Isn't the Chinese government already pushing their own Linux anyway? I don't see how this helps M$ even in the short term, since places that have bought licenses for some of their machines will probably also switch those to Red Flag Linux when they get legal. I suppose it would eliminate all the calls to MS tech support from those licensed users they'd be chasing off, so there's something.
Also unlike them, you are completely free to start your own business and employ the people that are being excluded by your competitors. Since your workers are more productive, you can produce more for less cost. Less cost means more customers for you and you make a better living than you would have if you were working for them.
Or, in terms/. will understand: 1. start company, 2. hire most productive workers available, 3. lower cost, 4. Profit!
Oh, I didn't get that your list of things to do to mitigate dangers were all involved in the BART protest. The first one was block off roads to keep protestors from getting run over. How hard was it for them to keep cars out of the underground terminal? And keeep opposing groups separated; I didn't know there was a counterprotest in the underground terminals either.
You mentioned Birmingham and I misremembered a connected to
http://www.may41970.com/Jackson%20State/jackson_state_may_1970.htm
It doesn't assume anything of the kind. It states the number of times guns are used, which stays about the same year to year, and looks at the number of times tasers are used, which rises directly in proportion to the number of tasers carried. The entire purpose of making these tools available was to reduce the number of people killed by cops. They haven't.
Instead of your fake numbers, let's look at the real numbers. In the first nine months of 2008, police shot their guns 174 times and used their 227 tasers 126 times . In the first nine months of 2009, they used guns 254 times and tasers 290 times. In the first nine months of 2010, police used guns 256 times and used their 712 Tasers 480 times. In the first nine months of 2011, they used guns an unspecified number of times described as "showed no corresponding decrease", I'll call it 250 times since that matches the previous two years, and their Tasers 550 times.
So you are claiming that the number of times shots would be fired would jump from 300 in 2008 to 544 in 2009, then to 736 in 2010, and then to about 800 in 2011? Those are some mighty big jumps from a baseline around 174, especially in the context of a city in which violent crime, including murder, declined over that period. Those numbers are nothing like the fake ones you pulled out and show a completely different trend han you suggest; I think they speak for themselves. Perhaps if the number of tasings were consistent at about 20% of shootings, as you propose, and the number of shootings showed a corresponding decline, it would be completely different. But that's not consistent with the data.
Your argument about clubs is a bit confused. Do they just piss off the people beaten with them, or kill them? Perhaps it really is both, since it depends on where the blows are struck and how much kicking is added to the beating (ask Rodney King about the kicking). Oh, and haven't tonfas pretty much replaced nightsticks as the club of choice these days?
It is a human factor that is heightened by the effect of stress on the human brain.
Why is the taser on the same side as the gun?
It usually isn't. Though when the brain says "weapon" it may choose the one that is most practiced with. This may cause muscle memory to choose the wrong weapon.
This is a failure of his training then. So how has the training program for his agency, and all the rest that use Tasers, been changed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of this shooting?
Why is the grip not textured in a way unlike the sidearm?
It is and it is of a different size. The issue is that under stress the brain is busy dealing with more important matters than the feel of a weapon; threat, movement, sounds, etc. It is not a choice but a physiological response.
Most of the cops I see around here wear their pistols on their right hip and their Tasers on their belly, angled for right-hand access. The handles are different, but similar enough that the proper techniques for aiming and operating them are the same.
Why is a single police officer even carrying both?
If a pair of officers, one with a tazer and one with a gun, get into a situation where guns are required then the officer with the tazer is useless as backup. The same goes for a tazer situation. All officers need to have the flexibility to choose the best tool for the situation.
Or, as the old saying goes, never bring a taser to a gunfight. There are still a lot of cops on the street without Tasers, leaving them with only clubs, knives and pepper spray as their less-lethal options. But they don't shoot any more people than cops with Tasers do, they just don't tase as many. Citation: http://www.citypaper.net/news/2012-01-12-taser-use-gun-use-philadelphia-police.html. (My original source is behind the paywall at chron.com. The numbers in Houston are slightly larger but the trends are the same.)
Does BART have Sovereign Immunity, which would make such a lawsuit useless? It appears there is precedence that it applies to police and firefighters for not being in the right place at the right and for not rendering enough aid.
So government can do no wrong? Does that mean any government, or only one with a member of the Democratic Party in charge, even though he tells his own Justice Department not to persecute people who are following state law in their use of medical cannabis but they ignore him?
For all the criminal career of Kim Dotcom, how does anything he did become a threat to Homeland security? DHS does not, or at least should not, have jurisdiction in every federal crime. And since when is copyright violation even a crime instead of a tort?
We didn't exactly steal nuclear scientists from the Germans, they ran them out of the country because they prayed on the wrong day. The Nazis were not afraid of these untermenschen, and they believed that an atomic bomb would take far too long to develop for it to be a threat.
The Japanese militants were not apprehensive about attacking us, because they believed that white people aren't capable of the devotion to their cause that the Japanese people, exclusively, were. All they had to do was act ruthlessly and everyone would agree to terms that left them holding most of their conquests. There were people like Admiral Yamamoto and General Kuribayashi who had lived in the US and knew what was coming, but they were not part of the militarist factions that ran the government. The same militarist faction, by the way, that attempted to overthrow the Emperor for ordering the surrender after the second atomic attack.
MAD doesn't work unless the aggressor fears Assured Destruction. Al Qaeda, for instance, doesn't have that fear, and the recent disclosures from bin Laden's papers show that they have used Pakistani resources. They haven't shown much concern for getting their own people killed either.
And that doesn't even cover the issue of how MAD works. It is The End Of The World As We Know It, not something that is used in response to a small attack. Even in the hottest part of the Cold War there was always discussion of smaller responses such as "trading cities" with the choices of targeting people, industry, energy or transportation. The US was never going to launch Global Thermonuclear Warfare, sending in the B-52s and launching every ICBM and SLBM, in response to a single missile incinerating Washington, DC.
In fact, we have the example of the attack with four missiles, two in New York City, one in Washington, and one intercepted. These were cruise missiles, not ballistic, and they didn't have nuclear payloads, but the problems are the same. Who do you destroy? What do you destroy? When do you destroy it? Where do you destroy it? How do you destroy it?
What if FDR had had on 8 December 1941 the nuclear arsenal BHO commands now. Would he have turned the islands of Japan into a sheet of glass? Actually, he might have. Would that have been reasonable?
That arrangement of the sidesticks looks like a potential training problem. When a pilot is promoted to captain, he has to learn to operate the stick with the left hand instead of the right, and the throttle with the right instead of the left. For a pilot with thousands of hours flying, this has to be somewhat disorienting that requires a serious amount of training to overcome.
You are ignoring the mass quantity of the greenhouse gas methane produced all your crappy bulls. One hundred to five hundred liters of it per day, per bull (or cow or sheep or goat), far more than produced per unit of usable fertilizer nutrients by factories. You also appear to be ignoring the safety issues of organic fertilizers with, for example, their e coli, which is not found in chemical fertilizers.
And the reasons people are living longer since WWII are better nutrition, enabled by pesticides and improved crop strains, and the use of antibiotics, first made in quantity during the war.
Contributing to the higher cancer rate is the widespread use of tobacco, the world's most deadly drug. You've come a long way, baby.
No, it's the exact opposite of that. The railroads were built by American management and treasure and engineering, with newly migrated Irish and Chinese laborers. The result was a core of experienced leaders ready to leverage the new transportation with the industrial revolution and the expansion of the US economy into the powerhouse that won the World Wars. The Chinese building infrastructure in Africa use Chinese management and treasure and engineering, which produces experienced leaders they can take home to expand their own economy, leaving behind a shell of local laborers with few useful skills for leveraging their new infrastructure.
The control group was the group (half) of the participants who received treatment as usual. The criteria for entry to the experiment included "mild to moderate" depression, defined in the article by scores on a standard test of depression, and no one who was enrolled was extremely depressed, and so there isn't any power in the difference between how depressed someone was and the results they obtained. Another criterion for entry was that the participant have the physical and mental capabilities for interacting with the program, and no one was so depressed that they didn't do anything.
Anyone with any familiarity with this sort of experiment knows that 86% is an incredibly high response rate, and that the response rate is included in the statistical calculations; they do not, as you assume, count all non-responders as supporting the hypothesis.
In this case, the article mentioned that the original was published in the British Medical Journal. I googled that name, and bmj.com was the first result. I went there and search for "sparx" which gave me the two results I posted.
It was only after I finished my post that I returned to BMJ.com and saw that nearly everything else interesting was only the first 100 words from the beginning of the articles, not even abstracts which would be much more likely to get me to buy an article.
I don't know of a way to get around the paywalls, and I don't know of a strategy to encourage journals to make their material more available. Some governments now require that all research they fund be published openly, and charitable foundations ought to require that as well.
Perhaps you should read the entire article instead of basing your assinine accusation on the title of a newspaper article describing a journal article which, strangely enough, contains operational definitions for both "depression" and "treatment as usual".
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See
Most of the objections raised in the comments above are answered in the article, which looks to me to be about as high quality as is possible given the differences between the treatments used. Making accusations of "lying" before you have read the full article is unethical.
The main weakness pointed out by the authors was that the compliance with the treatment protocols was reported by the adolescent participants, not by the machines or the professionals providing the treatment. Another was that some 13% of the participants who were supposed to receive treatment as usual were merely put on waiting lists, although that may be treatment as usual in some places; but the real kicker here was that excluding them made the treatment as usual even less effective! There have been plenty of previous studies comparing treatment with non-treatment that find treatment more effective, but testing treatments for depression is very tricky because pretty much anything is beneficial, even telling people they are taking part in an experiment and then doing nothing else, but this article reports “[w]e have carried out two small studies of computerised interventions for depressive symptoms; one showed a significant effect compared with placebo and the other was significantly more effective than a waitlist control.”
I know it is futile to ask people to read an article before they comment on it, and I know it is equally futile to ask people who submit articles such as this to post links to original articles instead of second or third sources, but here goes: If you are submitting an article about an article in a scientific journal, please include a link to the original article in the original journal instead of a newspaper article based on a press release announcing the publication of the article. Thank you. And if you are drinking from the Firehose and come across something like this, at least vote it down, and better yet, submit a better article to replace it.
The article itself, but not the second-hand news release, contains the information you want:
Adherence rates
Eighty out of 94 young people who were allocated to SPARX returned questionnaires reporting number of modules completed. Adherence rates for SPARX were good, with 69 (86%) of participants allocated to SPARX completing at least four modules, 48 (60%) completing all seven modules, and 50 (62%) completing most or all of the homework challenges set.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course all pirates are happy to tell the world about it. It's not like they'd get sued or anything.
Isn't the Chinese government already pushing their own Linux anyway? I don't see how this helps M$ even in the short term, since places that have bought licenses for some of their machines will probably also switch those to Red Flag Linux when they get legal. I suppose it would eliminate all the calls to MS tech support from those licensed users they'd be chasing off, so there's something.
Also unlike them, you are completely free to start your own business and employ the people that are being excluded by your competitors. Since your workers are more productive, you can produce more for less cost. Less cost means more customers for you and you make a better living than you would have if you were working for them.
Or, in terms /. will understand:
1. start company,
2. hire most productive workers available,
3. lower cost,
4. Profit!
Oh, I didn't get that your list of things to do to mitigate dangers were all involved in the BART protest. The first one was block off roads to keep protestors from getting run over. How hard was it for them to keep cars out of the underground terminal? And keeep opposing groups separated; I didn't know there was a counterprotest in the underground terminals either. You mentioned Birmingham and I misremembered a connected to http://www.may41970.com/Jackson%20State/jackson_state_may_1970.htm
It doesn't assume anything of the kind. It states the number of times guns are used, which stays about the same year to year, and looks at the number of times tasers are used, which rises directly in proportion to the number of tasers carried. The entire purpose of making these tools available was to reduce the number of people killed by cops. They haven't.
Instead of your fake numbers, let's look at the real numbers. In the first nine months of 2008, police shot their guns 174 times and used their 227 tasers 126 times . In the first nine months of 2009, they used guns 254 times and tasers 290 times. In the first nine months of 2010, police used guns 256 times and used their 712 Tasers 480 times. In the first nine months of 2011, they used guns an unspecified number of times described as "showed no corresponding decrease", I'll call it 250 times since that matches the previous two years, and their Tasers 550 times.
So you are claiming that the number of times shots would be fired would jump from 300 in 2008 to 544 in 2009, then to 736 in 2010, and then to about 800 in 2011? Those are some mighty big jumps from a baseline around 174, especially in the context of a city in which violent crime, including murder, declined over that period. Those numbers are nothing like the fake ones you pulled out and show a completely different trend han you suggest; I think they speak for themselves. Perhaps if the number of tasings were consistent at about 20% of shootings, as you propose, and the number of shootings showed a corresponding decline, it would be completely different. But that's not consistent with the data.
Your argument about clubs is a bit confused. Do they just piss off the people beaten with them, or kill them? Perhaps it really is both, since it depends on where the blows are struck and how much kicking is added to the beating (ask Rodney King about the kicking). Oh, and haven't tonfas pretty much replaced nightsticks as the club of choice these days?
Oh, and just because I came across it, here's a reference to a killing in the line of duty by a cop using a knife, at what I consider a pretty reliable but incomplete source:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
This is a failure of his training then. So how has the training program for his agency, and all the rest that use Tasers, been changed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of this shooting?
Most of the cops I see around here wear their pistols on their right hip and their Tasers on their belly, angled for right-hand access. The handles are different, but similar enough that the proper techniques for aiming and operating them are the same.
Or, as the old saying goes, never bring a taser to a gunfight. There are still a lot of cops on the street without Tasers, leaving them with only clubs, knives and pepper spray as their less-lethal options. But they don't shoot any more people than cops with Tasers do, they just don't tase as many. Citation: http://www.citypaper.net/news/2012-01-12-taser-use-gun-use-philadelphia-police.html. (My original source is behind the paywall at chron.com. The numbers in Houston are slightly larger but the trends are the same.)
Does BART have Sovereign Immunity, which would make such a lawsuit useless? It appears there is precedence that it applies to police and firefighters for not being in the right place at the right and for not rendering enough aid.
You left out the main thing that police can do to mitigate danger: don't shoot your guns indiscriminately into crowds.
::Boggle::
So government can do no wrong? Does that mean any government, or only one with a member of the Democratic Party in charge, even though he tells his own Justice Department not to persecute people who are following state law in their use of medical cannabis but they ignore him?
[Citation Needed]
What part of "Congress shall make no law" can you not comprehend?
For all the criminal career of Kim Dotcom, how does anything he did become a threat to Homeland security? DHS does not, or at least should not, have jurisdiction in every federal crime. And since when is copyright violation even a crime instead of a tort?
We didn't exactly steal nuclear scientists from the Germans, they ran them out of the country because they prayed on the wrong day. The Nazis were not afraid of these untermenschen, and they believed that an atomic bomb would take far too long to develop for it to be a threat.
The Japanese militants were not apprehensive about attacking us, because they believed that white people aren't capable of the devotion to their cause that the Japanese people, exclusively, were. All they had to do was act ruthlessly and everyone would agree to terms that left them holding most of their conquests. There were people like Admiral Yamamoto and General Kuribayashi who had lived in the US and knew what was coming, but they were not part of the militarist factions that ran the government. The same militarist faction, by the way, that attempted to overthrow the Emperor for ordering the surrender after the second atomic attack.
Did you miss the Mac Pro Server? http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC915LL/A?
MAD doesn't work unless the aggressor fears Assured Destruction. Al Qaeda, for instance, doesn't have that fear, and the recent disclosures from bin Laden's papers show that they have used Pakistani resources. They haven't shown much concern for getting their own people killed either.
And that doesn't even cover the issue of how MAD works. It is The End Of The World As We Know It, not something that is used in response to a small attack. Even in the hottest part of the Cold War there was always discussion of smaller responses such as "trading cities" with the choices of targeting people, industry, energy or transportation. The US was never going to launch Global Thermonuclear Warfare, sending in the B-52s and launching every ICBM and SLBM, in response to a single missile incinerating Washington, DC.
In fact, we have the example of the attack with four missiles, two in New York City, one in Washington, and one intercepted. These were cruise missiles, not ballistic, and they didn't have nuclear payloads, but the problems are the same. Who do you destroy? What do you destroy? When do you destroy it? Where do you destroy it? How do you destroy it?
What if FDR had had on 8 December 1941 the nuclear arsenal BHO commands now. Would he have turned the islands of Japan into a sheet of glass? Actually, he might have. Would that have been reasonable?
You bastards!
That arrangement of the sidesticks looks like a potential training problem. When a pilot is promoted to captain, he has to learn to operate the stick with the left hand instead of the right, and the throttle with the right instead of the left. For a pilot with thousands of hours flying, this has to be somewhat disorienting that requires a serious amount of training to overcome.
You are ignoring the mass quantity of the greenhouse gas methane produced all your crappy bulls. One hundred to five hundred liters of it per day, per bull (or cow or sheep or goat), far more than produced per unit of usable fertilizer nutrients by factories. You also appear to be ignoring the safety issues of organic fertilizers with, for example, their e coli, which is not found in chemical fertilizers.
And the reasons people are living longer since WWII are better nutrition, enabled by pesticides and improved crop strains, and the use of antibiotics, first made in quantity during the war.
Contributing to the higher cancer rate is the widespread use of tobacco, the world's most deadly drug. You've come a long way, baby.
No, it's the exact opposite of that. The railroads were built by American management and treasure and engineering, with newly migrated Irish and Chinese laborers. The result was a core of experienced leaders ready to leverage the new transportation with the industrial revolution and the expansion of the US economy into the powerhouse that won the World Wars. The Chinese building infrastructure in Africa use Chinese management and treasure and engineering, which produces experienced leaders they can take home to expand their own economy, leaving behind a shell of local laborers with few useful skills for leveraging their new infrastructure.
The control group was the group (half) of the participants who received treatment as usual. The criteria for entry to the experiment included "mild to moderate" depression, defined in the article by scores on a standard test of depression, and no one who was enrolled was extremely depressed, and so there isn't any power in the difference between how depressed someone was and the results they obtained. Another criterion for entry was that the participant have the physical and mental capabilities for interacting with the program, and no one was so depressed that they didn't do anything.
Anyone with any familiarity with this sort of experiment knows that 86% is an incredibly high response rate, and that the response rate is included in the statistical calculations; they do not, as you assume, count all non-responders as supporting the hypothesis.
In this case, the article mentioned that the original was published in the British Medical Journal. I googled that name, and bmj.com was the first result. I went there and search for "sparx" which gave me the two results I posted.
It was only after I finished my post that I returned to BMJ.com and saw that nearly everything else interesting was only the first 100 words from the beginning of the articles, not even abstracts which would be much more likely to get me to buy an article.
I don't know of a way to get around the paywalls, and I don't know of a strategy to encourage journals to make their material more available. Some governments now require that all research they fund be published openly, and charitable foundations ought to require that as well.
Perhaps you should read the entire article instead of basing your assinine accusation on the title of a newspaper article describing a journal article which, strangely enough, contains operational definitions for both "depression" and "treatment as usual".
I am unhappy to see such a low-quality reference for this article, when the official press release from the journal is available and the full article itself are available online and
Most of the objections raised in the comments above are answered in the article, which looks to me to be about as high quality as is possible given the differences between the treatments used. Making accusations of "lying" before you have read the full article is unethical.
The main weakness pointed out by the authors was that the compliance with the treatment protocols was reported by the adolescent participants, not by the machines or the professionals providing the treatment. Another was that some 13% of the participants who were supposed to receive treatment as usual were merely put on waiting lists, although that may be treatment as usual in some places; but the real kicker here was that excluding them made the treatment as usual even less effective! There have been plenty of previous studies comparing treatment with non-treatment that find treatment more effective, but testing treatments for depression is very tricky because pretty much anything is beneficial, even telling people they are taking part in an experiment and then doing nothing else, but this article reports “[w]e have carried out two small studies of computerised interventions for depressive symptoms; one showed a significant effect compared with placebo and the other was significantly more effective than a waitlist control.”
I know it is futile to ask people to read an article before they comment on it, and I know it is equally futile to ask people who submit articles such as this to post links to original articles instead of second or third sources, but here goes: If you are submitting an article about an article in a scientific journal, please include a link to the original article in the original journal instead of a newspaper article based on a press release announcing the publication of the article. Thank you. And if you are drinking from the Firehose and come across something like this, at least vote it down, and better yet, submit a better article to replace it.