Mod parent down! - It's either trolling or the ramblings of a mentally disturbed loser.
Zimmerman didn't go hunting for blacks to shoot! Martin came to Zimmermans neighborhood looking like a gangsta and behaving like one to some extent. Zimmerman didn't pick up the gun when he saw the color of the intruders skin; he was already carrying. Whether the color of Martins skin had any influence on what happened is yet to be seen, as is whether it is relevant in any way.
The Casey Anthony case was a perfect example of a proper case with the proper outcome. No direct evidence was provided, only circumstantial hints, and the acquittal was the correct verdict.
Sure, she didn't behave as must people would, but that is completely irrelevant. If she didn't kill her daughter (or pay someone to do it), an acquittal is the only valid verdict. It doesn't matter if she wanted the daughter dead or that she was happy that she was gone. That makes her a horrible mother but not a murderer. And absolutely nothing - except her cold pre- and post-behavior - indicated any connection with the crime.
So not a murderer, only an absolutely horrible person/mother.
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
The O.J. Simpson case for instance.
There was some doubt as to motive and the excessive violence used which normally calls for a crime of passion or a psychopath, a profile that doesn't fit OJ Simpson.
But the core issue that caused the acquittal was the bumbling efforts of the LAPD in this matter, possibly related to the truly bad actions by self-proclaimed racist Mark Fuhrman that wanted to force a conviction and managed to do the exact opposite. But not only did Mark Fuhrman mess things up, the LAPD failed to follow procedure again and again, both at the crime scene and in the lab, losing and contaminating evidence in the process. There was so much doubt that reasonable doubt was inevitable and he was acquitted, exactly as intended to protect the innocent from being railroaded.
Basically we still don't know if he did it. There was countless stab wounds and blood everywhere (the LAPD managed to both step in it and make bloody footprints all over the house and grounds), yet no blood was ever found on OJ Simpson and only two pinhead-sized drops on the white Bronco which could have been deposited a long time prior to the murders. No blood stained clothes were ever found, nor the murder weapon. OJ had no time to wash and dispose of the bloody clothing as he was at the airport only hours later (and transport time from Brentwood to LAX was at least an hour due to congestion). Everything was searched and rewards offered but still nothing. This makes sense if the murderer was someone else as claimed, as only locations relevant to the possible paths OJ could have taken was searched.
No, I personally don't think he did it. Too much doesn't fit or make sense.
This implies that we're talking about something premeditated and primarily racially motivated. This is not the case. As far as we know, it's a matter of someone (Zimmerman) feeling threatened on 'his' property, engaging the intruder and ends up using deadly force which he feels authorized by the "Stand Your Ground" legislation.
The case has the following important issues that needs both a public debate and court evaluation:
1) The "Stand Your Ground" law. It was meant to remove any concerns relating to the defense of your home or property. If there's an intruder and you feel threatened you should be able to use any means, including deadly force without fearing the legal consequences. Does the necessary threat need to be more clearly defined?
2) The signals that appearance sends. Many people from non-ghetto environments feels uneasy or threatened by youths wearing 'gangsta-wear', i.e. hoodies, reversed or askew baseball caps and similar. If you dress like that in areas where it might cause concern, are you essentially 'asking for it'?
3) The behaviour and actions of the intruder. Did he act in ways to make him more suspicious or threatening?
4) The race angle. Would Zimmerman have acted differently if the intruder has been hispanic or white? Does a black youth in a hoodie appear more scary than a similary dressed white or hispanic youth?
5) The possible abuse of the racism angle. Closely connected to 4 but still a separate issue. Every single time someone from one ethnic group harms someone from another ethnic group, racism is immediately claimed. If a hispanic man shoots a black youth, it's without doubt racism it seems. This abuse completely destroys any relevant racism angle by flooding the issue. It doesn't mean it wasn't racially motivated or aggravated but playing the race card all the time not only clouds the real motivation and cause, it also invalidates relevant racism claims because if you always hide behind (and possible is protected by) a claim of racism, people stop taking it seriously. Already, a racist white cop can get away with targeting black drivers simply because black drivers immediately claim racism when they are pulled over (even when the cop is black!), no matter how obvious it is that the cop had plenty of reasons to do so without any knowledge of the occupants of the car.
Does it really make financial sense to pay people to check receipts on the way out?
Wouldn't vigilant store detectives be a much better investment?
A friend I know works as a store detective and he claims that you can spot a thief just from their body language in less than 5 seconds. Then it's just a matter of following closely until the thief strikes and then you got him. Standard practice is to alert security at the exit but not apprehend the thief until he/she has collected as much as possible. The more stolen merchandise when caught, the harder the punishment.
If you then share pictures of the thieves and their methods (tin foil bags, special pockets etc.) with other businesses in the area and/or chain, you're even better equipped to handle the thief or his 'friends' there or elsewhere in the future, and the the thieves will have an even harder time doing their 'evil deeds', which of course always end up costing the paying customers money (the losses have to be covered somehow).
They compare arrest distribution with the composition of the population? So they assume that the riots were populated exactly as the general population?
That is complete and utter nonsense!
The riots were not even remotely perpetrated by a crowd composed like the general population. There's millions of hours of CCTV footage showing a completely different picture. The rioters were almost exclusively young men from the ethnic minorities of the area (yes, whites are a minority in some areas) - more than 90% fits this description.
If they compared arrest distribution with the riot distribution as seen on CCTV, I'm quite sure you'll get a much more equal match, possible because CCTV were used heavily to identify the rioters.
That's a racist comment. It is based on two figures that seems racisitically slated but isn't.
First figure is the likelihood of being arrested, based on your race. That number is not independent of everything else, but based on many factors, including experience of the police officers (they get read good a reading body language and similar to spot probable criminals) and the crime situation in the area (lots of crime means that it is more likely still that anyone with a suspect body language actually did something wrong), and blacks and hispanics tend to live in high crime areas.
The second number reflects the first - if twice as many gets arrested and charged, twice as many will get convicted, given equal treatment at the courts.
Now, if you claim that you are more likely to get convicted if you're black or hispanic, I say that this is mostly a statistical construct. The bare numbers might say this, but if you clean them for other anomalies they are much more equal. Differences in types of crime, as well as the quality of lawyers, prosecutors etc.will yield differing conviction rates. Also, the likelihood of a crime being gang related is much higher for blacks and hispanics, and the police will play the members against each other, getting one to testify against the others thus making conviction much more likely.
That man (Ron Paul) is stupid beyond words... If you stopped the war on drugs, it would escalate and many more would be hooked. Now, if you assume that there's no racial reason for the distribution of users, it would still be a significant black thing, and legal or not the drugs still have all the drawbacks (loss of job, health issues etc.) so legalizing drugs would in effect harm the blacks pretty significantly. They won't go to jail for it but they'll still end up in the gutter, destroyed by drugs, and much more so than whites.
I know of these actual cases where the Internet access of someone was used by someone else without permission.
1) Stolen Wifi, either unprotected or hacked. 2) Multiple family members, one connection. Who downloaded what? 3) Stolen wired access: An unauthorized cable was plugged into a switch, giving the thief connectivity. 4) Unauthorized access point: A rogue access point was installed and hidden so the thief could connect from nearby without the need for an actual cable. 5) Variations of 3 and 4 where the evidence was removed before discovery.
Bottom line - you cannot assume that 1 IP = 1 person without a serious investigation. An remember that 1 and 5 has no evidence left behind so the only evidence is the *lack* of traces on all devices with authorized access.
There are many ways to steal Internet access and you need to investigate BEFORE making accusations.
I was also in an accident where the car skidded during heavy rain and hit a stationary object (a tree) then rolled and everything (company car - complete write-off). I was wearing my seatbelt and the airbags deployed. My injuries were bruises to my shins and a seatbelt burn across my neck/front. I had no bruises on my hands or pains in them afterwards. I was holding the wheel at 9 and 3 as far as I remember.
I had someone behind me playing Angry Birds for the entire 3 hour flight I was on a year or two ago. He had the noise turned up rather high (apparently high enough to irritate me but not others -- perhaps the speakers on his device aimed my way). I asked him if he could please turn the sound down. He said no, and continued what he was doing. People are really awful.
One thing is to do something where sound is necessary, but Angry Birds is NOT one of them. Sound is actually completely unnecessary on that game.
So you should have asked one more time, and if the answer was the same, tell the guy that if he doesn't turn off the sound, he'll regret it.
If he continues, call the stewardess and tell her that the guy behind you were mumbling about explosions and 'taking things down' (plausible in relation to Angry Birds). Now watch as he's dragged off in handcuffs and when the plane lands is dragged off by the FBI, suspected of terror. Bet he's sorry he didn't just turn off the completely unnecessary sound now...
Hehe... Here in Denmark we had a "closing law" (lukkeloven) for a long time. It was originally meant to reduce commercial activity on Sundays and holidays for religious reasons but during the German occupation during WW2 it was expanded so the shops have severely reduced opening hours in order to conserve resources. It was relaxed post-war when resources were more available again, but remained fairly strict for long, long time. Only in the past decade or two it has been slowly relaxed into more modern rules (more hours each day and the possibility of Sunday hours, especially for smaller businesses), and later this year (October I think) it will be replaced completely with a holiday law that dictates close days on a few select holidays, mostly Easter and Christmas stuff. but otherwise gives everything completely free.
Now, all us that grew up during the more strict law (like supermarkets only open between 10am and 4:30pm on weekdays (Thursday an hour longer) and 10am to 2pm on Saturdays) learned to plan and shop ahead, which means that we usually have a small stockpile of the daily consumables - including alcohol. A lot of us still do it to this day, despite things being much more available today.
So what I'm basically trying to say - if you get used to days where you cannot get something, you'll learn keep a stockpile so you don't run out.
Exactly. Not to mention that it's huge waste of time to scan shoes for bombs. Even with a fairly huge plateau sole there's just not enough room for a bomb that can do more that local damage (at worst, blow out a window and/or kill a few nearby passengers), and you can do that kind of damage a dozen way using stuff they DON'T check for, or potentially cannot detect even if they tried.
Liquids on the other hand... It only takes 200 ml of a binary liquid explosive to blow a hole big enough to down the plane, and you're allowed five times that.
The better way is of course to pre-screen passengers and just not let anyone with shady connections or beliefs anywhere near the airport.
Why do various governments and government institutions feel it's necessary to hide and keep secret these kinds of talks?
Just think - they have no issues talking about defense spending, health-care and so on in public, but when it comes to anti-piracy at all of a sudden has to be secret.
It's obvious that they're hiding things because they have to. They're doing things that violates both basic democratic rules and their mandate, maybe even taking bribes in the process. They gotta be stopped! - and fast!
That's why I always carry black PVC tape and super glue. Stick it on and give it back. Not that I'm a celeb mind you.....
That stupid. I'm assuming you're placing the tape where it obstructs the function of the device?
What you're doing is vandalism, not to mention the damage you'd do to the livelihood if we're talking a paparazzi here.
Now, let's just get this straight - celebrities have no extended right to privacy. If they're out in public you can snap pictures and film them to your hearts content, the same as if the subject had been anyone else. There are rules for private property and rules for publication, but not for the actual recording in public. Anyone can photograph and film anyone in public. It's that simple.
Then the celebrities whine about their privacy and how they hate having their pictures taken but at the same time they have no qualms spending days posing for publicity pictures (which they get paid for) or in general collecting more or less obscene paychecks for 8-10 weeks of work. They enjoy VIP treatment and privileges at clubs and restaurants, not to mention award shows and similar. They wanted fame and the perks that come with it, but they don't want the flipside... Well, too bad. It's all or nothing. That's the way life works.
are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?
In general? No. For paparazzi?
The same! - Of course!
The laws apply equally for everybody, even the paparazzi who're only doing their job.
Now, about the story - no real paparazzi would work with a smartphone so that part is bull. If someone was filming with such a toy, it's guaranteed it was a regular fan or similar. Real paps would be filming with a proper video camera, probably with a powerful light on top to really bother the subject. And now we come to the core issue: Both fans and paparazzi are allowed to film in public and taking someones property (the iPhone) and using it to break someone else property (the window) is most certainly not allowed. Now, Russell Brand not only destroyed private property, he also prevented someone from doing something completely legal, and he should be punished with a felony conviction as he's not the first that physically destroys cameras and similar when used legally by paparazzi. It is time to draw the line - you can run and hide, but you cannot physically attack. It is not only uncool and unprofessional, it's a felony.
It's okay to ban depictions of the results of abuse, no matter the age of the victim. This include non-consensual adult sex, snuff, beastiality etc. - and of course pedophilia. It's NOT okay to ban written descriptions, drawing and artwork of the very same things. Nobody was hurt during the production and thus it's just art.
The ban on everything even remotely connected to pedophilia is thought policing and should never happen in a non-fascist society. Ban the products of abuse to avoid feeding the producer.
Keep in mind, pedophiles cannot be 'cured' just as it is the case with homosexuality and similar. They can't change and yet we ban even fictional works that might satisfy their urges. The result is continuous harassment of the people unfortunate enough to be pedophiles, and of course the added incentive to not only break the laws and collect pedophilia, but to move beyond that and make it yourself, causing more abuse and misery upon innocent victims - children no less.
Several EU countries blocks Turkey completely due to their failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
Turkey not only denies that it happened but actively and militantly pursue anyone who even mentions it. They block Wikipedia due to their page on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
The EU countries demand that Turkey both acknowledges the event and apologize to the Armenian people and especially to the families of the victims. Turkey flatly refuses and these EU countries continuously veto any attempts at giving Turkey any kind of special or applicant status pending their compliance in this matter.
We're still doing rack cabinets wrong. We still load servers from the cold isle, but connect all the cabling from the hot isle. Many datacenters don't do hot isle capture. Until we switch to wiring servers from the cold isle and ducting the hot isle away we can't get any real heat transfer efficiency.
Huh? - You lost me there. Or maybe we're doing it right after all?
We load servers from the cold isle and the wiring is in the hot isle, but the hot isle is complete sealed off (with doors at the end of course) and the cooling sucks in air from the hot isle only and expel the cooled air from both the floor and the ceiling above the cold isle. This way the cool areas are never too cold and the hot areas don't leak heat to the cool areas. All servers are of course of the type that suck in air from the front and tunnel it forcibly through the server and out the back.
As the distance loss for DC is immense (resulting in unwanted heat), it's probably only feasible to actually gain something from shared DC if the supply is relatively close to the servers, i.e. in the same rack or no further than the end of a row. A centralized supply for the whole datacenter will result in a huge waste of energy from transmission alone, far beyond what small less-than-perfect transformers in each server cause today.
We already have something a little bit like this - most blade centers have huge shared power supplies that distribute DC to more than a dozen servers.
4chan - where the men are men, the women are men, the trolls are infantile, the children are FBI agents and the pedophiles are rampant - and soon on their way to jail.
.com does not belong to the United States. The fact that Verisign was assigned control of the registry by ICANN does not change this. Similarly if ICANN gave the registry to an operator in France it would not mean that France now owns.com.
Since Verisign is a private company it is incorrect to say that the US Government controls.com. Sure they can (and do) abuse the unique position they are in by bullying the registry operator. But to conclude that they control.com is similar to concluding that they control Windows updates, since Microsoft also has its headquarters in the US.
I for one find it deeply concerning that the US is asserting jurisdiction over international domains. Many of which are registered outside of the US by foreign registrants and registrars.
Exactly. The whole MegaUpload farce shows how much the US flat out abuses the fact that the current controller of.com is a US based company.
It should be the obvious that VeriSign has failed and their control needs to be revoked ASAP. Under no circumstances should a country be able to steal domains by simply abusing the geographical location of the current administrative company. And yes, they are stealing them. The owner has lost control and they are now used to point to propaganda pages owned by the US government. This costs the owner millions and that lost revenue from a perfectly legal cloud hosting service.
The US government is trying to make a hosting company liable for what its users are using the service for, and besides being a stretch legally, it's also something that fundamentally changes the hosting business if it is acknowledged by the courts. Sure, you can argue as to extent (a lot of the users of MegaUpload might have been using it for sharing copyrighted works) but you have to set a limit as to what is acceptable and what is not. Should the hosting company be worried about one infringing user? two? 42? 3.000? 50%? - Where to draw the line? Unless there's a clear line, ALL hosting is vulnerable to such legal actions.
It will also mean that the hosting business need to inspect what the customers are doing with the resources they're using, which means that they need to devote a massive amount of manpower to play law enforcement, and it also means that privacy goes right out the window. The hosting company needs to know everything, including what's in those encrypted files... because they can be made liable for their content.
Okay, seriously... Why would they be particularly interested in athletes? Wouldn't regular students also write 'interesting' stuff on social media?
I mean... take Columbine... The jocks probably just wrote about cheerleaders and keg parties, while the Trenchcoat Mafia just might have written something more serious and interesting...
There's also the reverse issue... What if you were monitoring things and FAILED to spot a student planning to shoot everybody... Is the school now responsible?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent down! - It's either trolling or the ramblings of a mentally disturbed loser.
Zimmerman didn't go hunting for blacks to shoot! Martin came to Zimmermans neighborhood looking like a gangsta and behaving like one to some extent. Zimmerman didn't pick up the gun when he saw the color of the intruders skin; he was already carrying. Whether the color of Martins skin had any influence on what happened is yet to be seen, as is whether it is relevant in any way.
The Casey Anthony case was a perfect example of a proper case with the proper outcome. No direct evidence was provided, only circumstantial hints, and the acquittal was the correct verdict.
Sure, she didn't behave as must people would, but that is completely irrelevant. If she didn't kill her daughter (or pay someone to do it), an acquittal is the only valid verdict. It doesn't matter if she wanted the daughter dead or that she was happy that she was gone. That makes her a horrible mother but not a murderer. And absolutely nothing - except her cold pre- and post-behavior - indicated any connection with the crime.
So not a murderer, only an absolutely horrible person/mother.
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
The O.J. Simpson case for instance.
There was some doubt as to motive and the excessive violence used which normally calls for a crime of passion or a psychopath, a profile that doesn't fit OJ Simpson.
But the core issue that caused the acquittal was the bumbling efforts of the LAPD in this matter, possibly related to the truly bad actions by self-proclaimed racist Mark Fuhrman that wanted to force a conviction and managed to do the exact opposite. But not only did Mark Fuhrman mess things up, the LAPD failed to follow procedure again and again, both at the crime scene and in the lab, losing and contaminating evidence in the process. There was so much doubt that reasonable doubt was inevitable and he was acquitted, exactly as intended to protect the innocent from being railroaded.
Basically we still don't know if he did it. There was countless stab wounds and blood everywhere (the LAPD managed to both step in it and make bloody footprints all over the house and grounds), yet no blood was ever found on OJ Simpson and only two pinhead-sized drops on the white Bronco which could have been deposited a long time prior to the murders. No blood stained clothes were ever found, nor the murder weapon. OJ had no time to wash and dispose of the bloody clothing as he was at the airport only hours later (and transport time from Brentwood to LAX was at least an hour due to congestion). Everything was searched and rewards offered but still nothing. This makes sense if the murderer was someone else as claimed, as only locations relevant to the possible paths OJ could have taken was searched.
No, I personally don't think he did it. Too much doesn't fit or make sense.
White supremacist?
This implies that we're talking about something premeditated and primarily racially motivated. This is not the case. As far as we know, it's a matter of someone (Zimmerman) feeling threatened on 'his' property, engaging the intruder and ends up using deadly force which he feels authorized by the "Stand Your Ground" legislation.
The case has the following important issues that needs both a public debate and court evaluation:
1) The "Stand Your Ground" law. It was meant to remove any concerns relating to the defense of your home or property. If there's an intruder and you feel threatened you should be able to use any means, including deadly force without fearing the legal consequences. Does the necessary threat need to be more clearly defined?
2) The signals that appearance sends. Many people from non-ghetto environments feels uneasy or threatened by youths wearing 'gangsta-wear', i.e. hoodies, reversed or askew baseball caps and similar. If you dress like that in areas where it might cause concern, are you essentially 'asking for it'?
3) The behaviour and actions of the intruder. Did he act in ways to make him more suspicious or threatening?
4) The race angle. Would Zimmerman have acted differently if the intruder has been hispanic or white? Does a black youth in a hoodie appear more scary than a similary dressed white or hispanic youth?
5) The possible abuse of the racism angle. Closely connected to 4 but still a separate issue. Every single time someone from one ethnic group harms someone from another ethnic group, racism is immediately claimed. If a hispanic man shoots a black youth, it's without doubt racism it seems. This abuse completely destroys any relevant racism angle by flooding the issue. It doesn't mean it wasn't racially motivated or aggravated but playing the race card all the time not only clouds the real motivation and cause, it also invalidates relevant racism claims because if you always hide behind (and possible is protected by) a claim of racism, people stop taking it seriously. Already, a racist white cop can get away with targeting black drivers simply because black drivers immediately claim racism when they are pulled over (even when the cop is black!), no matter how obvious it is that the cop had plenty of reasons to do so without any knowledge of the occupants of the car.
Speaking of fat people I actually think it would make sense to have ticket prices based on weight of passengers AND their cargo combined.
That would promote unhealthy dieting or worse.
It's actually far more unhealthy to be severely underweight than severely overweight. There's just a lot more fat people than anorexic people...
Does it really make financial sense to pay people to check receipts on the way out?
Wouldn't vigilant store detectives be a much better investment?
A friend I know works as a store detective and he claims that you can spot a thief just from their body language in less than 5 seconds. Then it's just a matter of following closely until the thief strikes and then you got him. Standard practice is to alert security at the exit but not apprehend the thief until he/she has collected as much as possible. The more stolen merchandise when caught, the harder the punishment.
If you then share pictures of the thieves and their methods (tin foil bags, special pockets etc.) with other businesses in the area and/or chain, you're even better equipped to handle the thief or his 'friends' there or elsewhere in the future, and the the thieves will have an even harder time doing their 'evil deeds', which of course always end up costing the paying customers money (the losses have to be covered somehow).
Hey! After all, their mantra is: "When in doubt - C4!" - How can that not involve explosions?
They compare arrest distribution with the composition of the population? So they assume that the riots were populated exactly as the general population?
That is complete and utter nonsense!
The riots were not even remotely perpetrated by a crowd composed like the general population. There's millions of hours of CCTV footage showing a completely different picture. The rioters were almost exclusively young men from the ethnic minorities of the area (yes, whites are a minority in some areas) - more than 90% fits this description.
If they compared arrest distribution with the riot distribution as seen on CCTV, I'm quite sure you'll get a much more equal match, possible because CCTV were used heavily to identify the rioters.
That's a racist comment. It is based on two figures that seems racisitically slated but isn't.
First figure is the likelihood of being arrested, based on your race. That number is not independent of everything else, but based on many factors, including experience of the police officers (they get read good a reading body language and similar to spot probable criminals) and the crime situation in the area (lots of crime means that it is more likely still that anyone with a suspect body language actually did something wrong), and blacks and hispanics tend to live in high crime areas.
The second number reflects the first - if twice as many gets arrested and charged, twice as many will get convicted, given equal treatment at the courts.
Now, if you claim that you are more likely to get convicted if you're black or hispanic, I say that this is mostly a statistical construct. The bare numbers might say this, but if you clean them for other anomalies they are much more equal. Differences in types of crime, as well as the quality of lawyers, prosecutors etc.will yield differing conviction rates. Also, the likelihood of a crime being gang related is much higher for blacks and hispanics, and the police will play the members against each other, getting one to testify against the others thus making conviction much more likely.
That man (Ron Paul) is stupid beyond words... If you stopped the war on drugs, it would escalate and many more would be hooked. Now, if you assume that there's no racial reason for the distribution of users, it would still be a significant black thing, and legal or not the drugs still have all the drawbacks (loss of job, health issues etc.) so legalizing drugs would in effect harm the blacks pretty significantly. They won't go to jail for it but they'll still end up in the gutter, destroyed by drugs, and much more so than whites.
I know of these actual cases where the Internet access of someone was used by someone else without permission.
1) Stolen Wifi, either unprotected or hacked.
2) Multiple family members, one connection. Who downloaded what?
3) Stolen wired access: An unauthorized cable was plugged into a switch, giving the thief connectivity.
4) Unauthorized access point: A rogue access point was installed and hidden so the thief could connect from nearby without the need for an actual cable.
5) Variations of 3 and 4 where the evidence was removed before discovery.
Bottom line - you cannot assume that 1 IP = 1 person without a serious investigation. An remember that 1 and 5 has no evidence left behind so the only evidence is the *lack* of traces on all devices with authorized access.
There are many ways to steal Internet access and you need to investigate BEFORE making accusations.
I was also in an accident where the car skidded during heavy rain and hit a stationary object (a tree) then rolled and everything (company car - complete write-off). I was wearing my seatbelt and the airbags deployed. My injuries were bruises to my shins and a seatbelt burn across my neck/front. I had no bruises on my hands or pains in them afterwards. I was holding the wheel at 9 and 3 as far as I remember.
I had someone behind me playing Angry Birds for the entire 3 hour flight I was on a year or two ago. He had the noise turned up rather high (apparently high enough to irritate me but not others -- perhaps the speakers on his device aimed my way). I asked him if he could please turn the sound down. He said no, and continued what he was doing. People are really awful.
One thing is to do something where sound is necessary, but Angry Birds is NOT one of them. Sound is actually completely unnecessary on that game.
So you should have asked one more time, and if the answer was the same, tell the guy that if he doesn't turn off the sound, he'll regret it.
If he continues, call the stewardess and tell her that the guy behind you were mumbling about explosions and 'taking things down' (plausible in relation to Angry Birds). Now watch as he's dragged off in handcuffs and when the plane lands is dragged off by the FBI, suspected of terror. Bet he's sorry he didn't just turn off the completely unnecessary sound now...
Yup, the new anti-terror laws can be useful... ;)
Hehe... Here in Denmark we had a "closing law" (lukkeloven) for a long time. It was originally meant to reduce commercial activity on Sundays and holidays for religious reasons but during the German occupation during WW2 it was expanded so the shops have severely reduced opening hours in order to conserve resources. It was relaxed post-war when resources were more available again, but remained fairly strict for long, long time. Only in the past decade or two it has been slowly relaxed into more modern rules (more hours each day and the possibility of Sunday hours, especially for smaller businesses), and later this year (October I think) it will be replaced completely with a holiday law that dictates close days on a few select holidays, mostly Easter and Christmas stuff. but otherwise gives everything completely free.
Now, all us that grew up during the more strict law (like supermarkets only open between 10am and 4:30pm on weekdays (Thursday an hour longer) and 10am to 2pm on Saturdays) learned to plan and shop ahead, which means that we usually have a small stockpile of the daily consumables - including alcohol. A lot of us still do it to this day, despite things being much more available today.
So what I'm basically trying to say - if you get used to days where you cannot get something, you'll learn keep a stockpile so you don't run out.
Exactly. Not to mention that it's huge waste of time to scan shoes for bombs. Even with a fairly huge plateau sole there's just not enough room for a bomb that can do more that local damage (at worst, blow out a window and/or kill a few nearby passengers), and you can do that kind of damage a dozen way using stuff they DON'T check for, or potentially cannot detect even if they tried.
Liquids on the other hand... It only takes 200 ml of a binary liquid explosive to blow a hole big enough to down the plane, and you're allowed five times that.
The better way is of course to pre-screen passengers and just not let anyone with shady connections or beliefs anywhere near the airport.
Why do various governments and government institutions feel it's necessary to hide and keep secret these kinds of talks?
Just think - they have no issues talking about defense spending, health-care and so on in public, but when it comes to anti-piracy at all of a sudden has to be secret.
It's obvious that they're hiding things because they have to. They're doing things that violates both basic democratic rules and their mandate, maybe even taking bribes in the process. They gotta be stopped! - and fast!
That's why I always carry black PVC tape and super glue. Stick it on and give it back. Not that I'm a celeb mind you.....
That stupid. I'm assuming you're placing the tape where it obstructs the function of the device?
What you're doing is vandalism, not to mention the damage you'd do to the livelihood if we're talking a paparazzi here.
Now, let's just get this straight - celebrities have no extended right to privacy. If they're out in public you can snap pictures and film them to your hearts content, the same as if the subject had been anyone else. There are rules for private property and rules for publication, but not for the actual recording in public. Anyone can photograph and film anyone in public. It's that simple.
Then the celebrities whine about their privacy and how they hate having their pictures taken but at the same time they have no qualms spending days posing for publicity pictures (which they get paid for) or in general collecting more or less obscene paychecks for 8-10 weeks of work. They enjoy VIP treatment and privileges at clubs and restaurants, not to mention award shows and similar. They wanted fame and the perks that come with it, but they don't want the flipside... Well, too bad. It's all or nothing. That's the way life works.
are you suggesting we all have a right to grab someone's phone and destroy it because they annoy us?
In general? No.
For paparazzi?
The same! - Of course!
The laws apply equally for everybody, even the paparazzi who're only doing their job.
Now, about the story - no real paparazzi would work with a smartphone so that part is bull. If someone was filming with such a toy, it's guaranteed it was a regular fan or similar. Real paps would be filming with a proper video camera, probably with a powerful light on top to really bother the subject. And now we come to the core issue: Both fans and paparazzi are allowed to film in public and taking someones property (the iPhone) and using it to break someone else property (the window) is most certainly not allowed. Now, Russell Brand not only destroyed private property, he also prevented someone from doing something completely legal, and he should be punished with a felony conviction as he's not the first that physically destroys cameras and similar when used legally by paparazzi. It is time to draw the line - you can run and hide, but you cannot physically attack. It is not only uncool and unprofessional, it's a felony.
I've always said this:
It's okay to ban depictions of the results of abuse, no matter the age of the victim. This include non-consensual adult sex, snuff, beastiality etc. - and of course pedophilia.
It's NOT okay to ban written descriptions, drawing and artwork of the very same things. Nobody was hurt during the production and thus it's just art.
The ban on everything even remotely connected to pedophilia is thought policing and should never happen in a non-fascist society. Ban the products of abuse to avoid feeding the producer.
Keep in mind, pedophiles cannot be 'cured' just as it is the case with homosexuality and similar. They can't change and yet we ban even fictional works that might satisfy their urges. The result is continuous harassment of the people unfortunate enough to be pedophiles, and of course the added incentive to not only break the laws and collect pedophilia, but to move beyond that and make it yourself, causing more abuse and misery upon innocent victims - children no less.
Several EU countries blocks Turkey completely due to their failure to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
Turkey not only denies that it happened but actively and militantly pursue anyone who even mentions it. They block Wikipedia due to their page on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
The EU countries demand that Turkey both acknowledges the event and apologize to the Armenian people and especially to the families of the victims. Turkey flatly refuses and these EU countries continuously veto any attempts at giving Turkey any kind of special or applicant status pending their compliance in this matter.
We're still doing rack cabinets wrong. We still load servers from the cold isle, but connect all the cabling from the hot isle. Many datacenters don't do hot isle capture. Until we switch to wiring servers from the cold isle and ducting the hot isle away we can't get any real heat transfer efficiency.
Huh? - You lost me there. Or maybe we're doing it right after all?
We load servers from the cold isle and the wiring is in the hot isle, but the hot isle is complete sealed off (with doors at the end of course) and the cooling sucks in air from the hot isle only and expel the cooled air from both the floor and the ceiling above the cold isle. This way the cool areas are never too cold and the hot areas don't leak heat to the cool areas. All servers are of course of the type that suck in air from the front and tunnel it forcibly through the server and out the back.
What's wrong with this approach?
Bigger is not automatically better...
As the distance loss for DC is immense (resulting in unwanted heat), it's probably only feasible to actually gain something from shared DC if the supply is relatively close to the servers, i.e. in the same rack or no further than the end of a row. A centralized supply for the whole datacenter will result in a huge waste of energy from transmission alone, far beyond what small less-than-perfect transformers in each server cause today.
We already have something a little bit like this - most blade centers have huge shared power supplies that distribute DC to more than a dozen servers.
Awesome! - Maybe slightly expanded:
4chan - where the men are men, the women are men, the trolls are infantile, the children are FBI agents and the pedophiles are rampant - and soon on their way to jail.
Anonymous has left the building.
.com does not belong to the United States. The fact that Verisign was assigned control of the registry by ICANN does not change this. Similarly if ICANN gave the registry to an operator in France it would not mean that France now owns .com.
Since Verisign is a private company it is incorrect to say that the US Government controls .com. Sure they can (and do) abuse the unique position they are in by bullying the registry operator. But to conclude that they control .com is similar to concluding that they control Windows updates, since Microsoft also has its headquarters in the US.
I for one find it deeply concerning that the US is asserting jurisdiction over international domains. Many of which are registered outside of the US by foreign registrants and registrars.
Exactly. The whole MegaUpload farce shows how much the US flat out abuses the fact that the current controller of .com is a US based company.
It should be the obvious that VeriSign has failed and their control needs to be revoked ASAP. Under no circumstances should a country be able to steal domains by simply abusing the geographical location of the current administrative company. And yes, they are stealing them. The owner has lost control and they are now used to point to propaganda pages owned by the US government. This costs the owner millions and that lost revenue from a perfectly legal cloud hosting service.
The US government is trying to make a hosting company liable for what its users are using the service for, and besides being a stretch legally, it's also something that fundamentally changes the hosting business if it is acknowledged by the courts. Sure, you can argue as to extent (a lot of the users of MegaUpload might have been using it for sharing copyrighted works) but you have to set a limit as to what is acceptable and what is not. Should the hosting company be worried about one infringing user? two? 42? 3.000? 50%? - Where to draw the line? Unless there's a clear line, ALL hosting is vulnerable to such legal actions.
It will also mean that the hosting business need to inspect what the customers are doing with the resources they're using, which means that they need to devote a massive amount of manpower to play law enforcement, and it also means that privacy goes right out the window. The hosting company needs to know everything, including what's in those encrypted files... because they can be made liable for their content.
Didn't think athletes could read or write? ;)
Okay, seriously... Why would they be particularly interested in athletes? Wouldn't regular students also write 'interesting' stuff on social media?
I mean... take Columbine... The jocks probably just wrote about cheerleaders and keg parties, while the Trenchcoat Mafia just might have written something more serious and interesting...
There's also the reverse issue... What if you were monitoring things and FAILED to spot a student planning to shoot everybody... Is the school now responsible?