He didn't go over time, he went so far over time that the organizers cut his mike and asked him to leave. He refused and continued yelling, which triggered the forcible removal.
At any time up to and including that, he could have simply left and avoided arrest. The cops would have walked him out and he'd have been free to go his way. It was when he struggled mightily against his forcible removal that he earned an arrest.
Your blinkered politics prevents you from seeing another option: The people who were there, actually witnessing the whole thing (not just the youtube money shot that's got you all hotted up), thought that the cops were justified and properly restrained in their behavior, except insofar as Meyer continually escalated the situation by refusing to comply with what they all thought was lawful and appropriate behavior by the police.
Because at the point that he was asked to leave and refused, he was trespassing and disturbing the peace, and the legal avenue for removing him was the best option for everyone involved, including the student. You didn't see anyone ask him to leave because 1) you didn't watch the extended video that showed the organizers asking him to relinquish the mic, and 2) you didn't hear the cops standing around him for 20 seconds saying "sir, you have to leave now" because the mic was shut off.
My point was: what does Kerry have to do with any of this, except that his presence provides you an excuse to launch your own diatribe about how the Democrats will destroy America?
Also note that nobody in the audience was threatened by the guy.... His actions, however animated were not constituted as a threat to anyone,
He wasn't removed because he was a threat, he was removed because he was disrupting a peaceful assembly.
Many people do not believe in this notion that one should always unconditionally bow to authority.... If the guy wants to ask Kerry a few extra questions, he doesn't deserve to get assaulted over it, regardless of whether or not he violated some petty, trivial rule of politeness.
And they're correct not to believe that. But this was not a situation where bowing to authority was the wrong course. This was a situation where the police were justified in removing someone who'd overstayed their welcome and been asked to leave. He hadn't violated some "petty, trivial rule of politeness", he was actively preventing the event from continuing by asking far more questions than allowed, and headed into silly conspiracy theory territory about Yale and Skull 'n Bones.
From that point on, resisting the lawful order to leave justified the limited use of force; resisting that force justified escalating levels of force.
Look past all the drama and shrieking and rending of garments over the use of force and walk through what happened here. A student tried to turn a peaceful Q&A into a platform for his ranting about politics, and was told to leave because he was disrupting the event and preventing it from proceeding. When he refused to comply, he was forcibly removed, and at the end of it, walked out under his own power, albeit in cuffs and under the control of the police. The use of force is rarely as pretty as it is in martial arts movies, but don't let the drama of it get in the way of reasoning about it calmly.
Watch the video again. Even while handcuffed and held down by four cops, he manages to twist his body more than 90 degrees and raise his head and torso to say "don't tazer me, bro". That's struggling, and that's why he got tazered.
He could have avoided getting tazered if he'd just gone limp instead at that point.
This was a textbook application of escalating levels of force, with the tazer near the top. Notice that it took two full minutes of the student struggling with all his strength before they even threatened to use the tazer. At that point, yes, the tazer is a work saver, saving the hospital the work of fixing his (and the cops) bruises, scrapes, dislocated shoulders, and torn ligaments.
As someone else posted above, get four friends and try to cuff a fifth who's fighting with all his strength to not get cuffed, and then carry him 100 yards. I think you'll find that tazering saves everyone a lot of grief. It looks ugly and dramatic, but it's actually a lot safer and quicker for everyone involved.
You're wrong. This was a textbook case of the proper application of escalating levels of force, giving him every opportunity to comply and stop the escalation. As for his right to be there, he had a right to use the mic for a limited time, which he did. He then didn't relinquish the mic long after the organizers and crowd had lost patience with him (notice how they applauded when the police started the removal)?
This isn't a free speech issue. My right to free speech doesn't permit me to disrupt your event.
Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier. After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak. That's what the first ammendment is for.
They did shut off the mic; he stood there and continued to yell.
It is NOT his absolute right to continue to speak in that place at that time. The first amendment prevents the government from censoring you; it does not prevent them from removing you from a peaceful assembly when you're disturbing it. Your right to free speech does not allow you to sit next to me in class screaming in my ear.
If anyone who speak[s] out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman
Pretty much. As I said, your right to freedom of speech does not require everyone to provide an audience for you, to allow you use their microphone at their forum.
This is moot, since removing him was not justified
Yes it was, both legally and morally. As I said, my right to free speech does not permit me to stand on the sidewalk outside your bedroom window ranting all night.
Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.
Here you're just being ignorant. As someone else pointed out, struggling while in handcuffs can lead to serious injury for yourself such as a dislocated shoulder. He can also kick and headbutt within a limited range. Until you're holding still, you're a threat. And struggling with no chance of success is still failing to comply with a lawful order to leave a place.
So they may threaten anyone with anything, and be held completely blameless if they carry it out. What if they got an axe and threatened to cut off a limb, would it still be ok for them to do it, so long as they told him first?
This makes zero sense. First, I didn't say they could threaten anyone with anything; threatening the use of the tazer was well within police guidelines on the use of force and procedure for applying escalating levels of it.
It is not their duty to use excessive force.
You're correct. In this case, the force wasn't excessive. It was ugly to watch, but that's mainly the drama of tazering (you're aware, aren't you, that standard training for the tazer involves being tazered? That every one of those cops had been tazered themselves so they knew exactly what suffering they were causing?). They were following well established procedures.
Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority
This is what it really comes down to: You're sympathetic to the guy who was clearly in the wrong by law, so the cops doing their job properly are pig-headed and brutal. There's no free speech issue here, just a drama queen who got busted.
This video is a demonstration of the fact that most public disorder is caused by the police.
Pure, unfiltered horseshit. Meyer had no right to disrupt a peaceful assembly with his loony rantings about skull 'n bones conspiracies, and many opportunities to comply and walk out without incurring force by the police.
Actually, you could play that video for training purposes because it was a textbook example of force levels and their proper application.
First, they verbally warned him to leave. He wouldn't. Then, they touched him--not grabbed, just laid their hands on him and warned him again. He wouldn't stop. Then, they grabbed him, and warned him again. He continued talking. Then, they tried to physically move him out of the auditorium. He struggled against the movement. Then, when he tried to escape their grasp, they physically subdued him and cuffed him. He continued to struggle, at which point the possibility of injuring himself became significant--a dislocated shoulder from pulling against cuffs is very possible. When he refused to calm down after being cuffed, they threatened to taser him if he didn't stop struggling. He didn't. So, they tasered him. After that, they picked him up and he walked out calmly under his own power. They weren't punishing him with tazers--he took them to that level of force ladder by refusing to comply until they got there. Once he stopped struggling, they stopped tazing.
The point of the extended escalation is to provide every opportunity for an arrestee to stop struggling and comply with the officer, and they always move up the force ladder in single steps so that every step is the justifiably minimal escalation. It's that dickhead's own fault that he got tazered. I salute those cops for doing a difficult job calmly, professionally, and with perfect procedural correctness, in the face of a bunch of drama queens like yourself who can't imagine that someone in a polo shirt at a university might run afoul of the law of their own volition.
This is what you get when you take your information from a youtube video: a completely wrong analysis of the situation.
Note that the audience applauded when he was removed from the mic. He'd already been up there for a long time, asking multiple questions and refusing to relinquish the mic. The organizers asked him to do so, and he refused. They cut his mic, after he'd had longer than anyone else on it, and he kept going. The police told him he had to leave, and he kept going. They tried to escort him out by touch, and he kept going. They got a grip on him to escort him out, and he kept going. They tried to move him towards the door, and he fought to get back to the mic. They subdued him, and he continued to struggle. It was two full minutes of resisting arrest before they even brought out the tazer.
Legally, the cops are totally in the clear. This was textbook escalation of force levels. He was trespassing from the moment the organizers told him to leave, long after their (and the crowd's) patience had worn out with him. He didn't comply with orders to leave, so they used force to remove him. He struggled against the force being justifiably used to remove him, so he was resisting arrest.
At every stage in the confrontation, he could have complied and ended the situation, and didn't. The use of force is usually ugly, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I missed the part of the video where Kerry comes down of the stage, punches the guy in the neck, kicks him in the knee, and then holds the tazer to his genitals while screaming "suck it, bitch! suck it!"
It's simple, really: he was disturbing the peace by refusing the relinquish the microphone after a question, which justified his removal from the auditorium; by refusing to comply with the removal, he justified the use of force to remove him; by struggling for two fucking full minutes against the use of force to remove him, he was resisting arrest. Once he was physically subdued, he continued to struggle, and was clearly told to stop struggling or he'd get tased--we know he understood this threat because he said "don't tase me" while he continued to struggle, as if cops in the performance of their duties should listen to the guy telling them to stop performing their duties on him.
Note that the every stage of this, he was the one in the wrong. At any time he could have complied and walked out, albeit with officer assistance at the end. It's looks bad on youtube, but that video is a training manual in the proper escalation of force levels. I'd commend those officers in doing their job properly.
Before I saw the video, the righteous indignation here at the police state tactics of a bunch of university rent-a-cops was compelling. We are indeed living in a fascist state, I thought.
Then I watched the video, and found that I had zero sympathy for that dickhead. It was two full minutes before the taser was even threatened. Two minutes in which he struggled with the cops, in which he tried with all his strength to escape them to run back to the microphone for more attention from the crowd. Two minutes of yelling "Help!" as if he was being wronged by being removed from the microphone, as if the gathered students might join him in a glorious revolution. Two minutes of pure, textbook, resisting arrest.
Then the taser came out. And he was clearly told to stop struggling and stand up, or he'd be tasered. Did he say "okay, I'll stand up"? Did he stop twisting and squirming? Did he recognize that his stage time was over and it was time to leave? No. He kept yelling like a self-righteous little bitch who doesn't understand that his parent's college money doesn't buy him camera time. And so he got tasered.
Note that after he got tasered, he stood up and walked out just like he could've before the tasering. Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling?
He missed several opportunities to comply with being removed from the auditorium; he fought with them continuously for (by the video clock) two minutes before the taser was even threatened.
So, my gut reaction to the video was thinking "dumbass got what he deserved". I thought the cops were quite reasonable in their paced escalation of force. By the time the taser came out I was already so irritated with him being a grandstanding douchebag that I was actually slightly happy to hear him whimper.
That doesn't make me insensitive. It makes me a mature adult who has a sense of responsibility for his own actions and the consequences of same.
To the credit of the BSD community, another poster to that thread beat the shit out of the complainer for relying on consistent behavior of something the spec specifically says is 'undefined'.
Of course, NTP now has a $612MM war chest with which to fight. The Telcos aren't going to approach this battle with an attitude of "they can't afford to sue us." Any Telco exec who says "we'll just outspend them on legal dollars" won't last long.
Is that the profession of being a bad-smelling socially awkward idiot savant with a keyboard is dying, while the software developer who can meet with clients and not embarass the business, who can understand the spreadsheet that justifies his time coding (from a sales perspective), who is as good at assembling libraries as writing new code, is where the future of software engineering lies.
In other words, just like every other profession, you'll have to be good at the expanded requirements, not just the core ones to the exclusion of everything else. The age of rockstar programmer is coming to a close. Someone turn out Paul Graham's lights.
I didn't know a damn thing about astrophotography before I read the parent, but I feel pretty confident now in stating that the mount is (probably) more important than the scope itself.
Not quite. Regardless of./ers participation in Eve, it's well known that it's a 100K strong community, so any interesting community dynamics are newsworthy, moreso because they reflect on the MMO genre itself.
Most of the reason this is a non-story is that there's a total of four people with two servers involved. I'm far from certain that there's more than 100 people who even give a shit about the 'attempted coup'.
As you pointed out, the relational principle is orthogonal to row vs. column. The latter idea has to do with the most efficient way to store the data for use on a disk, while the former is a theoretical model about how to structure data to eliminate redundancies and (false) dependencies.
In a nutshell, row based storage means storing records together, while column based means storing columns together. Cutting aside the marketing hype in the OP's link, column based storage has some obvious efficiencies for data warehousing, where it's written once and read many times, usually selectively by column. Row based is still obviously superior where writing is frequent, though, because records are stored together. Nothing in the relational model favours one over the other necessarily, and I'm certain that in ten years the major vendors will have you select row vs. column based storage when setting up a new database (or some fusion of the two). The OP trumpetting row based storage is justi hyping a performance feature of his software.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't go over time, he went so far over time that the organizers cut his mike and asked him to leave. He refused and continued yelling, which triggered the forcible removal.
At any time up to and including that, he could have simply left and avoided arrest. The cops would have walked him out and he'd have been free to go his way. It was when he struggled mightily against his forcible removal that he earned an arrest.
Your blinkered politics prevents you from seeing another option: The people who were there, actually witnessing the whole thing (not just the youtube money shot that's got you all hotted up), thought that the cops were justified and properly restrained in their behavior, except insofar as Meyer continually escalated the situation by refusing to comply with what they all thought was lawful and appropriate behavior by the police.
Because at the point that he was asked to leave and refused, he was trespassing and disturbing the peace, and the legal avenue for removing him was the best option for everyone involved, including the student. You didn't see anyone ask him to leave because 1) you didn't watch the extended video that showed the organizers asking him to relinquish the mic, and 2) you didn't hear the cops standing around him for 20 seconds saying "sir, you have to leave now" because the mic was shut off.
My point was: what does Kerry have to do with any of this, except that his presence provides you an excuse to launch your own diatribe about how the Democrats will destroy America?
Also note that nobody in the audience was threatened by the guy.... His actions, however animated were not constituted as a threat to anyone,
He wasn't removed because he was a threat, he was removed because he was disrupting a peaceful assembly.
Many people do not believe in this notion that one should always unconditionally bow to authority.... If the guy wants to ask Kerry a few extra questions, he doesn't deserve to get assaulted over it, regardless of whether or not he violated some petty, trivial rule of politeness.
And they're correct not to believe that. But this was not a situation where bowing to authority was the wrong course. This was a situation where the police were justified in removing someone who'd overstayed their welcome and been asked to leave. He hadn't violated some "petty, trivial rule of politeness", he was actively preventing the event from continuing by asking far more questions than allowed, and headed into silly conspiracy theory territory about Yale and Skull 'n Bones.
From that point on, resisting the lawful order to leave justified the limited use of force; resisting that force justified escalating levels of force.
Look past all the drama and shrieking and rending of garments over the use of force and walk through what happened here. A student tried to turn a peaceful Q&A into a platform for his ranting about politics, and was told to leave because he was disrupting the event and preventing it from proceeding. When he refused to comply, he was forcibly removed, and at the end of it, walked out under his own power, albeit in cuffs and under the control of the police. The use of force is rarely as pretty as it is in martial arts movies, but don't let the drama of it get in the way of reasoning about it calmly.
Watch the video again. Even while handcuffed and held down by four cops, he manages to twist his body more than 90 degrees and raise his head and torso to say "don't tazer me, bro". That's struggling, and that's why he got tazered.
He could have avoided getting tazered if he'd just gone limp instead at that point.
This was a textbook application of escalating levels of force, with the tazer near the top. Notice that it took two full minutes of the student struggling with all his strength before they even threatened to use the tazer. At that point, yes, the tazer is a work saver, saving the hospital the work of fixing his (and the cops) bruises, scrapes, dislocated shoulders, and torn ligaments.
As someone else posted above, get four friends and try to cuff a fifth who's fighting with all his strength to not get cuffed, and then carry him 100 yards. I think you'll find that tazering saves everyone a lot of grief. It looks ugly and dramatic, but it's actually a lot safer and quicker for everyone involved.
You're wrong. This was a textbook case of the proper application of escalating levels of force, giving him every opportunity to comply and stop the escalation. As for his right to be there, he had a right to use the mic for a limited time, which he did. He then didn't relinquish the mic long after the organizers and crowd had lost patience with him (notice how they applauded when the police started the removal)?
This isn't a free speech issue. My right to free speech doesn't permit me to disrupt your event.
Simple solution, shut the microphone off at the amplifier. After that it's his ABSOLUTE RIGHT to continue to speak. That's what the first ammendment is for.
They did shut off the mic; he stood there and continued to yell.
It is NOT his absolute right to continue to speak in that place at that time. The first amendment prevents the government from censoring you; it does not prevent them from removing you from a peaceful assembly when you're disturbing it. Your right to free speech does not allow you to sit next to me in class screaming in my ear.
If anyone who speak[s] out of turn from the chairman can be removed, then there's no discussion, only a generous opportunity to agree with the chairman
Pretty much. As I said, your right to freedom of speech does not require everyone to provide an audience for you, to allow you use their microphone at their forum.
This is moot, since removing him was not justified
Yes it was, both legally and morally. As I said, my right to free speech does not permit me to stand on the sidewalk outside your bedroom window ranting all night.
Struggling with no chance of sucess is not a threat. No threat, no further use of force necessary.
Here you're just being ignorant. As someone else pointed out, struggling while in handcuffs can lead to serious injury for yourself such as a dislocated shoulder. He can also kick and headbutt within a limited range. Until you're holding still, you're a threat. And struggling with no chance of success is still failing to comply with a lawful order to leave a place.
So they may threaten anyone with anything, and be held completely blameless if they carry it out. What if they got an axe and threatened to cut off a limb, would it still be ok for them to do it, so long as they told him first?
This makes zero sense. First, I didn't say they could threaten anyone with anything; threatening the use of the tazer was well within police guidelines on the use of force and procedure for applying escalating levels of it.
It is not their duty to use excessive force.
You're correct. In this case, the force wasn't excessive. It was ugly to watch, but that's mainly the drama of tazering (you're aware, aren't you, that standard training for the tazer involves being tazered? That every one of those cops had been tazered themselves so they knew exactly what suffering they were causing?). They were following well established procedures.
Every single escalation was the result of those 'in authority' exceeding their authority
This is what it really comes down to: You're sympathetic to the guy who was clearly in the wrong by law, so the cops doing their job properly are pig-headed and brutal. There's no free speech issue here, just a drama queen who got busted.
This video is a demonstration of the fact that most public disorder is caused by the police.
Pure, unfiltered horseshit. Meyer had no right to disrupt a peaceful assembly with his loony rantings about skull 'n bones conspiracies, and many opportunities to comply and walk out without incurring force by the police.
Actually, you could play that video for training purposes because it was a textbook example of force levels and their proper application.
First, they verbally warned him to leave. He wouldn't. Then, they touched him--not grabbed, just laid their hands on him and warned him again. He wouldn't stop. Then, they grabbed him, and warned him again. He continued talking. Then, they tried to physically move him out of the auditorium. He struggled against the movement. Then, when he tried to escape their grasp, they physically subdued him and cuffed him. He continued to struggle, at which point the possibility of injuring himself became significant--a dislocated shoulder from pulling against cuffs is very possible. When he refused to calm down after being cuffed, they threatened to taser him if he didn't stop struggling. He didn't. So, they tasered him. After that, they picked him up and he walked out calmly under his own power. They weren't punishing him with tazers--he took them to that level of force ladder by refusing to comply until they got there. Once he stopped struggling, they stopped tazing.
The point of the extended escalation is to provide every opportunity for an arrestee to stop struggling and comply with the officer, and they always move up the force ladder in single steps so that every step is the justifiably minimal escalation. It's that dickhead's own fault that he got tazered. I salute those cops for doing a difficult job calmly, professionally, and with perfect procedural correctness, in the face of a bunch of drama queens like yourself who can't imagine that someone in a polo shirt at a university might run afoul of the law of their own volition.
This is what you get when you take your information from a youtube video: a completely wrong analysis of the situation.
Note that the audience applauded when he was removed from the mic. He'd already been up there for a long time, asking multiple questions and refusing to relinquish the mic. The organizers asked him to do so, and he refused. They cut his mic, after he'd had longer than anyone else on it, and he kept going. The police told him he had to leave, and he kept going. They tried to escort him out by touch, and he kept going. They got a grip on him to escort him out, and he kept going. They tried to move him towards the door, and he fought to get back to the mic. They subdued him, and he continued to struggle. It was two full minutes of resisting arrest before they even brought out the tazer.
Legally, the cops are totally in the clear. This was textbook escalation of force levels. He was trespassing from the moment the organizers told him to leave, long after their (and the crowd's) patience had worn out with him. He didn't comply with orders to leave, so they used force to remove him. He struggled against the force being justifiably used to remove him, so he was resisting arrest.
At every stage in the confrontation, he could have complied and ended the situation, and didn't. The use of force is usually ugly, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I think the grandparent was being ironic.
I missed the part of the video where Kerry comes down of the stage, punches the guy in the neck, kicks him in the knee, and then holds the tazer to his genitals while screaming "suck it, bitch! suck it!"
Fucking great analysis.
It's simple, really: he was disturbing the peace by refusing the relinquish the microphone after a question, which justified his removal from the auditorium; by refusing to comply with the removal, he justified the use of force to remove him; by struggling for two fucking full minutes against the use of force to remove him, he was resisting arrest. Once he was physically subdued, he continued to struggle, and was clearly told to stop struggling or he'd get tased--we know he understood this threat because he said "don't tase me" while he continued to struggle, as if cops in the performance of their duties should listen to the guy telling them to stop performing their duties on him.
Note that the every stage of this, he was the one in the wrong. At any time he could have complied and walked out, albeit with officer assistance at the end. It's looks bad on youtube, but that video is a training manual in the proper escalation of force levels. I'd commend those officers in doing their job properly.
Before I saw the video, the righteous indignation here at the police state tactics of a bunch of university rent-a-cops was compelling. We are indeed living in a fascist state, I thought.
Then I watched the video, and found that I had zero sympathy for that dickhead. It was two full minutes before the taser was even threatened. Two minutes in which he struggled with the cops, in which he tried with all his strength to escape them to run back to the microphone for more attention from the crowd. Two minutes of yelling "Help!" as if he was being wronged by being removed from the microphone, as if the gathered students might join him in a glorious revolution. Two minutes of pure, textbook, resisting arrest.
Then the taser came out. And he was clearly told to stop struggling and stand up, or he'd be tasered. Did he say "okay, I'll stand up"? Did he stop twisting and squirming? Did he recognize that his stage time was over and it was time to leave? No. He kept yelling like a self-righteous little bitch who doesn't understand that his parent's college money doesn't buy him camera time. And so he got tasered.
Note that after he got tasered, he stood up and walked out just like he could've before the tasering. Also note that the crowd didn't rise up in protest, or even complain from their seats. They actually applauded his initial removal from the mic. If a bunch of people who sat there and watched it didn't protest, why is your youtube take on the issue somehow more compelling?
He missed several opportunities to comply with being removed from the auditorium; he fought with them continuously for (by the video clock) two minutes before the taser was even threatened.
So, my gut reaction to the video was thinking "dumbass got what he deserved". I thought the cops were quite reasonable in their paced escalation of force. By the time the taser came out I was already so irritated with him being a grandstanding douchebag that I was actually slightly happy to hear him whimper.
That doesn't make me insensitive. It makes me a mature adult who has a sense of responsibility for his own actions and the consequences of same.
Where's the +1 Common Sense mod option when you need it?
To the credit of the BSD community, another poster to that thread beat the shit out of the complainer for relying on consistent behavior of something the spec specifically says is 'undefined'.
Of course, NTP now has a $612MM war chest with which to fight. The Telcos aren't going to approach this battle with an attitude of "they can't afford to sue us." Any Telco exec who says "we'll just outspend them on legal dollars" won't last long.
Is that the profession of being a bad-smelling socially awkward idiot savant with a keyboard is dying, while the software developer who can meet with clients and not embarass the business, who can understand the spreadsheet that justifies his time coding (from a sales perspective), who is as good at assembling libraries as writing new code, is where the future of software engineering lies.
In other words, just like every other profession, you'll have to be good at the expanded requirements, not just the core ones to the exclusion of everything else. The age of rockstar programmer is coming to a close. Someone turn out Paul Graham's lights.
I didn't know a damn thing about astrophotography before I read the parent, but I feel pretty confident now in stating that the mount is (probably) more important than the scope itself.
Not quite. Regardless of ./ers participation in Eve, it's well known that it's a 100K strong community, so any interesting community dynamics are newsworthy, moreso because they reflect on the MMO genre itself.
Most of the reason this is a non-story is that there's a total of four people with two servers involved. I'm far from certain that there's more than 100 people who even give a shit about the 'attempted coup'.
As you pointed out, the relational principle is orthogonal to row vs. column. The latter idea has to do with the most efficient way to store the data for use on a disk, while the former is a theoretical model about how to structure data to eliminate redundancies and (false) dependencies.
In a nutshell, row based storage means storing records together, while column based means storing columns together. Cutting aside the marketing hype in the OP's link, column based storage has some obvious efficiencies for data warehousing, where it's written once and read many times, usually selectively by column. Row based is still obviously superior where writing is frequent, though, because records are stored together. Nothing in the relational model favours one over the other necessarily, and I'm certain that in ten years the major vendors will have you select row vs. column based storage when setting up a new database (or some fusion of the two). The OP trumpetting row based storage is justi hyping a performance feature of his software.
You're correct in theory, but in practice all major RDBMSs are row-based, so the two terms are synonymous in use.