly a fan of the Nashua police either. I submitted a story like this on another issue involving them where they quite clearly did wrong. Here, based on the information we have available, I don't see that they did anything wrong.
So it's kind of like running iTunes on Windows?
I ordered one recently too, they now have a "none" selection for the McAfee. So you can buy it, get the trial, or not have it at all. There was very little else installed outside of the OS and the utilities included with the hardware (usable Bluray software, nvidia stuff, etc).
It's misleading.
Macrovision acquired TV Guide On Screen, who had acquired Videoguide. Videoguide was the company behind the VCR+ codes that used remote controls to "program" devices to record.
For the older devices, Sony was most likely dealing with TVGOS, which had every intent to maintain the guide listing service. TVGOS faltered when cable companies started removing their analog channels because they didn't have a digital version ready in time. The guide data was carried over analog exclusively at that time. That's when Macrovision came in, most likely for the patents. I very much doubt that Sony could have seen that coming, because the TVGOS folks sure didn't.