Says the guy who's only 'argument' boils down to a personal attack with zero substance. Congratulations on destroying any credibility you might have had before you decided to attack me personally, rather than argue a salient point.
What broken piece of machinery in your head is forcing you to wrongly ASSume that the foreshadowing has to apply to him?
I wouldn't consider the knowledge that a single ad on a single website does not foretell of events that are going to happen anyway as a "broken piece of machinery," as you imply. But feel free to keep it up with the ad hominems in place of valid arguments. Because, you know, calling someone an idiot as opposed to actually pointing out what part of their statements are idiotic is totally working for you!
Now, if you'll excuse me, there are grown-ups here that want to have a real discussion and not trade playground barbs, and I'd much rather give my time to them, than someone with the mental acuity of a petulant 14-year-old.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both.
I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.
It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes
The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.
Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.
Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.
But they were not committing that crime during the recording.
Sure they were - they were witnessing a crime in progress, and did nothing to stop or report it. Granted, this is in a fairly abstract sense, but we're discussing a case where the victim was forced to destroy evidence, then was prosecuted and convicted based on this now non-existent evidence. "Fairly abstract" seems to be the name of the game in PA's legal system.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.
They're both accurate methods of verifying the legality of the recording, although I think your case would be the more reasonable of the two.
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.
Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?
Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.
Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.
A person that rationalizes the abuse of another by blaming the victim pretty much is the definition of a sociopath, by your own reasoning - lack of emotional inhibition.
What you *should* find interesting is that this guy knows a metric crap-ton more than you do about the history of the Constitution, and maybe your opinion is like a second grader giving advice to NASA about how to construct their next heavy lift vehicle.
I do not oppose personal ownership of firearms, but I find it really arrogant for armchair legal history scholars (read: ignoramuses) to try to foist their particular skew on history.
Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.
Me so sorry, Masa! Oh lordy lord, how dare ah step out of mah place 'n quweshtun authoritah! Puh-leeze don't whup me, Masa! I'll never roam ag'in!
You know what I find arrogant? Armchair character assassins, who don't know me from Adam, assuming that I have less understanding of American history than the next guy.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia".
Traditionally, the term has been defined as "an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
As nice as it might be to generate revenue for myself by posting submissions, reading the comments as we wax philosophic on the issue is all the satisfaction I need.
Because there's no such thing as a nerd who likes guns, right?
not stuff that matters
Because nothing matters less than fascists trying to limit our civil liberties, right?
however it does drive click revenue to feature a hot button culture war issue.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and "drive click revenue.' Start your own news website if you don't like the stories we, the Slashdot community, choose to display.
Not everyone in the classroom took part in the activity which could be defined as assault, conspiracy to commit assault, or even accessory to assault. So, not everyone being recorded without their permission was committing a crime during the recording.
If the same behavior occurred between two adults, the perps would be going to jail. It might be time to start adding that little life lesson to high schools.
When I went to high school. The spineless swine who get to be school administrators *always* punish the victims of bullying, not the perpetrators (usually, the popular kids or athletes). The victim is just one kid, usually powerless, who will be out of their life in a few years. The families of the perps are many, and they're often as dangerously aggressive as their spawn.
Also:
"We can't put Jimmy Quarterback in detention, he wouldn't be able to play in next week's Big Game®! Which is way, way, more important than academics, since we rely on the Booster money his athletics bring in!"
The other thing is that the Pennsylvania law also has an exception that states that you do not need to permission of someone who is committing a crime in the recording. That would not have applied in this case since not all of those being recorded were committing a crime
Assault, conspiracy to commit assault, and accessory to assault very much are crimes.
Just so you know, "assault" is legally defined as the threat of harm, not the actual commission of it; that would be "battery."
I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I read the article to see what event had transpired.
Necessity typically requires three tests to be a valid defense, the defendent needs to be breaking the law to avoid a significant risk of harm, there were no adequate lawful means to address the situation, and the harm avoided was greater than the harm caused by breaking the law. The problem in this situation is the second one. The problem is that neither of the articles suggested that any other steps were taken to stop the bullying prior to committing the recording. That's the problem. There's no suggestion that the boy told his mother about the bullying, there's no suggestion that the mother contacted the school about the bullying before the recording was made.
You really think telling his mother would have addressed the situation, in a way that would not increase the likelihood of the boy coming to harm? You've apparently never tangled with a bully; I can hear the aftermath already:
"Aww, did the little pussy have to go cryin' to his mommy? Here, little pussy, I'll give you something to cry about!"
Been there, done that, got the tshirt (which a bully subsequently destroyed).
Nope - an amnesiac is a noun that refers to a person suffering from amnesia; "amnesic" is an adjective that means "exhibits properties of amnesia," which can apply to more than just the human psyche.
Instant stop? You can stick your finger into the blade at full speed and it will stop before it breaks the skin.
There is such technology, known by its brand name as "SawStop," but A) it only works on table saws, B) adds at least a $1,000 premium to the cost of the machine, and C) is one-time-use - it destroys the blade and table if deployed (although, the fact that you can buy spare brake cartridges makes me think it doesn't completely destroy the table).
Better than nothing, but not really a feasible solution to the issue of people losing body parts to power tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh, you're an idiot.
Says the guy who's only 'argument' boils down to a personal attack with zero substance. Congratulations on destroying any credibility you might have had before you decided to attack me personally, rather than argue a salient point.
What broken piece of machinery in your head is forcing you to wrongly ASSume that the foreshadowing has to apply to him?
I wouldn't consider the knowledge that a single ad on a single website does not foretell of events that are going to happen anyway as a "broken piece of machinery," as you imply. But feel free to keep it up with the ad hominems in place of valid arguments. Because, you know, calling someone an idiot as opposed to actually pointing out what part of their statements are idiotic is totally working for you!
Now, if you'll excuse me, there are grown-ups here that want to have a real discussion and not trade playground barbs, and I'd much rather give my time to them, than someone with the mental acuity of a petulant 14-year-old.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both.
I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.
It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes
The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.
Consent is emotional and illogical.
Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.
Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.
But they were not committing that crime during the recording.
Sure they were - they were witnessing a crime in progress, and did nothing to stop or report it. Granted, this is in a fairly abstract sense, but we're discussing a case where the victim was forced to destroy evidence, then was prosecuted and convicted based on this now non-existent evidence. "Fairly abstract" seems to be the name of the game in PA's legal system.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.
They're both accurate methods of verifying the legality of the recording, although I think your case would be the more reasonable of the two.
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.
Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?
Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.
Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.
He is correct in the use of the term foreshadowing and feels.
Not sure what you mean by that, unless you, too, wonder if he's planning on using an AR-15 for nefarious purposes.
Perhaps you should look up the definition?
Sure, here you go:
Weird that you would agree with me in such a seemingly disagreeable manner...
A person that rationalizes the abuse of another by blaming the victim pretty much is the definition of a sociopath, by your own reasoning - lack of emotional inhibition.
What you *should* find interesting is that this guy knows a metric crap-ton more than you do about the history of the Constitution, and maybe your opinion is like a second grader giving advice to NASA about how to construct their next heavy lift vehicle.
I do not oppose personal ownership of firearms, but I find it really arrogant for armchair legal history scholars (read: ignoramuses) to try to foist their particular skew on history.
Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.
Me so sorry, Masa! Oh lordy lord, how dare ah step out of mah place 'n quweshtun authoritah! Puh-leeze don't whup me, Masa! I'll never roam ag'in!
You know what I find arrogant? Armchair character assassins, who don't know me from Adam, assuming that I have less understanding of American history than the next guy.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia".
Traditionally, the term has been defined as "an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
I wish.
As nice as it might be to generate revenue for myself by posting submissions, reading the comments as we wax philosophic on the issue is all the satisfaction I need.
not news for nerds
Because there's no such thing as a nerd who likes guns, right?
not stuff that matters
Because nothing matters less than fascists trying to limit our civil liberties, right?
however it does drive click revenue to feature a hot button culture war issue.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and "drive click revenue.' Start your own news website if you don't like the stories we, the Slashdot community, choose to display.
Not everyone in the classroom took part in the activity which could be defined as assault, conspiracy to commit assault, or even accessory to assault. So, not everyone being recorded without their permission was committing a crime during the recording.
Failure to report a crime is a crime in itself.
If the same behavior occurred between two adults, the perps would be going to jail. It might be time to start adding that little life lesson to high schools.
When I went to high school. The spineless swine who get to be school administrators *always* punish the victims of bullying, not the perpetrators (usually, the popular kids or athletes). The victim is just one kid, usually powerless, who will be out of their life in a few years. The families of the perps are many, and they're often as dangerously aggressive as their spawn.
Also:
"We can't put Jimmy Quarterback in detention, he wouldn't be able to play in next week's Big Game®! Which is way, way, more important than academics, since we rely on the Booster money his athletics bring in!"
Let us not forget the 3rd common thing authorities bring up, "well, you are acting XYZ so it is your own fault".
I think the new way of saying that is, "well, you're just so pick-on-able."
A phrase which sets off every "that guy's a sociopath" alarm in my brain.
The other thing is that the Pennsylvania law also has an exception that states that you do not need to permission of someone who is committing a crime in the recording. That would not have applied in this case since not all of those being recorded were committing a crime
Assault, conspiracy to commit assault, and accessory to assault very much are crimes.
Just so you know, "assault" is legally defined as the threat of harm, not the actual commission of it; that would be "battery."
I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I read the article to see what event had transpired.
Necessity typically requires three tests to be a valid defense, the defendent needs to be breaking the law to avoid a significant risk of harm, there were no adequate lawful means to address the situation, and the harm avoided was greater than the harm caused by breaking the law. The problem in this situation is the second one. The problem is that neither of the articles suggested that any other steps were taken to stop the bullying prior to committing the recording. That's the problem. There's no suggestion that the boy told his mother about the bullying, there's no suggestion that the mother contacted the school about the bullying before the recording was made.
You really think telling his mother would have addressed the situation, in a way that would not increase the likelihood of the boy coming to harm? You've apparently never tangled with a bully; I can hear the aftermath already:
"Aww, did the little pussy have to go cryin' to his mommy? Here, little pussy, I'll give you something to cry about!"
Been there, done that, got the tshirt (which a bully subsequently destroyed).
I have the exact same ad! :)
Wow, feels like foreshadowing...
Why? Are you planning on killing a bunch of people with an AR-15?
I think the word you're looking for, rather than foreshadowing, is "coincidence."
Or maybe "irony," depending on your sense of humor.
The Amnesic Operating System.
Shouldn't it be amnesiac?
Nope - an amnesiac is a noun that refers to a person suffering from amnesia; "amnesic" is an adjective that means "exhibits properties of amnesia," which can apply to more than just the human psyche.
https://tails.boum.org/downloa...
Instant stop? You can stick your finger into the blade at full speed and it will stop before it breaks the skin.
There is such technology, known by its brand name as "SawStop," but A) it only works on table saws, B) adds at least a $1,000 premium to the cost of the machine, and C) is one-time-use - it destroys the blade and table if deployed (although, the fact that you can buy spare brake cartridges makes me think it doesn't completely destroy the table).
Better than nothing, but not really a feasible solution to the issue of people losing body parts to power tools.
If you have another way please share it
It involves pitchforks and torches, you still in?
Probably a rolling gallows, too.
By that reasoning, I really wish you had voted for the current president.
Yea, I'll bet - misery loves company, right?
The ONLY way to stop this shit is to label all ISP as common carriers.
Oh, man... is that really the only way?
drops torch and pitchfork as he walks away despondently
it seems like it's really good news for the people who stream Netflix on Comcast.
Soon that will be about 50% of the entire United States. You go with Concast or you go without broadband.
Once they hit that threshold, somebody should slam them with an antitrust suit, if not before.