Simply put, if they had interjected, the Police would have had a reason and opportunity to turn this into a riot, and flush it all down the memory hole. The guys with cameras? Arrested, and the "evidence" confiscated for the "investigation" of the "riot that evil Iranian Muslim terrorist" caused.
That would never work. They may be able to confiscate evidence, but there were enough eyewitnesses to make up for the loss of any video footage. The footage would probably get returned, anyway, after enough eyewitnesses say there was videotape that got confiscated.
These are students in a library. Many of them were probably law students. Many of them would come from wealthy family. Students don't just turn a study session in a library into a riot for no reason. Nobody would believe the police against 100 well-educated students speaking out.
By not turning this into a bigger event, it becomes easier to blame on the "Iranian jerk guy with a big mouth" and justify police actions - as so many on slashdot are doing. It more easily gets forgotten, too. "Iranian guy gets tasered while students watch" doesn't get in the newspapers for very long compared to "students protest police torture."
One of the things that addens me almost as much as the police attacking this guy, is what fucking pussies the other students were. Most were just standing around doing nothing, a few asked for badge numbers and questioned them, which was good. But no real active resistance.
The guy who shot the video was possibly the biggest pussy of all. He hid way at the back, compromising the evidence gathered on his footage. He did not bring the camera out in the open to confront the police with - often this is enough to get officers to act more reasonably if they know they are being recorded. But it seems that rather than wanting to stop it, the video guy wanted it to continue so he could get sensational footage.
How about carrying him out? Apparently, he was already leaving when the cops tased him. After tasing him (which causes immobility) they asked him to stand up... then repeated the process. Tell me, what was the point of that? What was the rational reason for making him immobile and screaming at him to stand up? If they wanted him out, why didn't they just carry him out after the first time he went limp on the ground?
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.
So, shouldn't they have done that? Picked him up and carried him out of there, before the supposed "backpack bomb" could explode in a crowded place. But they did the opposite, and deliberately kept him in there for longer. Tasing someone and asking them to walk, is not an efficient method for getting someone out. It's a procedure meant to humiliate and inflict pain.
And if they were worried about a bomb, why didn't they just confiscate the backpack and take it to a less populated area?
Ummm, how can you divorce social commentary from politics? They are the same thing! Especially with O'Reilly, didn't you know he is a political creature, and all of his statements are designed for political outrage and manipulation?
I say that all environmentalist back down. Let all the laws lapse that help keep the air and water clean and we will see in 5 years how many cities in the U.S. end up like L.A. or some of the industrial cities in China or if our drinking water becomes as polluted as the Hudson.
Except that runs in direct contradiction to the goals of environmentalists. They don't want to win a political debate - they want to stop that shit happening. Allowing it to happen just to say "I told you so!" would be self-defeating.
Politics covers a lot more than the US government. Bill is definitely offering a political opinion here, so it seems appropriate enough. Politics/games or Games/politics would be the best category for this.
Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
I guess we should get rid of all the atheists, because that's what our enemies want, right? But wouldn't that mean "the terrorists have won"?
In any case, you are pretty off-the-planet with that argument. Muslim extremists hate Jews (and Christians, for that matter) more than they hate atheists. Also, there aren't very many atheists in the world - most of the world is religious, and nearly all countries are led by politicians with religious values.
Well, there's going to be considerable regional and generational variation. I grew up around guys who were really old-school, going back to the punch-card days. They were pretty anal about not abbreviating when unnecessary, and pronouncing initialisms in full.
So, 1989 could be considered an early part of the "new era." By that stage, computers were well and truly out of the realm of scientists-only. Windows was out, and kids had been messing with Apple ][s and Commodore 64s for years.
Actually, there is debate over this interpretation. Some people believe acronyms to cover all initialism. Some only use them to refer to pronouncable initialism.
Some acronyms have "officially" become words. Radar and laser are good examples. But I think it's stupid to try and make every acronym into a word. That leads to a couple of problems:
Lack of clarity. Different accents and pronounciations will obscure what the letters actually stand for.
Lack of understanding that there are actual terms that the word refers to.
Overuse - you get too much jargon, companies and developers coming up with a never ending series of acronyms, and trying to force them to be a word, rather than coming up with a better name.
I think the "jargony" aspect of it is what bothers me the most. Plus it makes people sound like idiots, who use a word, but don't understand what it means.
Uhh, why? In the English language, it is normal to pronounce the letters in an acronym separately. I actually can't stand the way people turn acronyms into words. The "gooey" pronounciation is comparitively recent. In the old days, people would actually say "Graphical User Interface" or "G.U.I." The contemporary usage is just a form of laziness, and pronounciong the letters separately is perfectly acceptable.
SBS News is where it's at in Australia. News reports from all around the world, and in many different languages. A very strong international focus, and top standards of journalism.
But they most likely won't do that. They won't prosecute "soccer moms" - they will target people who are unpopular. Muslims, hippies, computer nerds, people who don't like cricket or football.
When they show socially undesirable people being prosecuted on TV, the majority will be happy that the inferior scum got what they deserved, and cheer on the laws. Even though the majority and middle-class may be in violation of those same laws, they know they will never come a'knockin for "respectable people."
Slashdot Mirror
That would never work. They may be able to confiscate evidence, but there were enough eyewitnesses to make up for the loss of any video footage. The footage would probably get returned, anyway, after enough eyewitnesses say there was videotape that got confiscated.
These are students in a library. Many of them were probably law students. Many of them would come from wealthy family. Students don't just turn a study session in a library into a riot for no reason. Nobody would believe the police against 100 well-educated students speaking out.
By not turning this into a bigger event, it becomes easier to blame on the "Iranian jerk guy with a big mouth" and justify police actions - as so many on slashdot are doing. It more easily gets forgotten, too. "Iranian guy gets tasered while students watch" doesn't get in the newspapers for very long compared to "students protest police torture."
The guy who shot the video was possibly the biggest pussy of all. He hid way at the back, compromising the evidence gathered on his footage. He did not bring the camera out in the open to confront the police with - often this is enough to get officers to act more reasonably if they know they are being recorded. But it seems that rather than wanting to stop it, the video guy wanted it to continue so he could get sensational footage.
How about carrying him out? Apparently, he was already leaving when the cops tased him. After tasing him (which causes immobility) they asked him to stand up... then repeated the process. Tell me, what was the point of that? What was the rational reason for making him immobile and screaming at him to stand up? If they wanted him out, why didn't they just carry him out after the first time he went limp on the ground?
So, shouldn't they have done that? Picked him up and carried him out of there, before the supposed "backpack bomb" could explode in a crowded place. But they did the opposite, and deliberately kept him in there for longer. Tasing someone and asking them to walk, is not an efficient method for getting someone out. It's a procedure meant to humiliate and inflict pain.
And if they were worried about a bomb, why didn't they just confiscate the backpack and take it to a less populated area?
Ummm, how can you divorce social commentary from politics? They are the same thing! Especially with O'Reilly, didn't you know he is a political creature, and all of his statements are designed for political outrage and manipulation?
Except that runs in direct contradiction to the goals of environmentalists. They don't want to win a political debate - they want to stop that shit happening. Allowing it to happen just to say "I told you so!" would be self-defeating.
And it was a really good paper.
Of course! It's the iPod that makes them so out of touch with reality, and evil.
"It seems like the War on Christmas comes earlier every year." - Jon Stewart
Negative addiction to drugs? Does that mean that you are so not addicted to drugs, that you're addicted to being straight?
Politics covers a lot more than the US government. Bill is definitely offering a political opinion here, so it seems appropriate enough. Politics/games or Games/politics would be the best category for this.
I guess we should get rid of all the atheists, because that's what our enemies want, right? But wouldn't that mean "the terrorists have won"?
In any case, you are pretty off-the-planet with that argument. Muslim extremists hate Jews (and Christians, for that matter) more than they hate atheists. Also, there aren't very many atheists in the world - most of the world is religious, and nearly all countries are led by politicians with religious values.
The term "noob," ironically, is something only "noobs" would say, in my opinion. Serious computer scientists were never that immature.
So, 1989 could be considered an early part of the "new era." By that stage, computers were well and truly out of the realm of scientists-only. Windows was out, and kids had been messing with Apple ][s and Commodore 64s for years.
Actually, there is debate over this interpretation. Some people believe acronyms to cover all initialism. Some only use them to refer to pronouncable initialism.
I think the "jargony" aspect of it is what bothers me the most. Plus it makes people sound like idiots, who use a word, but don't understand what it means.
Do you pronounce "CLI" as "klee"?
Uh oh, I think SkyNet just became self-aware... of its Second Life account.
SBS News is where it's at in Australia. News reports from all around the world, and in many different languages. A very strong international focus, and top standards of journalism.
When they show socially undesirable people being prosecuted on TV, the majority will be happy that the inferior scum got what they deserved, and cheer on the laws. Even though the majority and middle-class may be in violation of those same laws, they know they will never come a'knockin for "respectable people."
If that's true, then why is it the people with the most money who tend to do the most evil?
Uhh, why does saying "fuck" not look good? And how is it unprofessional? I think it looks worse when people censor themselves.
... that is a vassal of Great Britain, and the United States.
But this is not officially allowed. At least Apple gives permission to record a CD, and it is a lot quicker than recording in real-time.
I'm not too interested in inconvienent workarounds that degrade the quality even more.
How does burning to CD "degrade the quality even more"? It will sound exactly the same as the original file being played back on your computer.
So, what happens if you put a WMV in a microwave? Do you get carbon nano-youtubes?