Premeditation isn't the only road to jail time. The rules surrounding duty to retreat and justifiable use of deadly force are both arcane and highly restrictive- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. There have been numerous cases in the US where an individual has walked towards the assailant, thus turning an otherwise justifiable use of deadly force into flat-out homicide.
Other gotchas include the presentation of arms, which in some states is mandatory to a self-defense case and in others is harshly penalized, and whether the individual in question had an "aggressive demeanor", which is particularly a problem in Western states.
As far as premeditation goes, though, remember that its just an aggravating factor- it moves you up the sentencing grid, but doesn't put you there. There's a phrase that says "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", and while it probably applies here, I would be wary of buying the rope with which to hang myself. Many areas, especially major cities, regard the presence of a gun very suspiciously. The choice of weapon can help a lot here- a 28-inch side by side loaded with birdshot or #4 is probably going to be viewed more favorably than a gold-plated Desert Eagle with a 30 round magazine extension.
As far as filming the public goes, by the time you've brandished a firearm at a human being, that is the LEAST of your problems. It doesn't matter if you shot them, or even if they shot first, you WILL spend a lot of time in court over it.
Bottom line is, if you have to go with a camera, try to appear on tape as little as possible- it is not prudent to place yourself in a situation where even the best outcome (present firearm, bad guy runs away) has a solid chance of landing you in jail.
Your first point about finding new content every few minutes, combined with the fact that most people don't have the technical know-how to use the solutions that would let them watch youtube on the TV, is what I mean by ease of use.
You remember correctly, but I've just had it carefully explained to me that localSystem is "just" a user with the ability to shred all of your files and send your laser printer to war against your SAN instead of a superuser, so I guess its all just hunky-dory.
LocalSystem is not a superuser, it's a very highly privileged user.
In the sense that it is bound by a privilege set, you're right, but so is root. Actual "superusers" don't exist in modern operating systems- just their functional equivalents, which both NT and Linux have. So, technicalities aside, it remains the case that more or less total system control can be acquired via a known user. So far there is no known exploit permitting an escalation to that user on an up-to-date Linux box- but there are many known for NT.
As a quick aside, am I missing the joke at the end of your sig or is the new forum system clipping it?
Why is comparing default installations of two competing software products unfair again? Last time I checked that's how every other product comparison in history was done, and its not like we're setting the bar low for Ubuntu: comparing how well a person with years of Windows experience and seconds of Ubuntu experience performs common tasks should, all else being equal, be over before it begins.
K, let me drop my few cents into this one:
1) Just 'cause you don't own a tv doesn't make you a dickwad... dickwad.
2) Youtube is a hodgepodge of entertainment, ranging from sheer brilliance to depths of stupidity that, in a just world, would be punishable by death and castration, not necessarily in that order. To call it *all* dumb, though, is not entirely fair.
3) TV isn't necessary, it's just currently more profitable. When somebody comes along and makes it easier to watch YouTube than ABC while you're eating dinner, it's probably the sign that TV is on its way out. This possibility scares the crap out of old media guys.
4) Amen about the Diggies.
I live in a pretty bad area of town, so, for my part I agree with you: screw the cameras and buy a Remington- but the question seems more concerned about gathering evidence, and frankly, video tape and self defense don't seem to mix well in the US of A. So my only advice would be this: get a gun XOR a camera, but expect to go to jail if you use them both.
"The People" is the universe of discourse from which all other sets derive. The existence of such a universe does not prove or disprove the existence of any other sets, including sets of size one (individuals). Furthermore, the existence of subsets obviously cannot disprove the existence of supersets. In this case, the fact that sets of size one exist has no bearing on whether groups of individuals, or the group of all individuals, exist.
Have you tried OpenGEU? I'm not generally a fan of Enlightenment but the combination of minimal resource usage and eye candy is really pretty impressive.
Ubuntu desktop guide (its free and useful for newbies) and the Nameth books.
If you want them to really *get it*, bring out the old Linux From Scratch stuff.
Whatever happened to the idea that youngsters knew more about computers then their elders?
I know some pretty cunning old people. Not sure I'd care to test my tech prowess against maddog Hall.
Most people don't install their own copy of windows either. It either comes preinstalled or the same technical class that installs Linux did it for them. I have a feeling that if more people installed Windows on their own laptops you wouldn't hear so much about how hard it is to install Linux.
I don't feel like being insulted, so, I'm going to leave this conversation. I wish you well, hope you get the leisure at some point to take another look at Senator Obama, and learn to discuss rather than to argue. Until then, the thread is yours.
But your still reading into it. And BTW, I'm not suggesting that he isn't and honorable man. Us military training states name, rank and serial/id number is all your to give the enemy. I have viewed training films from the WW2 era that was supposedly used by the military up through the 1990's when I saw it showing how bits and pieces of information was enough to tip off the enemy to the point that it could launch an effective attack or thwart attacks against them when it come from 20 different prisoner. It could be very well that it had nothing to do with saving face and everything to do with training and not wanting to tip off the enemy. Giving false information or propaganda would heavily rely on bits and pieces of real information in order to remain believable. Unless he specifically said it was to save face, I have doubts that it was a reason,
He said that it would have been a propaganda coup for an enemy of the United States if they could have produced that document signed by him, and so he couldn't do it. I know of no other way to succinctly characterize that.
Well, lets take recent history and examine this. I don't doubt the idea behind it but when North Korea says X because of diplomacy and only puts up a front in order to get their benefits, it has failed. When Iraq was being lead by a crazy man (and saddam was crazy by most standards, he admitted to invading Kuwait because of a comment by a Luwaiti official calling Iraqi women 10 dollar whores), but when he was secretly making oil deals against UN sanctions with France and Russia and worked in scams revolving around the oil for food programs in order to disobey terms of his armistice agreement that ended the first war, diplomacy had failed. When a terrorist decides to kill innocent civilians in order to force some political ideal or position onto a population, diplomacy has failed. Diplomacy doesn't always work and on some situations, would invite violence which defeats the entire point of diplomacy. That is why it isn't some panacea.
It's not a panacea, but you haven't provided an example where diplomacy has actually failed. Five years ago everybody and his brother knew we we going to have to bomb the shit out of the DPRK, but we haven't because they have agreed to international monitoring. The Iraqi strike into Kuwait was neither motivated by craziness (and, might I add, it is disingenuous to pretend so) nor was it a failure of diplomacy, as was indicated by the size and breadth of the coalition built to repel Iraqi forces. The diplomatic, rather than military, solution also prevailed in the pure political arena: rather than risk occupying Iraq interminably, we put Saddam on a pretty short leash and walked away, a compromise arrived at through diplomatic means.
I've seen him operate too. At first, I saw him as a trying to please everyone at the same time type of person who said as little as possible in the most confiscated ways as possible so everyone could leave with their own idea of what was actually said. This didn't happen with the grab your guns and religion comment. It was a deliberate and concise example of a disconnect that comes from people thinking they are better then others while attempting to explain or address a fault they see in them. This degree of separation became obvious when he went to a state that has lost a lot of jobs and attempted to call them a bunch of racist rednecks because they had strong views on illegal immigration. He attempted to pass it off as if everyone in that area fell back to guns and religion because of racist attitudes towards illegal immigration which he was too good to understand the problem. I will tell you that problem isn't immigration but "illegal immigration".
I caught a portion of the Glenn Beck program on CNN last night at the bar. There are strong illegal immigration issues and enforcements in PA were Obama made those comments. He was speaking to those acts when making those comments and the only
Let me preface this by saying that I've been accused of having terrible C style before, but I don't understand why initializing a variable at declaration is a bad thing. Would you mind explaining?
First off, let me say that when I heard Senator McCain speak, one of my friends asked about the forced confessions, and his comments revolved around ensuring that he didn't didn't provide the enemy with propaganda, so, it's more his analysis of the situation than mine, and I think he's an honorable enough man to tell us the truth about that.
As for diplomacy- there's this idea that diplomacy is mostly haggling, that it's zero sum. It isn't, and anybody in foreign service will tell you so in a heartbeat. You spend a lot more time moving sideways than forward or back, and that's what people really mean when they say 'a failure of diplomacy'- not that the diplomacy wasn't working, but that it wasn't working fast enough, and especially in Iraq, a little patience probably would have done us a lot of good.
As for Obama's supposed contempt for normal people, I think you've got the man wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've seen him operate in a room with 15 people in it, and he's just not like that. He comes across as tolerant, someone who genuinely listens to you, and who tries hard to make disagreements discussions instead of arguments. He does seem to feel that there are some kinds of disagreements, and a lot of kinds of violence, that are the products of a situation and a psychology rather than a personal predilection, and some people have a big problem with that, but if you walk around the world trying not to deal with bad people you're going to be in a bad way pretty quickly. To characterize that sentiment as a 'modern day let them eat cake' is, at the very least, a severe misunderstanding.
As for elitism, I hear this from a lot of ex-huckabee guys: that there's this big cadre of stuck up liberal pricks that come down and think they know better than everybody else (keep in mind I live in the deep South). I've just never understood it. I mean, there are stuck up liberal pricks, but I've just never seen Obama or anyone working on his behalf that was anything less than courteous, or anything close to condescending.
So I guess my point here is that maybe it would be better to have a President that's willing to patiently disagree; that maybe it is time for us to try the long slow road of diplomacy, and abandon the rash haste of the Bush administration (who, it should be said, I voted for). I think it is time for a change from that course, and I think that in spite of his many virtues, Senator McCain is probably not the man to do so.
I'm afraid I can't agree with much you've written; for one thing, you seem to think that I am belittling John McCain, a man for whom I have enormous respect, when I clearly state the contrary. My statement that he would die to save face for our country was a compliment of the highest order for a man who is in every respect a soldier, but with whom I happen to disagree politically.
As for not engaging in diplomacy, we are past the point of defensible borders; we now rely on murky and often disputed loyalties to ensure our safety where military force alone cannot. We must therefore have a seat at all tables, even if it means dining with those we despise- but we should, as you say, take care to ensure we are not strengthening the hand of those who oppose us as we do so.
As for me being bitter, I'm not sure why you think that, but I'm sure you have some kind of reasoning if you'd care to explain it.
There is a dispute, of course, about the relative merits of experience vs fresh outlook in this campaign; in this case, however, I think that argument is misapplied, since neither McCain nor Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama have any executive experience. In fact, the largest organization any of them have ever run is their current campaign. So while I see where you are coming from, I dispute its relevance in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Premeditation isn't the only road to jail time. The rules surrounding duty to retreat and justifiable use of deadly force are both arcane and highly restrictive- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. There have been numerous cases in the US where an individual has walked towards the assailant, thus turning an otherwise justifiable use of deadly force into flat-out homicide.
Other gotchas include the presentation of arms, which in some states is mandatory to a self-defense case and in others is harshly penalized, and whether the individual in question had an "aggressive demeanor", which is particularly a problem in Western states.
As far as premeditation goes, though, remember that its just an aggravating factor- it moves you up the sentencing grid, but doesn't put you there. There's a phrase that says "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", and while it probably applies here, I would be wary of buying the rope with which to hang myself. Many areas, especially major cities, regard the presence of a gun very suspiciously. The choice of weapon can help a lot here- a 28-inch side by side loaded with birdshot or #4 is probably going to be viewed more favorably than a gold-plated Desert Eagle with a 30 round magazine extension.
As far as filming the public goes, by the time you've brandished a firearm at a human being, that is the LEAST of your problems. It doesn't matter if you shot them, or even if they shot first, you WILL spend a lot of time in court over it.
Bottom line is, if you have to go with a camera, try to appear on tape as little as possible- it is not prudent to place yourself in a situation where even the best outcome (present firearm, bad guy runs away) has a solid chance of landing you in jail.
Your first point about finding new content every few minutes, combined with the fact that most people don't have the technical know-how to use the solutions that would let them watch youtube on the TV, is what I mean by ease of use.
You remember correctly, but I've just had it carefully explained to me that localSystem is "just" a user with the ability to shred all of your files and send your laser printer to war against your SAN instead of a superuser, so I guess its all just hunky-dory.
LocalSystem is not a superuser, it's a very highly privileged user.
In the sense that it is bound by a privilege set, you're right, but so is root. Actual "superusers" don't exist in modern operating systems- just their functional equivalents, which both NT and Linux have. So, technicalities aside, it remains the case that more or less total system control can be acquired via a known user. So far there is no known exploit permitting an escalation to that user on an up-to-date Linux box- but there are many known for NT.As a quick aside, am I missing the joke at the end of your sig or is the new forum system clipping it?
NT has a superuser. Its called LocalSystem. The fact that it can't be logged into does not make it any more or less secure than POSIX superusers.
Why is comparing default installations of two competing software products unfair again? Last time I checked that's how every other product comparison in history was done, and its not like we're setting the bar low for Ubuntu: comparing how well a person with years of Windows experience and seconds of Ubuntu experience performs common tasks should, all else being equal, be over before it begins.
K, let me drop my few cents into this one:
1) Just 'cause you don't own a tv doesn't make you a dickwad... dickwad.
2) Youtube is a hodgepodge of entertainment, ranging from sheer brilliance to depths of stupidity that, in a just world, would be punishable by death and castration, not necessarily in that order. To call it *all* dumb, though, is not entirely fair.
3) TV isn't necessary, it's just currently more profitable. When somebody comes along and makes it easier to watch YouTube than ABC while you're eating dinner, it's probably the sign that TV is on its way out. This possibility scares the crap out of old media guys.
4) Amen about the Diggies.
Because the Windows cult is so much less cool.
/ducks
//its a joke
///lighten up, francis
I live in a pretty bad area of town, so, for my part I agree with you: screw the cameras and buy a Remington- but the question seems more concerned about gathering evidence, and frankly, video tape and self defense don't seem to mix well in the US of A. So my only advice would be this: get a gun XOR a camera, but expect to go to jail if you use them both.
"The People" is the universe of discourse from which all other sets derive. The existence of such a universe does not prove or disprove the existence of any other sets, including sets of size one (individuals). Furthermore, the existence of subsets obviously cannot disprove the existence of supersets. In this case, the fact that sets of size one exist has no bearing on whether groups of individuals, or the group of all individuals, exist.
Have you tried OpenGEU? I'm not generally a fan of Enlightenment but the combination of minimal resource usage and eye candy is really pretty impressive.
Ubuntu desktop guide (its free and useful for newbies) and the Nameth books.
If you want them to really *get it*, bring out the old Linux From Scratch stuff.
I know some pretty cunning old people. Not sure I'd care to test my tech prowess against maddog Hall.
Real programmers use butterflies.
http://xkcd.com/378/
Most people don't install their own copy of windows either. It either comes preinstalled or the same technical class that installs Linux did it for them. I have a feeling that if more people installed Windows on their own laptops you wouldn't hear so much about how hard it is to install Linux.
Congratulations- you've been trolled.
On a more serious note, last I heard it was a pretty big deal not having viable flash alternatives for 64 bit.
If a cop got romantically involved with the victim of a crime during the course of an investigation, would you see a conflict of interest?
I don't feel like being insulted, so, I'm going to leave this conversation. I wish you well, hope you get the leisure at some point to take another look at Senator Obama, and learn to discuss rather than to argue. Until then, the thread is yours.
But your still reading into it. And BTW, I'm not suggesting that he isn't and honorable man. Us military training states name, rank and serial/id number is all your to give the enemy. I have viewed training films from the WW2 era that was supposedly used by the military up through the 1990's when I saw it showing how bits and pieces of information was enough to tip off the enemy to the point that it could launch an effective attack or thwart attacks against them when it come from 20 different prisoner. It could be very well that it had nothing to do with saving face and everything to do with training and not wanting to tip off the enemy. Giving false information or propaganda would heavily rely on bits and pieces of real information in order to remain believable. Unless he specifically said it was to save face, I have doubts that it was a reason,
He said that it would have been a propaganda coup for an enemy of the United States if they could have produced that document signed by him, and so he couldn't do it. I know of no other way to succinctly characterize that.
Well, lets take recent history and examine this. I don't doubt the idea behind it but when North Korea says X because of diplomacy and only puts up a front in order to get their benefits, it has failed. When Iraq was being lead by a crazy man (and saddam was crazy by most standards, he admitted to invading Kuwait because of a comment by a Luwaiti official calling Iraqi women 10 dollar whores), but when he was secretly making oil deals against UN sanctions with France and Russia and worked in scams revolving around the oil for food programs in order to disobey terms of his armistice agreement that ended the first war, diplomacy had failed. When a terrorist decides to kill innocent civilians in order to force some political ideal or position onto a population, diplomacy has failed. Diplomacy doesn't always work and on some situations, would invite violence which defeats the entire point of diplomacy. That is why it isn't some panacea.
It's not a panacea, but you haven't provided an example where diplomacy has actually failed. Five years ago everybody and his brother knew we we going to have to bomb the shit out of the DPRK, but we haven't because they have agreed to international monitoring. The Iraqi strike into Kuwait was neither motivated by craziness (and, might I add, it is disingenuous to pretend so) nor was it a failure of diplomacy, as was indicated by the size and breadth of the coalition built to repel Iraqi forces. The diplomatic, rather than military, solution also prevailed in the pure political arena: rather than risk occupying Iraq interminably, we put Saddam on a pretty short leash and walked away, a compromise arrived at through diplomatic means.
I've seen him operate too. At first, I saw him as a trying to please everyone at the same time type of person who said as little as possible in the most confiscated ways as possible so everyone could leave with their own idea of what was actually said. This didn't happen with the grab your guns and religion comment. It was a deliberate and concise example of a disconnect that comes from people thinking they are better then others while attempting to explain or address a fault they see in them. This degree of separation became obvious when he went to a state that has lost a lot of jobs and attempted to call them a bunch of racist rednecks because they had strong views on illegal immigration. He attempted to pass it off as if everyone in that area fell back to guns and religion because of racist attitudes towards illegal immigration which he was too good to understand the problem. I will tell you that problem isn't immigration but "illegal immigration". I caught a portion of the Glenn Beck program on CNN last night at the bar. There are strong illegal immigration issues and enforcements in PA were Obama made those comments. He was speaking to those acts when making those comments and the only
Huh. I always thought it was safer to give it some kind of flag value and catch for it later. Live and learn- and thanks for the explanation.
right click->always on top
Let me preface this by saying that I've been accused of having terrible C style before, but I don't understand why initializing a variable at declaration is a bad thing. Would you mind explaining?
PVFS http://www.pvfs.org/
First off, let me say that when I heard Senator McCain speak, one of my friends asked about the forced confessions, and his comments revolved around ensuring that he didn't didn't provide the enemy with propaganda, so, it's more his analysis of the situation than mine, and I think he's an honorable enough man to tell us the truth about that.
As for diplomacy- there's this idea that diplomacy is mostly haggling, that it's zero sum. It isn't, and anybody in foreign service will tell you so in a heartbeat. You spend a lot more time moving sideways than forward or back, and that's what people really mean when they say 'a failure of diplomacy'- not that the diplomacy wasn't working, but that it wasn't working fast enough, and especially in Iraq, a little patience probably would have done us a lot of good.
As for Obama's supposed contempt for normal people, I think you've got the man wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've seen him operate in a room with 15 people in it, and he's just not like that. He comes across as tolerant, someone who genuinely listens to you, and who tries hard to make disagreements discussions instead of arguments. He does seem to feel that there are some kinds of disagreements, and a lot of kinds of violence, that are the products of a situation and a psychology rather than a personal predilection, and some people have a big problem with that, but if you walk around the world trying not to deal with bad people you're going to be in a bad way pretty quickly. To characterize that sentiment as a 'modern day let them eat cake' is, at the very least, a severe misunderstanding.
As for elitism, I hear this from a lot of ex-huckabee guys: that there's this big cadre of stuck up liberal pricks that come down and think they know better than everybody else (keep in mind I live in the deep South). I've just never understood it. I mean, there are stuck up liberal pricks, but I've just never seen Obama or anyone working on his behalf that was anything less than courteous, or anything close to condescending. So I guess my point here is that maybe it would be better to have a President that's willing to patiently disagree; that maybe it is time for us to try the long slow road of diplomacy, and abandon the rash haste of the Bush administration (who, it should be said, I voted for). I think it is time for a change from that course, and I think that in spite of his many virtues, Senator McCain is probably not the man to do so.
I'm afraid I can't agree with much you've written; for one thing, you seem to think that I am belittling John McCain, a man for whom I have enormous respect, when I clearly state the contrary. My statement that he would die to save face for our country was a compliment of the highest order for a man who is in every respect a soldier, but with whom I happen to disagree politically.
As for not engaging in diplomacy, we are past the point of defensible borders; we now rely on murky and often disputed loyalties to ensure our safety where military force alone cannot. We must therefore have a seat at all tables, even if it means dining with those we despise- but we should, as you say, take care to ensure we are not strengthening the hand of those who oppose us as we do so.
As for me being bitter, I'm not sure why you think that, but I'm sure you have some kind of reasoning if you'd care to explain it.
There is a dispute, of course, about the relative merits of experience vs fresh outlook in this campaign; in this case, however, I think that argument is misapplied, since neither McCain nor Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama have any executive experience. In fact, the largest organization any of them have ever run is their current campaign. So while I see where you are coming from, I dispute its relevance in this case.