I don't understand the left-wing argument that Bush has "alienated" the rest of the world by invading Iraq. This claim seems to have no basis in fact.

Liberals generally agree (amongst themselves) that Bill Clinton was "loved" around the world. However, when Clinton pulled the troops out of Somalia, Bin Laden did not observe, "These Americans do not want to upset us, so they are leaving!" he said, "The US is a paper tiger" (Or as they say in Tex-ass, "All hat no cattle.")

Both the old soviets and the islamofascists respect only brute force. Any attempt at empathy or compromise is derided as weakness. It has nothing to do with what the USA did or didn't do, it's part of their culture to despise what they see as weakness.

Bill Clinton not only failed to provide for national defense, he was viewed as weak and naive by failing to answer any of the minor-by-comparison terrorist attacks against the USA during his slovenly reign leading up to 9-11-2001, which was planned in 1995.

Let me add that for whatever it was worth, Clinton did sincerely try to broker peace agreements throughout the 1990s. Any positive results? None that matter now. He had to learn the hard way what conservatives already know.

Clark can babble all he likes. If he knows McCain at all, he knows America's enemies fear him. If he's honest with himself, he also knows they don't fear Obama. At all.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
People, wake up. The democrats are just as much part of the problem as the repiblicans are. Your two-party bullshit is blurring your vision, seriously. Blame the republicans for making it happen and the democrats for letting it happen.

People love to say "it's both parties, really!"

Democrats aren't guiltless, but when one party uses deceit, and then later brute political force to enact a series of radical and destructive policies that turn a balanced budget, growing middle class, peace, and global respect into huge deficits, a vanishing middle class, endless war, and near universal scorn, we shouldn't say "well, they're both equally at fault."

There will be a lot of effort to unseat the Democrats who continue to acquiesce to unilateral war, or violations of civil rights, coming from the party activists.

There were no dissenting Republican senators, and a very few in the House. Many Republicans in both houses are unrepentant still, and proudly proclaim the wondrous success the last 8 years have been. Their party activists strongly encourage this, and curse McCain for what small moderation he's had in the past.

We do need to change the two party system, but given where we are today, throwing up your hands and saying "both parties suck" doesn't seem like a very sound strategy for making things better.

Brute Force FTW

this is a great, spot-on documentary and even the general pop. not just the interrogations cadets need this kind of eye-opener. I really hope it makes it to the top of #15. instant upvote from me (and yes, you should, too)!

*edit* by the way, regarding the second part, did anybody see the previous Lost episode (yes, I know I'm not getting any respect now that I've confessed I'm still watching it, but whatever)? Is it possible the producers realized the effect from over-stylization of torture and decided to use Sayid (SPOILERS follow) in this covert-relationship "interrogation", rather than just have him use brute force? I'd certainly like to think so.

There is never a good reason to do a Bubble Sort. The only reason anyone ever learns it is because it is used as an "easy" introduction to writing algorithms in Computer Science 101 courses. Bubble Sort just happens to be a brute-force method that mimics the way some people would manually sort a random list of integers given unlimited time and paper. At the very least, for a O(n^2) algorithm, you can go with Insertion Sort which is guaranteed to perform faster or equal given the same data set, with the same amount of memory usage.

As for the actual algorithm that would be used, Quicksort is probably the most obvious choice, although they did not specify what their sorting goal was, so "It depends." is probably a fine answer.

Personally, I haven't had any trouble with the police. If I've ever been stopped by an officer for a traffic violation, I have *mostly* been treated politely, and have even been cut a few breaks.

That being said, I know at least 15 people who have been abused by the police. The abuse ranges from harassment to assault to even falsifying evidence. A friend of mine was beaten to a pulp and had pepper spray rubbed in his eyes with someones thumbs simply because he refused to comply with an order to remove his pants.

Trying to generalize every cop is stupid, but it's also stupid to ignore the abuse of power which seems to happen in every police department across the country. Personally, I think it is reaching epidemic proportions. You have these poorly trained, uneducated, and completely immature personalities running around town, armed to the teeth, just completely ego tripping.

There is basically no oversight, because cop loyalty is almost like mafia loyalty; a kind of brotherhood where the righteousness of defending the law becomes a license to do whatever you want, as how could a defender of the law be wrong about anything? Of course they always have the best of intentions. The only time any action is taken is when something was caught on film like this video, and there is a public outcry.

You have the reports of widespread racism in the bigger cities, which is really one of the biggest reasons for the distrust blacks have for white culture. You have the continuing militarization of the police where no force is quite brute enough, and no civil liberties go unviolated. You have things like the drug war or even speeding tickets which are perpetuated in the name of money and money alone, where cops are highly motivated to ruin your life to secure another dollar for the department.

Clearly there are a lot of problems here. Almost everyone I know has either been abused by the police, or know someone that has, and these are decent and moral people I am referring to. I think that saying "Fuck the Police" is justifiable these days. Don't get me wrong, I know cops do a lot of good.. we just can't simply have this blind, pseudo-patriotism where because cops are the defenders of freedom that they should get a free pass for everything. Why? Because that is exactly the attitude which allows this corruption to go on in the first place.

Bottom line: No one should have that kind of power without strenuous oversight and complete accountability.

I think requeues are used entirely too much by a lot of people. Personally I think it should be limited to once per video. It defeats the point of sift if you can just brute force a video out of the queue.

jwray:

Alright, write an intelligence survival simulation for BOINC, and convince a few thousand people to run it on spare processor cycles. Given that it appears that abstract cognition only evolved once on this planet over a few billion years I think you will find that your simulation will produce very little in your lifetime, unless you strongly bound your selection criteria, which is what AI researchers do.

Cognition is the consequence of a particular grouping of solutions to smaller problems, the human brain is a composite organ, each part does its own thing, working together they solve problems. Modeling one part gets us closer to a working human brain simulator. Perhaps this simulator is not possible with the technology we are using, and perhaps it is not a very efficient way to solve the problem (AIs would have little need of most of our biological heritage).

While I do agree that artificial selection is useful, and is used for fine tuning of algorithms, the solution you propose may never be computationally feasible, and is not efficient. We do have brains that can find patterns faster then brute force, which is how evolution does it, it makes little sense to use a computer to do something it does poorly, when we have brains that do these things well. That argument can also be made against AI in general, but if we are ever going to build functional AIs the human brain still has the best shot at success.

Its a real easy fix - have all the code published under the GNU - as long as they can prove that the machine has not been tampered, GNU linux box, BIG encryption to identify itself (so it would take too long to brute force)

strip the OS down to the minimum it needs to survive.

Doc_M,

You really take John Bolton's views on foreign policy seriously?

There was no deal struck with Iran, the Bush administration has always maintained a policy of not engaging people they deem terrorists in diplomatic relations, the EU has been on the other hand negotiating. Which is the stupid way to project regional influence.

Saddam did not have WMDs at the outset of the invasion of Iraq, that is a fallacious lie spread by pro-war Bushies, no one listened to Hans Blix or Mohamed ElBaradei when both stated that Iraq had no weapons of WMD in 2003, both were dragged through the mud in the media. Look at Iraq war and it's lack of WMDs.

Mohamed ElBaradei again stated that Iran has no active nuclear program a couple of years back, again his name was dragged through the mud. The CIA now states itself that there is no nuclear program in Iran.

US friends to survive? You do realize that every international supporter of the current incursion in Iraq has lost their re-election campaign? UK, Spain, Australia...

The USA should be a chess player not a brute when it comes to power projection and influence.

I watch Russian television on regular basis and keep informed via their press, over the last few years you saw a systematic propaganda movement to convince the Russian population of the same things that are hit within this documentary, that service in Russia is to "Land, Church and Tsar" or specifically the former KGB cronies who now occupy all government posts headed by Putin within the Kremlin. The stability most people talk about is not stability, its fear and respect to the old ways of Russian control much the same way that has been ingrained in the population over 100 years of centralized soviet communist and previous to that Tsar rule.

There is no tradition of peaceful power passage within the Russian government, because for Russians the modus operandi has been either revolt or submission. But its very simplistic to assume that it's what Russian want or understand much in the same way it was simplistic for the Neo-cons to assume that Arabs only understand brute force.

They have not been informed or given the opportunity to see that there are other choices beyond Putin or even Yeltsin, who after a disastrous first term was elected for a second term. The press apparatus was ineffective in informing the citizens that there was another choice, and now has been wholly seized by the state, thus you see the development of anti-western rhetoric that even Legacy employs, that Kasparov and other democratic parties are 'super-western'. It's merely a revival of the age old Soviet stance of 'enemies aboard', 'western intervention' and so on, but merely is a guise for assumption of totalitarian power, much in the same way 'war on terror' and fear mongering tactics were used by the White house to justify intervention into Iraq and the dismantling of key civil liberties.

When Yeltsin assumed power it was recommended to him that he disband the KGB and former secret service apparatus, but he did not take these steps, and over the years the KGB reformed as the FSB encroached on more positions of power and control within the government. Year on year the number of high positions held by former members of the KGB/FSB increased, far in excess of even the times of Gorbachev and the USSR.

Electroal laws have been changed to create a perpetual one party state under "United Russia" - from Putin machine squeezes opponents

* Increasing the minimum percentage of votes required for a party to enter parliament from 5% to 7% and banning parties from forming coalitions in order to break through the higher threshold

* Increasing the minimum number of members a party must have in order to be officially registered by the authorities, from 10,000 to 50,000

* Banning independent candidates from running for parliament.

Russians know this and voice their views, the economic success that so many people tout as being Putins are not his really, it was merely the time when benefits of centralized market systems moving into free market reforms completed laid in by Yeltsin, and of course the benefit of high oil prices and gas prices. All development has been concentrated in Moscow, travel to the rural areas and you instantly start to wonder what had changed from 1991 other then the abundance of mobile phones.

History shows that for totalitarian rulers to come into power require the convergence of time and opportunity, and this is Putin's time, over the last 6 years he has successfully dismantled any way of opposing him, and centralized power under himself, the election that is taking place is already called he will become prime minister, the population lulled while the engine of economy purrs well seemingly, but once the oil boom stops, food prices locks are removed and the population will start to revolt against their leader, there is no doubt in my mind that Putin will use whatever means necessary to suppress the population citing western intervention, orange revolution and using the secret police that even now are breaking up opposition demonstrations.

Oh my god, can people stop labeling every damn video as fake?!? Is this some stupid in-joke that I don't understand? How much more real does it need to be? It's on multiple news sites with a congruent story spanning 2-3 years. STFU already. Can't you accept that surprising things happen outside of your bedroom? This isn't even that surprising. Some cop is a dick and threatens to make up charges against someone under the age of 25 who he assumes is too young to know any better. SHOCKING.

(OK. rant finished. onward and upward)

i think his issue is twofold. one, yes, the kid has a chip on his shoulder after being assaulted by an off duty cop. he is slightly combatant, but not aggressively. but i think his major issue is that he feels that he has a right to privacy, which is something that we as a society, IMO, are releasing without a fight. in both incidents, cops ask him what he's doing, where he's going, etc. when he isn't doing anything out of the ordinary. (i don't see stopping in a parking lot as strange. if i'm tired, or need to pull over for a few minutes, and there's a parking lot, well why wouldn't i pull in?)

so he is taking his stand by refusing to discuss his personal life with people of authority, simply because they enforce the law. your upholding the law does not entitle you to know where i am going just because i'm walking down the street and you happen to see me. if i'm walking down the street with a gun, sure, you totally have a reason to ask me where i'm going. but if i stop my car in a parking lot, don't ask me why i stopped there. i parked in a parking lot. that is not headline material. "Guy parks in parking lot. Also washes hands in sink and reads in library. Arraignment scheduled for 9/24." the why of it is inconsequential.

the same happens in the incident where he is asked to get out of the car at the checkpoint.
"where you headed tonight?" (a reasonable question. a lot of people will openly discuss their plans. those that don't wish to are often intimidated enough by cops to blabber out what they're up to, eager to prove that they are guilty of no wrong doing.)
"i don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer." (a completely reasonable response. you asked a question that i am uncomfortable answering. it has no bearing on our current situation, which essentially involves you making sure that i'm sober. i will not be stripped of my right to privacy simply because you're wearing a badge.)
"Alright. Come on up here. As a matter of fact, just stop your car right here and step out."(the cop's first question is actually him asserting his power in the situation. he asks questions. you answer those questions. any deviation from this script and many officers don't know how to react.)

that, i feel, is the major issue. police officers don't know how to react when this happens. i believe it is lack of training coupled with erratic behavior from cops. officers are afraid of losing their power in any situation. if you defy the slightest order or refuse to answer the most inconsequential question, they become immediately fearful and frequently turn to brute force to get you back into line.

* Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
* Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion."
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it."
* On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him."

* Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ."
* In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess."
* On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead.
* The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
* As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous."
* The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
* What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs."
* The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated."
* "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next."
* Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
* "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."

Punk kids will think better next time. That's all today's pathetic and disgruntled youth understand-- brute force.

i was disappointed with the show, basically these guys are just brute force smash-and-grab thugs rather than "thieves". Unless you're willing to live in an armored fortress there's no useful preventative security measures that you can learn from watching them. Basically they just bash their way in thru the nearest entrance in broad daylight, quickly grab stuff and then take off before police can respond.