Poorly implemented management protocols sitting above TCP, UDP or raw IP do not represent the kind of problem which a software firewall cannot deal with because of a bug in the network stack.
N.B. router discovery protocol is not enabled by default in Windows and IGMP will be blocked by default on any sane firewall before packets are acted upon. This is fortunate since several operating systems, including Linux, have suffered from poorly implemented IGMP handling.
In other news, Newton went off on some rather dubious treatises about religion. Also, Hawking manipulated his ex-wife (or was that his wife abusing him?), and Einstein had an interesting relationship with his niece. Mind you, so did Hitler. So many rumours! which should we use to distract from the relevant and documented work by this cross-section of significant men?
What other standard do you think is used and do you really think it's much different in intent?
You've typed for too long to be a troll, so I think you're just a buffoon. Re-read the whole thread for the list of reasons police officers take people into custody. I'll clarify one final time to help you:
In cases where the police officer is not being instructed to arrest (warrant), where suspicion of a one of a limited number of crimes has occurred, and as one of many reasons, the police officer may choose to arrest a guy because he has reasonable suspicion that the guy is going to commit another crime. Some crimes may be classified (by what appears to be your option of the childish liberterian definition) as "causing harm to others", although many causes of harm to others are not crimes.
Only the most poorly educated or the policitian with an ulterior motive would thus propose your "reasonable five-word summary of the standard". For your case, I expect the former is the genesis of the latter.
But until then it's generally accepted that you have a right to self choice, even if your choices are destructive
No, you accept that. It's not "generally accepted" that you have the right to unrestricted "self choice" at all. Don't use the third person with your opinion to try to project it on the world.
How is it a strawman?
Because no-one's asserted in this argument that every man should obey every law, just that the police should not selectively enforce laws. These are two separate questions which you can't round off by conflating.
And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.
No order? I'm not sure how old you are, but the job of a policeman - or almost any job - isn't to possibly follow a series of politely worded suggestions.
And, if we live in your dystopia where the only people who enforce drugs laws are those who are mindless government servants, we'd be in an even worse situation than we are now. If I smoke a blunt, I want to be arrested by someone who thinks it's absurd that the law wants me arrested, and who feeds back with the loudest voice of first hand experience how much time and resources he wasted on me.
The problem is that American culture is so egotistical that we're even having the debate. Some people simply believe that giving away US nuclear secrets is the moral thing to do (e.g. to maintain the global balance of power), and value doing the right thing over living a risk-free existence.
making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.
And I hope you've been well disabused the notion, "it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others."
And either do a reduced subset of the job
So, every policeman does a reduced subset of the job in order to fit with his conscience as to precisely which laws are just. And, under this conscience-based policing, I assume the policeman is also going to adjust his behaviour according to whether he approves of the process of law and sentencing guidelines for each crime. For example, a policeman who thinks that a sex offenders' register is punishing someone who has already done his time would opt out from working on any sex offence cases.
Most of our law comes from the same small set of principles - something is harmful to others and only therefore illegal,
You have a particular philosophy and you are trying to pretend that the law is based on it. Regardless, as your little exercise earlier demonstrated, you have great leeway in determining what is "harmful to others". For example, drinking to excess makes you more likely to make instant irrational judgement/become a burden on a health service (private or public, there are only so many paramedics)/reduce your productive output over time/etc.
you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.
But try becoming a state teacher in England with a sexual abuse charge, even if acquitted. Try entering the United States on the VWP with a simple arrest as part of a gaggle at a demonstration, even if it didn't result in a charge.
refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath
I see you snuck in the "obey" strawman. As for "enforce", you are essentially arguing that all policemen in every country are "dangerous sociopaths".
Pointless semantics. A police officer "judges" if he has room to merge into traffic.
It's not pointless semantics, it's one of the fundamental differences between the job of the police officer and the job of judge and jury. The policeman only has the power to hold you very temporarily, but all he needs is suspicion. Do not equivocate.
Skipping out on court is roughly "harm to others".
Good try. It's also self harm because it's adding to the trouble you are in, right?
If the police don't think you're a threat why waste money paying to hold you?
Meeting someone for the first time and arresting them a few moments later is not sufficient time to decide whether that person is "a threat", or going to go into hiding (perhaps more likely than the threat e.g. for a lethal crime of passion), or going to destroy or fabricate evidence, or whatever. So you start off by basing the rules on the crime he is suspected of committing, then you give leeway based on the merest reasonable suspicion.
Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust?
What exactly do you propose as an alternative? Do you want only police officers who are 100% in agreement with the human rights status of all laws, which would create a worryingly homogenous and passive police force with little desire to feed back its experiences into the other branches of government? Or do you think there should be no police at all until some revolution occurs creating enough people who think exactly like you as far as just laws are concerned?
Firstly, your whole post only applies to arrest without warrant.
Secondly, the primary grounds for arrest is suspicion of a sufficiently serious offence. Section 469 offences are unlikely to get bail, let alone escape arrest. Your "[most anything]" does not apply to straight indictable offences.
Thirdly, the policeman must take into account far more than just a suspicion that another crime will occur. He must consider whether the process of law will take place (identification, not skipping Court, etc.).
Fourthly, where a policemen can make a decision, it is not his job to "judge" beyond establishing whether there is reasonable suspicion.
tl;dr "It's supposed to be [arrest of] only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others," is patent nonsense.
If the Nuremberg defense is not valid for mass killings, why do you think it valid for other sorts of persecution and human rights violations?
Because "crime against humanity" is not synonymous with whatever your version of "persecution and human rights violation" is. Systematic disappearance, torture, sexual slavery, apartheid, etc. by government are agreed-upon examples of crimes against humanity. Not following some sophomoric libertarian principle is not considered a crime against humanity by any government or by any majority in any country.
It goes without saying, for example, that marijuana should be legal for personal use - although there are far better arguments than a libertarian one - but making it illegal is not a "crime against humanity". Nor was prohibition.
you are irrational -- probably out of fear -- if you do not hold the unformed thug responsible for his actions.
I hold him responsible for his actions, i.e. the action of upholding the law, but I don't hold it against him that he enforces a stupid law which you as a citizen share your responsibility for. He is playing an appropriate role in government by rule of law rather than of men.
No one can buck that responsibility by looking to legislators, priests, superior officers in a chain of command, or what the neighbors think.
Perhaps you just feel guilty because you know that the ultimate responsibility lies with you, the lazy voter.
So, they should just follow orders [wikipedia.org], then?
The Nuremberg defence cannot be used to excuse mass killing of Jews etc. It is, as far as I can tell, still considered perfectly acceptable by international legal standards for different countries to otherwise have different laws and my learnings inform me that "the majority of Slashdot readers disapprove" does not come under the enumeration of "crimes against humanity".
Separation of powers has a purpose.
A purpose which you are defeating when one branch decides it has the "ethical" authority to override another branch. If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.
on the basis that law Y is not conducive to the welfare and security of the people
And who gets to choose what is conducive to the welfare and security of the people? And may someone, for any particular law, be more equal than others?
No, but if they don't fully support the law they shouldn't become cops.
That is absurd and naive. No man fully supports every law, so you are essentially arguing that there should be no policemen.
A policeman's job is to uphold the law, not to uphold his road paved with good intentions.
Also, police do have jurisdiction to decide who to arrest
For example, you don't stop to arrest a graffiti artist when you're chasing a suspected murderer.
and it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others.
Sorry, what? Is this from your utopic manual of how you want government to work, where policemen have the job of judging the thoughts ("believe will go on to...") of potential criminals?
Have they ever enforced a drug law? Completely fucking corrupt.
You're an idiot. The police should not selectively enforce the law. In fact, the obvious way of being a corrupt policeman is to selectively enforce the law.
Cue 100 bitter/. readers complaining because someone who is severely mentally disabled for life might have the benefit of some money to help support her. I deserve $20 million too - I'm healthy and wise but you all owe me because I'm a socially maladjusted geek and I want another iPod!!!
If you don't like it, get yourself a nationalised health service. I've had family members in the UK receive adverse neurological reactions to vaccines (nothing to do with autism) and a comparatively very small amount is paid directly because it's the health service's duty to look after sick people anyway.
A few years ago, someone with a lot more cunning than ours invented the term "anthropocentric global warming" so it could be shot down and firms could continue to pollute for short term profit. His arguments are accompanied by vigorous astroturfing and pseudoscience.
A few years from now, I imagined someone with a lot more cunning than I have would come up with sufficiently plausible handwaving to explain that oil reserves are infinite. Every oil firm across the globe will invent hundreds of millions in PR to spread this false claim. And the guy who started it all will be rich beyond his dreams.
Slashdot Mirror
Poorly implemented management protocols sitting above TCP, UDP or raw IP do not represent the kind of problem which a software firewall cannot deal with because of a bug in the network stack.
N.B. router discovery protocol is not enabled by default in Windows and IGMP will be blocked by default on any sane firewall before packets are acted upon. This is fortunate since several operating systems, including Linux, have suffered from poorly implemented IGMP handling.
And how many such network stack attacks have existed since Win98?
Bill Gates thought the internet was going to be run by MSN and AOL.
In everything but name, Gates was right.
Mostly AOL, though.
That's no horse, that's a frog in his throat.
Also, h-h-h-horse breaker.
Get off your high horse.
In other news, Newton went off on some rather dubious treatises about religion. Also, Hawking manipulated his ex-wife (or was that his wife abusing him?), and Einstein had an interesting relationship with his niece. Mind you, so did Hitler. So many rumours! which should we use to distract from the relevant and documented work by this cross-section of significant men?
How many people would have survived the crash had the helicopter been controlled using the sort of tech in the car?
What other standard do you think is used and do you really think it's much different in intent?
You've typed for too long to be a troll, so I think you're just a buffoon. Re-read the whole thread for the list of reasons police officers take people into custody. I'll clarify one final time to help you:
In cases where the police officer is not being instructed to arrest (warrant), where suspicion of a one of a limited number of crimes has occurred, and as one of many reasons, the police officer may choose to arrest a guy because he has reasonable suspicion that the guy is going to commit another crime. Some crimes may be classified (by what appears to be your option of the childish liberterian definition) as "causing harm to others", although many causes of harm to others are not crimes.
Only the most poorly educated or the policitian with an ulterior motive would thus propose your "reasonable five-word summary of the standard". For your case, I expect the former is the genesis of the latter.
But until then it's generally accepted that you have a right to self choice, even if your choices are destructive
No, you accept that. It's not "generally accepted" that you have the right to unrestricted "self choice" at all. Don't use the third person with your opinion to try to project it on the world.
How is it a strawman?
Because no-one's asserted in this argument that every man should obey every law, just that the police should not selectively enforce laws. These are two separate questions which you can't round off by conflating.
And if there's no order these policemen would refuse, yes.
No order? I'm not sure how old you are, but the job of a policeman - or almost any job - isn't to possibly follow a series of politely worded suggestions.
And, if we live in your dystopia where the only people who enforce drugs laws are those who are mindless government servants, we'd be in an even worse situation than we are now. If I smoke a blunt, I want to be arrested by someone who thinks it's absurd that the law wants me arrested, and who feeds back with the loudest voice of first hand experience how much time and resources he wasted on me.
Cult
Of
Wikipedia
Acronyms
Rated
D-
WIKIPEDIA.
What
I
Know
Is
Probably
Erroneous.
Detail
It
Anyway.
The problem is that American culture is so egotistical that we're even having the debate. Some people simply believe that giving away US nuclear secrets is the moral thing to do (e.g. to maintain the global balance of power), and value doing the right thing over living a risk-free existence.
making the call, based on the circumstances and their experience.
And I hope you've been well disabused the notion, "it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others."
And either do a reduced subset of the job
So, every policeman does a reduced subset of the job in order to fit with his conscience as to precisely which laws are just. And, under this conscience-based policing, I assume the policeman is also going to adjust his behaviour according to whether he approves of the process of law and sentencing guidelines for each crime. For example, a policeman who thinks that a sex offenders' register is punishing someone who has already done his time would opt out from working on any sex offence cases.
Most of our law comes from the same small set of principles - something is harmful to others and only therefore illegal,
You have a particular philosophy and you are trying to pretend that the law is based on it. Regardless, as your little exercise earlier demonstrated, you have great leeway in determining what is "harmful to others". For example, drinking to excess makes you more likely to make instant irrational judgement/become a burden on a health service (private or public, there are only so many paramedics)/reduce your productive output over time/etc.
you can't be found guilty without evidence and a trial, etc.
But try becoming a state teacher in England with a sexual abuse charge, even if acquitted. Try entering the United States on the VWP with a simple arrest as part of a gaggle at a demonstration, even if it didn't result in a charge.
refuse to enforce or obey you're a dangerous sociopath
I see you snuck in the "obey" strawman. As for "enforce", you are essentially arguing that all policemen in every country are "dangerous sociopaths".
Post subject represents what I would like to read.
Oh eternal September!
Pointless semantics. A police officer "judges" if he has room to merge into traffic.
It's not pointless semantics, it's one of the fundamental differences between the job of the police officer and the job of judge and jury. The policeman only has the power to hold you very temporarily, but all he needs is suspicion. Do not equivocate.
Skipping out on court is roughly "harm to others".
Good try. It's also self harm because it's adding to the trouble you are in, right?
If the police don't think you're a threat why waste money paying to hold you?
Meeting someone for the first time and arresting them a few moments later is not sufficient time to decide whether that person is "a threat", or going to go into hiding (perhaps more likely than the threat e.g. for a lethal crime of passion), or going to destroy or fabricate evidence, or whatever. So you start off by basing the rules on the crime he is suspected of committing, then you give leeway based on the merest reasonable suspicion.
Do you seriously believe a police officer (or anyone?) should enforce a law they feel is unjust?
What exactly do you propose as an alternative? Do you want only police officers who are 100% in agreement with the human rights status of all laws, which would create a worryingly homogenous and passive police force with little desire to feed back its experiences into the other branches of government? Or do you think there should be no police at all until some revolution occurs creating enough people who think exactly like you as far as just laws are concerned?
You are not reading your own posting.
Firstly, your whole post only applies to arrest without warrant.
Secondly, the primary grounds for arrest is suspicion of a sufficiently serious offence. Section 469 offences are unlikely to get bail, let alone escape arrest. Your "[most anything]" does not apply to straight indictable offences.
Thirdly, the policeman must take into account far more than just a suspicion that another crime will occur. He must consider whether the process of law will take place (identification, not skipping Court, etc.).
Fourthly, where a policemen can make a decision, it is not his job to "judge" beyond establishing whether there is reasonable suspicion.
tl;dr "It's supposed to be [arrest of] only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others," is patent nonsense.
you cocksmoking teabaggers!
If the Nuremberg defense is not valid for mass killings, why do you think it valid for other sorts of persecution and human rights violations?
Because "crime against humanity" is not synonymous with whatever your version of "persecution and human rights violation" is. Systematic disappearance, torture, sexual slavery, apartheid, etc. by government are agreed-upon examples of crimes against humanity. Not following some sophomoric libertarian principle is not considered a crime against humanity by any government or by any majority in any country.
It goes without saying, for example, that marijuana should be legal for personal use - although there are far better arguments than a libertarian one - but making it illegal is not a "crime against humanity". Nor was prohibition.
you are irrational -- probably out of fear -- if you do not hold the unformed thug responsible for his actions.
I hold him responsible for his actions, i.e. the action of upholding the law, but I don't hold it against him that he enforces a stupid law which you as a citizen share your responsibility for. He is playing an appropriate role in government by rule of law rather than of men.
No one can buck that responsibility by looking to legislators, priests, superior officers in a chain of command, or what the neighbors think.
Perhaps you just feel guilty because you know that the ultimate responsibility lies with you, the lazy voter.
So, they should just follow orders [wikipedia.org], then?
The Nuremberg defence cannot be used to excuse mass killing of Jews etc. It is, as far as I can tell, still considered perfectly acceptable by international legal standards for different countries to otherwise have different laws and my learnings inform me that "the majority of Slashdot readers disapprove" does not come under the enumeration of "crimes against humanity".
Separation of powers has a purpose.
A purpose which you are defeating when one branch decides it has the "ethical" authority to override another branch. If a law is unconstitutional, you are irrational (possibly out of smallmindedness, possibly out of fear) if you attack the guy with a blue uniform rather than the less visible but entirely more powerful branch responsible for passing legislation or the branch responsible for striking down unconstitutional legislation.
on the basis that law Y is not conducive to the welfare and security of the people
And who gets to choose what is conducive to the welfare and security of the people? And may someone, for any particular law, be more equal than others?
No, but if they don't fully support the law they shouldn't become cops.
That is absurd and naive. No man fully supports every law, so you are essentially arguing that there should be no policemen.
A policeman's job is to uphold the law, not to uphold his road paved with good intentions.
Also, police do have jurisdiction to decide who to arrest
For example, you don't stop to arrest a graffiti artist when you're chasing a suspected murderer.
and it's supposed to be only those who they believe will go on to cause harm to themselves or others.
Sorry, what? Is this from your utopic manual of how you want government to work, where policemen have the job of judging the thoughts ("believe will go on to...") of potential criminals?
Why? It's going to go right over the children's heads.
So "must aim higher" works figuratively and literally?
Kinky.
(Was that inappropriate?)
Have they ever enforced a drug law? Completely fucking corrupt.
You're an idiot. The police should not selectively enforce the law. In fact, the obvious way of being a corrupt policeman is to selectively enforce the law.
an unalterable form such as [...] PDFs
what
Cue 100 bitter /. readers complaining because someone who is severely mentally disabled for life might have the benefit of some money to help support her. I deserve $20 million too - I'm healthy and wise but you all owe me because I'm a socially maladjusted geek and I want another iPod!!!
If you don't like it, get yourself a nationalised health service. I've had family members in the UK receive adverse neurological reactions to vaccines (nothing to do with autism) and a comparatively very small amount is paid directly because it's the health service's duty to look after sick people anyway.
A few years ago, someone with a lot more cunning than ours invented the term "anthropocentric global warming" so it could be shot down and firms could continue to pollute for short term profit. His arguments are accompanied by vigorous astroturfing and pseudoscience.
A few years from now, I imagined someone with a lot more cunning than I have would come up with sufficiently plausible handwaving to explain that oil reserves are infinite. Every oil firm across the globe will invent hundreds of millions in PR to spread this false claim. And the guy who started it all will be rich beyond his dreams.
Maybe that guy is you, right now.
The problem with capitalism is that it is democracy weighted by personal wealth.