Defending yourself as a black belt can get you in a LOT of trouble unless you're careful. Especially if the other guy presents no physical threat to you (In the case of a robbery, there may or may not be any such threat. Perhaps they guy just wanted the TV and would leave if he saw the owner or got the TV?).
I'm not a black belt, but when I took Judo (a long time ago) I knew one (my instructor) and he did mention these things, IIRC.
Well, that and whenever a black belt defends himself on COPS, he always gets in deep shit.:-/
In most places the use of deadly force is illegal to prevent a non-violent crime.
It doesn't surprise me your friend got in a lot of trouble for that. What DOES surprise me is that he wasn't informed, like most blackbelts, that being so knowledged makes defending himself in that manner use of a deadly weapon.
However, my V101 was nothing more than trouble, and their customer service is arrogant, to say the least.
On top of that, the handset attachment eventually broke the headset jack, and the (tiny) battery cover clip. And the belt clip did crack the handset, as expected. Fortuantely, I did buy the extended warranty...
Bah, I've given up on understanding England. They call themselves a democracy, yet the queen gets final say in everything, plus they have a house of lords. It's all very confusing.;-)
>However, 'shepd' would have us believe that the rights of a criminal trump our right to defend ourselves.
In Canada, unless you are in imminent danger of being killed, pointing a gun at someone is illegal. Even for the police (who have to file a report even when they just unholster their gun, never mind point it).
Yet our crime rates tend to follow, or occasionally be lower than those in the US.
Why is that?
>This line of 'logic' results in situations like in europe, where a farm owner defends himself with a gun from repeat offender attackers and is sent to prison,while one of the attackers gets GOV MONEY to sue the farmer for 'stress' etc, while he gets arrested again for drug pushing...
That's interesting, because Canada has far more wilderness and farmland than the US, yet I would feel perfectly safe living in the praries.
>Homeowners defending their LIFE and PROPERTY(hint:try having one without the other) are thrown in jail.
In some countries criminals aren't regarded as lower life forms, just mistaken people who need help from the government to be proper citizens. I have met persons who have been through the Canadian system, and the fact is many (although, as with everything, not all) criminals will choose a different life after being reformed in a jail.
>Repeat offender getting PAID with YOUR TAX DOLLARS to harrass homeowner stuck in jail while he goes on to commit MORE crime at leisure
??? I've never seen this happen. Ever. Can you show me how this can happen without showing me a corrupt police force?
>Second, guns are tools used to SAVE thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives a year (perhaps not all from imenent death, but also from rape, beatings, etc) when used for defense.
How does one use a gun for defense without the possibility of killing someone with it?
Does one shoot it up in the air? That might be impressive, but it doesn't seem to me that it would work all that well.
If you're going to say making the agressor look at it is using it, then I suppose looking at a toilet would be using it as well.
So, which is it? Use the gun properly and shoot the agressor (therefore not really saving any lives -- in the case of using it against an agressor who doesn't intend to murder, it's trying to take an extra one) or use the gun like a piece of play-doh, in which case why even have a real, working gun?
Of course, the biggest question is, why not just arm yourself with nuclear weapons if guns really do save lives. Seems that way nobody would ever die.
Is that really the case they put on those cheap things?
I've sold $20 plastimetal cases that have more upgradability (and style) than that 1990's trash. Blech.
No wonder the things are so cheap. Dell downgrades you from conductive plastimetal to just plain plastic.
Then again, I love working on Dells (and other name brand PCs). I have no qualms about doubling my usual rates. Fact is the consumer shows their willingness to cough up the dough (because it says Dell on the PC) and most of these cheap name-brand PCs have hell-on-earth cases to work with, even today. At least most have gotten rid of the proprietary parts (apart from the motherboard and case).
Yes, I got a lot of repeat business from these customers, so either I give deep discounts already, my service is too good to be true, or I'm right and Dell sells you what you pay for (minus some extra fat corporate profits!)
...seems to me that if you want to crack down on piracy, it'd be smart to encourage people to use something that's almost impossible to pirate. (I said almost).
I'm confused. This is like telling people that being caught not wearing a seat belt is illegal, but telling the cops they're not allowed to suggest you wear one.
Umm, you do realise that magnets generally don't damage computer electronics apart from magnetic storage and CRTs, right? I'm sure you could find an odd case of something else they destroy (Floppy read heads?) but AFAIK, none of that will be soldered onto the motherboard.
>According to a friend of my wife's who is an adjuster for a local auto insurance company, driver's stories about the circumstances surrounding an accident differ suprisingly frequently. Usually when this happens (at least in my region) the settlement is often considered fifty-fifty, and both drivers end up having to pay more for insurance next year. This *REALLY* sucks when you weren't at fault at all; and I've seen it happen more than once.
.:-( Yes, quite true. I'm almost sure that's why in my province they have no fault insurance. That way it basically makes everyone pay no matter what. Keeps you on your toes when you're driving, though.
>Because they might be able to convince people to get a comprehensive insurance coverage at a reduced rate as opposed to just getting basic coverage. Yeah, they pay more for comprehensive either way, but the difference between it with the black box and without could be enough to make people buy up when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Trust me, as it stands right now in Ontario, without comprehensive coverage, you could be paying medical bills for years if the other driver skips town (check my link earlier). People still get third party/cheap/basic insurance anyways (most of my friends with cars worth less than my computer have this;-)
People always assume they'll never be in an accident.
In that case, if I had a map with the corner of Cedar St. and King St. marked (a popular whore hangout) I would be breaking the law to hang that up in my office?
How strange... I'm glad I don't live where you live!:-)
>Airbags don't have any potential to identify whose fault the accident was.
Sure they do. Airbags only deploy in a front end collision over 30 km/h (or is it mph? I haven't got my owner's manual memorized.:-)
>and with these devices installed in cars, insurance companies can say goodbye to those headaches. These things will be a welcome addition to vehicles by insurance adjusters.
I'm sure they will be popular with insurance companies all around. However, I doubt they're going to pass the savings on to you. If you're willing to pay what you currently pay for insurance (and, assuming you have a car, you certainly are) then why should they?
>if a good driver can prove that a particular accident wasn't his fault because of the testimony contained in a car's black box, I'd be willing to bet he'd be pretty happy about it.
And say the black box is the only thing that will put you in jail for, oh, let's say manslaughter... you'd be ok with that?
Well, I'm sure right now you'll say yes, but when the time comes, there are many foxes in court rooms.:-)
>I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit
GM foods are tested far more stringently than any other kinds of foods. In fact, of all people, it is greepeace experimenting on us. I have them on tape with one of their head personnel LYING, saying that GM foods are untested. This is patently false. All foods are tested for safety, including GM foods, which generally have to pass more stringent guidelines than any other kind of food.
In fact, without GM crops 2 billion people on earth would have to DIE today for the world to be able to support everyone. This is straight from the mouth of Norman Borlaug, a highly respected scientist who has won a nobel peace prize for his work ensuring everyone has enough to eat (and at the same time saving more lives than greenpeace has ever done).
You are extremely misinformed on this issue. I highly reccomend you watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode named "Eat This!". It will open your eyes to the bullshit spread by anarchist associations like greenpeace (and many others).
The worst part about this misinformation is that greenpeace (et al) have indirectly murdered thousands, if not millions of Zimbabweans by denying them the food these starving people need so much.
To the mods that modded him up: Please, please, PLEASE look into what greenpeace (and others) are telling you. When it comes to GM foods, apart from a few rare cases (such as this one) it's all lies. You'd figure that out for yourselves with less than a few minutes of research.
>The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.
Bwahaha!
So, I guess since it costs only pennies to produce windows, pirating it should be legal, right?
And hey, once the equipment is bought, heart surgery doesn't cost a dime if everyone donates their time. I guess that means that when a doctor quits because they aren't getting paid, they're actually killing their patients, right?
If you have invested time and money into producing something, you have the right to get back whatever the market will bear.
If this stuff is so cheap and easy to produce, why don't these lukemia sufferers get some help together and make it themselves?
>This is merely being honest about your driving leading to an accident.
Honesty? In a court room? That would be a first!
How many people plead guilty to a judge without a bribe of some sort? 1%? 2%? How many people are usually found guilty in court? 90%? 95%?
That makes a LOT of liars... And, that's human nature, to deny that something you caused is your fault.
It's probably abnormal (and a reason why this is considered a "good thing") to always admit that everything you've done is your fault... you've seen the problem solving flowchart, right? That's a lot more real life than joke, really.
>It's completely feasable to design an enclosure that, once opened, cannot be reassembled without it being visibly obvious that it was opened by a consumer.
However, in that case third party identical enclosures would be made, even if they had to be black market.
Honestly, companies have tried everything from suicide chips to smart cards to prevent tamering, and once one determined person figures a way around it (and they _always_ do) the protection is history. At worst, if the going gets tough, the tough start pirating (witness the pirated documents on the P4 DirecTV smartcard... it's only a matter of time now...)
>These devices, once they become more common in automobiles, can save HUGE amounts of money in legal costs for insurance companies, and I would not be suprised to see at least some of that savings passed on to collision insurance buyers who have such units in their cars.
That would be a first!
How much did you save when you bought a car with airbags installed? With these the insurance company can determine if you were doing 30 km/h or over, and if you had a front end collision or not, since day one (before black boxes).
>Where I live, any accident occurring between a vehicle moving in reverse and another vehicle not moving in reverse is automatically considered to be entirely the fault of the driver moving backwards (regardless of circumstances, to the best of my knowledge, as the traffic code doesn't outline or imply the existence of exceptions).
There's always exceptions... what if you're on a one way road and the driver in front of you starts tap-tap-tapping on your bumper? Do you think the cops/court expects you to sit there and have your car destroyed?
I agree, it would be silly to set it in reverse. Of course, since few-to-no collisions are going to ocurr on the rear bumper of a fast driver's car, I don't see them needing to worry about it...
Slashdot Mirror
>This is all well and good, but I don't see how a broken arm is considered excessive force.
:-/
It isn't the broken arm, it's the fact the guy had a black belt and should have known better ways to stop the robber without harming him.
Here's a reference.
Defending yourself as a black belt can get you in a LOT of trouble unless you're careful. Especially if the other guy presents no physical threat to you (In the case of a robbery, there may or may not be any such threat. Perhaps they guy just wanted the TV and would leave if he saw the owner or got the TV?).
I'm not a black belt, but when I took Judo (a long time ago) I knew one (my instructor) and he did mention these things, IIRC.
Well, that and whenever a black belt defends himself on COPS, he always gets in deep shit.
>Where's that fine line between stupidity and absurdity, anyway?
The fine line is between having learned it, and having used it.
In most places the use of deadly force is illegal to prevent a non-violent crime.
It doesn't surprise me your friend got in a lot of trouble for that. What DOES surprise me is that he wasn't informed, like most blackbelts, that being so knowledged makes defending himself in that manner use of a deadly weapon.
>Never trust a computer proffesional that doesnt list computer as a hobby.
I'd like to add electronics as well.
Depending on the job, being able to wield a soldering iron might not always be useful, but being so skilled is handy.
Uhhh, that's what it stands for, eh?
Well, it is actually "GNU General Public License" in full, but GPL for short (I suppose you get to choose what you want the G to stand for).
Perhaps their more "normal" products are OK.
However, my V101 was nothing more than trouble, and their customer service is arrogant, to say the least.
On top of that, the handset attachment eventually broke the headset jack, and the (tiny) battery cover clip. And the belt clip did crack the handset, as expected. Fortuantely, I did buy the extended warranty...
Avoid anything gimmicky from Motorola.
This + that = what you want.
;-)
Of course, it still sucks.
Motorola is still on that IM kick?
After that crap V101, you think they might just go after quality and customer service instead.
I'll wait 'till Nokia makes one. I need my phones to last longer than a few weeks.
Bah, I've given up on understanding England. They call themselves a democracy, yet the queen gets final say in everything, plus they have a house of lords. It's all very confusing. ;-)
>However, 'shepd' would have us believe that the rights of a criminal trump our right to defend ourselves.
In Canada, unless you are in imminent danger of being killed, pointing a gun at someone is illegal. Even for the police (who have to file a report even when they just unholster their gun, never mind point it).
Yet our crime rates tend to follow, or occasionally be lower than those in the US.
Why is that?
>This line of 'logic' results in situations like in europe, where a farm owner defends himself with a gun from repeat offender attackers and is sent to prison,while one of the attackers gets GOV MONEY to sue the farmer for 'stress' etc, while he gets arrested again for drug pushing...
That's interesting, because Canada has far more wilderness and farmland than the US, yet I would feel perfectly safe living in the praries.
>Homeowners defending their LIFE and PROPERTY(hint:try having one without the other) are thrown in jail.
In some countries criminals aren't regarded as lower life forms, just mistaken people who need help from the government to be proper citizens. I have met persons who have been through the Canadian system, and the fact is many (although, as with everything, not all) criminals will choose a different life after being reformed in a jail.
>Repeat offender getting PAID with YOUR TAX DOLLARS to harrass homeowner stuck in jail while he goes on to commit MORE crime at leisure
??? I've never seen this happen. Ever. Can you show me how this can happen without showing me a corrupt police force?
>Second, guns are tools used to SAVE thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives a year (perhaps not all from imenent death, but also from rape, beatings, etc) when used for defense.
How does one use a gun for defense without the possibility of killing someone with it?
Does one shoot it up in the air? That might be impressive, but it doesn't seem to me that it would work all that well.
If you're going to say making the agressor look at it is using it, then I suppose looking at a toilet would be using it as well.
So, which is it? Use the gun properly and shoot the agressor (therefore not really saving any lives -- in the case of using it against an agressor who doesn't intend to murder, it's trying to take an extra one) or use the gun like a piece of play-doh, in which case why even have a real, working gun?
Of course, the biggest question is, why not just arm yourself with nuclear weapons if guns really do save lives. Seems that way nobody would ever die.
Synchronize Swatches!
Perhaps you're clicking the wrong BBC link then?
This one is MUCH nicer.
Is that really the case they put on those cheap things?
I've sold $20 plastimetal cases that have more upgradability (and style) than that 1990's trash. Blech.
No wonder the things are so cheap. Dell downgrades you from conductive plastimetal to just plain plastic.
Then again, I love working on Dells (and other name brand PCs). I have no qualms about doubling my usual rates. Fact is the consumer shows their willingness to cough up the dough (because it says Dell on the PC) and most of these cheap name-brand PCs have hell-on-earth cases to work with, even today. At least most have gotten rid of the proprietary parts (apart from the motherboard and case).
Yes, I got a lot of repeat business from these customers, so either I give deep discounts already, my service is too good to be true, or I'm right and Dell sells you what you pay for (minus some extra fat corporate profits!)
...seems to me that if you want to crack down on piracy, it'd be smart to encourage people to use something that's almost impossible to pirate. (I said almost).
I'm confused. This is like telling people that being caught not wearing a seat belt is illegal, but telling the cops they're not allowed to suggest you wear one.
Umm, you do realise that magnets generally don't damage computer electronics apart from magnetic storage and CRTs, right? I'm sure you could find an odd case of something else they destroy (Floppy read heads?) but AFAIK, none of that will be soldered onto the motherboard.
>According to a friend of my wife's who is an adjuster for a local auto insurance company, driver's stories about the circumstances surrounding an accident differ suprisingly frequently. Usually when this happens (at least in my region) the settlement is often considered fifty-fifty, and both drivers end up having to pay more for insurance next year. This *REALLY* sucks when you weren't at fault at all; and I've seen it happen more than once.
:-( Yes, quite true. I'm almost sure that's why in my province they have no fault insurance. That way it basically makes everyone pay no matter what. Keeps you on your toes when you're driving, though.
;-)
.
>Because they might be able to convince people to get a comprehensive insurance coverage at a reduced rate as opposed to just getting basic coverage. Yeah, they pay more for comprehensive either way, but the difference between it with the black box and without could be enough to make people buy up when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Trust me, as it stands right now in Ontario, without comprehensive coverage, you could be paying medical bills for years if the other driver skips town (check my link earlier). People still get third party/cheap/basic insurance anyways (most of my friends with cars worth less than my computer have this
People always assume they'll never be in an accident.
A challenge...
:-)
Perhaps I could suggest you don't post your location in your journal next time if you're going to mention your real name?
If I cared to, I'm sure at this point I'd have your address and phone number from the web in seconds. But I'm not a stalker...
>Yep, since its open source it will be easy for the RIAA to find out who is downloading and DDS them (if you are lucky)
If they do that to 95% of the world's population, they will be in deep shit. I'd like for them to try, though.
In that case, if I had a map with the corner of Cedar St. and King St. marked (a popular whore hangout) I would be breaking the law to hang that up in my office?
:-)
How strange... I'm glad I don't live where you live!
>Airbags don't have any potential to identify whose fault the accident was.
:-)
:-)
Sure they do. Airbags only deploy in a front end collision over 30 km/h (or is it mph? I haven't got my owner's manual memorized.
>and with these devices installed in cars, insurance companies can say goodbye to those headaches. These things will be a welcome addition to vehicles by insurance adjusters.
I'm sure they will be popular with insurance companies all around. However, I doubt they're going to pass the savings on to you. If you're willing to pay what you currently pay for insurance (and, assuming you have a car, you certainly are) then why should they?
>if a good driver can prove that a particular accident wasn't his fault because of the testimony contained in a car's black box, I'd be willing to bet he'd be pretty happy about it.
And say the black box is the only thing that will put you in jail for, oh, let's say manslaughter... you'd be ok with that?
Well, I'm sure right now you'll say yes, but when the time comes, there are many foxes in court rooms.
>I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit
GM foods are tested far more stringently than any other kinds of foods. In fact, of all people, it is greepeace experimenting on us. I have them on tape with one of their head personnel LYING, saying that GM foods are untested. This is patently false. All foods are tested for safety, including GM foods, which generally have to pass more stringent guidelines than any other kind of food.
In fact, without GM crops 2 billion people on earth would have to DIE today for the world to be able to support everyone. This is straight from the mouth of Norman Borlaug, a highly respected scientist who has won a nobel peace prize for his work ensuring everyone has enough to eat (and at the same time saving more lives than greenpeace has ever done).
You are extremely misinformed on this issue. I highly reccomend you watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode named "Eat This!". It will open your eyes to the bullshit spread by anarchist associations like greenpeace (and many others).
The worst part about this misinformation is that greenpeace (et al) have indirectly murdered thousands, if not millions of Zimbabweans by denying them the food these starving people need so much.
To the mods that modded him up: Please, please, PLEASE look into what greenpeace (and others) are telling you. When it comes to GM foods, apart from a few rare cases (such as this one) it's all lies. You'd figure that out for yourselves with less than a few minutes of research.
>The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.
Bwahaha!
So, I guess since it costs only pennies to produce windows, pirating it should be legal, right?
And hey, once the equipment is bought, heart surgery doesn't cost a dime if everyone donates their time. I guess that means that when a doctor quits because they aren't getting paid, they're actually killing their patients, right?
If you have invested time and money into producing something, you have the right to get back whatever the market will bear.
If this stuff is so cheap and easy to produce, why don't these lukemia sufferers get some help together and make it themselves?
>Cars with ABS brakes, by definition, do not leave skid marks.
The definition of ABS is ani-lock braking system, not anti ? skid-system.
They still leave marks. Here's an offcial opinion (main site seems down right now, sorry).
Also handy in that link: Calculating speed from skid marks.
>This is merely being honest about your driving leading to an accident.
Honesty? In a court room? That would be a first!
How many people plead guilty to a judge without a bribe of some sort? 1%? 2%? How many people are usually found guilty in court? 90%? 95%?
That makes a LOT of liars... And, that's human nature, to deny that something you caused is your fault.
It's probably abnormal (and a reason why this is considered a "good thing") to always admit that everything you've done is your fault... you've seen the problem solving flowchart, right? That's a lot more real life than joke, really.
>It's completely feasable to design an enclosure that, once opened, cannot be reassembled without it being visibly obvious that it was opened by a consumer.
However, in that case third party identical enclosures would be made, even if they had to be black market.
Honestly, companies have tried everything from suicide chips to smart cards to prevent tamering, and once one determined person figures a way around it (and they _always_ do) the protection is history. At worst, if the going gets tough, the tough start pirating (witness the pirated documents on the P4 DirecTV smartcard... it's only a matter of time now...)
>These devices, once they become more common in automobiles, can save HUGE amounts of money in legal costs for insurance companies, and I would not be suprised to see at least some of that savings passed on to collision insurance buyers who have such units in their cars.
That would be a first!
How much did you save when you bought a car with airbags installed? With these the insurance company can determine if you were doing 30 km/h or over, and if you had a front end collision or not, since day one (before black boxes).
>Where I live, any accident occurring between a vehicle moving in reverse and another vehicle not moving in reverse is automatically considered to be entirely the fault of the driver moving backwards (regardless of circumstances, to the best of my knowledge, as the traffic code doesn't outline or imply the existence of exceptions).
There's always exceptions... what if you're on a one way road and the driver in front of you starts tap-tap-tapping on your bumper? Do you think the cops/court expects you to sit there and have your car destroyed?
I agree, it would be silly to set it in reverse. Of course, since few-to-no collisions are going to ocurr on the rear bumper of a fast driver's car, I don't see them needing to worry about it...