cp702

Actually, not really. Firing squad is no longer available in any state for new offenses; the only people who are eligible for a firing squad are 4 prisoners in Utah who requested firing squad before 2004 (when it was removed as a method going forward). The only other state that has it on the books is Oklahoma, in which it is not authorized, and won't be unless lethal injection and electrocution are both ruled unconstitutional. Barring that (which is unlikely), only those four prisoners in Utah could be executed by firing squad, and no one can be added to the list.

According to Wikipedia, generally volunteer law enforcement officers (it could potentially be guards, but in Utah that doesn't seem to have been the case). I don't think there were ever professional firing squad members; execution by firing squad is generally associated with military and paramilitary organizations (where there are plenty of infantrymen who are perfectly competent to be on a firing squad and can be ordered to do so), as opposed to other forms of execution which involve more specialized training.

Courts mostly just let you choose from a (very short) list of approved methods (else "death by natural causes" would be a popular choice indeed). Also, a number of states have removed non-lethal injection forms of execution, but say that prisoners who committed their crime before the state removed a form of execution can still select the old form (e.g. in Utah, firing squad is no longer authorized in general, but convicts who requested a firing squad before 2004 still get to have a firing squad; eventually all the people grandfathered in die or are executed, so then the old form is no longer an option for anyone, like hanging in Delaware).

It was a NASA contract with a NASA payload, but the launch facility is for commercial launches, and is on land leased from NASA by a Virginia government agency (it's a Virginia agency because Wallops is in Virginia). The operator of the rocket was Orbital Sciences Corporation; NASA did not design, build, or operate the rocket in question - they are involved with the launch site and rocket range, but their involvement with the rocket itself was basically just supplying payload and funding the launch (i.e. similar to a telecommunications company launching a comsat: their people are involved, but aren't actually running the launch). On whether this is a new, worrying trend: Rockets fail; that's just one of the things that happens, especially with new-ish designs.

As willpv mentioned, we scan all files before approving them; if a file you download is picked up as infected by your computer, please report it (and mention the antivirus program you use, that's important).

Accessing uninitialized or invalid memory tends to lead to weird results; it means that changes to your program that seemingly shouldn't affect anything actually change the result of running it. Those are among the most annoying kind of errors to debug (and have the potential to be the worst kind, the "heisenbug", which disappears when you attempt to isolate it by doing things like running in a debug environment).

I believe that account is just there for the convenience of sysadmins (and to ensure that there's always an administrator account on the machine), and has no more permissions than a regular Windows administrator (more precisely, than a regular administrator when performing a task with admin rights: applications are automatically run with admin rights with the builtin account, but have to be escalated with a standard admin account, which is what triggers UAC prompts when UAC is disabled). Anything you can do as the built-in Administrator can be done equally well as a not-built-in administrator, and an elevated command prompt from a normal admin behaves identically to the command prompt from the built-in account).

As Chester199 and MasterTrooper said, profiles and signatures of a number of users have links to their clans, and sites such as Youtube can also be nice (lots of clans post patrol videos). However, these sorts of threads tend to turn into clan recruitment drives, which aren't allowed on LCPDFR, so I'm locking this thread. Nothing to see here! This topic has been closed by LCPDFR.com staff. If you feel that this topic has been closed in error, please report this post.

I'm assuming the recording isn't being replayed fullscreen on the same monitor. The recorded video itself, if recorded with something like fraps, will not have any lines or such; playback wouldn't show any lines specific to the video.

Wait, come again? Monitor issues are more likely to not show up in recording software -- if software running on your PC isn't showing the correct output, it's much more likely to be a GPU issue (the software on your computer doesn't care what's going on with the monitor). Anyway, check the cables and check on the TV before you declare it dead (you don't need to use the TV as a regular monitor, just hook it up to look for if it's displaying right; size doesn't change that).

Yeah, the VGA cable. Double check the connections, that can lead to issues. Also try a different screen (e.g. most TVs can handle a VGA-in signal, so try on a TV). It's unlikely to be a CPU issue; might be a GPU going bad (seems more likely to me than power issues, power issues would be more likely to just stop it from working altogether), might be the screen, might be the cable.

How is this scary or surprising in the slightest? The websites of a single third-party provider had content changed. That is really not generally that hard to do. In terms of seriousness, it's only slightly above someone replacing copies of a newspaper in street racks with flyers for ISIS.

It was a Youtube commenter. Youtube comments aren't known for suggesting their authors have at least the reasoning ability of, say, a 10-year-old. Quite the opposite, actually.

An arrest need not involve interrogation. A Miranda warning need only be read before an interrogation. This is not even remotely true. A Miranda warning reminds you of your rights in an interrogation. It's not needed for anything else -- the only relevance is an interrogation of a suspect who is not free to leave is void if you haven't read them a warning, and no information you get from that interrogation (including things you only find because of said interrogation), except for a few cases where it doesn't apply (e.g. when public safety is at risk, like "Where did you put the bomb?" -- there, you can put off giving a warning until you're less pressed for time). It doesn't apply to things that aren't evidence for a prosecution (things like name and date of birth that might appear on booking forms aren't subject to Miranda, as they aren't asked to gather evidence, they're just administrative). It doesn't apply to statements made voluntarily (if a defendant who hasn't been warned confesses on the way to the station without the police having tried to get him to do so, the confession is valid evidence). If Miranda is violated, moreover, it makes the case harder but it in no way lets the defendant walk free - any evidence not deriving from that interrogation is perfectly valid, and there's a fair chance the police don't need to interrogate the suspect at all to get a conviction (for instance, in a DUI case, the key evidence would be that they failed a field sobriety test (hence the arrest) and then a Breathalyser (hence the charge), neither of which Miranda applies to).

MODERATOR NOTICE Thread moved. The LCPDFR Development forum is only for questions about developing plugins using the LCPDFR API.

Wait up, first off: Is it in fact not performing as well as you'd like on games? Upgrading a computer that is filling its role perfectly well is generally a waste of money; if you're currently unsatisfied with its performance, then an upgrade can definitely be worth it, but just getting more computing power for the sake of more computing power gives an effect that wears off quickly (initially you notice, say, better graphics, but you then get used to it and it stops being as nice).

What model? There are 15-inch Retina MBPs that have discrete graphics.

They've been doing this since at least the last 5 years (when I was a high school freshman, I got software from them; not sure if it was just college students at the time, as my high school had a .edu domain, and a .edu email online is generally enough to qualify you as a college student).

On some cars, I think those are mapped to the high beams, so you could try that as well.

As I said though, unarmed British police predated those laws. The first real gun restrictions were enacted in 1920; before then, guns were generally legal to obtain, but police were still unarmed. Mind you, the reason then may not be the reason now (and I have no doubt that the current firearms restrictions are part of the reason police are still unarmed these days), but the tradition of unarmed police started well before any firearms restrictions existed. I'm interested in why police weren't armed in the first place.

That can't possibly be the original reason. Police in the UK were unarmed from the very start, well before there were any restrictions on firearms. It may be one reason that they continue to be unarmed, but it is not why they were initially unarmed.

Keep in mind, too, that the UK didn't always have its current gun laws, but it never had routinely armed cops. Unarmed police are not an effect of guns being generally illegal, because they predate that by quite a bit. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the reason they were unarmed is that it was easier to get people to accept the idea of a police force if they were unarmed -- like the blue uniforms, it makes them very different from the military.

Personally, I think of life in prison without chance of parole as effectively similar to a death sentence -- both have the key effect that you die in prison, never again being out on the street, and both things that should be reserved only for those cases where there's so little chance you could ever be reformed that society can never accept you back among the general public. Between those two, I see no reason to speed up a death -- the main time it has a notably different effect is if someone is later revealed to be innocent (which very much does happen), in which case there's really no argument it'd have been better to kill them before their name could be cleared. Most people would rather be prehumously exonerated than posthumously. The difference between a dog and a person is that a person is not a dog, and the life of a person is generally considered to be inherently far more valuable than that of a dog. Adopting the standards used on animals to be used on humans would also lead you to conclude police should just shoot people dead on any raid where there might be a threat, because that's pretty much what they do to dogs. We'd also be OK straight-up murdering people with behavioral problems (dogs like that tend to go to shelters, not get adopted, and then euthanized -- sad, but it's not normally considered worth trying to work with them). For that matter, there isn't really such a thing as dog prison, which would have to exist for the comparison to make any kind of sense. Keep this in mind, too: criminals are people. They aren't subhuman monsters, they're people, often from extremely hard circumstances. The justice system should focus on turning them into not-criminals if at all possible, and discouraging people from becoming criminals; it should not focus on providing vengeance. I know it's an open question whether capital punishment deters crime, but I think the burden of proof ought to fall on those advocating homicide (executions aren't legally murder, but they're undeniably homicide, albeit legally justifiable homicide).

Source? A quick search seems like the Court refused to hear appeals by some states, leaving in place lower court rulings striking down gay marriage bans. If a circuit court strikes down a ban on gay marriage and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, it doesn't strike down bans nationwide, but it doesn't reinstate the bans either -- the bans in those states stay struck down. Also, @others: There's no contradiction whatsoever between believing something is morally wrong and believing it should be legal. It's not generally the job of the government to enforce morality.

HDDs can fail at any time, especially on laptops (which tend to get thrown around more). Even something as simple as putting the computer in a bag before it actually goes to sleep can increase the risk of failure. 3 months is indeed very short for a drive lifetime, but if there was a manufacturing defect it could lead to that short lifetime. Note that bad sectors don't necessarily mean a drive's failing: HDDs have extra sectors specifically so they can work around bad sectors, and can tolerate a certain number of bad sectors before there's a problem (unless you try to read from a sector which had data saved when it was good but then went bad, but that just corrupts that one file), because they can remap bad sectors onto other areas of the drive. Bad sectors increase risk of failure, but aren't themselves a critical failure right away until they pass some threshold. It's when they rapidly increase (like in your case) that it becomes a real sign of imminent failure -- a failing drive's condition worsens each time it's used (that's why the best response to the first sign of drive failure is honestly to just get a new drive immediately, because it'll only get worse). Out of curiosity: Which SMART test showed failure on that screen? It'd say "Bad" or something under "Assessment" on failing tests.