We have a 1965 model Piper Comanche. There's no direct comparison; but as a simple math exercise, it burns 15 GPH at cruise (less as you go higher) and flies about 185 MPH if there's no wind (yeah right).
That gives us a little over 12 MPG. Certainly not on par with today's mid-sized passenger cars; but it's about identical to the '78 Trans-Am I owned after high school. And the airplane carries 120 gallons of fuel (factory aux. tanks, plus wingtip fuel tanks) so I can go a lot farther than the old TA.
It has a 540 cubic inch air-cooled 6 cylinder engine with fuel injection that produces 260 horse-power.
Some of the things that help our fuel economy in the airplane:
Rectractable landing gear (weight penalty; but less drag) Constant speed propellor (adjust for power during takeoff, efficiency during cruise) Speed mods (essentially a wash after we put the tip tanks on)
You can also get better fuel efficiency if you load the airplane to the rear of its center of gravity envelope. Doing so means the elevator (back wing) doesn't have to pull down as much to keep the airplane level. Less downward lift from the elevator means less drag, means more efficient. However, I've never consciously applied this theory as it's just too hard in real conditions to quantify a difference that small, and there are drawbacks to getting too close to the rear cg limit.
Modern piston aircraft are getting more efficient, with composite construction, etc. They're also doing a lot of testing with diesel engines for aircraft, though I think that technology may get trumped by the arrival of sub-$1million very-light-jets. As it is, a new airplane that is equipped comparably to our Comanche, and with comparable performance is about $500K new. That's for 200 MPH and 4 people. So a jet that costs $800K, flies at 350 MPH, has 2 engines and carries 6 people is going to make a lot more sense.
Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Their fortunes may ebb and flow; but their going to be a major player for the forseeable future.
If knocking them off the monopoly pole is enough to declare victory, then it might be believable; but they're not going to "collapse" from either inside or outside pressures.
I wish they would; but realistically, it isn't going to happen.
How long before we start seeing poorly written pre-boot applications causing vulnerabilities?
For instance, with efi's networking capabilities, I can imagine hackers letting efi grab that 1 dhcp address that the user has allocated, and reporting it back to them. While the user spends time on tech support trying to figure out why ipconfig doesn't show anything, the hacker is rooting around their disk through efi.
That may be far-fetched; but from the concepts offered in the article, it sounds feasible.
Would any firmware-saavy slashdotter give us a hint as to how likely that scenario is?
I also think it would be good for those sight-seeing flights over national parks.
It moves more slowly than a helicopter or airplane, so it would be over the park longer; but it's also quieter than both of the others.
I, for one, would also not mind multi-day trips to farther destinations aboard an airship. Some people find romance in riding the rails; but I think waking up in the morning to a view from above the clouds would be spectacular. Imagine the sunsets and sunrises.
Do be careful not to polarize the world. It's not populated with only dumbasses and geniuses.
There are indeed aimless hordes of people who don't have the ambition you will; but even they will tend to be aware of the fact on some level. The difference is that they are able to resign themselves to it, whereas you and I are not. Sometimes, for brief moments, I wish I could too.
But we need to be careful of condescending to them. Our higher intelligence gives us no special right to rudeness, or greater consideration from society. If there is a lesson in life that we could learn from them, it's that you only deserve what you work for. All men are created equal. The gene pool entitles you to nothing.
Be a smart guy. Fulfill your potential to the greatest extent possible. But don't despise the rest of society. The thing you find after time is that the average Joe isn't quite as shallow as you might have thought, and that the average "smart guy" isn't as deep.
As you get older, being more intelligent than those around you becomes a little less painful. Both you and your age-peers begin to realize that it means less and less in terms of how you treat each other.
I call this "The Snowden Syndrome," and it's true for Security managers, too.
If you've never read "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, there is a character named Snowden. He's a kid who gets shot in a B-25 in WW2. The bombadier (Yossarian) goes back to help him, and when he unzips his jacket, Snowden's guts spill out onto the floor.
Snowden can't see them, so Yossarian tells him he's going to be alright. He continues to say it until Snowden is dead.
That is the Security Manager's position to a tee. Their dead already, it's just that nobody has shown them their guts spilled out all over the floor yet.
Your scapegoat sysadmin is in the same position.:-)
Without even reading it, I generally know that the italicized last paragraph is some nonsense regarding either an opt-out list, or privacy statement, or this type of goofy disclaimer junk. So am I bound to the terms if I just don't read the bottom italicized paragraph? Even though I know it may contain a disclaimer?
I would think that I would have to not only read something binding; but agree to it as well before I could actually be bound by it.
I don't see why everybody wants to get rid of the steering wheel/pedals combination.
The current setup is great. You can let go with one hand to brush something out of your eye, or change the radio, or wave the other driver ahead, etc.
For the most part, you can drive a modern car with one foot and one hand. If you take your foot off the gas, it slows down; but how often do you need to do something with your foot?
As this contraption is described, brakes and acceleration are controlled with a second joystick, necessitating both hands at all times. What happens if you take your hand off the accelerator? Does it then slow down every time you want to open a window, or tune the radio, or light a cigarette, or whatever?
Why change an interface that works wonderfully for something that just looks cool but is less functional?
My Honda Civic Hybrid gives me almost exactly the sticker mileage. If I'm carefull in how I drive, I can beat it. If I drive it like I've always driven cars, I get what was promised (I do a mix of city and highway driving). If I lead-foot it, of course I get less.
I used to fill the Altima up once a week. I fill the Civic up every 3. It has the same size gas tank.
The law of conservation of energy makes the hybrid thing a wash, or even less efficient than a gas motor, until you factor in the regenerative braking and the battery. In a normal gasoline-only car, you waste all of the energy that exists in the inertia of the car when you stop. With the Hybrid, you get to store as much of that as you can during braking, and use it when you start again.
Therefore, you're not creating more energy from less fuel, you're just not throwing as much of it away.
I do know another owner of the same year and model I have that doesn't get the mileage I do. He averages about 42 (mixed city/hwy). I'm convinced it's in the way he drives the car, and he will freely admit that his previous car didn't get the promised mileage either.
I think people get unrealistic expectations. Honda never said it would get 48mpg in all conditions and for all drivers. My Civic does everything it promised it would. It's an impressive bit of technology.
This actually makes Linux a good choice for environments where you want total control over the workstations you provide to your users (i.e. a corporate environment).
I worked for a while in 2000 at a company that used Linux on the desktop and this was the thing I liked most about it. We had Gnome stripped down to the bare essentials. We never had to deal with people installing their own 3rd party software, or using the pc to play solitaire, etc. If they needed a new package, we installed it remotely and went on our merry way.
There was an occassional grumble from a manager who thought he shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions as the unwashed masses; but for the most part, it was blissfully stable.
A transition doesn't have to be painless to be worthwhile. It certainly doesn't have to be painless to be cost-effective. Microsoft has gone a LONG way to make sure that any transition will result in a good dose of pain. Break it sooner or it only gets worse.
You start by telling your employees that your switching. Explain why you're switching. Explain that you know it will be inconvenient or even a huge pain in the ass. Tell them you're counting on them to put out a lot of effort and come up to speed as quickly as possible on the new software. You're proud of you're employees, and you know they'll make you proud again.
That won't eliminate any of the end-user frustration. It will, however, make the transition a success; because it lets the users know that the decision is made, and that there is an expectation for them to adjust to it.
You don't want to ignore your employees by any means; but you sure don't want to give up significant cost savings (which by the way indirectly benefit them) just because they can't learn the new menus.
After all, who's in charge?
The true test is your ability to make good financial decisions and to make those decisions work.
Is the outsourcing really cheaper when the total costs are figured, or is this move a way to show shareholders that you're doing some cutting in the down economy?
I don't want any legislation for this; but I will say that hitting the executives over the head with the security stick is the real way to improve things.
They are the ones who trump the security team at my company. We had a nice small tight set of controls until the executives started chipping away at them.
"But Mr. CEO needs to receive these passworded zip files by e-mail"
"Mr. VP needs access to port xxx through the firewall."
Or the best one: "We need Mr. Executive VP to have pcAnywhere through the firewall to his home computer."
Give me a break. Until the executives get a clue and realize they can't just do whatever they want, your security team is just waiting for the giant foot of doom to drop on them.
I don't have any problem with the U.S. not joining the Kyoto treaty, or ignoring the U.N., etc. I have a problem saying that we WILL do these things, and then not living up to our word.
I'd rather we live as honest brokers. If that means we tell the world "no" more often, then that's fine. Let's just say "no" rather than saying "yes" and then backing out. It's dishonest, it destroys our credibility, and it incites people to dislike us.
Finally, you'll note that I didn't say we shouldn't put weapons in space. I was simply addressing the "respect" issue.
I guarantee you that you don't care for this country any more than I do. That's why I'm so adamant about this. I don't consider the White House to be the sum total of our country. So forgive me if I dare question his highness, Bush 43; but he's been an inept and divisive fool since taking office.
By the way, read some books, his leadership style is a mess.
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
I often find that building from source, even if I don't utilize any options or optimizations, gives me a setup I can more easily rely on. I can now take my configs to another platform if I want, or upgrade without worrying about breaking my scripts, etc.
Now, if you get your package from the same source every time, these may be moot points to you; but I've been in the position of wanting to upgrade that 3rd party package that somebody built for RedHat, only to find out that the provider I got it from hasn't made a new one, but has switched to making Suse packages instead.
And while we're at it, don't forget to let your kid climb trees and play ball in the neighborhood, and be a kid.
Don't schedule your child like they were a corporate executive under the mistaken belief that they're understimulated by normal life, and will be smarter if kept busier.
Love your child, let them be children, and try not to program their lives for some ultimate goal.
It gives them the impression of being more important than they really are. The issue moves from being an obscure geek-tech issue to involving a major company that does business with the average person.
Personally, I think a briliant move would be for IBM to cover AutoZone's legal fees. AZ doesn't need any help paying their fees; but I think it would be a HUGE public relations boost for IBM. It would be cool to see IBM step up and tell AutoZone that as a show of support, and to back up their assurances that they did nothing wrong during the Linux conversion, they will pay the legal fees.
The vast majority of cops, like the vast majority of most subgroups of society, are just doing their job and are not operating from some egomaniacal power-trip. There will be a few, as in any subgroup of society, who are just plain asses; but for the most part, the cop who pulls you over is just the guy who lives down the street, or that you went to school with.
What keeps things from being friendly and all fuzzy is that the cop doesn't know who you are. The events in Detroit this week illustrate perfectly why cops are commanding and aggressive when they pull you over. For those who don't read the news, two cops in Detroit were killed when they stopped a man for a traffic violation. He apparently had other issues they didn't know about when they stopped him.
So, as a cop who is conscious of these things, I think I would probably be just as commanding and aggressive as this cop was with somebody who is a possible domestic battery suspect. After all, more cops are injured and killed dealing with domestic battery than any other crime.
The dumbass who just felt like arguing can take his hurt feelings and go to hell. He has a reasonable expectation of safety in the presence of a cop. The cop, however, has no such expectation in the company of a potential suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a 1965 model Piper Comanche. There's no direct comparison; but as a simple math exercise, it burns 15 GPH at cruise (less as you go higher) and flies about 185 MPH if there's no wind (yeah right).
That gives us a little over 12 MPG. Certainly not on par with today's mid-sized passenger cars; but it's about identical to the '78 Trans-Am I owned after high school. And the airplane carries 120 gallons of fuel (factory aux. tanks, plus wingtip fuel tanks) so I can go a lot farther than the old TA.
It has a 540 cubic inch air-cooled 6 cylinder engine with fuel injection that produces 260 horse-power.
Some of the things that help our fuel economy in the airplane:
Rectractable landing gear (weight penalty; but less drag)
Constant speed propellor (adjust for power during takeoff, efficiency during cruise)
Speed mods (essentially a wash after we put the tip tanks on)
You can also get better fuel efficiency if you load the airplane to the rear of its center of gravity envelope. Doing so means the elevator (back wing) doesn't have to pull down as much to keep the airplane level. Less downward lift from the elevator means less drag, means more efficient. However, I've never consciously applied this theory as it's just too hard in real conditions to quantify a difference that small, and there are drawbacks to getting too close to the rear cg limit.
Modern piston aircraft are getting more efficient, with composite construction, etc. They're also doing a lot of testing with diesel engines for aircraft, though I think that technology may get trumped by the arrival of sub-$1million very-light-jets. As it is, a new airplane that is equipped comparably to our Comanche, and with comparable performance is about $500K new. That's for 200 MPH and 4 people. So a jet that costs $800K, flies at 350 MPH, has 2 engines and carries 6 people is going to make a lot more sense.
Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Their fortunes may ebb and flow; but their going to be a major player for the forseeable future.
If knocking them off the monopoly pole is enough to declare victory, then it might be believable; but they're not going to "collapse" from either inside or outside pressures.
I wish they would; but realistically, it isn't going to happen.
How long before we start seeing poorly written pre-boot applications causing vulnerabilities?
For instance, with efi's networking capabilities, I can imagine hackers letting efi grab that 1 dhcp address that the user has allocated, and reporting it back to them. While the user spends time on tech support trying to figure out why ipconfig doesn't show anything, the hacker is rooting around their disk through efi.
That may be far-fetched; but from the concepts offered in the article, it sounds feasible.
Would any firmware-saavy slashdotter give us a hint as to how likely that scenario is?
I also think it would be good for those sight-seeing flights over national parks.
It moves more slowly than a helicopter or airplane, so it would be over the park longer; but it's also quieter than both of the others.
I, for one, would also not mind multi-day trips to farther destinations aboard an airship. Some people find romance in riding the rails; but I think waking up in the morning to a view from above the clouds would be spectacular. Imagine the sunsets and sunrises.
Do be careful not to polarize the world. It's not populated with only dumbasses and geniuses.
There are indeed aimless hordes of people who don't have the ambition you will; but even they will tend to be aware of the fact on some level. The difference is that they are able to resign themselves to it, whereas you and I are not. Sometimes, for brief moments, I wish I could too.
But we need to be careful of condescending to them. Our higher intelligence gives us no special right to rudeness, or greater consideration from society. If there is a lesson in life that we could learn from them, it's that you only deserve what you work for. All men are created equal. The gene pool entitles you to nothing.
Be a smart guy. Fulfill your potential to the greatest extent possible. But don't despise the rest of society. The thing you find after time is that the average Joe isn't quite as shallow as you might have thought, and that the average "smart guy" isn't as deep.
As you get older, being more intelligent than those around you becomes a little less painful. Both you and your age-peers begin to realize that it means less and less in terms of how you treat each other.
Cheers.
Bill Joy, while clearly a genius, is (like any good genius) a nutcase.
That explains vi
I call this "The Snowden Syndrome," and it's true for Security managers, too.
:-)
If you've never read "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, there is a character named Snowden. He's a kid who gets shot in a B-25 in WW2. The bombadier (Yossarian) goes back to help him, and when he unzips his jacket, Snowden's guts spill out onto the floor.
Snowden can't see them, so Yossarian tells him he's going to be alright. He continues to say it until Snowden is dead.
That is the Security Manager's position to a tee. Their dead already, it's just that nobody has shown them their guts spilled out all over the floor yet.
Your scapegoat sysadmin is in the same position.
Programmer 1: It happened like 3 days ago, eh.
Programmer 2: And welcome to day 3.
Programmer 1: "make install" hosed it.
Programmer 2: Hosed it down, eh, like backbacon at a Bah Mitzvah.
Programmer 1: But it's okay, eh. I got my thinking touque on and the beer and pizza are on the way.
Programmer 2: Yeah, we should have it back up by tomorrow, eh. Only, we're gonna need some more vacation after this.
Programmer 1: And beer, eh.
Programmer 2: Yeah, more beer.
Without even reading it, I generally know that the italicized last paragraph is some nonsense regarding either an opt-out list, or privacy statement, or this type of goofy disclaimer junk. So am I bound to the terms if I just don't read the bottom italicized paragraph? Even though I know it may contain a disclaimer?
I would think that I would have to not only read something binding; but agree to it as well before I could actually be bound by it.
I don't see why everybody wants to get rid of the steering wheel/pedals combination.
The current setup is great. You can let go with one hand to brush something out of your eye, or change the radio, or wave the other driver ahead, etc.
For the most part, you can drive a modern car with one foot and one hand. If you take your foot off the gas, it slows down; but how often do you need to do something with your foot?
As this contraption is described, brakes and acceleration are controlled with a second joystick, necessitating both hands at all times. What happens if you take your hand off the accelerator? Does it then slow down every time you want to open a window, or tune the radio, or light a cigarette, or whatever?
Why change an interface that works wonderfully for something that just looks cool but is less functional?
Frankly, that article was bull.
My Honda Civic gets 47/48 mpg just as advertised. Of course, I drive it reasonably.
I would imagine that if you're heavy of foot in your 22 mpg SUV, it will get much less also.
My Honda Civic Hybrid gives me almost exactly the sticker mileage. If I'm carefull in how I drive, I can beat it. If I drive it like I've always driven cars, I get what was promised (I do a mix of city and highway driving). If I lead-foot it, of course I get less.
I used to fill the Altima up once a week. I fill the Civic up every 3. It has the same size gas tank.
The law of conservation of energy makes the hybrid thing a wash, or even less efficient than a gas motor, until you factor in the regenerative braking and the battery. In a normal gasoline-only car, you waste all of the energy that exists in the inertia of the car when you stop. With the Hybrid, you get to store as much of that as you can during braking, and use it when you start again.
Therefore, you're not creating more energy from less fuel, you're just not throwing as much of it away.
I do know another owner of the same year and model I have that doesn't get the mileage I do. He averages about 42 (mixed city/hwy). I'm convinced it's in the way he drives the car, and he will freely admit that his previous car didn't get the promised mileage either.
I think people get unrealistic expectations. Honda never said it would get 48mpg in all conditions and for all drivers. My Civic does everything it promised it would. It's an impressive bit of technology.
This actually makes Linux a good choice for environments where you want total control over the workstations you provide to your users (i.e. a corporate environment).
I worked for a while in 2000 at a company that used Linux on the desktop and this was the thing I liked most about it. We had Gnome stripped down to the bare essentials. We never had to deal with people installing their own 3rd party software, or using the pc to play solitaire, etc. If they needed a new package, we installed it remotely and went on our merry way.
There was an occassional grumble from a manager who thought he shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions as the unwashed masses; but for the most part, it was blissfully stable.
Who the hell moderated the parent as a Troll?
Is it trolling to shine the light on something so clear as this?
Give me a break.
A transition doesn't have to be painless to be worthwhile. It certainly doesn't have to be painless to be cost-effective. Microsoft has gone a LONG way to make sure that any transition will result in a good dose of pain. Break it sooner or it only gets worse.
You start by telling your employees that your switching. Explain why you're switching. Explain that you know it will be inconvenient or even a huge pain in the ass. Tell them you're counting on them to put out a lot of effort and come up to speed as quickly as possible on the new software. You're proud of you're employees, and you know they'll make you proud again.
That won't eliminate any of the end-user frustration. It will, however, make the transition a success; because it lets the users know that the decision is made, and that there is an expectation for them to adjust to it.
You don't want to ignore your employees by any means; but you sure don't want to give up significant cost savings (which by the way indirectly benefit them) just because they can't learn the new menus.
After all, who's in charge?
The true test is your ability to make good financial decisions and to make those decisions work.
To the CEOs of the outsourcing companies:
Is the outsourcing really cheaper when the total costs are figured, or is this move a way to show shareholders that you're doing some cutting in the down economy?
I don't want any legislation for this; but I will say that hitting the executives over the head with the security stick is the real way to improve things.
They are the ones who trump the security team at my company. We had a nice small tight set of controls until the executives started chipping away at them.
"But Mr. CEO needs to receive these passworded zip files by e-mail"
"Mr. VP needs access to port xxx through the firewall."
Or the best one:
"We need Mr. Executive VP to have pcAnywhere through the firewall to his home computer."
Give me a break. Until the executives get a clue and realize they can't just do whatever they want, your security team is just waiting for the giant foot of doom to drop on them.
I don't have any problem with the U.S. not joining the Kyoto treaty, or ignoring the U.N., etc. I have a problem saying that we WILL do these things, and then not living up to our word.
I'd rather we live as honest brokers. If that means we tell the world "no" more often, then that's fine. Let's just say "no" rather than saying "yes" and then backing out. It's dishonest, it destroys our credibility, and it incites people to dislike us.
Finally, you'll note that I didn't say we shouldn't put weapons in space. I was simply addressing the "respect" issue.
I guarantee you that you don't care for this country any more than I do. That's why I'm so adamant about this. I don't consider the White House to be the sum total of our country. So forgive me if I dare question his highness, Bush 43; but he's been an inept and divisive fool since taking office.
By the way, read some books, his leadership style is a mess.
I know this is going to start a flame-war but...
You earn respect. Note the keyword "earn" in that statement. And one of the primary ways for earning other people's respect is keeping your word.
Another method for earning respect is honesty.
We've had a very real problem with both of those in the last 4 years.
We submarined the Kyoto talks after making big promises. In the process, we destroyed our own delegate's credibility on a whim, then sent Colin Powell in to take her place.
We gave the big finger to the U.N. (whose formation and structure we are largely responsible for) because we didn't like the way the vote was coming down on Iraq's snubbing of U.N. orders.
We lied about the criticality of Iraq's intentions and capabilities. (You may think this is arguable; but 2 administration insiders who have little to do with eachother have corroborated this in their respective books.)
The list actually goes on a bit.
The thing is, we can't just run around saying we're the good guys; we have to BE the good guys.
I love our country. I want it to be strong and righteous.
It really depends on where you get your packages.
I often find that building from source, even if I don't utilize any options or optimizations, gives me a setup I can more easily rely on. I can now take my configs to another platform if I want, or upgrade without worrying about breaking my scripts, etc.
Now, if you get your package from the same source every time, these may be moot points to you; but I've been in the position of wanting to upgrade that 3rd party package that somebody built for RedHat, only to find out that the provider I got it from hasn't made a new one, but has switched to making Suse packages instead.
And while we're at it, don't forget to let your kid climb trees and play ball in the neighborhood, and be a kid.
Don't schedule your child like they were a corporate executive under the mistaken belief that they're understimulated by normal life, and will be smarter if kept busier.
Love your child, let them be children, and try not to program their lives for some ultimate goal.
It's their life, not yours.
It gives them the impression of being more important than they really are. The issue moves from being an obscure geek-tech issue to involving a major company that does business with the average person.
Personally, I think a briliant move would be for IBM to cover AutoZone's legal fees. AZ doesn't need any help paying their fees; but I think it would be a HUGE public relations boost for IBM. It would be cool to see IBM step up and tell AutoZone that as a show of support, and to back up their assurances that they did nothing wrong during the Linux conversion, they will pay the legal fees.
Isn't Jesse James pimping for them now?
Can you imagine him in this new ad campaign?
"I use RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 at West Coast Choppers... because it's just wrong."
Followed by him driving away in his jet powered Toyota Supra, dragging a server behind him.
I don't see any practical value in being able to add memory; but it would be cool to have an interface that would let me learn things faster.
Kind of like how people in "that movie" can learn how to fly a UH-1 in 3 seconds.
Now THAT ability would be cool.
Agreed.
The vast majority of cops, like the vast majority of most subgroups of society, are just doing their job and are not operating from some egomaniacal power-trip. There will be a few, as in any subgroup of society, who are just plain asses; but for the most part, the cop who pulls you over is just the guy who lives down the street, or that you went to school with.
What keeps things from being friendly and all fuzzy is that the cop doesn't know who you are. The events in Detroit this week illustrate perfectly why cops are commanding and aggressive when they pull you over. For those who don't read the news, two cops in Detroit were killed when they stopped a man for a traffic violation. He apparently had other issues they didn't know about when they stopped him.
So, as a cop who is conscious of these things, I think I would probably be just as commanding and aggressive as this cop was with somebody who is a possible domestic battery suspect. After all, more cops are injured and killed dealing with domestic battery than any other crime.
The dumbass who just felt like arguing can take his hurt feelings and go to hell. He has a reasonable expectation of safety in the presence of a cop. The cop, however, has no such expectation in the company of a potential suspect.