Points off on the original/. poster (the brown guy), for transforming this idle (and somewhat unprofessional, plus obviously not verified) speculation on the part of the article's author--
"Perhaps his parents are teaching him a harsh lesson by not putting up the $50000 bail money."
Into a concrete fact not appearing in the linked article, by way of assertion--
Not surprisingly, his parents... have decided not to post the $50,000 bail and Kahn is in jail awaiting trial."
People who aren't business executives are more likely to make decisions that business executives find both incomprehensible and repellent.
Perhaps, but...
Witness how hard it is for many such to understand the GPL... but many business executives don't understand it, possibly because it isn't motivated by greed.
Most business executives don't need to understand the GPL, because their employees are simply end-users of FOSS, probably unbeknownst to them. Maybe they've run a datacenter, and are peripherally aware of the software it runs ("That's the Linux thing, isn't it? Supposed to be cheaper?")
But what if you want a warranty with that? Contract for support with a support house or consulting group, which is what big corporations do when buying software-with-services, they tie it to an SLA.
Possibly because they don't understand the basic level of disorganization in FOSS. (I.e., projects are organized, or try to be. The community isn't and doesn't want to be.)
This I kind of agree with, although there are many loose affiliations and some professionalized associations within the community. In one sense, FOSS is just another market, defined by the "free and open" attributes, rather than "pay and proprietary." What executives are used to, and what FOSS provides, are sometimes mutually exclusive when it comes to support, but not always.
That's where companies like Redhat try to bridge the gap, producing FOSSy products and offering support contracts, SLAs, etc.
But I think this might miss your point - are you talking about software company executives?
FOSS projects are more likely to make choices that a business might recoil from.
Such as?
This appears to be a dimly expressed echo of that stupid FUD equation, FOSS == communism, and therefore is not compatible with business. I'll tell you now, each and every major corporation I've worked for, beginning in the mid 90s, have *knowingly* employed open source software, and reaped benefit from it.
And even if the personal politics of individual FOSS project contributors were anti-corporate, anti-capitalism - so what? Give us an example of such a situation where a business's customers pulled a contract or something, based upon the use of FOSS.
Stop repeating FUD, particularly when it's obvious you haven't thought about what you're repeating.
If you had even a hint of intelligence, you would have known that iraq and the middle east has been a breeding ground for terrorists many years before the united states was involved.
And if you had even a hint of respect for political discourse, beyond relishing ad-hoc attack and unsupported assertion, you'd have actually provided verifiable information to back up your claim.
The United States got involved in the Middle East at least as early as the 1950s. The Marines intervened in Lebanon, and we threatened Iraq with nuclear attack if they proceeded with invading Kuwait. 1958-59 IIRC (not 1991 or 2003.)
And, on the very off chance that you'll bite, would you provide your definition of "breeding ground for terrorists," and some specific history to back it up? I'm slightly curious to see if you have any actual knowledge, beyond the present-day rhetorical soundbite patterns you've already regurgitated.
Oh yes, it is terribly, terribly romantic to be shot up by soldiers who don't understand what the FUCK you're saying, who can't tell a merchant from an insurgent, and to be swept from your homes by the millions. Do American soldiers have any clue why they're really there, beyond propaganda fed to them? What's the real motivation of your great, fearless leader to put you there, given that he lied to get you there in the first place?
Fucking rightards, can't see past their lovely romance with war to even be bothered with body counts. You never have to worry about the full cost of war when you can't be bothered to do the accounting.
And these aren't democracies, they're sock puppet governments run by the U.S. Take a close look at the negotiations currently under way to keep nearly 100 American military bases in Iraq. The Bush administration is coercing the Iraqis by withholding tens of billions of dollars, unless they capitulate to ENDLESS OCCUPATION, complete with full impunity for soldiers to continue killing without remorse or repercussion. Just like Bush senior did by starting an invasion just before turning over the White House keys to Clinton, Bush junior is preparing to do the same for Obama.
Kzzzzhht! "We apologize for this unscheduled brainwashing interruption... back to spreading 'peace and freedom' throughout the Middle East."
Your points are excellent, and I concede overstating my case, mainly to make the point about quality of content. Groklaw: yes, quite good, and there are many top shelf blogs like it.
AP, NYT, WP etc: generalists with the resources to focus on many issues, some in detail. The top-quality blogs seem to be dedicated to specific issue(s), and some do it quite well, no argument here.
Interestingly, NYT seem to be trying to straddle that divide, they're adding blogs to nytimes.com at a steady rate. However, their business model is still predicated upon selling information imprinted upon dead tree pulp; one can only hope that news organizations with that kind of reach and resources can make the transition to the internet - without imploding and losing their market. NYT the paper has 1.1-1.5 million subscribers, depending on weekly vs Sunday; their website, I hear, gets ~15 million uniques per month. Yet, the paper delivers most of the revenue, and still yet, the website is profitable while the paper is not. Transitional times for news orgs, I guess.
Heheh - that's the difference between traditional news media and blogging, it's the original research. Libraries, courtrooms, interviews, criminal defendents (not talking DMCA takedown letter recipients here), and so on.
Not that bloggers can't do those things, just it seems the vast majority aren't. Plus, newspapers have vaster resources - libraries of their own, reporters, interns, editors to vet your work, etc.
Maybe if bloggers banded together, to research specific stories, and shared the... shared the... oh, yeah, that's where bloggers and trad news media *are* alike, everybody wants the scoop, nobody wants to share. Except, of course, when it's something you weren't intently researching, in which case you write a post that links to the blogger who linked to the blogger who linked to the blogger who... linked to NYT, or WashPost or whoever. Heh.
And that would be great! That *should* be the natural progression, towards more independent media. You'd think we're there, technically, and ad-wise.
I mean, would Google or Yahoo or one of the blog ad networks be more likely, or less likely, to pull ads because you're writing a story that might piss off some advertisers? I'd think it'd be less likely, which would be the ideal outcome anyways.
One of the problems with the AP is that their whole business model isn't so different from providing an RSS feed these days.
An RSS feed delivers summaries of news stories. To create those stories, somebody was paid to go out (outside - you know, leave the computer and keyboard behind?) and gather news and photos. That's qualitatively different than delivering an XML feed, wouldn't you say?
blogging might well cut down on their (obsolete) business model
The blogosphere is largely an echo chamber, with no voice (i.e. reportage) of its own. No voice, no echo, no blogosphere... get it? Original news reporting happens outside that sphere, then it gets repeated, via RSS feeds, copy-n-paste etc., within it.
Without actual news stories to quote and make fair-use copies from, bloggers would be left to writing about taking their dog to the vet, or how the baby barfed on grandma's shoes, or whatever.
I mean, look at/. - with no stories to link to, we'd all be talking about Linus's latest kernel module, now wouldn't we?
The Demons keeping up with the Monsters. Don't tell the Denon engineers that the most they could do is reduce packet resends. My gawd, a $499 ethernet cable!!
This is just as ridiculous as the absurdist audiophile magazine reviews of CD-Rs, ones that claimed CD-Rs produced noticeably different audio qualities (e.g. "richer, warmer") depending on the manufacturer and materials. Some reviewers claimed the CD-R copy sounded better than the original!
Additionally, signal directional markings are provided for optimum signal transfer.
The plug jackets have silk-screened lines-with-arrowheads, telling the bits which way to flow (both, apparently.) Knew I shoulda patented that brilliant solution for obtaining "optimum signal transfer" years ago.
Amusingly, the words "gold" and "gold-plated" do *not* appear on Denon's catalog page. I'd want at least gold wiring for half a grand. (Half a grand! Are we not rich? Absurd.)
I'm for this 42 day thing myself. Its not as if its a breach of human rights or anything, I mean, we aren't waterboarding them, or locking them away for years without trial....
We are all equally convinced as you that those jailed for the 28 or 42 days will find it an entirely humane experience. Treated with the utmost respect, spoken to only when barristers are present, and so forth. An entirely voluntary process, without any of that messy extraction of information and confession by way of physical coercion... noooo no nono the British would never allow that at all, tsk tsk.
Then you might want to get behind the Read the Laws Act.
Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.
(You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX. Imprisoning Children
Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Are we really to the point where we have to start shutting off hot water heaters because we don't want to re-invest in the electrical infra-structure?
The only reinvestment needed is when your water heater fails, as they do not last forever. Or if you choose to work out the cost-benefit analysis of replacing it with something that doesn't consume energy around the clock, on the off chance you'll want hot water at any moment of the day. Replace it with an updated model that's more energy efficient. The US DOE are promoting newer water heater designs under the Energy Star moniker. You could possibly even put a timer on your heater, shut it down when you depart for work, turn it on an hour before you come home. That alone could save half a day's energy, though I don't know if water heaters handle well having their electric power cycled externally.
In most countries I've spent time in outside the U.S., bathing and kitchen water is heated at the tap, on delivery! "Just in time," a popular term in computer science and business, and operations research. This is just another move towards efficiency, one that benefits consumers, business, and our oh-so-contentious environmental concerns.
Nearly all those countries are also the top economies in their region: Brazil, England, Germany, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands and so on.
I get the impression that most U.S. energy consumers are unwilling to consider making change if it interrupts their perceived convenience, unless a significant arm-twister appears, such as high energy prices. Global warming? Hah, that's just s disproved theory, why should I bother with change? Change is scary. Don't make me leave my warm cocoon!
Now, it looks to me like she was not playing along with the officer's instructions, but was pain compliance by way of electrocution necessary?
Youtube video response to the first vid (skip past the kickboxing footage), demonstrating all kinds of takedown techniques that the cop *could have* used, if only he'd known about them.
Searching for "taser video," I see only a few situations where a taser would be necessary. Here's a near-perfect taser scenario (on the spectrum of what we see in taser videos anyhoo), drunk lady waving a knife at cops! And how do they end the situation? Flying body tackle! Brute-force, whether WWF or NFL influenced who can say, but it did the job! They could've shot her, even, but they did the right thing and ended it quickly. Now, that's bravery.
I hold out hope that one day PDs around the country will get the idea, and stop enabling cops to be pain dispensers, jesus effing christ. That cops can electrocute citizens for extremely minor misdeeds is a black mark on today's public policy. Needs to end. Tasers can be useful in many situations, but now they're being used as a basic compliance tool by police, that's putting judiciary power into the hands of cops. Train to restrain, not dispense pain.
I hear ya, but... nah. They're not there to have a conversation where they try to convince a suspect to obey. You see, they've already decided that the suspect's going into custody! The very next move is to execute that decision - by restraining and cuffing the individual. The suspects knows that's coming, and either complies or resists. A cop's gotta assume the worst, and most importantly protect themselves from harm (and the suspect too), by quickly restraining 'em...
Found a very good takedown training video for both these situations... one of but many methods. You can gain instant cooperation through basic physical coercion tactics. I'd much rather see cops trained for that than issuing them pain-compliance weapons.
I write off the lack of training in the two cops to their apparent locale, one arrest appears to take place in farm country, the other looked suburban. Still, training for all...
"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."
It's the perennial question - how exactly do we exit Iraq? What's your idea? Me, I'm against the war, but I'm not for pulling out hastily. Because, I wonder what will happen... will more people die, will it be as many as the U.S. and its allies have killed already... will there be further ethnic cleansing and displacement of people beyond the millions who've been "invited" to leave their homes, etc.
Obama didn't vote for either Patriot Act or the Iraq War... because he wasn't in office at the time. He did, however, vote *against* reauthorizing the Patriot Act. He's also on the record opposing the Iraq War, though I don't have handy the details of his war appropriations voting record.
Interesting factoid about the Patriot Act: it was passed in a hurry (we all know), and it was presented as legal tools for fighting terrorists. Now, I'd be fine with that, on the face of it - however, DOJ has been heavily promoting it as set of laws (and amendments to existing laws) for fighting crime. Yes, they are promoting to district attorneys etc. using all those bypass-the-constitution-anti-terrorism goodies to inspect the accounts and lives of people who aren't suspected of terrorism.
In other words, the Patriot Act doubles as an end-run around the Constitution for ordinary criminal cases. When I mention this in conversation to folks, many of them say they think this is fine! I don't.
I'd have punched that little bitch in the face too.
Big man, you reveal how helpless you are.
And saying he can't control her, he apparently did.
Go back to the video. He's armlocked her on one side, leaving her other arm to flail, then he's dragging her along, flailing He used the one one and only technique taught to regular U.S. cops, an armlock, which leaves suspects' legs and other arm free to kick and escape.
What we see in the video with the 15-y.o. girl is a cop who isn't interested in just making the arrest - he's screaming for compliance from a stupid, possibly drugged-up kid, and when he doesn't get it, he gets angrier.
That's when he lost - instead of dispassionately going about his business, making the arrest, subduing the suspect if necessary, instead he gets emotionally involved. His job is to transport that girl to a facility where ultimately the justice system deals with her. Instead, he's up for a little punitive action himself.
is the barrier's intervention "the cause of death"?
Nice.. so peace officers are now equivalent to mindless, monolithic slabs of steel and concrete? Highway dividers do not think, they just obey the laws of physics, and react according to their design and construction.
Police officers, on the other hand, are thinking human beings capable of making a variety of decisions, all of which can change the outcome of encounters with "unruly individuals."
But it seems that North American cops are somehow incapable of basic self-defense, unless it involves hardware with a button or a handle on it. In many other parts of the world, "unruly individuals" are subdued using basic grappling and/or martial art skills. Something American police departments seem to have little interest in.
When properly trained in subduing unruly individuals, police officers can change the nature of the confrontation, into a situation they control. The cops in the two sample vids exhibit all the traits of loss of control of the situation: pleading, bullying, ineffective physical control, fear of becoming a victim, and reacting to that with weapons to regain control of what in other hands would be easily controlled individuals. Both lost the element of surprise when they physically engaged the subjects without an apparent goal or outcome in mind, and they both appear to lack basic takedown skills.
But hey, if they can make their jobs easier at the push of a button, why not? That's the American way!
That's funny - guess I'd gotten the idea that the particular screeching whine produced by the freight lines that transit the Hudson River's west bank, north/south, were turbine. Might be something from one of those neato-whiz-bang technology books my pops gave me when I was a kid.
And, somehow I'd thought there was an engine design convergence, where it was understood that turbines were more energy-efficient than piston engines...
See kids, this is what happens when you spend all your days on the receiving end of information, rather than the observation and info-gathering end. =)
Eh. For what it's worth, Stephenson's books are all about the trip, not the final destination. That last 1/3rd of Cryptonomicon is worth the read, much interesting and fun stuff happens. That's why you read a Stephenson novel, to enjoy his story-telling and insights about technology and people. Get back to it!
Slashdot Mirror
Points off on the original /. poster (the brown guy), for transforming this idle (and somewhat unprofessional, plus obviously not verified) speculation on the part of the article's author--
Into a concrete fact not appearing in the linked article, by way of assertion--
So, from idle speculation to full-on fact, huh.
Perhaps, but...
Most business executives don't need to understand the GPL, because their employees are simply end-users of FOSS, probably unbeknownst to them. Maybe they've run a datacenter, and are peripherally aware of the software it runs ("That's the Linux thing, isn't it? Supposed to be cheaper?")
But what if you want a warranty with that? Contract for support with a support house or consulting group, which is what big corporations do when buying software-with-services, they tie it to an SLA.
This I kind of agree with, although there are many loose affiliations and some professionalized associations within the community. In one sense, FOSS is just another market, defined by the "free and open" attributes, rather than "pay and proprietary." What executives are used to, and what FOSS provides, are sometimes mutually exclusive when it comes to support, but not always.
That's where companies like Redhat try to bridge the gap, producing FOSSy products and offering support contracts, SLAs, etc.
But I think this might miss your point - are you talking about software company executives?
Such as?
This appears to be a dimly expressed echo of that stupid FUD equation, FOSS == communism, and therefore is not compatible with business. I'll tell you now, each and every major corporation I've worked for, beginning in the mid 90s, have *knowingly* employed open source software, and reaped benefit from it.
And even if the personal politics of individual FOSS project contributors were anti-corporate, anti-capitalism - so what? Give us an example of such a situation where a business's customers pulled a contract or something, based upon the use of FOSS.
Stop repeating FUD, particularly when it's obvious you haven't thought about what you're repeating.
And if you had even a hint of respect for political discourse, beyond relishing ad-hoc attack and unsupported assertion, you'd have actually provided verifiable information to back up your claim.
The United States got involved in the Middle East at least as early as the 1950s. The Marines intervened in Lebanon, and we threatened Iraq with nuclear attack if they proceeded with invading Kuwait. 1958-59 IIRC (not 1991 or 2003.)
And, on the very off chance that you'll bite, would you provide your definition of "breeding ground for terrorists," and some specific history to back it up? I'm slightly curious to see if you have any actual knowledge, beyond the present-day rhetorical soundbite patterns you've already regurgitated.
Oh yes, it is terribly, terribly romantic to be shot up by soldiers who don't understand what the FUCK you're saying, who can't tell a merchant from an insurgent, and to be swept from your homes by the millions. Do American soldiers have any clue why they're really there, beyond propaganda fed to them? What's the real motivation of your great, fearless leader to put you there, given that he lied to get you there in the first place?
Fucking rightards, can't see past their lovely romance with war to even be bothered with body counts. You never have to worry about the full cost of war when you can't be bothered to do the accounting.
And these aren't democracies, they're sock puppet governments run by the U.S. Take a close look at the negotiations currently under way to keep nearly 100 American military bases in Iraq. The Bush administration is coercing the Iraqis by withholding tens of billions of dollars, unless they capitulate to ENDLESS OCCUPATION, complete with full impunity for soldiers to continue killing without remorse or repercussion. Just like Bush senior did by starting an invasion just before turning over the White House keys to Clinton, Bush junior is preparing to do the same for Obama.
Kzzzzhht! "We apologize for this unscheduled brainwashing interruption ... back to spreading 'peace and freedom' throughout the Middle East."
Your points are excellent, and I concede overstating my case, mainly to make the point about quality of content. Groklaw: yes, quite good, and there are many top shelf blogs like it.
AP, NYT, WP etc: generalists with the resources to focus on many issues, some in detail. The top-quality blogs seem to be dedicated to specific issue(s), and some do it quite well, no argument here.
Interestingly, NYT seem to be trying to straddle that divide, they're adding blogs to nytimes.com at a steady rate. However, their business model is still predicated upon selling information imprinted upon dead tree pulp; one can only hope that news organizations with that kind of reach and resources can make the transition to the internet - without imploding and losing their market. NYT the paper has 1.1-1.5 million subscribers, depending on weekly vs Sunday; their website, I hear, gets ~15 million uniques per month. Yet, the paper delivers most of the revenue, and still yet, the website is profitable while the paper is not. Transitional times for news orgs, I guess.
Heheh - that's the difference between traditional news media and blogging, it's the original research. Libraries, courtrooms, interviews, criminal defendents (not talking DMCA takedown letter recipients here), and so on.
Not that bloggers can't do those things, just it seems the vast majority aren't. Plus, newspapers have vaster resources - libraries of their own, reporters, interns, editors to vet your work, etc.
Maybe if bloggers banded together, to research specific stories, and shared the... shared the... oh, yeah, that's where bloggers and trad news media *are* alike, everybody wants the scoop, nobody wants to share. Except, of course, when it's something you weren't intently researching, in which case you write a post that links to the blogger who linked to the blogger who linked to the blogger who ... linked to NYT, or WashPost or whoever. Heh.
And that would be great! That *should* be the natural progression, towards more independent media. You'd think we're there, technically, and ad-wise.
I mean, would Google or Yahoo or one of the blog ad networks be more likely, or less likely, to pull ads because you're writing a story that might piss off some advertisers? I'd think it'd be less likely, which would be the ideal outcome anyways.
An RSS feed delivers summaries of news stories. To create those stories, somebody was paid to go out (outside - you know, leave the computer and keyboard behind?) and gather news and photos. That's qualitatively different than delivering an XML feed, wouldn't you say?
The blogosphere is largely an echo chamber, with no voice (i.e. reportage) of its own. No voice, no echo, no blogosphere... get it? Original news reporting happens outside that sphere, then it gets repeated, via RSS feeds, copy-n-paste etc., within it.
Without actual news stories to quote and make fair-use copies from, bloggers would be left to writing about taking their dog to the vet, or how the baby barfed on grandma's shoes, or whatever.
I mean, look at /. - with no stories to link to, we'd all be talking about Linus's latest kernel module, now wouldn't we?
The Demons keeping up with the Monsters. Don't tell the Denon engineers that the most they could do is reduce packet resends. My gawd, a $499 ethernet cable!!
This is just as ridiculous as the absurdist audiophile magazine reviews of CD-Rs, ones that claimed CD-Rs produced noticeably different audio qualities (e.g. "richer, warmer") depending on the manufacturer and materials. Some reviewers claimed the CD-R copy sounded better than the original!
The plug jackets have silk-screened lines-with-arrowheads, telling the bits which way to flow (both, apparently.) Knew I shoulda patented that brilliant solution for obtaining "optimum signal transfer" years ago.
Amusingly, the words "gold" and "gold-plated" do *not* appear on Denon's catalog page. I'd want at least gold wiring for half a grand. (Half a grand! Are we not rich? Absurd.)
We are all equally convinced as you that those jailed for the 28 or 42 days will find it an entirely humane experience. Treated with the utmost respect, spoken to only when barristers are present, and so forth. An entirely voluntary process, without any of that messy extraction of information and confession by way of physical coercion... noooo no nono the British would never allow that at all, tsk tsk.
Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.
(You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX. Imprisoning Children
Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII. Repe
The only reinvestment needed is when your water heater fails, as they do not last forever. Or if you choose to work out the cost-benefit analysis of replacing it with something that doesn't consume energy around the clock, on the off chance you'll want hot water at any moment of the day. Replace it with an updated model that's more energy efficient. The US DOE are promoting newer water heater designs under the Energy Star moniker. You could possibly even put a timer on your heater, shut it down when you depart for work, turn it on an hour before you come home. That alone could save half a day's energy, though I don't know if water heaters handle well having their electric power cycled externally.
In most countries I've spent time in outside the U.S., bathing and kitchen water is heated at the tap, on delivery! "Just in time," a popular term in computer science and business, and operations research. This is just another move towards efficiency, one that benefits consumers, business, and our oh-so-contentious environmental concerns.
Nearly all those countries are also the top economies in their region: Brazil, England, Germany, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands and so on.
Delivered energy is obviously in high demand today, thanks to our growing population and energy demands, and also thanks to the so-called market economy; even when demand is met, prices are still quite high. Here in the U.S., our energy prices are quite low relative to the rest of the world (from US DOE historical energy price tables. For an eye-opener, compare U.S. gasoline prices with some major Western European economies.
I get the impression that most U.S. energy consumers are unwilling to consider making change if it interrupts their perceived convenience, unless a significant arm-twister appears, such as high energy prices. Global warming? Hah, that's just s disproved theory, why should I bother with change? Change is scary. Don't make me leave my warm cocoon!
Check this, the perfect pair of videos to demonstrate how cops are adopting pain-compliance weapons rather than physically restraining arrestees:
- Cop tasers black-bloc protester at a Philly political rally. How brave, the cop.
Now, it looks to me like she was not playing along with the officer's instructions, but was pain compliance by way of electrocution necessary?
Youtube video response to the first vid (skip past the kickboxing footage), demonstrating all kinds of takedown techniques that the cop *could have* used, if only he'd known about them.
Searching for "taser video," I see only a few situations where a taser would be necessary. Here's a near-perfect taser scenario (on the spectrum of what we see in taser videos anyhoo), drunk lady waving a knife at cops! And how do they end the situation? Flying body tackle! Brute-force, whether WWF or NFL influenced who can say, but it did the job! They could've shot her, even, but they did the right thing and ended it quickly. Now, that's bravery.
I hold out hope that one day PDs around the country will get the idea, and stop enabling cops to be pain dispensers, jesus effing christ. That cops can electrocute citizens for extremely minor misdeeds is a black mark on today's public policy. Needs to end. Tasers can be useful in many situations, but now they're being used as a basic compliance tool by police, that's putting judiciary power into the hands of cops. Train to restrain, not dispense pain.
I hear ya, but... nah. They're not there to have a conversation where they try to convince a suspect to obey. You see, they've already decided that the suspect's going into custody! The very next move is to execute that decision - by restraining and cuffing the individual. The suspects knows that's coming, and either complies or resists. A cop's gotta assume the worst, and most importantly protect themselves from harm (and the suspect too), by quickly restraining 'em...
Found a very good takedown training video for both these situations... one of but many methods. You can gain instant cooperation through basic physical coercion tactics. I'd much rather see cops trained for that than issuing them pain-compliance weapons.
I write off the lack of training in the two cops to their apparent locale, one arrest appears to take place in farm country, the other looked suburban. Still, training for all...
Heh, that's funny. Thanks for the link!
Yup, I got it wrong - it was Kucinich who voted against both. I misread a blog post summarizing Obama's floor speech on Patriot Act.
It's the perennial question - how exactly do we exit Iraq? What's your idea? Me, I'm against the war, but I'm not for pulling out hastily. Because, I wonder what will happen... will more people die, will it be as many as the U.S. and its allies have killed already ... will there be further ethnic cleansing and displacement of people beyond the millions who've been "invited" to leave their homes, etc.
Help me Obi Wan.
Obama didn't vote for either Patriot Act or the Iraq War ... because he wasn't in office at the time. He did, however, vote *against* reauthorizing the Patriot Act. He's also on the record opposing the Iraq War, though I don't have handy the details of his war appropriations voting record.
Interesting factoid about the Patriot Act: it was passed in a hurry (we all know), and it was presented as legal tools for fighting terrorists. Now, I'd be fine with that, on the face of it - however, DOJ has been heavily promoting it as set of laws (and amendments to existing laws) for fighting crime. Yes, they are promoting to district attorneys etc. using all those bypass-the-constitution-anti-terrorism goodies to inspect the accounts and lives of people who aren't suspected of terrorism.
In other words, the Patriot Act doubles as an end-run around the Constitution for ordinary criminal cases. When I mention this in conversation to folks, many of them say they think this is fine! I don't.
Big man, you reveal how helpless you are.
Go back to the video. He's armlocked her on one side, leaving her other arm to flail, then he's dragging her along, flailing He used the one one and only technique taught to regular U.S. cops, an armlock, which leaves suspects' legs and other arm free to kick and escape.
What we see in the video with the 15-y.o. girl is a cop who isn't interested in just making the arrest - he's screaming for compliance from a stupid, possibly drugged-up kid, and when he doesn't get it, he gets angrier.
That's when he lost - instead of dispassionately going about his business, making the arrest, subduing the suspect if necessary, instead he gets emotionally involved. His job is to transport that girl to a facility where ultimately the justice system deals with her. Instead, he's up for a little punitive action himself.
Nice.. so peace officers are now equivalent to mindless, monolithic slabs of steel and concrete? Highway dividers do not think, they just obey the laws of physics, and react according to their design and construction.
Police officers, on the other hand, are thinking human beings capable of making a variety of decisions, all of which can change the outcome of encounters with "unruly individuals."
But it seems that North American cops are somehow incapable of basic self-defense, unless it involves hardware with a button or a handle on it. In many other parts of the world, "unruly individuals" are subdued using basic grappling and/or martial art skills. Something American police departments seem to have little interest in.
Check out this cop trying to arrest an unruly individual, drunk or on drugs. This officer obviously has no idea how to take control of a suspect, drunk or sober.
This cop can't even control a 90lb 15-year old girl! Then he pepper-sprays her just to show who the boss is. Unbelievable!
Compare and contrast with some of the many grappling techniques available for police officers to learn.
When properly trained in subduing unruly individuals, police officers can change the nature of the confrontation, into a situation they control. The cops in the two sample vids exhibit all the traits of loss of control of the situation: pleading, bullying, ineffective physical control, fear of becoming a victim, and reacting to that with weapons to regain control of what in other hands would be easily controlled individuals. Both lost the element of surprise when they physically engaged the subjects without an apparent goal or outcome in mind, and they both appear to lack basic takedown skills.
But hey, if they can make their jobs easier at the push of a button, why not? That's the American way!
That's funny - guess I'd gotten the idea that the particular screeching whine produced by the freight lines that transit the Hudson River's west bank, north/south, were turbine. Might be something from one of those neato-whiz-bang technology books my pops gave me when I was a kid.
And, somehow I'd thought there was an engine design convergence, where it was understood that turbines were more energy-efficient than piston engines...
See kids, this is what happens when you spend all your days on the receiving end of information, rather than the observation and info-gathering end. =)
Thanks for the clues.
That's funny, most freight train engines I've met are turbine powered. Where you seeing piston diesels these days, besides passenger lines?
Not to mention the hilarious NYTimes Star Wars essay Stephenson wrote when Episode 3 came out.
Eh. For what it's worth, Stephenson's books are all about the trip, not the final destination. That last 1/3rd of Cryptonomicon is worth the read, much interesting and fun stuff happens. That's why you read a Stephenson novel, to enjoy his story-telling and insights about technology and people. Get back to it!