The formulas used to calculate the octane rating on the pump differ between continental Europe, where RON generally prevails, and the U.S./Canada, which use the (R+M)/2 method.

Unless you have one of the discontinued 4-wheel steering Yukons XLs! But seriously, the point of having a giant land-yacht isn't that you can offroad with it, but that it has vast amounts of room. You can only cram so much luggage or so many passengers into a Civic.

If you read TFA, you will see that

They just have a problem with other companies selling similar products that compete with their own line of sex toys, allegedly infringing their patent.

The real news here is that the daughter (in the picture) is actually 35. Who would have guessed?

I own a Serious Bicycle, and it would be a faux pas to put a kickstand on it, much less regenerative braking! You might as well chuck your all-carbon frame and make it out of steel tubing.

I think you would have more luck appealing to self-hating middle aged people with plenty of money who only use their cycles twice a year.

I had to slog my way through all five pages of the dull anecdote-filled profile of some random internet entrepreneur just so I could deride it on Slashdot. There are a handful of studies cited in TFA, all of which have been reported on before, and none of which actually establish the premise of the article. My primary conclusion was that the boring subject of the article (and possibly the rest of his family) would benefit a lot more from pharmaceutical amphetamines than from junking his Blackberry.

My approval of Congress is as nonexistent as the next guy's, but I still think calling Representatives and Senators "Congresscritters" makes you sound like a parody of a right-wing milita member.

It is true that the content of the after-action reports was seriously under-reported, but that is all. There is no evidence that Manning (or Wikileaks!) edited the video. Wikileaks released a short version on youtube, but the 39-minute version was available the whole time. That video may very well be the only one Manning had access to, since the included sections of the video were the only actions that were under review (by the military). Considering that Manning released ~250,000 diplomatic cables (only a tiny fraction of which could have been incriminating), I find it hard to believe he would go to the trouble to edit out a part of the video that showed U.S. helicopters gunning down even more Iraqis, child-less or not.

A higher body count would have only added to the effect of the video--that the helicopters were just orbiting that area of the city, looking for groups of "military-aged males," at least some of whom are armed, to kill without warning. You can (I guess) argue in favor of that as a military tactic, but it wouldn't have made the pilots any more sympathetic to a civilian audience.

I believe it (it's in the reports that were released along with the video), although that is apparently what happened in the "missing" 30 minutes, not beforehand. I don't think that refraining from shooting obvious children is enough to make the policy of executing all the military-aged males in the area justified, however.

If you watch the video, the end actually seems even more dubious than the incident at the beginning. At the end they fire three missiles into a building as what appear to be random civilians walk by (the target building is on a street with moderate traffic). After the first one is hit, a few more rush in to the rubble, only to be (presumably) hit by subsequent missiles.

I doubt that releasing the video of the Apaches executing yet another random group of Iraqi men standing around their neighborhood with AKs would really "soften the blow." It would just reignite this story, which is already basically dead in the minds of the public and the media.

This quote seems like a much more cogent encapsulation:

The internet has allowed people to become much more informed than they once were, but it also lends itself to pointless bloviating on /. that ultimately accomplishes no political change. Like this.

I was using police beatings as an example of excessive force; the same arguments you made would apply to many beatings. You might note that I continue on with "submission holds are dangerous." I didn't say you were logically unjustified either, just guilty of a "corrosive attitude." You're only a fucking moron because I felt like throwing your ad hominem right back at you.

I think that your response actually reinforces my point.

Sure, excessive force yields compliance! No one questions that. But is that really the only way, or the best way to obtain compliance? Wouldn't it have been better for the police to obtain compliance without dislocating his arm? The AC himself says that he would have complied if they had even warned him of the consequences. It's possible that in this case the AC was lying, and the cops actually warned him and tried more reasonable procedures, but there are plenty of cases where there is evidence that they didn't.

I think that supporting the use of force as a first resort just because it works and/or can be legally justified is a corrosive attitude equivalent to condoning arbitrary violence. To say, "well, the officers could make a good legal argument to support their actions" is a far cry from saying "I think they were actually totally right and justified in this." Why the hell would you want to promote that sort of behavior? Are uppity criminal suspects a serious societal problem, which we must combat with hair-trigger extrajudicial violence? The police already have the massive weapon of "resisting arrest" charges; there is no need for them to unnecessarily maim suspects on top of that. If "just give me an excuse" becomes the police motto, are they still there to "protect and serve?"

Man, $35 fine for 84 in a 65! That's the real story there!

Seriously, though, some of the legal reasoning seems pretty insane.

So right off the bat, we have the government's assertion that he was going 81.67 mph averaged over 33 seconds.

It goes on. Basically, if there is a moral here, it is that you can't get away with arguing pro se, even in traffic court. Especially when every time the appellate court quotes you they have to include a sic.

It seems like they are saying he needs to mount an O.J. Simpson "dream team"-quality defense in traffic court to establish reasonable doubt (that the pilot was either lying or wrong in his identification of the right "white vehicle"). The prosecution is relying on ~11 second averages, while Barnes has two minutes. If his GPS were correct, then he would have to have traveled 38 mph (in a 65 zone) for the remainder of the two minute period recorded to still average 50 mph. That isn't absolute proof, but it certainly casts a doubt. In opposition, the government offered only the testimony of two officers. His GPS proof is also rejected because one of the officers said that the slow speeds reported (which Barnes attributed to truck traffic) are unlikely on that highway at that time. Since no video (Appelate Court: "Barnes has not shown that a video of the incident even exists") was presented, however...

And what's with the fixation on his independent recollection? Traffic court is fucked. There seems to be an incredibly unhealthy weight attributed to (notoriously unreliable) testimony, and a rejection of physical ("circumstantial") evidence. If the cops can get away with "his traffic excuse is implausible, because we say so" then the defendant should be able to get away with "it is common knowledge that GPS is fairly reliable, and the cops are declining to produce physical evidence that almost certainly exists, which could potentially contradict my testimony." Especially since the discrepancy in reported speeds was so massive. The defendant was obviously incompetent in representing himself, but this is traffic court! It would not be plausible for a normal defendant to get an engineer who designed the GPS chip on the cellphone to testify on his behalf. Besides, his burden of proof is different from the government's, because he is...innocent until proven guilty.

It is certainly not very "just" the way Barnes found himself crucified on technicalities. If he had been able to afford thousands of dollars in legal fees, he probably would have torn the government a new one. A "fair" trial is really only within the grasp of those of substantial means. In this case, he Barnes only faces points on his license (and maybe the loss of his job?), but what if it had been a minor drug charge...At the very least, I would support a massive expansion of the public defender program (or some equivalent) beyond the minimal standard which is constitutionally required (even if it means additional tax levies, yes). Even with massively expanded funding, the absolute amount would not be excessive; and it is a worthier cause than many others the government funds. It's just not very popular (Why should we spend more money on criminals? I don't know, why must you beg the question?). Even a libertarian should support such a policy, since equality under the law is absolutely fundamental to liberty.

To be fair, they were already doing that in Ohio (and no doubt many other states), they were just claiming that the radar substantiated it.

With modern technology, there is really no excuse to not require radar/laser guns with video cameras that keep verifiable logs, or video of the car traveling a known distance. Then there really wouldn't be questions about the evidence (faking it would be too expensive to bother with, anyway).

The flip side here being that you are entirely ignorant of (or willfully ignore) the legal concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and support arbitrary and illegal "papers-please" checks?

The GP does no service to the logical power of his argument by repeatedly using pejoratives, but even if he truly is a total asshole, justifying police beatings because suspects are unsympathetic is itself a corrosive attitude. It sounds like the GP believed he was being falsely arrested, and so was resentful and subtly rebellious toward the arresting officers. This is an attitude that cops probably encounter quite frequently, and they, in turn, resented it and applied the maximum "justifiable" force in retaliation, even though it was unnecessary to complete the arrest. Submission holds are dangerous (especially when done by amateurs), and should not be doled out like candy.

People are assholes, and criminals are probably assholes more often than the average, but that shouldn't give police a right to let out their frustrations with violence. Representatives of the government shouldn't be accorded that leeway; instead, we should expect them to be professional and measured in their responses, not bullies in uniform who intentionally escalate tense situations in response to any perceived slight to their authority. It's a thankless job, but so is nursing. They have to learn to deal with it.

In conclusion, I think you're "a fucking moron."

Batons are more lethal than tasers. A handful of people have been killed by tasers (usually misuse of tasers--they shouldn't be shooting suspects in the neck, 20 times, etc.), but a shitload of people were permanently injured or paralyzed by beatings with clubs.

I totally agree, however, with your point that instead of applying the maximum force justifiable, the minimum force practicable should be used. "Minor" overuse of force even seems to be culturally acceptable to some extent. Just watch Cops: an unending parade of violent apprehensions of extremely petty criminals, which is unironically presented as heroic. Apparently everyone also accepts that "running" is tantamount to giving the police carte blanche to beat the shit out of you when they catch you. Since running (actually, not following any police instruction) in the first place was "resisting," the police are given extraordinary discretion in seeking "compliance."

The solution is not getting rid of tasers, however (though we might consider getting rid of chemical sprays like Mace), since police would still be free to beat suspects down. Legislating on this topic seems extremely tricky, however, since the nature of intentional police escalations and the "reasonable" amount of force are extremely difficult to quantify.

One fairly compelling argument I have read states that perverse incentives are at the root of police brutality. Police unions will strenuously oppose, often with successful lawsuits, the firing of any officer who uses excessive force. Even if that situation were different, if the police admit to (legally) excessive use of force, they will inevitably (and justly) be slapped with a lawsuit which will often take a large chunk of cash out of the city and/or police budget. It is thus in the interest of police officials to zealously defend officers who use excessive force, perversely condoning the excessive use of force itself. A solution might lie in creating a legal remedy for excessive force that does not disincentivize admission of guilt and remedial action on the part of police departments. What that solution would specifically be, I have no idea.