Think "Obamacooling" with Fox outside an overflowing morgue, "capitalism was not allowed to offer "freedom of choice" cheap no efficiency AC anymore or a teabagging Joe the AC man.
If this were used for recharging Chevy Volts, or cooling deep freezers.
Don't you know? When you use the grid to charge an electric vehicle, the power company can recognize this and uses jellybean fields and unicorn wheels to generate the power.
Privacy concern, eh? Don't you think the power company already knows how much power you're using?
Infrastructure is built out to handle peak load. That means that they've spend probably double on your power infrastructure to cover, what, the 2 hottest weeks of the year. If they can reduce the peak usage, they could cut back a significant amount of the total cost of the system.
And I'm sure these for-profit, monopolistic, "public" utilities will pass along any newfound cost savings to the consumer post-haste.
If you can override it, essentially all they're doing is informing you of power demand, not monitoring you without your consent or forcing you to do anything. Explain what oppressive totalitarian privacy-violating government regimes (i.e "Big Brother") have to do with any of this.
Perhaps they should just send me an SMS then - "We'd like to turn off your A/C for the next 90 minutes. Our bid is a $5 credit. Accept?"
In Arizona they're trying to pass a no walk/swim list law so they can question anyone who "looks like they could be in the country illegally." Poor native americans, they'll never know what hit them!
I think that law is a joke, but it's hard to blame them for trying when the federal government won't properly secure the border; which is one of the few things it was chartered to do in our constitution (common defense).
Afghanistan and the fundamentalism there is part of the fallout of US policy in the cold war, especially in Afghanistan they trained, funded and armed these exact same fundamentalists and (ab)used them for their political purposes.
There's no disputing (among people who understand the situation) that America [and its allies'] foreign policy has played a significant role in increasing anti-Americanism in that region.
However, I hardly think that we used or abused the Afghans in the cold war. It was, for all intents, a proxy war between the Soviets and the US. That said, what was the alternative? Let the Afghans continue to be murdered at the hands of the USSR? It was a complicated problem. If we openly defended or armed them, we faced the certainty of an all-out war between two superpowers. If we chose not to covertly arm them, the Red Army steamrolls them and was predicted then to have no intentions of stopping there.
I have to admit it's not quite the same, but you have to see that it's also not that different... especially not in the eyes of the 'insurgents/terrorists/whatever'.
It is a complex problem, but as you said it's not quite the same. Leaving the Iraq argument out of this, Afghanistan was a safe-haven for known extremist groups that were operating against Western targets for years. 9/11 was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
If the US allowed random militias safe harbor, while they were out murdering civilians abroad in a religious crusade/revenge plot, we might have some sort of analogous situation here.
Tendency toward violence is not a left/right thing
Absolutely. Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...". I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions upon *all* right-wingers. But they are *currently* housing (and, I would argue, encouraging) a kernel of extremism within their ranks.
And the highest-ranking members of the left are endorsing stuff like this. He was Obama's nominee for "Green Jobs Adviser".
As GP said, this isn't a left/right thing. No one party is housing or encouraging. There be asshats everywhere.
That's mild in comparison to some of the developers egoism. Gaim worked very well until the developers decided to defeature it. There was a fork for a time and that did force the developers to add the features back in just long enough to strangle the fork. Then they renamed it pigden and started defeaturing it again.
As someone suffering from this at the moment (on Pidgin, in particular) are there any worthwhile Pidgin alternatives for win32?
I was going to post responses to the different parts of your post, but all of it is accurate. You just misunderstood my post.
Of note, I did not say that the subject was moving towards the officer. I was suggesting that this prevents the sort of standoff where the officer draws his gun and doesn't shoot _until_ the suspect is moving towards him - which will likely lead to the officer being wounded or worse.
With a less-lethal _gun_ like the Taser X26, the officer should fire on the suspect as soon as he is not complying with demands to drop a weapon.
interestingly there have been a number of studies which show that within close range, an assailant armed with a knife will almost always come out on top of someone with a gun, even if that gun is drawn and readied for use. I agree with your other points though.
Yes, they call this the "twenty-one-foot rule" in lw enforcement circles. It's entirely accurate. That's why I didn't include an option of "running for cover" or similar.
But you're right - I should have mentioned, though, that [unfortunately] in that situation there is a good chance the law enforcement individual won't be able to prevent a determined assailant from reaching him. He won't be able to draw a gun (or Taser), fire, and take advantage of any stopping power quickly enough.
In theory, however, the stopping power of a Taser could be more reliable since there have been many reports of attackers charging through multiple center mass hits whereas the Taser debilitates most subjects.
In sane countries where it's illegal to carry around lethal weapons, I expect the police to also be unarmed.
lol. How's that working out for the UK, by the way?
However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, attributed the rise to ineffective Policing and an out of control gang culture.
Just wait until we get some good designer drugs with no major physical downsides (as opposed to people abusing prescription meds...). It can always get worse (sort of like the middle east).
Like Adderall? Shire earns $1.1B/yr from their latest formula ("Adderall XR").
Adderall is a brand-name psychostimulant medication composed of racemic amphetamine aspartate monohydrate, racemic amphetamine sulfate, dextroamphetamine saccharide & dextroamphetamine sulfate, which is thought to work by increasing the amount of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain.
Ya seriously, I totally agree. This is not real world, it is junk science.
Tasers have killed people. I think that is clear enough to say that they should be categorized as potentially lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are on meth, cocaine, have previous heart conditions or they just taze you 10 times.
Any serious agency has already classified or reclassified them as "less-lethal" rather than LTL ("less-than-lethal") in recent years. This is to indicate that it's less lethal than using a firearm. The problem isn't with Taser devices, the problem is with ignorant cops and bad policy. The Taser was, and is, meant to be used when previously you _would have shot_ the assailant. Not when they are noisy, not when they resist, not when they are inconvenient.
There are many situations like this:
Consider a traffic stop. The subject exits his car and presents a knife, and exhibits signs of meth intoxication. You have 10 feet between you. At this time you have two choices: shoot (and almost certainly kill) the subject, or risk being killed. Now law enforcement is _supposed_ to be able to choose hidden option C: shoot them, but hopefully in a less-lethal way, while still preserving your own life.
It's unfortunate that Taser is taking a beating in public opinion because we have cowboy deputies and local cops running amok with "lightning guns."
Oh, and this study is garbage (and kinda hilarious.)
I hardly see how they could be considered off-duty when they're out and about looking for violators.
Not sure about other states but in California, state law does not differentiate between an on-duty and off-duty peace officers when it comes to their responsibilities/duties/powers.
i know next-to-nothing about the underlying tech, so i can't comment on how it works or what the advantages would be at that point. but i was aware of there being non-capacitive multitouch in the works, at least, which is why i was careful to say "in this case" in my gp post:)
The only multitouch demonstration on any of the videos was rotating the playing cards (to little effect anyway).
Why is "multitouch" specifically such a buzzword, and not just "touch" on its own? Multitouch has so far had weird implications on what sort of appendage/stylus you can use on the surface, whereas single touch does not. Plus, you can effectively do pinch/zoom on a typically single-touch panel, just not rotations.
simply, multitouch refers to a type of screen (capacitive in this case) that can track more than one point of contact simultaneously.
the other type of popular touchscreen is resistive, this is what is used on my htc touch pro2.
if you put three fingers on the surface of the screen, one after another (like how you'd press ctrl-alt-del), it would look like the following:
capacitive: _ _ _ resistive: _
on the resistive screen, whichever spot you touched first is "it".
I read an article somewhere that said merchants should just find the cheapest, least competent auditor they can, and get them to declare the merchant PCI-DSS compliant, then do what you think is right to be secure.
This is what I advise, as well. Banks (Wells Fargo, of note) have been accepting Comodo HackerGuardian for PCI DSS scanning requirements.
[following provided for humor purposes, this isn't factual (Comodo et al.: don't bother suing me)] I watched the apache logs/syslogs, it's hilarious.. It's basically a banner check, some simple brute force authentications (like.. 10) against SSH and FTP services (if present), and then it runs thousands of brute force GETs and HEADs on your httpd looking for known vulnerabilities from the 90s and early 00s (think FrontPage Extensions.)
"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"
The Constitution allows itself to change with the time, and the nation it creates to be flexible. It allows this not only through amendment, and the tradition of common law, but also through some innate flexibility.
If we froze the state of Constitutional law at some point immediately after drafting, our country would have floundered.
100% agree with these parts, although I'm not sure what you mean by flexibility. I believe that the Constitution is not a "living document," in modern terms, but a rigid list of how the government may conduct itself.
I fully support the idea of constitutional amendments of course- we'd have slavery, among other things, without them. I just happen to believe these are the only valid way to change the document. I don't care for legislating from the bench, at all.
Farmers could grow absolutely nothing every third year. But the major expenses would still remain. That means that the price of the food that you do like to eat would have to increase dramatically. Or are you suggesting that food production itself is an obsolete business?
I'm suggesting (and there's a lot of evidence to back me up) that the market would balance itself out, government interference aside.
I'm not so libertarian as to say we'll let the food prices soar and the poor starve; I simply don't think that's what would happen.
I, for one, don't care if my food is grown on a mom-and-pop farm or a super-industrious megafarm provided I receive an identical product. Anyone who disagrees with that mindset is entitled to their opinion, I just don't think I should be paying extra for my food (both in dollars and health, in the HFCS case) so they feel warm & fuzzy.
Slashdot Mirror
What can a utility do?
Increase low-pollution generation capacity.
Think "Obamacooling" with Fox outside an overflowing morgue, "capitalism was not allowed to offer "freedom of choice" cheap no efficiency AC anymore or a teabagging Joe the AC man.
You're an idiot.
If this were used for recharging Chevy Volts, or cooling deep freezers.
Don't you know? When you use the grid to charge an electric vehicle, the power company can recognize this and uses jellybean fields and unicorn wheels to generate the power.
Privacy concern, eh? Don't you think the power company already knows how much power you're using?
Infrastructure is built out to handle peak load. That means that they've spend probably double on your power infrastructure to cover, what, the 2 hottest weeks of the year. If they can reduce the peak usage, they could cut back a significant amount of the total cost of the system.
And I'm sure these for-profit, monopolistic, "public" utilities will pass along any newfound cost savings to the consumer post-haste.
If you can override it, essentially all they're doing is informing you of power demand, not monitoring you without your consent or forcing you to do anything. Explain what oppressive totalitarian privacy-violating government regimes (i.e "Big Brother") have to do with any of this.
Perhaps they should just send me an SMS then - "We'd like to turn off your A/C for the next 90 minutes. Our bid is a $5 credit. Accept?"
In Arizona they're trying to pass a no walk/swim list law so they can question anyone who "looks like they could be in the country illegally." Poor native americans, they'll never know what hit them!
I think that law is a joke, but it's hard to blame them for trying when the federal government won't properly secure the border; which is one of the few things it was chartered to do in our constitution (common defense).
Afghanistan and the fundamentalism there is part of the fallout of US policy in the cold war, especially in Afghanistan they trained, funded and armed these exact same fundamentalists and (ab)used them for their political purposes.
There's no disputing (among people who understand the situation) that America [and its allies'] foreign policy has played a significant role in increasing anti-Americanism in that region.
However, I hardly think that we used or abused the Afghans in the cold war. It was, for all intents, a proxy war between the Soviets and the US. That said, what was the alternative? Let the Afghans continue to be murdered at the hands of the USSR? It was a complicated problem. If we openly defended or armed them, we faced the certainty of an all-out war between two superpowers. If we chose not to covertly arm them, the Red Army steamrolls them and was predicted then to have no intentions of stopping there.
Fixed that for you...
I have to admit it's not quite the same, but you have to see that it's also not that different... especially not in the eyes of the 'insurgents/terrorists/whatever'.
It is a complex problem, but as you said it's not quite the same. Leaving the Iraq argument out of this, Afghanistan was a safe-haven for known extremist groups that were operating against Western targets for years. 9/11 was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
If the US allowed random militias safe harbor, while they were out murdering civilians abroad in a religious crusade/revenge plot, we might have some sort of analogous situation here.
Tendency toward violence is not a left/right thing
Absolutely. Really, I should've said "In today's political climate, it's the right-wingers in general that...". I certainly didn't mean to cast aspersions upon *all* right-wingers. But they are *currently* housing (and, I would argue, encouraging) a kernel of extremism within their ranks.
And the highest-ranking members of the left are endorsing stuff like this. He was Obama's nominee for "Green Jobs Adviser".
As GP said, this isn't a left/right thing. No one party is housing or encouraging. There be asshats everywhere.
That's mild in comparison to some of the developers egoism. Gaim worked very well until the developers decided to defeature it. There was a fork for a time and that did force the developers to add the features back in just long enough to strangle the fork. Then they renamed it pigden and started defeaturing it again.
As someone suffering from this at the moment (on Pidgin, in particular) are there any worthwhile Pidgin alternatives for win32?
I was going to post responses to the different parts of your post, but all of it is accurate. You just misunderstood my post.
Of note, I did not say that the subject was moving towards the officer. I was suggesting that this prevents the sort of standoff where the officer draws his gun and doesn't shoot _until_ the suspect is moving towards him - which will likely lead to the officer being wounded or worse.
With a less-lethal _gun_ like the Taser X26, the officer should fire on the suspect as soon as he is not complying with demands to drop a weapon.
This ends up saving one or both lives.
interestingly there have been a number of studies which show that within close range, an assailant armed with a knife will almost always come out on top of someone with a gun, even if that gun is drawn and readied for use. I agree with your other points though.
Yes, they call this the "twenty-one-foot rule" in lw enforcement circles. It's entirely accurate. That's why I didn't include an option of "running for cover" or similar.
But you're right - I should have mentioned, though, that [unfortunately] in that situation there is a good chance the law enforcement individual won't be able to prevent a determined assailant from reaching him. He won't be able to draw a gun (or Taser), fire, and take advantage of any stopping power quickly enough.
In theory, however, the stopping power of a Taser could be more reliable since there have been many reports of attackers charging through multiple center mass hits whereas the Taser debilitates most subjects.
and most of the 'gun crime' was people actually being done for carrying/possessing said banned weapons
So, like I was getting at - it's not difficult for criminals to get hold of illegal firearms. Just for law-abiding citizens to do so.
Got it.
this was just GameStation coming to claim their recently acquired souls..
In sane countries where it's illegal to carry around lethal weapons, I expect the police to also be unarmed.
lol. How's that working out for the UK, by the way?
However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, attributed the rise to ineffective Policing and an out of control gang culture.
make guns criminal, only criminals guns, etc.
Just wait until we get some good designer drugs with no major physical downsides (as opposed to people abusing prescription meds...). It can always get worse (sort of like the middle east).
Like Adderall? Shire earns $1.1B/yr from their latest formula ("Adderall XR").
Ya seriously, I totally agree. This is not real world, it is junk science.
Tasers have killed people. I think that is clear enough to say that they should be categorized as potentially lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are on meth, cocaine, have previous heart conditions or they just taze you 10 times.
Any serious agency has already classified or reclassified them as "less-lethal" rather than LTL ("less-than-lethal") in recent years. This is to indicate that it's less lethal than using a firearm. The problem isn't with Taser devices, the problem is with ignorant cops and bad policy. The Taser was, and is, meant to be used when previously you _would have shot_ the assailant. Not when they are noisy, not when they resist, not when they are inconvenient.
There are many situations like this:
Consider a traffic stop. The subject exits his car and presents a knife, and exhibits signs of meth intoxication. You have 10 feet between you. At this time you have two choices: shoot (and almost certainly kill) the subject, or risk being killed. Now law enforcement is _supposed_ to be able to choose hidden option C: shoot them, but hopefully in a less-lethal way, while still preserving your own life.
It's unfortunate that Taser is taking a beating in public opinion because we have cowboy deputies and local cops running amok with "lightning guns."
Oh, and this study is garbage (and kinda hilarious.)
Comcast and Verizon both suck; I guess I'm not allowed to have internet.
Do you think their duopoly in your locale is because of the free market or government interference?
I hardly see how they could be considered off-duty when they're out and about looking for violators.
Not sure about other states but in California, state law does not differentiate between an on-duty and off-duty peace officers when it comes to their responsibilities/duties/powers.
...and inevitably the phone will be sometimes dropped; in some of those cases the driver won't stop the impulse to look for it...and there you go.
some of us can control our impulses, but unfortunately since most humans can't/won't laws like this become a necessity. unfortunate, that is.
i know next-to-nothing about the underlying tech, so i can't comment on how it works or what the advantages would be at that point. but i was aware of there being non-capacitive multitouch in the works, at least, which is why i was careful to say "in this case" in my gp post :)
The only multitouch demonstration on any of the videos was rotating the playing cards (to little effect anyway).
Why is "multitouch" specifically such a buzzword, and not just "touch" on its own? Multitouch has so far had weird implications on what sort of appendage/stylus you can use on the surface, whereas single touch does not. Plus, you can effectively do pinch/zoom on a typically single-touch panel, just not rotations.
simply, multitouch refers to a type of screen (capacitive in this case) that can track more than one point of contact simultaneously.
the other type of popular touchscreen is resistive, this is what is used on my htc touch pro2.
if you put three fingers on the surface of the screen, one after another (like how you'd press ctrl-alt-del), it would look like the following:
capacitive: _ _ _
resistive: _
on the resistive screen, whichever spot you touched first is "it".
I read an article somewhere that said merchants should just find the cheapest, least competent auditor they can, and get them to declare the merchant PCI-DSS compliant, then do what you think is right to be secure.
This is what I advise, as well. Banks (Wells Fargo, of note) have been accepting Comodo
HackerGuardian for PCI DSS scanning requirements.
[following provided for humor purposes, this isn't factual (Comodo et al.: don't bother suing me)]
I watched the apache logs/syslogs, it's hilarious..
It's basically a banner check, some simple brute force authentications (like.. 10) against SSH and FTP services (if present), and then it runs thousands of brute force GETs and HEADs on your httpd looking for known vulnerabilities from the 90s and early 00s (think FrontPage Extensions.)
There are groups who assemble the more realistic numbers, and they really aren't pretty.
Actually, BLS releases this data too:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
"U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"
18% in January.
The Constitution allows itself to change with the time, and the nation it creates to be flexible. It allows this not only through amendment, and the tradition of common law, but also through some innate flexibility.
If we froze the state of Constitutional law at some point immediately after drafting, our country would have floundered.
100% agree with these parts, although I'm not sure what you mean by flexibility. I believe that the Constitution is not a "living document," in modern terms, but a rigid list of how the government may conduct itself.
I fully support the idea of constitutional amendments of course- we'd have slavery, among other things, without them. I just happen to believe these are the only valid way to change the document. I don't care for legislating from the bench, at all.
Automobile manufacturers and banks come to mind.
Farmers could grow absolutely nothing every third year. But the major expenses would still remain. That means that the price of the food that you do like to eat would have to increase dramatically. Or are you suggesting that food production itself is an obsolete business?
I'm suggesting (and there's a lot of evidence to back me up) that the market would balance itself out, government interference aside.
I'm not so libertarian as to say we'll let the food prices soar and the poor starve; I simply don't think that's what would happen.
I, for one, don't care if my food is grown on a mom-and-pop farm or a super-industrious megafarm provided I receive an identical product. Anyone who disagrees with that mindset is entitled to their opinion, I just don't think I should be paying extra for my food (both in dollars and health, in the HFCS case) so they feel warm & fuzzy.