For fraks sake. Will SCOTUS please making a damn ruling that absolutely allows for any and all recording of police officers in a public place no matter what? This is getting ridiculous.
I was not agreeing with him. It was to point out his absurdity. Just because criminals don't follow the law is no reason to not have the law. Laws are not only deterrents but also to provide punishment. Or are you goong to claim we should abolish laws against murder since criminals will do it anyway?
Murder, theft, rape are BEHAVIORS. These are actual morally wrong acts. You have to make certain actions illegal for a basic functioning society. Yet the idea of making the possession of certain things illegal is relatively a new concept. The idea here is that the illegal item is so strongly correlated with an illegal ACTION, that possession implies action. That is why cocaine is illegal. If you possess it, you're guaranteed to be using or selling it, and not simply keeping it safe one day for controlled pain relieving purposes for when SHTF.
Gun control is very different. Unlike cocaine, there is NOT a strong correlation that simply possessing a firearm implies murder. Note, I said murder not kill. Murder is wrong, killing is not necessarily so. Yes a gun's true purpose is to kill. Most people own a gun for self defense, to kill in self defense. Killing in self defense is morally and legally justified. Its justified just like being able to work and earn a living - its far more messier and gruesome, but your right to defend yourself is not less than your right to work and earn a living - both are for the purpose of the pursuit of one's happiness, or life.
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.
I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.
I think every time an officer uses a taser on someone, the officer should receive a taser shot 2x - just to make him evaluate whether the taser is really necessary in a situation.
A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A virus is almost pure software.
A virus is pure intangible idea/algorithm/concept/instruction? Granted its been a few years since I took biology, but I'm pretty sure all viruses have some sort of outer layer/covering, with their "software" encoded using RNA inside. That's pretty cut and dry hardware and software to me...
I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.
Realizing the significance of his footage, Holliday phoned the local police station, but claims that the person who answered the phone 'blew him off'. Next, he tried CNN, but no one was there to take his call. Finally, Holliday took his tape to local Los Angeles station KTLA. They edited out the blurry first 13 seconds of the tape showing King charging Officer Powell, and broadcast the last 68 seconds of the beating. The next day CNN and NBC obtained copies, and the tape was seen around the world.
Oh you mean recording an event is not perfect, therefore we should not record it? The police can STFU. Police videos is the only truly effective way to hold them accountable. Everything else gets swept under the rug until it becomes blatantly obvious and far too late. And yes, its not always perfect, but I for one want them accountable SOMEHOW, rather than business as usual. And frankly, I want to hold the department/chief responsible as well for high occurrences of bad police in their department - its a sign that THEY are turning a blind eye to problem cops. They need to weed out bad cops early and often.
What the hell does this have to do with enthusiasts? Motherboards die all the time. Why the hell do we need to buy a whole new CPU each time...ohhhhhh. I get it. We have to buy a new CPU each time. It all makes sense.
I think car manufacturers should follow suit and weld the engine and all its parts permanently onto the car. Need a new fuel injector? F you. Buy a new car.
Windows, every other iteration. XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad. 9 ???
They have a special knack for stumbling on something good and then massively screwing it up the next go around.
If you think being poor and getting help is better than being middle-class and having loans, then you have never been poor before.
You also seem to have very little idea about how the financial aid system works. The poorer you are, the more help you get. There's no "magic number" of income below which you get a bunch of grants and above which you get none.
My roommate in college had a full ride from grants due to financial need. I had none. Yet he had the latest computer, a $1000 bike, while I was stuck with a mediocre machine and a $100 bike because I couldn't afford more. Maybe his life before sucked, but in college, at least financially, he was better off than me, a middle class kid.
It is stealing in the core, meaningful sense of the word. IP creates virual property for the exact same reason we have property rights: so the owner can, in a free society, take advantage of it without fear of someone just taking it like we were some hunter-gatherer society.
So, yes, you are right that it is not stealing a physical object, but it is stealing in the acual, meaningful sense of the word. You are violating the virtual property rights that were instantiated to provide the exact same benefits for the exact same reason as physical property rights.
I'm tired of this god damned semantic game about "it isn't stealing".
No its not semantics AT ALL. Copyright is like a platypus - it has a bill like a duck, a tail like a beaver, lays eggs and is venomous. That doesn't means its a duck. Nor is it a beaver. It is its OWN DAMN ANIMAL. Copyright violation MAY involve revenue loss, yes, but it doesn't always result in revenue loss. Now, actual theft, always results in loss. Copyright has similarity to physical things, but it has characteristics entirely unique. Yet you insist on pointing to just one aspect, pound the table and insist its stealing. That's like pointing to the tail of the platypus and insist its a beaver. Its not semantics. Its stupidity.
Read your own wiki article. It states that while small arms come from the US, heavy arms, like grenades and RPGs come from within and other central American countries. What this means is that its more convenient to get small arms from the US. But plug that hole and they would just as easily get it from within and other central American countires.
It's true, female programmers tend to be ugly and insecure. We had one in our class and she was shy as hell.
But why exactly would you want someone exactly like you to be your partner? It works much better when each other complete each other.
Female coders are average looking, but so are their male counterparts. So apples to apples.
Frankly, a male coder most likely will only attract another female coder. What extroverted, hot blonde is going to find some nerd attractive? And no, don't give me examples of the few RICH nerds with hot chicks.
A positive attitude toward being deaf is typical in Deaf cultural groups. Deafness is not generally considered a condition that needs to be fixed.
That's fine and dandy. My inability to fly like superman isn't a disability - but if something could give me that ability, I sure as hell will seek it.
So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?
I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.
We have this standard in criminal law today, and its a mainstay. Witness testimony is among the worst source of information on earth. If 10 people see something, all ten will have a different story, the story will change on its own over time, and influences to the witness can also change testimony.
Yet with a couple of people saying they saw you do something, even if all other scientific evidence says otherwise...guess where you're going.
You're going to court, the place where they decide whether you're guilty or not.
Lance won and kept winning even against younger, superior talent. Something isn't right there. At his age, response time, peripheral vision and quickness just arent what they were 15-20 years ago.
Plus when you throw in the towel, it means you don't care or the allegations are correct. I doubt that he doesn't care.
Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work according to your personal observations. Many older athletes have prevailed, against all odds, against younger athletes. Its rare, but it happens. Roger Federer should not be #1 in the world at his age. But he is. His rivals are ALL younger than him.
Chinese dissidents would give up in a Chinese court. Or an Iranian woman in an Iranian court. Or any other situation where you knew actual justice would not be served because of the court or arbitration itself is corrupt. Again, just because YOU can't think of it, doesn't mean a world of 7 billion hasn't encountered it.
when you are dead you are dead. there isn't any 'safe trip' about it.
let the myth of afterlife 'die' already!
Of course its tolerance, regardless of what you think about it. You live most of your life based, not on logic, but on personal preferences and emotional impulses that have little scientific justification. And I do too. And so the other 7 billion people on this planet.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork.
Sigh. Yet another "i sucked at school because I was too smart". You DO realize that if you go "above and beyond" what's taught in class, you should be able to ace what's taught in class? If I'm so smart in kindergarten that I'm working on Calculus instead of learning to count blocks and shapes, I should be able to count blocks and shapes in my sleep.
An 8 year old that can self regulate his Xbox is a rare case. Just like an 8 year old who can speak 10 languages fluently.
There are also people who have survived gunshots to the head. Just because some people can, doesn't mean I'm going to take my chances.
I don't base my everyday policies on the extreme unlikely cases.
And finally, while an 8 year old having a lapse in self control and playing XBox until midnight isn't the end of the world, that same 8 year old watching a 10 way gang-bang or bestiality until midnight is a complete disaster. And porn is far more appealing to an 8 year old than any xbox game. And once he stumbles on it, he's going to go back looking for it, you can bet on it. Even your magical, iron will 8 year old will go back looking for it.
Nothing on the internet is SO important to an 8 year old that might get filtered by net nanny (or equivalent) that I'm willing to take the chance they stumble on something that could have profound negative effects.
But by all means, YOU let your rare, fully self regulating, responsible 8 year old have full access to the internet.
Indeed. I don't even know why this is even a debate. Your family's internet policy is not a national policy. If people want to let their kids have open, unfettered access to the world, then that's their business...or if they want to control that access, that is also their business.
As for me, I will lock my guns and other things they are not ready for, out of my kids reach or limited reach, until such time that they arrive at a level of responsibility. This includes the internet, as well as any other tool that is capable to do good or harm.
To those who believe their 8 year olds can self regulate their internet usage...can your 8 year old regulate his XBox usage?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's comforting to know. I mean, we don't want to prosecute bad cops, only bad citizens.
For heaven's sake, RTFA. They ARE using MITM.
For fraks sake. Will SCOTUS please making a damn ruling that absolutely allows for any and all recording of police officers in a public place no matter what? This is getting ridiculous.
I was not agreeing with him. It was to point out his absurdity. Just because criminals don't follow the law is no reason to not have the law. Laws are not only deterrents but also to provide punishment. Or are you goong to claim we should abolish laws against murder since criminals will do it anyway?
Murder, theft, rape are BEHAVIORS. These are actual morally wrong acts. You have to make certain actions illegal for a basic functioning society. Yet the idea of making the possession of certain things illegal is relatively a new concept. The idea here is that the illegal item is so strongly correlated with an illegal ACTION, that possession implies action. That is why cocaine is illegal. If you possess it, you're guaranteed to be using or selling it, and not simply keeping it safe one day for controlled pain relieving purposes for when SHTF.
Gun control is very different. Unlike cocaine, there is NOT a strong correlation that simply possessing a firearm implies murder. Note, I said murder not kill. Murder is wrong, killing is not necessarily so. Yes a gun's true purpose is to kill. Most people own a gun for self defense, to kill in self defense. Killing in self defense is morally and legally justified. Its justified just like being able to work and earn a living - its far more messier and gruesome, but your right to defend yourself is not less than your right to work and earn a living - both are for the purpose of the pursuit of one's happiness, or life.
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.
I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.
I think every time an officer uses a taser on someone, the officer should receive a taser shot 2x - just to make him evaluate whether the taser is really necessary in a situation.
A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. A virus is almost pure software.
A virus is pure intangible idea/algorithm/concept/instruction? Granted its been a few years since I took biology, but I'm pretty sure all viruses have some sort of outer layer/covering, with their "software" encoded using RNA inside. That's pretty cut and dry hardware and software to me...
A virus is not lethal. It is merely a vehicle, a means of reprogramming cells. Its hardware. The lethality is in the software.
I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.
Oh you mean recording an event is not perfect, therefore we should not record it? The police can STFU. Police videos is the only truly effective way to hold them accountable. Everything else gets swept under the rug until it becomes blatantly obvious and far too late. And yes, its not always perfect, but I for one want them accountable SOMEHOW, rather than business as usual. And frankly, I want to hold the department/chief responsible as well for high occurrences of bad police in their department - its a sign that THEY are turning a blind eye to problem cops. They need to weed out bad cops early and often.
What the hell does this have to do with enthusiasts? Motherboards die all the time. Why the hell do we need to buy a whole new CPU each time...ohhhhhh. I get it. We have to buy a new CPU each time. It all makes sense.
I think car manufacturers should follow suit and weld the engine and all its parts permanently onto the car. Need a new fuel injector? F you. Buy a new car.
Ballmer's law. I believe Gates was still in charge during NT4 and 2000, so those don't apply.
Windows, every other iteration. XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad. 9 ??? They have a special knack for stumbling on something good and then massively screwing it up the next go around.
If you think being poor and getting help is better than being middle-class and having loans, then you have never been poor before.
You also seem to have very little idea about how the financial aid system works. The poorer you are, the more help you get. There's no "magic number" of income below which you get a bunch of grants and above which you get none.
My roommate in college had a full ride from grants due to financial need. I had none. Yet he had the latest computer, a $1000 bike, while I was stuck with a mediocre machine and a $100 bike because I couldn't afford more. Maybe his life before sucked, but in college, at least financially, he was better off than me, a middle class kid.
What the hell is the justification for this? My money is stored in a "cloud" at the bank as well. Does the government own that too?
It is stealing in the core, meaningful sense of the word. IP creates virual property for the exact same reason we have property rights: so the owner can, in a free society, take advantage of it without fear of someone just taking it like we were some hunter-gatherer society.
So, yes, you are right that it is not stealing a physical object, but it is stealing in the acual, meaningful sense of the word. You are violating the virtual property rights that were instantiated to provide the exact same benefits for the exact same reason as physical property rights.
I'm tired of this god damned semantic game about "it isn't stealing".
No its not semantics AT ALL. Copyright is like a platypus - it has a bill like a duck, a tail like a beaver, lays eggs and is venomous. That doesn't means its a duck. Nor is it a beaver. It is its OWN DAMN ANIMAL. Copyright violation MAY involve revenue loss, yes, but it doesn't always result in revenue loss. Now, actual theft, always results in loss. Copyright has similarity to physical things, but it has characteristics entirely unique. Yet you insist on pointing to just one aspect, pound the table and insist its stealing. That's like pointing to the tail of the platypus and insist its a beaver. Its not semantics. Its stupidity.
Read your own wiki article. It states that while small arms come from the US, heavy arms, like grenades and RPGs come from within and other central American countries. What this means is that its more convenient to get small arms from the US. But plug that hole and they would just as easily get it from within and other central American countires.
In countries where there are less guns, they have less gun violence.
It's pretty simple, really.
Yes, countries like Mexico and Columbia are pretty safe.
It's true, female programmers tend to be ugly and insecure. We had one in our class and she was shy as hell. But why exactly would you want someone exactly like you to be your partner? It works much better when each other complete each other.
Female coders are average looking, but so are their male counterparts. So apples to apples.
Frankly, a male coder most likely will only attract another female coder. What extroverted, hot blonde is going to find some nerd attractive? And no, don't give me examples of the few RICH nerds with hot chicks.
Many in the deaf community are against technologies that restore hearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture#Values_and_beliefs
A positive attitude toward being deaf is typical in Deaf cultural groups. Deafness is not generally considered a condition that needs to be fixed.
That's fine and dandy. My inability to fly like superman isn't a disability - but if something could give me that ability, I sure as hell will seek it.
Peer review, shmeer review. I don't believe in the moon landing or global warming. And I don't believe in no stinkin higgs boson. [/sarcasm]
So, for a sufficiently large value of "X", X liars can trump science?
I hope this standard never propagates into criminal law.
We have this standard in criminal law today, and its a mainstay. Witness testimony is among the worst source of information on earth. If 10 people see something, all ten will have a different story, the story will change on its own over time, and influences to the witness can also change testimony.
Yet with a couple of people saying they saw you do something, even if all other scientific evidence says otherwise...guess where you're going.
You're going to court, the place where they decide whether you're guilty or not.
Lance won and kept winning even against younger, superior talent. Something isn't right there. At his age, response time, peripheral vision and quickness just arent what they were 15-20 years ago.
Plus when you throw in the towel, it means you don't care or the allegations are correct. I doubt that he doesn't care.
Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.
Fortunately, the world doesn't work according to your personal observations. Many older athletes have prevailed, against all odds, against younger athletes. Its rare, but it happens. Roger Federer should not be #1 in the world at his age. But he is. His rivals are ALL younger than him.
Chinese dissidents would give up in a Chinese court. Or an Iranian woman in an Iranian court. Or any other situation where you knew actual justice would not be served because of the court or arbitration itself is corrupt. Again, just because YOU can't think of it, doesn't mean a world of 7 billion hasn't encountered it.
tolerance of superstition is not tolerance.
when you are dead you are dead. there isn't any 'safe trip' about it.
let the myth of afterlife 'die' already!
Of course its tolerance, regardless of what you think about it. You live most of your life based, not on logic, but on personal preferences and emotional impulses that have little scientific justification. And I do too. And so the other 7 billion people on this planet.
I barely graduated; not because I didn't understand the material, not because I had no desire to succeed, but because I was spending my time learning things above and beyond what was being taught in the classroom, rather than doing the classwork. I passed tests, I aced midterms and finals, but I was too busy, after having run through the provided textbooks in the first month or so of the class, seeking new material and learning new things that were *not* being taught in class, to waste my time on the classwork.
Sigh. Yet another "i sucked at school because I was too smart". You DO realize that if you go "above and beyond" what's taught in class, you should be able to ace what's taught in class? If I'm so smart in kindergarten that I'm working on Calculus instead of learning to count blocks and shapes, I should be able to count blocks and shapes in my sleep.
There are also people who have survived gunshots to the head. Just because some people can, doesn't mean I'm going to take my chances.
I don't base my everyday policies on the extreme unlikely cases.
And finally, while an 8 year old having a lapse in self control and playing XBox until midnight isn't the end of the world, that same 8 year old watching a 10 way gang-bang or bestiality until midnight is a complete disaster. And porn is far more appealing to an 8 year old than any xbox game. And once he stumbles on it, he's going to go back looking for it, you can bet on it. Even your magical, iron will 8 year old will go back looking for it.
Nothing on the internet is SO important to an 8 year old that might get filtered by net nanny (or equivalent) that I'm willing to take the chance they stumble on something that could have profound negative effects.
But by all means, YOU let your rare, fully self regulating, responsible 8 year old have full access to the internet.
Indeed. I don't even know why this is even a debate. Your family's internet policy is not a national policy. If people want to let their kids have open, unfettered access to the world, then that's their business...or if they want to control that access, that is also their business. As for me, I will lock my guns and other things they are not ready for, out of my kids reach or limited reach, until such time that they arrive at a level of responsibility. This includes the internet, as well as any other tool that is capable to do good or harm. To those who believe their 8 year olds can self regulate their internet usage...can your 8 year old regulate his XBox usage?
What?! Dodd, as head of an organization than wants a DMCA law in Canada, lobbied the Canadians for a DMCA law? You don't say
I've never heard of such a ridiculous thing... It's like he was doing his job or something. Who the hell does that?!
Hitmen. They take their jobs very seriously.