 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For people living there, is anything of this true?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_LbxfEYTk
(And I would prefer answers that are not of the kind "it's not true because
I can't believe it's true", but instead answers that are based on knowledge
and facts.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Phil Cook v2
Subject: Re: Cops don't have to protect you?
Date: 25 Jan 2011 11:25:42
Message: <op.vpvg85fwmn4jds@phils>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:48:29 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> did
spake thusly:
> For people living there, is anything of this true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_LbxfEYTk
>
> (And I would prefer answers that are not of the kind "it's not true
> because
> I can't believe it's true", but instead answers that are based on
> knowledge
> and facts.)
The Eavesdropping part - no audio, but video is not a problem so you can
film whoever you like so long as you turn the microphone off.
Cops not obliged to protect you - Of course if you look at it logically.
The purpose of the police is to enforce the law, the protection part
simply falls under that. So if a cop sees someone come at you with a knife
they're going to stop that person - not to protect you but because trying
to stab someone is an offence.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Cops not obliged to protect you - Of course if you look at it logically.
> The purpose of the police is to enforce the law, the protection part
> simply falls under that. So if a cop sees someone come at you with a knife
> they're going to stop that person - not to protect you but because trying
> to stab someone is an offence.
The example in the video was more drastic, though: The police couldn't
be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> For people living there, is anything of this true?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_LbxfEYTk
Eavesdropping laws basically are usually reasonable. They only apply (in
theory) when you're in private. So if she was in, for example, the
investigator's office, then yes, she's eavesdropping. But if he filmed the
cops arresting him on the street with random individuals walking past,
you're not eavesdropping. Note that the eavesdropping laws were mostly
passed when telephones were getting popular, making it illegal to record a
private conversation unless one (or both) of the participants knows it's
being recorded.
States are passing laws making it illegal to film arrests, regardless of
whether it's "eavesdropping". Illinois is extra bad in this respect right
now. Most of the other states are trying to use wire-tapping laws to keep
you from filming police, but it turns out it's not working.
And yes, the Supreme Court decided that police are not obligated to enforce
laws. Which makes sense in the abstract, because otherwise every crime where
the police were too late to stop it would wind up in court.
But this sort of tendency was exactly what I was talking about when I asked
if you think your government is taking care of business. If this happened in
your country, would you be shocked and outraged? Or would you just say
"Well, of course the police aren't on your side."
She probably would have been better off with a civil suit, where her lawyer
would just say "It's his word against yours, and you're going to lose, so
just forget it."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But this sort of tendency was exactly what I was talking about when I asked
> if you think your government is taking care of business. If this happened in
> your country, would you be shocked and outraged? Or would you just say
> "Well, of course the police aren't on your side."
I have not heard any relevant horror stories about the Finnish police,
and overall they seem to be quite ok, competent and on people's side.
Any dubious police activity most often happens because they don't have
any choice as it's the lawmakers who force them to act, rather than it
being caused by the policemen themselves being a**holes. (In fact, police
officials sometimes publicly comment on laws they don't find very pleasant
because of many reasons, the least of them not being that they needlessly
take valuable resources away from solving more serious crimes. For example,
the police has to spend significant amount of resources to enforce the
stupid and draconian copyright laws, and these resources are away from
solving more serious crimes such as rapes, homicides, robberies and
violence.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2011 8:48 AM, Warp wrote:
> For people living there, is anything of this true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_LbxfEYTk
>
> (And I would prefer answers that are not of the kind "it's not true because
> I can't believe it's true", but instead answers that are based on knowledge
> and facts.)
>
Was a court case recently where people died, and others raped. The
conclusion reached by the courts was that, "Cops have no obligation to
timely defense of people in their own homes.", or some similar idiocy.
Guess we need to change all the damn cars to say "To serve and eat
donuts", though, that might even confuse a few of them, who would show
up trying to sell you donuts door to door, or something...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "Cops have no obligation to timely defense of people in their own homes.", or some
similar idiocy.
Unfortunately, when you actually look at the actual reality of things, this
makes perfect sense. Most people who get outraged over things like this (or
who propose, for example, a cap on incomes or similar nonsense) don't stop
and think that the rule has to apply to cases other than the one they're
specifically considering at the moment.
Like Joel Spolsky bitching about the power menu
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html and ignoring the fact
that not everyone is running a laptop with a lid that can be closed, or who
might get on a plane and need to actually turn it off all the way, or might
be connected to a computer in a different country and need to reboot it
without turning it off, or ....
(That, incidentally, was the post that taught me Mr Spolsky is a dipshit in
many ways.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-1-2011 6:33, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "Cops have no obligation to timely defense of people in their own
>> homes.", or some similar idiocy.
>
> Unfortunately, when you actually look at the actual reality of things,
> this makes perfect sense. Most people who get outraged over things like
> this (or who propose, for example, a cap on incomes or similar nonsense)
> don't stop and think that the rule has to apply to cases other than the
> one they're specifically considering at the moment.
>
> Like Joel Spolsky bitching about the power menu
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html and ignoring the
> fact that not everyone is running a laptop with a lid that can be
> closed, or who might get on a plane and need to actually turn it off all
> the way, or might be connected to a computer in a different country and
> need to reboot it without turning it off, or ....
I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be easily
accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special cases I'd be
happy with a big GUI.
One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in RAM
so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean other
than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options that I
normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use this in the
future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally selecting the
wrong option and going through a five minute hibernate/reboot cycle to
select the right one.
BTW the Dutch translation for hibernate in this context is sluimer which
means slumber. That sounds less asleep to me than just sleep.
Restricting a complicated concept to one word may cause confusion when
using a machine set in a different language.
In short, I agree that this interface is stupid, but that I would have
simplified it in a different way. And so would you ;) Perhaps this was
the compromise the design team could finally agree on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be easily
> accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special cases I'd be
> happy with a big GUI.
And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the menu
and how stupid that is.
> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in RAM
> so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean other
> than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options that I
> normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use this in the
> future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally selecting the
> wrong option and going through a five minute hibernate/reboot cycle to
> select the right one.
That's precisely what Windows does. It doesn't have the "use this in the
future." You go to the control panel to set that and the actions of the
buttons. Giving you the choice of selecting what you want it to do is what
Joel is complaining about.
> In short, I agree that this interface is stupid, but that I would have
> simplified it in a different way. And so would you ;) Perhaps this was
> the compromise the design team could finally agree on.
I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
"switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can", with "switch user"
being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between "lock" and
"switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name" prompt or the
"password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you to the other.)
In particular, I pick each of "log off", "restart", "sleep", "suspend"
(which isn't even on the menu), or "shut down" at least once a week for
each. The idea that you could eliminate those from the interface simply
because Joel can eliminate those from *his* laptop is absurd.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>
> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
> menu and how stupid that is.
>
>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>
> That's precisely what Windows does.
On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls
that I have to explain what is there now is:
One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L)
that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a
GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With
explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for
knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down
for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled
sleep/suspend/hibernate.
I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the configuration
panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my laptop), but a
quick glance there did not ring a bell. Yet another place where there is
too much choice. Aggravated by various 3rd party programs putting things
in there.
> It doesn't have the "use this in the
> future." You go to the control panel to set that and the actions of the
> buttons. Giving you the choice of selecting what you want it to do is
> what Joel is complaining about.
>
>> In short, I agree that this interface is stupid, but that I would have
>> simplified it in a different way. And so would you ;) Perhaps this was
>> the compromise the design team could finally agree on.
>
> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",
What can would that be?
> with "switch
> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
> to the other.)
I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be
confused again.
> In particular, I pick each of "log off", "restart", "sleep", "suspend"
> (which isn't even on the menu), or "shut down" at least once a week for
> each. The idea that you could eliminate those from the interface simply
> because Joel can eliminate those from *his* laptop is absurd.
I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible
for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences.
'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle
inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > "Cops have no obligation to timely defense of people in their own homes.", or some
similar idiocy.
>
> Unfortunately, when you actually look at the actual reality of things, this
> makes perfect sense. Most people who get outraged over things like this (or
> who propose, for example, a cap on incomes or similar nonsense) don't stop
> and think that the rule has to apply to cases other than the one they're
> specifically considering at the moment.
>
> Like Joel Spolsky bitching about the power menu
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html and ignoring the fact
> that not everyone is running a laptop with a lid that can be closed, or who
> might get on a plane and need to actually turn it off all the way, or might
> be connected to a computer in a different country and need to reboot it
> without turning it off, or ....
ZOMG, someone call the cops at this offending matter!
> (That, incidentally, was the post that taught me Mr Spolsky is a dipshit in
> many ways.)
he's an entertaining dipshit. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:46:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> The police couldn't
> be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
I think there's more to the story than the person making the video is
telling, because anything that mitigates the circumstances would clearly
break his narrative.
I would be surprised if there wasn't more to it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>>
>> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
>> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
>> menu and how stupid that is.
>>
>>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>>
>> That's precisely what Windows does.
>
> On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
Well, XP isn't what Joel was talking about. But XP has a shutdown and a
hibernate and a sleep (the hibernate being shift-sleep, which is admittedly
a bit hidden), so I'm not sure what you are saying you're missing.
> To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls
> that I have to explain what is there now is:
> One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L)
> that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a
> GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With
> explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for
> knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down
> for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled
> sleep/suspend/hibernate.
You're arguing just like Joel: "I don't understand this, and I don't use it,
so it shouldn't be an option for anyone." Vista has two icons and a menu:
Icon - I'm leaving the computer for a long time. Sleep, hibernate, shut
down, install updates and shut down, whatever is appropriate.
Icon - I'm walking away but I'll still work, so lock the computer screen.
Menu - One option for each thing I might want to do.
Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
> I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the configuration
> panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my laptop), but a
> quick glance there did not ring a bell.
I don't know about XP any more, but "power" is where you look.
>> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
>> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
>> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
>> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",
>
> What can would that be?
Slang for toilet.
>> with "switch
>> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
>> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
>> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
>> to the other.)
>
> I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be
> confused again.
Obviously. :-)
> I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible
> for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences.
The average user is supposed to push the power icon, or close the laptop
lid, or hit the power button. I mean, there's a *button* on the machine
marked "turn off". How much easier can you make it? Why are people
complaining that there are options available for people who actually know
how to work their computer? Do you think Joel would have stopped complaining
if there was a checkbox somewhere in the control panel that says "let me
pick how the heck I turn off the computer, already!?"?
> 'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle
> inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.
Then just ... use the icons with the pretty pictures on them. Green, Yellow,
Red? Those are pretty universal, aren't they? But having those three
choices seems like they're still too confusing.
I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and* brake
pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone complaining about
that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 0:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>>>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>>>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>>>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>>>
>>> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
>>> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
>>> menu and how stupid that is.
>>>
>>>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>>>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>>>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>>>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>>>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>>>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>>>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>>>
>>> That's precisely what Windows does.
>>
>> On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
>
> Well, XP isn't what Joel was talking about. But XP has a shutdown and a
> hibernate and a sleep (the hibernate being shift-sleep, which is
> admittedly a bit hidden), so I'm not sure what you are saying you're
> missing.
I am not arguing that I am missing something, I just said that it does
not look like I would have implemented it.
>> To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls
>> that I have to explain what is there now is:
>> One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L)
>> that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a
>> GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With
>> explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for
>> knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down
>> for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled
>> sleep/suspend/hibernate.
>
> You're arguing just like Joel: "I don't understand this, and I don't use
> it, so it shouldn't be an option for anyone."
Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they should
not be visible when inappropriate.
> Vista has two icons and a menu:
>
> Icon - I'm leaving the computer for a long time. Sleep, hibernate, shut
> down, install updates and shut down, whatever is appropriate.
With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
> Icon - I'm walking away but I'll still work, so lock the computer screen.
>
> Menu - One option for each thing I might want to do.
That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this format.
> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
me to.
>> I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the
>> configuration panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my
>> laptop), but a quick glance there did not ring a bell.
>
> I don't know about XP any more, but "power" is where you look.
Indeed it is. In Dutch 'Energiebeheer', what the machine should do when
you don't use it to save energy. Definitely the place you'll look for if
you want to change the behaviour of a button.
>
>>> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
>>> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
>>> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
>>> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",
>>
>> What can would that be?
>
> Slang for toilet.
Thanks, didn't know that.
>>> with "switch
>>> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
>>> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
>>> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
>>> to the other.)
>>
>> I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be
>> confused again.
>
> Obviously. :-)
>
>> I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible
>> for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences.
>
> The average user is supposed to push the power icon, or close the laptop
> lid, or hit the power button. I mean, there's a *button* on the machine
> marked "turn off". How much easier can you make it? Why are people
> complaining that there are options available for people who actually
> know how to work their computer? Do you think Joel would have stopped
> complaining if there was a checkbox somewhere in the control panel that
> says "let me pick how the heck I turn off the computer, already!?"?
>
>> 'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle
>> inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.
>
> Then just ... use the icons with the pretty pictures on them. Green,
> Yellow, Red? Those are pretty universal, aren't they? But having those
> three choices seems like they're still too confusing.
>
> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
> complaining about that.
Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they should
> not be visible when inappropriate.
They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
options." At least in Vista.
> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should take
you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.
> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this format.
I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do you
not know what those words mean?
>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>
> me to.
I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.
>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>> complaining about that.
>
> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:46:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > The police couldn't
> > be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
> I think there's more to the story than the person making the video is
> telling, because anything that mitigates the circumstances would clearly
> break his narrative.
> I would be surprised if there wasn't more to it.
That's very probably so. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if
legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
force, and hence show strong bias in favor of the police and use all the
excuses in the book to not to proceed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> police force,
Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
specifically requested, AFAIK).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised if
> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> > police force,
> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
> specifically requested, AFAIK).
A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
some technicalities.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
I think it's not that so much as it is all the steps leading up to the lawsuit.
If a crime is committed by a policeman, first the police have to arrest him,
then the District Attorney (the government's prosecuting head lawyer) has to
charge him with a crime, *then* you get to go to court. But the policeman
works for the police, and the DA needs the police's cooperation to do his
job, so that's usually where it gets stymied.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:53:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if
>> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
>> > police force,
>
>> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
>> specifically requested, AFAIK).
>
> A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
> some technicalities.
In the US, it depends - in some cases, a grand jury is called to
determine whether or not there's enough evidence to go to trial.
But your point is certainly valid.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 3:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they
>> should not be visible when inappropriate.
>
> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
> options." At least in Vista.
Hmm, I checked, I actually have Vista Machine here. totally for got that
I did not put XP on it even after finding out that some things did not
work anymore. Found my ways around it, bought a few new things and
forgot the frustration.
And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available as
a popup menu in the lower right. Next to the power of en the lock icon.
Where the power of icon according to the tooltip text does something
different from what I selected from the configuration menu. But that
might be because that only handles the physical button? I am not going
to press the buttons just to see what they do ATM. I rather have MS tell
me what is selected now.
>> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
>> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
>> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
>
> That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should
> take you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.
Why put it in the power management control in the first place? Two
mostly unrelated things, at least as they designed it. You could
integrate some of the concepts, but as far as I can see they failed even
at that. So, put it under a different heading if you can not be bothered
to think.
>> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this
>> format.
>
> I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do
> you not know what those words mean?
I know what these words mean... In the real life context. With my
computer I am not always sure. And as I said a few times before, the
Dutch translation suggests different things than the English which adds
to the confusion. But the main thing is that if you have someone new to
the OS who is of an inquisitive mind, you have to spend 5-15 minutes
explaining a lot of concepts as shortcuts for combinations of actions.
(assuming you fully understand them yourself, otherwise you simply add
to the confusion). Please give them (and me) just those combinations and
get rid of the useless metaphors.
A minor complaint is that if you accidentally move your mouse when
selecting from the menu, it may take a few minutes to correct that, as
you can not interrupt a shutdown. (my god am I glad that most programs
now refuse to get killed if there is some unsaved data. When e.g.
blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving my
mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a meeting).
>>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>>
>> me to.
>
> I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.
You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and allow
easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
(ok, probably 2 buttons, one for going to the toilet or a meeting and
one for going home).
>>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>>> complaining about that.
>>
>> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
>
> And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
> your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.
He is complaining about the interface, just as I do, because it is
horrible and probably designed by an intern from a school for mentally
disabled people.
I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also change
the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully support him
for the former.
About the car: there are historical reasons for this interface. It is a
kludge but I understand where it comes from. If you design something new
there really is no excuse for this mess. Simply the fact that I had to
look up lost of things during this discussion (and am still unclear
about some details) is a clear sign that it is not designed
consistently. I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
forget something that I understand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
>> options." At least in Vista.
> And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available as
> a popup menu in the lower right.
Yep. That would be the button now wouldn't it? ;-)
> different from what I selected from the configuration menu.
The tooltip (and even the icon) change depending on what the icon does.
> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with power
buttons. Where would you put it?
In any case, what you're arguing is that the UI for selecting the right
thing could be improved. Sure, no doubt. I was objecting to Joel's
contention that the UI wasn't needed at all, because he himself only ever
did one thing with the computer.
> blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving my
> mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a
> meeting).
That's what the icon is for. :-)
> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and allow
> easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the list
of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
> I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also change
> the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully support him
> for the former.
He clearly wants to eliminate options. He wants sleep, power, hibernate, and
reboot to all be the same option, for example.
> is a clear sign that it is not designed
> consistently.
I disagree. You just never learned it properly in the first place. It's
software. It *can* be any way you want. You have to learn the idioms.
I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
> forget something that I understand.
Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 0:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
>>> options." At least in Vista.
>
>> And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available
>> as a popup menu in the lower right.
>
> Yep. That would be the button now wouldn't it? ;-)
yep, that's the one I want deleted. And replaced by an intelligently
designed UI. ;)
>
>> different from what I selected from the configuration menu.
>
> The tooltip (and even the icon) change depending on what the icon does.
So why does it say something different than the thing I selected? I have
selected 'sluimerstand' (slumber) which is what you call 'hibernate'
(save status to disk and power down), if I understand correctly. The
button gives a tooltip for 'sleepmode' (keep in memory and reduce power).
>> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
>
> It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with
> power buttons. Where would you put it?
Anywhere on it's own. Not mixed up with something unrelated where I can
only find it by a) knowing it must be there b) eleminating even less
likely options
> In any case, what you're arguing is that the UI for selecting the right
> thing could be improved. Sure, no doubt. I was objecting to Joel's
> contention that the UI wasn't needed at all, because he himself only
> ever did one thing with the computer.
Not sure if that is so. But I would have to reread it to be sure.
>> blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving
>> my mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a
>> meeting).
>
> That's what the icon is for. :-)
That does not what I want apparently/possibly. I am mostly using the
menu (that I want deleted) because I am not sure what the other buttons
do. And because it changes behaviour if there is an update and when it
does I definitely do not want to select it by accident, so I try not to
get into the habit of using it. :(
>> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and
>> allow easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
>
> Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the
> list of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
No, that is an configuration option. Right click therefore. No new UI
elements.
>> I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also
>> change the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully
>> support him for the former.
>
> He clearly wants to eliminate options. He wants sleep, power, hibernate,
> and reboot to all be the same option, for example.
>
>> is a clear sign that it is not designed consistently.
>
> I disagree. You just never learned it properly in the first place. It's
> software. It *can* be any way you want. You have to learn the idioms.
Nope. I am using MS product for many years I normally understand what
they mean. If I don't, I blame them. In this case for introducing too
much, unnecessary and poorly defined new concepts and for hiring
incompetent translators.
> I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
>> forget something that I understand.
>
> Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
right, that is what I said. I think it is mainly because there is too
much inconsistent information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> So why does it say something different than the thing I selected? I have
> selected 'sluimerstand' (slumber) which is what you call 'hibernate'
> (save status to disk and power down), if I understand correctly. The
> button gives a tooltip for 'sleepmode' (keep in memory and reduce power).
I noticed those two are combined on my menu. I think this is *exactly* the
sort of confusion you get when you try to make it simpler than it really is.
Sleep mode is basically hibernate without turning off the power to the
memory. Once the fans and such stop, you can pull the plug and you'll be
fine when you boot it up.
>>> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
>>
>> It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with
>> power buttons. Where would you put it?
>
> Anywhere on it's own. Not mixed up with something unrelated where I can
> only find it by a) knowing it must be there b) eleminating even less
> likely options
If you're going to bundle up sets of options, "power" seems the right place
to put power buttons. If you want a separate control panel just for power
buttons, then you're going to have separate control panels for volume of
speakers vs volume of headphones?
In any case, search pretty much takes care of that. Put in "button" and the
control panel's first choice is "change what the power buttons do". You
click on that and it gives you a screen with two sections: "wht happens when
I push buttons", and "do I want a password when I wake up". Since you wake
up by pushing the button, I don't see the problem there.
It's totally easy to say "it's confusing to me", but unless you have a
better design, it's hard to say whether it's the design or the understanding
of the basic concepts that's wrong. For example, right-click of the power
button taking you to the power button setting page was a better design.
> That does not what I want apparently/possibly. I am mostly using the
> menu (that I want deleted) because I am not sure what the other buttons
> do. And because it changes behaviour if there is an update and when it
> does I definitely do not want to select it by accident, so I try not to
> get into the habit of using it. :(
Well, you can turn off the "change it when I get an update".
What you're really saying is "I don't like having a do-what-I-mean button,
but actually picking the option that I *do* want is too confusing"?
>>> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and
>>> allow easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
>>
>> Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the
>> list of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
>
> No, that is an configuration option. Right click therefore. No new UI
> elements.
It's not a configuration option if it doesn't persist past the current
operation. I already granted that changing what the main icon does with a
right-click would make sense. Changing what the pop-up-the-menu button does
with a right click makes no sense.
> Nope. I am using MS product for many years I normally understand what
> they mean. If I don't, I blame them. In this case for introducing too
> much, unnecessary and poorly defined new concepts and for hiring
> incompetent translators.
Other than "lock" and "switch user" now being synonymous (at least with the
standard login screens[*]), I don't think the concepts are unnecessary or
poorly designed by the time you get to Vista. Indeed, that's exactly what I
was objecting to in Joel's article. He thinks these options are unnecessary,
and there should just be one "close the lid" option. I disagree with that,
exactly because (A) I understand what each means and (B) I use each on a
fairly regular basis.
>> I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
>>> forget something that I understand.
>>
>> Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
>
> right, that is what I said. I think it is mainly because there is too
> much inconsistent information.
It's pretty easy. "Switch user" locks the screen and takes you to the one
that asks you who you want to log in as. "Lock" locks the screen and takes
you to the one that prompts for a password. (These two could probably be
collapsed into one, but I wonder if things like smart cards or fingerprint
readers or hand-writing sign-ins or something might fiddle with one screen
or the other, providing a technical reason for having them separate.)
"Log off" terminates your programs and logs you out but leaves the machine
running. "Reboot" turns it off and back on again after logging everyone out.
"Shut down" turns it off after logging everyone out. "Sleep" writes all
memory out to disk and turns off (essentially) everything but the RAM and
wake-from-sleep devices, and eventually turns off the power if you're on
batteries. "Hibernate" (which isn't even on my menu) writes all memory out
to disk and shuts off all the power. "Install updates and shut down" does
what it says, except it skips updates that you have to manually agree to the
license terms for.
All of these are operations that have been around since laptops got a
reliable way to sleep. And they're all common terms, at least in english.
Which ones were you unsure about?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
