from the article: The officer who shot and killed Hill also was carrying a Taser but chose to use his gun instead, Rainey said.
In the case of a drunk man drawing a knife a taser would have been sufficient. If they had reason to believe he had a firearm, i would think the cop made the right decision, but they had absolutely no reason to suspect this. Did the officer have a right to kill him? Yes, if someone draws a knife on me, and i have my pistol, well i am a hell of a shot. He didnt get it wrong, he just didnt get it right either. I personal think protesting this guys death is pointless. He basically begged for it. However i will be Blowing BARTS phones up because cutting cellphones in that manner is inexcusable.
The second part is if the officer had wanted to, this could have ended without a fatality. He chose his gun instead. He chose deadly force over a very viable More than likely nonfatal alternative. This should be looked at in detail. An officer waiting for the a chance to kill someone while staying,barely, inside the law isnt unheard of. Infact i personally know 3 old friends who became cops who said thats why they did it. If i go to every scene looking for the chance, i will find my chance. when he draws a knife or takes out a apple i can call a hand grenade, bang bang bang and all inside the law. Who's to say this guy didnt jump at the chance to use his gun on something other than a target. I dont know, and nothing i read says anything about why he went gun instead of taser.

Umm this may not be refering to power mats but a new form of transferring energy wirelessly using magnetic fields. I saw a demonstration on TED. This form offers true wireless charging - you have several feet to work with,with the powermats the item still has to be in direct contact with the mat to charge.

Stats and leveling up. Thats all thats required to be considered part of the RPG grouping., Aside from that i love borderlands. Nice light fun, and Scooter cracks me up. No heavy story just hop in, grab a few missions, and blow stuff up.

if that was the name i would pre-order today with nothing else to go on.

wrong on 2 counts. A. That only disproves the hardliners,the ones who think it happens word for word as said in the bible. A large section( i would say most, as most i have encountered are of this variety and i live in southern Alabama, but i have no statistical evidence to show this) of the christian population believes the bible is interpretive. More about ideals than events. Aside from that, the idea that Genesis was supposed to show the nature of god and not the reality of what happened has been around for a long time. So even disproving Genesis doesnt disprove a god or even the christian god.
B. God Could have made everything look how it does. Like he started a movie half-way through. It fits with the idea of the Christian God and doesnt contradict any scientific data.
      See God isnt falsifiable. you cant disprove him. Any evidence you show can be explained as god makes it that way. its not a hard concept to master. Ok take my belief for instance. I go with what people call the Ant Farm Theory. God basically set the laws of nature, hit the play button and is just sitting back watching. No souls. No 7 days. just a cosmic movie for the Almighty. Now show me ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence that comes close to showing i am incorrect. So technically i believe in ID but you can never prove me wrong. How exactly does this taint his meteorology. Whats your explanation for the energy the was compressed before the big bang happened, or what was there before membranes? See the big issue here isnt if god exists. Its about using factors completely unrelated to the science for deciding if the science is valid. Saying his science is crap because he believes in God is no better than saying its crap because he is hispanic, or because he like the color red. All are just personal bias which isnt science.

when exactly was the christian or Muslim god scientifically dis-proven?

the post below yours by pavon perfectly describes the attitude you should have.

which is a horrible stance to take. The research should be taken on its own merit(good or bad). I am not saying who is doing it will have no effect on it. You cant avoid it completely, but it shouldn't be the the biggest factor of whether or not you believe something. Thats essentially saying he's wrong because you disagree with something unrelated to the research. Thats as bad as a creationist saying evolution is bs cause it disagrees with the bible. Science has to accept that it might be wrong about anything, and correct itself when it is, or it just becomes another form of religion. In science you follow the data, if the data is questionable, you check it. its source should be as irrelevant as possible.

Now i believe in ID(that is more a technicality than anything, i am agnostic and believe in a god because that makes the most sense to me but i dont think any religion has it right), but i dont think of it as science. Not falsifiable=not science. That doesnt make it wrong tho. Honestly everything we know could be spot on. String theory could perfectly describe our reality, and there still could be a god that set that all in motion and it doesn't conflict at all.

TL:DR You cant anymore disprove god, than prove god, so using someone's belief in god as a basis whether you will even consider they're research(which is unrelated to religion or the beginning of the universe) makes you strongly emotionally biased, and very closed minded.Neither are traits associated with being a good scientist.

no but this will make me one. I am sure within a week there will be a pirated version i can play offline. When buying a game and installing it causes more headaches then downloading it off piratebay, we have a problem.

doesn't someone already have access to pretty much all your info? Shoot you could look at google searches and determine who someone voted for(for most households, with internet of course). I for one would love a way for me to verify that my vote was cast how i voted.
You could also have something like the way voting takes place for the verification. You are the only one allowed in the booth while this is checked. If they can discover with that, well they can just monitor you voting in the first place.

Screen Savers > Attack of the show, screw periera and bailey, Give me Leo and Patrick any day. as a note, if u havent watch techzilla(or any of the other Revision 3 shows) you should. Old school tech TV fans will recognize alot of faces.

is this not considered a serious crime? It seems to me, when they can manage to catch on of the people involved in a hacking scandal, they tend to overreact if anything. The issue is that their security is crappier than a home. If you are using the robbery analogy, falling to sql injection is like the robber walked up to the vault, pulled on the vault door, and it opened. That would be completely unacceptable for a bank, and should be for IT Security in corporations.

but what would drive someone to work on things that are of nonphysical value. Take music artists. How do you determine value? Painters? how do you attribute value since art isn't valued on time it took to paint or the cost of the materials at all? How do you price video games, being ingenuity is a much bigger factor than hardware you are working on. If i assemble the most talented group of video game creators, and we make the most epic game ever, we will have to charge the same as the latest pajama sam game. The theory has huge holes in relation to the value of the person doing the work. Not all people are equal. Your response of them being recouped based on energy cost of their tools nowhere near addresses what i said.

how do you attract talented people to difficult fields if not with better benefits, or better pay?

will be awarded by lower prices and lower costs. - umm that is benefits to consumers not producers. Bigger profits is what producers what, which if they just get to recoup energy cost from their tools, the R&D is no longer valuable and will lose the company money in the long run. see you want everyone to take the countries whole money, and divide it equally. While doing this, you expect the people doing extremely technical and difficult(not to mention the dangerous ones) jobs to be ok with earning the same as the guy dipping fries into a fryer. This isn't exactly word for word as the original form of communism, but so close the distinction isn't worth taking the time discuss.

Communism and your form of economy(happy) have the exact same fundamental flaw. People need the carrot, its human nature.

i am out of mod points so i just wanted to say AMEN.

also the average american household is swamped in debt and is therefore living vastly out of their means. This makes the problem a lot more obscure.