Comment Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score 1) 204
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502403.html
His take, in short: not bloody likely.
absolutely wrong.
The hdmi audio output is not selectable in win 7 because it is "not plugged in" unless the tv is tuned to the hdmi channel during boot up of the machine, even if the cable is never unplugged.
You've got crappy drivers, then - I can select HDMI out and set it as the default output whether there's anything plugged in or not. Try newer drivers or a better audio card. Either way, it's clearly not the OS.
I've never understood why all companies want to locate themselves in Baltimore when there's plenty of room in nearby Frederick or Bel Air or Annapolis.
I'd be willing to live in any of those towns.
Putting the office in Frederick a great idea if your workers live in Frederick, but for those who live in Aberdeen, it's not so hot.
The reason for opening up shop in the city is because it's centrally located, and hence equally inconvenient for everyone
US law does not ban simulated child pornography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
Yes it does - "PROTECT Act" (2003):
The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography.[1][2][4] Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law.
Further, US
... laws ban simulated ... depictions of child abuse and pornography.
Uh, not quite. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
Yes, quite. See "PROTECT Act" (2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 The short version is obscenity can, as always, be prosecuted, and the PROTECT Act remedied the missing element in CPPA, which was the law struck down in Ashcroft, thus once again allowing the prosecution of virtual child pornography found to be obscene.
Not particularly, no. I don't waste my time on anything more than a cursory check - you're the one making the claim, so unless the evidence can be easily located I'm going to depend on you to provide your sources.
IOW, you arrived at your opinion without availing yourself of all the facts. What a surprise.
I don't have any references to his initial processing, however, since they managed to get him through, it seems reasonable to assume that they had a translator on hand for that portion, also. It's irrelevant though, since "BSO G" interacted with him on multiple occasions.
I'm sorry, no. Having a customs inspector who self-reports a "limited" knowledge of Polish is not the same having a translator, and your assumption that they had a Polish translator at any stage is simply not supported by the facts. Not that this will prevent you from bulling on through to your desired conclusion.
I can't say that he got what he deserved, but what he got is a direct result of his own actions.
You have a very curious notion of proximate cause. Mr. Dziekanski died as a direct result of being tazed and handcuffed by four RCMP officers who did not even attempt to communicate in any fashion with the person they were attempting to arrest.
I realize you want to excuse that for some reason, but the logical result is that the police would be free to kill anyone at all during an arrest, safe in the understanding that you'll be there to assure everyone that the dead person brought it on themselves. Don't want to be killed by the police? No problem - don't let that driver's license expire, bub.
No thanks. Some of us believe in a bit more oversight than that, and I pray you never have to live in a world that thinks as you do.
RCMP officers stationed at the airport can fairly be said to be participating in "airport security"
Which would be a great argument if you could show that they were stationed at the airport. As far as I can tell, the RCMP does not have personnel attached to YVR.
You didn't look very hard, then:
Four RCMP members were on duty at YVR during the evening of Saturday, October 13, and early hours of Sunday, October 14, 2007. Presumably because the shift had been quiet and no calls for assistance had been received by these members, all four were present at the RCMP sub-office at YVR at the time complaints were received concerning a male acting erratically in the international arrivals area, which was less than two minutes away by car.
Source: http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/prr/rep/rev/chair-pre/dziekanski/robert_2-eng.aspx
Well, ignoring the fact that airport personnel DID make use of a translator service on multiple occasions to communicate with the guy.
Your turn: source, please.
But do I hold them responsible for his death? Not even close. I can criticize certain aspects of their actions, but there's no way I can say that they were "wrong". They attempted to carry out their duties by responding to a situation which he had created, and they didn't violate any laws or procedures while doing so. Unless new evidence comes to light, I'd say it's case closed.
Well, I guess I'm just not prepared to agree that the penalty for being an angry foreigner should be death. YMMV.
The only thing they really did wrong was lie about the incident.
Sure, that. Oh, and they killed the guy, who had the temerity to become upset at being detained and held in a strange land by a bunch of folks who couldn't be bothered to find a translator to even begin to communicate with him. Perhaps the CBSA should alert travelers to BC that they should have an English/whatever translating dictionary with them at all times - the life you save might be your own.
I have a heck of a lot more faith in Canadian airport security than in American airport security! There are some little differences, e.g., we aren't required to take such ridiculous steps as taking our shoes off. But the one biggest difference: our security personnel are calm, collected, and doing their job well.
They sure are - just ask Robert Dziekanski. Oh, wait. You can't:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html
Good thing they were calm and collected about the whole thing.
Incidentally, I switched my Internet service to Clear WiMax. It's slightly more expensive than Comcast in the short term because I had to buy the equipment, but they've got a 3Mbps/$30 tier while Comcast's minimum was 6Mbps/$42.95, so I'll save money in the long run. And more importantly, it lets me avoid supporting the fascists at either Comcast or AT&T (the only DSL provider here)! Totally worth it...
Erm, you know that Comcast is part owner of Clear, right?
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2008/05/05/daily24.html
Damned clever, those fascists
On Windows, you just throw in the disk, click ok, and your hardware is working.
Unless you're running Vista x64, have 4GB or more of memory, and are trying to install the drivers for a TV tuner. Doesn't matter which manufacturer, they all would tend to fuck up under such conditions. I gave up trying to get TV tuners to work on my rig after wasting close to $250 on various models cuz I found only one commonality amongst them: they don't fucking work.
Apparently I am imagining that I am sitting in front of a Vista x64 box with 6GB of memory, and the HVR-1250 happily playing the Colbert Report in the background
(I hate "works for me!" posts, actually, but your statement was so absolute that I couldn't help but post one data point to the contrary...)
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant