It's the HVAC. Classic infrasound symptoms.
He's not nuts at least.
He is nuts. It's even more classic anxiety/panic disorder symptoms. He's a late-middle aged literature teacher, probably a technophobe, who started feeling "sick" as soon as he found out there was "radio waves going through his body".
See, the "mythology" thing runs both ways: asbestos is the best for fire protection. The only danger with sensibly employed asbestos is to those working with it. Properly applied and protected asbestos is far less dangerous than the pressurized contents of your car's air conditioning system.
The sidewalk's public property. A college library is private property, to which people are admitted based on certain conditions. One such condition was the need for ID out of office hours. A person who will neither comply with the conditions nor leave immediately is trespassing, period.
I'm fairly certain people have the right to not be repeatedly tasered by cops while lying handcuffed on the floor, regardless of whether it's public or private property. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Cops do not have the right to use pain-inducing devices because they don't feel like carrying an uncooperative suspect. Your injection of the issue of trespass is totally fucking irrelevant. Also, ending your argument with the word "Period" does not make you automatically right. It just makes you look like a moron.
This is a complicated issue, and anyone coming down fully on one side or the other probably hasn't thought about it long enough.
Anyone claiming the cops have a legitimate "side" to come down on, even fractionally, has never dealt with the colossal bunch of sub-par jackasses that work for the UCPD. Seriously, it's the kind of place where people end up if they can't hack it as a "real" cop. It's not a complicated issue. In some instances, there is clearly a right side and a wrong side. This is one of them. The prior behavior of the student is immaterial. When you are a cop and you are tasering a restrained and passive suspect, or are standing idly by while a fellow officer does that, you are 100%, dismissed-from-the-force, possibly-facing-charges, in the wrong.
Not 'til the end. I don't think he was handcuffed right away.
Irrelevant. Whether the handcuffs went on after the first shock or the fourth, any subsequent shock was administered to a restrained subject. Against policy, against decency, and absolutely positively against the law.
I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.
So the fuck what? It's usually troublemaking pricks who end up the targets of police misconduct, as people who don't cause trouble hardly ever attract police attention. Police have to follow the rules even if he is a prick. Rights protect all of us, not just those of us who "act nice". Like they say about the First Amendment, it's not really about the right to comment on the weather to a neighbor. It's about being able to wave a sign on the sidewalk and shout "Bush is Evil", or "Baby Murdering Abortionists Suck", or "Nigras go home", or "Meat is Murder"--- and to do so without being thrown in jail/shot/tasered.
In short, it doesn't matter whether it was Hitler or Gandhi they tasered, they're still wrong.
The number one rule of being a cop is just because you have all those weapons doesn't mean you ever want to or should use them.
Unfortunately, the number one most common philosophy among cops is: "I didn't get a job where I carry a gun so I could NOT shoot people". Same goes for pepper spray, billy club, and stun gun.
Or it tells you that the police didn't want to stop in the middle of an arrest in which they were using force to subdue someone, to provide their badge numbers to a lot of bystanders. If I was trying to subdue someone, I wouldn't want to, whether or not I believed I was in the right.
Jesus fucking christ, watch the video before you spout off. The cops who refused to give badge numbers but instead offered such enlightened responses as "do you want to be tasered too?" weren't assisting the arrest, they were standing around doing diddley squat and looking worried by a huge group of angry students crowding the scene.
And also adjustable - supposedly these the campos used were set on the lowest power level - much like you'd presume was the case in the video I posted.
The effects of a stun gun also vary depending on where the point of contact is and how well contact is made. The guy in the video was being shocked between buttock and shoulder. All muscle tissue there. Other videos show kids shocking their quads and biceps. Again, all muscle tissue there. Cops don't shock legs, arms, and butts. A good hit in the kidneys will knock you down. A good hit near the solar plexus can put you on the ground for several minutes. You can't assume all applications of equal power stun guns are the same.
One officer could have easily placed the "suspect" under arrest with simple handcuffs without a wrestling match, as the "suspect" was simply going limp.
Worth noting that they already had him handcuffed for at least the last three zaps. They were trying to use the stun gun as a cattle prod to coerce him into standing up and walking out so they wouldn't have to carry him. Big fucking no-no. But UCPD officers are generally washouts from LAPD or other "real" police departments. The officer who was doing the shocking was fired from the Long Beach PD during his probationary period for (he claims) "not being able to write reports properly and failing to know local geography". So by his own admission, he's a semi-literate dolt who couldn't even learn the streets of a place as small as Long Beach. From my experiences dealing with UCPD, that's about par for the course. They're small, exceptionally stupid men with severe inadequacy issues.
Sorry, but I have little patience for those who refuse to obey a simple and lawful command given by an police officer.
"Stand up and walk or we'll zap you again" is not a lawful command. The appropriate response to a handcuffed subject resisting arrest by going limp is to simply carry them out and add resisting arrest to the charges. That's how it's done everywhere else. Heck, that's what they ended up doing when the stun gun didn't make him walk! The student was obviously being a little pissant prick, but that does not give law enforcement carte blanch to apply electricity to him.
You are correct. The police officers in this case should have either removed the man by force (ala Rodney King) or just given up and gone home. "Oh, we couldn't do anything. He said 'no'."
Don't be daft. He was handcuffed and limp. Even a dumbfuck UCPD cop should know what to do in that case: grab him under the arms and drag him out. Instead they chose to shock the crap out of him in an attempt to make him walk out on his own. And funny thing is, in the end their tactic of "get up or we'll zap you again" didn't work and they did drag him out. As a UCLA alumnus I've dealt with UCPD at UCLA many times over the last decade. They largely conform the the stereotype of the small town police officer with a small brain and a big swagger.
The officers in this video are either the dumbest cops in the world... Or they think that because of the uniform they wear, that they are above the law.
Being a UCLA alumnus and still living/working right next to the university, I can tell you the answer is "both". UCPD officers have a huge inadequacy chip on their shoulder because really they are little more than glorified security guards. College kids don't cause much trouble, and when they do, it's usually not on campus. They spend most of their time writing parking citations and filing reports on stolen mopeds. Subsequently, when faced with something that might be considered "real" police business, they get a big hard on and turn into the warden from Cool Hand Luke. In a more general sense, the second condition definitely applies, as it does to the majority of cops. As a friend of mine once said "they didn't get a job where they carry a gun in order to NOT shoot people". Same goes for pepper spray, billy clubs, and tasers. Granted, the little prick was being an idiot and trying to stand up for some bizarre imagined right to be be anonymous when questioned by a police officer, but the taser part was obviously the work of a man with a tiny wiener and a badge finally getting to throw his weight around and be a big man.
The main problem in our age is thermodynamics -- information is stored so densely that it tends to decay naturally, on its own. By contrast, ancient stone carvings (as well as their keys, such as the Rosetta stone), are sufficiently durable to last (basically) for ever.
Of course, preserving the data is only half the battle. Figuring out what it says is the second part. This is, of course, nothing new. We still can't read Linear A. In the case of the Rosetta Stone we were simply lucky to find something relating hieroglyphics to a language we knew. The Rosetta Stone is rather unusual. Normally we have nothing so convenient.
Yeah, wrong. If the jury finds against the evidence, the judge can set the verdict and arrange a new trial. That's in the US. Try not to get all your legal knowledge from television ok?
Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, genius. Jury trumps judge. A trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277 (1993)
Many jurisdictions claim the right of judges to set aside verdicts that conflict with the evidence, but precedent has never supported it in any criminal case. The right to not be tried twice for the same offense pretty much precludes it. Civil actions, sure. Criminal? No way.
one of my friends proposed that microwaves only heat up objects with water in it. So the digital photocamera should withstand 10 seconds of radiation
He was right on the first point, but utterly stupid to think that the only thing microwaves do is heat water. Microwaves induce electric currents in metal. If you microwave a complex enough electronic device, guaranteed something inside it is going to get a nasty, fatal overcurrent. This is one of the dangers of adult beverages. They make people forget their ignorance and come up with all sorts of terrible "logical" conclusions.
A good programmer doesn't wait for a specific likely condition to actually happen before he writes code that can handle it. Why should lawyers have to wait for a condition to actually happen before having prepared for it.
What people find distasteful is that (in theory) the defense attorney should have already evaluated which condition is true long before the case came to trial, and as such by all decency should be arguing from the one condition that is "true". Granted, it's just good legal sense to frame your arguments such that they cover all the bases; but it still reminds people of the "moral flexibility" inherent in being a good defense attorney. People are uncomfortable with this trait as it sits a little too close to "sociopath" territory.
Very good call. Anybody know of any usefull tools to completely wipe the contents of a drive?
When I was in the army, we had to decommission hard drives full of classified information. We were required to crack open the cases, pull the platters, run 'em over a big ass magnet, grind the surface off both sides with a grinder, and crack them with a hammer just for good measure. The pieces then lived in cardboard box inside the secure machine area forever, just in case there was anything on them the dastardly Russkies might still be able to read.
Who needs to make their own opinions on things when they can all just believe what you believe. And if they don't subscribe to your worldview, they are obviously a 'fag' or 'queer' or 'virgin'. Or any number of other 16-year-old insults.
Further proof that slashdot is the equivalent of six intelligent, interesting adults trying to have a conversation in a room filled with 100 screaming, undisciplined children.
"you're a fag"
"no, you're a fag"
"no, you're a fag"
"shut up, fag"
"no you shut up, fag"
In any case you reply lacks any relevance. No claim was made that any particular journal, nor the entire world of journals was unbiased. I simply pointed out that you need to be reading journal papers (not the political press) to get an idea of where the scientific debate (or lack thereof) is at. The OP, in assuming that this issue is scientifically controversial, evidently has not.
Lack of relevance? I quote you:
"I challenge you to find current papers published in a reputable peer-reviewd journal which pruport the notion that human activity is unrelated to the increasing atmopsheric C02"
The relevance is that for years you could hardly find anything published in reputable peer reviewed journals supporting the theory that ulcers are bacterial in origin, despite the fact that the theory was correct. He was illustrating that your challenge does not carry the weight you'd like it to, given that peer reviewed journals have in the past shown egregious and irrefutable bias against theories that upset the status quo, even when they're true. In other words, presence or absence from the journals is not the mark of respectability you imply.
BTW, was the "sustained amount of effort to prevent the disclosure of ulcers having a bacterial source" ultimately successful?
Yes it was. After nearly a decade of repeated experimentation and rejected paper submissions, the medical science community finally accepted the truth. The refusal of the medical community to accept the proven bloody obvious despite easily reproducible results is a classic illustration of how consensus cannot be substituted for experimental proof.
We need some improvements in pattern recognition before this is a feasible idea. There is a lot of cognitive processing that goes into seemingly simple decisions like 'Is this a person?' and 'Is this person an enemy?' and 'Is this person armed?'
The very nature of the DMZ makes those decisions already. It's essentially the no man's land between two fortified lines of troops. With the exception of the weird-ass tourist spot in the center where there's a building with a table inside and a line drawn exactly down the middle (where the cease-fire was signed), walking around in the DMZ will generally get you shot by a person already
Slashdot Mirror
Number one philosophy among bad cops.
In short, it doesn't matter whether it was Hitler or Gandhi they tasered, they're still wrong.
"I didn't get a job where I carry a gun so I could NOT shoot people". Same goes for pepper spray, billy club, and stun gun.
There are plenty of bad cops. This guy's one of 'em.
Many jurisdictions claim the right of judges to set aside verdicts that conflict with the evidence, but precedent has never supported it in any criminal case. The right to not be tried twice for the same offense pretty much precludes it. Civil actions, sure. Criminal? No way.
"you're a fag"
"no, you're a fag"
"no, you're a fag"
"shut up, fag"
"no you shut up, fag"
the debate of the century. bravo.
"I challenge you to find current papers published in a reputable peer-reviewd journal which pruport the notion that human activity is unrelated to the increasing atmopsheric C02"
The relevance is that for years you could hardly find anything published in reputable peer reviewed journals supporting the theory that ulcers are bacterial in origin, despite the fact that the theory was correct. He was illustrating that your challenge does not carry the weight you'd like it to, given that peer reviewed journals have in the past shown egregious and irrefutable bias against theories that upset the status quo, even when they're true. In other words, presence or absence from the journals is not the mark of respectability you imply.
Yes it was. After nearly a decade of repeated experimentation and rejected paper submissions, the medical science community finally accepted the truth. The refusal of the medical community to accept the proven bloody obvious despite easily reproducible results is a classic illustration of how consensus cannot be substituted for experimental proof.