Can/do they seize those too? How about when those backups are offsite? If it's the data you're worried about, those backups could save your business.
Besides, if their warrant only applied to that one physical address, you could forget to tell them about the redundant data, or you could simply tell them to get stuffed if it wasn't explicitly listed in their warrant (replacing the hardware they seized would be another matter entirely, but you'd at least have the data)
I was part of the relief effort after the towers were struck.
Every time I start listening to some chowder-head talking about how 9/11 was not such a big deal, I remember sitting there in a parking lot with my surgical team, waiting/hoping there'd be some survivors pulled from the rubble that we could take care of...
I'm not a PTSD candidate by any means, but 9/11 still bothers me, and I frankly hope it always will. When you witness the gruesome death of thousands of people and at some point in time it all becomes OK, or you just forget about it, or it doesn't bother you at all on some level... pain is part of being human; some things you should remember.
That said, I certainly hope nobody makes a VR simulation of that time... I certainly have no desire to relive an experience like that in vivid detail.
you should see it from my perspective... I often get patients who have chronic pain, and show up in my ER looking for medication refills.
I often can't help them, or at least, not the way they want... some of these people are prescribed monster doses of Oxycontin, MS-contin, Methadone, you name it. I treat acute pain in the ER, but I can't refill someone's 90-count bottle of 80mg Oxycontin tablets; it's inappropriate practice. I'm not trained or credentialed in chronic pain management, I've never seen the patient before, will probably never see them again, and those kind of medications at that kind of dose require follow-up (something I'm not set up to do), adjustments, documentation, etc... and I don't need to get "interviewed" by the DEA any more than the next doc. Ironically, some time ago the feds hauled away a physician in an area where I was practicing... then all his patients couldn't get their medications any more, and started coming to the ER looking for refills. Unfortunately, I'm ill-equipped to fill that void.
Chronic pain is a real problem, not only for the docs who run the pain clinics and take care of these folks (they're well-advised to keep impeccable records), but for guys like me who get caught in the middle.
And dont even get me started with the addicts and abusers who doctor shop... using the exact same stories as the chronic pain folks in an effort to get their party supplies for the weekend... those gomers are the bane of my existence.
as far as I'm concerned... if a VR simulation takes a patient's mind off their pain, God bless 'em.
Listen... I've spent my share of time in burn units, where the morphine flows like a mighty river; VR is far preferable to using drugs, with all their attendent side-effects. Also, contrary to popular wisdom, addiction isn't usually a problem... only a very very small percentage of burn unit denizens ever develop an addiction to their narcotics after they recover, and there's large studies and good research to back that up... anyone who tells you that narcotic use for severe pain makes normal people into addicts is about 20 years out of date.
Honestly, we already use a pharmacological variant of VR in pediatric burn units... it's called Ketamine (or "Special K" to all you ravers out there stupid enough to use it). Ketamine creates a dissociative anesthesia, and is sometimes used in kids who are having their dressings changed.... it's not really recommended in adults because it can produce extremely vivid hallucinations... most kids I've used it on report nothing, or just say "I had a bad dream."... gotta love kids. I personally think the difference in experience between pedi & adult has to do with the amount of bad things adults carry around in their subconscious... there's something to be said for innocence.
Whether it's distraction (I use that on kids all the time), the gate theory of pain, or whatever. If it works, I say use it... it's certainly preferable than risking the side-effects of mega-doses of narcotics.
Is not usually life-threatening (you'll certainly wish you were dead while you're going through it, but you don't usually die).
Much more dangerous are the withdrawl syndromes associated with Alcohol and Benzos (diazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam... aka Valium, Ativan, and Xanax, respectively). Those folks have a much harder go of it than heroin and painkiller addicts, at least physiologically speaking... they get autonomic hyperactivity, refractory seizures, hallucinations... there's a very significant mortality if not medically treated.
Stimulants tend not to have such a severe withdrawl syndrome, at least in a life-threatening sense. I'm referring to cocaine, methamphetamine... there's a crash when you come down, and they can deplete your body's stores of catecholamines and other neurotransmitters, leading to periods of agitation, depression, insomnia, etc, but that's typically after longer term use.
A psychological addiction to VR should be a very minor issue compared to any of the above.
I can still remember some of the moongate codes in Ultima III... yikes, how many years ago was that?
Just a general question: did anyone else pillage the city of Yew over and over to build up money and experience? (Note: it was the only city that didn't have guards, and the druids were easy pickings). Getting killed by orcs was humiliating, and I had to level up *somehow*
Origin will be missed... those games are unqualified classics.
Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons
This is a correct statement. If you can show me where the storage of new memories is accomplished primarily by mitosis rather than new synapse formation, I'll be happy to retract the above statement. There does seem to be some mitosis in the Hippocampus, and the Hippocampus is involved in the formation of some types of memories (though not all), so there does appear to be correlation... but not necessarily causation. It would be interesting to see if anyone has tested new memory formation while simultaneously suppressing cell division in the Hippocampus... I've never come across any such research.
Some authors consider the Hippocampus to be an intermediate-term buffer prior to consolidation in long-term storage. Lesions of the hippocampus seriously hinder the formation of some new memories (spatial relationships), but not others (rote skills and procedures). It's also worth noting that older memories are often spared after hippocampal damage, lending credence to the theory that those memories are stored elsewhere (in areas of the neocortex where mitosis has not been shown to take place)
If you have links to post that shed further light on this topic, please share them.
There is no evidence of widespread neurogenesis in the adult human brain. If you'd care to correct me on that point, please... be my guest.
There is some research to show that the olfactory bulb makes new neurons (perhaps accounting for ex-smokers ability to repair their damaged sense of smell over time), and the hippocampus as well... but those are very small, specific areas. Neurogenesis in the human brain has not been shown to occur in any areas beyond those two specific regions.
I realize you're just picking a nit... I'm just picking one in return.
constitute most of my explosive injury knowledge, and some of those can strip the flesh right off the bone.
But on the subject of traumatic amputations... I've seen many bones splintered by the impact of whatever instrument took off the limb (mostly industrial and agricultural accidents... but on that topic, have you seen what some of that agricultural power-take-off equipment can do? Yikes...)
You know, it's probably more a statement of philosophy than an actual fighting technique, but it does get the point across.
that research (which I was aware of, BTW) is almost all animal studies dealing with rats and mice.
To my knowledge, there has never been a human study that has demonstrated ongoing widespread neurogenesis in the adult brain... It would be great if it existed, because it would make recovery from traumatic brain injury much more feasible.
Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons. Your brain is slowly rotting away... but it's a long process, and you've got lots of time
you are partially right, some cancer cells undergo apoptosis... while other cancer cells have mutations that fight actively against it.
Apoptosis is also characterized as "programmed cell death," something common during development. Apoptosis of some tissues is absolutely required, particularly vestigial structures that form during your early embryology (this happen in many species, not just humans).
It should be noted that apoptosis is not simply rampant cell-suicide... it's actually a well-described and orderly process. Rampant cell membrane destruction, particularly in the brain (we see this with larger strokes) leads to the release of all kinds of inflammatory mediators... leading to swelling, damage to surrounding cells... all bad things. Nice, orderly apoptosis prevents much of this.
are not that mitotically active in the adult brain anyway. The Glial cells continue to divide, etc... but the neurons themselves are largely established by childhood, and their numbers steadily go downhill over the course of your life.
That's not to say that neurons don't develop new connections and synapses... they do (otherwise learning could not take place)... they just don't divide much. The implication here is that since they don't divide, they are unlikely to become neoplastic, or pass on their damaged DNA.
Apart from the apoptosis angle, I'm not sure how much clinical relevance this research actually has.
Action always beats reaction... Anyone trained in close quarters combat will tell you that. By the time you see someone pull out the object, realize it's a weapon, make the decision to fire, line up your sights and squeeze the trigger... you can already be dead.
From the holster it takes an average of about two seconds+ to realize that someone is a threat, make the decision to fire, draw your gun and fire even one round. The officer is always reacting to somebody else, which always puts the officer at a disadvantage... that lag time has gotten officers killed.
In this case, it's slightly different... the suspect was faced with four drawn guns. He should have kept his hands where everyone could see them... unfortunately, whether from a language barrier, fear, ignorance... whatever the reason, he made a move, and it cost him his life. It didn't help that one of the officers tripped while trying to retreat and fell down, leading the other officers to believe he'd been shot.
If I tell a person at gunpoint not to move, and they go for their pocket, I'm going to shoot them. They might be pulling a wallet out of their back pocket... but then again, they might be pulling out one of these, these, one of these or even one of these. Understand now? You now know what cops know... and what cops are worried about.
When faced with a drawn gun, think of it as a game of "simon says"... you do nothing until simon says. If an officer considers you enough of a threat that he's got his gun out, pay attention, because your life depends on your next move. Just FYI, in a lot of jurisdictions, anytime an officer draws his gun, he has to make a police report; If he's got a reason to have it out... for the love of God don't give him a reason to use it.
The cops in LA were up against better-armed and better-equiped adversaries, and were pinned down at long range by rifle fire.
The men in the North Hollywood shootout that you are referring to were using several types of weapons... one had an HK-91 and another had a fully-automatic Hungarian AK with several drum magazines of ammunition (drums can hold 100 rounds). The HK-91 fires a.308 round with an maximum effective range of 1000 yards. The AK fires a 7.62x39 round with a typical effective range of 4-500 yards. The LA police had Beretta side-arms, firing a conventional 9x19 round, (maximum effective range of 200 yards) and shotguns with no slugs (maximum effective range of 00-buck is 75-100 yards). The criminals in question had also made full body armor suits for themselves out of old vests... they were gym rats and gun nuts who came prepared.
The police were unable to hurt either of those criminals with the weapons they had, particularly at the range at which they were being engaged... one of the two men eventually killed himself after he'd exhausted his ammunition for his long-gun... the other was killed by SWAT officers with mp5 submachine guns, who shot from cover at close range; skipping rounds off the concrete under the suspect's car to take out his legs (he bled to death from a femoral artery hit).
It might be a curious statement if it in any way resembled your charecterization of it. I neither expressed nor implied any criminal behaviour on the part of either police officers or private citizens, therefore it also cannot be a rationalization for criminal behaviour.
Your statement absolutely came across that way, and is one of the most common rationalizations I hear for breaking the law. "the concept of a good guy is a highly relative one."... ergo the bad guy is not really a bad guy, he's just misunderstood because he has a different worldview of what's right and wrong.
Now, on some issues I don't necessarily disagree, but society as a whole makes our laws based on current mores, and we must generally abide by them or face the consequences. Consenting adults may make their choices, and take whatever risks they're comfortable with... but they cannot then whine if society finds them worthy of sanction for said behavior. The answer is to change the law, form your own society, or pay-your-money-and-take-your-chances. Laws evolve, generally as society evolves.
I might also point out that the law itself is morally relativistic. If I am a drill sargent and I go to a strip club and pinch a stripper's ass without her permission I have commited no legal offense. If I then go to a diner and pinch a waitresses ass without her permission I am guilty of a civil sexual harrassment. If I then return to base and a trainee asks me to pinch her ass and I comply I have commited a criminal sexual harrassment.
Actually, you have multiple possible offenses in the above paragraph, depending on local ordinance. In your first two examples, you could be charged with simple assault, or some form of sexual imposition. The crimes in the last scenario might be fraternization, conduct unbecoming, inappropriate touching of a subordinate, etc, and the penalties for the latter scenario are more severe, because of roles and circumstances. As a military superior, he is abusing his position of power and authority, and thus is due a greater sanction. I don't see any moral relativism there... the circumstances are not at all comparable.
Police officers have certain scope in their behaviour. They are not robots. In the case in question the law allowed the officer to demand ID, it did not require it. Upon refusal the law allowed the officer to make arrest, it did not require it. The DA had wide disgression whether or not to prosecute, for what particular charge and to plea bargain that charge.
The concept you seem to be talking around is officer discretion... the officer's option of whether to arrest, or ignore, based on his judgement. Interestingly, that's an area of significant debate among cops; should officer discretion really exist, or do you use a set yardstick? Would you give your mother a pass when committing the same offense for which you'd skin another person? If you do, that's nepotism, favoritism... whatever you want to call it. Discretion is very much double-edged... and here's the problem with discretion: discretion is where an officer's biases come out... it opens the door to selective enforcement... for good or for bad. Now, discretion can work, and here's a properly applied example: An officer pulls over a young woman, who's crying and tearful, sobs that she's late for work, begs you not to give her a ticket ("my dad will kill me") states she'll never do it again... a lot of officers would NOT give that young woman a ticket. Why? It's not necessarily because they feel sorry for her... it's because their goal is to enforce the law; ie. slow her down and make her less likely to speed in the future. If the officer feels he has already accomplished that goal, there's no need for a citation.
running the registration has nothing to do with it... if the vehicle is stolen and unreported, or has stolen plates (oldest trick in the book, steal clean tags from a like model vehicle), you've just lulled yourself into a dangerous complacency.
I haven't seen the video either... but if the girl attempted to force the door open while an officer was holding it, I'm not at all surprised she was taken down and handcuffed. Attempting ANY sort of violence, and I do mean ANY, during a police confrontation is a sure way to get beat/taken down and handcuffed. The funny part is this: if he was a bad cop, by losing your temper and doing something dumb, you've just given him a legal blank check to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
I'm absolutely amazed by the number of/.'rs who cannot see the tactical stupidity in such a move. Control your temper... you can't win a street confrontation with a cop, because even if you can kick his ass, he's got a magic box called a radio that he can shake, and 20 (now very angry) guys just like him fall out of it. .
No... my question to you is this: why would you purposely act like a potential threat and gratuitously antagonize someone who can cause you great harm, inconvenience, and expense? The likelihood of that officer being a bad cop is low, but even if he's not, why are you going to reduce his chances of cutting you a break to absolutely zero by spitting in his eye? I simply don't understand it... What's wrong with being polite? Is it worth that much to you to be able to polish that attitude, have your pride, indulge your childish fit of anger and tell off that cop? I can't tell you how much further simple good manners will get you. Besides, didn't your mother teach you that just because someone else is brusque, that it's no excuse for you to be rude in return? Good grief... Some of you people... borderline misanthropes.
Back to the topic: I'd say fear is going a little too far... but a respect for what that cop can do to you isn't a bad thing to keep in mind.
Now, you may think it's your God-given right be be as big an ass as possible to everyone you meet, especially cops... well, that's fine... but that won't stop me from calling you a fool for doing so, because you're the ONLY one who will suffer.
Save your rebuttal for the appropriate venue, where it might actually succeed. On the street is NOT that venue.
Because you have a gun and certain authority to use it.
Indeed, and thus my personal feeling that police officers should be held to a high standard, and washed out if they do not or cannot meet it. Nobody despises corrupt cops more than I do; I despise them the say way I despise anyone in a position of trust and authority who abuses their power and position to subjugate others, for whatever illegitimate personal end.
However, my remarks were directed towards frank abuse of police officers (which they are required to take, and do so every day). My final statement was to make an analogy that some slashgeeks might be able to appreciate, to "see there from here" so to speak. If it came across any other way, I apologize for the confusion.
I actually left my old department after a new chief made some radical changes, not all of which were good for officer safety. I expressed my reservations, and was rebuffed. Fortunately, being a volunteer, I had the luxury of leaving, so I promptly resigned and never looked back.
That said, I'm slightly troubled myself by what appears to be moral relativist rationalization for criminal behavior in your post. the concept of good guy is a highly relative one. is a curious statement. Police officers don't get much choice in what laws they enforce... they are oath-bound to enforce all of them equally, without regard for position or rank... anything less will get you fired for dereliction. Justice is supposed to be blind, and nobody is theoretically above the law. However, there is occasionaly a crack in that reality. I know officers who don't have a problem with someone smoking the occasional joint in their home... they just pretend they don't notice the odor when they're standing in the doorway.
For laws that are plainly unconstitutional or blatantly deprive citizens of their basic freedoms, most cops I know would have nothing to do with enforcing anything of that sort. As an example, gun control/confiscation came up among a bunch of cops I was eating lunch with... the concensus was that we'd hand in our badges before we'd take part in any gun confiscation scheme. You might be surprised to find that goes for most of the cops I know, but that's a blatant constitutional assault... you'd find the field much thinner if we were talking about IP laws, or drug legalization.
We're a nation of laws... and until such time as they are changed, those laws must rule... the answer is to change the law. Unless circumstances were truly dire, I would never ask tens of thousands of blue-collar cops with families to feed to sacrifice their careers, strictly to make some kind of political point. Cops don't make the law, and blaming cops for it is misplacing that blame... it's simply shooting the messenger.
and it's so blindingly obvious, it stuns me that more people don't realize it.
Over the course of your life, you will probably never meet on the street anyone with more power that the average police officer. On his summary judgement, he can deprive you of your liberty, property, even your life, should the circumstances warrant it.
Now, why in the hell would anyone purposely and unnecessarily antagonize someone like that? Why? If they're as corrupt as some people in this thread claim, why set yourself up as a target for their harassment? Why stupidly and openly proclaim yourself their enemy? I don't understand that philosophy... thousands of years ago, Sun Tzu taught that you fight where you are strong, and your enemy is weak. On the street, you're on the cops turf, and you'll lose that battle every single time. People that have a problem with self-control had better work on it... because being faced by a bad cop on the street is not the time to lose your temper.
Even if you hate the cops more than syphilis, it's simply in your self-interest to be cool, play deep, be polite, and if necessary, get your pound of flesh later. If the cops in your area are that corrupt, work with friends, get a camcorder, keep a pocket tape recorder running... but fight the battle later, in court, and in the media, where you actually have a prayer of prevailing.
Mr. Dowd, you've diplayed more wisdom than many in this thread, and as a result will probably enjoy a long and lustrous criminal career. I mod you +1 insightful.
Like they teach new cops in the academy: smart criminals are seldom caught... dumb ones practically arrest themselves.
is that this is NOT a case of "can I have your papers, please?" I know RTFA is verboten on slashdot, but I wish, just once...
There was a report of a witnessed assault/domestic violence, the police officer arrived to find a man matching the description, who appeared potentially intoxicated, and had a real bad attitude towards the police. This constitutes at least reasonable suspicion (the standard to detain for ID), and with the witness testimony, borders on probable cause (the standard to arrest). This wasn't a guy just minding his own business...
Police have to have some kind of articulable, reasonable suspicion to detain you for ID, and they have to be able to articulate that reasonable suspicion in court, or they lose their evidence, and along with it their case. This was not just some joe getting rousted for no reason.
Read the link I posted from epic... it was not a situation of someone being rousted for their looks. Seriously... read about it. I'm not involved in law enforcement now, but even in my current role as a joe citizen, it certainly seems objectively reasonable.
You're correct, BTW... an officer can always ask for your ID, but if he has no reason to suspect you of anything, you don't have to give it to him. Politely ask if you're under arrest or being detained... if the answer is no, simply state that you're in a time-crunch to be somewhere, and that unless you're under arrest, you'll be leaving. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, he cannot stop you from politely saying "no thank you" and walking away.
It's not a matter of looking like anything... it's a mindset, and attitude; you have it all the way. I'm not talking about attitude on the cop's part... I'm talking about the "F*ck the police" attitude that people who view the police as their enemy typically exhibit.
There is no legal difference between "regular citizens" and "some kind of scofflaw". You have to treat them both the same
Nooo... there is a substantial legal difference. Now, they both have the same constitutional rights (which I always respect, BTW), but only temporarily... the the criminal loses some of those rights and freedoms once he's arrested and convicted under the law.
Anything you tell to a cop will be used against you if at all possible. Tell me it isn't the truth.
Oh, it's absolutely the truth... but what's incriminating about greeting them with: "Oh, Hey officer... what can I do for you?" or (after getting stopped on a midnight walk) "Oh hey... just walking my dog. Yes, I know it's 3AM, but I work nights, just like you... I walk around here pretty often... something you guys are looking for? Bunch of car stereo thefts? Yeah, sure, I'll keep my eyes open."
If you think my anti-cop sentiments are due to criminal activity on my part, please consider the possibility that my kind of crimes are very common among "regular citizens."
You're referring to drugs, of course. Here's the thing: if you're a regular citizen who's smoking a bit of weed in the privacy of your own home, not bothering anyone, or dealing it to neighborhood kids, most cops don't care. Seriously... they've got MUCH bigger fish to fry than you. By the same token, you ARE breaking what society has determined should be its law, and you're taking a risk. If you understand that risk, and you're a competent adult who's willing to suck up the consequences, I'd say good for you... but you know what you're doing; don't whine if you ever get busted.
I know *why* y'all dehumanize the people you interact with, but that doesn't make it ok.
I don't know what cops you're used to dealing with, but that's never been part of any department I've been involved with.
This is going to sound weird, but cops are trained to do that. Wait! It's nothing personal... read on.
Most people shake with their dominant hand, usually the right... that's also the gun hand. Standard interview position dictates that the officer stay arm's length or slightly more away, and blade his body to you in an effort to keep his gun side away from you. It's awkward and puts the officer physically off-balance to shake hands from this posture, and a trained person can take advantage of that imbalance to grapple with the officer and throw him to the ground.
As for introductions, officers in some jurisdictions have been outed by having their names, addresses, etc posted on the internet. Faced with that kind of harassment, I'd hesitate to state my name either.
I'm not trying to excuse outright rudeness... some cops are that way, and I won't condone their attitude... but try to understand the police officer's environment... it goes a long way towards explaining why they do some of the things they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Can/do they seize those too? How about when those backups are offsite? If it's the data you're worried about, those backups could save your business.
Besides, if their warrant only applied to that one physical address, you could forget to tell them about the redundant data, or you could simply tell them to get stuffed if it wasn't explicitly listed in their warrant (replacing the hardware they seized would be another matter entirely, but you'd at least have the data)
I was part of the relief effort after the towers were struck.
Every time I start listening to some chowder-head talking about how 9/11 was not such a big deal, I remember sitting there in a parking lot with my surgical team, waiting/hoping there'd be some survivors pulled from the rubble that we could take care of...
I'm not a PTSD candidate by any means, but 9/11 still bothers me, and I frankly hope it always will. When you witness the gruesome death of thousands of people and at some point in time it all becomes OK, or you just forget about it, or it doesn't bother you at all on some level... pain is part of being human; some things you should remember.
That said, I certainly hope nobody makes a VR simulation of that time... I certainly have no desire to relive an experience like that in vivid detail.
you should see it from my perspective... I often get patients who have chronic pain, and show up in my ER looking for medication refills.
I often can't help them, or at least, not the way they want... some of these people are prescribed monster doses of Oxycontin, MS-contin, Methadone, you name it. I treat acute pain in the ER, but I can't refill someone's 90-count bottle of 80mg Oxycontin tablets; it's inappropriate practice. I'm not trained or credentialed in chronic pain management, I've never seen the patient before, will probably never see them again, and those kind of medications at that kind of dose require follow-up (something I'm not set up to do), adjustments, documentation, etc... and I don't need to get "interviewed" by the DEA any more than the next doc. Ironically, some time ago the feds hauled away a physician in an area where I was practicing... then all his patients couldn't get their medications any more, and started coming to the ER looking for refills. Unfortunately, I'm ill-equipped to fill that void.
Chronic pain is a real problem, not only for the docs who run the pain clinics and take care of these folks (they're well-advised to keep impeccable records), but for guys like me who get caught in the middle.
And dont even get me started with the addicts and abusers who doctor shop... using the exact same stories as the chronic pain folks in an effort to get their party supplies for the weekend... those gomers are the bane of my existence.
as far as I'm concerned... if a VR simulation takes a patient's mind off their pain, God bless 'em.
Listen... I've spent my share of time in burn units, where the morphine flows like a mighty river; VR is far preferable to using drugs, with all their attendent side-effects. Also, contrary to popular wisdom, addiction isn't usually a problem... only a very very small percentage of burn unit denizens ever develop an addiction to their narcotics after they recover, and there's large studies and good research to back that up... anyone who tells you that narcotic use for severe pain makes normal people into addicts is about 20 years out of date.
Honestly, we already use a pharmacological variant of VR in pediatric burn units... it's called Ketamine (or "Special K" to all you ravers out there stupid enough to use it). Ketamine creates a dissociative anesthesia, and is sometimes used in kids who are having their dressings changed.... it's not really recommended in adults because it can produce extremely vivid hallucinations... most kids I've used it on report nothing, or just say "I had a bad dream."... gotta love kids. I personally think the difference in experience between pedi & adult has to do with the amount of bad things adults carry around in their subconscious... there's something to be said for innocence.
Whether it's distraction (I use that on kids all the time), the gate theory of pain, or whatever. If it works, I say use it... it's certainly preferable than risking the side-effects of mega-doses of narcotics.
Is not usually life-threatening (you'll certainly wish you were dead while you're going through it, but you don't usually die).
Much more dangerous are the withdrawl syndromes associated with Alcohol and Benzos (diazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam... aka Valium, Ativan, and Xanax, respectively). Those folks have a much harder go of it than heroin and painkiller addicts, at least physiologically speaking... they get autonomic hyperactivity, refractory seizures, hallucinations... there's a very significant mortality if not medically treated.
Stimulants tend not to have such a severe withdrawl syndrome, at least in a life-threatening sense. I'm referring to cocaine, methamphetamine... there's a crash when you come down, and they can deplete your body's stores of catecholamines and other neurotransmitters, leading to periods of agitation, depression, insomnia, etc, but that's typically after longer term use.
A psychological addiction to VR should be a very minor issue compared to any of the above.
I can still remember some of the moongate codes in Ultima III... yikes, how many years ago was that?
Just a general question: did anyone else pillage the city of Yew over and over to build up money and experience? (Note: it was the only city that didn't have guards, and the druids were easy pickings). Getting killed by orcs was humiliating, and I had to level up *somehow*
Origin will be missed... those games are unqualified classics.
Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons
This is a correct statement. If you can show me where the storage of new memories is accomplished primarily by mitosis rather than new synapse formation, I'll be happy to retract the above statement. There does seem to be some mitosis in the Hippocampus, and the Hippocampus is involved in the formation of some types of memories (though not all), so there does appear to be correlation... but not necessarily causation. It would be interesting to see if anyone has tested new memory formation while simultaneously suppressing cell division in the Hippocampus... I've never come across any such research.
Some authors consider the Hippocampus to be an intermediate-term buffer prior to consolidation in long-term storage. Lesions of the hippocampus seriously hinder the formation of some new memories (spatial relationships), but not others (rote skills and procedures). It's also worth noting that older memories are often spared after hippocampal damage, lending credence to the theory that those memories are stored elsewhere (in areas of the neocortex where mitosis has not been shown to take place)
If you have links to post that shed further light on this topic, please share them.
There is no evidence of widespread neurogenesis in the adult human brain. If you'd care to correct me on that point, please... be my guest.
There is some research to show that the olfactory bulb makes new neurons (perhaps accounting for ex-smokers ability to repair their damaged sense of smell over time), and the hippocampus as well... but those are very small, specific areas. Neurogenesis in the human brain has not been shown to occur in any areas beyond those two specific regions.
I realize you're just picking a nit... I'm just picking one in return.
constitute most of my explosive injury knowledge, and some of those can strip the flesh right off the bone.
But on the subject of traumatic amputations... I've seen many bones splintered by the impact of whatever instrument took off the limb (mostly industrial and agricultural accidents... but on that topic, have you seen what some of that agricultural power-take-off equipment can do? Yikes...)
You know, it's probably more a statement of philosophy than an actual fighting technique, but it does get the point across.
that research (which I was aware of, BTW) is almost all animal studies dealing with rats and mice.
To my knowledge, there has never been a human study that has demonstrated ongoing widespread neurogenesis in the adult brain... It would be great if it existed, because it would make recovery from traumatic brain injury much more feasible.
Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons. Your brain is slowly rotting away... but it's a long process, and you've got lots of time
You're doing fine... you're at least familiar with the term, which puts you head and shoulders above most laymen...
I've been admiring your sig for a while, btw.
It's an old kendo proverb that was told to me by a martial artist colleague years ago.
you are partially right, some cancer cells undergo apoptosis... while other cancer cells have mutations that fight actively against it.
Apoptosis is also characterized as "programmed cell death," something common during development. Apoptosis of some tissues is absolutely required, particularly vestigial structures that form during your early embryology (this happen in many species, not just humans).
It should be noted that apoptosis is not simply rampant cell-suicide... it's actually a well-described and orderly process. Rampant cell membrane destruction, particularly in the brain (we see this with larger strokes) leads to the release of all kinds of inflammatory mediators... leading to swelling, damage to surrounding cells... all bad things. Nice, orderly apoptosis prevents much of this.
are not that mitotically active in the adult brain anyway. The Glial cells continue to divide, etc... but the neurons themselves are largely established by childhood, and their numbers steadily go downhill over the course of your life.
That's not to say that neurons don't develop new connections and synapses... they do (otherwise learning could not take place)... they just don't divide much. The implication here is that since they don't divide, they are unlikely to become neoplastic, or pass on their damaged DNA.
Apart from the apoptosis angle, I'm not sure how much clinical relevance this research actually has.
just make fun of people who wear star trek pajamas, did you?
Kiss your karma goodbye.
the dynamics of these situations.
Action always beats reaction... Anyone trained in close quarters combat will tell you that. By the time you see someone pull out the object, realize it's a weapon, make the decision to fire, line up your sights and squeeze the trigger... you can already be dead.
From the holster it takes an average of about two seconds+ to realize that someone is a threat, make the decision to fire, draw your gun and fire even one round. The officer is always reacting to somebody else, which always puts the officer at a disadvantage... that lag time has gotten officers killed.
In this case, it's slightly different... the suspect was faced with four drawn guns. He should have kept his hands where everyone could see them... unfortunately, whether from a language barrier, fear, ignorance... whatever the reason, he made a move, and it cost him his life. It didn't help that one of the officers tripped while trying to retreat and fell down, leading the other officers to believe he'd been shot.
If I tell a person at gunpoint not to move, and they go for their pocket, I'm going to shoot them. They might be pulling a wallet out of their back pocket... but then again, they might be pulling out one of these, these, one of these or even one of these. Understand now? You now know what cops know... and what cops are worried about.
When faced with a drawn gun, think of it as a game of "simon says"... you do nothing until simon says. If an officer considers you enough of a threat that he's got his gun out, pay attention, because your life depends on your next move. Just FYI, in a lot of jurisdictions, anytime an officer draws his gun, he has to make a police report; If he's got a reason to have it out... for the love of God don't give him a reason to use it.
The original poster is right.
.308 round with an maximum effective range of 1000 yards. The AK fires a 7.62x39 round with a typical effective range of 4-500 yards. The LA police had Beretta side-arms, firing a conventional 9x19 round, (maximum effective range of 200 yards) and shotguns with no slugs (maximum effective range of 00-buck is 75-100 yards). The criminals in question had also made full body armor suits for themselves out of old vests... they were gym rats and gun nuts who came prepared.
The cops in LA were up against better-armed and better-equiped adversaries, and were pinned down at long range by rifle fire.
The men in the North Hollywood shootout that you are referring to were using several types of weapons... one had an HK-91 and another had a fully-automatic Hungarian AK with several drum magazines of ammunition (drums can hold 100 rounds). The HK-91 fires a
The police were unable to hurt either of those criminals with the weapons they had, particularly at the range at which they were being engaged... one of the two men eventually killed himself after he'd exhausted his ammunition for his long-gun... the other was killed by SWAT officers with mp5 submachine guns, who shot from cover at close range; skipping rounds off the concrete under the suspect's car to take out his legs (he bled to death from a femoral artery hit).
I don't think you understand this very well.
It might be a curious statement if it in any way resembled your charecterization of it. I neither expressed nor implied any criminal behaviour on the part of either police officers or private citizens, therefore it also cannot be a rationalization for criminal behaviour.
Your statement absolutely came across that way, and is one of the most common rationalizations I hear for breaking the law. "the concept of a good guy is a highly relative one."... ergo the bad guy is not really a bad guy, he's just misunderstood because he has a different worldview of what's right and wrong.
Now, on some issues I don't necessarily disagree, but society as a whole makes our laws based on current mores, and we must generally abide by them or face the consequences. Consenting adults may make their choices, and take whatever risks they're comfortable with... but they cannot then whine if society finds them worthy of sanction for said behavior. The answer is to change the law, form your own society, or pay-your-money-and-take-your-chances. Laws evolve, generally as society evolves.
I might also point out that the law itself is morally relativistic. If I am a drill sargent and I go to a strip club and pinch a stripper's ass without her permission I have commited no legal offense. If I then go to a diner and pinch a waitresses ass without her permission I am guilty of a civil sexual harrassment. If I then return to base and a trainee asks me to pinch her ass and I comply I have commited a criminal sexual harrassment.
Actually, you have multiple possible offenses in the above paragraph, depending on local ordinance. In your first two examples, you could be charged with simple assault, or some form of sexual imposition. The crimes in the last scenario might be fraternization, conduct unbecoming, inappropriate touching of a subordinate, etc, and the penalties for the latter scenario are more severe, because of roles and circumstances. As a military superior, he is abusing his position of power and authority, and thus is due a greater sanction. I don't see any moral relativism there... the circumstances are not at all comparable.
Police officers have certain scope in their behaviour. They are not robots. In the case in question the law allowed the officer to demand ID, it did not require it. Upon refusal the law allowed the officer to make arrest, it did not require it. The DA had wide disgression whether or not to prosecute, for what particular charge and to plea bargain that charge.
The concept you seem to be talking around is officer discretion... the officer's option of whether to arrest, or ignore, based on his judgement. Interestingly, that's an area of significant debate among cops; should officer discretion really exist, or do you use a set yardstick? Would you give your mother a pass when committing the same offense for which you'd skin another person? If you do, that's nepotism, favoritism... whatever you want to call it. Discretion is very much double-edged... and here's the problem with discretion: discretion is where an officer's biases come out... it opens the door to selective enforcement... for good or for bad. Now, discretion can work, and here's a properly applied example: An officer pulls over a young woman, who's crying and tearful, sobs that she's late for work, begs you not to give her a ticket ("my dad will kill me") states she'll never do it again... a lot of officers would NOT give that young woman a ticket. Why? It's not necessarily because they feel sorry for her... it's because their goal is to enforce the law; ie. slow her down and make her less likely to speed in the future. If the officer feels he has already accomplished that goal, there's no need for a citation.
running the registration has nothing to do with it... if the vehicle is stolen and unreported, or has stolen plates (oldest trick in the book, steal clean tags from a like model vehicle), you've just lulled yourself into a dangerous complacency.
/.'rs who cannot see the tactical stupidity in such a move. Control your temper... you can't win a street confrontation with a cop, because even if you can kick his ass, he's got a magic box called a radio that he can shake, and 20 (now very angry) guys just like him fall out of it.
I haven't seen the video either... but if the girl attempted to force the door open while an officer was holding it, I'm not at all surprised she was taken down and handcuffed. Attempting ANY sort of violence, and I do mean ANY, during a police confrontation is a sure way to get beat/taken down and handcuffed. The funny part is this: if he was a bad cop, by losing your temper and doing something dumb, you've just given him a legal blank check to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
I'm absolutely amazed by the number of
.
No... my question to you is this: why would you purposely act like a potential threat and gratuitously antagonize someone who can cause you great harm, inconvenience, and expense? The likelihood of that officer being a bad cop is low, but even if he's not, why are you going to reduce his chances of cutting you a break to absolutely zero by spitting in his eye? I simply don't understand it... What's wrong with being polite? Is it worth that much to you to be able to polish that attitude, have your pride, indulge your childish fit of anger and tell off that cop? I can't tell you how much further simple good manners will get you. Besides, didn't your mother teach you that just because someone else is brusque, that it's no excuse for you to be rude in return? Good grief... Some of you people... borderline misanthropes.
Back to the topic: I'd say fear is going a little too far... but a respect for what that cop can do to you isn't a bad thing to keep in mind.
Now, you may think it's your God-given right be be as big an ass as possible to everyone you meet, especially cops... well, that's fine... but that won't stop me from calling you a fool for doing so, because you're the ONLY one who will suffer.
Save your rebuttal for the appropriate venue, where it might actually succeed. On the street is NOT that venue.
Because you have a gun and certain authority to use it.
Indeed, and thus my personal feeling that police officers should be held to a high standard, and washed out if they do not or cannot meet it. Nobody despises corrupt cops more than I do; I despise them the say way I despise anyone in a position of trust and authority who abuses their power and position to subjugate others, for whatever illegitimate personal end.
However, my remarks were directed towards frank abuse of police officers (which they are required to take, and do so every day). My final statement was to make an analogy that some slashgeeks might be able to appreciate, to "see there from here" so to speak. If it came across any other way, I apologize for the confusion.
I actually left my old department after a new chief made some radical changes, not all of which were good for officer safety. I expressed my reservations, and was rebuffed. Fortunately, being a volunteer, I had the luxury of leaving, so I promptly resigned and never looked back.
That said, I'm slightly troubled myself by what appears to be moral relativist rationalization for criminal behavior in your post. the concept of good guy is a highly relative one. is a curious statement. Police officers don't get much choice in what laws they enforce... they are oath-bound to enforce all of them equally, without regard for position or rank... anything less will get you fired for dereliction. Justice is supposed to be blind, and nobody is theoretically above the law. However, there is occasionaly a crack in that reality. I know officers who don't have a problem with someone smoking the occasional joint in their home... they just pretend they don't notice the odor when they're standing in the doorway.
For laws that are plainly unconstitutional or blatantly deprive citizens of their basic freedoms, most cops I know would have nothing to do with enforcing anything of that sort. As an example, gun control/confiscation came up among a bunch of cops I was eating lunch with... the concensus was that we'd hand in our badges before we'd take part in any gun confiscation scheme. You might be surprised to find that goes for most of the cops I know, but that's a blatant constitutional assault... you'd find the field much thinner if we were talking about IP laws, or drug legalization.
We're a nation of laws... and until such time as they are changed, those laws must rule... the answer is to change the law. Unless circumstances were truly dire, I would never ask tens of thousands of blue-collar cops with families to feed to sacrifice their careers, strictly to make some kind of political point. Cops don't make the law, and blaming cops for it is misplacing that blame... it's simply shooting the messenger.
and it's so blindingly obvious, it stuns me that more people don't realize it.
Over the course of your life, you will probably never meet on the street anyone with more power that the average police officer. On his summary judgement, he can deprive you of your liberty, property, even your life, should the circumstances warrant it.
Now, why in the hell would anyone purposely and unnecessarily antagonize someone like that? Why? If they're as corrupt as some people in this thread claim, why set yourself up as a target for their harassment? Why stupidly and openly proclaim yourself their enemy? I don't understand that philosophy... thousands of years ago, Sun Tzu taught that you fight where you are strong, and your enemy is weak. On the street, you're on the cops turf, and you'll lose that battle every single time. People that have a problem with self-control had better work on it... because being faced by a bad cop on the street is not the time to lose your temper.
Even if you hate the cops more than syphilis, it's simply in your self-interest to be cool, play deep, be polite, and if necessary, get your pound of flesh later. If the cops in your area are that corrupt, work with friends, get a camcorder, keep a pocket tape recorder running... but fight the battle later, in court, and in the media, where you actually have a prayer of prevailing.
Mr. Dowd, you've diplayed more wisdom than many in this thread, and as a result will probably enjoy a long and lustrous criminal career. I mod you +1 insightful.
Like they teach new cops in the academy: smart criminals are seldom caught... dumb ones practically arrest themselves.
is that this is NOT a case of "can I have your papers, please?" I know RTFA is verboten on slashdot, but I wish, just once...
There was a report of a witnessed assault/domestic violence, the police officer arrived to find a man matching the description, who appeared potentially intoxicated, and had a real bad attitude towards the police. This constitutes at least reasonable suspicion (the standard to detain for ID), and with the witness testimony, borders on probable cause (the standard to arrest). This wasn't a guy just minding his own business...
Police have to have some kind of articulable, reasonable suspicion to detain you for ID, and they have to be able to articulate that reasonable suspicion in court, or they lose their evidence, and along with it their case. This was not just some joe getting rousted for no reason.
Read the link I posted from epic... it was not a situation of someone being rousted for their looks. Seriously... read about it. I'm not involved in law enforcement now, but even in my current role as a joe citizen, it certainly seems objectively reasonable.
;)
You're correct, BTW... an officer can always ask for your ID, but if he has no reason to suspect you of anything, you don't have to give it to him. Politely ask if you're under arrest or being detained... if the answer is no, simply state that you're in a time-crunch to be somewhere, and that unless you're under arrest, you'll be leaving. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, he cannot stop you from politely saying "no thank you" and walking away.
Also, it's police "explorer," not pioneer
because I don't look like "some kind of scofflaw"
It's not a matter of looking like anything... it's a mindset, and attitude; you have it all the way. I'm not talking about attitude on the cop's part... I'm talking about the "F*ck the police" attitude that people who view the police as their enemy typically exhibit.
There is no legal difference between "regular citizens" and "some kind of scofflaw". You have to treat them both the same
Nooo... there is a substantial legal difference. Now, they both have the same constitutional rights (which I always respect, BTW), but only temporarily... the the criminal loses some of those rights and freedoms once he's arrested and convicted under the law.
Anything you tell to a cop will be used against you if at all possible. Tell me it isn't the truth.
Oh, it's absolutely the truth... but what's incriminating about greeting them with: "Oh, Hey officer... what can I do for you?" or (after getting stopped on a midnight walk) "Oh hey... just walking my dog. Yes, I know it's 3AM, but I work nights, just like you... I walk around here pretty often... something you guys are looking for? Bunch of car stereo thefts? Yeah, sure, I'll keep my eyes open."
If you think my anti-cop sentiments are due to criminal activity on my part, please consider the possibility that my kind of crimes are very common among "regular citizens."
You're referring to drugs, of course. Here's the thing: if you're a regular citizen who's smoking a bit of weed in the privacy of your own home, not bothering anyone, or dealing it to neighborhood kids, most cops don't care. Seriously... they've got MUCH bigger fish to fry than you. By the same token, you ARE breaking what society has determined should be its law, and you're taking a risk. If you understand that risk, and you're a competent adult who's willing to suck up the consequences, I'd say good for you... but you know what you're doing; don't whine if you ever get busted.
I know *why* y'all dehumanize the people you interact with, but that doesn't make it ok.
I don't know what cops you're used to dealing with, but that's never been part of any department I've been involved with.
This is going to sound weird, but cops are trained to do that. Wait! It's nothing personal... read on.
Most people shake with their dominant hand, usually the right... that's also the gun hand. Standard interview position dictates that the officer stay arm's length or slightly more away, and blade his body to you in an effort to keep his gun side away from you. It's awkward and puts the officer physically off-balance to shake hands from this posture, and a trained person can take advantage of that imbalance to grapple with the officer and throw him to the ground.
As for introductions, officers in some jurisdictions have been outed by having their names, addresses, etc posted on the internet. Faced with that kind of harassment, I'd hesitate to state my name either.
I'm not trying to excuse outright rudeness... some cops are that way, and I won't condone their attitude... but try to understand the police officer's environment... it goes a long way towards explaining why they do some of the things they do.