n order to reduce time traveled a different orbital mechanic is needed. Even if a ship were to travel in a straight line toward a destination at a rapid enough speed that it would not have to meet up with it too much further along in its orbit it would have to be able to kill relative speed quickly enough to enter a capture orbit.
My guess is that it turns around about half way during the trip to start slowing down.
How much would the price of the Nissans, Toyotas, etc that are made in the US change? Would the parent companies decide to start exporting more of these vehicles to other markets or are they just for the US?
Foreign cars "produced" in the US are usually still made from parts that are imported. The cars are merely assembled here from parts manufactured in Japan or elsewhere. Still, these cars would be cheaper in foreign markets compared to cars assembled abroad, with no real change in the price in the US except that the parts that are still being imported and would cost more,=. This would still mean an increase in the price of the car, but not as much of an increase for a car assembled overseas. If anything, it would increase the benefit for parts to be manufactured here as well as the assembly.
Our economy is strong, and always growing. At least that's what the preznut keeps telling me.
Actually, it is the economists that keep saying it. They get their data from economic indicators such as the stock market, GDP, inflation rate, consumer confidence, unemployment etc. The President just repeats it.
Of course, since it does not jive with your politically colored glasses, I don't expect you to understand.
Let me guess, you're a Republican, right? So to you, higher prices for imports is a Good Thing, because of the trade imbalance. But if you're a blue collar family struggling to live on an income that's stagnant at best, higher prices are just higher prices.
Actually, making foreign products more expensive is more of a Democratic ideal.
Let's say you are a blue collar family, living in Lansing MI working for GM making Grand Ams. That Grand Am that you are producing is now suddenly in more demand overseas because it is cheaper for overseas car buyers. At the same time, Nissans become now more expensive in the US, so the Grand Am is now more in demand in the US as well. The result, GM sells more Grand Ams. Not only does this help with job security, GM is more profitable and can pay you more. How is this a bad thing again?
Of course, since Democrats hate oil so much, you'd think it would be a good thing that oil is now going to be more expensive as well. This means more research into fuel efficiency as well as alternative fuel sources. Would you call this a Republican ideal?
American products are cheaper. American employees paid less or offshored.
Actually, the opposite happens. While it used to be cheaper to pay Canadian workers in CDN's, that is no longer a benefit. It is not as advantageous to open a foreign factory because you have to pay those foreign workers MORE, not less.
Most products sold to American consumers are foriegn products. American employees being paid less because of the first point above also have more difficulty affording most products they buy, because of the second point.
As I've said, increasing the wages of foreign workers helps American workers. It also means that made in America products are now more affordable and more in demand. How does increasing the demand for American products hurt American workers?
Doesn't matter, because we don't need them to come to America. We can just oursource and offshore to them in their own country./sigh... read my first point again.
Meanwhile, while I sit in Europe trying to irk my way through grad school living off of dollars I saved while I was in the army(and a part-time job doing IT stuff for a small business), I watch their value and my immediate standard of living drop.
I'm sorry that has happened to you. Unfortunately, anytime the value of something changes, someone wins and someone loses. I know hindsight is 20/20, but how far did you expect to get living in Europe with US dollars in the bank? Why would you not change those over to Euros when you decided to live there?
As for the idea that discouraging foreign workers is a good thing, might I ask in what universe you live in? Do you actually want to pay 25 bucks for a meal in a cheapish restaurant? That is what will happen if the immigrant labor leaves.
I have no problem with immigrant labor. What I have a problem with is illegal immigrant labor. Sure, it helps me get a cheaper burger at Chili's, but when I have to pay $50 for an aspirin at a hospital, I figure I'm not saving all that much. Besides, slavery allowed for cheap food and clothing as well, but that doesn't make it right. When an illegal is working at a plantation.. I mean farm, they are more or less owned by that farm. Only instead of being shackled by chains, they are shackled with the thread of deportation or imprisonment. I expect foreign workers in the US to get a fair wage. When that worker is here illegally, enforcing minimum wage or any other labor laws is impossible.
People assume that the dollar falling in value in relation to foreign currency is a bad thing. This is not necessarily the case. Here are some benefits: * American products become cheaper to foreign markets. This helps with the trade imbalances we currently have. * Foreign products become more expensive to American consumers, also helping with trade deficits. * It discourages foreign workers from sneaking into the US. Getting $4.00 an hour is suddenly not so much compared to what they get paid in their home country.
Tell that to the millions of Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and France around 1938. They were unable to fight a war themselves and I would hardly say that they won the war.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
Words are worthless when the other side refuses to listen. Granted, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless you kill all of the enemy. What is needed is a mix. You use the military to force the other side to the negotiating table so you can work together. So while there is no such thing as a military victory, there can be no victory without the military. (can someone please SHOUT that to the moonbats please?)
insulation? lots of mass with high atomic number and high density. lots. this laser will be useful only for killing.
I see this laser as an extremely effective way of shooting down incoming missiles. I do NOT see this as being portable enough to transport around on the battlefield. I only see this being fielded at fixed installations, which are really only good as a defensive weapon.
Why do you think lasers are only good useful only for killing?
Oh, and after you read my previous post, keep in mind that even the guy getting arrested agrees with me.
"As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.
Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.
Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that he did nothing wrong, right?
Officers then proceeded to attempt to remove Meyer from the room, but when he resisted, they placed him on the ground and tried to handcuff him. The six officers who actually took part in holding Meyer down while he was being handcuffed reported that they were only able to get a handcuff on his right hand because he was squirming so much. So, I guess you think that the police should have just let him go. First he doesn't leave, so they should have said, "Oh, you won't leave? Oh well, I guess you can stay. Here is the microphone back." But instead, they try to escort him out as he is screaming "HELP! HELP!" at the top of his lungs. As you can see from the video, when he gets close to the door, he plants his feet and charges an officer. I guess you think that the cops should have simply said, "Oh, you REALLY want to stay. We're sorry, here's the microphone. Would like to hold our guns?" Well, they didn't do that either. Since he wouldn't leave when asked, and fought back while being escorted out, they tried to put cuffs on him. Six police officers could not hold the guys arms steady enough to get the cuffs on him. Do you think the cops should have said, "OK, we give up. You've beaten us. Please allow us to leave so you can fling shit around the auditorium without interruption." Well, nope. Not these cops. They would not grant him his Constitutional dung flinging rights. That's when the tasing came in. And even then, this guy still resisted, screaming and yelling the whole way down... well at least the part where cameras were present.
Ah - I see your point. You are right. Somebody standing up, asking too many stupid questions too long in a Q&A session should be arrested, same as a drunk driver and teased down, when so required. Law and order needs to be followed - Jawoll!
I think you are missing the point. It was not because he asked too many stupid questions. That's perfectly fine. The problem is that when he was asked to leave, he didn't. Actually, that is not the problem. The REAL problem is that when he was getting "escorted" out, he fought. Then when they tried to arrest him, he resisted and screamed "HELP", asking for his fellow classmates to attack the police officers. Right before he they reached the door, he tried to charge back in. While they were trying to put cuffs on him, he kept fighting... and so on and so on and so on.... all the while asking "What did I do?"
Yeah, he deserved to be tazed. It's like I see people who attack police officers and get shot and the community asks, "Why did you have to shoot him?" Well, as was the case in Austin, he was on my partner and was beating the hell out of him. (By the way, the police officer that shot the "suspect" who was being arrested because of a previous warrant was fired, because she shot the man who was pummeling her partner.) My point is in that case, just like any other situation where the police are involved, first you do what the cops ask you to. If you are not smart enough to do that, don't be so stupid as to fight them when they try to force you to what they asked you to do. If you fail both of these tasks, expect the consequences. It is the job of the police to maintain order. This guy was trying to challenge their authority and disrupt that order. The officers can't just let him go when he said he was sorry, or they would have to let every who is being arrested for breaking a law go because they say they are sorry. The police have to apply the same standard to this guy as they do everyone else. He got what he deserved and the police acted accordingly.
I know you don't like it, but you can't arm, uniform and send a bunch of citizens out into the public with the job of maintaining order without actually giving them the power to do so.
You are incorrect, from Fox News (!) web site: "In the clip, officers force Meyer down as the student says he will walk out of the auditorium if officers let him go." ("http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297197,00.html")
- the student offered to leave voluntarily - and what did the police do? Heard what he was saying and give him the space to leave? Nope, react as programmed automatons without higher brain.
This has been seen many times before (example: Rodney King) and far more often "not seen".
I am sure there are police officers which are serene enough not to fall into this trap but many are not and get attracted to this job. That's like telling the police that you are willing to walk home when you've been pulled over for driving drunk. Sorry, but at the point where he offered to leave peacefully, he had already resisted arrest, fought to stay in the building, screamed for help (where the inciting a riot charge will stem from) and disrupted Senator Kerry's Q&A session. It was a bit late to comply at that point.
See, I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with resisting arrest when you've not done anything wrong.
Interesting theory. So if I think it's OK to beat my wife, and the police try to pull me off her while I'm slugging her in the head, are you saying that can't arrest me? If I feel that it's OK for me to beat my wife, then I have not done anything wrong, in my mind.
An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.
Actually, yeah you can. You can arrested and held for 48 hrs without charge.
As for being a free society, we have police officers to ensure that society remains free. Otherwise, you have anarchy. An anarchy is not a free society. This punk was trying to take more than his alloted time. He was taking away the rights of everyone else there who were willing to follow the rules. He was given a lawful order by a police officer and refused to comply. When that happens, it is the police officer's job to do whatever it takes to ensure compliance. Otherwise, we have anarchy.
I wonder which male human being in the same age would not have reacted in a similar fashion? Those are instinctive reactions built in human brain - flight or fight. Was he given a way out?
Uh, no. That's what being under arrest means. He could have left peacefully when he was asked, but he didn't, so he had to be removed by force.
The job should include being injured? I'd say yes. They are lucky the guy the were subduing wasn't more persuasive with his fellow college students. I'm sure a riot would've taught the cops a thing or two about perspective. So are you saying that police should not be allowed to maintain order? That a whiney little bitch like this punk should be allowed to take over any and every college event? Sorry, I have to call bullshit.
Also, police officers should not have to be injured and/or killed so this little child can throw his temper tantrum. Yeah, being a cop is a risky job, but that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to avoid being injured or killed.
The bottom line is that this kid got what he deserved. When police tell you to do something, you do it, end of story. If you feel you are being mistreated or your rights are being violated, deal with it later. It's common sense to know that if you try to handle it then and there, you are only going to make the situation worse for everyone, especially yourself.
"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".
First of all, a person who is "not under control", is a potential threat.
Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.
So are you saying that anyone should just be allowed to run from the police? A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.
And with that set of rules, how can the police legally arrest anyone. Once a policeman tries to arrest you, all you have to do is scream, "I'm not a threat!" and run away. The police can do nothing, under your rules.
Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
So it is within this guy's free speech rights to shout down a candidate a political rally? Why do his free speech rights outweigh everyone else's? Is it the person who shouts the loudest gets the most rights? That the tactic brownshirts used!
Doesn't the XBox 360 have a triple core processor?
Why Yes. Yes it does. From HERE:
Inside, the Xbox 360 uses the triple-core IBM designed Xenon as its CPU. While graphics processing is handled by the ATI Xenos which has 10 MB of embedded eDRAM, its main memory pool is 512 MB in size.
And when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?
Well, it would suck to be me, but yeah, that's fine. Who am I to tell a private business who they can and can not do business with?
There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being. And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you. Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource; but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so. Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.
How about if you walk into a gun store, looking angry, bitching about your cheatin' girlfriend, and you have scratches across your face with blood on your shirt... Oh, and you want a gun... and some ammo. Should the gun owner be forced to have to sell to you? It's none of his damn business what is going on in your life. It's not his job to try to force his will on you, no matter how benevolent he thinks he's being. What if you drive up to a bar, park across three spots, stagger in and fall onto the counter with vomit on your shirt asking for a beer, should the bartender be forced to serve you? How about if you are a bit twitchy, have track-marks all up down your arms and you walk into a drug store trying to buy all the Sudafed they'll sell you? What your truck has a "Remember Waco" bumper sticker on it as you back it up to the fertilizer plant. You are wearing camouflage clothing, you have a buzz cut and look nothing like any farmer that's ever been in this town. Should the plant manager be forced to sell you that Ammonium Nitrate just because your paper work is on order?
Now I'll agree with you that this Game Stop manager was wrong in what he did, but we'll disagree on the reasons why. If he wants to put forth such a noble goal, he needs to open his own store where he can set his own rules. As for his job at Game Stop, he was working for someone else who owned the store and therefor made the rules. He was not following them. Now if these were Game Stop's rules, then sure, they can sell or NOT sell to whoever they want, as long as it is not for a discriminatory reason such as race, sex or whatever.
Don't like it? Don't shop there. They don't call it a Free Market for nothing. That freedom goes both ways.
OS X was specifically not supported on the Beige Macs, if you had that much of a problem running Jaguar on it, I'm not surprised. On the otherhand I ran a functional mail system using postoffice on a Bondi iMac running Jaguar. The clock speed on that machine 233mhz was slower than your Beige but OS X had been designed to run on that generation of computers and later. And if Jaguar and Beige Macs are your most current level of Mac exposure you're definitely talking old and ancient news repectively.
I understand this, but the GP said that OSX would run better than KDE. In my experience, this was not the case. I'm sure that if KDE outran OSX on a Beige, I see no reason why it would not run better on a B&W.
As to my Mac experience, I've worked with Macs for years, however, not since the move to Intel.
I'll guarantee you that KDE won't be nearly responsive on a 233 G3 w/ 192mb ran as Tiger was.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you here. I had a G3 300 Mhz Beige. I installed OSX on it, 10.2, I think. Quite frankly, it sucked. Yeah, it ran, but when the Internet is slow because your computer can not display the page as fast as it is downloading it... well, let's just say it wasn't what I would call responsive.
Of course, it could have just been the machine itself, right? I wasn't sure either so I downloaded and installed YDL (Yellow Dog Linux) to try it out on a G3. I was quite impressed. This 300Mhz G3 ran about as fast as my Athlon 700! For that matter, KDE was not only more responsive than the unusable OSX, but it was actually a bit faster than OS9 that the G3 was designed for!
So while I didn't run Tiger on a 233, I did try run OSX on a 300 and while it booted and ran, it was unusable. KDE ran well enough on the 300 that I don't think it would have any problems going down to 233.
I'm curious. Why do you think that the Director of National Intelligence has so vehemently defended the unwarranted wire taps? It's not like he can take over the world. For that matter, it's likely that as soon as another Prez comes into office, he'll be out. Why do you think that so many in Washington believe that unwarranted wire taps are a good thing, as opposed to having to get a warrant for each and every one?
Maybe I'm becoming more and more of a luddite... I played with compiz a bit maybe a year ago using XFCE and it was pretty cool, but that's all it was. It didn't actually do anything to improve my computing experience other than look cool. That makes it mostly a waste of electrons, IMO.
But then, I now use wmii almost exclusively, if I'm not just using plain ol' screen.
damn, you be a good poster and go check your links and there goes that frsit psot. oh well..
Keep in mind that Ubuntu is all about ease of use and flash. It is not intended for users who see beauty in Blackbox or WM. But, I think that is the joy of Linux. If you don't like it, use another distro. Seeing that you like a lightweight (read: looks like shit) window manager, you might find Xubuntu, Gentoo or Slackware more to your liking. Better yet, you can just run in something other than init5 and kick your mouse to the curb.
So either you misread the GP or I misread your post. I suppose I may have read it wrong. The quotes lead to some ambiguity on what he meant but now that you mention it it's likely he was saying what you suggested. I have to admit that I included the "either I misread..." part because I was worried that I had misread your post. You know more about both topics than I do. That may explain why I "got it": I don't know enough to see what you saw until I read your post.
Slashdot Mirror
n order to reduce time traveled a different orbital mechanic is needed. Even if a ship were to travel in a straight line toward a destination at a rapid enough speed that it would not have to meet up with it too much further along in its orbit it would have to be able to kill relative speed quickly enough to enter a capture orbit.
My guess is that it turns around about half way during the trip to start slowing down.
How much would the price of the Nissans, Toyotas, etc that are made in the US change? Would the parent companies decide to start exporting more of these vehicles to other markets or are they just for the US?
Foreign cars "produced" in the US are usually still made from parts that are imported. The cars are merely assembled here from parts manufactured in Japan or elsewhere. Still, these cars would be cheaper in foreign markets compared to cars assembled abroad, with no real change in the price in the US except that the parts that are still being imported and would cost more,=. This would still mean an increase in the price of the car, but not as much of an increase for a car assembled overseas. If anything, it would increase the benefit for parts to be manufactured here as well as the assembly.
Our economy is strong, and always growing. At least that's what the preznut keeps telling me.
Actually, it is the economists that keep saying it. They get their data from economic indicators such as the stock market, GDP, inflation rate, consumer confidence, unemployment etc. The President just repeats it.
Of course, since it does not jive with your politically colored glasses, I don't expect you to understand.
Let me guess, you're a Republican, right? So to you, higher prices for imports is a Good Thing, because of the trade imbalance. But if you're a blue collar family struggling to live on an income that's stagnant at best, higher prices are just higher prices.
Actually, making foreign products more expensive is more of a Democratic ideal.
Let's say you are a blue collar family, living in Lansing MI working for GM making Grand Ams. That Grand Am that you are producing is now suddenly in more demand overseas because it is cheaper for overseas car buyers. At the same time, Nissans become now more expensive in the US, so the Grand Am is now more in demand in the US as well. The result, GM sells more Grand Ams. Not only does this help with job security, GM is more profitable and can pay you more. How is this a bad thing again?
Of course, since Democrats hate oil so much, you'd think it would be a good thing that oil is now going to be more expensive as well. This means more research into fuel efficiency as well as alternative fuel sources. Would you call this a Republican ideal?
American products are cheaper. American employees paid less or offshored.
/sigh... read my first point again.
Actually, the opposite happens. While it used to be cheaper to pay Canadian workers in CDN's, that is no longer a benefit. It is not as advantageous to open a foreign factory because you have to pay those foreign workers MORE, not less.
Most products sold to American consumers are foriegn products. American employees being paid less because of the first point above also have more difficulty affording most products they buy, because of the second point.
As I've said, increasing the wages of foreign workers helps American workers. It also means that made in America products are now more affordable and more in demand. How does increasing the demand for American products hurt American workers?
Doesn't matter, because we don't need them to come to America. We can just oursource and offshore to them in their own country.
Meanwhile, while I sit in Europe trying to irk my way through grad school living off of dollars I saved while I was in the army(and a part-time job doing IT stuff for a small business), I watch their value and my immediate standard of living drop.
I'm sorry that has happened to you. Unfortunately, anytime the value of something changes, someone wins and someone loses. I know hindsight is 20/20, but how far did you expect to get living in Europe with US dollars in the bank? Why would you not change those over to Euros when you decided to live there?
As for the idea that discouraging foreign workers is a good thing, might I ask in what universe you live in? Do you actually want to pay 25 bucks for a meal in a cheapish restaurant? That is what will happen if the immigrant labor leaves.
I have no problem with immigrant labor. What I have a problem with is illegal immigrant labor. Sure, it helps me get a cheaper burger at Chili's, but when I have to pay $50 for an aspirin at a hospital, I figure I'm not saving all that much. Besides, slavery allowed for cheap food and clothing as well, but that doesn't make it right. When an illegal is working at a plantation.. I mean farm, they are more or less owned by that farm. Only instead of being shackled by chains, they are shackled with the thread of deportation or imprisonment. I expect foreign workers in the US to get a fair wage. When that worker is here illegally, enforcing minimum wage or any other labor laws is impossible.
People assume that the dollar falling in value in relation to foreign currency is a bad thing. This is not necessarily the case. Here are some benefits:
* American products become cheaper to foreign markets. This helps with the trade imbalances we currently have.
* Foreign products become more expensive to American consumers, also helping with trade deficits.
* It discourages foreign workers from sneaking into the US. Getting $4.00 an hour is suddenly not so much compared to what they get paid in their home country.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The best way to win a war is not to fight it.
Tell that to the millions of Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and France around 1938. They were unable to fight a war themselves and I would hardly say that they won the war.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
Words are worthless when the other side refuses to listen. Granted, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless you kill all of the enemy. What is needed is a mix. You use the military to force the other side to the negotiating table so you can work together. So while there is no such thing as a military victory, there can be no victory without the military. (can someone please SHOUT that to the moonbats please?)
insulation? lots of mass with high atomic number and high density. lots. this laser will be useful only for killing.
I see this laser as an extremely effective way of shooting down incoming missiles. I do NOT see this as being portable enough to transport around on the battlefield. I only see this being fielded at fixed installations, which are really only good as a defensive weapon.
Why do you think lasers are only good useful only for killing?
Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.
Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that he did nothing wrong, right? Officers then proceeded to attempt to remove Meyer from the room, but when he resisted, they placed him on the ground and tried to handcuff him. The six officers who actually took part in holding Meyer down while he was being handcuffed reported that they were only able to get a handcuff on his right hand because he was squirming so much. So, I guess you think that the police should have just let him go. First he doesn't leave, so they should have said, "Oh, you won't leave? Oh well, I guess you can stay. Here is the microphone back."
But instead, they try to escort him out as he is screaming "HELP! HELP!" at the top of his lungs. As you can see from the video, when he gets close to the door, he plants his feet and charges an officer. I guess you think that the cops should have simply said, "Oh, you REALLY want to stay. We're sorry, here's the microphone. Would like to hold our guns?"
Well, they didn't do that either. Since he wouldn't leave when asked, and fought back while being escorted out, they tried to put cuffs on him. Six police officers could not hold the guys arms steady enough to get the cuffs on him. Do you think the cops should have said, "OK, we give up. You've beaten us. Please allow us to leave so you can fling shit around the auditorium without interruption." Well, nope. Not these cops. They would not grant him his Constitutional dung flinging rights.
That's when the tasing came in. And even then, this guy still resisted, screaming and yelling the whole way down... well at least the part where cameras were present.
Ah - I see your point. You are right. Somebody standing up, asking too many stupid questions too long in a Q&A session should be arrested, same as a drunk driver and teased down, when so required. Law and order needs to be followed - Jawoll!
I think you are missing the point. It was not because he asked too many stupid questions. That's perfectly fine. The problem is that when he was asked to leave, he didn't. Actually, that is not the problem. The REAL problem is that when he was getting "escorted" out, he fought. Then when they tried to arrest him, he resisted and screamed "HELP", asking for his fellow classmates to attack the police officers. Right before he they reached the door, he tried to charge back in. While they were trying to put cuffs on him, he kept fighting... and so on and so on and so on.... all the while asking "What did I do?"
Yeah, he deserved to be tazed. It's like I see people who attack police officers and get shot and the community asks, "Why did you have to shoot him?" Well, as was the case in Austin, he was on my partner and was beating the hell out of him. (By the way, the police officer that shot the "suspect" who was being arrested because of a previous warrant was fired, because she shot the man who was pummeling her partner.) My point is in that case, just like any other situation where the police are involved, first you do what the cops ask you to. If you are not smart enough to do that, don't be so stupid as to fight them when they try to force you to what they asked you to do. If you fail both of these tasks, expect the consequences. It is the job of the police to maintain order. This guy was trying to challenge their authority and disrupt that order. The officers can't just let him go when he said he was sorry, or they would have to let every who is being arrested for breaking a law go because they say they are sorry. The police have to apply the same standard to this guy as they do everyone else. He got what he deserved and the police acted accordingly.
I know you don't like it, but you can't arm, uniform and send a bunch of citizens out into the public with the job of maintaining order without actually giving them the power to do so.
"In the clip, officers force Meyer down as the student says he will walk out of the auditorium if officers let him go." ("http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297197,00.html")
- the student offered to leave voluntarily - and what did the police do? Heard what he was saying and give him the space to leave? Nope, react as programmed automatons without higher brain.
This has been seen many times before (example: Rodney King) and far more often "not seen".
I am sure there are police officers which are serene enough not to fall into this trap but many are not and get attracted to this job. That's like telling the police that you are willing to walk home when you've been pulled over for driving drunk. Sorry, but at the point where he offered to leave peacefully, he had already resisted arrest, fought to stay in the building, screamed for help (where the inciting a riot charge will stem from) and disrupted Senator Kerry's Q&A session. It was a bit late to comply at that point.
See, I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with resisting arrest when you've not done anything wrong.
Interesting theory. So if I think it's OK to beat my wife, and the police try to pull me off her while I'm slugging her in the head, are you saying that can't arrest me? If I feel that it's OK for me to beat my wife, then I have not done anything wrong, in my mind.
An officer saying "you were distribing the peace" doesn't cut it; this is supposed to be a free society, were we CANNOT be arrested at whim.
Actually, yeah you can. You can arrested and held for 48 hrs without charge.
As for being a free society, we have police officers to ensure that society remains free. Otherwise, you have anarchy. An anarchy is not a free society. This punk was trying to take more than his alloted time. He was taking away the rights of everyone else there who were willing to follow the rules. He was given a lawful order by a police officer and refused to comply. When that happens, it is the police officer's job to do whatever it takes to ensure compliance. Otherwise, we have anarchy.
I wonder which male human being in the same age would not have reacted in a similar fashion? Those are instinctive reactions built in human brain - flight or fight. Was he given a way out?
Uh, no. That's what being under arrest means. He could have left peacefully when he was asked, but he didn't, so he had to be removed by force.
Also, police officers should not have to be injured and/or killed so this little child can throw his temper tantrum. Yeah, being a cop is a risky job, but that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to avoid being injured or killed.
The bottom line is that this kid got what he deserved. When police tell you to do something, you do it, end of story. If you feel you are being mistreated or your rights are being violated, deal with it later. It's common sense to know that if you try to handle it then and there, you are only going to make the situation worse for everyone, especially yourself.
"Under control" is not the issue; "being a threat" is the issue. Potentially lethal force, or the use of torture, is justified only to end a threat, not to bring someone "under control".
First of all, a person who is "not under control", is a potential threat.
Trying to escape from an assault does not make one a threat.
So are you saying that anyone should just be allowed to run from the police? A person running away is not a threat, so why should police be allowed to use force if a person is running away.
And with that set of rules, how can the police legally arrest anyone. Once a policeman tries to arrest you, all you have to do is scream, "I'm not a threat!" and run away. The police can do nothing, under your rules.
Or, you know, the thugs with badges could have respected the man's free speech rights and saved a ton of trouble for everyone.
So it is within this guy's free speech rights to shout down a candidate a political rally? Why do his free speech rights outweigh everyone else's? Is it the person who shouts the loudest gets the most rights? That the tactic brownshirts used!
Why Yes. Yes it does. From HERE: Inside, the Xbox 360 uses the triple-core IBM designed Xenon as its CPU. While graphics processing is handled by the ATI Xenos which has 10 MB of embedded eDRAM, its main memory pool is 512 MB in size.
And when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?
Well, it would suck to be me, but yeah, that's fine. Who am I to tell a private business who they can and can not do business with?
There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being. And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you. Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource; but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so. Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.
How about if you walk into a gun store, looking angry, bitching about your cheatin' girlfriend, and you have scratches across your face with blood on your shirt... Oh, and you want a gun... and some ammo. Should the gun owner be forced to have to sell to you? It's none of his damn business what is going on in your life. It's not his job to try to force his will on you, no matter how benevolent he thinks he's being.
What if you drive up to a bar, park across three spots, stagger in and fall onto the counter with vomit on your shirt asking for a beer, should the bartender be forced to serve you?
How about if you are a bit twitchy, have track-marks all up down your arms and you walk into a drug store trying to buy all the Sudafed they'll sell you?
What your truck has a "Remember Waco" bumper sticker on it as you back it up to the fertilizer plant. You are wearing camouflage clothing, you have a buzz cut and look nothing like any farmer that's ever been in this town. Should the plant manager be forced to sell you that Ammonium Nitrate just because your paper work is on order?
Now I'll agree with you that this Game Stop manager was wrong in what he did, but we'll disagree on the reasons why. If he wants to put forth such a noble goal, he needs to open his own store where he can set his own rules. As for his job at Game Stop, he was working for someone else who owned the store and therefor made the rules. He was not following them. Now if these were Game Stop's rules, then sure, they can sell or NOT sell to whoever they want, as long as it is not for a discriminatory reason such as race, sex or whatever.
Don't like it? Don't shop there. They don't call it a Free Market for nothing. That freedom goes both ways.
OS X was specifically not supported on the Beige Macs, if you had that much of a problem running Jaguar on it, I'm not surprised. On the otherhand I ran a functional mail system using postoffice on a Bondi iMac running Jaguar. The clock speed on that machine 233mhz was slower than your Beige but OS X had been designed to run on that generation of computers and later. And if Jaguar and Beige Macs are your most current level of Mac exposure you're definitely talking old and ancient news repectively.
I understand this, but the GP said that OSX would run better than KDE. In my experience, this was not the case. I'm sure that if KDE outran OSX on a Beige, I see no reason why it would not run better on a B&W.
As to my Mac experience, I've worked with Macs for years, however, not since the move to Intel.
I'll guarantee you that KDE won't be nearly responsive on a 233 G3 w/ 192mb ran as Tiger was.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you here. I had a G3 300 Mhz Beige. I installed OSX on it, 10.2, I think. Quite frankly, it sucked. Yeah, it ran, but when the Internet is slow because your computer can not display the page as fast as it is downloading it... well, let's just say it wasn't what I would call responsive.
Of course, it could have just been the machine itself, right? I wasn't sure either so I downloaded and installed YDL (Yellow Dog Linux) to try it out on a G3. I was quite impressed. This 300Mhz G3 ran about as fast as my Athlon 700! For that matter, KDE was not only more responsive than the unusable OSX, but it was actually a bit faster than OS9 that the G3 was designed for!
So while I didn't run Tiger on a 233, I did try run OSX on a 300 and while it booted and ran, it was unusable. KDE ran well enough on the 300 that I don't think it would have any problems going down to 233.
I'm curious. Why do you think that the Director of National Intelligence has so vehemently defended the unwarranted wire taps? It's not like he can take over the world. For that matter, it's likely that as soon as another Prez comes into office, he'll be out. Why do you think that so many in Washington believe that unwarranted wire taps are a good thing, as opposed to having to get a warrant for each and every one?
Maybe I'm becoming more and more of a luddite... I played with compiz a bit maybe a year ago using XFCE and it was pretty cool, but that's all it was. It didn't actually do anything to improve my computing experience other than look cool. That makes it mostly a waste of electrons, IMO.
But then, I now use wmii almost exclusively, if I'm not just using plain ol' screen.
damn, you be a good poster and go check your links and there goes that frsit psot. oh well..
Keep in mind that Ubuntu is all about ease of use and flash. It is not intended for users who see beauty in Blackbox or WM. But, I think that is the joy of Linux. If you don't like it, use another distro. Seeing that you like a lightweight (read: looks like shit) window manager, you might find Xubuntu, Gentoo or Slackware more to your liking. Better yet, you can just run in something other than init5 and kick your mouse to the curb.
And yes, it Compiz can easily be disabled.