True, but the charges rarely go UP in severity from cop to DA, they go down. The cops usually charge the worst they can, the DA charges what's possible to convict on. In this case as I read it, the cops charged him with the lesser crimes, indicating even they didn't think he was being violent in the previous crimes (excepting arson).

It depends on what they tried, when, and how. If they reasonably try to diffuse a situation rather than escalate it, I will always support them, no matter the outcome. I rarely see or hear of cops trying that anymore, today it's all about using force to gain absolute control at any cost, IMO.

Because they ALL seem to stand with the obvious criminals, I can reasonably paint them all with one color until that situation changes. The few exceptions to that rule are becoming fewer and farther between, with a quieter voice than previously, usually silent. In my mind, that makes them all accessories after the fact to whatever crime the cop they support committed, a charge they must defend themselves from with evidence they did their best to stop/arrest/charge the offending cops (not hyperbole, not baseless statements, not "if" (something untrue) "then they're justified" logic) showing that I'm wrong if they wish to change my mind.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)

Sad.
You are supposed to be the protectors of the public, but you seem to think it's proper to live in fear of and disgust with them.
I was taught, and it has held true, that the best way to win a fight is not to be in one. I have won many a 'fight' in my youth by being LESS violent than the person assaulting me, sometimes with words diffusing the situation, sometimes by simply avoiding their clumsy attacks and allowing them to hurt themselves. Escalating the violence is almost never the best option, just the simplest and most reactionary.
Those times I 'lost' a fight (only happened with my brother who was twice my size, unavoidable, and I couldn't talk down), I could have become more violent to 'win' and saved myself from discomfort and injury by stabbing him...that would have been inappropriate. To me, from your comments you would have knifed him, because winning is more important than anything else. That theory sucks ass, and I think you know it.
OK, if "all too many cops" is hyperbole, I'll say "nearly every cop on the force"...better? Both are true, both are terrible. Show me just 3 instances of cops going against other cops publicly and in court, and remaining cops. You can't. That's "All too many" to almost everyone that's not in uniform.

My wife was a teacher at a middle school where several teachers were assaulted (pushed, punched, etc.) yearly and there were almost daily fights between students--no exaggeration. School policy is that teachers can't touch the kids for any reason, even to break up fights where one student is kicking another on the ground, due to threats of lawsuits in such cases. The police officer is there mostly to diffuse/stop such instances because they are allowed to get physically involved. They are also on hand to file charges against threats of assault, rape, or when drugs are found.

And this is all at a middle school where the kids range in size from pre-pubescent four footers to early-bloomer six foot plus and much larger than some of their female teachers.

The efficacy of this is obviously influenced by the individual cop, the school administration and how the students and their parents view police in general.

I did watch the video. I didn't hear any threats. Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

There were the two persistent guys. Although I think that had more to do with her acting. They were doing the equivalent of fucking with buckingham palace guards. It was obvious she was doing the silent shtick far beyond what's reasonable. In a real situation that would be diffused with two words, "fuck off."

We describe good etiquette as "classy." Why do you suppose that is?

IMO we should all be forced to acknowledge the riffraff here and there.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

Thought you would appreciate just how epic this CS diffuse is
http://videosift.com/video/Best-Counter-Strike-ninja-defuse-ever

That Deus Ex environment was excellent !

re: these environments, the diffuse light is PRE-CALCULATED.
Only reflections are done on the fly, and some shadows.
Even then there may be reflection maps used.

My point is that, yes, it's a tough situation, but maybe screaming at someone while pointing a gun at them is not the way to diffuse it.

Reality is not black and white. It's complicated.

Maybe if they'd gotten out of the car and said "what seems to be the problem here?" the whole thing might have gone down differently. Instead they went in gung ho and 20 seconds later, the guy is dead.

But you're right, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Will be interesting to see what the inquest says.

For anyone wondering like I was, it costs $325.00 USD [discounted pre-order]

(From thepixelstick.com)
Pre-order pixelstick

$325 - Click Add to cart below to pre-order pixelstick at a reduced price, for June 2014 delivery. Contact Bitbanger Labs at any time if you wish to cancel your pre-order.

Full kit includes:

- LED PCBs (200 LEDs total)
- Two 3’ aluminum extrusion
- Connecting bracket
- Diffusion lens
- Handle with foam grip and rotating sleeve
- Controller box with connecting cables and clips
- Battery holder (AA Batteries not included)
- Carry bag

What they meant by this is to use all power available. They got 100l of fuel to go full 1½h race. The fuel flow is limited to 100l/h. That means they need to use around 67l/h on average, this of course decreases during braking and is almost at max during acceleration. Also energy recovery and the release of that energy has some leeway to be used in different ratios, it is limited to 33s per lap. How that energy is divided, is up to the team.. So they will have the full boost of 160hp from ERS and full 100l/h fuel flow when using "push to pass" button but it's nowhere near the common definition of that function. Traditional push to pass is high boost, on 2014 F1 it means few percentages of power. The correct term would be "overtake mode".

RBR infringed fuel flow rule and no other team had been even warned, FIA has guidelines that teams should calibrate with enough margins to void minor differences between sensors. RBR refused to do this and counted on FIA not counting that marginal change. FIA had stated pre-season that in no case there will be extra fuel flow allowed, it's almost zero tolerance policy.

They've done this before, made a marginal rule infringement and got away with Charlie Whitings slap on the wrist:"change it to the next race".. Their camera mountings is already one of those little things that is technically legal and at the same is not.. It all depends if the TV crews can find a suitable camera. If they say "no", the rules are clear: they need unobstructed view.. That small hole hardly allow high quality picture, the only lens that could even remotely suffice is fisheye lens with a mask: it is not their standard equipment.. RBR most likely will have to change those too (imho, so should merc camera pods and mclaren parachutes too). Compare that to Williams 360 camera pod and it's pretty clear what FIA means by "enough room to fit camera" means.

Last year they had holes on the floor in monaco: ruling was, change them to the next race.. Then there was the TC scandal, RBR used illegal engine mappings.. They used them last year too when there was a ban of feeding fuel to exhaust during zero throttle to feed the blown diffuser: RBR chuckled and used them anyway.. They still have the duct inside the nose, it violates the intention of the rule but is legal technically. Of course the severity of the punishment is a clear sign: FIA just showed that no more of that bullshit, RBR has to start respecting rules.

Ya, all through this I kept imagining her singing a SLOWER version, Jessica Rabbit gown, dark smokey bar (fog machine, gotta protect that voice), single diffuse spotlight, and got the shivers.

Needs a better video. How's this different in principle from a diffuser or nozzle (really asking, don't know)?

The roads have a capacity.
~15 feet per car.

100 feet of road will fit about 6 or 7 cars, bumper to bumper.
Alternatively, 100 cars will require 1500 feet of distance to fit.

If a driver keeps 30 feet in front of him, at all times, even when stopped in traffic, then that takes the total per-car size up to 45 feet.
100 feet of road now fits 2 cars.
100 cars now require 4500 feet of distance to fit.

The greater the distance kept between cars, the bigger the strain on road capacity, and the farther back the traffic jam will stretch.



Traffic jams in massive commuter areas do not exist because people are driving too close.

They exist because the rate of people entering the highway exceeds the rate of people exiting the highway, for a long enough duration that the highway 'runs out of room' to fit the cars.

You can widen the roads to increase capacity, so the traffic jam doesn't go as far back.
You can increase highway speed limits, so that people can attempt to 'evacuate' the highway faster.

(Travel-capacity in terms of cars-per-second of any given section of road, is 'cars-per-second-per-lane x number-of-lanes'. Increasing either factor will improve travel.)

...But you can't eliminate the jam.

The rate of 'highway exit' is determined by the number of exits, and the capacity of the exit roads to absorb traffic from the highway.

When people exit from a highway, they usually go into local traffic, and are met by a light within 100 feet.
Between the lights, and other cars looking for parking spots, pedestrians, etc, local traffic is a dog.

Highway traffic can't diffuse out of the exits fast enough, and the traffic backs up on the exit ramps, and then backs up onto the highway. Once the traffic backs up onto the highway, exiting traffic consumes a lane for queuing, which forms a choke.


Basically, to avoid a jam, the rate of people entering the highway can not exceed the maximum possible rate of people exiting and diffusing into the destination city.

Because 'everyone goes to work at once', and local traffic is not geared to rapidly absorb exiting traffic, the jams are unavoidable.

Driving with a massive space in front, refusing to fill in the gap, only uses up the highway's buffering capacity more quickly.
That leads to the 'complete' jam happening sooner, where traffic is queued all the way from the destination, all down the highway, and onto the feeder roads miles away, blocking local traffic elsewhere.




IMO, if people really care abut stopping traffic jams, they should put a commuter parking lot at every exit at major commuter areas.

When you exit off of the highway, you would immediately wind your way through a parking lot, and at the other end of the lot you would exit into local traffic.

The parking lot acts as a buffer, allowing the highway exit lane to not get backed up, and prevents the queue from building up onto the highway.

That way the traffic on the highway can travel without chokes.

Although, this would just move the "parking lot" occurring on the highway, into a literal parking lot. You'd still be stuck waiting a while, as the rate of people exiting the parking lot into local traffic would still be limited by the rate at which local traffic can absorb the highway traffic.

Basically, to have literally no waiting, the city streets absorbing exiting highway traffic need the same uninterrupted cumulative bandwidth as the highway.

In the end, if you want to fix highway traffic jams, fix city streets.




You can make the argument that keeping more space in front will make people more comfortable with driving faster, and traffic will move faster.
But, that faster moving traffic will merely more quickly arrive at the same clogged exit, and queue with the same other cars waiting to get onto the local roads.

-scheherazade

@bcglorf

i did not posit drones are bad.
i didnt posit anything actually,except to refrain from the conversation entirely.
(our government,not you or i).

you or i can discuss ad nauseum and would have every right to.
we can and many do actually volunteer their time to help those in need,helpless or hurt.
some very brave souls travel to these broken countries to help ease the suffering of ordinary folk.

and you already know my answer to your query.
diplomacy is the only resolution and the reason is twofold:
1.diplomatic talks almost always are started with a cease and desist of all aggression.
2.it allows a multilateral approach therefore diffusing the hypocrisy i spoke about.

many people in this country are reluctant to look at what their own government has perpetrated in their name.
maybe out of fear...or pride.
but in my opinion any real conversation has to begin with absolute truth.

so by my vicious criticism of my governments foreign policy over the past 50 years does not mean that i ignore all the great achievements,great accomplishments and great ideals.

so if i was to posit anything on this thread it would be this:
we have lost our way.
the very things that made us great have become whispers lost in a cacophony of paranoid musings by the powerful and we sold our freedom to be cocooned in the safety of consumerism.
and while the wolves howl at the door we are fed platitudes of american exceptionalism and handed flags to wave in remembrance of good-deeds from days long past.
individualism has been ratcheted up to a fever pitch of self-aggrandizing twitter feeds and selfies.
that a persons self worth is based on their ability to purchase status symbols.
where news has become opinion and everybody has a right to one.
where facebook is a place to post your own,personal cartoon all the while never really communicating with anyone.

we have become afraid little children.

and its time to grow up.