Ahhh yes... Nearly impossible to get an education thread going without a link back to Gatto's book.
If you truly buy Gatto's rantings, maybe you should have paid more attention in school. Yeah, yeah, multi-time teacher of the year award, blah, blah, blah. Okay, great. So he is a really good teacher.
That does not make him well qualified to speak on history.
Let me state that again: Good high school teacher does not imply good historian.
Now that doesn't mean he isn't a good historian, but he should at least provide very detailed support of blanket assertions he makes. But he doesn't. He attempts to make economic statements about schooling that even a high school student should be able to recognize has fatal flaws. He berates well developed statistics and science for which he has no training to give him a grounding from which to offer real criticism.
BIOSes
Did you know there are exactly two major BIOS vendors out there? That there are no more than a hundred or so professional BIOS developers in the world? Yet there are more copies of BIOS software out there than Windows; everybody expects BIOS to support new whiz-bang features (boot from USB, PXE boot, boot device ordering, processor errata, microcode updates). There simply aren't enough people to make BIOS code look good. BIOS programming is hard - harder than writing a kernel. It's understaffed, and the code quality shows. You think BIOS vendors stick with BIOS because they want lock-in? Ha. How about they don't have enough people to create a replacement, they are too busy patching up last year's code with this year's features.
I'm going to pick on this one a little bit. You are mostly correct about BIOS though.
There are two major BIOS vendors out there, but they really do not do very much. For example Intel develops almost all of its BIOS in-house but they have licensed the base configuration from (think think) AMI(?) I'm not completely sure, but I know people there whose job it is to develop the BIOS for their boards. There are probably a couple hundred professional BIOS developers around because just about every board manufacturer has a team and every chipset manufacturer has a whole BIOS department.
Second, this Carla Schroder person has absolutely no clue what a modern BIOS does and is completely oblivious to the fact that there are several things the BIOS does that the OS has no opportunity to "ignore." We are all familiar with the hard drive detection issues that long ago led to OSes ignoring the geometry of the hard disk...
I can't tell you how many times I've had to muck with the linux kernel boot parameters because I installed on hdb but put the drive into a new system and now it comes up as hda but lilo believes root=/dev/hdb. Let's see your OS ignore the memory timings that BIOS selects. How about the bus clock speed? Was your USB hub not enabled in BIOS? Does your OS reconfigure the PCIe endpoints? I doubt it. What about re-choosing which cards get which interrupts? That might be possible on some cards, but for most of them that write can only reliably done once - during BIOS' PCI enumeration. There are many hardware things that if BIOS doesn't bringup or otherwise actively disables, the OS does not veto that decision.
The BIOS still performs a useful task. Regardless of what some clueless hack thinks.
After signing the contract we invested months of labor and resources into building the technology to amass the digital inventory, creating the web site, constructing the e-commerce system and testing the process.
Months? How many months does one have to work to get quality content like this? Somebody gotted robbed.
I have found 7 albums so far in their inventory that I would like to buy. Unfortunately I didn't realize the cost was $7 + $3 S&H. That's kind of a big shipping premium there. Buying multiple CDs doesn't drop the shipping price one thin dime. I would much rather spend $7 on the mp3's and save $3 S&H. Had they done just that, I would be spending $50 there right now.
You realize, of course, you are seriously going against Slashdot groupthink here. Still, if I had mod points, I'd give you one. Macho programmers who think they are too awesomely skillful to screw up are the ones whose screwups always take me the most time to chase down.
Frankly if you can't look at a problem and then pull out five or six languages from your tool belt and evaluate which will be the best for this job, then you are a bad programmer. Don't code in C++ that which could easily be done in Python. Don't code in Python that which could easily be done in Bash. If you don't have a compelling argument for using C, DON'T USE IT!
Sometimes I think Java is awful for no other reason than companies tend to believe that using one language for other is a net gain. That has never been my experience except when your very best programmers aren't all that good either. If you insist that everything run on the Java runtime, use Jython and embed Python. A good example of multi-language gains can be seen with embedded Lua. There are many applications out there that use Lua "under the covers" so that things that do not have to be written in C++ aren't. This includes games (I believe WoW is one).
C++ yields superior performance and memory usage, than higher level languages, in the hands of a skilled C++ programmer
OMG! Newsflash: lower level languages more lean and efficient than higher level languages. News at 10!
Lower level languages take more time and skill than higher level languages, resulting in increased developer costs and longer time to market. News at 11!
If you were sane then you'd hide the whole business in a backpack or a small suitcase.
And if you weren't, your whole argument falls apart.
Now, how do the police protect themselves and others in the airport while determining whether or not this is a sane person with tech gadget or an insane person with a persecution complex?
Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing.
You really need to read the thread better.
The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring.
The red herring was your mention of hiding the device in an mp3 player and further mention of getting past security. 80% of your post focused on that situation.
But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.
Nobody is on trial here. Regardless of intent or trial, I think her judgment is very, very poor. However, we are discussing whether or not the response was reasonable given the device.
I'm arguing that a non-concealed, non-disguised, hastily constructed detonating device would look sufficiently similar. Furthermore the response, by all parties, was appropriate. The gate agent should have asked. The agent should have reported it when she did not respond (for whatever reason, including not hearing the question). The police should have used overwhelming force to take her into custody.
Note the inference that the jury might well give such weight, which danger is to be minimized as opposed to prohibited.
There is no way to "prohibit" this unless you can read each Jurors mind. I think some 4th amendment nutjob would disapprove of such an invasion of the Jurors right to privacy.
The inference is that Juries are only supposed to weigh facts in evidence, but since they are imperfect human beings they may use facts not in evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This needs to be minimized.
There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know you fancy yourself as smarter than the judiciary and the fact that the Constitution article III section 2 gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction for all cases tried is insignificant next to your formidable intelligence in all constitutional matters. But still, the Supreme Court interprets the fifth in such a way that lack of testimony may not be used as evidence and the Constitution we live by says their opinion counts, yours not so much.
Kudos to the Judge, who was clearly better versed in the law than you.
Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?
The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat. If you were something vaguely looking like a triggering device in the airport, you damned well had better be ready to answer questions about it.
Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?
All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?
If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion.
For 40 years airplanes and airports have been an excellent way to use violence to bring attention to your cause.
the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.
I am willing to bet I could make a timer and triggering device for a plastic explosive out of similar looking components: an experimenters breadboard, 9v battery, and some small circuitry including a cap to create the energy necessary for the explosive.
I would NOT qualify what she had on as "innocuous tech." It could easily have been a hastily fashioned detonator made by someone with the same mental issues as the Va Tech shooter who is mad at the world and wants to make a big statement. The police did EXACTLY what I think should have been done.
Oh, she appreciates it. But doesn't wear it. When we had been dating for two years, I bought her a pair $600 of emerald earrings for her birthday (to date, the most expensive birthday present I have bought for her). They cost about $599 more than I had to spend at the time, but hey, it was love. So far I have paid $100 for each time she has worn them. I keep hoping she'll wear them again so that I can claim a 15% reduction in cost per wearing.
Lets be honest here, geek men will hire and even date a women that has no make up, wearing ugly, comfortable shoes, just because she is smart.
Yes, yes we would. It comes with one major drawback though... You have any idea how hard it is to buy a gift for a woman who doesn't wear jewelry or makeup? 15 years we've been together and it still takes me 2 weeks to find her a good xmas/birthday/anniversary present.
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
Yes. I really have a problem calling any part of this a "partial" victory. All he did was limit his losses.
Seems like he had an open-and-shut case. If what he says is true, he could have demanded a speedy bench trial and had the judge toss the case because the state statute supercedes the local one. He would not have had to call any family members to the stand if the case could be decided as a matter of law before the judge. It seems that even a free public defender could have handled this one. After that, the city's leverage would have been gone. He might also have a case for malicious prosecution, since they were using the prosecution of the case to leverage him to sign a deal.
I think the only reason for calling it a "victory" is to make the people who donated to his legal defense think they got something. In fact, they got absolutely nothing.
That's not what he was implying. He was going to walk out with the police and be arrested and booked if they STOPPED ASSAULTING HIM.
I don't get that he was implying he'd walk out peaceably to be arrested, however that point is moot. He had moved himself beyond that option by resisting lawful arrest. You don't get to dictate terms once you start resisting.
they could have simply handcuffed him and dragged him out
I strongly disagree with that. The video clearly shows him struggling, reaching for the railing and hanging on. The "simple" procedure you refer to involves prying one hand off while holding another. As can be seen from the video, there was nothing simple about it. He was being quite forceful in resisting arrest.
because he was being loud because he didn't enjoy his beating
I did not see anyone beat him. I know you are being willfully free with your definitions, but 'beating' to the average person implies striking.
that's when they TORTURED him to "ensure compliance."
You really enjoy slinging that word around. It belittles the real suffering victims of torture have endured to call a single tazing by that word. I suggest you re-read how international law defines it. By your definition there there is a humanitarian crisis everyday at high schools all over the country - far more damage is done in schoolyard fights than was done here. Don't disrespect the people who have really been tortured by comparing it to this.
He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him.
He was already being arrested for numerous offenses at that time. You don't get to walk out scot-free because you suddenly decide that if the police start acting according to your wishes, you will suddenly become an upstanding citizen.
We wouldn't be able to have public forums like this if everyone exercised their rights in this manner. He may not have liked that they ordered him to leave, but given the manner in which he entered the building, the loaded questions plied with accusations and his response to having his mic cut off (after asking 3 questions instead of one) I think they were well within his right to escort him from the building.
Once he resisted that escort and began yelling and screaming, he entered the "you can be taken into custody for disturbing the peace" realm.
You may wish to argue that "escort" doesn't mean taking his arm, but taking his arm to escort him out is not excessive use of force by the police.
And once they DID tazer him I heard a LOT of people yelling "STOP" at the cops.
Tazing is not all roses and gum drops. Some people will become upset by it. The footage I have seen the guy is continuously struggling to get his hands away from the cuffs (by grabbing the railing bars) and disobeying a lawful order to comply. The police do not have to expose themselves to the risk of getting this guy's elbow in their eye. They can use the taser to compel his compliance.
Thread two waits (x-d) before overwriting the buffer used to store the command (after the OS has checked it for validity, but before the OS has actually processed it)
Could someone explain this to me some more. In order for thread2 to write to buffer1, there must be a page table entry mapping buffer1's physical address into thread2's virtual address space.
Are the operating systems allowing thread2 to arbitrarily change its PTEs? That sounds like the problem right there.
Actually it is a real post, later in the thread he points out why he flatly rejects the sun as an energy source:
Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn't explain why the Sun doesn't count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:
Is Energy the Key? To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
[..snip..]
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
Yep, they tried exactly this argument in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The Judge, one of those Bush-appointed whack-jobs, looked at the arguments from each side and concluded Intelligent Design was religion and furthermore it isn't science. Naturally, of course, the fundies accused him of legislating from the bench.
Okay, you're correct, but just because I'm feeling pedantic today I'd like to point something out:
the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases
The second law only predicts that in a closed system the entropy (the unusable energy in a system) increases. It says nothing about disorder. If you had a closed system that was nothing but carbon, the stuff that turned into a diamond would be highly ordered and would never become disordered. Thus entropy would increase but the system's order would sit still.
The 'disorder' or 'randomness' argument is generally discouraged because it has led to wholesale confusion that the YECs like to exploit. It takes energy to create order, sometimes it takes energy to maintain order. As entropy increases the energy available to create and/or maintain that order becomes less and less. That's where the disorder argument comes from. As you have correctly stated, we have a large source of energy that rises every morning here.
When you come to my site I do in fact get to dictate the rules.
No. You only get to dictate the rules the server lives by, not the client. One of those rules can be "I will not serve data to clients not viewing ads." That is not being contested. How you determine who is in compliance and who isn't is up to you, but the only methods that I envision working will also drive traffic away from your site. More to the point: not viewing ads is not theft.
If i believe certain clients are not getting me ads then I have every right on Earth to not serve them anything.
That is not a topic ripe for debate here. As my past postings have indicated, serving up nothing is an option you may fall back on. Making a charge of theft is not.
I don't care how their browser works so long as they generate income for me when they visit my site.
Again, it's your prerogative to want that, not your right.
You want to dictate what data is given to you and what is not.
No. I want to make clear that you have no authority to dictate how I will consume that data once you give it to me, except in that I do not violate your copyright.
The server operator also has the right to no give it to you then.
Haven't I said that already?
but I also can understand if a content provider blocks clients they suspect of blocking their ads.
Also not an issue for debate here. Refusing to do business with someone is always their prerogative so long as such refusal does not discriminate against a protected class.
It's a two way street. You don't have to ask for data and they don't have to give you data. You don't have a right to anything.
Not exactly true. The computer is my property. I have the right to change how it operates. When you send my computer information, it is my right to decide how the computer manipulates that data. If you don't like it, don't send out data. Or get a data-handling contract with everyone you do send out data to.
Your real problem is that you want to force how someones browser works in order to force the browser to display ads. It is your prerogative to want that, but not your right. There are alternatives, but you do not like them because they would decrease traffic. You don't get to dictate or change the rules of computing in order to support your business model. If you don't like the openness of the internet, go somewhere else. We don't owe you anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh yes... Nearly impossible to get an education thread going without a link back to Gatto's book.
If you truly buy Gatto's rantings, maybe you should have paid more attention in school. Yeah, yeah, multi-time teacher of the year award, blah, blah, blah. Okay, great. So he is a really good teacher.
That does not make him well qualified to speak on history.
Let me state that again: Good high school teacher does not imply good historian.
Now that doesn't mean he isn't a good historian, but he should at least provide very detailed support of blanket assertions he makes. But he doesn't. He attempts to make economic statements about schooling that even a high school student should be able to recognize has fatal flaws. He berates well developed statistics and science for which he has no training to give him a grounding from which to offer real criticism.
Huzzah for non-critical thinking.
Maybe that's why he was teacher of the year.
Why? Apple doesn't use BIOS.
Call it BIOS, call it bootstrap. Yes, they do.
By holding down a key when I boot, I can make my iBook pretend it's an external HD.
That should be your first hint.
BIOSes
Did you know there are exactly two major BIOS vendors out there? That there are no more than a hundred or so professional BIOS developers in the world? Yet there are more copies of BIOS software out there than Windows; everybody expects BIOS to support new whiz-bang features (boot from USB, PXE boot, boot device ordering, processor errata, microcode updates). There simply aren't enough people to make BIOS code look good. BIOS programming is hard - harder than writing a kernel. It's understaffed, and the code quality shows. You think BIOS vendors stick with BIOS because they want lock-in? Ha. How about they don't have enough people to create a replacement, they are too busy patching up last year's code with this year's features.
I'm going to pick on this one a little bit. You are mostly correct about BIOS though.
There are two major BIOS vendors out there, but they really do not do very much. For example Intel develops almost all of its BIOS in-house but they have licensed the base configuration from (think think) AMI(?) I'm not completely sure, but I know people there whose job it is to develop the BIOS for their boards. There are probably a couple hundred professional BIOS developers around because just about every board manufacturer has a team and every chipset manufacturer has a whole BIOS department.
Second, this Carla Schroder person has absolutely no clue what a modern BIOS does and is completely oblivious to the fact that there are several things the BIOS does that the OS has no opportunity to "ignore." We are all familiar with the hard drive detection issues that long ago led to OSes ignoring the geometry of the hard disk...
I can't tell you how many times I've had to muck with the linux kernel boot parameters because I installed on hdb but put the drive into a new system and now it comes up as hda but lilo believes root=/dev/hdb. Let's see your OS ignore the memory timings that BIOS selects. How about the bus clock speed? Was your USB hub not enabled in BIOS? Does your OS reconfigure the PCIe endpoints? I doubt it. What about re-choosing which cards get which interrupts? That might be possible on some cards, but for most of them that write can only reliably done once - during BIOS' PCI enumeration. There are many hardware things that if BIOS doesn't bringup or otherwise actively disables, the OS does not veto that decision.
The BIOS still performs a useful task. Regardless of what some clueless hack thinks.
I have found 7 albums so far in their inventory that I would like to buy. Unfortunately I didn't realize the cost was $7 + $3 S&H. That's kind of a big shipping premium there. Buying multiple CDs doesn't drop the shipping price one thin dime. I would much rather spend $7 on the mp3's and save $3 S&H. Had they done just that, I would be spending $50 there right now.
You realize, of course, you are seriously going against Slashdot groupthink here. Still, if I had mod points, I'd give you one. Macho programmers who think they are too awesomely skillful to screw up are the ones whose screwups always take me the most time to chase down.
Frankly if you can't look at a problem and then pull out five or six languages from your tool belt and evaluate which will be the best for this job, then you are a bad programmer. Don't code in C++ that which could easily be done in Python. Don't code in Python that which could easily be done in Bash. If you don't have a compelling argument for using C, DON'T USE IT!
Sometimes I think Java is awful for no other reason than companies tend to believe that using one language for other is a net gain. That has never been my experience except when your very best programmers aren't all that good either. If you insist that everything run on the Java runtime, use Jython and embed Python. A good example of multi-language gains can be seen with embedded Lua. There are many applications out there that use Lua "under the covers" so that things that do not have to be written in C++ aren't. This includes games (I believe WoW is one).
C++ yields superior performance and memory usage, than higher level languages, in the hands of a skilled C++ programmer
OMG! Newsflash: lower level languages more lean and efficient than higher level languages. News at 10!
Lower level languages take more time and skill than higher level languages, resulting in increased developer costs and longer time to market. News at 11!
If you were sane then you'd hide the whole business in a backpack or a small suitcase.
And if you weren't, your whole argument falls apart.
Now, how do the police protect themselves and others in the airport while determining whether or not this is a sane person with tech gadget or an insane person with a persecution complex?
Lets suppose that you have read my actual post and I never said any such thing.
You really need to read the thread better.
The "calculated response to reasonable suspicion" is a very humorous statement since the calculated response part is exactly what you call a red herring.
The red herring was your mention of hiding the device in an mp3 player and further mention of getting past security. 80% of your post focused on that situation.
But I'll wait to hear them before I condemn her.
Nobody is on trial here. Regardless of intent or trial, I think her judgment is very, very poor. However, we are discussing whether or not the response was reasonable given the device.
I'm arguing that a non-concealed, non-disguised, hastily constructed detonating device would look sufficiently similar. Furthermore the response, by all parties, was appropriate. The gate agent should have asked. The agent should have reported it when she did not respond (for whatever reason, including not hearing the question). The police should have used overwhelming force to take her into custody.
Note the inference that the jury might well give such weight, which danger is to be minimized as opposed to prohibited.
There is no way to "prohibit" this unless you can read each Jurors mind. I think some 4th amendment nutjob would disapprove of such an invasion of the Jurors right to privacy.
The inference is that Juries are only supposed to weigh facts in evidence, but since they are imperfect human beings they may use facts not in evidence to arrive at a conclusion. This needs to be minimized.
There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know you fancy yourself as smarter than the judiciary and the fact that the Constitution article III section 2 gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction for all cases tried is insignificant next to your formidable intelligence in all constitutional matters. But still, the Supreme Court interprets the fifth in such a way that lack of testimony may not be used as evidence and the Constitution we live by says their opinion counts, yours not so much.
Kudos to the Judge, who was clearly better versed in the law than you.
Okay, let's put it this way...
Suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger. Someone saw it and thought "aw, it's just some innocuous tech." When the dust settled, what would the official response be to the fact that someone saw it and did not do anything about it?
The fact that it could have been better hidden doesn't mean things that are not hidden should not be seen as a threat. If you were something vaguely looking like a triggering device in the airport, you damned well had better be ready to answer questions about it.
Now let's suppose she was intending to do damage with a hastily constructed bomb trigger, someone saw it, and reported it. Instead of surrounding her by police, one just walks up and says "hey that looks like it could be a bomb trigger" at which point it goes off and kills the officer. What would be the official response to that?
All these "It could easily have been..." arguements fail to address the actions results, does what they did make you safer? Have they used these techniques to actually stop someone from attempting that "easily been..." statement?
If you're implying someone could have concocted a sophisticated bomb that would have made it through, that's a red herring. The question here is: are you safer from nutcases with unsophisticated bombs looking for a grim public display to right some wrong they feel society in general has done to them. In this case, I believe I am safer with the police taking a very swift and calculated response to reasonable suspicion.
For 40 years airplanes and airports have been an excellent way to use violence to bring attention to your cause.
the training should be there as well to be able to distinguish between actual threats and innocuous tech.
I am willing to bet I could make a timer and triggering device for a plastic explosive out of similar looking components: an experimenters breadboard, 9v battery, and some small circuitry including a cap to create the energy necessary for the explosive.
I would NOT qualify what she had on as "innocuous tech." It could easily have been a hastily fashioned detonator made by someone with the same mental issues as the Va Tech shooter who is mad at the world and wants to make a big statement. The police did EXACTLY what I think should have been done.
Oh, she appreciates it. But doesn't wear it. When we had been dating for two years, I bought her a pair $600 of emerald earrings for her birthday (to date, the most expensive birthday present I have bought for her). They cost about $599 more than I had to spend at the time, but hey, it was love. So far I have paid $100 for each time she has worn them. I keep hoping she'll wear them again so that I can claim a 15% reduction in cost per wearing.
Lets be honest here, geek men will hire and even date a women that has no make up, wearing ugly, comfortable shoes, just because she is smart.
Yes, yes we would. It comes with one major drawback though... You have any idea how hard it is to buy a gift for a woman who doesn't wear jewelry or makeup? 15 years we've been together and it still takes me 2 weeks to find her a good xmas/birthday/anniversary present.
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
Yes. I really have a problem calling any part of this a "partial" victory. All he did was limit his losses.
Seems like he had an open-and-shut case. If what he says is true, he could have demanded a speedy bench trial and had the judge toss the case because the state statute supercedes the local one. He would not have had to call any family members to the stand if the case could be decided as a matter of law before the judge. It seems that even a free public defender could have handled this one. After that, the city's leverage would have been gone. He might also have a case for malicious prosecution, since they were using the prosecution of the case to leverage him to sign a deal.
I think the only reason for calling it a "victory" is to make the people who donated to his legal defense think they got something. In fact, they got absolutely nothing.
if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide.
Your post makes the baby 5th amendment cry.
They go and buy scosource licenses to keep the boat afloat until they can buy shares to cover their position.
That's not what he was implying. He was going to walk out with the police and be arrested and booked if they STOPPED ASSAULTING HIM.
I don't get that he was implying he'd walk out peaceably to be arrested, however that point is moot. He had moved himself beyond that option by resisting lawful arrest. You don't get to dictate terms once you start resisting.
they could have simply handcuffed him and dragged him out
I strongly disagree with that. The video clearly shows him struggling, reaching for the railing and hanging on. The "simple" procedure you refer to involves prying one hand off while holding another. As can be seen from the video, there was nothing simple about it. He was being quite forceful in resisting arrest.
because he was being loud because he didn't enjoy his beating
I did not see anyone beat him. I know you are being willfully free with your definitions, but 'beating' to the average person implies striking.
that's when they TORTURED him to "ensure compliance."
You really enjoy slinging that word around. It belittles the real suffering victims of torture have endured to call a single tazing by that word. I suggest you re-read how international law defines it. By your definition there there is a humanitarian crisis everyday at high schools all over the country - far more damage is done in schoolyard fights than was done here. Don't disrespect the people who have really been tortured by comparing it to this.
He said "Stop holding me down and I will walk out peacefully." That was about 15-25 seconds before they tazered him.
He was already being arrested for numerous offenses at that time. You don't get to walk out scot-free because you suddenly decide that if the police start acting according to your wishes, you will suddenly become an upstanding citizen.
We wouldn't be able to have public forums like this if everyone exercised their rights in this manner. He may not have liked that they ordered him to leave, but given the manner in which he entered the building, the loaded questions plied with accusations and his response to having his mic cut off (after asking 3 questions instead of one) I think they were well within his right to escort him from the building.
Once he resisted that escort and began yelling and screaming, he entered the "you can be taken into custody for disturbing the peace" realm.
You may wish to argue that "escort" doesn't mean taking his arm, but taking his arm to escort him out is not excessive use of force by the police.
And once they DID tazer him I heard a LOT of people yelling "STOP" at the cops.
Tazing is not all roses and gum drops. Some people will become upset by it. The footage I have seen the guy is continuously struggling to get his hands away from the cuffs (by grabbing the railing bars) and disobeying a lawful order to comply. The police do not have to expose themselves to the risk of getting this guy's elbow in their eye. They can use the taser to compel his compliance.
Thread two waits (x-d) before overwriting the buffer used to store the command (after the OS has checked it for validity, but before the OS has actually processed it)
Could someone explain this to me some more. In order for thread2 to write to buffer1, there must be a page table entry mapping buffer1's physical address into thread2's virtual address space.
Are the operating systems allowing thread2 to arbitrarily change its PTEs? That sounds like the problem right there.
Yep, they tried exactly this argument in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The Judge, one of those Bush-appointed whack-jobs, looked at the arguments from each side and concluded Intelligent Design was religion and furthermore it isn't science. Naturally, of course, the fundies accused him of legislating from the bench.
Okay, you're correct, but just because I'm feeling pedantic today I'd like to point something out:
the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases
The second law only predicts that in a closed system the entropy (the unusable energy in a system) increases. It says nothing about disorder. If you had a closed system that was nothing but carbon, the stuff that turned into a diamond would be highly ordered and would never become disordered. Thus entropy would increase but the system's order would sit still.
The 'disorder' or 'randomness' argument is generally discouraged because it has led to wholesale confusion that the YECs like to exploit. It takes energy to create order, sometimes it takes energy to maintain order. As entropy increases the energy available to create and/or maintain that order becomes less and less. That's where the disorder argument comes from. As you have correctly stated, we have a large source of energy that rises every morning here.
When you come to my site I do in fact get to dictate the rules.
No. You only get to dictate the rules the server lives by, not the client. One of those rules can be "I will not serve data to clients not viewing ads." That is not being contested. How you determine who is in compliance and who isn't is up to you, but the only methods that I envision working will also drive traffic away from your site. More to the point: not viewing ads is not theft.
If i believe certain clients are not getting me ads then I have every right on Earth to not serve them anything.
That is not a topic ripe for debate here. As my past postings have indicated, serving up nothing is an option you may fall back on. Making a charge of theft is not.
I don't care how their browser works so long as they generate income for me when they visit my site.
Again, it's your prerogative to want that, not your right.
You want to dictate what data is given to you and what is not.
No. I want to make clear that you have no authority to dictate how I will consume that data once you give it to me, except in that I do not violate your copyright.
The server operator also has the right to no give it to you then.
Haven't I said that already?
but I also can understand if a content provider blocks clients they suspect of blocking their ads.
Also not an issue for debate here. Refusing to do business with someone is always their prerogative so long as such refusal does not discriminate against a protected class.
It's a two way street. You don't have to ask for data and they don't have to give you data. You don't have a right to anything.
Not exactly true. The computer is my property. I have the right to change how it operates. When you send my computer information, it is my right to decide how the computer manipulates that data. If you don't like it, don't send out data. Or get a data-handling contract with everyone you do send out data to.
Your real problem is that you want to force how someones browser works in order to force the browser to display ads. It is your prerogative to want that, but not your right. There are alternatives, but you do not like them because they would decrease traffic. You don't get to dictate or change the rules of computing in order to support your business model. If you don't like the openness of the internet, go somewhere else. We don't owe you anything.