No. They are working to serve the public. They should be prepared to get a bulk request for all data they have everywhere. Putting limitations on it will first clog up the courts, since a judge will have to decide whether it meets the law's requirements, which then involves lawyers. Then it will be used to cover up real crimes under the auspices of "not an official incident".
We've got a core Mojolicious dev in the Chicago Perl Mongers, which makes it a lot easier for me trying to grok their docs. The IRC channel (irc.perl.org #mojo) helps a lot as a human-companion to the Guides.
Police accountability? Are you joking? Then they might be afraid to shoot unarmed people to death, and they might be afraid that their fellow officers might also hold them accountable. And then they'd be scared of the people! And we can't have that, or else they might shoot unarmed people to death!
"Caused" is different from "Coerced". Entrapment is where a LEO says "do this illegal activity or we'll do X", X being some relatively terrible thing. A LEO, even undercover, cannot put a gun to your head, tell you to do something illegal, and then arrest you for doing the illegal thing.
But more subtly, a LEO can't, for example, repeatedly ask you for drugs, and then when you finally find some to sell, convict you of distribution because you had exactly and only those drugs. However, if you're a drug dealer, if you've got more evidence of illegal activity than just what existed to satisfy the LEO's request, then entrapment may not be a defense.
And so here, in the indictment (http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/williamsindictment.pdf), Williams is quoted as saying how many times he has exactly helped people lie to the federal government, which is a crime. The LEO did not make him do those things, and did not force or coerce him even to admit them.
And the suit, if there is one, will hopefully go nowhere. The police did exactly the right thing. But that doesn't matter: fear of a lawsuit is a powerful motivator.
Since filing a false report is itself illegal, free speech does not apply, but to assume that it was applied here: What Charlie Hebdo did would be considered protected speech in the US.
The standard in the US is exactly "speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action".
It means you must:
* Incite someone to commit a specific crime (e.g. kill someone) * At some specific time (imminent) (e.g. tomorrow)
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that has happened, and since it was a real emergency, the police department is now being sued.
"An investigations by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."
I haven't, but I didn't doubt the effectiveness of placebos. I merely said that they cost a lot less. If they work just as well, but cost a lot less, give me the placebo.
Exactly. Present the UI all the users are familiar with, then add another UI that can do other things, like turn the lights on remotely, or on a timer, or something.
I remember when car stereos went to all buttons, no dials, and it was distracting because it was (a) new, and (b) suboptimal. Distraction + driving = dead.
We're going in circles now, and you keep putting words in my mouth.
Funny enough, there are reasons people steal. Doesn't make stealing right. People don't become mass murderers without some extremely fucked-up shit happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up. But this analogy is terrible, because the woman violated no law by sending nude pictures to someone.
What you're saying is akin to saying that a murder _victim_ should be blamed, just a little bit, for being in the place where a murder was happening, and that's bullshit. Or that a mugging victim should be blamed, just a little, for handing over their wallet when faced with a gun, or a knife, which is equally bullshit. Or that someone in a subordinate position, like a student, should be blamed for doing what someone in a position of authority, like a professor, told them they had to do (and since sharing pictures is legal, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Godwin's Law doesn't apply here).
So when someone (I'll use "she" in this example) is told to take nude pictures or she'll fail the class, or she'll get fired from her job, or she'll go to jail, or she'll be killed, it's her fault if she capitulates, but not her fault if she fails her class, or gets fired from her job, or goes to jail, or dies?
Anticipating the next go-round this circle: "Well, failing the class isn't as bad as dying, so you're blowing things out of proportion." Do we know her academic situation? Was this a required class? Was she on a scholarship or financial aid (they've got pretty strict performance requirements)? Is there really no reason she might think that the consequences of not doing what the professor said would be worse than doing what the professor said? Can you not imagine any scenario?
I thought I exactly explained why someone might do something considered irrational. You said you're raising your daughter to be assertive, and that's great! Not everyone has someone who raised them to be assertive! So this "Oh, just refuse to be a victim!" is complete bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They are working to serve the public. They should be prepared to get a bulk request for all data they have everywhere. Putting limitations on it will first clog up the courts, since a judge will have to decide whether it meets the law's requirements, which then involves lawyers. Then it will be used to cover up real crimes under the auspices of "not an official incident".
We've got a core Mojolicious dev in the Chicago Perl Mongers, which makes it a lot easier for me trying to grok their docs. The IRC channel (irc.perl.org #mojo) helps a lot as a human-companion to the Guides.
Learn Perl, Mojolicious, ReactJS, Bootstrap.
Once you learn these, you'll never go back to the "old way" of doing things again.
The value of rights are not adjusted for inflation, sorry.
Police accountability? Are you joking? Then they might be afraid to shoot unarmed people to death, and they might be afraid that their fellow officers might also hold them accountable. And then they'd be scared of the people! And we can't have that, or else they might shoot unarmed people to death!
"Caused" is different from "Coerced". Entrapment is where a LEO says "do this illegal activity or we'll do X", X being some relatively terrible thing. A LEO, even undercover, cannot put a gun to your head, tell you to do something illegal, and then arrest you for doing the illegal thing.
But more subtly, a LEO can't, for example, repeatedly ask you for drugs, and then when you finally find some to sell, convict you of distribution because you had exactly and only those drugs. However, if you're a drug dealer, if you've got more evidence of illegal activity than just what existed to satisfy the LEO's request, then entrapment may not be a defense.
And so here, in the indictment (http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/williamsindictment.pdf), Williams is quoted as saying how many times he has exactly helped people lie to the federal government, which is a crime. The LEO did not make him do those things, and did not force or coerce him even to admit them.
Which is why entrapment is not a defense here.
IANAL. YMMV. BYOB.
Where's the entrapment? The agents did not force Williams to perform the service he was willingly performing for other people.
Queue the curtain!
They did say they were German. German folk use "." as their group separator, and "," as the separator between whole and fractional part of the number.
But that's fucking REALITY! And I could connect the dots to an entire host of social and economic problems that stem from THAT ONE THING!
Infinity. It would have taken infinity.
Mod parent up. I get better quality from my potato.
And the suit, if there is one, will hopefully go nowhere. The police did exactly the right thing. But that doesn't matter: fear of a lawsuit is a powerful motivator.
Since filing a false report is itself illegal, free speech does not apply, but to assume that it was applied here: What Charlie Hebdo did would be considered protected speech in the US.
The standard in the US is exactly "speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action".
It means you must:
* Incite someone to commit a specific crime (e.g. kill someone)
* At some specific time (imminent) (e.g. tomorrow)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that has happened, and since it was a real emergency, the police department is now being sued.
"An investigations by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."
I haven't, but I didn't doubt the effectiveness of placebos. I merely said that they cost a lot less. If they work just as well, but cost a lot less, give me the placebo.
Placebos generally cost a lot less
Exactly. Present the UI all the users are familiar with, then add another UI that can do other things, like turn the lights on remotely, or on a timer, or something.
I remember when car stereos went to all buttons, no dials, and it was distracting because it was (a) new, and (b) suboptimal. Distraction + driving = dead.
Less chance of dying here, but still...
In "Girl Genius" parlance, he has "the Spark"!
Pretend I wrote this in all-caps, so I don't understate it:
Don't advertise how much illegal activity you are doing!
And you've found today's... Daily Double!
It's Sports Nerds asking Science Nerds. Doesn't make any of them less nerdy.
We're going in circles now, and you keep putting words in my mouth.
Funny enough, there are reasons people steal. Doesn't make stealing right. People don't become mass murderers without some extremely fucked-up shit happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up. But this analogy is terrible, because the woman violated no law by sending nude pictures to someone.
What you're saying is akin to saying that a murder _victim_ should be blamed, just a little bit, for being in the place where a murder was happening, and that's bullshit. Or that a mugging victim should be blamed, just a little, for handing over their wallet when faced with a gun, or a knife, which is equally bullshit. Or that someone in a subordinate position, like a student, should be blamed for doing what someone in a position of authority, like a professor, told them they had to do (and since sharing pictures is legal, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Godwin's Law doesn't apply here).
So when someone (I'll use "she" in this example) is told to take nude pictures or she'll fail the class, or she'll get fired from her job, or she'll go to jail, or she'll be killed, it's her fault if she capitulates, but not her fault if she fails her class, or gets fired from her job, or goes to jail, or dies?
Anticipating the next go-round this circle: "Well, failing the class isn't as bad as dying, so you're blowing things out of proportion." Do we know her academic situation? Was this a required class? Was she on a scholarship or financial aid (they've got pretty strict performance requirements)? Is there really no reason she might think that the consequences of not doing what the professor said would be worse than doing what the professor said? Can you not imagine any scenario?
No, X11 was designed without screen locking in mind.
I thought I exactly explained why someone might do something considered irrational. You said you're raising your daughter to be assertive, and that's great! Not everyone has someone who raised them to be assertive! So this "Oh, just refuse to be a victim!" is complete bullshit.