Are there passwords that are difficult to extend in legth?
And continue being easy to memorize (which is what I meant)? Absolutely. Obviously one can literally make any style password longer...
Memorize 10 characters of mixed case non-alphanumeric, numbers, etc. Completely random. Then extend to 20 completely random characters. 30. 40. It gets hard to remember!! Especially if you regularly deal with different passwords. I still remember a 14-character random password from a decade ago that I had to type most every day for months. On the otherhand I've already forgotten an equally long random password from a year or two ago that I only had to use infrequently. Given the rates at which most people a) pick weak passwords b) forget passwords, I think memorability is a VERY import factor.
If those 20,30,40, whatever characters have semantic -- and personally relevant -- meaning, it's a lot easier for people to memorize and not forget!
The most secure password in the world is useless if nobody remembers it:)
RTFM...it's a good bit more complicated. Along with being deprecated sometime before now, the password was not just "Chuck Norris" but bore some resemblance to Chuck Norris including non-alphanumeric, numbers, different cases, etc. Maybe Chuck Norris wasn't a great source word, but I highly doubt from the description in the article there was any danger.
I feel that overall, it's a pretty good way to come up with passwords. For instance, take your pets name and childhood phone number, replace some letters with symbols, mix them up in a memorable way and chances are you've got a pretty decent password.
Fido + 424-5566 could be
424@f1D0#5566
Maybe not a perfect password by randomness standards etc, but orders of magnitude better than MOST passwords. And, perhaps most importantly, memorable to the person who made it, and can easily be extended in length.
I copied my search from Google and pasted it into Bing. I got pretty much the same results
FWIW, just replaced "google" with "bing" in the URL (or vice versa) -- the rest of the URL layout remains the same for all the types of searches I've tried.
You're talking about physical modifications vs a dropdown box that is located immediately next to the search bar? Or the prompt that comes up when you install a new version of IE, that asks what search engine you want to use? I don't think that is remotely a fair comparison.
Let me put it this way--I would hazard a guess that just about anybody in the world who is tech savvy enough to know that there's a difference between bing and google is savy enough to use a dropdown box located right next to the search provider box, or to select google over bing during the install. Yes, for a complete newb who doesn't have a clue what google or bing is, they might not mess with defaults.
I tried bing for a solid 2 months. I didn't like it.
Is it really hard to change your browser in IE7/8? I would have said it was just as easy to change the search provider in IE as it is in Firefox. What makes you claim that it's "difficult to add or change this option" ??
I think part of the surprise is that there are a lot of WoW players who use macs. Probably many of them are not hardcore gamers and WoW was their first MMO. Thus when they want to branch out, they are surprised that all MMOs aren't available for mac.
Me, I'm surprised because there are so many mac users today (it's not like even 10 years) and I'm surprised that many companies wouldn't decide to port to Mac.
I'm not at all a fan of iTunes, but your post is totally full of false information!
Hard to find something that would burn CDs--sounds like you're talking about an all-in-one program? because it's built into the operating system. It's built into iTunes. The most famous and longlived 3rd party program is Toast. Can install commandline tools as well.
The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes! If you just want to play a media file once, use Quicktime/vlc/mplayer/Audion/etc. Secondly on this note, iTunes by no means compels you to either consolidate your files under its library or rename your existing files. The directory names are hardly cryptic??
I do, however, agree that losing vlc would be too bad, because I fount it usually worked better than mplayer on the Mac.
I'm not paranoid. Had I been a school administrator, I wouldn't have done shit about this. Maybe I would have e-mailed the dude and told him that no matter how cool his ex said she was, he should not come to her embalming class "just to practice."
You know, maybe the people who actually knew the woman were concerned because they actually knew the woman? As I said in a different post, nobody here knows the woman involved nor the teachers involved. But everybody is assuming that it is a stupid kneejerk response? Maybe the teachers believed based on past behavior that the woman was a threat?
I can understand that you didn't RTFA, but not even reading the summary?! Really?! From the top:
The 29-year-old mortuary science student...
Secondly, perhaps this is an example of stupid people with a knee jerk reaction, or perhaps these people who actually KNOW the woman in real life have a little more reason to be concerned? You and I know absolutely nothing about this woman or the teachers (beyond what's in the article...oh wait) and it's just so easy to make kneejerk reactions without knowing the facts.
And you started the issue of semantics, complaining about my use of the word "barked."
Please reread what I wrote (and what I again quoted to you). I noted it only in the context of acknowledging your bias in all of your posts.
How could they have been arresting him if they didn't arrest him? How can you resist arrest if the person dealing with you isn't arresting you?... So he's charged with resisting arrest, by choking someone, and was under arrest for resisting arrest before he resisted? What was the arrest he resisted?
Reread what I wrote, the answer to your question is there. (remember additionally when I gave you the google terms for "obstructing an officer" -- take another look)
The meaning of assault is absolutely important to whether he committed assault, and that you pretend the meanings of words are irrelevant seems absurd. It is all about semantics. 99% of law is semantics, and he's in the legal system so that's going to dominate this until the end of it.
On this ONE point you are actually correct. Semantics in the legal system are very important. I realize how what I wrote may have implied I did not believe that, so I want to clearly state my belief. I do, however, believe the semantics of "ask/told/ordered/barked" are irrelevant to the facts of this case.
Now since you brought up the importance of legal semantics, here's where you are again 100% wrong. You state: "What you did... isn't assault if you are trying to tap them on the shoulder for their attention.... But if you tried to grab their neck to cause them discomfort, then it's assault (whether or not you touch their neck or cause them any actual discomfort)."
This is just absolutely incorrect. Go read up on what "assault" is (and by comparison "battery") in the US. Google and Wikipedia and Bing all provide very good hits far at the top of list. It's not at all what you describe here.
I just don't get it. Why would a border agent, who was not searching the car and wasn't tasked with searching the car, need to detain someone who wasn't in their car so that a second agent, who was actually searching the car at this time, could work unimpeded?
Very simple. It's the rule. Why is it the rule? For a number of possible reasons. The safety of the border guards. For the safety of driver (don't want them to get hit in traffic!) etc. For purposes of expediency. So that the driver couldn't potentially be disposing of illegal goods/evidence. So that the car can quickly be moved out of the way if it needs to be. Etc. A national border crossing security is not the same as a public sidewalk or a park. It's much more akin to an airport security line. You don't get to make the rules. You may feel the rules are capricious and unjust, but they apply to anybody, and trying to make a political statement to a border guard will probably be about as succesful or meaningful as making a political statement to the TSA grunt baggage inspector.
And no, I wasn't "unsure" about the chemical weapon used. I couldn't find the one reference to it that had it in the timeline. Unfortunately, there are more hits now for searches and so the ones I wanted to find are getting harder to find. It clearly placed the spraying before the choking, but I can't find it at the moment to have you read it yourself.
That's ok, I haven't see that timeline either. Just curious if you had a link or statement that backed that up.
That always amuses me. So he was resisting detention that wasn't arrest, and resisted, so resisting detention is resisting arrest? Why is it detention if they want it to be a non-arrest, and arrest if you resist the non-arrest?
As we've already been over, I believe border agents DO have arrest authority, so they may (probably?) have been in the process of arresting Watts when he (allegedly) started to fight. I don't have a clear answer to this question. If you do, I'd be glad to read it. The border guards could of course have just been moving him to questioning.
You're again reducing this discussion to semantics of terms you like or dislike, so I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. The border agents might have been detaining him for a few minutes or they might have been arresting and detaining him. He (allegedly) fought and attacked a border agent, leading directly to charges being filed. I don't see evidence that had he not fought against the border agents, any charges at all would have been filed. Choking somebody--be it a border officer, a police officer, or your next door neighbor, is a crime. Thus the charges.
Bottom line--choking a border guard is choking a border guard. Resisting/obstructing a border guard is resisting/obstructing a border guard. It is what it is. Semantics of ask/told/ordered/barked or resisting arrest/obstructing/detaining are just that--semantics. Charges revolve around actions, not semantics.
Thanks for replying in a less antagonized tone. It makes it much easier to reply to points.
You missed it completely, again. You whined about my word choice when saying he "barked" an order.... The issue isn't what word I used or what word you used. It's that you are a hypocritical bastard that whines when I used the word "barked" regarding the order, and you then proceed to not use the proper word yourself.
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about the antagonistic part;-) What I wrote that you are referring back to is:
To start with, you are completely speculating (and showing your own bias with words like "bark") when you say no explanations were given
If that statement is really "whining" or "bashing" then so be it. I find those interpretations highly inaccurate to say the least. I've acknowledged my biases in almost every message in this thread (that I am suspicious of Watts' motives and version of events, but that I am withholding judgment until we learn more). Have you been equally forthcoming? If you count your ad homs against me, I guess you have.
The actual report wasn't given, but the police read aloud from it as it appears.
Correct, and I was unsure of when the pepper spray had been used. It appears that you are not sure either?
I guess my frustration comes from your apparent complete lack of understanding of the reports. He was handcuffed by the border agents. He was never arrested by the border agents.... You don't seem to ever acknowledge the point that HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED BY THE BORDER AGENTS
I will refer you back to one of my earlier messages in this thread:
Lastly, the border guards didn't put him in jail, they passed him into local police custody. Two discrete groups
Really? Does that really show a "complete lack of understanding?" You know when you go around throwing accusations that people you disagree with have no reading skills and aren't paying attention, it just makes you look really silly when you make statements like this.
Secondly, I don't think I've called the border agent detention (that's the word you're looking for btw) an "Arrest" anywhere, but I may have. I'm also not sure that the border guard WASN'T about to arrest him when he wouldn't get back in the car, but I would imagine they were just going to remove him so they could safely search the car. And lastly, completely regardless of whether or not the initial attempt handcuff was an arrest attempt or not, after Watts allegedly fought back (choked, etc) he was formally arrested.
I don't know a word for it. It's just like an arrest, but without the legal protections and rights that immediately come with an arrest.
Detained. You can be detained without being arrested, though I believe border agents have arrest authority as well. There are legal limits on being detained without being arrested as well, so I'm not sure why you believe there are not "legal protections and rights" -- can you answer that question?
OK. You win. I give up. You can't even read your own posts. You said they "asked" him back. They never asked. He asked a question of them. They ignored his question and ordered him back to the car. You softened the "do this or we'll beat you" order into a "when you have a minute, would you mind heading back to the car" ask. But that word choice isn't the issue. It's that you don't even have any clue what you write. That you don't read what anyone else writes. That you have made up your mind and closed it so tight you aren't even reading for comprehension anymore, just to find point so spout off about. There is no discussion if your mind is closed, and you have proven it locked and the key is gone.
Ok, I'm sorry if maybe English isn't your first language, but I really am having trouble following what you are trying to say in some places. I'm trying to answer each of your questions as they come up, but it's difficult to address them all as each of your replies is like 10 paragraphs long. I'll be brief here:
They never asked.
I think from this last post of yours I've gleaned that what you're arguing about is the semantic value of ask/told/ordered? Is that correct? I don't know, and it's not a point I care one iota about arguing. The fact is that the border guard did ask/tell/order Watts to get back in the car and he ignored the border guards. That's what matters. ALL parties agree on these facts, border guard and Watts.
I don't know the proper word for police touching someone with the intent to restrain them. They didn't restrain him, or he couldn't have fought back successfully enough to "choke" one of them. They touched him an a manner he found objectionable, so they assaulted him, but that word also has legal definitions you'd disagree with. He was standing still. The officers approached him and were the first to touch him. What would you call that touch? An attack? An assault? A restraining?
Ok, again here, you explaining that you don't know the definition of the word helps clarify how we were talking past each other. If a policeman says "you are under arrest" (or some variant thereof) and starts to handcuff you, that would not be called an "attack." You would not say "The policeman attacked the man by handcuffing him" unless there was something additional going on (such as a ongoing struggle, etc). For the police to "attack" Watts by merely handcuffing him, he would have had to be struggling already, which I don't think anybody is alleging? Are we agreed on these points?
In all accounts given, the officers got physical first. In the officers account, they attempted the cuffing, then sprayed him with pepper spray, then, after that, he choked someone. But he didn't get physical first. There is no account that has him getting physical first. Not one, not under any interpretation.
Do you have a timeline that shows cuffing->pepper spray->choking? I haven't seen that anywhere, I'd be glad to see the link though. As I explained in the last paragraph, police apprehending someone or handcuffing someone would not be called "attacking." If the police tried to handcuff somebody and that somebody resists (eg Watts) then THAT person is the first person to be violent, not the police. Makes sense?
Also note, if the police kicked Watts before doing anything else and then tried to handcuff him for the first time, that's a very different situation. That WOULD be a situation where the police initiated violence. If Watts' did not resist handcuffing and the police randomly decided to punch/kick/pepperspray him, THAT would be the police initiating violence. That's not what the police claim here.
Both accounts agree, he was standing still, touching no one when the officers approached him and initiated "getting physical." Do you really not get that? Are you really so obtuse and unable to read? But then, you can't even read your own posts, so why would I assume you r
Deep breath. Read slowly. The pot calling the kettle black means that the pot is black. You attacked my bias and pointed to a word choice that was factually acceptable but with color, and you did the exact same thing.
Ok, I absolutely disagree with you here and think you are wrong. The most biased word you have been able to accuse me of using is "ordered." I find that laughable.
"(ie, refusing to follow instructions at the border crossing security zone)" was not in the article. There was nothing stated about what the obstructing was.
Oh, I see why you were confused on that point--that's what obstructing is, it's the definition of the term. My guess is the resisting arrest is ALSO included in the obstructing.
I'm not sure why you bring up one of the last events (given the order things were read out of the report, the choking was after he had been struck and sprayed, not before) as if it has some relevance to how things got to that point.
It's absolutely relevant. For instance, had Watts calmly gotten back in the car, nothing would have happened. Had Watts not gotten physical and tried to choke one of the guards, chances are he would have been in and out for just a few minutes. Calm rational people who are not out looking for a fight don't typically go from being perfectly reasonable to fighting and choking a law enforcement officer (who as you have pointed out, is well armed!). THAT'S why this entire thing is suspicious to me. Read anything Watts has written. He's out to make a political point here, and all his claims of being "half naked" (defined) as well as his profanity laced and meandering accounts of the incident do not inspire me with any confidence in his story. Again (5x!) maybe he's 100% telling the truth. We'll see.
At the very least, there should be retraining regarding orders to people for them to stay in their car, because no report ever says he was told to stay in it.
This is just so disingenuous. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you get out of your car and start demanding answers of the officer (ie, asking questions repeatedly and not responding to the officer, as Watts has acknowledged he did)?
I, not knowing anyone involved, chose to take the stance of believing both sides, and looking for things that reconcile them. There are no direct contradictions. The official report released so far indicates the officers escalated a peaceful situation to one of violence without provocation. In no version did anyone ever answer his question.
When are at a national border crossing security zone, you are not the one in control. You don't make the rules, and you don't set the conditions. The border guard line is that they dealt with a non-cooperative person who was breaking rules and not responding. They dealt with this by attempting to handcuff and remove him. That is a violent act only insofar as any police use of force is a violent action. Remember, the state has a monopoly of violent force--that's part of any and every state! When faced with the use of force to detain him, Watts (allegedly!) fought and choked an officer. Make sense?
Your allegation that the police "attacked" him is not one I understand, unless you are talking about the police escalating force AFTER he got physical?
You are showing your bias. You added the bit about obstructing being refusal to follow instructions.
Not sure what you're trying to claim re: obstructing? It's listed as a charge in the article. Secondly, are you seriously trying to claim that "ordered back into the vehicle" is biased while "barking" is not? There's not simpler or less biased why of saying "a police officer told somebody to do something" than saying "ordered."
There is *nothing* in the officers report that indicates he got physical before he was attacked by the officers. If there was something physical before they moved in to handcuff him, wouldn't you think it would make the report?
Please reread what I said -- the part you quoted:
If Watts was acting belligerent, picked a fight and got physical, then I will have absolutely zero sympathy for him.
"acting belligerent" = Watts allegedly getting out of the car "angrily." "picked a fight" = Watts choosing to not follow instructions while break the rules by exiting and staying out of his vehicle. "got physical" = allegedly resisting arrest and choking an officer
That's it.
When do they get to arrest someone? I'm not sure the term, but if you handcuff someone and put them in a holding room while you search their car, isn't that an arrest? And at the point they moved in to arrest him, there is nothing that they said he did, other than ask questions and not get in his car fast enough. After they started the arrest, he tried to back away and called that aggressive.
Yes, if somebody is not following the rules and orders of the border guard at a BORDER CROSSING SECURITY ZONE, then yes, they should be forcibly removed. If they fight back and choke a border guard, they should be arrested.
As I've repeatedly said--I am skeptical of Watts version of events, and highly look forward to an official report.
Hmm, that's a lot of ad hominems and anger in response to a post that was completely correct!
As the GP said, the reason Kindle/Nook are allowed free access to the cell networks is because Amazon and B&N reached an agreement with the cell networks to provide a certain level of service at a certain cost point. I don't think either Amazon or B&N whoever are currently interested in making the Kindle or Nook general purpose computers with tiered pricing schemes, etc, and I'm absolutely certain that the terms of the deals they reached with e.g. Verizon would be VERY different if this was the model they were pushing. In other words, it would completely change the cost structure of the Kindle and Nook for the consumer.
The products are locked down so that this doesn't happen. Do I like it? No. I also don't plan on getting a Kindle or Nook. It's silly to believe that fundamentally changing the nature of the Kindle or Nook wouldn't fundamentally change the price structures involved (and probably making it less attractive to many consumers)
If the devices were open to begin with, they'd be a lot more expensive.
From the official report, he received one order, no warnings, then was handcuffed (or they tried to). There is nothing in the report to indicate he was warned even once
It's definitely possible that you are correct here, though that is not my interpretation of the article. I'm guessing he was warned.
But instead of ever answering a single question, they barked orders. Instead of explaining what was going on, they handcuffed him. Instead of calming the situation down, they attacked him, gassed him, and beat him (by their own account) and after all that, "Jones said Watts "choked" an officer during the struggle." His crime was asking why he was being singled out for a stop when no one else was. For that, they beat him, gassed him, and threw him in jail.
I think this is where your representation starts becoming problematic. To start with, you are completely speculating (and showing your own bias with words like "bark") when you say no explanations were given nor did the officers fail to answer a single question. Pure speculation. When you say "they attacked" him--this is not what the report says. It's what Doctorow and Watts say, but not the police. Again, given the rarity with which stories like this (and in general police beating stories occur) and the seriousness with which they are treated, I find it VERY difficult to believe events played out like you (or Watts!) claim. Things just don't typically happen in this fashion.
His crime was asking why he was being singled out for a stop when no one else was. For that, they beat him, gassed him, and threw him in jail.
Technically you're wrong here--he's being charged with assault and resisting arrest (ie, where he allegedly fought the officers and attempted to choke on) and obstructing (ie, refusing to follow instructions at the border crossing security zone). Lastly, the border guards didn't put him in jail, they passed him into local police custody. Two discrete groups as I understand it.
Again, I agree with you that we won't know all the facts until (or if) video is released. You're possibly right that the border control could have acted with less force. I am not convinced of this. Pepper spray ("gassed" as you claimed) for instance is use to incapacitate non-violently so that nobody gets hurt in a struggle. Watts could be the nicest least violent person in the world, but unfortunately the border guard couldn't know that in advance. If he did start getting physical with the guards and try to choke one, I imagine there are rules they have to follow.
Honestly, reading Watts (profanity laced!) pseudo-account of events makes me seriously doubt his side of the story, but I'll wait for more definitive evidence as at this point it's just two different groups claiming wildly different things.
If Watts story is totally true, I will join you 100% in condemning the guards calling for some serious changes in training and policy. If Watts was acting belligerent, picked a fight and got physical, then I will have absolutely zero sympathy for him.
Sure, there you go. I was perhaps wrong about the "repeatedly refused" -- the article does just say that he refused to listen to the border patrol. That and the allegation that Watts CHOKED a border office are from the police report, according to the above article, so yeah, it is a little different from what Doctorow and Watts have claimed.
Since it doesn't appear you were familiar with that same information, I think it makes the rest of your post need some reassessing.
He wasn't arrested until he asked questions of authority
No, he wasn't arrested until after he yelled at the officers, refused to listen to them, got physical and ultimately choked one of them (according to the police report at least).
The non-ideal situation is that the US is so screwed up that we not only expect such Gestapo tactics, but defend them.
Abuse of authority should never be tolerated--I haven't yet seen it here. Let's get an investigation, gets the facts, and see what comes out of it. I personally think it's equally screwed up that so many people are defending someone who allegedly CHOKED a border officer.
I would love to have been there to see what actually happened.
You can't make a political statement to anyone other than the grunts.
Nonsense.
Secondly, might help for you to read other things I wrote before you claim I say and believe things I don't.
Quote:
In situations like this, I think it ultimately boils down to the following: cops, soldiers, LEOs of all stripes, border agents, etc are all human. They get scared and nervous just like everybody else does. Yes, they are supposed to be trained to act properly in high stress situations which is exactly why stories like this (or other police shootings, etc) are so rare and so shocking. When people do unexpected things or act unpredictably (for instance, not following orders in a controlled zone) things can rapidly escalate as the officers become nervous. This is not an excuse by any means, but I think it help explains why when things go wrong they tend to rapidly escalate.
I have yet to see anybody, anywhere, EVER claim that "cops are the angels of protection that are infallible." Cops, LEOs, etc are just as fallible as everybody else--this is exactly the point. When you put people in potentially dangerous situations, situations where there are strict rules of conduct and then people do unexpected, aggressive things, the situation can rapidly escalate.
For instance, it's claimed that Watt repeatedly refused to get back in his car, exchanged angry words, got physical and ultimately attempted to choke a border agent. I hope you can see how this is a non-ideal situation?
No, but that's not what we're talking about. There's no political statement here. This guy was beaten to within an inch of his life for doing something that shouldn't be a problem. We're not talking about officers that restrained a guy trying to do something illegal to make a statement. We're talking about power hungry abusive assholes beating an innocent man in a customs line.
Where's the link to all of this information? "Beaten to within an inch of his life" and for doing "something that shouldn't be a problem"? Where exactly are you getting this information.
As I've said multiple times, the facts are not yet know. What DOES seem absolutely apparent is that Doctorow is very politically minded and this guy seems to be as well (read today's profanity-laced update).
Alternatively you could try checking other news source's than Watts' friend's blog.
Border officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, officers attempted to handcuff him, Jones said. At that point, Watts began to resist and pull away from the officers "and became aggressive toward officers," Jones said.
Jones said a border officer used pepper spray to subdue Watts. Jones said Watts "choked" an officer during the struggle.
Jones said Port Huron police were called to the scene after the scuffle and took Watts into custody.
A little bit different.
I'll refrain judgement before saying such ludicrous things as "We're talking about power hungry abusive assholes beating an innocent man in a customs line" when you obviously can't even be bothered to conceive that something else could be going on (or have bothered to actually read other articles).
Slashdot Mirror
You can download the SDK for free.
Are there passwords that are difficult to extend in legth?
And continue being easy to memorize (which is what I meant)? Absolutely. Obviously one can literally make any style password longer...
Memorize 10 characters of mixed case non-alphanumeric, numbers, etc. Completely random. Then extend to 20 completely random characters. 30. 40. It gets hard to remember!! Especially if you regularly deal with different passwords. I still remember a 14-character random password from a decade ago that I had to type most every day for months. On the otherhand I've already forgotten an equally long random password from a year or two ago that I only had to use infrequently. Given the rates at which most people a) pick weak passwords b) forget passwords, I think memorability is a VERY import factor.
If those 20,30,40, whatever characters have semantic -- and personally relevant -- meaning, it's a lot easier for people to memorize and not forget!
The most secure password in the world is useless if nobody remembers it :)
RTFM...it's a good bit more complicated. Along with being deprecated sometime before now, the password was not just "Chuck Norris" but bore some resemblance to Chuck Norris including non-alphanumeric, numbers, different cases, etc. Maybe Chuck Norris wasn't a great source word, but I highly doubt from the description in the article there was any danger.
I feel that overall, it's a pretty good way to come up with passwords. For instance, take your pets name and childhood phone number, replace some letters with symbols, mix them up in a memorable way and chances are you've got a pretty decent password.
Fido + 424-5566 could be
424@f1D0#5566
Maybe not a perfect password by randomness standards etc, but orders of magnitude better than MOST passwords. And, perhaps most importantly, memorable to the person who made it, and can easily be extended in length.
and just to annoy Microsoft I search for "google chrome" using Bing (you would be amazed at the variety of responses :-)
Such as?
+1
I copied my search from Google and pasted it into Bing. I got pretty much the same results
FWIW, just replaced "google" with "bing" in the URL (or vice versa) -- the rest of the URL layout remains the same for all the types of searches I've tried.
You're talking about physical modifications vs a dropdown box that is located immediately next to the search bar? Or the prompt that comes up when you install a new version of IE, that asks what search engine you want to use? I don't think that is remotely a fair comparison.
Let me put it this way--I would hazard a guess that just about anybody in the world who is tech savvy enough to know that there's a difference between bing and google is savy enough to use a dropdown box located right next to the search provider box, or to select google over bing during the install. Yes, for a complete newb who doesn't have a clue what google or bing is, they might not mess with defaults.
I tried bing for a solid 2 months. I didn't like it.
Is it really hard to change your browser in IE7/8? I would have said it was just as easy to change the search provider in IE as it is in Firefox. What makes you claim that it's "difficult to add or change this option" ??
+1
It's not everyday you see Andromeda references on slashdot!
I think part of the surprise is that there are a lot of WoW players who use macs. Probably many of them are not hardcore gamers and WoW was their first MMO. Thus when they want to branch out, they are surprised that all MMOs aren't available for mac.
Me, I'm surprised because there are so many mac users today (it's not like even 10 years) and I'm surprised that many companies wouldn't decide to port to Mac.
Less surprised about linux...
I'm not at all a fan of iTunes, but your post is totally full of false information!
Hard to find something that would burn CDs--sounds like you're talking about an all-in-one program? because it's built into the operating system. It's built into iTunes. The most famous and longlived 3rd party program is Toast. Can install commandline tools as well.
The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes! If you just want to play a media file once, use Quicktime/vlc/mplayer/Audion/etc. Secondly on this note, iTunes by no means compels you to either consolidate your files under its library or rename your existing files. The directory names are hardly cryptic??
I do, however, agree that losing vlc would be too bad, because I fount it usually worked better than mplayer on the Mac.
Yeah, it doesn't invalidate your argument. Maybe the people here did the right thing, maybe they were hyper-paranoid freakouts. I dunno!
I'm not paranoid. Had I been a school administrator, I wouldn't have done shit about this. Maybe I would have e-mailed the dude and told him that no matter how cool his ex said she was, he should not come to her embalming class "just to practice."
You know, maybe the people who actually knew the woman were concerned because they actually knew the woman? As I said in a different post, nobody here knows the woman involved nor the teachers involved. But everybody is assuming that it is a stupid kneejerk response? Maybe the teachers believed based on past behavior that the woman was a threat?
I can understand that you didn't RTFA, but not even reading the summary?! Really?! From the top:
The 29-year-old mortuary science student ...
Secondly, perhaps this is an example of stupid people with a knee jerk reaction, or perhaps these people who actually KNOW the woman in real life have a little more reason to be concerned? You and I know absolutely nothing about this woman or the teachers (beyond what's in the article...oh wait) and it's just so easy to make kneejerk reactions without knowing the facts.
And you started the issue of semantics, complaining about my use of the word "barked."
Please reread what I wrote (and what I again quoted to you). I noted it only in the context of acknowledging your bias in all of your posts.
How could they have been arresting him if they didn't arrest him? How can you resist arrest if the person dealing with you isn't arresting you? ... So he's charged with resisting arrest, by choking someone, and was under arrest for resisting arrest before he resisted? What was the arrest he resisted?
Reread what I wrote, the answer to your question is there. (remember additionally when I gave you the google terms for "obstructing an officer" -- take another look)
The meaning of assault is absolutely important to whether he committed assault, and that you pretend the meanings of words are irrelevant seems absurd. It is all about semantics. 99% of law is semantics, and he's in the legal system so that's going to dominate this until the end of it.
On this ONE point you are actually correct. Semantics in the legal system are very important. I realize how what I wrote may have implied I did not believe that, so I want to clearly state my belief. I do, however, believe the semantics of "ask/told/ordered/barked" are irrelevant to the facts of this case.
Now since you brought up the importance of legal semantics, here's where you are again 100% wrong. You state: "What you did ... isn't assault if you are trying to tap them on the shoulder for their attention.... But if you tried to grab their neck to cause them discomfort, then it's assault (whether or not you touch their neck or cause them any actual discomfort)."
This is just absolutely incorrect. Go read up on what "assault" is (and by comparison "battery") in the US. Google and Wikipedia and Bing all provide very good hits far at the top of list. It's not at all what you describe here.
I just don't get it. Why would a border agent, who was not searching the car and wasn't tasked with searching the car, need to detain someone who wasn't in their car so that a second agent, who was actually searching the car at this time, could work unimpeded?
Very simple. It's the rule. Why is it the rule? For a number of possible reasons. The safety of the border guards. For the safety of driver (don't want them to get hit in traffic!) etc. For purposes of expediency. So that the driver couldn't potentially be disposing of illegal goods/evidence. So that the car can quickly be moved out of the way if it needs to be. Etc. A national border crossing security is not the same as a public sidewalk or a park. It's much more akin to an airport security line. You don't get to make the rules. You may feel the rules are capricious and unjust, but they apply to anybody, and trying to make a political statement to a border guard will probably be about as succesful or meaningful as making a political statement to the TSA grunt baggage inspector.
And no, I wasn't "unsure" about the chemical weapon used. I couldn't find the one reference to it that had it in the timeline. Unfortunately, there are more hits now for searches and so the ones I wanted to find are getting harder to find. It clearly placed the spraying before the choking, but I can't find it at the moment to have you read it yourself.
That's ok, I haven't see that timeline either. Just curious if you had a link or statement that backed that up.
That always amuses me. So he was resisting detention that wasn't arrest, and resisted, so resisting detention is resisting arrest? Why is it detention if they want it to be a non-arrest, and arrest if you resist the non-arrest?
As we've already been over, I believe border agents DO have arrest authority, so they may (probably?) have been in the process of arresting Watts when he (allegedly) started to fight. I don't have a clear answer to this question. If you do, I'd be glad to read it. The border guards could of course have just been moving him to questioning.
You're again reducing this discussion to semantics of terms you like or dislike, so I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. The border agents might have been detaining him for a few minutes or they might have been arresting and detaining him. He (allegedly) fought and attacked a border agent, leading directly to charges being filed. I don't see evidence that had he not fought against the border agents, any charges at all would have been filed. Choking somebody--be it a border officer, a police officer, or your next door neighbor, is a crime. Thus the charges.
Bottom line--choking a border guard is choking a border guard. Resisting/obstructing a border guard is resisting/obstructing a border guard. It is what it is. Semantics of ask/told/ordered/barked or resisting arrest/obstructing/detaining are just that--semantics. Charges revolve around actions, not semantics.
Thanks for replying in a less antagonized tone. It makes it much easier to reply to points.
You missed it completely, again. You whined about my word choice when saying he "barked" an order. ... The issue isn't what word I used or what word you used. It's that you are a hypocritical bastard that whines when I used the word "barked" regarding the order, and you then proceed to not use the proper word yourself.
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about the antagonistic part ;-) What I wrote that you are referring back to is:
To start with, you are completely speculating (and showing your own bias with words like "bark") when you say no explanations were given
If that statement is really "whining" or "bashing" then so be it. I find those interpretations highly inaccurate to say the least. I've acknowledged my biases in almost every message in this thread (that I am suspicious of Watts' motives and version of events, but that I am withholding judgment until we learn more). Have you been equally forthcoming? If you count your ad homs against me, I guess you have.
The actual report wasn't given, but the police read aloud from it as it appears.
Correct, and I was unsure of when the pepper spray had been used. It appears that you are not sure either?
I guess my frustration comes from your apparent complete lack of understanding of the reports. He was handcuffed by the border agents. He was never arrested by the border agents. ... You don't seem to ever acknowledge the point that HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED BY THE BORDER AGENTS
I will refer you back to one of my earlier messages in this thread:
Lastly, the border guards didn't put him in jail, they passed him into local police custody. Two discrete groups
Really? Does that really show a "complete lack of understanding?" You know when you go around throwing accusations that people you disagree with have no reading skills and aren't paying attention, it just makes you look really silly when you make statements like this.
Secondly, I don't think I've called the border agent detention (that's the word you're looking for btw) an "Arrest" anywhere, but I may have. I'm also not sure that the border guard WASN'T about to arrest him when he wouldn't get back in the car, but I would imagine they were just going to remove him so they could safely search the car. And lastly, completely regardless of whether or not the initial attempt handcuff was an arrest attempt or not, after Watts allegedly fought back (choked, etc) he was formally arrested.
I don't know a word for it. It's just like an arrest, but without the legal protections and rights that immediately come with an arrest.
Detained. You can be detained without being arrested, though I believe border agents have arrest authority as well. There are legal limits on being detained without being arrested as well, so I'm not sure why you believe there are not "legal protections and rights" -- can you answer that question?
OK. You win. I give up. You can't even read your own posts. You said they "asked" him back. They never asked. He asked a question of them. They ignored his question and ordered him back to the car. You softened the "do this or we'll beat you" order into a "when you have a minute, would you mind heading back to the car" ask. But that word choice isn't the issue. It's that you don't even have any clue what you write. That you don't read what anyone else writes. That you have made up your mind and closed it so tight you aren't even reading for comprehension anymore, just to find point so spout off about. There is no discussion if your mind is closed, and you have proven it locked and the key is gone.
Ok, I'm sorry if maybe English isn't your first language, but I really am having trouble following what you are trying to say in some places. I'm trying to answer each of your questions as they come up, but it's difficult to address them all as each of your replies is like 10 paragraphs long. I'll be brief here:
They never asked.
I think from this last post of yours I've gleaned that what you're arguing about is the semantic value of ask/told/ordered? Is that correct? I don't know, and it's not a point I care one iota about arguing. The fact is that the border guard did ask/tell/order Watts to get back in the car and he ignored the border guards. That's what matters. ALL parties agree on these facts, border guard and Watts.
I don't know the proper word for police touching someone with the intent to restrain them. They didn't restrain him, or he couldn't have fought back successfully enough to "choke" one of them. They touched him an a manner he found objectionable, so they assaulted him, but that word also has legal definitions you'd disagree with. He was standing still. The officers approached him and were the first to touch him. What would you call that touch? An attack? An assault? A restraining?
Ok, again here, you explaining that you don't know the definition of the word helps clarify how we were talking past each other. If a policeman says "you are under arrest" (or some variant thereof) and starts to handcuff you, that would not be called an "attack." You would not say "The policeman attacked the man by handcuffing him" unless there was something additional going on (such as a ongoing struggle, etc). For the police to "attack" Watts by merely handcuffing him, he would have had to be struggling already, which I don't think anybody is alleging? Are we agreed on these points?
In all accounts given, the officers got physical first. In the officers account, they attempted the cuffing, then sprayed him with pepper spray, then, after that, he choked someone. But he didn't get physical first. There is no account that has him getting physical first. Not one, not under any interpretation.
Do you have a timeline that shows cuffing->pepper spray->choking? I haven't seen that anywhere, I'd be glad to see the link though. As I explained in the last paragraph, police apprehending someone or handcuffing someone would not be called "attacking." If the police tried to handcuff somebody and that somebody resists (eg Watts) then THAT person is the first person to be violent, not the police. Makes sense?
Also note, if the police kicked Watts before doing anything else and then tried to handcuff him for the first time, that's a very different situation. That WOULD be a situation where the police initiated violence. If Watts' did not resist handcuffing and the police randomly decided to punch/kick/pepperspray him, THAT would be the police initiating violence. That's not what the police claim here.
Both accounts agree, he was standing still, touching no one when the officers approached him and initiated "getting physical." Do you really not get that? Are you really so obtuse and unable to read? But then, you can't even read your own posts, so why would I assume you r
Deep breath. Read slowly. The pot calling the kettle black means that the pot is black. You attacked my bias and pointed to a word choice that was factually acceptable but with color, and you did the exact same thing.
Ok, I absolutely disagree with you here and think you are wrong. The most biased word you have been able to accuse me of using is "ordered." I find that laughable.
"(ie, refusing to follow instructions at the border crossing security zone)" was not in the article. There was nothing stated about what the obstructing was.
Oh, I see why you were confused on that point--that's what obstructing is, it's the definition of the term. My guess is the resisting arrest is ALSO included in the obstructing.
I'm not sure why you bring up one of the last events (given the order things were read out of the report, the choking was after he had been struck and sprayed, not before) as if it has some relevance to how things got to that point.
It's absolutely relevant. For instance, had Watts calmly gotten back in the car, nothing would have happened. Had Watts not gotten physical and tried to choke one of the guards, chances are he would have been in and out for just a few minutes. Calm rational people who are not out looking for a fight don't typically go from being perfectly reasonable to fighting and choking a law enforcement officer (who as you have pointed out, is well armed!). THAT'S why this entire thing is suspicious to me. Read anything Watts has written. He's out to make a political point here, and all his claims of being "half naked" (defined) as well as his profanity laced and meandering accounts of the incident do not inspire me with any confidence in his story. Again (5x!) maybe he's 100% telling the truth. We'll see.
At the very least, there should be retraining regarding orders to people for them to stay in their car, because no report ever says he was told to stay in it.
This is just so disingenuous. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Did you get out of your car and start demanding answers of the officer (ie, asking questions repeatedly and not responding to the officer, as Watts has acknowledged he did)?
I, not knowing anyone involved, chose to take the stance of believing both sides, and looking for things that reconcile them. There are no direct contradictions. The official report released so far indicates the officers escalated a peaceful situation to one of violence without provocation. In no version did anyone ever answer his question.
When are at a national border crossing security zone, you are not the one in control. You don't make the rules, and you don't set the conditions. The border guard line is that they dealt with a non-cooperative person who was breaking rules and not responding. They dealt with this by attempting to handcuff and remove him. That is a violent act only insofar as any police use of force is a violent action. Remember, the state has a monopoly of violent force--that's part of any and every state! When faced with the use of force to detain him, Watts (allegedly!) fought and choked an officer. Make sense?
Your allegation that the police "attacked" him is not one I understand, unless you are talking about the police escalating force AFTER he got physical?
You are showing your bias. You added the bit about obstructing being refusal to follow instructions.
Not sure what you're trying to claim re: obstructing? It's listed as a charge in the article. Secondly, are you seriously trying to claim that "ordered back into the vehicle" is biased while "barking" is not? There's not simpler or less biased why of saying "a police officer told somebody to do something" than saying "ordered."
There is *nothing* in the officers report that indicates he got physical before he was attacked by the officers. If there was something physical before they moved in to handcuff him, wouldn't you think it would make the report?
Please reread what I said -- the part you quoted:
If Watts was acting belligerent, picked a fight and got physical, then I will have absolutely zero sympathy for him.
"acting belligerent" = Watts allegedly getting out of the car "angrily."
"picked a fight" = Watts choosing to not follow instructions while break the rules by exiting and staying out of his vehicle.
"got physical" = allegedly resisting arrest and choking an officer
That's it.
When do they get to arrest someone? I'm not sure the term, but if you handcuff someone and put them in a holding room while you search their car, isn't that an arrest? And at the point they moved in to arrest him, there is nothing that they said he did, other than ask questions and not get in his car fast enough. After they started the arrest, he tried to back away and called that aggressive.
Yes, if somebody is not following the rules and orders of the border guard at a BORDER CROSSING SECURITY ZONE, then yes, they should be forcibly removed. If they fight back and choke a border guard, they should be arrested.
As I've repeatedly said--I am skeptical of Watts version of events, and highly look forward to an official report.
Hmm, that's a lot of ad hominems and anger in response to a post that was completely correct!
As the GP said, the reason Kindle/Nook are allowed free access to the cell networks is because Amazon and B&N reached an agreement with the cell networks to provide a certain level of service at a certain cost point. I don't think either Amazon or B&N whoever are currently interested in making the Kindle or Nook general purpose computers with tiered pricing schemes, etc, and I'm absolutely certain that the terms of the deals they reached with e.g. Verizon would be VERY different if this was the model they were pushing. In other words, it would completely change the cost structure of the Kindle and Nook for the consumer.
The products are locked down so that this doesn't happen. Do I like it? No. I also don't plan on getting a Kindle or Nook. It's silly to believe that fundamentally changing the nature of the Kindle or Nook wouldn't fundamentally change the price structures involved (and probably making it less attractive to many consumers)
If the devices were open to begin with, they'd be a lot more expensive.
From the official report, he received one order, no warnings, then was handcuffed (or they tried to). There is nothing in the report to indicate he was warned even once
It's definitely possible that you are correct here, though that is not my interpretation of the article. I'm guessing he was warned.
But instead of ever answering a single question, they barked orders. Instead of explaining what was going on, they handcuffed him. Instead of calming the situation down, they attacked him, gassed him, and beat him (by their own account) and after all that, "Jones said Watts "choked" an officer during the struggle." His crime was asking why he was being singled out for a stop when no one else was. For that, they beat him, gassed him, and threw him in jail.
I think this is where your representation starts becoming problematic. To start with, you are completely speculating (and showing your own bias with words like "bark") when you say no explanations were given nor did the officers fail to answer a single question. Pure speculation. When you say "they attacked" him--this is not what the report says. It's what Doctorow and Watts say, but not the police. Again, given the rarity with which stories like this (and in general police beating stories occur) and the seriousness with which they are treated, I find it VERY difficult to believe events played out like you (or Watts!) claim. Things just don't typically happen in this fashion.
His crime was asking why he was being singled out for a stop when no one else was. For that, they beat him, gassed him, and threw him in jail.
Technically you're wrong here--he's being charged with assault and resisting arrest (ie, where he allegedly fought the officers and attempted to choke on) and obstructing (ie, refusing to follow instructions at the border crossing security zone). Lastly, the border guards didn't put him in jail, they passed him into local police custody. Two discrete groups as I understand it.
Again, I agree with you that we won't know all the facts until (or if) video is released. You're possibly right that the border control could have acted with less force. I am not convinced of this. Pepper spray ("gassed" as you claimed) for instance is use to incapacitate non-violently so that nobody gets hurt in a struggle. Watts could be the nicest least violent person in the world, but unfortunately the border guard couldn't know that in advance. If he did start getting physical with the guards and try to choke one, I imagine there are rules they have to follow.
Honestly, reading Watts (profanity laced!) pseudo-account of events makes me seriously doubt his side of the story, but I'll wait for more definitive evidence as at this point it's just two different groups claiming wildly different things.
If Watts story is totally true, I will join you 100% in condemning the guards calling for some serious changes in training and policy. If Watts was acting belligerent, picked a fight and got physical, then I will have absolutely zero sympathy for him.
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge
Sure, there you go. I was perhaps wrong about the "repeatedly refused" -- the article does just say that he refused to listen to the border patrol. That and the allegation that Watts CHOKED a border office are from the police report, according to the above article, so yeah, it is a little different from what Doctorow and Watts have claimed.
Since it doesn't appear you were familiar with that same information, I think it makes the rest of your post need some reassessing.
He wasn't arrested until he asked questions of authority
No, he wasn't arrested until after he yelled at the officers, refused to listen to them, got physical and ultimately choked one of them (according to the police report at least).
The non-ideal situation is that the US is so screwed up that we not only expect such Gestapo tactics, but defend them.
Abuse of authority should never be tolerated--I haven't yet seen it here. Let's get an investigation, gets the facts, and see what comes out of it. I personally think it's equally screwed up that so many people are defending someone who allegedly CHOKED a border officer.
I would love to have been there to see what actually happened.
You can't make a political statement to anyone other than the grunts.
Nonsense.
Secondly, might help for you to read other things I wrote before you claim I say and believe things I don't.
Quote:
In situations like this, I think it ultimately boils down to the following: cops, soldiers, LEOs of all stripes, border agents, etc are all human. They get scared and nervous just like everybody else does. Yes, they are supposed to be trained to act properly in high stress situations which is exactly why stories like this (or other police shootings, etc) are so rare and so shocking. When people do unexpected things or act unpredictably (for instance, not following orders in a controlled zone) things can rapidly escalate as the officers become nervous. This is not an excuse by any means, but I think it help explains why when things go wrong they tend to rapidly escalate.
I have yet to see anybody, anywhere, EVER claim that "cops are the angels of protection that are infallible." Cops, LEOs, etc are just as fallible as everybody else--this is exactly the point. When you put people in potentially dangerous situations, situations where there are strict rules of conduct and then people do unexpected, aggressive things, the situation can rapidly escalate.
For instance, it's claimed that Watt repeatedly refused to get back in his car, exchanged angry words, got physical and ultimately attempted to choke a border agent. I hope you can see how this is a non-ideal situation?
No, but that's not what we're talking about. There's no political statement here. This guy was beaten to within an inch of his life for doing something that shouldn't be a problem. We're not talking about officers that restrained a guy trying to do something illegal to make a statement. We're talking about power hungry abusive assholes beating an innocent man in a customs line.
Where's the link to all of this information? "Beaten to within an inch of his life" and for doing "something that shouldn't be a problem"? Where exactly are you getting this information.
As I've said multiple times, the facts are not yet know. What DOES seem absolutely apparent is that Doctorow is very politically minded and this guy seems to be as well (read today's profanity-laced update).
Alternatively you could try checking other news source's than Watts' friend's blog.
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge
[After angry words were said...]
Border officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, officers attempted to handcuff him, Jones said. At that point, Watts began to resist and pull away from the officers "and became aggressive toward officers," Jones said.
Jones said a border officer used pepper spray to subdue Watts. Jones said Watts "choked" an officer during the struggle.
Jones said Port Huron police were called to the scene after the scuffle and took Watts into custody.
A little bit different.
I'll refrain judgement before saying such ludicrous things as "We're talking about power hungry abusive assholes beating an innocent man in a customs line" when you obviously can't even be bothered to conceive that something else could be going on (or have bothered to actually read other articles).