Despite nearly constant news coverage since the war there began in 2003, 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 failed to correctly locate the country (Iraq) on a map of the Middle East. Seventy percent could not find Iran or Israel.
Nine in ten couldn't find Afghanistan on a map of Asia.
And 54 percent were unaware that Sudan is a country in Africa.
Remember the December 2004 tsunami and the widespread images of devastation in Indonesia?
Three-quarters of respondents failed to find that country on a map.
A third of the respondents could not find Louisiana, and 48 percent couldn't locate Mississippi on a map of the United States, even though Hurricane Katrina put these southeastern states in the spotlight in 2005.
And what about India, which features prominently in the job-outsourcing debate? Forty-seven percent of young Americans were unable to locate where their jobs may go on a map of Asia
Heck, many Americans can't even find the USofA on a map.
"That thing definitely looked familiar," said autoworker and father of three Ed McConnell. "And my gut told me there were probably a whole bunch of Americans there. So I had to go with 'Iraq.'"
Good thing he's not in charge of the big red button - he'd nuke you'all.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security sees the Gallup/Harris poll results as a blessing in disguise. According to Secretary Michael Chertoff, the nation would be better off if these numbers skewed even higher.
"Personally, I believe if fewer people in this world could spot America on a map, we'd have a much better chance of avoiding national tragedies like 9/11," said Chertoff. "You can't attack a country you can't find."
How stupid can you get?
Well, turns out even stupider than that:
Asked for the name of the U.S. capital, those polled placed Washington, D.C., fifth behind "Minneapolis-St. Paul," "Mount Rushmore," "America City," and "Whitewater."
So, according to your "go-with-the-flow" theory, the capital of the US is Minneapolis-St. Paul.
The researchers ran each program 900 times. On average, the quantum computer operated accurately 79 percent of the time, the team reported in their paper.
20% of the time it got it wrong, and 1% of the time, someone looked in the box and it wasn't there. 79% accurate. That's pretty useless. I've got a pair of dice that can do just as badly.
My philosophy is very simple - either you can be trusted, or you can't.
I trust myself with root. I would also trust a certain limited number of other people with root, and vice versa.
If they can't be trusted with root on a certain machine, then they get added to a group with more limited privileges. To paraphrase you "groups were created for a reason - it solves a lot of problems."
you never justified any of the points you made with any citation
... you lied. I've posted plenty of links and quoted the RFCs many times in this thread. It's not my fault if you're too lazy to look. I'm not a maid, and more specificially, I am not YOUR maid. Most clued-in people would look through the thread. Also, I don't see YOU providing citations for your claims that cookies are "the approved way" to maintain state, that getting informed consent would "break interfaces", or that they are risk-free, just arm-waving. Hypocrite. I've pointed out that there are several different mechanisms for maintaining state, and that cookies are only one of them. Any claim that "cookies are the approved way" is an intentional misreading of the RFCs - the RFCs doesn't say they are "the approved way" - just that they can be used that way - AND that when used in any manner they should require INFORMED consent, and that this policy should be enforced at both the server and client, same as the EU is demanding, which is the real issue here. Try to stay on-topic.
One word: context. Learn it. In this case, it means look at the surrounding posts. You know, the "context." I'm not only not your maid, I'm not your secretary either. If you had bothered to look throughout the thread. You'll see I made plenty of references to the RFCs. Also, you're free to search the web. There are plenty of articles on security issues with cookies. Or is your Innert00bs broken?
The only issue here is you being totally tone-deaf in your insistence that cookies are needed, and trying lamely to defend it. They are not. They are also a security issue. And ANY site that doesn't ask for informed consent is broken by design, as per the RFCs. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the IETF. Until you get them to agree to change it, you're wrong and the EU (and I) are right.
I managed to get a floor-model 30" wide screen CRT HDTV for just under $800 (canadian) and then bought the Starchoice HDTV receiver with my remaining budget. Since then I've been greatly enjoying both high definition television offerings from Starchoice and much improved DVD viewing without the severe shrinkage I had to put up with on my old TV to watch widescreen movies (in letterbox). See photos of the TV (very flat tube) as well as my speakers and receiver by clicking the link to the right. A secondary benefit to buying a new TV is being able to connect multiple video sources directly to the TV without using my receiver's video source switching capabilities. That said, I do miss clicking "DVD" on the remote and having it change both video and audio simultaneously. Time to invest in a $250 universal remote? Not anytime soon but we'll see.
You didn't "manage" to get a home theatre. You "managed" to get ripped off. That wasn't even a "home theatre" back at the end of the last century. It certainly wasn't when you bought it less than 4 years ago... so if anyone suffers from "foot-in-mouth", it's you. There's nothing wrong with having a tube tv. There's some serious "foot-in-mouth" action going on when you call a 30" tube tv a "home theatre."
Internet community proposes "Stupid" button for Australia.
A remote desktop for the police to the computer ? Are you absolutely nuts ? What's to stop someone else on trying to get the child to aknowledge and take complete control of your computer, on which daddy and mommy probably have confidential information stored ? This idea is insane.
If parents are worried about what their kids are going to see on the Internet, maybe they should, you know, spend some time with them? Teach them? Oh, wait - that won't work. They're to busy replying to the latest email hoping to make money from the latest scam.
I hope they do this. 50,000,000 fake alerts a day triggered by malware/viruses/whatever should be interesting...
Cookies are only sent to the server whose prefix is in the cookie
I certainly don't "misunderstand" how cookies work. Please read what I wrote, and while you're at it, consider not putting words in my mouth again. If you're going to troll, at least do it right:-)
I never said that ALL the cookies on your machine are sent to every server. In fact, I can state that I have never in my lifetime ever said, written, or even implied that to anyone.
It's nowhere in any spec that I've quoted, and I've linked to them elsewhere in the thread, so it's not like I haven't read them, That cookies have server-of-origin policies is basic knowledge. Anyone who thought that I was in some way implying ALL cookies is either purposefully going out of their way to be ignorant, a n00b, or just trolling.
Informed consent is in the RFCs as a mandatory requirement of the use of cookies - read them (section 6 - privacy). The EU is 100% in the right on this, and cookies are definitely a security risk on shared machines, machines that are not password-protected, stolen machines, poorly-written web apps, etc.
As for the informed consent comment, it would ruin the interface on any site depending on cookies,
If your skills are so poor that your site is "ruined" because cookies aren't accepted, then maybe you're the one who has serious misunderstandings. Neither visual nor programming interfaces require cookies; they're just one of several methods of preserving state across calls. The EU is right to want cookie use to conform to the established RFC (the requirement for informed consent dates all the way back to 2000, and has been kept in subsequent RFCs).
Can't make a site that follows the specs without it being "ruined"? You might want to consider that maybe you're not technically qualified to comment on this particular topic... or you can just admit that informed consent is a "Good Thing"(TM), not just for cookies, but for life in general.
No, they have to do that while MAKING MONEY. If it doesn't make money, it's no good. Google makes its' money from advertiser. Google is an advertising business. These locked-in netbooks will only be interesting to a very narrow market that advertisers don't want if they can avoid. So what will happen is that savvy advertisers will not show ads where the platform is that particular netbook. So the ads that will be shown are the slush-pile. The poor response rates from that will just piss off advertisers, who will look for better alternatives.
Ask yourself - can you live google-free? I don't need any of the "free web services". I can host my own videos, my mail goes to my machine so unless the sender is using gmail or hotmail or yahoo, the search engines never see it, I make my docs, plaintext, spreadsheets, etc., on local machines, and I can transfer them easily either over the network, via email, or a usb key. My cloud is my machines and my server.
If search disappeared tomorrow, I'd just start spidering and indexing the web myself, starting with my bookmarks, since that's the most relevant to me. Then I'd start making that info searchable by others. No advertising needed, just running on spare cpu cycles. Sound familiar? If a significant portion of users did that, we'd have a real cloud computing model. My bet is that this will happen by the end of the next decade, as privacy concerns trump worries about centralized control and invasiveness of data aggregators.
No, it's that morality suffers when the choice is to steal or starve. This is why you don't set up the game to allow that. How moral will you be when your belly is empty and the mortgage is 2 months late? At least admit that this happens. I don't really care how pious you are.
Pious? Me??? I'm an atheist, you ignorant clod!:-)
Yes, financial disasters happen. In the hypothetical case you're positing, sell off everything, give the house back to the mortgage company, and make a fresh start elsewhere, where there are jobs (assuming that there aren't any jobs locally). Job mobility is way down because people are tied to their neg-equity houses, which they bought because they didn't want to "miss out on the boom". Now they're paying the price. Unfortunately, we're all paying the price with them, because they are the ones who were the fuel for the toxic mortgages. Without millions of people doing obviously stupid things (and they were obviously stupid to many of us even before the bubble burst), there wouldn't have been a bubble.
So, tell me again, how does being behind in your mortgage payments justify stealing? Oh, right - many of those same people are behind because they've already committed mortgage fraud, so what's one more crime?
That's why I wrote that, in general, they can't. There are obvious exceptions - like someone shouting from inside the trunk, but how often does that happen (outside of drunken college parties)?
The problem is, he wasn't the one doing anything illegal. He didn't break the law - the mall owners, by agreeing to this and then allowing in way more people than the legal capacity of the place, and clearly with inadequate crowd control, did. So your example doesn't really work.
Note:
1. They can always ask - but that's not the same as an order.
2. They also have guns, tasers, and pepper spray so you might want to keep that in consideration.
3. There are always exceptions, YMMV, etc.
Cops generally can't order you to do something that they themselves are not allowed to do, such as your example of unlocking the door to a private building for which they don't have a warrant. They DO have the right to enter without a warrant in some limited cases, in which case they can order you to (but not just because they think someone *might* be inside or something illegal *might* be going on - that's not even "probable" cause). They also can't order you to do something that puts your life and/or safety at undue risk.
Your cell phone, laptop, wallet, purse - warrant, please (exceptions: international borders). ID? Depends on the circumstances. Traffic stop? Sure. DWB or WWB (Driving or Walking While Black)? No.
Cross to the other side of the street? Generally, yes, because that's traffic control and public order - unless the cops are beating on someone and don't want witnesses, in which case, no.
Order you to open the trunk of your car? Generally, not unless they've stopped you for something else, or it's obvious something is wrong (suspension too low, trail of blood). They can always ASK, you can refuse. If you agree, anything they see is fair game. If, however, you agreed only because you felt threatened by them and a reasonable person would feel the same in similar circumstances, and there's a problem, then you can try to have it declared an illegal search.
It's always a judgment call. If they're nice about it, and there seems to be a legitimate reason, why be a dickhead? If, on the other hand, they're just being dickheads, why encourage them? Exception: The minute you hear "if you don't have anything to hide" - REFUSE. You may think you did nothing wrong, may be minding your own business and not have a clue, but they don't see it that way, and they're out to nail you for something. Be polite in your refusal, but refuse. "Guys, I don't have anything to hide, but those magic words tell me that you're on a fishing expedition, and I'm simply not comfortable with that. Until I know what's really going on here, the answer is no. Please call your supervisor, because I want to discuss this with him or her. In person."
That's why I wrote at each entrance simultaneously - this way, only a fraction goes through each entrance - a lot safer than having them all try to go out one exit:-)
Not necessarily. All Microsoft has to do is port the Windows UI - not the Windows kernel. Even a small team, well-funded, could have that ready the day the ChromeBook launches. Chairs would flyyyyyyy!
You may want to expand your scope beyond mere online stores. For instance, how much would Southland (7-Eleven) pay for targeted ads on this netbook? The folks who make (insert 40-ounce cheap beer brand)? The idea is to lure folks to their brand/store/product/etc instead of the competition's.
Not even a tenth of a cent per impression. They already have that option with some search engines (yes, at that price - a tenth of a cent), and they don't do it, so why would they do it for that netbook when it's just not profitable. It's not just a question of "getting the word out", but doing so at a profit.
yea, what a stupid idea. How did those guys on free commercial driven TV ever make money at it?: Those shows cost millions to make, and are for more of a shot in the dark if they ever convert a 30 second advertising spot to a real customer. No way poor people would ever be convinced to spend money.
TV is broadcasting. Web advertising is narrowcasting. Broadcasters spend a lot of money on market research to make sure their message gets to the right demographic. And a lot of those advertisers on commercial-driven TV didn't make money, and are no longer with us. With narrowcasting, you select your audience. The users of free netbooks (welfarebooks) are a terrible demographic for almost every advertiser. They're better off using their ad buys towards a better market demographic, since, unlike broadcasting, they can pick and choose who sees their ads, based on geography, time of day, platform, etc., so they can avoid these users quite easily.
Why would they buy any of that off the net and have to wait when they can get them locally? And have you checked out the cost of shipping a case of beer by FedEx or UPS?
The shipping costs and the lack of immediacy mean that particular market is going to stay with the local rip-off joints.
They may get food stamps and government checks instead of AMEX and dividends, but they're going to spend what little they do have somewhere.
Last I checked, online stores don't take food stamps or government checks. They also won't let the local "regulars" run a tab until "welfare day". This demographic has been studied to death. On-line merchants avoid them like the plague for a reason.
I take it you've never been the parent of a teenage daughter...
"Hello, riot squad? We f*d up here - we told the guy to tweet 'nobody go there' so a huge crowd came to see what's going on and now we can't get out, and we're going deaf from all these teenage girls screaming and OMFG IT'S CONTAGIOUS THIS IS LIKE SO KEWL I M SO DOWN WITH IT YEAH 4EVER THIS ROX U GOT 2 CUM HERE RT NW BRNG TEH GANG BEER CHEEZ DIP LUBE FUK TEH BOSS PARTY PARTY PARTY LOL!"
The mall operators (and the cops - there's always cops at these events) let the place get filled well beyond capacity.
The quickest way would have been to have people at each exit simultaneously start rumours that the guy is outside that particular exit. The cops could have even done that themselves - they have handi-talkies. "He can't get in so he's doing his thing in the parking lot. Please don't all be trying to get outside at the same time, okay?" then let them run out.
You're obligated to comply with a lawful order from a police officer. Failing to do so is unlawful. So if the cop says,"tell them to leave [because you've created a dangerous situation by being here]" you'd better comply, or you'll get sent down. Just because they told him to do it with twitter makes no difference.
You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true
You're obliged to order others to comply with a lawful order (specifically wrt communications): false
The due process clause of th 14th amendment makes it clear that the 1st amendment applies to state and local government (which includes the police). Freedom of speech equally means you can't be ordered to say something. They can order you to leave. They can't order you to tell others to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
I can fix that for you with a bit of sandpaper (dice that are slightly sanded on one or more faces are called"flats", and come up non-random).
That's TOTALLY moronic. That's like saying "get 5 or 15 people to guess your birthday and go with the answer that it gives most often."
Go and ask 510 Americans to point to New York on a map, and go with the answers that they give the most often.
Heck, many Americans can't even find the USofA on a map.
Good thing he's not in charge of the big red button - he'd nuke you'all.
How stupid can you get?
Well, turns out even stupider than that:
So, according to your "go-with-the-flow" theory, the capital of the US is Minneapolis-St. Paul.
20% of the time it got it wrong, and 1% of the time, someone looked in the box and it wasn't there. 79% accurate. That's pretty useless. I've got a pair of dice that can do just as badly.
My philosophy is very simple - either you can be trusted, or you can't.
I trust myself with root. I would also trust a certain limited number of other people with root, and vice versa.
If they can't be trusted with root on a certain machine, then they get added to a group with more limited privileges. To paraphrase you "groups were created for a reason - it solves a lot of problems."
No, but if your cable is down and you have crappy reception, all that snow might make you tempted to watch something you Tivo'd
I have "foot-in-mouth disease"? Let's put that in context. You're the one ridiculous enough to claim that a 30" tube tv and a set of speakers is a home theatre. More on that below, but first ...
One word: context. Learn it. In this case, it means look at the surrounding posts. You know, the "context." I'm not only not your maid, I'm not your secretary either. If you had bothered to look throughout the thread. You'll see I made plenty of references to the RFCs. Also, you're free to search the web. There are plenty of articles on security issues with cookies. Or is your Innert00bs broken?
The only issue here is you being totally tone-deaf in your insistence that cookies are needed, and trying lamely to defend it. They are not. They are also a security issue. And ANY site that doesn't ask for informed consent is broken by design, as per the RFCs. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the IETF. Until you get them to agree to change it, you're wrong and the EU (and I) are right.
Now, moving on, back to "foot-in-mouth" ...
Exhibit A ... from your website: You think a 30" TUBE TV and some speakers is a "home theatre".
You didn't "manage" to get a home theatre. You "managed" to get ripped off. That wasn't even a "home theatre" back at the end of the last century. It certainly wasn't when you bought it less than 4 years ago ... so if anyone suffers from "foot-in-mouth", it's you. There's nothing wrong with having a tube tv. There's some serious "foot-in-mouth" action going on when you call a 30" tube tv a "home theatre."
THIS, a 50" 600hz 1080p native resolut
Internet community proposes "Stupid" button for Australia.
If parents are worried about what their kids are going to see on the Internet, maybe they should, you know, spend some time with them? Teach them? Oh, wait - that won't work. They're to busy replying to the latest email hoping to make money from the latest scam.
I hope they do this. 50,000,000 fake alerts a day triggered by malware/viruses/whatever should be interesting ...
Want to impress people? Do it by taking off from the ground.
They did - For Catholic priests, there's always
I certainly don't "misunderstand" how cookies work. Please read what I wrote, and while you're at it, consider not putting words in my mouth again. If you're going to troll, at least do it right :-)
I never said that ALL the cookies on your machine are sent to every server. In fact, I can state that I have never in my lifetime ever said, written, or even implied that to anyone.
It's nowhere in any spec that I've quoted, and I've linked to them elsewhere in the thread, so it's not like I haven't read them, That cookies have server-of-origin policies is basic knowledge. Anyone who thought that I was in some way implying ALL cookies is either purposefully going out of their way to be ignorant, a n00b, or just trolling.
Informed consent is in the RFCs as a mandatory requirement of the use of cookies - read them (section 6 - privacy). The EU is 100% in the right on this, and cookies are definitely a security risk on shared machines, machines that are not password-protected, stolen machines, poorly-written web apps, etc.
If your skills are so poor that your site is "ruined" because cookies aren't accepted, then maybe you're the one who has serious misunderstandings. Neither visual nor programming interfaces require cookies; they're just one of several methods of preserving state across calls. The EU is right to want cookie use to conform to the established RFC (the requirement for informed consent dates all the way back to 2000, and has been kept in subsequent RFCs).
Can't make a site that follows the specs without it being "ruined"? You might want to consider that maybe you're not technically qualified to comment on this particular topic ... or you can just admit that informed consent is a "Good Thing"(TM), not just for cookies, but for life in general.
No, they have to do that while MAKING MONEY. If it doesn't make money, it's no good. Google makes its' money from advertiser. Google is an advertising business. These locked-in netbooks will only be interesting to a very narrow market that advertisers don't want if they can avoid. So what will happen is that savvy advertisers will not show ads where the platform is that particular netbook. So the ads that will be shown are the slush-pile. The poor response rates from that will just piss off advertisers, who will look for better alternatives.
Ask yourself - can you live google-free? I don't need any of the "free web services". I can host my own videos, my mail goes to my machine so unless the sender is using gmail or hotmail or yahoo, the search engines never see it, I make my docs, plaintext, spreadsheets, etc., on local machines, and I can transfer them easily either over the network, via email, or a usb key. My cloud is my machines and my server.
If search disappeared tomorrow, I'd just start spidering and indexing the web myself, starting with my bookmarks, since that's the most relevant to me. Then I'd start making that info searchable by others. No advertising needed, just running on spare cpu cycles. Sound familiar? If a significant portion of users did that, we'd have a real cloud computing model. My bet is that this will happen by the end of the next decade, as privacy concerns trump worries about centralized control and invasiveness of data aggregators.
Pious? Me??? I'm an atheist, you ignorant clod! :-)
Yes, financial disasters happen. In the hypothetical case you're positing, sell off everything, give the house back to the mortgage company, and make a fresh start elsewhere, where there are jobs (assuming that there aren't any jobs locally). Job mobility is way down because people are tied to their neg-equity houses, which they bought because they didn't want to "miss out on the boom". Now they're paying the price. Unfortunately, we're all paying the price with them, because they are the ones who were the fuel for the toxic mortgages. Without millions of people doing obviously stupid things (and they were obviously stupid to many of us even before the bubble burst), there wouldn't have been a bubble.
So, tell me again, how does being behind in your mortgage payments justify stealing? Oh, right - many of those same people are behind because they've already committed mortgage fraud, so what's one more crime?
That's why I wrote that, in general, they can't. There are obvious exceptions - like someone shouting from inside the trunk, but how often does that happen (outside of drunken college parties)?
The problem is, he wasn't the one doing anything illegal. He didn't break the law - the mall owners, by agreeing to this and then allowing in way more people than the legal capacity of the place, and clearly with inadequate crowd control, did. So your example doesn't really work.
Note:
1. They can always ask - but that's not the same as an order.
2. They also have guns, tasers, and pepper spray so you might want to keep that in consideration.
3. There are always exceptions, YMMV, etc.
Cops generally can't order you to do something that they themselves are not allowed to do, such as your example of unlocking the door to a private building for which they don't have a warrant. They DO have the right to enter without a warrant in some limited cases, in which case they can order you to (but not just because they think someone *might* be inside or something illegal *might* be going on - that's not even "probable" cause). They also can't order you to do something that puts your life and/or safety at undue risk.
Your cell phone, laptop, wallet, purse - warrant, please (exceptions: international borders). ID? Depends on the circumstances. Traffic stop? Sure. DWB or WWB (Driving or Walking While Black)? No.
Cross to the other side of the street? Generally, yes, because that's traffic control and public order - unless the cops are beating on someone and don't want witnesses, in which case, no.
Order you to open the trunk of your car? Generally, not unless they've stopped you for something else, or it's obvious something is wrong (suspension too low, trail of blood). They can always ASK, you can refuse. If you agree, anything they see is fair game. If, however, you agreed only because you felt threatened by them and a reasonable person would feel the same in similar circumstances, and there's a problem, then you can try to have it declared an illegal search.
It's always a judgment call. If they're nice about it, and there seems to be a legitimate reason, why be a dickhead? If, on the other hand, they're just being dickheads, why encourage them? Exception: The minute you hear "if you don't have anything to hide" - REFUSE. You may think you did nothing wrong, may be minding your own business and not have a clue, but they don't see it that way, and they're out to nail you for something. Be polite in your refusal, but refuse. "Guys, I don't have anything to hide, but those magic words tell me that you're on a fishing expedition, and I'm simply not comfortable with that. Until I know what's really going on here, the answer is no. Please call your supervisor, because I want to discuss this with him or her. In person."
That's why I wrote at each entrance simultaneously - this way, only a fraction goes through each entrance - a lot safer than having them all try to go out one exit :-)
*cough* swine flu *cough*
Not necessarily. All Microsoft has to do is port the Windows UI - not the Windows kernel. Even a small team, well-funded, could have that ready the day the ChromeBook launches. Chairs would flyyyyyyy!
Not even a tenth of a cent per impression. They already have that option with some search engines (yes, at that price - a tenth of a cent), and they don't do it, so why would they do it for that netbook when it's just not profitable. It's not just a question of "getting the word out", but doing so at a profit.
TV is broadcasting. Web advertising is narrowcasting. Broadcasters spend a lot of money on market research to make sure their message gets to the right demographic. And a lot of those advertisers on commercial-driven TV didn't make money, and are no longer with us. With narrowcasting, you select your audience. The users of free netbooks (welfarebooks) are a terrible demographic for almost every advertiser. They're better off using their ad buys towards a better market demographic, since, unlike broadcasting, they can pick and choose who sees their ads, based on geography, time of day, platform, etc., so they can avoid these users quite easily.
Those all make money because of the limited mobility of that demographic.
Why would they buy any of that off the net and have to wait when they can get them locally? And have you checked out the cost of shipping a case of beer by FedEx or UPS?
The shipping costs and the lack of immediacy mean that particular market is going to stay with the local rip-off joints.
Last I checked, online stores don't take food stamps or government checks. They also won't let the local "regulars" run a tab until "welfare day". This demographic has been studied to death. On-line merchants avoid them like the plague for a reason.
I take it you've never been the parent of a teenage daughter ...
"Hello, riot squad? We f*d up here - we told the guy to tweet 'nobody go there' so a huge crowd came to see what's going on and now we can't get out, and we're going deaf from all these teenage girls screaming and OMFG IT'S CONTAGIOUS THIS IS LIKE SO KEWL I M SO DOWN WITH IT YEAH 4EVER THIS ROX U GOT 2 CUM HERE RT NW BRNG TEH GANG BEER CHEEZ DIP LUBE FUK TEH BOSS PARTY PARTY PARTY LOL!"
It was also on private property, so the mall owners, who were in on it. were responsible for the venue and crowd control.
At these sort of things, the police usually have a presence, either officially, or off-duty cops making some extra cash, or both.
They (mall operator and police) "screwed the pooch" by letting the place get filled to over-capacity in the first place.
A tweet could have just as easily started a riot (watch the video). It could also have attracted even more people to "see what the buzz was about."
The cops need lessons in field coordination, crowd control, and how the 14th amendment makes the first amendment apply to them.
The mall operators (and the cops - there's always cops at these events) let the place get filled well beyond capacity.
The quickest way would have been to have people at each exit simultaneously start rumours that the guy is outside that particular exit. The cops could have even done that themselves - they have handi-talkies. "He can't get in so he's doing his thing in the parking lot. Please don't all be trying to get outside at the same time, okay?" then let them run out.
You're obliged to comply with a lawful order: true
You're obliged to order others to comply with a lawful order (specifically wrt communications): false
The due process clause of th 14th amendment makes it clear that the 1st amendment applies to state and local government (which includes the police). Freedom of speech equally means you can't be ordered to say something. They can order you to leave. They can't order you to tell others to leave.