Except 14 rear olds generally live in their parent's house, and brewing takes a long enough time to risk discovery by said parents.
You would think the same would apply to inmates (whom live in a jail cell surrounded by cops). However, the prison wine keeps getting made alongside weapons. San Quentin even has a museum for some of the contraband they've found...
No, I'm simply limiting my comments to legal justification, since otherwise it's a subjective ethical debate that I don't have a particular desire to engage in. Seeing as you yourself admitted there clearly are cases that would be justifiable in an ethical sense, it would appear that you agree with my point in an ethical context as well.
Clearly, there are situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is legally justifiable. As you stated, there are clearly situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is ethically justifiable. Therefore, my point that Scribe's comment is inaccurate seems to be correct in both a legal and ethical context...
An unarmed suspect can certainly still meet the definition of someone who poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Hence why you yourself said "almost by definition"...
Scribe's point was that NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away. The fleeing felon rule, when properly applied, does exactly this. Think of it as a "never say never" point. Because, just as cops have been found not to be justified in shooting armed suspects approaching them while brandishing, other cases have found cops to be justified in shooting fleeing unarmed suspects. So, legally speaking, something DOES justify shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back (at least some of the time), despite Scribe's statement...
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
Except, legally, the fleeing felon rule does just that:
The Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
Granted, this doesn't mean the fleeing felon rule applies in this case (especially considering the seemingly false statements made by the officer), but saying NOTHING justifies it isn't quite accurate...
I have to imagine that mandatory voting would simply replace our current system with a human-powered random number generator...
either that, or folks will skew towards the top/bottom/middle option. I could see a lot of candidates changing their names to Aaron Aabraham and such...
Isn't that a bit like saying someone auditing Java must also audit the Linux kernel because Java can run on Linux?
After all, compromised HDD firmware would affect more than just TrueCrypt. PGP/GPG, Bitlocker, etc...
I think it's reasonable to say compromised HDD firmware, while a serious problem, is outside the scope of a TC audit...
Seriously, try enabling Microsoft Update with IE 11 installed...
It just points you to a web page telling you to use Windows Update. If you need Office updates, you have to downgrade to IE 10, enable MS Update, and re-update to IE 11...
HTML doesn’t really “do” anything in the sense that a programming language does. HTML contains no programming logic. It doesn’t have common conditional statements such as If/Else. It can’t evaluate expressions or do any math. It doesn’t handle events or carry out tasks. You can’t declare variables and you can’t write functions. It doesn’t modify or manipulate data in any way. HTML can’t take input and produce output. Think of it this way: you can’t compute the sum of 2 + 2 in HTML; that’s not what it’s for. This is because HTML is not a programming language.
No first amendment rights were violated. But, it appears that extortion may have been committed:
In Colorado: 18-3-207. Criminal extortion – aggravated extortion
(1) A person commits criminal extortion if:
(a) The person, without legal authority and with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to perform an act or to refrain from performing a lawful act, makes a substantial threat to confine or restrain, cause economic hardship or bodily injury to, or damage the property or reputation of, the threatened person or another person; and
(b) The person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) by:
(I) Performing or causing an unlawful act to be performed; or
(II) Invoking action by a third party, including but not limited to, the state or any of its political subdivisions, whose interests are not substantially related to the interests pursued by the person making the threat.
(1.5) A person commits criminal extortion if the person, with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to give the person money or another item of value, threatens to report to law enforcement officials the immigration status of the threatened person or another person.
(2) A person commits aggravated criminal extortion if, in addition to the acts described in subsection (1) of this section, the person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by means of chemical, biological, or harmful radioactive agents, weapons, or poison.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “substantial threat” means a threat that is reasonably likely to induce a belief that the threat will be carried out and is one that threatens that significant confinement, restraint, injury, or damage will occur.
(4) Criminal extortion, as described in subsections (1) and (1.5) of this section, is a class 4 felony. Aggravated criminal extortion, as described in subsection (2) of this section, is a class 3 felony.
So, unless there is some compelling reason to think that the drive was corrupted purposefully, or the recovery was disingenuous, then all you have here is SOP for any IT department (fix what's broke).
Hmm, all the IT departments I've worked for always had an SOP to fix what's broke, then store the broken hard drive rather than toss it. Sometimes we end up having to send the drives off to a clean-lab recovery outfit to grab important stuff.
Is it necessarily a conspiracy that the IRS IT Department tossed a drive? No. Is it something that at the very list indicates a need for a policy change? Possibly.
You'll see things here that look odd, even antiquated to modern eyes, like phones with cords, awkward manual valves, computers that, well, barely deserve the name. It was all designed to operate against an enemy who could infiltrate and disrupt even the most basic computer systems. Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection...
>... the amount of reputation harm that Microsoft would endure would literally be crippling.
I'm not so sure. After all, Microsoft seems to have survived despite virtually each of its cryptographic solutions having serious vulnerabilities, often breakable in a trivial manner. Kerberos, encryption of Microsoft Office documents, PPTP VPN, NTLM authentication protocol, SysKey, EFS encryption in Windows 2000, RNG implementations in Windows 2000/XP/Vista, and so on...
I'd like to point out that there are a LOT of unhinged gun control proponents out there as well. Like the guy who suggested dragging Republicans behind a truck until they "see the light on gun control". Or the guy who explicitly threatened to kill recall activists taking signatures in Colorado. It may be less publicized, but it's there: http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/...
They're armed too. And they have funny ideas about what a right means. And they are also paranoid! Oh and they're pandered to by a major political party.
I won't lump all gun control proponents in with the likes of them. But rest assured, both sides of this fight have unhinged crazies. And they're both just as dangerous...
Wouldn't a $5 cable lock do the same job in those circumstances?
Besides, if you don't think a system failure could be a matter of life and death while hunting, you clearly haven't gone hunting for bear or boar...
And I'm sure no gun control proponent has threatened to kill gun owners, right? No gun control advocate would suggest dragging politicians behind a truck until they "saw the light on gun control", right?
The purpose of a handgun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is simple: it allows you to fire more rounds before having to reload. Some would try to say this is more dangerous somehow, but after watching a man fire 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in about 3 seconds, I have to wonder why...
A military sniper rifle is simply a hunting rifle, just built with better quality control and a camouflage paint job. Seriously: the most popular hunting rifle and the most popular military sniper rifle are both Remington Model 700's...
The purpose of "any military weapon" is impossible to say, seeing as there is such a wide variety. Or are you saying a bayonet and a landmine fulfill the same purpose?
Same with the bombs: flash-bangs and nukes are both technically bombs, with completely different purposes.
"assault grips" is a new one for me, but I guess you're talking about pistol grips and secondary vertical grips. The purpose is simple: to allow an ergonomic hold of the weapon, providing better aiming and control. Same as non-"assault" grips...
I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.
The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.
You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?
If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Except 14 rear olds generally live in their parent's house, and brewing takes a long enough time to risk discovery by said parents.
You would think the same would apply to inmates (whom live in a jail cell surrounded by cops). However, the prison wine keeps getting made alongside weapons. San Quentin even has a museum for some of the contraband they've found...
No, I'm simply limiting my comments to legal justification, since otherwise it's a subjective ethical debate that I don't have a particular desire to engage in. Seeing as you yourself admitted there clearly are cases that would be justifiable in an ethical sense, it would appear that you agree with my point in an ethical context as well.
Clearly, there are situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is legally justifiable. As you stated, there are clearly situations where shooting an unarmed fleeing man is ethically justifiable. Therefore, my point that Scribe's comment is inaccurate seems to be correct in both a legal and ethical context...
An unarmed suspect can certainly still meet the definition of someone who poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Hence why you yourself said "almost by definition"...
Scribe's point was that NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away. The fleeing felon rule, when properly applied, does exactly this. Think of it as a "never say never" point. Because, just as cops have been found not to be justified in shooting armed suspects approaching them while brandishing, other cases have found cops to be justified in shooting fleeing unarmed suspects. So, legally speaking, something DOES justify shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back (at least some of the time), despite Scribe's statement...
NOTHING justifies shooting an unarmed fleeing man in the back when he's already 10 yards away.
Except, legally, the fleeing felon rule does just that:
The Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."
Granted, this doesn't mean the fleeing felon rule applies in this case (especially considering the seemingly false statements made by the officer), but saying NOTHING justifies it isn't quite accurate...
I also read that on average, the planet has been getting greener...
http://www.popsci.com/new-stud...
I have to imagine that mandatory voting would simply replace our current system with a human-powered random number generator...
either that, or folks will skew towards the top/bottom/middle option. I could see a lot of candidates changing their names to Aaron Aabraham and such...
What I don't see happening is a large impact in voter turnout: http://www.idea.int/vt/images/...
Isn't that a bit like saying someone auditing Java must also audit the Linux kernel because Java can run on Linux? After all, compromised HDD firmware would affect more than just TrueCrypt. PGP/GPG, Bitlocker, etc... I think it's reasonable to say compromised HDD firmware, while a serious problem, is outside the scope of a TC audit...
Where was North Korea when The Notebook and Twilight hit theaters?
Seriously, try enabling Microsoft Update with IE 11 installed...
It just points you to a web page telling you to use Windows Update. If you need Office updates, you have to downgrade to IE 10, enable MS Update, and re-update to IE 11...
He's not splitting hairs...
HTML doesn’t really “do” anything in the sense that a programming language does. HTML contains no programming logic. It doesn’t have common conditional statements such as If/Else. It can’t evaluate expressions or do any math. It doesn’t handle events or carry out tasks. You can’t declare variables and you can’t write functions. It doesn’t modify or manipulate data in any way. HTML can’t take input and produce output. Think of it this way: you can’t compute the sum of 2 + 2 in HTML; that’s not what it’s for. This is because HTML is not a programming language.
No first amendment rights were violated. But, it appears that extortion may have been committed:
In Colorado: 18-3-207. Criminal extortion – aggravated extortion
(1) A person commits criminal extortion if:
(a) The person, without legal authority and with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to perform an act or to refrain from performing a lawful act, makes a substantial threat to confine or restrain, cause economic hardship or bodily injury to, or damage the property or reputation of, the threatened person or another person; and
(b) The person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) by:
(I) Performing or causing an unlawful act to be performed; or
(II) Invoking action by a third party, including but not limited to, the state or any of its political subdivisions, whose interests are not substantially related to the interests pursued by the person making the threat.
(1.5) A person commits criminal extortion if the person, with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to give the person money or another item of value, threatens to report to law enforcement officials the immigration status of the threatened person or another person.
(2) A person commits aggravated criminal extortion if, in addition to the acts described in subsection (1) of this section, the person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by means of chemical, biological, or harmful radioactive agents, weapons, or poison.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “substantial threat” means a threat that is reasonably likely to induce a belief that the threat will be carried out and is one that threatens that significant confinement, restraint, injury, or damage will occur.
(4) Criminal extortion, as described in subsections (1) and (1.5) of this section, is a class 4 felony. Aggravated criminal extortion, as described in subsection (2) of this section, is a class 3 felony.
So, unless there is some compelling reason to think that the drive was corrupted purposefully, or the recovery was disingenuous, then all you have here is SOP for any IT department (fix what's broke).
Hmm, all the IT departments I've worked for always had an SOP to fix what's broke, then store the broken hard drive rather than toss it. Sometimes we end up having to send the drives off to a clean-lab recovery outfit to grab important stuff.
Is it necessarily a conspiracy that the IRS IT Department tossed a drive? No. Is it something that at the very list indicates a need for a policy change? Possibly.
You'll see things here that look odd, even antiquated to modern eyes, like phones with cords, awkward manual valves, computers that, well, barely deserve the name. It was all designed to operate against an enemy who could infiltrate and disrupt even the most basic computer systems. Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection...
> ... the amount of reputation harm that Microsoft would endure would literally be crippling.
I'm not so sure. After all, Microsoft seems to have survived despite virtually each of its cryptographic solutions having serious vulnerabilities, often breakable in a trivial manner. Kerberos, encryption of Microsoft Office documents, PPTP VPN, NTLM authentication protocol, SysKey, EFS encryption in Windows 2000, RNG implementations in Windows 2000/XP/Vista, and so on...
I'd like to point out that there are a LOT of unhinged gun control proponents out there as well. Like the guy who suggested dragging Republicans behind a truck until they "see the light on gun control". Or the guy who explicitly threatened to kill recall activists taking signatures in Colorado. It may be less publicized, but it's there: http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/...
They're armed too. And they have funny ideas about what a right means. And they are also paranoid! Oh and they're pandered to by a major political party.
I won't lump all gun control proponents in with the likes of them. But rest assured, both sides of this fight have unhinged crazies. And they're both just as dangerous...
Do you know what else would make it difficult to kill children? A $5 lock that's already required to be sold with each handgun.
Isn't the "cloud" just a bunch of servers? Should nobody be hugging THOSE servers either?
... because the War on Drugs was so effective at preventing the production and sale of drugs in the United States?
"If you don't want a smart gun that "might fail", don't get one. Keep a ordinary gun and be satisfied!"
The problem is things like the New Jersey law that will mandate only "smart" guns can be sold...
Wouldn't a $5 cable lock do the same job in those circumstances? Besides, if you don't think a system failure could be a matter of life and death while hunting, you clearly haven't gone hunting for bear or boar...
And I'm sure no gun control proponent has threatened to kill gun owners, right? No gun control advocate would suggest dragging politicians behind a truck until they "saw the light on gun control", right?
.... right?
The purpose of a handgun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is simple: it allows you to fire more rounds before having to reload. Some would try to say this is more dangerous somehow, but after watching a man fire 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in about 3 seconds, I have to wonder why...
A military sniper rifle is simply a hunting rifle, just built with better quality control and a camouflage paint job. Seriously: the most popular hunting rifle and the most popular military sniper rifle are both Remington Model 700's...
The purpose of "any military weapon" is impossible to say, seeing as there is such a wide variety. Or are you saying a bayonet and a landmine fulfill the same purpose?
Same with the bombs: flash-bangs and nukes are both technically bombs, with completely different purposes.
"assault grips" is a new one for me, but I guess you're talking about pistol grips and secondary vertical grips. The purpose is simple: to allow an ergonomic hold of the weapon, providing better aiming and control. Same as non-"assault" grips...
I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.
The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.
You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?
If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?
Redundant "for me" is redundant for me...
The windows update site worked for me just fine for me this morning...