...when trying to pimp your group on Slashdot, it is vital to include the *name* of the group, the location and time of the meetings! Yeesh, you just passed up the chance for a few tens of thousands of pageviews!:-)
If these are active, current subscribers than Blizzard doesn't care if they're actually logging in - it's still $15x2MM dollars a month revenue for them.
Now, if this is 2MM subscibers total, over the history of WoW, then that's not as impressive.:)
Want to dual boot Windows and OS X? Buy Apple hardware - both will run natively, and Windows will most likely *already* have drivers for Apple hardware. The same is not true of OS X and most other hardware. It's the best of both worlds, for a modest price premium on the hardware side.
The hubub, from what I can tell, is from people who are equating Apple's flawed 'Spotlight' function with true meta-data indexing, and saying that since Spotlight doesn't work very well the whole idea of metadata indexing is shit.
Or inform her she was under arrest, let her finish her phone call and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
They had informed her she was under arrest (Felony suspended license, remember?). At that moment, her rights as a citizen were constrained. "Let her finish her phone call"? She'd be talking all night - I've seen people fake phone conversations to get out of talking to a police officer. You perhaps do not believe or understand the length some people (seemingly normal, functional humans) will go when confronted with something they don't like in an attempt to avoid reality.
and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
This is, sadly, impossible. I've seen people like this all too often. Here's what happens - Rentacop (it's usually a rentacop - the professional forces don't make this mistake) places hand on elbow to guide uncompliant person. Uncompliant person goes completely mental and starts lashing out. I once saw a guy knock his own mother over a chair, he wigged out so badly (note - this was after being told to comply in a very polite, professional manner, and declining to do so).
In this particular case, she was also seated in an SUV. That's a two-tonne weapon in the hands of an unco-operative subject. It takes two or three seconds to start the engine and throw it into gear, and all of a sudden one Felony becomes two - Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
That's not good for anyone, including the subject. It's in their best interests if the officers make sure they can't do anything further stupid - and believe me, given the option, uncooperative subjects will try - usually out of stupidity, but sometimes malice. That's why when negotiation fails (and it failed here - you do not wait while a felony suspect finishes another activity as a convenience to them - they're under arrest, their rights are constrained - that's the law) you escalate to physical restraint. And that restraint must be swift and decisive. The faster it's over, the less chance the subject has of doing something dumb or hurting themselves or others, which will just make a bad situation even worse.
It may sound unpleasant to you, but a professional restraint by trained officers is fast and relatively painless, and also minimises the harm to all concerned, drama showboating aside. It really is the 'least worst' alternative available - don't think other ideas haven't been tried.
but that doesn't justify the violence she was subjected to.
She had committed a felony offense: driving on a suspended license. The officers were obliged by law to place her under arrest.
What would you do to place her under arrest?
She'd been asked to step out of the car. She'd declined to do so.
She'd been *told* to get out of the car, or she'd be tased. She declined to do so.
What next? Wait for her to get hungry and step out for a bite to eat? At some point in the encounter you *have* to get physical to assert compliance against an uncooperative subject.
I've seen subjects with this attitude be restrained before. If you try the gentle 'guiding hand on shoulder' thing, it gets slapped away and they scream. They may flail wildly, striking those near them - I've seen that happen where some flailng asshole knocked *his own mother* over a chair.
If the situation escalates to physical restraint, you *have* to be in control of the situation from the first instant. Anything else leaves you vulnerable and may result in the subject hurting you, themselves (flailing and breaking glass, getting cut - seen that happen, too) or others. That is unacceptable.
The taser, problematic though it is (I don't like them myself) is an acceptable option to ensure compliance without a) risking the officer and b) not permanently damaging the subject. That bit's key - again, a flailing un-cooperative subject can permanently injure themselves. Then guess who gets sued?
To conclude: an uncooperative subject required physical restraint. That means you have to completely restrain them. There's no particularly nice way of doing that.
Yes, I don't see Apple releasing 'OS X for Windows', ever. And the fact that their BIOS is completely different will prevent most folks from booting OS X on PC hardware.
But... VMWare and Microsoft can now make changes to their virtualisation software (which, remember, can emulate any hardware they chose to code, limited only by the CPU architecture) so we can run OS X in a Virtual Machine at native speeds.
How hard would it have been for the cops to let that woman vent for ten minutes and finally calm down enough to behave?
Well, cops are scarce resources. If two cops have to spend at least extra ten minutes waiting for someone to blow off steam (with no guarantee she'd actually co-operate after that time) that's a waste of both their time and my tax money. And the time it takes to deal with this (annoying, law-breaking) person prevents them from dealing with other (law-breaking, perhaps more dangerous) people. That puts us all at risk.
This lady had an issue with police. No amount of patient handholding would have calmed her down enough - I've seen people like this go on for *hours* in the ED (but, ironically, only when they're under direct observation. Leave 'em alone, and they'll shut up and watch TV. Come into the room and it's Drama 101).
They weren't combative. Their actions were very much 'by the book'. At every step of the way until the actual tasering, it was the woman who escalated. She was clearly in the wrong, and she should be grateful she got tasered instead of being dragged through her window and beaten with sticks.
It was either that, or being dragged from the car by the cops and given the 'nightstick tango'. Which would have placed the cops in unnecessary danger.
Remember; the video shows quite clearly that the only asshole in this encounter was her.
As I understand it (warning: non-USAian), the 5th Ammendment only applies to testifying, and then only to speech
This is incorrect - the 5th is the right against self-incrimination. The premise being that, if you do something wrong, then there should be sufficient evidence to prove your wrong-doing without having to have a confession from you.
The question is whether or not a breathalyser test counts as a confession or technical evidence. I don't believe it has been fully worked out by the Supreme Court yet, though.
Theoretically, the length of the yellow signal should be based on the prevailing speedlimit of the road.
The idea being that, since yellow means 'stop', it must give you enough time to stop by the line if you're approaching the junction at a legal speed when the signal changes. And if you're close to the signal (but still legal speed) it gives you time to proceed through the intersection before it goes to to red.
I suspect, however, that this thinking is a little too complex for many juristictions.
They're teaching Creativity in schools in Singapore now, you know....By rote exercise.:)
( well, not really. An associate of mine is an English teacher there, and was boggling at the business studies class' attempt to foster 'innovation' through forced creativity training. It was, apparently, very much a "You are all individuals!" "Yes, we are all individuals!" moment. )
There's a bit in the constitution that makes unreasonable searches illegal. You may have heard of it. It's not the nakedness that's unconstitutional - it's the unreasonable search....but thanks for playing!
It depends where you live, it depends where you work. http://www.paycheckcity.com/ has a nice hourly wage calculator that'll tell you what your tax burden will be by state.
My wife worked 80 hrs/week for 4 years. Not pleasant, but do-able. Folks in the 19thC used to do that pretty regularly. Some folks in agriculture and medicine still do. I lived off $1600 a month for food and rent for a while in the northeast. It's do-able, but not luxurious.
You can live in the US on $20K a year, but it's highly regional. And medical care is a problem - although you can often get free care if you're informed. The trick is knowing how to get it.
Uh....right to travel, sure. But the airlines are not owned or operated by you. They are businesses, and they have the right to restrict access to their property any way they want to.
No: Airlines are limited in how they may restrict access. The basic idea is this - you have the right to travel freely within the US (this is basic constitutional law - that which is not specifically illegal is legal, Bill of Rights, etc). You also have the right to enter into contracts with private parties - i.e. with Airlines to transport you within the US. Airlines are also bound by 'common carrier' legislation, but that's not directly applicable here.
However, you are *not* allowed to enter into an illegal contract - you can't sell yourself into slavery, for example. So if your contract with the airline is illegal/unconstitutional (for example, violation of privacy rights, discriminatory, etc) then it's not a valid contract. So the Airline can't say "You can't fly with us if you don't consent to stripping naked for our screeners", as that would be an illegal contract. At the moment they're getting round some of this by having the TSA do the screening, so it's not the Airlines that are making these demands, but the Government. That actually makes things worse, in my opinion.
That's the theory. It's not been tested in the courts yet, although Gilmore's giving part of it a good try.
I'm not sure I'd want to be able to condem her to death to save the aircraft. I'm not sure I'd want someone with that level of detachment flying my plane.
Well, I would want someone like that flying the plane. If the alternative is to give control of the plane to the hijackers, who then kill the flightcrew and drive the plane into a building... I'll take my chances in the main cabin while the pilots put the plane on the ground ASAP. Then I hope that either those of us in the main cabin can overpower the hijackers and kill them in as painful manner as convenient, or that they die in a hail of SWAT bullets moments after landing.
Now all I have to worry about is the ground shaking and opening up, me falling in to the resulting hole, then being covered by a mudslide with a bushfire on top.
Oh, and maybe bears and mountain lions feasting on my protruding limbs as I flail for help.
Exactly. Their contributions will consist of reciting pre-defined scripts at pre-defined locations such that any player nearby might possibly see it and go "oooooh!", and screencaps can be placed online afterwards for the %99.99 of the player base who weren't there.
Actual *player* contribution to the progression of the story will be non-existent. WWII Online has more player impact on their world than MXO can ever have.
Slashdot Mirror
...when trying to pimp your group on Slashdot, it is vital to include the *name* of the group, the location and time of the meetings! Yeesh, you just passed up the chance for a few tens of thousands of pageviews! :-)
If these are active, current subscribers than Blizzard doesn't care if they're actually logging in - it's still $15x2MM dollars a month revenue for them.
:)
Now, if this is 2MM subscibers total, over the history of WoW, then that's not as impressive.
...and this is what Jobs is counting on.
Want to dual boot Windows and OS X? Buy Apple hardware - both will run natively, and Windows will most likely *already* have drivers for Apple hardware. The same is not true of OS X and most other hardware. It's the best of both worlds, for a modest price premium on the hardware side.
Oooooooooooooooooooooh.
You learn something new every day. Thanks!
How is this different from a swamp cooler?
I can't read the original article (/.ed), but he mentions thermodynamics and water, so I immediately think it's in the same league.
Of course you could!
The hubub, from what I can tell, is from people who are equating Apple's flawed 'Spotlight' function with true meta-data indexing, and saying that since Spotlight doesn't work very well the whole idea of metadata indexing is shit.
Wow. OK, then...
Or inform her she was under arrest, let her finish her phone call and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
They had informed her she was under arrest (Felony suspended license, remember?). At that moment, her rights as a citizen were constrained. "Let her finish her phone call"? She'd be talking all night - I've seen people fake phone conversations to get out of talking to a police officer. You perhaps do not believe or understand the length some people (seemingly normal, functional humans) will go when confronted with something they don't like in an attempt to avoid reality.
and take her to the car w/o getting violent.
This is, sadly, impossible. I've seen people like this all too often. Here's what happens - Rentacop (it's usually a rentacop - the professional forces don't make this mistake) places hand on elbow to guide uncompliant person. Uncompliant person goes completely mental and starts lashing out. I once saw a guy knock his own mother over a chair, he wigged out so badly (note - this was after being told to comply in a very polite, professional manner, and declining to do so).
In this particular case, she was also seated in an SUV. That's a two-tonne weapon in the hands of an unco-operative subject. It takes two or three seconds to start the engine and throw it into gear, and all of a sudden one Felony becomes two - Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
That's not good for anyone, including the subject. It's in their best interests if the officers make sure they can't do anything further stupid - and believe me, given the option, uncooperative subjects will try - usually out of stupidity, but sometimes malice. That's why when negotiation fails (and it failed here - you do not wait while a felony suspect finishes another activity as a convenience to them - they're under arrest, their rights are constrained - that's the law) you escalate to physical restraint. And that restraint must be swift and decisive. The faster it's over, the less chance the subject has of doing something dumb or hurting themselves or others, which will just make a bad situation even worse.
It may sound unpleasant to you, but a professional restraint by trained officers is fast and relatively painless, and also minimises the harm to all concerned, drama showboating aside. It really is the 'least worst' alternative available - don't think other ideas haven't been tried.
but that doesn't justify the violence she was subjected to.
She had committed a felony offense: driving on a suspended license. The officers were obliged by law to place her under arrest.
What would you do to place her under arrest?
She'd been asked to step out of the car. She'd declined to do so.
She'd been *told* to get out of the car, or she'd be tased. She declined to do so.
What next? Wait for her to get hungry and step out for a bite to eat? At some point in the encounter you *have* to get physical to assert compliance against an uncooperative subject.
I've seen subjects with this attitude be restrained before. If you try the gentle 'guiding hand on shoulder' thing, it gets slapped away and they scream. They may flail wildly, striking those near them - I've seen that happen where some flailng asshole knocked *his own mother* over a chair.
If the situation escalates to physical restraint, you *have* to be in control of the situation from the first instant. Anything else leaves you vulnerable and may result in the subject hurting you, themselves (flailing and breaking glass, getting cut - seen that happen, too) or others. That is unacceptable.
The taser, problematic though it is (I don't like them myself) is an acceptable option to ensure compliance without a) risking the officer and b) not permanently damaging the subject. That bit's key - again, a flailing un-cooperative subject can permanently injure themselves. Then guess who gets sued?
To conclude: an uncooperative subject required physical restraint. That means you have to completely restrain them. There's no particularly nice way of doing that.
Yes, I don't see Apple releasing 'OS X for Windows', ever. And the fact that their BIOS is completely different will prevent most folks from booting OS X on PC hardware.
But... VMWare and Microsoft can now make changes to their virtualisation software (which, remember, can emulate any hardware they chose to code, limited only by the CPU architecture) so we can run OS X in a Virtual Machine at native speeds.
That would be pretty damn cool.
Well, to be fair there's been plenty of rumors about this for a few years now, but this is the first solid proof to come out. :)
What do you think? Christmas 2007 for OS X for PC?
How hard would it have been for the cops to let that woman vent for ten minutes and finally calm down enough to behave?
Well, cops are scarce resources. If two cops have to spend at least extra ten minutes waiting for someone to blow off steam (with no guarantee she'd actually co-operate after that time) that's a waste of both their time and my tax money. And the time it takes to deal with this (annoying, law-breaking) person prevents them from dealing with other (law-breaking, perhaps more dangerous) people. That puts us all at risk.
This lady had an issue with police. No amount of patient handholding would have calmed her down enough - I've seen people like this go on for *hours* in the ED (but, ironically, only when they're under direct observation. Leave 'em alone, and they'll shut up and watch TV. Come into the room and it's Drama 101).
They weren't combative. Their actions were very much 'by the book'. At every step of the way until the actual tasering, it was the woman who escalated. She was clearly in the wrong, and she should be grateful she got tasered instead of being dragged through her window and beaten with sticks.
Good.
Your point?
It was either that, or being dragged from the car by the cops and given the 'nightstick tango'. Which would have placed the cops in unnecessary danger.
Remember; the video shows quite clearly that the only asshole in this encounter was her.
As I understand it (warning: non-USAian), the 5th Ammendment only applies to testifying, and then only to speech
This is incorrect - the 5th is the right against self-incrimination. The premise being that, if you do something wrong, then there should be sufficient evidence to prove your wrong-doing without having to have a confession from you.
The question is whether or not a breathalyser test counts as a confession or technical evidence. I don't believe it has been fully worked out by the Supreme Court yet, though.
Theoretically, the length of the yellow signal should be based on the prevailing speedlimit of the road.
The idea being that, since yellow means 'stop', it must give you enough time to stop by the line if you're approaching the junction at a legal speed when the signal changes. And if you're close to the signal (but still legal speed) it gives you time to proceed through the intersection before it goes to to red.
I suspect, however, that this thinking is a little too complex for many juristictions.
They're teaching Creativity in schools in Singapore now, you know. ...By rote exercise. :)
( well, not really. An associate of mine is an English teacher there, and was boggling at the business studies class' attempt to foster 'innovation' through forced creativity training. It was, apparently, very much a "You are all individuals!" "Yes, we are all individuals!" moment. )
Haven't you checked Google Labs recently? There's a project there called REASON.
Microsoft will listen to REASON, I'm sure.
There's a bit in the constitution that makes unreasonable searches illegal. You may have heard of it. It's not the nakedness that's unconstitutional - it's the unreasonable search. ...but thanks for playing!
It depends where you live, it depends where you work. http://www.paycheckcity.com/ has a nice hourly wage calculator that'll tell you what your tax burden will be by state.
My wife worked 80 hrs/week for 4 years. Not pleasant, but do-able. Folks in the 19thC used to do that pretty regularly. Some folks in agriculture and medicine still do. I lived off $1600 a month for food and rent for a while in the northeast. It's do-able, but not luxurious.
You can live in the US on $20K a year, but it's highly regional. And medical care is a problem - although you can often get free care if you're informed. The trick is knowing how to get it.
It's a good thing that there's no such thing as homosexuality then, huh?
And what about children? Do they scan children, too? if they don't, terrorists could put weapons on kids. If they do, they're looking at child pr0n.
No: Airlines are limited in how they may restrict access. The basic idea is this - you have the right to travel freely within the US (this is basic constitutional law - that which is not specifically illegal is legal, Bill of Rights, etc). You also have the right to enter into contracts with private parties - i.e. with Airlines to transport you within the US. Airlines are also bound by 'common carrier' legislation, but that's not directly applicable here.
However, you are *not* allowed to enter into an illegal contract - you can't sell yourself into slavery, for example. So if your contract with the airline is illegal/unconstitutional (for example, violation of privacy rights, discriminatory, etc) then it's not a valid contract. So the Airline can't say "You can't fly with us if you don't consent to stripping naked for our screeners", as that would be an illegal contract. At the moment they're getting round some of this by having the TSA do the screening, so it's not the Airlines that are making these demands, but the Government. That actually makes things worse, in my opinion.
That's the theory. It's not been tested in the courts yet, although Gilmore's giving part of it a good try.
Well, I would want someone like that flying the plane. If the alternative is to give control of the plane to the hijackers, who then kill the flightcrew and drive the plane into a building ... I'll take my chances in the main cabin while the pilots put the plane on the ground ASAP. Then I hope that either those of us in the main cabin can overpower the hijackers and kill them in as painful manner as convenient, or that they die in a hail of SWAT bullets moments after landing.
"Sirius fishing for anyone willing to partner with them to sell more stuff."
Nothing to see here. Move along.
...to move to California.
Now all I have to worry about is the ground shaking and opening up, me falling in to the resulting hole, then being covered by a mudslide with a bushfire on top.
Oh, and maybe bears and mountain lions feasting on my protruding limbs as I flail for help.
But at least I'll be warm.
Exactly. Their contributions will consist of reciting pre-defined scripts at pre-defined locations such that any player nearby might possibly see it and go "oooooh!", and screencaps can be placed online afterwards for the %99.99 of the player base who weren't there.
Actual *player* contribution to the progression of the story will be non-existent. WWII Online has more player impact on their world than MXO can ever have.