cp702

This thread is far too heated, with personal attacks left and right. I'm closing it for now; it may be reopened later, but right now things just need to cool off.

Unfortunately, students seem among the most prone to restrict First Amendment rights -- I actually think the resolution as passed still does violate at least the principles of the First Amendment (I don't know if student councils at public schools are governments and so bound by the First Amendment, which is the main reason I'm not sure if it violates the letter); showing the flag is absolutely protected speech (just like showing it in a way contrary to the flag code, or for that matter burning it). Sadly, at least the most vocal students have a tendency to push the idea that "XYZ is hate speech, and shouldn't be allowed" -- it's really quite depressing how often student groups try to force schools and other student groups to do things like disinvite speakers they don't like. Seriously, there are law students who have tried to get certain areas of the law banned from their classes or their tests because it makes them uncomfortable to discuss. There's a Harvard student who wrote an editorial advocating replacing the idea of "academic freedom" and "free inquiry" with the idea of "academic justice," and that academic research should be stopped if it seems like it's reaching uncomfortable conclusions or it could be used by others to promote Bad Things. The explanation is quite simple -- you see, the students aren't prohibiting Good Speech, because it's not the speech they like that's getting banned. It's just the stuff they don't like and don't want to hear that gets banned, but that's all Bad Speech that clearly shouldn't be said by anyone.

More accurate summary: The student government's legislative council passed a resolution to remove all flags from the common lobby of the student government offices. This has zero input from the actual school administration; furthermore, it has to be approved by the student government executive council, which it's looking like it probably won't be. The bill applies to every flag of every country. In the entire bill, two lines even mention the American flag, and merely use it as an example of how all flags represent nationalism. Now, you can dispute that flags have a strong association with nationalism, or dispute that that's a bad thing, but if you read this bill and say "How DARE they be traitors and remove the American flag!", that's exactly the kind of thing they're talking about. In other news, apparently "rightwingnews.com" is pretty terrible at summarizing things in a remotely objective way, and distorts reports even worse than the rest of the media in support of ideological aims. Who'd have guessed, with a great name like that?

MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to Politics, Current Events, and Society.

Update: The Justice Department has finished its investigation, and is not pursuing federal charges against Wilson, finding that the evidence does not support bringing this case before a federal grand jury (report).

No, that actually says literally nothing which is in the slightest bit relevant to what c13 said. The quote was about shooting to wound. Your story is about shooting at all; it has nothing whatsoever with shooting to wound. I'm baffled how you can possibly think it says something that has to do with the quote. Also: the huge majority of US police officers never fire their weapons except on the range; that's not somehow unique to Europe. US police use their weapons more often than European police, but it's still extremely rare in the US.

As Yard1 said, the extra liveries is something rolled into AdvancedHook. IIRC, you need the AdvancedHook from LCPDFR 1.0c or later, as well as either LCPDFR or ELS 8. While ALM comes with a copy of AdvancedHook, I'm not sure it actually loads it by itself; I think you might still need LCPDFR or ELS 8 installed (or maybe just LCPDFR, but I know ELS 8 uses AH as well). Basically, having AH in the game folder isn't enough; it actually has to be loaded and be told to hook into the game functions to (among other things) change the livery-loading code to support many liveries.

Rockstar's featured the occasional mod on Newswire; I think "gives them headaches" is exactly right. If they really hated the modding community, they could make it really, really annoying for modders to operate using IP law (for instance: any mod car based on a car from GTA? Copyright infringement. Any video showing off a mod's gameplay, that isn't within the fairly narrow category of fair use? Copyright infringement. That kind of thing.) I think they generally are cool with modders doing impressive stuff that keeps people talking about GTA well after its release, but that doesn't extend to particularly wanting to help them.

Isn't this basically GTA IV? It seems like the only difference is that instead of fading out/in when busted, you actually have to sit through the whole drive back to the station with AI drivers.

The regulations aren't public yet because this is standard FCC procedure. This isn't anything different than any other FCC regulation. For "people aren't fully educated about this:" That's exactly why we have independent regulatory agencies instead of just enforcement agencies; it's because it's generally been considered better to have Congress set the general framework, but let the technical matter of regulation be managed by people who know what they're talking about, employ others who know what they're talking about, and are generally protected from political interference (the only way to directly overrule an FCC decision is through act of Congress; the President can't overturn it, and he can only remove commissioners for good cause, or by waiting for their term to expire). The whole point is to insulate the FCC from the political process to some degree, to help slow down political leaders making really stupid decisions by letting people who know what they're talking about actually write the regulations). You probably couldn't get away with firing an FCC commissioner to reverse this decision; even if you could, administrative agencies are loath to quickly reverse themselves, because that's very rarely a good idea (hence, the long, long delay before the FCC classified Internet under Title II -- reversing yourself is only done if there is no other option, because lots of people depend on the law being relatively stable). The fastest way to reverse it would be to pass a law, but passing a law is intentionally slow. That means that this decision can be reversed politically, but it's hard to do so before there's actually some idea of the effects of it. And that's a good thing -- it means that knee-jerk reactions don't cause the rules to change wildly, and the particulars are decided by people with some degree of actual knowledge about how this stuff works.

That's not what "fast lanes" is talking about; it has nothing at all to do with the concept. "Fast lanes" involve Comcast charging a third party, which does not subscribe to its ISP service, to get fast transit across Comcast's network to Comcast's subscribers. It means that Comcast prioritizes packets based on their destination outside Comcast's network. Common carrier rules are never designed to prevent someone from offering differing levels of service to their customers at different price points; they're designed to prevent unreasonable distinctions. Distinguishing between download and upload at a given point couldn't possibly be considered unreasonable; installing a limiter on the connection to a specific customer isn't unreasonable (if you pay more, your packets aren't routed at higher priority; it's just that there's a device on the connection to your house that limits the total amount of data that can flow in a given time, which generally makes no distinction between different types of traffic); distinguishing between packets going to non-ISP server A and non-ISP server B is unreasonable. Now, there are questions about interconnection and interconnection rates and CDNs and the like that could go one way or the other, but that's not what people mean when they say "fast lanes." The comment that "Netflix pays more" makes me wonder how well you understand Internet architecture; the entire point of the whole system is that you don't have to pay someone to get your site access to their customers. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast anything to send data over Comcast's network, because that defeats the purpose of an internet. There is no "bandwidth devoted to XYZ site," unless XYZ site uses that ISP itself. It's exactly symmetric between servers and users; you don't pay LCPDFR's ISP to access LCPDFR, and LCPDFR doesn't pay your ISP to talk to you. The system literally cannot work right otherwise. A network does not have bandwidth devoted to customers, and never has; even with the kind of circuit-switching that the PSTN uses, the only thing that gets bandwidth devoted to it is a particular connection. Packet switching can't have bandwidth devoted to it; that's just not how things work. It can have prioritization, but not devoted bandwidth -- if I buy 20 Ybps (yottabits per second, i.e. ALL TEH INTERTUBEZ), get prioritization over all other packets, and don't send anything, then there is zero change from anyone else's point of view. That, I think, is at the root of your misconceptions. If I connect to LCPDFR (Netflix gets into more complicated technical matters), I pay my ISP for the bandwidth used; Jay pays their ISP for the bandwidth used; my ISP is responsible for getting that traffic to LCPDFR (which it does by getting it to LCPDFR's ISP), while LCPDFR's ISP is responsible for advertising routes to LCPDFR to the world and giving the world access to the site. I do not pay a penny to LCPDFR's ISP. My ISP might pay for transit if needed or paid peering if needed, and connections between ISPs can get a bit complicated, but here is a decent overview. Any theory based on "Netflix should have to pay Comcast for using Comcast's bandwidth" is fundamentally flawed, because that's just not how the Internet works (again, Netflix is more complicated because in many ways it acts like an ISP itself, but that's also not what "no fast lanes" refers to). SIR_Sergeant: In fact, common carriers are allowed to make reasonable distinctions: for instance, it might be found reasonable to treat VoIP packets differently from downloads, because lag is a bigger issue for VoIP.

He did claim to have been interrogated, in which case he would have to be read a Miranda warning. He also claims to have asked for a lawyer; if you're being interrogated, then even if they don't read you a warning you can still request a lawyer and they have to give you one before continuing to question you. I have no objections to having a place they don't publicize. Nor is it an issue to interview some kinds of people there -- that's an excellent place to talk to informants and undercover officers. But I draw the line at trying to hide that people held there are being held there.

That's not really accurate. ISPs remain private companies subject to government regulation; they were private companies subject to regulation before today, they were private companies subject to regulation before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and telecom companies were private companies subject to federal regulation before the Communications Act of 1934. The common-carrier regulation of telecommunications began with the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. The notion that interstate wired telecommunications was *not* going to be subject to common carrier regulation didn't take hold until Computer I in 1970, expanded upon by Computer II in 1976, which *introduced* the idea of enhanced service not subject to common-carrier status. But it's still been subject to regulation, under ancillary authority (which is limited, but still there), as well as the option of Section 706 regulation.

Also, it looks like much of the order will be saying various regulations don't apply. According to the FCC, there are over 700 regulations and 27 statutory provisions which it is declining to apply. The current policy of considering "enhanced services" to not fall within standard common-carrier regulation dates back to the 1970s; it was made on the grounds that enhanced services are competitive. That's the primary justification in existing law for not applying Title II to Internet service: free competition is best, and the market is sufficiently competitive. With other markets, it's fairly uncontroversial that lack of competition justifies regulation to ensure that people have access to communication services; that's why the PSTN is under Title II, and going back that's why railroads were placed under ICC control (businesses depended on them and they tended to abuse their monopoly power, which derived from the cost of laying a network -- same for Western Union, same for Ma Bell, now same for Verizon or Comcast). In practice, internet service providers do *not* seem to face competition, and so those grounds are suspect. As a matter of public policy, I don't see why ISPs shouldn't be required to act in a nondiscriminatory way, nor why Internet access is any less necessary for people than phone access once was, or than mail access before that.

That is, indeed, one of the best things about this -- no one's shutting down the Guardian or threatening the life of the journalist who reported it.

Here's my issue with "train the public:" Police volunteered to take a job. That job has some amount of risk. It's not the job of everyone else to adjust to them so that police don't feel threatened -- if something *could* be a threatening motion but could very well not be, it's the job of the police to deal with the confusion. There are some situations where it's reasonable for police to feel threatened (if you're pulled over and jump out pointing a BB gun at the police, expect to get shot), but in general it's the job of the police to adjust to what everyone else does. There's a balance between putting cops at risk and putting everyone else at risk; having it all the way on one side or the other is obviously ridiculous, but it should really be more on the side of putting at risk the police who signed up for the risk and are paid to take it.

Incidentally, more details here, which says that people detained there are not booked (at least, no public record exists of them being there), and attorneys who know their clients are in there are blocked from seeing them. Lawyers are turned away at the door; central booking doesn't reveal people held there, unlike at any other station. The only records show them disappearing, then reappearing when released or taken to a real station. Other times, they reenter the record when taken to the hospital or the morgue. If you don't see something wrong with someone found dead in police custody, in a building where records are generally not kept and others would not be easily able to find out they're there, I'm not sure we have the needed common ground. Custody cannot happen in secret, or with restricted release of information about where someone is. That's just asking for abuse -- where someone is has to be well-documented and accessible to people who ask. I'm pretty sure there *are* rules that you can't be handcuffed to a bench for 17 hours absent extreme circumstances. And that's what has to happen if you use a warehouse as a jail. Incidentally, they don't have to both charge AND interrogate you for you to have a right to a lawyer. They don't seem to charge people there (paper trail), but they do interrogate them. If the police are interrogating you, you have a right to a lawyer, whether or not you've been charged with any crime. If the police are *talking* to you, ever, you have an absolute right to a lawyer before they talk to you further (if you aren't detained or arrested, you'd likely be expected to walk away while waiting for a lawyer, because you can do that; when you *are* in custody, they can't ask you questions between your demanding a lawyer and your getting a lawyer, and they have to let you know you have the right to a lawyer before they ask any non-administrative questions that are potentially incriminating, absent a very tiny handful of exceptions. Whether you've been charged has nothing to do with Miranda or with your right to an attorney.

That whole "lock people up in a warehouse for 17 hours without letting them contact anyone," and "making it extremely difficult to impossible for lawyers to visit their clients who are locked up there, even when the clients are being interrogated and have a right to a lawyer." For that matter, it's not unreasonable to share anything the police are trying to hide just on general principles -- while there's nothing wrong with a low-publicity site for the evidence locker, and the SWAT trucks have to be parked somewhere and the low-publicity site is probably a good place for them (you can do all sorts of stuff in a giant warehouse that it's harder to do in a space-limited downtown police station), there is something wrong with said warehouse being used as a low-publicity interrogation site. While I don't think it's as bad as claimed (the interrogation before a lawyer shows up is illegal, but could happen anywhere), people should be held in areas designed to hold them; the police shouldn't be locking people up in a place that's intentionally low-profile, and isn't build to house arrestees (from what I can tell, they just locked them in a cage that was there for generic warehouse reasons, not in a proper cell).

How is it that the Guardian does a better job at investigative journalism about the US government than American papers do?

Here's the thing: In the US, the way this *actually* tends to go is: Officer: What are you doing? Man doing something that looks mildly shady: Just --- Officer: *draws* Don't move! *shoots* Stop resisting! ...later... Police department: "That man had XYZ arrest record, so was clearly a risk. The officer made a split-second decision because he felt his life was at risk. Policing is a very dangerous job, and the cop had the right to go home for dinner." "Police have to make split-second decisions" is claimed with *every* police shooting, even ones where the person had not done anything that could possibly convince someone who spent even two seconds thinking about it that they were a threat. Police are fond of trotting that out to justify killing people who have done nothing wrong, on the premise that it's more important that the cop make it out alive than that they take the time to make sure they don't kill an innocent person. Frankly, if stopping to think means a few more police die but fewer innocent people are killed by police, that's a good tradeoff -- a cop signs up for the job knowing it's risky, while the innocent people who are beaten or killed by police never signed up for that.

For some more context, that link is to our thread for ad hoc MP matches -- it's sort of like an MP lobby in a forum thread.

And for me, it moves it much closer to my exam period.

But the exterior is also one of the least different things between different aircraft. On the other hand, as far as controlling the aircraft goes, it's Boeing who's been following Airbus -- Airbus introduced fly-by-wire with flight envelope protection with the A320 in 1986, while Boeing took until 1993 and the 777 to follow along. Even then, they didn't implement full fly-by-wire the way Airbus did -- on an Airbus the pilot uses the side stick to say what he wants the *airplane* to do and the aircraft then does it (with the normal exception of if it's a dangerous control input), while on a Boeing the pilot uses the yoke to say what he wants the *control surfaces* to do like you would on a pre-FBW aircraft. While this is somewhat a philosophical difference (on a Boeing the idea is that the pilot should ultimately be in control, and automation mostly supports the pilot, but the pilot *can* take over and fly it like one would fly any other airplane; on an Airbus the computers are normally in control, because pilots have made plenty of really stupid decisions that crashed planes, and the pilot's job is to tell the computer what to do), Boeing has shifted closer and closer to the Airbus model for control.

You have the risk levels swapped. Formation flight takes a *ton* of training and preparation, and is generically very dangerous -- keep in mind that while fighters have bubble canopies and lots of visibility, an airline pilot has like 4-6 windows basically facing forward, and has to stay in fairly narrow parameters. In contrast, a barrel roll is a fairly risk-free maneuver on any plane with a decent pilot: the airframe is pulling 1 g the whole time, and so there are no unusual stresses or conditions. Tight formation flying in an airliner is riskier than a barrel roll done with enough altitude. On the other hand, commercial jets are not infrequently adapted for military use. Militaries do midair refueling with those planes: look at (that's a modified 707, refueling from a plane which is derived from the same airframe the 707 was derived from). You absolutely can fly them in tight formation with sufficient training.

More stuff like what? The items on the stock fat cop's duty belt are fairly easy to add to any ped (the fat cop model has them all detached from each other, which is very easy to work with), so if you want more of that, it's not too hard.