Then you have them arrested for breaking the law. It's illegal. It's called trespass. Try shoplifting at a Walmart and see how it works for yourself. Your picture goes up on the wall and the security team has you escorted off the property if you come back.
We're not talking about a shoplifter. We're talking about (hypothetically) thousands of people who relentlessly occupy your space. If the cause is really so wrong, that population of thousands (millions, translating to Internet scale) will not materialize, and we're arguing about something that will never happen. When a big chunk of the world is screaming at you, locking them all up is just impossible and you have to face the fact that there is conflict between human beings. And resolve that conflict.
As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).
You used to be ten years old, certainly not at all physically the same person you are now, and yet you don't seem disturbed that your ten year old self has "died" only to be replaced with your current self...
Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?
If a thousand people are waiting in line, about the time the tenth one spouts crap about marriage equality instead of conducting legitimate business, closing the business for the day becomes a good business model.
And if they come back the next day and the next day and the next?
Face it. The fact that a mob can do something doesn't mean that it is legal for them to do it.
True. But are you really going to kick out every customer who goes "umm..." while ordering? I suspect you will not have customers for very long.
You basically don't grasp how civil disobedience works. This is exactly how it does. You don't really do much of anything yourself except stand around. Then the opponent's own reactions take them down.
Until the manager says that all such protesters should GTFO or the cops will be called to deal with a bunch of trespassers.
True, the manager could just say "All potential customers in this building must leave immediately." But that would sort of defeat the point of coming to work.
And if the manager would like to institute some kind of "political leanings check" for everyone entering the building he can do that too. I doubt paying customers would tolerate it, though.
Face it. If a big mob of people wants to disrupt your business, they can do it.
Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted.
You have it exactly backward. People did take it seriously. Only when it became apparent that the administration did not also take it seriously, did we begin to deliberately mock the system with these made-up issues. It is clear the administration doesn't care what petitioners are saying. By filling the queue with ridiculous nonsense we are perpetrating a satire designed to expose the false nature of the thing.
When the administration takes it seriously then we will also. We started in good faith and received only bullshit in response. Now we're feeding the bullshit back into the system.
The problem is when the values are WAY off. Then the outcome of the game strongly depends on the letters drawn by the player and much less so on the knowledge of the player. For instance, if all letters were worth 1, but E was worth 10, then it would be purely a game of who draws the most E's, as it is simple to come up with words including that letter.
I recall hearing exactly the opposite from somebody I used to know who was a police officer. Specifically, I seem to remember that he said that a gun was not to be used for any other purpose *BUT* to kill, so he was trained not to use it unless killing somebody was actually warranted under the circumstances.
No. Let's just think about it for a second, alright? Suppose that the reason that an officer fires his weapon is to kill the suspect. If that is the case, then we should observe the following: officer shoots suspect, suspect falls to the ground. Suspect may not be dead yet, so officer walks over to suspect and empties his weapon into suspect's forehead. If the officer's intent is to kill the suspect, we should observe the above behavior. However, we do not in fact observe that -- after the suspect is down and has ceased threatening behaviors, officers do NOT continue to pump him full of lead. Therefore, the intent of the action is clearly NOT to kill but to STOP the suspect.
You are confusing the consequence of an action (likely death of the suspect) with the PURPOSE of the action (stopping the suspect).
When you point and shoot a gun you ALWAYS assume you will kill whatever your targeting. Never the other way around.
No, that doesn't mean the same thing. These sorts of considerations come into play before firing the weapon. Once you have made up your mind to fire, it is completely irrelevant whether the shot kills -- only that it stops the threat. By pulling the trigger, you have decided that it is acceptable if the target is killed, but killing the target is not the objective.
Just quit making fucking assumptions on shit you really do NOT know.
You ought to take your own advice. I'm merely pointing out that a person who lives in an area may have some insight as to whether cars parked in that area belong to residents of the area or not. I said nothing whatever about whether welfare recipients should be driving "nice" cars or not. But hey, nice rant.
So my thought is to go non-lethal or less-lethal or whatever the term is. With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.
You assume the purpose of shooting somebody is to kill them. That is not true. The purpose of shooting somebody is to stop them from doing what they are doing. It has been found that multiple bullets to the chest is the most reliable way of doing that. Whether that kills the person is not the point. If you know a way to stop somebody with equal effectiveness in a way that is less likely to kill them, I'm all ears.
Did you by chance go to the subsidized housing and find out who owns which vehicles? They could be visitors, they could of been vehicles that they inherited from a relative, they could be other people who pay to park their cars there.
I know which cars in my own neighborhood belong to residents, because I live here and have a set of eyes that let me learn shit like that. I assume the person you are responding to has a set of eyes as well.
Why are you posting links to these jackasses? If they want to vanish into obscurity because nobody is permitted to link to (a.k.a. mention) them, why not let them die?
Slashdot Mirror
Then you have them arrested for breaking the law. It's illegal. It's called trespass. Try shoplifting at a Walmart and see how it works for yourself. Your picture goes up on the wall and the security team has you escorted off the property if you come back.
We're not talking about a shoplifter. We're talking about (hypothetically) thousands of people who relentlessly occupy your space. If the cause is really so wrong, that population of thousands (millions, translating to Internet scale) will not materialize, and we're arguing about something that will never happen. When a big chunk of the world is screaming at you, locking them all up is just impossible and you have to face the fact that there is conflict between human beings. And resolve that conflict.
For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?
Speculation on the consequences of impossible events is not really informative.
There is one more option, that conservation of energy is not necessarily enforced on quantum level.
Another equally likely option is that at the quantum level everything is made of bacon.
As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).
You used to be ten years old, certainly not at all physically the same person you are now, and yet you don't seem disturbed that your ten year old self has "died" only to be replaced with your current self...
Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?
If a thousand people are waiting in line, about the time the tenth one spouts crap about marriage equality instead of conducting legitimate business, closing the business for the day becomes a good business model.
And if they come back the next day and the next day and the next?
Face it. The fact that a mob can do something doesn't mean that it is legal for them to do it.
I really don't see what your point is.
Implicit in "civil disobedience" is "disobedience". Disobedience to what? THE LAW. So, you've just admitted that what you are doing is illegal.
Wow, you're starting to catch on. Congrats.
True. But are you really going to kick out every customer who goes "umm..." while ordering? I suspect you will not have customers for very long.
You basically don't grasp how civil disobedience works. This is exactly how it does. You don't really do much of anything yourself except stand around. Then the opponent's own reactions take them down.
Until the manager says that all such protesters should GTFO or the cops will be called to deal with a bunch of trespassers.
True, the manager could just say "All potential customers in this building must leave immediately." But that would sort of defeat the point of coming to work.
And if the manager would like to institute some kind of "political leanings check" for everyone entering the building he can do that too. I doubt paying customers would tolerate it, though.
Face it. If a big mob of people wants to disrupt your business, they can do it.
Thanks to those who started petitions for Master Chief statues, roaming motorcycle gangs of justices, and Death Stars. Without you folks making jokes out of serious attempts to make political headway on important issues, we might not have had our collective voices diluted.
You have it exactly backward. People did take it seriously. Only when it became apparent that the administration did not also take it seriously, did we begin to deliberately mock the system with these made-up issues. It is clear the administration doesn't care what petitioners are saying. By filling the queue with ridiculous nonsense we are perpetrating a satire designed to expose the false nature of the thing.
When the administration takes it seriously then we will also. We started in good faith and received only bullshit in response. Now we're feeding the bullshit back into the system.
The problem is when the values are WAY off. Then the outcome of the game strongly depends on the letters drawn by the player and much less so on the knowledge of the player. For instance, if all letters were worth 1, but E was worth 10, then it would be purely a game of who draws the most E's, as it is simple to come up with words including that letter.
I recall hearing exactly the opposite from somebody I used to know who was a police officer. Specifically, I seem to remember that he said that a gun was not to be used for any other purpose *BUT* to kill, so he was trained not to use it unless killing somebody was actually warranted under the circumstances.
No. Let's just think about it for a second, alright? Suppose that the reason that an officer fires his weapon is to kill the suspect. If that is the case, then we should observe the following: officer shoots suspect, suspect falls to the ground. Suspect may not be dead yet, so officer walks over to suspect and empties his weapon into suspect's forehead. If the officer's intent is to kill the suspect, we should observe the above behavior. However, we do not in fact observe that -- after the suspect is down and has ceased threatening behaviors, officers do NOT continue to pump him full of lead. Therefore, the intent of the action is clearly NOT to kill but to STOP the suspect.
You are confusing the consequence of an action (likely death of the suspect) with the PURPOSE of the action (stopping the suspect).
If you think that's what I said, then you're not much smarter than my five year old.
In cases like the recent mass shooting, what the school children were doing was living. The gun man decided he wanted to stop them from living.
What a criminal chooses to use a weapon for is not what was being discussed. I was attempting to answer the posed question: "With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them." The topic is limited to the legal use of force to stop criminal acts. You are off topic.
I have no understand of, or comment about, the motivations of criminals. I thought it was obvious I was referring to lawful use of firearms.
I did read your comment. You said it was "understandable." Meaning you think it's okay that the cop doesn't know the law. Well, I think it isn't.
When you point and shoot a gun you ALWAYS assume you will kill whatever your targeting. Never the other way around.
No, that doesn't mean the same thing. These sorts of considerations come into play before firing the weapon. Once you have made up your mind to fire, it is completely irrelevant whether the shot kills -- only that it stops the threat. By pulling the trigger, you have decided that it is acceptable if the target is killed, but killing the target is not the objective.
Just quit making fucking assumptions on shit you really do NOT know.
You ought to take your own advice. I'm merely pointing out that a person who lives in an area may have some insight as to whether cars parked in that area belong to residents of the area or not. I said nothing whatever about whether welfare recipients should be driving "nice" cars or not. But hey, nice rant.
Did you just say "The law is really complicated, so it's okay if police officers don't understand it and therefore make false arrests?"
HIPAA applies in exactly no fucking way at all to a typical citizen. Zero, zilch.
So my thought is to go non-lethal or less-lethal or whatever the term is. With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.
You assume the purpose of shooting somebody is to kill them. That is not true. The purpose of shooting somebody is to stop them from doing what they are doing. It has been found that multiple bullets to the chest is the most reliable way of doing that. Whether that kills the person is not the point. If you know a way to stop somebody with equal effectiveness in a way that is less likely to kill them, I'm all ears.
Did you by chance go to the subsidized housing and find out who owns which vehicles? They could be visitors, they could of been vehicles that they inherited from a relative, they could be other people who pay to park their cars there.
I know which cars in my own neighborhood belong to residents, because I live here and have a set of eyes that let me learn shit like that. I assume the person you are responding to has a set of eyes as well.
Hey, I know -- let's pass the UID of the account which is being reset, in the URL which the attacker has control over. That's the ticket.
I thought that was the standard way of doing it anyway. Is it not?
Chances are your code sucks just as bad.
Why are you posting links to these jackasses? If they want to vanish into obscurity because nobody is permitted to link to (a.k.a. mention) them, why not let them die?