And, like good officers, explain *everything* to be threatening (back away? threatening. approach? threatening. stand your ground defiantly? threatening. look them in the eye? threatening. look around like you are looking for an escape or weapon? threatening). There is no action that has ever made it in a report of this kind that wasn't threatening.
Before I die, just once I want to see this play out in a courtroom:
[officer on witness stand] Defence: So you say that the defendant got out of his car Cop: Yes, sir. Defence: And did he get out armed with a weapon of any sort? Cop: No, sir. He got out asking why we wanted to search his vehicle. Defence: And would you say that you found this to be threatening behaviour? And before you answer, you should know that an answer of 'yes' will be sufficent for Dr. Rogers here [motions to man in white coat] to have you committed to a mental asylum as paranoid and delusional. Cop [mumbles]
When at a border crossing, you are REQUESTING PERMISSION to enter/exit the country. You have no rights to do either.
Unless you're a citizen of the country that you wish to enter, in which case you have the absolute right to do so. Good luck enforcing it at the sharp end though.
the cellphone ticket was presumably baseless, else he wouldn't have changed tack immediately when shown even the most rudimentry proof that it wouldn't hold up. And if he were pulling her over for the cellphone thing, why would he have radar data on her speed? AFAIK that data isn't collected continually for all nearby vehicles. He'd have to have gone out of his way to have got it.
sadly, however, you don't get to go to court until you've had an incident like this. If an officer orders you back to your car & you go, you can't take him on in court on the might-have-been situation if you'd tested whether he was really allowed to do that. Even if he wasn't, it's likely that you'll be found to have been voluntarily co-operating, and so not have a complaint there.
when you try to de-escalate the situation by telling him to get back in the car
That's not de-escalating the situation. De-escalate the situation requires the guard to be more emollient. The following proceedure would have been better:
Sympathise with his situation
Answer his question
Ask him, politely, to get back into the car.
Don't just ignore the asking of the question and shout at him to get back in the car. That's rude, immediately gets people's backs up, and is likely to make things worse - particularly if that person is already agitated (liie most international travellers).
If you can't do emollience under pressure, find a different line of work.
anyone think that if cameras should have caught a record of the events, and there should be tapes, and those tapes should be in the control of the police, and the tapes are missing, there should be a presumption that they contained unequivocal proof in support of the defence?
Or a situation which could have been resolved if she could have had absolute confidence that the officer would lose his job & get at least a year in prison for (a) trying to issue a baseless ticket (b) changing tack and issuing a fraudulent ticket on no evidence to save face. If people knew that they could:
go to court
be represented by a proper lawyer at no expense
be compensated for lost earnings while there
and not have to fight to have anything done about police abuse of power
they may be more likely to take the ticket & see them in court.
and judges can manipulate the jury to get the verdict that they want. Juries are meant to use the interpretation of the law fed to them by the judge (and few of them realise that they can ignore it; even less would even know where to begin to figure it out for themselves). We saw it in one of those RIAA cases - the judge gave the jury instructions which had no foundation in law, and the jury promptly brought in an insane verdict. Now, in that case, the judge was probably just incompetent, and the jury's decision was chucked because the instructions were so badly wrong. A malicious judge, who is trying to deliberately stitch someone up for their buddy the prosecutor, could be much more subtle and get away with it.
The paraphrase Yes Minister:
BW: "Guidelines are perfectly proper minister, everyone has guidelines for their work" JH: "I thought these planning inspectors were supposed to be impartial" BW: "Well, so they are minister. Trains are impartial too, but if you lay the tracks in one direction, that's the way they go"
What I should have mentioned was that that advice was for use in fortran, where no integer which any compiler will support by default, will hold a number of that size. Thus you need to use a float. I once tried using an integer to get 100! and got wierd results for a few minutes before I twigged that the number was WAAAAAY too big even for an integer(kind=8), and switched to a real(kind=8).
Perhaps my mistake was to call it a 'float', rather than a 'real'.
Yes, I know it won't give you accuracy to a single figure, but it will give you a decent idea of the size of the result, and will actually be able to be held in memory without using either (a) enormous variables, or (b) higher-level languages which will use enormous variables without telling you.
do you tell people before you put the pictures up that you can't be bothered to tweak a few pages every 2 months when it becomes desirable for the pictures to come down again?
Or set the site up so that none of the pictures stay up for more than 12 months? (If people want them, they can snaffle them while they're still up)
Or why not set up your robots.txt so that only the frontpage gets indexed?
If you put potentially damaging pictures of people up on your website, you need to be responsible enough beforehand to recognise that you will need to 'budget' more time later to take them down again. If you can't do that, don't put the pictures up.
unless, of course, he finds someone in England & Wales who has seen it, then he can sue in the British courts and put the burden of proof onto the defence. Finally, a good use for our insane libel laws.
likewise. I work for a charity which accepts computers, and people keep dumping printers on us. Those of us who work on this stuff are computer people - we do computers, not electro-mechanical devices. We also have a great deal of difficulty testing if any donated printer actually works, since we're loath to put our precious donated cartridges into the printer just to see if it works, IF we can find drivers for them (we have no direct internet access, and most of the machines are win98SE), and can do nothing about it if they don't. Sadly, the people who get asked 'do we want...?' tend to just say 'yes' to offers of printers, and so we waste more and more shelf space with useless printers which we don't want, can't use, and can't send to eastern Europe (which is where we send things) because no-one wants them, and because they certainly can't afford ink for them.
republic is the opposite of monarchy, and describes the nature of the head of state. democracy is one of a variety of forms of government, and bears no relation to the nature of the head of state
so, to recap. government != state. You may be confused because you (apparently) live in the USA, where that line is blurred.
funnier still, they tried to squash the rumours by having a starcraft cheat code of "thereisnocowlevel", and this only fuelled them more, so blixx put the cow level in D2 to shut everyone up.
we were getting ~500kbps down (ironically, we were also getting ~500kbps up, and sometime more up than down). However, I would like to withdraw my post and say how wonderful VM are - it turns out that it wasn't the upstream network, but a dodgy >6 year old power adapter for the cable modem.
wait till the dust settles, find a few dozen other people who were sued unsucessfully, apply to get whichever company it was declared a vexatious litigant, screw up their ability to access the courts any further.
I think they'll have a hard time clawing the money out of someone once the direct debit gets cancelled. What amounts to "we can charge you while not providing the service we're charging you for" is unlikely to get past any sort of unfair contracts claim.
doesn't make sense anymore - those projects all took advantage of spare clockcycles which were being provided anyway, and not being used. Modern CPUs throttle themselves right down if they're not loaded, and running a project like that just makes them run at full power when they don't need to. I was running rosetta@home 24/7 on my Q6600, until I realised that it was thrashing my system's cooling so hard that it was making ~ 3x more noise than it needed to be. Luckily I shut it off before I did any mechanical damage to the fans and my system is whisper-quiet again.
Anyway, to bring this back on topic. OP could try rolling his own. (Note: I haven't done this, I don't know whether it would work, and those look frightfully expensive. It just looks like it would be a neat toy, and a geeky talking point)
Slashdot Mirror
Before I die, just once I want to see this play out in a courtroom:
Unless you're a citizen of the country that you wish to enter, in which case you have the absolute right to do so. Good luck enforcing it at the sharp end though.
the cellphone ticket was presumably baseless, else he wouldn't have changed tack immediately when shown even the most rudimentry proof that it wouldn't hold up. And if he were pulling her over for the cellphone thing, why would he have radar data on her speed? AFAIK that data isn't collected continually for all nearby vehicles. He'd have to have gone out of his way to have got it.
sadly, however, you don't get to go to court until you've had an incident like this. If an officer orders you back to your car & you go, you can't take him on in court on the might-have-been situation if you'd tested whether he was really allowed to do that. Even if he wasn't, it's likely that you'll be found to have been voluntarily co-operating, and so not have a complaint there.
That's not de-escalating the situation. De-escalate the situation requires the guard to be more emollient. The following proceedure would have been better:
Don't just ignore the asking of the question and shout at him to get back in the car. That's rude, immediately gets people's backs up, and is likely to make things worse - particularly if that person is already agitated (liie most international travellers).
If you can't do emollience under pressure, find a different line of work.
yeah, getting up out of your seat, and walking over to talking distance with someone so that you can speak to them is in Politeness & Courtesy 101.
anyone think that if cameras should have caught a record of the events, and there should be tapes, and those tapes should be in the control of the police, and the tapes are missing, there should be a presumption that they contained unequivocal proof in support of the defence?
not sure if I'm gonna get a 'whoosh', but anyway:
The US constitution use both the words 'person' and 'citizen'. They're not interchangeable.
Or a situation which could have been resolved if she could have had absolute confidence that the officer would lose his job & get at least a year in prison for (a) trying to issue a baseless ticket (b) changing tack and issuing a fraudulent ticket on no evidence to save face. If people knew that they could:
they may be more likely to take the ticket & see them in court.
and judges can manipulate the jury to get the verdict that they want. Juries are meant to use the interpretation of the law fed to them by the judge (and few of them realise that they can ignore it; even less would even know where to begin to figure it out for themselves). We saw it in one of those RIAA cases - the judge gave the jury instructions which had no foundation in law, and the jury promptly brought in an insane verdict. Now, in that case, the judge was probably just incompetent, and the jury's decision was chucked because the instructions were so badly wrong. A malicious judge, who is trying to deliberately stitch someone up for their buddy the prosecutor, could be much more subtle and get away with it.
The paraphrase Yes Minister:
BW: "Guidelines are perfectly proper minister, everyone has guidelines for their work"
JH: "I thought these planning inspectors were supposed to be impartial"
BW: "Well, so they are minister. Trains are impartial too, but if you lay the tracks in one direction, that's the way they go"
What I should have mentioned was that that advice was for use in fortran, where no integer which any compiler will support by default, will hold a number of that size. Thus you need to use a float. I once tried using an integer to get 100! and got wierd results for a few minutes before I twigged that the number was WAAAAAY too big even for an integer(kind=8), and switched to a real(kind=8).
Perhaps my mistake was to call it a 'float', rather than a 'real'.
Yes, I know it won't give you accuracy to a single figure, but it will give you a decent idea of the size of the result, and will actually be able to be held in memory without using either (a) enormous variables, or (b) higher-level languages which will use enormous variables without telling you.
there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.
do you tell people before you put the pictures up that you can't be bothered to tweak a few pages every 2 months when it becomes desirable for the pictures to come down again?
Or set the site up so that none of the pictures stay up for more than 12 months? (If people want them, they can snaffle them while they're still up)
Or why not set up your robots.txt so that only the frontpage gets indexed?
If you put potentially damaging pictures of people up on your website, you need to be responsible enough beforehand to recognise that you will need to 'budget' more time later to take them down again. If you can't do that, don't put the pictures up.
unless, of course, he finds someone in England & Wales who has seen it, then he can sue in the British courts and put the burden of proof onto the defence. Finally, a good use for our insane libel laws.
likewise. I work for a charity which accepts computers, and people keep dumping printers on us. Those of us who work on this stuff are computer people - we do computers, not electro-mechanical devices. We also have a great deal of difficulty testing if any donated printer actually works, since we're loath to put our precious donated cartridges into the printer just to see if it works, IF we can find drivers for them (we have no direct internet access, and most of the machines are win98SE), and can do nothing about it if they don't. Sadly, the people who get asked 'do we want...?' tend to just say 'yes' to offers of printers, and so we waste more and more shelf space with useless printers which we don't want, can't use, and can't send to eastern Europe (which is where we send things) because no-one wants them, and because they certainly can't afford ink for them.
most of them allow you to pick back up almost at the point that you left off if the process ends unexpectedly. It's writing to HD almost continually.
republic is the opposite of monarchy, and describes the nature of the head of state.
democracy is one of a variety of forms of government, and bears no relation to the nature of the head of state
so, to recap. government != state. You may be confused because you (apparently) live in the USA, where that line is blurred.
funnier still, they tried to squash the rumours by having a starcraft cheat code of "thereisnocowlevel", and this only fuelled them more, so blixx put the cow level in D2 to shut everyone up.
Now, does anyone know what the chat gem does?
*sigh*
A priest, a rabbi & a minister walk into a bar.
"What's this?" says the barman "some kind of a joke?"
we were getting ~500kbps down (ironically, we were also getting ~500kbps up, and sometime more up than down). However, I would like to withdraw my post and say how wonderful VM are - it turns out that it wasn't the upstream network, but a dodgy >6 year old power adapter for the cable modem.
wait till the dust settles, find a few dozen other people who were sued unsucessfully, apply to get whichever company it was declared a vexatious litigant, screw up their ability to access the courts any further.
I think they'll have a hard time clawing the money out of someone once the direct debit gets cancelled. What amounts to "we can charge you while not providing the service we're charging you for" is unlikely to get past any sort of unfair contracts claim.
...Nazism...
Godwin!
You'll start running into problems at the PCI bus after a while, but that's over 100Mb/s.
So stick it on PCI Express
doesn't make sense anymore - those projects all took advantage of spare clockcycles which were being provided anyway, and not being used. Modern CPUs throttle themselves right down if they're not loaded, and running a project like that just makes them run at full power when they don't need to. I was running rosetta@home 24/7 on my Q6600, until I realised that it was thrashing my system's cooling so hard that it was making ~ 3x more noise than it needed to be. Luckily I shut it off before I did any mechanical damage to the fans and my system is whisper-quiet again.
Anyway, to bring this back on topic. OP could try rolling his own. (Note: I haven't done this, I don't know whether it would work, and those look frightfully expensive. It just looks like it would be a neat toy, and a geeky talking point)