I heavily disagree with this statement. I don't think the recent headlined case served a purpose of satisfaction, and even if it somehow did it was definitely not solely for that purpose.
The suspect was not violent, was on the ground, restrained by six officers. He had no weapons and posed no physical threat to anybody.
I agree he was a douchebag, and he hurt his cause far more than he helped it. But tasering a restrained individual with no weaponry, who has made no threats, in that situation? Only a violent fascist thug would agree to that.
Personally, I don't want the state having that much control over my body. I believe in freedom, something that you clearly do not value.
I guess there will always be the intellectuals who believe that freedom is overrated, probably because you believe yourself superior to others, and assume that you will always be the taserer, not the taseree. It's an awful, dangerous and short-sighted view.
I hope that you grow up someday, and learn why freedom is important, even when it comes to the rights of douchebags.
You're still the one who thinks it's totally cool to taser people whose only crime is "being a dickhead".
Your position is so fucking indefensible that it's no surprise you've resorted to absurdist attacks. Even your tiny, tiny little mind realizes that you can't stand by what you wrote without being openly anti-American, and pro-fascism.
The central tenet of fascism is that the individual is not as important as the state.
You have defended the use of force against people who are not currently presenting a threat to anybody, simply to cause them pain.
This is completely and directly compatible with fascist beliefs.
That said, there is no point in attempting to converse with you. I simply cannot relate to anybody who believes that government should be so large and so powerful that it is allowed to induce unnecessary physical pain in any individual who bothers it.
You justify the random application of pain, when it will serve absolutely no purpose except the satisfaction of people who dislike that person, and that you claim you are not a fascist because you hold libertarian values when it comes to commerce.
That might be the worst excuse I've ever heard.
People like you make me really wish that everybody had to apply for citizenship, not just immigrants. Because you sure as shit don't deserve the freedom that so many fought and died to give you.
Fucking pathetic. Every time you try to excuse yourself, you sound even worse than you did before.
I would care more deeply about your opinions if you weren't a crazy fascist fuck who thinks that it's a good idea to tazer anybody who passively resists arrest.
Thank fucking God that fascist idiots like you weren't around in the 60s.
find me a video of a POLICE officer tasing someone who isn't being a total dickhead.
Officers are not supposed to tazer people for being dickheads. They're supposed to be used when there is no other safe way to temporarily restrain a subject.
I'm nearly amused that you claim you aren't a fascist, but then endorse the tasering of people who annoy you, even if they are causing no danger to anybody, and have already been restrained.
I say nearly amused because I'm saddened that so many of the kids of today are pathetic, shrill, lying, fascist assholes, like you.
The only thing this jury proved, IMO, is that people tend to abuse any power that is given them.
They were legally required to assign a penalty appropriate to the crime, but they did not do so. They ignored this obligation, choosing instead to "send a message" to a woman who they did not like.
They used the law as a weapon to destroy a person who offended them personally. They succeeded only in proving that feeble people, when given power, tend to abuse it, and that Duluth has plenty of feeble people.
The job of the jury isn't to decide on the basis of a popularity contest; the decision is...did she break the law or not?
They got to choose what her financial penalty was.
They purposefully picked an amount that had absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the financial damages that may have been incurred. This was not a matter of law. This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.
1) I can't imagine what a pathetic and aggressive loser you have to be to think that somebody should pay $3.6m as restitution for letting somebody copy 24 songs (even if you think they're guilty.)
2) It really sounds like they don't understand the difference between a defense lawyer saying "they didn't prove that this technically feasible activity didn't happen" and a woman who is actively claiming that this was the case.
I hope that the douchebags who pushed for $150k/song get hit by the RIAA because their kids installed some software without their knowledge, because only then will they realize how completely and totally fucking wrong they are.
Please do not trivialize the potential abuses of remote shutdown capability by comparing them to mandatory safety devices like the third brake light.
The worst part of remote shutdown capability is that it does not benefit me in any significant way. Professional auto thieves will be able to quickly disable the device, and transport the stolen car without issue.
I don't mind having an extra brake light, or air bags. They make me slightly safer. But remote vehicle shutdown does the opposite. It makes me vulnerable to abuse by the government, hackers, and simple programming mistakes.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.
Given recent, well-publicized events, I guess your definition of "deserves it" is anybody who annoys you. Right, bro?
There are a few options here. You're either very poorly informed, a troll or a big-government fascist. Which is it?
I'm pretty sure that Sun was working on the data center in a box before Larry Page met Sergey Brin, let alone before they founded a company and patented computers in containers.
I doubt this patent will be enforced in any meaningful way. The Sun Blackbox program you linked to was started about 15 years ago, if my memory serves correctly.
Maybe some minor aspect will get through, but "data center in a box" is old news.
You have to go to a showroom because DirectBuy sells a "membership" that costs $5k for three years. (Don't worry, high-interest financing is available!) You're told that you may either join on the spot, or never come back.
After purchasing this membership you're then able to shop from a somewhat random collection of goods. You won't be able to return them, or cancel your membership if the whole thing pans out poorly, though.
Also, you can't take their price list to other retailers to shop around. It's confidential.
And if you're thinking 'wow, what a great scam', then you're in luck, you can become a franchisee, and work on conning people into using your mediocre company.
Tip 1: You are supposed to reply to the post that you're addressing. If you're going to falsely claim that you were replying to the parent of my post, then you posted in the wrong place. Learn to use the internet, you fucking retard.
Tip 2: If you're trying to troll somebody, don't troll by claiming that low UIDs are a bad thing. It's too fucking far from believability, it makes the troll too obvious. Learn to troll, you fucking retard.
Tip 3: If you're going to flame somebody who just flamed you for being an idiotic maggot, don't do it AC. That's fucking weak-sauce. Learn to grow some balls, you fucking retard.
I never claimed it shouldn't be a crime. I claimed that the current enforcement is so obscene that it would be better for society if it was not enforced at all.
And yes, I claim that ripping a CD I bought onto my hard drive should not be a crime at all. I do so without regard to what the punishment is.
Oh, and I understand you're nothing but a miserable, low-IQ troll, but quotes are supposed to be used around direct quotations. Please don't go around manufacturing quotes, claiming that I said things that I didn't. That's just lying.
Income tax makes sense. It's common, and as you note, it's well established that it must be paid. The relationship between income and tax due is well known and accepted. Those who cheat do not owe orders of magnitude more than those who don't, when caught.
This copyright shit is not well-established. There is no clear relationship between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. We have the RIAA claiming that ripping a CD that you own is stealing, and that it should be punishable with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. But nobody agrees with that. Flat nobody.
Your comparison isn't just a little flawed, its completely broken.
I'd tell you the same thing, but I'm guessing you'll continue not listening.
I'm not like you. I listen when people have useful things to say.
You're just some idiotic fuckwit troll who claims that RoR isn't scalable because sometimes people use PHP.
The fact that there are high volume sites that do run RoR doesn't matter to you, because you're either a PHP fanboi, or a complete and total fucking retard.
Either way, the world will be more honest once you're dead, you manipulative, lying shit.
I'm not sure when I got my account, but I do know slashdot had user accounts for a while before I bothered signing up for one. They were available for at least a few months before I signed up.
In these cases, the nuance of the different thread models might matter but the programmer of this type would be happy (rather than scared) to investigate all the options. After all, if he didn't care, he'd just go with the default choices like the first programmer.
But his boss probably doesn't want him spending hours upon valuable hours of time investigating different languages. And besides, his boss is thinking of completely different factors, like "Can I hire more programmers who know this language? Will that be more difficult in ten years?" and the programmer questions like "Does the implementation match the documentation" and "is the run-time really up to production quality standards?" aren't always easy to answer in a day, or a week.
This choice is not a blessing, it's a very expensive curse.
I'm unsurprised that slashdot doesn't get this, because slashdot loves Linux, and Linux is a perfect example of why too much choice makes things worse.
For what it's worth most of NetBank's features are available elsewhere. My USAA account also includes the "deposit via UPS" envelopes, and some niceties like the ability to deposit a check by scanning it.
I feel very fortunate that my experience with NetBank's customer service was extremely unpleasant. So unpleasant, in fact, that I never funded the small business account I opened with them.
They had some serious bugs in their software that prevented me from initiating an ACH to fund my account. When I asked about those bugs, they stated:
Furthermore, please be advised that it is not possible for us to make any modifications in our existing systems at this time because we are in acquisition phase. NetBank is being acquired by EverBank at this time and therefore all of our systems will switch to their systems by end of September.
Fortunately I took that as a bad sign, and walked away.
There's a strong business case for using Linux (or other free unixes). Reasonable stability, flexibility, no per-unit licensing fees.
There's pretty much no business case for supporting Linux end users. Not only would it involve creating software for a small contingent of users, but it would do so using software that has to deal with all of Linux's weakest points (X11, GUI, etc.)
I'll respond using small words, so that your tiny little mind can understand.
The parent claimed that RoR cannot be used on high-volume sites, and his only evidence was that PHP may be used in some portion of the stack of some sites. I was attacking this assertion by noting that the trick does not work (and expose_php does NOT affect this one. You're just wrong about that.)
I also noted that even if there was some use of PHP, it would not be a condemnation of RoR's scalability anymore than the use of a shell script on a Unix box would be a condemnation of programming in C.
So keep on thinking you're clever if you want, but you're not. You're missing the point, arguing the wrong issues, and despite all that you still manage to be factually incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
I heavily disagree with this statement. I don't think the recent headlined case served a purpose of satisfaction, and even if it somehow did it was definitely not solely for that purpose.
The suspect was not violent, was on the ground, restrained by six officers. He had no weapons and posed no physical threat to anybody.
I agree he was a douchebag, and he hurt his cause far more than he helped it. But tasering a restrained individual with no weaponry, who has made no threats, in that situation? Only a violent fascist thug would agree to that.
Personally, I don't want the state having that much control over my body. I believe in freedom, something that you clearly do not value.
I guess there will always be the intellectuals who believe that freedom is overrated, probably because you believe yourself superior to others, and assume that you will always be the taserer, not the taseree. It's an awful, dangerous and short-sighted view.
I hope that you grow up someday, and learn why freedom is important, even when it comes to the rights of douchebags.
Keep on trolling, jackass.
You're still the one who thinks it's totally cool to taser people whose only crime is "being a dickhead".
Your position is so fucking indefensible that it's no surprise you've resorted to absurdist attacks. Even your tiny, tiny little mind realizes that you can't stand by what you wrote without being openly anti-American, and pro-fascism.
The central tenet of fascism is that the individual is not as important as the state.
You have defended the use of force against people who are not currently presenting a threat to anybody, simply to cause them pain.
This is completely and directly compatible with fascist beliefs.
That said, there is no point in attempting to converse with you. I simply cannot relate to anybody who believes that government should be so large and so powerful that it is allowed to induce unnecessary physical pain in any individual who bothers it.
I'm for less government, not more.
You're incredible.
You justify the random application of pain, when it will serve absolutely no purpose except the satisfaction of people who dislike that person, and that you claim you are not a fascist because you hold libertarian values when it comes to commerce.
That might be the worst excuse I've ever heard.
People like you make me really wish that everybody had to apply for citizenship, not just immigrants. Because you sure as shit don't deserve the freedom that so many fought and died to give you.
Fucking pathetic. Every time you try to excuse yourself, you sound even worse than you did before.
I personally think resisting arrest counts
I would care more deeply about your opinions if you weren't a crazy fascist fuck who thinks that it's a good idea to tazer anybody who passively resists arrest.
Thank fucking God that fascist idiots like you weren't around in the 60s.
find me a video of a POLICE officer tasing someone who isn't being a total dickhead.
Officers are not supposed to tazer people for being dickheads. They're supposed to be used when there is no other safe way to temporarily restrain a subject.
I'm nearly amused that you claim you aren't a fascist, but then endorse the tasering of people who annoy you, even if they are causing no danger to anybody, and have already been restrained.
I say nearly amused because I'm saddened that so many of the kids of today are pathetic, shrill, lying, fascist assholes, like you.
The only thing this jury proved, IMO, is that people tend to abuse any power that is given them.
They were legally required to assign a penalty appropriate to the crime, but they did not do so. They ignored this obligation, choosing instead to "send a message" to a woman who they did not like.
They used the law as a weapon to destroy a person who offended them personally. They succeeded only in proving that feeble people, when given power, tend to abuse it, and that Duluth has plenty of feeble people.
The job of the jury isn't to decide on the basis of a popularity contest; the decision is...did she break the law or not?
They got to choose what her financial penalty was.
They purposefully picked an amount that had absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the financial damages that may have been incurred. This was not a matter of law. This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.
Two points here:
1) I can't imagine what a pathetic and aggressive loser you have to be to think that somebody should pay $3.6m as restitution for letting somebody copy 24 songs (even if you think they're guilty.)
2) It really sounds like they don't understand the difference between a defense lawyer saying "they didn't prove that this technically feasible activity didn't happen" and a woman who is actively claiming that this was the case.
I hope that the douchebags who pushed for $150k/song get hit by the RIAA because their kids installed some software without their knowledge, because only then will they realize how completely and totally fucking wrong they are.
Please do not trivialize the potential abuses of remote shutdown capability by comparing them to mandatory safety devices like the third brake light.
The worst part of remote shutdown capability is that it does not benefit me in any significant way. Professional auto thieves will be able to quickly disable the device, and transport the stolen car without issue.
I don't mind having an extra brake light, or air bags. They make me slightly safer. But remote vehicle shutdown does the opposite. It makes me vulnerable to abuse by the government, hackers, and simple programming mistakes.
You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.
Given recent, well-publicized events, I guess your definition of "deserves it" is anybody who annoys you. Right, bro?
There are a few options here. You're either very poorly informed, a troll or a big-government fascist. Which is it?
I'm pretty sure that Sun was working on the data center in a box before Larry Page met Sergey Brin, let alone before they founded a company and patented computers in containers.
(Seriously, I think it was 1992 or so.)
I doubt this patent will be enforced in any meaningful way. The Sun Blackbox program you linked to was started about 15 years ago, if my memory serves correctly.
Maybe some minor aspect will get through, but "data center in a box" is old news.
You have to go to a showroom because DirectBuy sells a "membership" that costs $5k for three years. (Don't worry, high-interest financing is available!) You're told that you may either join on the spot, or never come back.
After purchasing this membership you're then able to shop from a somewhat random collection of goods. You won't be able to return them, or cancel your membership if the whole thing pans out poorly, though.
Also, you can't take their price list to other retailers to shop around. It's confidential.
And if you're thinking 'wow, what a great scam', then you're in luck, you can become a franchisee, and work on conning people into using your mediocre company.
A few tips, n00b:
Tip 1: You are supposed to reply to the post that you're addressing. If you're going to falsely claim that you were replying to the parent of my post, then you posted in the wrong place. Learn to use the internet, you fucking retard.
Tip 2: If you're trying to troll somebody, don't troll by claiming that low UIDs are a bad thing. It's too fucking far from believability, it makes the troll too obvious. Learn to troll, you fucking retard.
Tip 3: If you're going to flame somebody who just flamed you for being an idiotic maggot, don't do it AC. That's fucking weak-sauce. Learn to grow some balls, you fucking retard.
Tip 4: Kill yourself.
Hope that helped! HAND! DIAF!
I never claimed it shouldn't be a crime. I claimed that the current enforcement is so obscene that it would be better for society if it was not enforced at all.
And yes, I claim that ripping a CD I bought onto my hard drive should not be a crime at all. I do so without regard to what the punishment is.
Oh, and I understand you're nothing but a miserable, low-IQ troll, but quotes are supposed to be used around direct quotations. Please don't go around manufacturing quotes, claiming that I said things that I didn't. That's just lying.
Now go fuck yourself, idiot.
Your post reminds me of idiots.
Income tax makes sense. It's common, and as you note, it's well established that it must be paid. The relationship between income and tax due is well known and accepted. Those who cheat do not owe orders of magnitude more than those who don't, when caught.
This copyright shit is not well-established. There is no clear relationship between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. We have the RIAA claiming that ripping a CD that you own is stealing, and that it should be punishable with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. But nobody agrees with that. Flat nobody.
Your comparison isn't just a little flawed, its completely broken.
I'd tell you the same thing, but I'm guessing you'll continue not listening.
I'm not like you. I listen when people have useful things to say.
You're just some idiotic fuckwit troll who claims that RoR isn't scalable because sometimes people use PHP.
The fact that there are high volume sites that do run RoR doesn't matter to you, because you're either a PHP fanboi, or a complete and total fucking retard.
Either way, the world will be more honest once you're dead, you manipulative, lying shit.
I'm not sure when I got my account, but I do know slashdot had user accounts for a while before I bothered signing up for one. They were available for at least a few months before I signed up.
In these cases, the nuance of the different thread models might matter but the programmer of this type would be happy (rather than scared) to investigate all the options. After all, if he didn't care, he'd just go with the default choices like the first programmer. But his boss probably doesn't want him spending hours upon valuable hours of time investigating different languages. And besides, his boss is thinking of completely different factors, like "Can I hire more programmers who know this language? Will that be more difficult in ten years?" and the programmer questions like "Does the implementation match the documentation" and "is the run-time really up to production quality standards?" aren't always easy to answer in a day, or a week. This choice is not a blessing, it's a very expensive curse. I'm unsurprised that slashdot doesn't get this, because slashdot loves Linux, and Linux is a perfect example of why too much choice makes things worse.
I feel very fortunate that my experience with NetBank's customer service was extremely unpleasant. So unpleasant, in fact, that I never funded the small business account I opened with them.
They had some serious bugs in their software that prevented me from initiating an ACH to fund my account. When I asked about those bugs, they stated:
Fortunately I took that as a bad sign, and walked away.
NetBank offered small business banking services, where this problem is more likely to hit.
It's damned easy for a small business to be acting responsibly while having balances that are well over $100k in their checking accounts.
Seriously.
There's a strong business case for using Linux (or other free unixes). Reasonable stability, flexibility, no per-unit licensing fees.
There's pretty much no business case for supporting Linux end users. Not only would it involve creating software for a small contingent of users, but it would do so using software that has to deal with all of Linux's weakest points (X11, GUI, etc.)
I'll respond using small words, so that your tiny little mind can understand.
The parent claimed that RoR cannot be used on high-volume sites, and his only evidence was that PHP may be used in some portion of the stack of some sites. I was attacking this assertion by noting that the trick does not work (and expose_php does NOT affect this one. You're just wrong about that.)
I also noted that even if there was some use of PHP, it would not be a condemnation of RoR's scalability anymore than the use of a shell script on a Unix box would be a condemnation of programming in C.
So keep on thinking you're clever if you want, but you're not. You're missing the point, arguing the wrong issues, and despite all that you still manage to be factually incorrect.
Fucking typical slashdot idiocy.
You see, Keith and I had a side bet, on the dumbest possible article that could make the front page of slashdot.
I didn't think Keith could get this bit of non-news on the FP, but he succeeded.
Congratulations, you win!