Have you seen most modern day protests? 90% of the people there don't even know what exactly they're protesting. Given that, I would highly doubt that they've all tried the standard political process. Protests are groupthink at it's worst.
What happens when you and the protest warriors want to protest in the same place? What is your solution? And I don't mean roughly the same area (like the same park) I mean the same exact place. Or what happens when your protest or march isn't so popular? Should the KKK not be allowed to protest or march because everyone else is taking over the public space in order to prevent them from marching?
What happens when you know what ink you want, but the employee who is supposed to open the cage is tied up with little old grandma who doesn't even know what brand of printer she has? Shop keeps put the product out like that for your convenience.
Of course YOU cannot. But your bosses CHOSE to short-staff you, and put you in this position.
Oh that's bullshit and you know it. When I worked retail, I worked in a store that was ~45' X ~150', no odd angles, where standing at any point in the store, you could see any other point in the store. There were days when we would staff the floor with 25 people at any given time and there would still be theft. The fact of the matter is customers will always outnumber employees, and theives don't always work alone. I've seen groups of up to 6 people work to steal one item.
If they gave a shit about you, and the customer, they'd admit 1) the largest vector for shrink is their own disgruntled staff and 2) they're not hiring enough people to permit you to do your job.
Also wrong. The store I worked in lost less than.01% of all they lost during my time there to employees. The rest was to theives and fraud.
You need to face the facts that people in general suck and that's why crappy things like security tags and plastic clamshells exist. If people were more decent human beings, retail wouldn't suck as hard as it does.
Irrellevant. The point is, the customer has no respect for the retailer's property and didn't ask permission. Just because the retailer does not have an open one for demo and just because they won't let you open it does not give you the right to open the product in the first place. If you want to see it so bad, buy it., find a different retailer or find another way. But do not tear into the packaging and then whine and complain when packaging becomes designed to withstand your rude behaviors.
Seriously, the packaging exists, and retailers demand it because so many customers have no respect for other people's property. It never ceased to amaze me during my time in retail the number of people who would walk into a store, see something they like and start unpackaging it right there on the floor just so they could get a closer look. Didn't even ask anyone if there was one open they could look at, just tore into the box. And the worst part of it was, if the store tried to stop that by say, taping the corners of the box shut, people would TEAR the box. Then these same people would have the gall to put the box they just tore open back on the shelf and take an unopened one up to the register. Blister packs exist because of people like these. Do everyone a favor this holiday season and ask before you tear open a package on the shelf.
True, but that's because you're impersonating a cop. By contrast, the police would have no problem with you impersonating an interested buyer in order to get close enough to the car to verify that it's yours and gain some proof thereof.
My problem is, I don't think it should matter whether it was on video or off video, and I certainly don't think officers in the field need to be concerned with any legal implications other than "is the force being applied legal and neccessary" anything else is distracting and can get someone killed.
One of them involves the 2nd officer putting the cuffs on the suspect, while the first restrained him. That, i believe, is the textbook method, and probably would have been sufficient given the circumstances.
Looking at the video, that's exactly what they were trying to do. You'll note they have one cuff on (which by the way, makes him more dangerous than if he had no cuffs) and they're trying to get his arms under control. That's when he grabs the one officer. The strikes were calculated to do 3 things:
1) Subdue him (he's grabbing at an officer)
2) Distract him (if someone is hitting your face, you're probably going to stop what you're trying to do, in this case, grab the officer)
and
3) Losen his resistance (which it succeeded in doing as you'll note they manage to bring his arms together at the end of the video and get him further under control)
In the end, I would rather the guy have a bloody nose (those weren't very hard strikes) than have a dead perp or dead officer which is a possible senario when your perp is grabbing at the officer. Idealy as an officer, you don't want to have a perps hands anywhere near your body except to handcuff him.
Cops would have more time to go after "real bad guys" if they weren't always cleaning up after dumbass punks, like assholes who drive their $100,000 sports car that daddy gave them at 120 MPH down the road until they rear end someone else, putting their engine in the back seat, closing off one lane and the shoulder of a highway and bringing the other 3 lanes down to 10 MPH for 10 miles.
I said unable to avoid being punched as in he couldn't protect himself. Even boxers who get punched in the face a lot try to protect their faces it's a natural reaction for one to attempt to protect themselves. The suspect trying unsuccessfully to protect himself does not distract from the fact that he was restrained and at no time in the immediate time in which the punches were thrown was any officers life in danger from him.
Until he was handcuffed and in custody, the officers were in danger. The fact that he was continuing to resist despite having two cops holding him down means the officers were still in danger. The fact that his arms were clearly not fully under their control and that he was actively resisting being cuffed means the officers were still in danger. The fact that it took two officers to bring and keep him down suggests that he is quite capable of putting up a fight. Until he was completely subdued, he was a danger. In that situation the cops had the following choices:
1) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt himself
2) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt someone else
3) Allow him to keep struggling until he passed out (assuming he really couldn't breathe which I doubt)
or
4) Subdue him
Every minute his arms are free or no completely restrained (as they clearly are not in this video) he is a threat to everyone in the area. Failure to try and subdue him as quickly as possible will result in someone getting hurt or dying.
It's also quite clear that these are calculated strikes as it's 3 hits and only 3 each time. He's not pummling the shit out of him, he's trying to get him to stop fighting.
1) Demand Microsoft have stripped down version of windows 2) Wait until Microsoft has multiple versions of windows with various levels of completeness 3) realize that microsoft is going to make you pay for them having to do extra work 4) complain to the DOJ 5) ??? 6) Profit!
with today's job market, you will NOT stand a chance at any employer with tuition reimbursement without at LEAST a BS degree.
Patently false.
there are people with MS's working at Starbucks. a degree isn't your be-all, end-all, but post web boom the reality is that there's just too many degree-possessing candidates for employers to choose from.
Which is exactly my point. Why spend 5-6 years of your life putting youself into debt, gaining no work experience only to work at starbucks for the next 2 or 3 years, and waste your money as you jump between majors (when over 50% of college entrants switch majors in the first 2 years, that's something to think about), when you can go out, get yourself a job, start building up a source of steady income, give yourself some direction and learn what you really want out of life and then, when you have all that, go to school on someone elses dime so that you'll come out with a degree AND work experience. It will still take you 8 years, but at the end of those 8 years, you'll have more work experience, less debt and real direction.
College is and should be for expanding your knowledge beyond the basics. If you want to do research you should be in college. Everyone else should be out working. The more people that go to college as an extention of highschool are just devaluing the diploma.
These days, you'll hear all about how college will get you better pay and better jobs, but that's only true in the long run and only true once you've got the degree. The problem is, most 4 year degrees now take 5 or 6 years and tuition and costs in general keep going up, not down. Go out and get yourself a job that you enjoy doing and that has some relevance to what you want to do. Then use the time you take at the job to learn the most vital things you need to know BEFORE you get to college: 1) What exactly you want to do and 2) Time management. Without either of those two in place BEFORE college, you will just waste your money. College will very easily put you and your family into debts that can easily be avoided by buttoning down and getting yourself a real job in the first place. Most companies these days will offer tuition assistance for most college or professional development and with a steady job and income, you can build up work experience while finding your place in life. And if you're working and going to school, not only will you have less debt when you get out, but you'll have a leg up on other grads because not only will you have work experience, you will have a job that you're already established in.
I'm not saying don't go to school and don't get an education, I'm saying put it off until you know what you want to be educated about. The first two years are like highschool anyway except you pay for it and the teachers are a lot worse. And worst of all, as more graduates are finding out, today's BA is yesterdays highschool diploma. You need a masters to get anywhere good these days.
That isn't to say all of college is bad. I will be the first to admit that college was some of the best part of my life, but everything that was good was everything OUTSIDE the education. All the life experiences I got in college I could have done without racking up over $30,000 in personal debt. 2 years of real working did far more for me than 4 years of college ever did in terms of my professional development, and I got the job without the degree.
Well the nice guy thing is easily explained by the doormat theory which goes something like this: "Most guys try so hard to be the nice guy that they end up a doormat, and no one wants a doormat." Ironicaly I think the doormat problem is generated in part by the modern pussification movement. There's a fine line between nice guy and doormat just like there's a fine line between real man and pig. Most people unfortunately don't know where those lines are.
And when that happens, every single congressman who voted yes should be fired on the spot. "Didn't have a chance to read it" is not an excuse, it's a cop out. If they didn't read it, they should have voted no, because otherwise they can not truthfuly say the law was in the best interests of americans. Politicians should be accountable for every single line in every bill they pass. If they can't read them all or understand them all, then they need to make the bills shorter and clearer.
Seems to be working awfuly well in Iraq. I actually ran the numbers once and it was pretty interesting. From what I recall if you take the US population, divide it in half, and then cut out all of the people under 18 and over 65 from one half and give them all guns and put them up against every active member of the armed forces (not counting for anyone who might fight for them or any armed forces who might fight for us) and figured a casualty ratio of 1 armed forces member to 50 armed citizens, you would still come out ahead on the citizens side, and that doesn't count those you didn't arm.
Unless they're making arrests solely on the reports of this camera false positives are irellevant except in dertermining if this system will aid over conventional methods.
I think you would be rather hard pressed to find any laptop in the last 5 or 10 years where you could place two fingers ANYWHERE on the trackpad and move left, right, up or down and scroll in that direction. Yes, scoll sides have been around, and frankly they were a lousy hack. If you need 3 buttons, why not get side-track which would allow you to turn your one button trackpad into a 6 button trackpad, potentialy more if they've tapped into the two finger thing.
Minor correction they're paying $60 / paycheck or about $120 / month, so a little bit more. Even still the point remains the same. And I very highly doubt my employer is government subsidized, we're just a very large company.
Looks to me like americans need to stop relying on other people to get their healthcare. You think I'm kidding, but think about it for a moment. I pay a little over $14 a month for healthcare with no deductable and $5 copays on EVERYTHING. The reason I pay so little is because my employer pays the other $80/ month. The trick is, I could also aford to pay $84 / month for the same coverage if it was availible to me. But at $84 / month, the best I can find is a 10% plan with a $1,000 deductable. Why can't I find better? Because there's no market for it. There aren't enough people buying individual health care to create any sort of demand for low cost individual plans. Everyone expects their employers to pay it. Just look at the report you quoted, you can see the expectation there too. Why should health care be something a business provides it's employees? Sure it's nice if they do, but the expectation that they should is just driving everyone elses costs up. And because it's the businesses financing it rather than the individuals, the companies can keep jacking their rates knowing the businesses will pay it all along.
Seems irellevant to me. I'd rather be a reporter here, where I can run a story attacking the president of the country based on fabricated evidence and walk away with a pink slip rather than a country where my house will be firebombed by a bunch of people who are pissed off that a drew a cartoon.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen most modern day protests? 90% of the people there don't even know what exactly they're protesting. Given that, I would highly doubt that they've all tried the standard political process. Protests are groupthink at it's worst.
What happens when you and the protest warriors want to protest in the same place? What is your solution? And I don't mean roughly the same area (like the same park) I mean the same exact place. Or what happens when your protest or march isn't so popular? Should the KKK not be allowed to protest or march because everyone else is taking over the public space in order to prevent them from marching?
What happens when you know what ink you want, but the employee who is supposed to open the cage is tied up with little old grandma who doesn't even know what brand of printer she has? Shop keeps put the product out like that for your convenience.
Bitter much?
.01% of all they lost during my time there to employees. The rest was to theives and fraud.
Of course YOU cannot. But your bosses CHOSE to short-staff you, and put you in this position.
Oh that's bullshit and you know it. When I worked retail, I worked in a store that was ~45' X ~150', no odd angles, where standing at any point in the store, you could see any other point in the store. There were days when we would staff the floor with 25 people at any given time and there would still be theft. The fact of the matter is customers will always outnumber employees, and theives don't always work alone. I've seen groups of up to 6 people work to steal one item.
If they gave a shit about you, and the customer, they'd admit 1) the largest vector for shrink is their own disgruntled staff and 2) they're not hiring enough people to permit you to do your job.
Also wrong. The store I worked in lost less than
You need to face the facts that people in general suck and that's why crappy things like security tags and plastic clamshells exist. If people were more decent human beings, retail wouldn't suck as hard as it does.
Irrellevant. The point is, the customer has no respect for the retailer's property and didn't ask permission. Just because the retailer does not have an open one for demo and just because they won't let you open it does not give you the right to open the product in the first place. If you want to see it so bad, buy it., find a different retailer or find another way. But do not tear into the packaging and then whine and complain when packaging becomes designed to withstand your rude behaviors.
Seriously, the packaging exists, and retailers demand it because so many customers have no respect for other people's property. It never ceased to amaze me during my time in retail the number of people who would walk into a store, see something they like and start unpackaging it right there on the floor just so they could get a closer look. Didn't even ask anyone if there was one open they could look at, just tore into the box. And the worst part of it was, if the store tried to stop that by say, taping the corners of the box shut, people would TEAR the box. Then these same people would have the gall to put the box they just tore open back on the shelf and take an unopened one up to the register. Blister packs exist because of people like these. Do everyone a favor this holiday season and ask before you tear open a package on the shelf.
True, but that's because you're impersonating a cop. By contrast, the police would have no problem with you impersonating an interested buyer in order to get close enough to the car to verify that it's yours and gain some proof thereof.
My problem is, I don't think it should matter whether it was on video or off video, and I certainly don't think officers in the field need to be concerned with any legal implications other than "is the force being applied legal and neccessary" anything else is distracting and can get someone killed.
One of them involves the 2nd officer putting the cuffs on the suspect, while the first restrained him. That, i believe, is the textbook method, and probably would have been sufficient given the circumstances.
Looking at the video, that's exactly what they were trying to do. You'll note they have one cuff on (which by the way, makes him more dangerous than if he had no cuffs) and they're trying to get his arms under control. That's when he grabs the one officer. The strikes were calculated to do 3 things:
1) Subdue him (he's grabbing at an officer)
2) Distract him (if someone is hitting your face, you're probably going to stop what you're trying to do, in this case, grab the officer)
and
3) Losen his resistance (which it succeeded in doing as you'll note they manage to bring his arms together at the end of the video and get him further under control)
In the end, I would rather the guy have a bloody nose (those weren't very hard strikes) than have a dead perp or dead officer which is a possible senario when your perp is grabbing at the officer. Idealy as an officer, you don't want to have a perps hands anywhere near your body except to handcuff him.
Cops would have more time to go after "real bad guys" if they weren't always cleaning up after dumbass punks, like assholes who drive their $100,000 sports car that daddy gave them at 120 MPH down the road until they rear end someone else, putting their engine in the back seat, closing off one lane and the shoulder of a highway and bringing the other 3 lanes down to 10 MPH for 10 miles.
He certainly was fighting still. If he wasn't, they wouldn't be fighting for control of his arms and would have had him in handcuffs already.
I said unable to avoid being punched as in he couldn't protect himself. Even boxers who get punched in the face a lot try to protect their faces it's a natural reaction for one to attempt to protect themselves. The suspect trying unsuccessfully to protect himself does not distract from the fact that he was restrained and at no time in the immediate time in which the punches were thrown was any officers life in danger from him.
Until he was handcuffed and in custody, the officers were in danger. The fact that he was continuing to resist despite having two cops holding him down means the officers were still in danger. The fact that his arms were clearly not fully under their control and that he was actively resisting being cuffed means the officers were still in danger. The fact that it took two officers to bring and keep him down suggests that he is quite capable of putting up a fight. Until he was completely subdued, he was a danger. In that situation the cops had the following choices:
1) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt himself
2) Allow him to keep struggling until he hurt someone else
3) Allow him to keep struggling until he passed out (assuming he really couldn't breathe which I doubt)
or
4) Subdue him
Every minute his arms are free or no completely restrained (as they clearly are not in this video) he is a threat to everyone in the area. Failure to try and subdue him as quickly as possible will result in someone getting hurt or dying.
It's also quite clear that these are calculated strikes as it's 3 hits and only 3 each time. He's not pummling the shit out of him, he's trying to get him to stop fighting.
1) Demand Microsoft have stripped down version of windows
2) Wait until Microsoft has multiple versions of windows with various levels of completeness
3) realize that microsoft is going to make you pay for them having to do extra work
4) complain to the DOJ
5) ???
6) Profit!
with today's job market, you will NOT stand a chance at any employer with tuition reimbursement without at LEAST a BS degree.
Patently false.
there are people with MS's working at Starbucks. a degree isn't your be-all, end-all, but post web boom the reality is that there's just too many degree-possessing candidates for employers to choose from.
Which is exactly my point. Why spend 5-6 years of your life putting youself into debt, gaining no work experience only to work at starbucks for the next 2 or 3 years, and waste your money as you jump between majors (when over 50% of college entrants switch majors in the first 2 years, that's something to think about), when you can go out, get yourself a job, start building up a source of steady income, give yourself some direction and learn what you really want out of life and then, when you have all that, go to school on someone elses dime so that you'll come out with a degree AND work experience. It will still take you 8 years, but at the end of those 8 years, you'll have more work experience, less debt and real direction.
College is and should be for expanding your knowledge beyond the basics. If you want to do research you should be in college. Everyone else should be out working. The more people that go to college as an extention of highschool are just devaluing the diploma.
These days, you'll hear all about how college will get you better pay and better jobs, but that's only true in the long run and only true once you've got the degree. The problem is, most 4 year degrees now take 5 or 6 years and tuition and costs in general keep going up, not down. Go out and get yourself a job that you enjoy doing and that has some relevance to what you want to do. Then use the time you take at the job to learn the most vital things you need to know BEFORE you get to college: 1) What exactly you want to do and 2) Time management. Without either of those two in place BEFORE college, you will just waste your money. College will very easily put you and your family into debts that can easily be avoided by buttoning down and getting yourself a real job in the first place. Most companies these days will offer tuition assistance for most college or professional development and with a steady job and income, you can build up work experience while finding your place in life. And if you're working and going to school, not only will you have less debt when you get out, but you'll have a leg up on other grads because not only will you have work experience, you will have a job that you're already established in.
I'm not saying don't go to school and don't get an education, I'm saying put it off until you know what you want to be educated about. The first two years are like highschool anyway except you pay for it and the teachers are a lot worse. And worst of all, as more graduates are finding out, today's BA is yesterdays highschool diploma. You need a masters to get anywhere good these days.
That isn't to say all of college is bad. I will be the first to admit that college was some of the best part of my life, but everything that was good was everything OUTSIDE the education. All the life experiences I got in college I could have done without racking up over $30,000 in personal debt. 2 years of real working did far more for me than 4 years of college ever did in terms of my professional development, and I got the job without the degree.
The relevent questions are as follows:
Is this control property of the US government?
If not, what right does the US government have to sieze this private asset?
If not, what right does the UN or any nation have to demand that the US sieze this asset?
Well the nice guy thing is easily explained by the doormat theory which goes something like this: "Most guys try so hard to be the nice guy that they end up a doormat, and no one wants a doormat." Ironicaly I think the doormat problem is generated in part by the modern pussification movement. There's a fine line between nice guy and doormat just like there's a fine line between real man and pig. Most people unfortunately don't know where those lines are.
And when that happens, every single congressman who voted yes should be fired on the spot. "Didn't have a chance to read it" is not an excuse, it's a cop out. If they didn't read it, they should have voted no, because otherwise they can not truthfuly say the law was in the best interests of americans. Politicians should be accountable for every single line in every bill they pass. If they can't read them all or understand them all, then they need to make the bills shorter and clearer.
Seems to be working awfuly well in Iraq. I actually ran the numbers once and it was pretty interesting. From what I recall if you take the US population, divide it in half, and then cut out all of the people under 18 and over 65 from one half and give them all guns and put them up against every active member of the armed forces (not counting for anyone who might fight for them or any armed forces who might fight for us) and figured a casualty ratio of 1 armed forces member to 50 armed citizens, you would still come out ahead on the citizens side, and that doesn't count those you didn't arm.
Unless they're making arrests solely on the reports of this camera false positives are irellevant except in dertermining if this system will aid over conventional methods.
Equally, alarms, motion sensors, CCTV and locks are all valueless because if a human cannot be in a position to spot the activitiy, tough.
I think you would be rather hard pressed to find any laptop in the last 5 or 10 years where you could place two fingers ANYWHERE on the trackpad and move left, right, up or down and scroll in that direction. Yes, scoll sides have been around, and frankly they were a lousy hack. If you need 3 buttons, why not get side-track which would allow you to turn your one button trackpad into a 6 button trackpad, potentialy more if they've tapped into the two finger thing.
Minor correction they're paying $60 / paycheck or about $120 / month, so a little bit more. Even still the point remains the same. And I very highly doubt my employer is government subsidized, we're just a very large company.
Looks to me like americans need to stop relying on other people to get their healthcare. You think I'm kidding, but think about it for a moment. I pay a little over $14 a month for healthcare with no deductable and $5 copays on EVERYTHING. The reason I pay so little is because my employer pays the other $80/ month. The trick is, I could also aford to pay $84 / month for the same coverage if it was availible to me. But at $84 / month, the best I can find is a 10% plan with a $1,000 deductable. Why can't I find better? Because there's no market for it. There aren't enough people buying individual health care to create any sort of demand for low cost individual plans. Everyone expects their employers to pay it. Just look at the report you quoted, you can see the expectation there too. Why should health care be something a business provides it's employees? Sure it's nice if they do, but the expectation that they should is just driving everyone elses costs up. And because it's the businesses financing it rather than the individuals, the companies can keep jacking their rates knowing the businesses will pay it all along.
Seems irellevant to me. I'd rather be a reporter here, where I can run a story attacking the president of the country based on fabricated evidence and walk away with a pink slip rather than a country where my house will be firebombed by a bunch of people who are pissed off that a drew a cartoon.