The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.
Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year. What was the number I read? "One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season " But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.
Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much.
you are correct. A KKK film is a bad example. Let's say that Michael Moore wanted to give out copies of his box set that includes "Dude, Where's My Country", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 911" to classrooms. If they refused, would they be "in the pocket of Big Bush?"
And before you say that Michael Moore is full of sh1t and AlGore's film is "The Truth" (as "inconvenient" as it may be), weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?
No, not really. MySQL [Community Server] is a database server that supports SQL. Oracle [Database] is a database server that supports SQL. MSSQL [Microsoft SQL Server] is a database server that supports SQL. The latter is often known simply as SQL Server.
I understand where it comes from, but SQL and SERVER are both industry terms, link ANSI, ASCII or C. When someone says a program is written in C, do we assume that it was written with Borland C? I just don't like the way MS trademarks generic names to try to become THE industry standard. Windows, Word, Publisher, and Media Player are just a couple of examples.
MSSQL is a SQL Server. MySQL is a SQL Server. Oracle is a SQL Server. Please be more specific and explain which SQL Server you are talking about.
Granted, the summary does explain that the article does indeed refer to MSSQL Server, but please stop calling it just SQL Server. MSSQL Server != SQL Server
(OK, I feel better. What is the moderation for RANT?)
The intent of the law must be taken into consideration. How's this one:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
Yet it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Public schools can't teach bible verses, even though they would not be "making a law respecting an establishment of religion", they'd be teaching religion, not establishing it.
Murder is illegal. Would "I didn't kill him, the bullet did" be a valid defense?
Sadly, any good legal scholar will tell you that '...the intent rather than the letter, which is the correct choice.' is absolute and total bullshit and should be struck down.
Laws can only be enforced on the black-letter law. If they are not, there's no point in having law at all, since it can be interpreted whichever way the judge prefers. There is a reason for black-letter law, and it's to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening.
So black-letter law is to allow for those that are obviously guilty to walk free because of loopholes that were not intended to be part of the law? I'm sorry, but if I hear someone use syntax as a defense again ("Depends on what your definition of 'is' is"), I'm gonna lose my lunch! That type of BS is what causes laws to be written in such a way that they can not be understood without a law degree. I agree that there is the potential for abuse here and this law should be rewritten to prevent this type of bullshit defense, but any good legal scholar will tell you that you can't rewrite the law and apply it to a pending case.
That's what happens when the people who write the laws don't understand the technology the new law governs.
This is why there is such a big debate about the letter of the law vs the intent of the framers of the law. The framers of this law obviously did not intend to limit the it to digital traffic submitted via SMTP on port 25, but that is pretty much what they wrote in the law. The judge in this case obviously went with the intent rather than the letter, which is the correct choice. Unfortunately, it is not so clear in many other cases.
This is why I use my Linux box more and more every day. By the time M$ requires the Vista upgrade, I won't need it anymore. Besides, AIGLX, XGL and Beryl are so much cooler than Aero.
How about we tase YOU three or four times. Then tell us how you feel about it.
If you'd read the post, you'd know that the GP was saying that this kid got tased for not complying and being a general dick. Then the GP said that he would have complied before the first tasing so it would have never gotten to that point.
Most of your post is correct. I have problem with one thing though: However, if you are ordered to do something that you feel violates your civil rights by someone that you feel is racially profiling or discriminating against you based on the color of your skin, and surrounded by people that can back you up (with testimony, video or photo evidence) you're a fool not to employ non-violent resistance in protest.
This guy was trying to enter a University building that requires an ID. He didn't have one. If he produced ID and was still not allowed in, then we may have a civil rights issue. Now, I'm sure that UCLA gives out ID's to every attending student, regardless of their skin color, so this is not a civil rights issue. He has an ID. He either forgot it or was trying to make some sort of statement by not producing it. Either way, the university is in their right confirming that those that use university facilities are in fact university students. The police were in their right trying to maintain order. Tasing him was obviously not the best course of action, but it could have been much worse. And while it may be hard to see, tasing actually showed the cop's restraint because you know they really wanted to employ the club.
So your logic therefore is that since he looked arab and had an arab name chances that a backpack was loaded with explosives were high enough to warrant him being subdued (no matter whether he resisted in the first place).
No, it's all of the above and , the fact that he was belligerent and refusing to leave. The police have the job of maintaining order and this guy was in there literally trying to incite a riot. Maybe they didn't have to tase him, but that is the choice they made and this guys choice was to sit there and scream at the police when they were telling him to stop or he'd get tased again.
So by your logic, if I'm scared of people with you facial features and your last name, then I thereby have the right to knock you out for the greater good if you should happen to be wearing or carrying anything that might be used to conceal a weapon?
Uh, no. It's that and the way he was acting.
You are an idiot and a stupid one at that... I think your parent poster is right to believe that we all would be better off if your kind just went away... though I, for one, would prefer it if you just went away quietly... lest we need to taser you away from our planet..
Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong for wanting there to be some sort of order. Maybe anarchy and chaos would be better than what we have with laws, rules, authority and such. Maybe this campus should just eliminate their police force completely and let ever man and woman fend for themselves. However, you are not correct to assume that because my opinions differ from your own that I am an idiot and a stupid one at that... and should somehow fade off into the sunset. By your logic, if this guy has the right to scream obscenities in a library and incite a riot, then it should be my right to say this guy deserved what he got without the fear of name calling or death wishes.
This guy had two choices on how to leave. He made the wrong decision.
He also is a college kid in a friggin' library. Not some derelict in an alley.
Well, let's call it what it is. He is a young Arab male in a crowded library carrying a backpack, refusing to show ID, screaming about the Patriot Act, resisting arrest and acting belligerent. Should police just let young Arab males without student ID's walk into crowded places with back packs? You are correct, he was not a derelict in an alley. In that case, only the police are in danger.
So let me get this straight: Because I would knock a guy out... a young Arab male with a backpack being belligerent in a crowded place... I should die in a fire? And I'm the violent one here? You are the type that would have negotiated with 9-11 hijackers... right before you all slammed into a building.
(that said, sending electricity through the body of someone who may be carrying explosives is probably not the best course of action... which is why I'd use the club)
From TFA: Young, however, has said the officers could not have known at the time that Tabatabainejad was not a threat nor could they have been sure that he was not armed
That, and a guy can seriously hurt himself after being handcuffed if he continues to resist. You try cuffing someone and dragging the down stairs, cramming them into your car, and then dragging back up stairs and into the substation. I think that tasing him was actually less damaging than dragging him all over campus.
BTW, shooting him would have been entirely and completely overkill. Tasing was about the only tool the police had at their disposal to make him cooperate.
Not 'til the end. I don't think he was handcuffed right away.
From TFA:
Young, however, has said the officers could not have known at the time that Tabatabainejad was not a threat nor could they have been sure that he was not armed.
Fine, call it racial profiling, but when I see an Iranian without a student ID, acting belligerent, carrying a backpack into a crowded place, I hope the police take whatever action is necessary to get him the hell out of there. (However, sending electric shocks through someone who might be carrying explosives is probably not the best of ideas)
Well, before the video gets to the action, you hear a lot of screaming. The kind of screaming that hurts your throat. "DON'T TOUCH ME" (Over and over) "HERE'S YOUR PATRIOT ACT" "HERE'S YOUR FUCKING ABUSE OF POWER" "I...SAID... I... WOULD... LEEEEAAAAAVE" "I got tased for no reason"
At the beginning you hear the police saying, "Stop fighting us". And later you hear an awful lot of "Stand up" (and his answer was "fuck off")
After seven minutes, you still hear the police saying, "stand up" over and over and many screams of bloody murder. I can say that this guy was tased more than 5 times or he screamed more times than he was tased.
When the police tell you to jump, you say, "how high"?
Well, yeah, sorta. When they tell you to leave, you say "OK! See you guys later." You don't fall to the ground screaming. What were they supposed to do, give up and go home? Should the police only arrest the cooperative? Now, if they really are running around telling people to jump and tasing those that don't, when they come to you, you jump and then make your way to the command station and bitch to their superior. Having a video of the whole thing won't hurt as we see here (give that to the local news station). What if a cop wants to see if you have explosives under your feet and tell you to jump. Do you tell him to fuck off?
You seriously want to say that tasing somebody 5 times is safer than just dragging him out? Maybe if he was raging on PCP, but this guy clearly was not thrashing around in danger to himself or anyone else.
Listen to it again and tell me that you are 100% certain that this guy is not on anything. And yes, tasing him 5 times is safer than trying to drag this guy out a door, possible down the stairs, to the police car, force him in, then back out at the station and forcibly drag him up the stairs and into the police station. This guy was screaming at the top of his lungs before he was tased. Watch the video again and pay attention to audio when the frame is on the computer screen. You clearly hear they guy screaming "DON'T TOUCH ME". Then you hear him screaming "HERE IS YOUR PATRIOT ACT! HERE IS YOUR FUCKING ABUSE OF POWER! I SAID I WOULD FUCKING LEAVE!" A short time later, the police man told him to stand up, he said, "fuck off". (Obviously, he had no intention of leaving)
Then again, maybe you are right. When someone goes into the library late at night with no way to prove that they are even a student at the college, if he doesn't want to leave, the police should just go home and let him be. It sure beats getting sued for trying to drag him out by force (he could bump his head) or tasing him.
the fact the cops refused to provide names and badge numbers to onlookers on request tells you either a) the cops believed they were doing something wrong; or b) the cops believed they did not need to be accountable. Either of those is a huge problem, independent of the justifiability of the initial tasering.
I agree. Next time I'm driving home drunk, I'm going to have someone follow me so they can ask the cop for his badge number when I'm getting arrested. While he's giving it to my partner, I'll drive off. 'Cause we all know that cops must drop everything and give their badge number when asked for it.
Slashdot Mirror
And what scientific field is Al Gore in again?
Regardless of the viewpoint, is it even possible that science can remain apolitical?
Not when the science we are talking about here is really a film by a politician.
(Besides, as we saw with Gaius, scientists don't make good politicians, why would we expect it to work the other way around?)
The difference is that climate scientists at the very top of their field - in terms of number of peer-reviewed articles published and positions held - vouch that An Inconvenient Truth is 99%+ accurate in portraying the current state of climate research.
Aren't these the same climate scientist that said we were going to have a record hurricane season this year. What was the number I read? "One in Six Americans Could be Directly Impacted by 2006 Hurricane Season " But we are supposed to believe them when they say that the film is 99% correct on long term forecasts when they can't tell me if it is going to rain today or not.
Yeah, these guys may be the top of their field, but being on top of a bunch of people who don't know crap doesn't say much.
you are correct. A KKK film is a bad example. Let's say that Michael Moore wanted to give out copies of his box set that includes "Dude, Where's My Country", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 911" to classrooms. If they refused, would they be "in the pocket of Big Bush?"
And before you say that Michael Moore is full of sh1t and AlGore's film is "The Truth" (as "inconvenient" as it may be), weren't we supposed to have like 15 hurricanes hit New York this year?
Tell that to Lindows...er Linspire.
No, not really. MySQL [Community Server] is a database server that supports SQL. Oracle [Database] is a database server that supports SQL. MSSQL [Microsoft SQL Server] is a database server that supports SQL. The latter is often known simply as SQL Server.
I understand where it comes from, but SQL and SERVER are both industry terms, link ANSI, ASCII or C. When someone says a program is written in C, do we assume that it was written with Borland C? I just don't like the way MS trademarks generic names to try to become THE industry standard. Windows, Word, Publisher, and Media Player are just a couple of examples.
MSSQL is a SQL Server. MySQL is a SQL Server. Oracle is a SQL Server. Please be more specific and explain which SQL Server you are talking about.
Granted, the summary does explain that the article does indeed refer to MSSQL Server, but please stop calling it just SQL Server. MSSQL Server != SQL Server
(OK, I feel better. What is the moderation for RANT?)
Damn! And I just farted! Methane levels are now rising from where I sit.
Well, I guess it was good while it lasted!
How's this one:
Yet it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
Public schools can't teach bible verses, even though they would not be "making a law respecting an establishment of religion", they'd be teaching religion, not establishing it.
Murder is illegal. Would "I didn't kill him, the bullet did" be a valid defense?
I could go on and on with this.
Sadly, any good legal scholar will tell you that '...the intent rather than the letter, which is the correct choice.' is absolute and total bullshit and should be struck down.
Laws can only be enforced on the black-letter law. If they are not, there's no point in having law at all, since it can be interpreted whichever way the judge prefers. There is a reason for black-letter law, and it's to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening.
So black-letter law is to allow for those that are obviously guilty to walk free because of loopholes that were not intended to be part of the law? I'm sorry, but if I hear someone use syntax as a defense again ("Depends on what your definition of 'is' is"), I'm gonna lose my lunch! That type of BS is what causes laws to be written in such a way that they can not be understood without a law degree.
I agree that there is the potential for abuse here and this law should be rewritten to prevent this type of bullshit defense, but any good legal scholar will tell you that you can't rewrite the law and apply it to a pending case.
That's what happens when the people who write the laws don't understand the technology the new law governs.
This is why there is such a big debate about the letter of the law vs the intent of the framers of the law. The framers of this law obviously did not intend to limit the it to digital traffic submitted via SMTP on port 25, but that is pretty much what they wrote in the law. The judge in this case obviously went with the intent rather than the letter, which is the correct choice. Unfortunately, it is not so clear in many other cases.
This is why I use my Linux box more and more every day. By the time M$ requires the Vista upgrade, I won't need it anymore. Besides, AIGLX, XGL and Beryl are so much cooler than Aero.
Check out Sabayon
How about we tase YOU three or four times. Then tell us how you feel about it.
If you'd read the post, you'd know that the GP was saying that this kid got tased for not complying and being a general dick. Then the GP said that he would have complied before the first tasing so it would have never gotten to that point.
Please, read the post and reply appropriately.
Most of your post is correct. I have problem with one thing though:
However, if you are ordered to do something that you feel violates your civil rights by someone that you feel is racially profiling or discriminating against you based on the color of your skin, and surrounded by people that can back you up (with testimony, video or photo evidence) you're a fool not to employ non-violent resistance in protest.
This guy was trying to enter a University building that requires an ID. He didn't have one. If he produced ID and was still not allowed in, then we may have a civil rights issue. Now, I'm sure that UCLA gives out ID's to every attending student, regardless of their skin color, so this is not a civil rights issue. He has an ID. He either forgot it or was trying to make some sort of statement by not producing it. Either way, the university is in their right confirming that those that use university facilities are in fact university students. The police were in their right trying to maintain order. Tasing him was obviously not the best course of action, but it could have been much worse. And while it may be hard to see, tasing actually showed the cop's restraint because you know they really wanted to employ the club.
So your logic therefore is that since he looked arab and had an arab name chances that a backpack was loaded with explosives were high enough to warrant him being subdued (no matter whether he resisted in the first place).
No, it's all of the above and , the fact that he was belligerent and refusing to leave. The police have the job of maintaining order and this guy was in there literally trying to incite a riot. Maybe they didn't have to tase him, but that is the choice they made and this guys choice was to sit there and scream at the police when they were telling him to stop or he'd get tased again.
So by your logic, if I'm scared of people with you facial features and your last name, then I thereby have the right to knock you out for the greater good if you should happen to be wearing or carrying anything that might be used to conceal a weapon?
Uh, no. It's that and the way he was acting.
You are an idiot and a stupid one at that... I think your parent poster is right to believe that we all would be better off if your kind just went away... though I, for one, would prefer it if you just went away quietly... lest we need to taser you away from our planet..
Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong for wanting there to be some sort of order. Maybe anarchy and chaos would be better than what we have with laws, rules, authority and such. Maybe this campus should just eliminate their police force completely and let ever man and woman fend for themselves. However, you are not correct to assume that because my opinions differ from your own that I am an idiot and a stupid one at that... and should somehow fade off into the sunset. By your logic, if this guy has the right to scream obscenities in a library and incite a riot, then it should be my right to say this guy deserved what he got without the fear of name calling or death wishes.
This guy had two choices on how to leave. He made the wrong decision.
He also is a college kid in a friggin' library. Not some derelict in an alley.
Well, let's call it what it is. He is a young Arab male in a crowded library carrying a backpack, refusing to show ID, screaming about the Patriot Act, resisting arrest and acting belligerent. Should police just let young Arab males without student ID's walk into crowded places with back packs? You are correct, he was not a derelict in an alley. In that case, only the police are in danger.
Die in a fire.
So let me get this straight:
Because I would knock a guy out... a young Arab male with a backpack being belligerent in a crowded place... I should die in a fire? And I'm the violent one here? You are the type that would have negotiated with 9-11 hijackers... right before you all slammed into a building.
(that said, sending electricity through the body of someone who may be carrying explosives is probably not the best course of action... which is why I'd use the club)
From TFA:
Young, however, has said the officers could not have known at the time that Tabatabainejad was not a threat nor could they have been sure that he was not armed
That, and a guy can seriously hurt himself after being handcuffed if he continues to resist. You try cuffing someone and dragging the down stairs, cramming them into your car, and then dragging back up stairs and into the substation. I think that tasing him was actually less damaging than dragging him all over campus.
BTW, shooting him would have been entirely and completely overkill. Tasing was about the only tool the police had at their disposal to make him cooperate.
From TFA:
Fine, call it racial profiling, but when I see an Iranian without a student ID, acting belligerent, carrying a backpack into a crowded place, I hope the police take whatever action is necessary to get him the hell out of there. (However, sending electric shocks through someone who might be carrying explosives is probably not the best of ideas)
Well, before the video gets to the action, you hear a lot of screaming. The kind of screaming that hurts your throat.
"DON'T TOUCH ME" (Over and over)
"HERE'S YOUR PATRIOT ACT"
"HERE'S YOUR FUCKING ABUSE OF POWER"
"I...SAID... I... WOULD... LEEEEAAAAAVE"
"I got tased for no reason"
At the beginning you hear the police saying, "Stop fighting us". And later you hear an awful lot of "Stand up" (and his answer was "fuck off")
After seven minutes, you still hear the police saying, "stand up" over and over and many screams of bloody murder. I can say that this guy was tased more than 5 times or he screamed more times than he was tased.
When the police tell you to jump, you say, "how high"?
Well, yeah, sorta. When they tell you to leave, you say "OK! See you guys later." You don't fall to the ground screaming. What were they supposed to do, give up and go home? Should the police only arrest the cooperative? Now, if they really are running around telling people to jump and tasing those that don't, when they come to you, you jump and then make your way to the command station and bitch to their superior. Having a video of the whole thing won't hurt as we see here (give that to the local news station). What if a cop wants to see if you have explosives under your feet and tell you to jump. Do you tell him to fuck off?
You seriously want to say that tasing somebody 5 times is safer than just dragging him out? Maybe if he was raging on PCP, but this guy clearly was not thrashing around in danger to himself or anyone else.
Listen to it again and tell me that you are 100% certain that this guy is not on anything. And yes, tasing him 5 times is safer than trying to drag this guy out a door, possible down the stairs, to the police car, force him in, then back out at the station and forcibly drag him up the stairs and into the police station.
This guy was screaming at the top of his lungs before he was tased. Watch the video again and pay attention to audio when the frame is on the computer screen. You clearly hear they guy screaming "DON'T TOUCH ME". Then you hear him screaming "HERE IS YOUR PATRIOT ACT! HERE IS YOUR FUCKING ABUSE OF POWER! I SAID I WOULD FUCKING LEAVE!" A short time later, the police man told him to stand up, he said, "fuck off". (Obviously, he had no intention of leaving)
Then again, maybe you are right. When someone goes into the library late at night with no way to prove that they are even a student at the college, if he doesn't want to leave, the police should just go home and let him be. It sure beats getting sued for trying to drag him out by force (he could bump his head) or tasing him.
No to mention there were at least 3 of them, they could have easily carried him away.
True, but which one gets to be the first to get stabbed in the leg with a pair of scissors?
the fact the cops refused to provide names and badge numbers to onlookers on request tells you either a) the cops believed they were doing something wrong; or b) the cops believed they did not need to be accountable. Either of those is a huge problem, independent of the justifiability of the initial tasering.
I agree. Next time I'm driving home drunk, I'm going to have someone follow me so they can ask the cop for his badge number when I'm getting arrested. While he's giving it to my partner, I'll drive off. 'Cause we all know that cops must drop everything and give their badge number when asked for it.
It's *not* what we pay them for.
Uh... what do we pay cops for? To arrest only those that cooperate?