padren

It's also worth noting that science doesn't "avoid" any given topic, it deals specifically with what it is designed to, in the ways it's designed to. Science is inherently designed as something that can be engaged in with multiple people over multiple generations - a way to share knowledge and information, and to do that there needs to be a degree of reliability in what is shared. Consider it somewhat like an internet protocol - for a signal to transfer from point A to B via a digital connection, there has to be a way to ensure signal integrity and that it is not corrupted. While it is possible to send data without this overhead, it is impracticable if you require any degree of reliability. Likewise, since has a high overhead due to ensuring that data is not corrupt or unreliable, it doesn't lend itself as the best medium for certain topics. You can study aspects of philosophy in a scientific way, but the bulk of the topic just isn't highly compatible. Science doesn't make any claims about whether such philosophical discussions are beneficial or useful, it simply isn't applied to them. Same goes for art or music - you can measure aspects of it scientifically (history, re-emergent patterns, etc) but it just doesn't apply to most of the topic. In the same way I could be absolutely certain that I see a UFO try to tractor beam up a cow, but I have no way to communicate that event in a reliable way. If any other human were to experience the exact same phenomenon and describe it to me, I would have no way to evaluate it as more likely accurate than swamp gas or delusion. At that point the only tools we could use for ensuring reliability are based on (1) consistency with one's own model of the world and (2) the authority of the person making the claim. While those hold a lot of weight in politics and other social forms of communication, they do not hold weight in science. They could never be used as metrics for evaluating reliability of data and result in the world we experience today that has benefited so much from science. If anything we see them as fallacies that always apply pressure to twist perceptions but we endeavor through discipline to overcome. When people are critical or fearful of scientific research the first thing they want to know is if the scientists are financially biased (ie, not a genuine authority) or if they are just catering to a populous idea - the exact same things science tries very hard to avoid and consciously excludes as measures of reliability. You just can't evaluate a bunch of anecdotal evidence from isolated, unreproducible events in a scientific way. As such it just doesn't work for "supernatural investigations" outside of the testing of the few things it's good for - which usually appears as a "close minded aversion" to those that don't realize it's entirely a feature of the very mechanism of science. It's not in favor, or against, or even indifferent - it just not a tool that can be used for everything.

I definitely agree that wiretapping laws have their place and are important - what I disagree with is their application to cell phones being used to record in public. I wonder if the law would equally apply to a 911 call that was recorded during a crime in progress where the caller drops the phone but the call continues - the carjacker/burglar/rapist wouldn't have consented after all and the victim could face felony charges and years in prison, or would the 911 operator be criminally liable? Perhaps it would be considered a conspiracy? I believe the footage in the wire-tapping case was considered inadmissible for his defense, so it would probably be the same when brought against 911 operators. If the state has some sort of exceptions for 911 calls I wonder if a victim could get in trouble if they called a friend instead. It seems like the sort of angle a slimy defense attorney would try after this sort of case precedence.

This could probably use a new thread, but here's the latest from the folks that never take off their Bad Idea Jeans: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_blockade_13

I've actually felt a bit guilty for writing so much - I appreciate your taking the time and don't consider it a dismissal. I've meant to get back to this for a while but work has been nuts, haven't really had the chance to give it it's due attention. I agree that challenging law enforcement on the street is the wrong channel - an officer would have to be breaking the law and exposing a person in imminent harm before I would consider interference justified. The question really to me is, whether keeping a non-obstructive distance while filming is considered interfering. I entirely support the laws in place that prevent people from obstructing officers in the line of duty. I just don't think filming itself should be a reason to arrest someone. There are many good reasons - many of which people who are filming may be guilty of - to arrest people. Arrest them for those - not for filming. Can you please define "the scene" in a meaningful way? It was a high traffic area with pedestrians getting to and from school I believe. Personally I have no problem with them "going to war" if the war they are engaging in is legal and not violence in the street. If they want to march down to the court house and file a lawsuit that's their right - in such a case as the one filmed, it would be dismissed I'm sure, but they still have the right to have their case heard. For the record, I am not referring to people crowding or interfering with the officer - just the people who film at a distance. Filming is not an act of violence or obstruction. Just because someone thinks "Wow this cop must be doing something wrong" doesn't mean they have video evidence proving such is the case - it is good for them to have the film and thus a legal option to address whether the officer is out of line. It all just becomes evidence, which will then be viewed in court and in the media within the context of the event. I don't understand why you group people obstructing an officer in the course of their duty and people filming at a non-obstructing distance. I don't understand how making the judgment of "this should be taped, just in case" crosses over into "I'm going to interfere with this officer because I think he's out of line." This is not a distinct singular group of people. You have two types of actions, that sometimes overlap. I don't understand how people exercising their right to observe police action in public is suddenly criminal when a camera is involved. Should we ban all observers when the police are engaged in any activity? That seems to be what you are moving towards, but I believe that as it stands now, people are free to move about in public as long as it doesn't obstruct the officers or place people in danger. What they witness and can testify to, and where they are allowed to be is not being questioned or challenged in this legal precedent - only their right to film during such times, in public is. This includes people up on balconies far removed from interfering with the scene. We may have to disagree, but I think that video has calmed people more than it has gotten people riled up. If you mean instigated during the arrest it's worth noting the officer had the right to tell people to back up - and cameras or not he can exercise his right to control the scene in terms of where people are. Just as an aside: I haven't seen anyone say that filming an officer in public should be considered the same as wiretapping, with the full felony charge applied. Do you agree or disagree with this point? I just haven't really ready anyone standing up for that court ruling, so it appears to be generally unpopular. Aside from that, I'd just like some additional clarification: Do you think it should be illegal to film police actions in public even when the filming individual is across the street on a balcony? Are they interfering with the scene? Do you think that the use of a camera automatically makes an individual part of a hostile crowd, regardless of whether they adhere to all police requests to place themselves out of the way?

Given that such activities of US citizens would have an impact on US foreign relations it would probably be "really bad" for such actions to be sanctioned by the US government. I can only imagine such activities would have to be handled through some sort of military contracting, or at the very least some sort of international law would have to be recognized. Additionally, there is a huge issue of collateral damage that would come up. I can't imagine the US Government would be too happy if folks came here to kill Americans and enjoyed legal safety back in their countries of origin.

I got a 404 error trying to pull the doc, your link includes the '...' in the URL itself so it breaks. I did find the doc on the site though. I can't speak to a Uni course on this but I have worked with building and maintaining relational databases for about 15 years or so professionally, and I don't think you have too much to worry about as far as requisites go. This course looks like it will involve mostly SQL syntax and the various strategies used to design relational database structures - not the low level design of data access structures for software design. I'd be willing to bet this uses existing RDB software solutions to create tables, stored procedures, indexes, foreign key relationships and the like that are all interacted with via SQL. You may need to handle some complex math depending on the course, but for the most part it's about logically attacking data modeling scenarios and creating clean, efficient structures and understanding the trade-offs in efficiency. They may go into clustered scenarios or maybe some advanced keyword indexing algorithms but I doubt it. As far as SQL goes it's a pretty straight forward query language, far more procedural than anything you'll do in Java. It's really just a way to describe data you want to look at or change within a database (with some syntax database-alteration/creation) and the complexity really comes from the strategy on how to model and then look up the data, not the language itself. Out of curiosity - what experience do you have in programming? They may want you do know some java and data structures because they use java to interface with databases. If that's the case it would be important to know, because even though it's not directly related, it'll be a weak link in the process between what you learn and how you execute your results.

In the sense that you see one thing that is actually something else. You also have to understand what it is to "create" anything anyway - when we create, we really just rearrange stuff that already exists in some manner that "creates" a pattern that makes sense to us. We can shape clay, and "create" a cup, which has distinct properties, such as the ability to be used to scoop and hold liquid. If you break a cup, you "create" a 3D jigsaw puzzle. So the first thing you have to remember is that the word "create" is based on our own idea of patterns. The term illusion is usually reserved for when something tricks us into thinking that it is one thing when it is another - if you see a fire in a fireplace and then realize it's a TV in there - not a fire, that is an illusion. Of course, the TV is real, the fireplace is real, but the illusion of there being an actual fire there is an illusion, which exists only in your mind. When you use something to represent something else without trying to "trick" your mind into believing anything that is not there is not an illusion. For instance, a map may represent a town on a piece of paper and display it's distance to a river, but it's not an illusion and it's not meant to trick you into thinking you are looking at the actual town. A map displaying locations in a fictional story may relate information about a hypothetical town but it's not trying to describe a real place, so it's not a trick. That fictional town exists, just not as a real town. It exists as a bunch of descriptions conveyed in the course of a story and accompanied by the imagery you create for it in your head, which will be different for each person that reads the story. It's real, (because, it is something - it's thoughts in your mind and words on a page) but it is not real if you think it is an actual town. In that way, it's all about the pattern you associate with what you observe. It's "real" when you correctly describe it, it's "not real" when you describe it as something it is not.

I think you've taken "I think, therefore I am" towards "I think it, therefore it is" and while true in one sense it is not true in the sense you mean it. To be precise, when you draw a point on a piece of paper what actually exists is: 1) A graphite smudge or ink blob on a sheet of paper 2) A mental model in your mind associating that smudge with a conceptualized "point" It's sort of like asking if a picture of a bunny exists when it resides in a file on a CD disk on your table. It may be in there in a pattern of 1s and 0s but is it a picture of a bunny? When you open the CD and load it on your computer screen, is it a picture of a bunny? It's really about the definition of "picture" and that definition is somewhat subjective. If an array of photons streaming from an LCD display is a "picture" to you then it is "real" but it is still not a "hold it in your hand" picture. As such, you haven't made something exist, you've just changed how you think about something. It's also worth noting no matter how tightly you associate the idea of the image file on the CD, the photons streaming out of an LCD screen, color pigments on a sheet of paper in a pattern consistent with the image of a bunny you had as a kid named "Mr. Peppers" that each are objectively different. They may all represent the same thing within a model in your mind (yet another medium distinct from the others) but that is just a pattern you recognize. To view aliens or points in your mind and on paper or outer space is also just pattern recognition.

I have a system that produces PDFs online, and it works great when the end user has a "print to edge" option for their printer. Unfortunately not everyone has, and the PDF needs to print with precise to-scale sizing. Is there any easy way to do this? Is there any safe margin width I can just go with? I can rebuild it to cope with some degree of non-printable area if it's consistent but no one has a clue about what their printers can handle (hundreds of non technical people with printers from last week to the 90s to deal with) and I'm quite discombobulated by much of a pain this is. If I can just set it one way that gives a consistent result for 97% of the users we can probably get by as long as that 3% doesn't contain a CEO. If I can find out that '0.x inches' is 'safe' for any printer, I can set it to use that and make everything size okay. Any recommendations for x?

Jimmy, I am not claiming that non-religious philosophies are inherently good or non-destructive, I am curious if when we talk about the "good" that any given religion provides, if that is rightly ascribed to the religious aspect, or more to the philosophical aspect. Usually, a given religion is considered an irreducible element - a force that has a combination of positive and negative influence, and (often argued) that the good outweighs the bad. I am curious if it really is that irreducible, and whether or not the separation of faith and philosophy could put any given religion in a new light. Also, I wasn't implying that 'all the problems' out there are caused by religion, just that there are problems caused by religion that are quite specific, and 'all of those' may be considered within that context.

I was thinking about this the other day, what attributes can we ascribe to any religion and their "good works" that have quite honestly improved the world, in addition to the problems they have caused (as all have, as all human organizations of any age have) to their leaders or founders as philosophers, versus their leaders or founders as prophets and gods? From my vantage point, that is anything but unbiased (I should get that out of the way) it strikes me that all the great things about Jesus or Buddha Mohammad or whomever exist as a result of their efforts as philosophers or, just generally leaders. The negative aspects associated with any of today's religions that exist in their names seem to me, are a result specifically of their elevation to the level of Gods and Prophets. The reason I bring this up is I see at times a conflict in discussions about "the good religions have done" versus the "harm that religions have done" and at least from my perspective it appeared that quite clearly these could be broken down between the two categories: good that has come from the philosopher and thinker, vs. the harm done in His name as a Deity or Prophet. It's still recent, but I could not imagine a religion built around Mahatma Gandhi going well - at least not better than could be had by embracing him as a philosopher and historical leader. How would the world look today if Jesus was a Confucius for the west, with his specific teachings, morals and parables taken as the wisdom of a philosopher instead of as the word of God? If Mohammad was an inspiring figure for his day, who brought about many philosophical twists with a touch of Joan of Arc? I could be entirely wrong and welcome conflicting views - the fact I am as biased as I am is part of the reason I want to post this, so I can get some alternative view points. What does everyone else think?

1) We cannot within the objective universe possess free will 2) We cannot model the objective universe within ourselves, only a limited perception of it 3) We cannot create a model of the universe internally that doesn't operate on the concept of free will. As we will only know the universe through our model, we will always know it as if we had free will, even though objectively we do not. I think point (1) has been discussed a lot already, point (2) is also fairly well covered in general. As to point (3) I would elaborate to say that it cannot be possible to be fully introspective - that we are only aware of calculations that surface in the conscious mind, but how those calculations are generated will always be part of the subconscious. If we were to suddenly become conscious of those subconscious elements, we would have to use some part of our mind to do it - a part we could not be aware of within yet more deeper parts bringing it to mind. As we cannot know fully how we form our thoughts and can only know them on the surface, we model these conscious thoughts through the notion of "preference" or personal choice - ie; Free Will. I don't think it can really be any other way. Even if an AI calculated the best course of action, when queried it would have to respond "That is what my subprocesses determined as the optimal result" since it would be limited by the same barrier against infinitely recursive internal reflection.

By which you mean, distributed in a sensationalized fashion. I don't know who you think shouldn't see it, but if it's recorded, the people most likely to yell "RISE UP!!" with their anti-conformist tinfoil hats in place will still distribute it, or at least point to it, and Joe Six will be looking around to see what the fuss is about. Nothing can do more for the sensationalizing of any thought, any idea, in any medium than it's banishment from the public marketplace of ideas. And since most of your arguments revolve around the practicalist perspective that deals not with "what we strive for" but "how it will be seen" it is worth taking into account how, for all practical purposes, how such videos will get to and be seen from the perspective of the public at large. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But how do you counter the polarizing effect of words? My argument is that the polarizing effect of hearsay, based on it's inherently subjective nature, is more polarizing. Images can be spun, but when spun they are far easier to counter with yet more images. Consider the selective cropping of those Israeli flotilla photos - it is very damaging to see an original series of photos, but the impact is highly countered when you show the broader context and how they were intentionally clipped to hide the weapons people were carrying. Two sets of views with nothing but conflicting eye witnesses can't even hope to hold a candle to such an impact. Even when video or photographic evidence is twisted, when more comes out that can broadly and unambiguously demonstrate how the previous evidence was twisted it has an immense impact. I get the impression that part of your argument is that, when images or video is spun, it can be more damaging. It is also subject to the same counter-images we saw in the flotilla photos - which makes it a more pure form of truth in my opinion. It can be spun, but the risks are higher. There is a higher chance that manipulation will bite the manipulator when it comes to video than hearsay. As a people who exalt the purity of truth I think the benefits of video far outweigh any potential abuse. The impact of abusing video footage to twist events may be more severe simply because it is such a vivid testament, but it is just as easily countered when footage puts that footage in perspective it is dangerous to abuse. When we consider the value we still as a society place on eye witness accounts, and how subject to abuse that medium can be, I cannot understand how video evidence could be considered any worse. It seems universally better from my point of view. Do you think that sense of empowerment occurred in a vacuum? What would exist there had that sense of empowerment not existed? Would it be respect for the law? Would be contempt? I know it's hard to really nail this down in an objective fashion, but I see people who I honestly feel were held back from interfering in a physical way. There are two groups who chose not to interfere: 1) Those who thought the cop should have had the crap beaten out of him, but felt they would be better served by letting the video of his horrid abuses speak for itself 2) Those who were unsure what to make of the situation and were especially anxious about how it would play out - but were genuinely relieved that as long as they got it on tape they did their part and didn't have to interfere physically. The wonderful thing is, both parties are composed of the sort of people who could make this situation far far worse, and they didn't. Both had another option - they were able to record video and allow better people than themselves evaluate the results. Most people like that (specially the second category) really don't want the responsibility of having to make the call. They really want to feel secure that someone else far more proficient and experienced will be able to make it. They just want to do the least they are morally obligated to and get out. Video is their outlet. Ironically, the people with tinfoil hats who consider this abuse also consider this their outlet. They are too deep in their own perspective to realize others will disagree - but that is enough to keep the officer safe because they have faith that as long as the video is recorded, justice will be done. They just don't realize they have no idea of what that actually is. They are human and make imperfect decisions. As did the girls. As did the officer. My argument is they would have done that anyway, cameras or not. I also argue that the "boost of confidence" if far outweighed by their confidence in a civil resolution that would not exist if such options were criminalized. I appreciate that comment, I just don't know what you take from it. I argue such damage eclipses the damage that can be done by video even when it is selectively presented, since often counter-video will be presented. I know my stance but don't know how you consider it in the debate, though I appreciate that you do. See I don't see it as my argument, I consider it more an observation. It's hard to express to what ends I would go to in order to preserve what I feel we have in terms of a social fabric that allows for a sanctuary from the violence of the natural, even human world. I only mention that to convey that I don't take the issue lightly. I may talk about civility as something that can be discarded without a second thought without any inherit substance - but that honestly what makes me appreciate it's frailty and value that much more. It is to me the single and most valuable thing humanity has been able to cultivate over the generations and on it's face far more valuable than even science. It is still nothing more than an idea that can be easily forgotten. It's as Reagan said "Trust, but verify" that keeps everyone content to participate in this civil experiment that has brought us so many benefits. When I mention violence it's not because I advocate it, but because it's the real world consequence of the erosion of civility. We all primarily have animalistic needs. We have civil options to meet those needs. Since we have developed intellects, we generally choose the civil options to meet those needs. To me that is the most wonderful thing that can exist. It's absolutely grand. it also stresses the absolute importance, due to the sheer frailty, that those "civil options" must be protected at all cost. They aren't up on the block for consideration as they are weighed against the civil waves they may cause. Not only do I take issue with the argument they cause more waves than they prevent - but I take issue with whether they can be done away with at all. We need them if we are to meet our needs in anything but an animalistic way. We are deeply primal creatures. When another human rushes towards us with the power to end our life, yelling and cursing for us to get on the ground our adrenaline kicks in high gear, and every instinct responds. If we are smart, we cooperate because that is the best (and most civil) option available. We don't need to fight or take flight. We can trust that the system works, and we will be dealt with fairly. And even in this situation, when we are breaking nearly every instinct and submitting our very survival to a complete stranger we have something that gives us a reason to feel secure - the social contract. As long as they behave as a cop is expected to behave, we can expect to be treated as an arrestee is to be treated. We can see that they adhere to the nuances of that contract as inconsequential as they may appear to an outsider, and it makes us relieved. We may see them breech certain aspects and it may make us nervous, but not too much since there is only so much a person can get way with in bending the social contract. That extra degree of faith is actually very important, since we rarely see people objectively and what we consider to be "bending the rules" may be their own adrenaline running at full tilt. And then comes the rub - the very definition of "what they can get away with" in breaching that contract. We are all animals with very primal instincts. If it is illegal to even collect evidence for civil remedy, what they can get away with becomes unimaginably broad. Within the context of the social contract, can you see how that's a problem to Joe Six? It's not about what I advocate - it's what I consider self evident in the nature of the world. Some things are just more foundational than others.

Maybe I got the wrong impression from: What where you trying to convey? I thought you were trying to say this is a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack. If it actually "made him look bad" I doubt people would overwhelmingly support his actions. To the contrary it appears to vindicate him. How does it counter my argument at all? How does the fact that some of the people in that group haves camera phones recording in any way impact their concern that "something bad was going on?" I don't understand at all how you are tying this together. Secondarily you can expect a crowd to gather with mixed reactions. Some will feel the cop has his hands full and others will be worried and stick around to watch. It's also heated and in the moment. With the exception of the two girls people do not interfere, though they stand somewhat close in my opinion. It's also worth noting that people record when they are concerned something bad may occur, a reasonable assessment of such a tense situation. Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand the implications of this statement. I think you underestimate the impact of the destruction and criminalization of evidence. The power of any single piece of video evidence in the hands of "community leaders" is dwarfed by the power given to them when you have police confiscating cameras and arresting people. You basically hand them the entire narrative to write themselves and while it may not be swallowed by everyone, it will galvanize and polarize those that do. Add to that one instance of "illegal footage" surfacing of a cop committing a crime and then destroying a bystander's camera and you'll have done far more damage that you tried to mitigate in the first place. If you think Joe Sixpack had trouble before, just wait till he sees cops arresting people for breaking the law by filming cops breaking the law. Explain that one to him. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Wow. Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here. What he is saying is actually entirely reasonable, and at times a moral obligation. It doesn't say very much about that event - more about the state of affairs that would lead to such an event. The single most key element in this scenario is faith in the system. We all participate in whatever our society calls "the social contract" because we find it reasonable, fair and agreeable. We have faith that when life is unfair, it'll be unfair in a fair way. We have faith that despite the imperfections in our system, it's fair because we all deal with the imperfections. When something destroys that trust and you have no civil recourse at all - not because of some human limitations but due to systematic legalized suppression and criminalization of evidence you are left with very few options you can have faith in. You can stand by and watch a police officer illegally victimize someone criminally because you can defend that person. You can do it in court, you can use your video camera and you can get that person justice. Without that recourse, what do you have left? Violence is always an option. It's a horrible, horrible option that is an absolute last resort when there is literally no other recourse left to us through civil means. That's the nature of society - we are still all the same animals, but we have other options so we don't have to act like ones. Some people do anyway, but most people don't. As civil options are eroded, people still have to act and are faced with making decisions with fewer choices. Hence we act more and more like animals. That's the whole point, as I've been stressing that we need to have clear and effective options - even if some people act like animals anyway - society is based on having those other more civilized options.

Can you explain how the video makes the police look really bad? In the first 25 comments on that page, 4 out of 5 are in absolute support of the officer. I've seen this video discussed in various places, and overwhelmingly people feel the officer was justified. Most of the criticism leveled at him has been with regards to his failure to call for backup, and whether he used best practices. Honestly if I heard about this incident, especially in the context of genuine police brutality cases that have come up here recently I'd have probably suspected far worse transpired. We have had a problem with violent officers here and it would be unfortunate to have nothing but hearsay to go on in evaluating this case in the recent atmosphere created by those events. It would make it far worse. Already these girls in that video are getting a harsh civics lesson as they are mocked over most of the internet for being so mind numbingly stupid. Without video, they would be sitting next to some activist (as some are getting fired up already) crying and telling their side of the story in front of a ton of video cameras, as some cheesy news station showed grainy stock footage of a cop walking in slow motion to dastardly music and a "Did you stop beating your wife?" caption appears across the bottom of the screen about the questions "people are asking" regarding his conduct. All in all this video has helped highlight what actually happened. The officer clearly could have done a better job (should have called for backup) but was within his rights. I also disagree with regards to why people don't respect police. People don't respect law enforcement because they believe they are unaccountable, and to a large degree they are right. It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 officers are good, or if 999 out of 1000 are good. When you have a dispute you need to know it will be handled fairly. If we elect "the best and the brightest" to the highest offices of running the country and still require checks and balances just to deal with human nature - why would law enforcement be any different? That's all most people want - a fair shake. If an officer makes lewd sexual remarks you should be able to expect a complaint to be taken seriously, even if it is ultimately thrown out for lack of evidence. Simply knowing it was taken seriously actually helps, since while it was dismissed for lack of evidence, it keeps the level of "what can be gotten away with" to a minimum. When law enforcement actually rallies and organizes the outright suppression of evidence simply because the mouth breathers might get the wrong idea from a video the range of what police can get away with goes through the roof. That fosters disrespect.

That's a little backwards I think. Police actions have always drawn crowds before video recording was common. They also do serve a purpose - they are witnesses. They can vindicate an officer if they are latter accused or vindicate a victim of police abuse. They are definitely obligated to keep enough distance so as to not obstruct the officer - that's a given. In fact, it is already illegal to interfere with an officer in such situations. Cameras do not change this. If anything cameras make the crowd calmer, as they reassure the crowd that if the officer gets out of line, they are on tape. If some people stay and watch specifically to record the event it is conceivable that some people would leave if all they could do is look, but people want and do watch. As said, none of that is illegal until they interfere with the officer. Holding a camera in your hand doesn't change anything about whether your body is interfering or not, so I really don't think it's fair to blame the cameras. It's also worth noting that while being disruptive I think it can be summarized as both "not very often" and "far far too much" at the same time. There is also a difference between brutality and misconduct, criminal or otherwise. Police are in a very special line of work. Honestly the only time we are likely to be in a more vulnerable state is when undergoing surgery.

Pangloss, aside from police tactics in the interrogation room, can we stick to the topic of what this thread is about - police abuses, ie: illegal acts conducted by the police that, if made public they would be held accountable for? I am not concerned at the moment about cops that push interrogations into uncomfortable territory or use practical but discomforting methods. It's an interesting topic but entirely aside. What I want to know is - what tools of redress does a citizen have when they have a complaint to lodge against a police officer, and are those tools satisfactory? I honestly believe that if as the article in the OP suggests... "The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate" ...is resulting in felony charges that the system is absolutely broken. Can you give me one good reason why the filming of a police officer while in public should be illegal? Why should the DA have the green light to selectively charge any individual with a felony at some time after the fact and only after someone decides they don't like it? You realize this means it is illegal to film damage to your car on your phone following a traffic accident should a police officer walk into frame? Sure - that's not likely to result in a charge because chances are you won't have any dispute with the officer, but it is still out there as an iron-clad felony-on-demand should at any time they simply change their mind. And that's just the practical exceptions I take with this. I'd like to understand how using your phone to record an officer in public is the same as illegal wiretapping - the felony often brought up. I'd like to understand what exactly we are shielding these officers from when we add laws that explicitly criminalize the filming of an on duty officer. Why do they need this addition of the law? To my knowledge, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that suggests videotaping a peace officer in public on duty in any way hurts that officer. The only way it hurts the officer is if it brings evidence they committed a crime or some breech of conduct. In those cases, it's worth noting that the victim of such abuse is encouraged to testify to that end and will only be ruled against in the event that there is not enough evidence to support their allegation. So seriously - we already know people are expected to witness and observe police officers on duty in public. We already know if they appear to demonstrate misconduct, the witnesses are supposed to report it. And we know, if the witness is shown to be credible, that the officer would face consequences. That's all part of how things have and still work. The only difference, is it has become a lot easier to show when the witness is credible, by the aid of video. So why do we need this "no video" law, and why do we have to resort to wiretapping laws and felony charges where no such explicit law exists? The only benefit I can see is to those who wish to make the truth harder to see, considering nothing else about how 'witnesses to police abuses' are handled have changed. There are still allegations, investigations, and people who are bound by duty to reprimand the officer should the allegations bare out. Please explain how this does anything other than make it harder for those people to do their job?

If folks like us don't attempt elucidate the issue in a manner that actually models the relatively minor complexities involved in a concise, sensible way and try to relate with "Joe Sixpack" than they (and us) are left living with a false dichotomy in which neither option is viable. I could simplify an entire issue down to "overall it's better to trust cops" but that is all Joe Sixpack has to go on for that side of the argument when they see . From what I can see no one is advocating resisting arrest. No one is advocating contempt for the law or officers in general. Police abuses happen, its a real problem and it needs to be addressed. It is not the contempt for the police, but the contempt for the system of accountability that gets most people fired up. This law only increases that contempt and does so for good reason. People talk about arrests with friends all the time, pretty much anywhere they happen to anyone they know. They share horror stories, they point to the rather blatant processes that routinely protect police at the expense of civilians. Of course, they'll have their own bias, but there are legitimate complaints in the mechanisms for accountability. If you want to change these contempt behaviors, you need to address that issue first. If someone feels they are being subjected to abuse by an officer, how they react and whether they are violent has more to do with whether they feel like "they'll have their day in court" or not. It's not confidence in the officer - that's immediately shot - it's confidence in the system. Now, if Joe Sixpack can't figure that out, I'd rather keep hammering on Joe, than try and simplify an argument to a level that fails to model reality in any way.

The idea of building schools in Gaza actually scares me to be honest. The last thing I want to see is Hamas or any terrorists looking around, seeing the one shiny new building (the school) and saying "oh, of course, we can setup in there" during a conflict. I think some elements of the equation need to change before we can expect to see different results from the same actions. Hamas has a habit of using anything anywhere if it helps attack Israelis, and even uses human shields. I really really would love to see schools in Gaza but I want to to be possible first because the odds of it going tragically are just too high.

True, he has some just causes for exasperation, he also (it appears to me) is a first class bigot. He may be on the other side of the problem but he's still part of it.It's like having genuine concern about crime rates, and then blaming "the jews and the blacks" in some intolerant tirade. Based on everything he said in the first video, and having seen that before making it 20 seconds into the first that you posted (couldn't get any further) I just found him too repugnant to watch.

I found this guy incredibly insulting. First he goes on and on about how we are "better than them" and then claims the one thing that does make us more civilized is the very "weakness" we have to "get over" so not to be a "soft, weak decadent" society. Everything he says that "invalidates" Islam as a religion would equally apply to all religions - so I guess he's against any form of religious tolerance. It also seems okay to declare whomever you like "guilty by association" and just act like an angry mob against anyone who reminds you of people you don't agree with - but hey, it's to protect the civilized world right? Everything he says we have to do to "stop this highest level of insult to the victims of 9/11" would, in my mind, be the highest level insult imaginable. Granted, I can't pretend to speak for those victims like this "John Edward wanna be" but I don't think he was able to speak five words in succession without my feeling even more insulted. Quite a character.

Good question. I'd probably come across as condescendingly simplistic if I tried to assess the conservative take, mostly because conservatives make no frig'n sense to me. But seriously, I don't really know. I am sure they have as much concern about human nature as anyone else, and may tend to overlap libertarian views in many ways but just less to the edge of the spectrum. Honestly I'm not sure what conservatives stand for: During the Bush years it appeared to be a combination of libertarian style deregulation with a heavy centralized government and "big brother knows best, you all keep your heads down" mentality. Since then mostly I've seen the tea party angle emerge but I still haven't made any sense out of what conservatives actually believe. Sorry, wrong guy to ask about that I guess.

"Science: it doesn't have all the answers. Just all the cool ones" To paraphrase an earlier one with a slight variation: "If you were a scientist you'd be mad too!" "Scientist available for opportunity sampling"

Why not put it all in place as if you were going to pump it, then fail and say "oh well, at least it's not leaking into the ocean" while you take the time to get the relief well going? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Don't they use a double-hull pipe, and push something heavier down through one hull from the top, to displace the oil to create the rising pressure?

This is more of an interesting observation than a big topic, but when thinking of the realities libertarians see and that progressives see it strikes me that both really are complaining about the same thing: the indisputable erosive force of human nature: When a libertarian goes into a private business to conduct their affairs, they are generally met with attentive helpful staff who you can tell just by talking to them are alert and well aware their job exists because they maintain a level of service able to complete with their competitors. They are to the point and don't waste time, and try to offer what will meet your needs while ensuring their own are met as well. It's good ol human nature working in everyone's favor as a force that ensures quality, efficient service. Then the libertarian goes down to the DMV, sees the long lines, the dull look in the employees' eyes as they plod along through their day with no sense of urgency. What little survival instinct is present is dedicated entirely to meeting a handful of bureaucratic metrics that are so confounded as to have no real world reflection on the quality of service they provide, and quickly ensure job security through seniority so they can meander through their day looking at every inefficiency like "well that's life" and accepting it. I can see how this is frustrating: it's human nature - both situations are emergent based on their environments, and no amount of bureaucratic apparatuses can make the one into the other. Then you have the progressives: watching the news as it becomes clear that BP was basically allowed to do as they please, since they had the most to loose if anything went wrong, they had the incentive to ensure things were safe. And with the confidence of the MMR, they conducted operations and watched as each safety feature broke down one after another, all the time confident they could push ahead because as each one failed, it didn't matter because they had so many redundant systems they were effectively invulnerable. First the seal ring that allows the testing of escape pressure was destroyed when someone "bumped the joystick" on the drill during a pressure test. Bits of rubber came up in the pipe confirming it was destroyed - but they had redundant systems. Then one of the two blow-out preventers failed to respond, but they had two so it was safe to continue. On top of that there are procedures in capping the well by using the 'mud' that weighs enough to counteract the pressure of the oil. Then lastly, they decide to forgo that and skip using the mud, because it would be faster and as always - they have an impenetrable array of safety features to prevent anything from going wrong, it's all costing money by the minute, and when it's done it'll be done and no one can complain. Which results in a failed cap, blow back, failure to catch it because they have no means to run a pressure test, and a total failure in the blow-preventer that was already known to be less than 100%. What upsets progressives so much: it was human nature. No matter how many safety features you layer on, it adds a false sense of confidence even as they fail because they are biased by the result they are under pressure to exact. Without some regulation with real teeth, that ensures genuine penalties equivalent to being disbarred from the industry for conducting business as usual when even one backup system fails - people will be people and accidents will happen. When we deal with catastrophes where "once is too many" it's not enough to add just another layer on top and hope they are smart enough not to mess up next time. The problem is just as insidious as it is with the inefficiencies libertarians highlight in government work - it's caused by human nature. What I find most interesting, is that from my perspective libertarians and progressives are upset about the same thing - policy that fails to address the sheer unrelenting "seep through any crack" persistence that is human nature. Yet, both ideologies tend to be diametrically opposed in their views, because both are myopically concerned with different aspects of human nature, and overly optimistic about on the other. The progressive thinks "non-competitive sloth" can be overcome with the right amount of red tape, and the libertarian thinks "overbearing overconfidence" can be overcome with the right amount of unregulated personal responsibility. Both are right to say the other is dead wrong. I think in the long run though, to actually solve any of our contemporary problems we will have to stop compromising or overreaching, and construct a new view that encompasses the full range of human nature with a much more nuanced vocabulary and analysis, that builds a lattice of checks and balances as well as open channels for free market solutions. Regardless of whether that's the case, isn't it fair to say that both ends of the spectrum are really trying to address the same concern - when the persistent erosive force of human nature creates constant deleterious effects in our society?