And the students? By showing up for school beyond such a date, you agree, but oh by the way, compulsory education. This thing doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being legal. Whoever is responsible for this should be thrown out on their ear and never hold a position higher than janitor.
I'm fully aware that criminals aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack, and sometimes their actions are not strictly in line with logic. Nevertheless, I think it's a dumb idea to create systems with perverse incentives or disincentives, and I do think that applies to creating one where there is no penalty for additional crime. I think that explains cases where someone robs and shoots someone else. The penalty for attempted or actual murder is a lot higher, but the perceived likelihood of getting caught is a lot less if your victim isn't around to be your accuser. Sick, but logical. Now, you want to create a system where such a person, having robbed and killed someone, faces no additional penalties for going on a spree until they get caught and call me the moron? I guess we'll just disagree, then.
I do partly disagree with you, though. Prison is absolutely to stop criminals. Not by example, but by segregation. If we convict you of a crime, we put you in a box where you can't commit crimes against people who are not in prison anymore. All the non-inmates are safe from whatever you'd do to them because you are confined to that box.
This is the first question you should ask. Once upon a time I worked for a department that managed its own email, and hence had it's own domain. Someone had the bright idea of consolidating to just use the central email solution in the interest of saving time/money, in spite of the fact that managing mail took very little time and very little money. Transitioning everyone took a lot more time than managing the original process, shoehorned people into arbitrarily small mail quotas (hint: do not tell people who cost $100+/hour that they need to manage their email to fit in an amount of disk that you can buy for a dollar), made them less efficient and less happy as they had to switch from mail clients they knew well and were happy with to unfamiliar ones they didn't like.
In the end, we spent more time and money making everyone less happy and less efficient than if we'd just left it alone.
As far as simply avoiding clashes, consider that this is one of the benefits of there being a hierarchy in DNS. You can have bob.smith@finance.domain.com, bob.smith@engineering.domain.com, bob.smith@sales.domain.com, etc. Is there an actual requirement for everyone to be @domain.com, or is someone just empire building?
Corrollary: Once you've committed a crime or crimes sufficient to get a 25 year sentence, you may as well keep going because the punishment isn't any worse.
What are this guy's credentials apart from being a guy with a blog?
Who cares what his credentials are? He's making a claim that a lot of people can verify. Is his claim false?
I would hope that Opera/Amazon/Nokia are atleast as credible as your ISP though it's an additional point of failure.
They are, which is not at all. My ISP doesn't have certificates installed in my browser, and aren't secretly decrypting my SSL traffic (unless SSL is fundamentally broken in a way which isn't publicly known yet).
1- Youre not just recording the police, youre recording the people interacting with them. What about their privacy?
Presumably, they're in public or they wouldn't be recordable. I hear what you're saying, though. There are a lot of absolute slimeballs out there who record awfulness for the amusement of losers on the internet. Don't be one of those people.
2- Recording the police gets abused entirely too much.
You're not claiming that the guy with a badge never reports just the facts (or version thereof) that makes him look like the good guy, are you? Really, all I need to see is ONE video of a handcuffed young man getting shot by police who then start rounding up the cell phones of people who were recording to say that this right ALWAYS needs to be protected. We grant police tremendous power. It's not asking much at all to claim that, in return, we get to have video of you exercising that power. If that bothers you, find another line of work where the lives of the public are not in your hands.
You people WANT the cops to be bad because you want to bitch about them on the internet.
No, I WANT them to be wonderful people who never abuse their authority. Some of them are. We've probably all seen those internet videos of the state trooper shows the patience of a saint while some nutjob is verbally going off on them. Some of them aren't. One of the reasons I'm quite happy with the idea of videos is that once you get into a courtroom, what the police say is disproportionally believed over what you say. It is as if by putting on the uniform and badge, regular people become paragons of virtue. Well, that's simply not true. They remain regular people.
Making it legal to video tape them will only make it worse on them.
It's already legal to video tape them. Some of them don't know this, or pretend not to know it, but it's true. And yes, it will make it a little harder on them. Sorry (not really), but the point here is to strike a balance with the rights of the accused. If you're going to arrest me and accuse me of a crime (and have the right to beat the snot out of me if I resist arrest), then I'd like video of the whole thing.
Building a 6' thick concrete or lead shield isn't hard. The problem would be the massively larger energy requirements for accelerating and decelerating a much more massive vessel. The same is true of an asteroid. Sure, using one might solve the radiation problem, but pushing really heavy things around is hard.
Not online, though. I was fortunate to live near a great school and started taking part time classes before transitioning to full time classes. A full time, daytime course load while working full time IS possible if you have an understanding employer and your work schedule can flex. I'm not going to say it was easy. Less sleep happened than I'd like and my life was basically work and school, but I got through it.
Frequency matters. I can sit in front of my IR heat dish and dump watts/cm^2 into my body and get no effect other than pleasant warmth. When you start talking about ionizing radiation, that is individual photons that are energetic enough to knock electrons off atoms, you get effects that you'll never see simply by dumping energy into a volume.
I'm not bothering to look up what radiation these scanners use, merely pointing out that comparing watts is not what you want to be doing.
These are your pictures. You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.
Of course they don't. They have the right to use them with your permission, which you grant when you accept the ToS. I think it's stupid, too, but that's how it works.
People have gotten used to the notion that people will throw a useful service out there and let you use it for free forever. Frankly, that's stupid and we should all know better. They're either going to find a way to get money out of it, which is either going to mean selling the things you put in there or selling information derived from the things you put in there, they're going to start showing you ads, or they're going to start charging you to use it.
Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too...
Friend of mine has dozens of firearms and used to make his own ammo. That's not at all a predictor of going mental. I know you weren't saying it was, btw, but there are those reading it who think so. This friend of mine is pushing 70 now, and is a happy, well adjusted grandfather.
Owning and "stockpiling" are not the same thing. This guy's mom owned a few guns, not a stockpile. I haven't seen that the shooter personally owned any, which means you'd have either not looked at this woman at all, because she wasn't stockpiling anything, or looked at her and found (presumably) a regular schoolteacher with no criminal record, and not been overly concerned.
As far as I've seen, all those who subscribe to the "Nobama will take our gunz!!11!!!" paranoia buy them and then don't do anything with them, so again, I ask what you think you're going to find. It's actually fairly rational to buy things that you think aren't going to be available soon. You'll just find a lot of people that think the likelihood of gun control tightening has gone up, not a bunch of crazed loons ready to shoot up the town.
None have addressed my statement that looking into those who want such a large collection is a rational thing to do.
I don't know, I actually think it's morally wrong NOT to question things. I have a certain set of opinions about this whole issue, but I think I'd be wrong if I didn't question them myself, so you certainly have my blessing to do so. I'm even willing to change my mind. I just think that when you look into these stockpilers you'll find a bunch of collectors and perhaps some survivalists (who will hunker down in their bunkers and look silly, but shoot no one), and you'll miss the serial killers and mass shooters who only need one or two, or any of a set of other weapons.
I do think there's a moral wrong committed if we go around harassing people for lawful conduct if there's not some clear causal path to illegal conduct. So, do your study, but if you find your stockpilers aren't any more likely to commit crime than those who don't, leave them alone.
No doubt. I enjoy target shooting, but not enough to waste a single life or a single wound. The argument for private weaponry is self defense. People like me don't really need it (right here, right now) because we lead safe lives where we're very unlikely to need to defend ourselves, and if we do, a gun in a drawer at home isn't likely to help much. Not everybody lives that sort of life, unfortunately.
Just replying to my own post because I can't reply to all of yours collectively. I think it's really interesting that there's a split between those are who are sure there would be more and those who are sure there would be less. And those on both sides think those on the other are intolerable morons. You know what that means, don't you?
Collectively, we have no idea if there would be more or fewer.
Good lord, uber, I didn't say any of those things. I'm simply reducing the debate to the part that matters because people tend to get wrapped up in emotion and forget that our actual goal is (or should be) fewer dead or injured people. Not once did I opine which direction the solution lies in. If we arm "every grade-school teacher" and that results in a safer world, then yeah, I'm for it. If it results in a more dangerous one, I'm against it. (Note I *still* didn't say which of those I believe is true. For all you know, I agree with you.)
The news is still in flux about this, but what I've heard so far is that he shot up the office THEN went to his mother's classroom. And, of course, nothing is a sure proof against crime. Police, who are armed and trained, are still sometimes victims.
Just for the record, I also don't think Obama is a communist (Democrat, last I checked), I don't have a dirt farm and he doesn't want it (though he does subscribe to the typical democrat political beliefs which involve taxing my dirt-farm to give it to people with lesser dirt-farms, as opposed to the republican ideal of taxing my dirt farm to buy more tanks), I don't carry, I seriously doubt I'll ever be mugged, and I live in an area where deer frequent my front yard. Some people want to shoot them, but I rather like having them around. Other than that, you described me to a T.:P
Weapons have exactly one use. If you want to find violent people, you start by looking at the people who stockpile things that can only be used for violence.
No, they don't. They're also used for target shooting, competition (think martial arts), collecting (I know a guy who has swords on the wall at his place of business), and probably more if I think about it. The overwhelming majority of weapons owners are not and never will be violent criminals.
Nonsense. Some days I really want automated cars and I want human drivers banned because they do stupid things and get OTHER people killed. I really don't give a damn what the primary purpose of your car is if you end up killing me or someone else with it.
Or if all of the teachers had concealed carry he would have been taken out immediately.
Well, not immediately, but sooner. The question is, if all, or more realistically, some number of people in schools had ready access to a firearm, would there be more deaths or fewer?
Minefield, and irrelevant to the job. You find out they have a same-sex partner, for example, don't hire them for some completely unrelated reason, and get sued.
> For example, if they keep bragging on a son for their athletic or academic achievements, this could be a competitive type who cares a lot about climbing the corporate ladder.
No, don't do this. Your inferences may be wildly off. You might hire a real slacker who is just really proud of his/her kids. Quit trying to be an amateur psychologist or detective. There are a lot of people who think they can do this sort of thing, and a lot of them are wrong.
Once upon a time I asked a state trooper how fast his car would go. He told me either 132 or 143 mph, but that was only because it had a limiter on it to keep it going no faster than the speed rating on the tires. If the car in question was a former police car, it would do 100 without even breaking a sweat.
Her suspicions have no bearing on the quality of Dietz's work and therefore have no place in a review of said work.
They have tremendous bearing. In fact, I don't care how good your work is if you're going to rob me while you're doing it. You're taking the most conservative approach possible in assuming that she might have misplaced the jewelry or outright lied about it. I don't have jewelry, personally, but I have a safe with papers I don't want to lose or burn in a fire. I know exactly where it is. I see it every day. If I hire you to work on my house, give you a key, no one else has a key, and it goes missing, you're darned right I'll suspect you took it. I won't straight out accuse you, but I will absolutely call the police and tell them it went missing and you're the only one with a key. Draw your own conclusion.
BTW, I had a female neighbor who hated my guts because she didn't like men with my skin color.
This just sucks, and she's an evil person. The original story, though, has verifiable facts. There would be witnesses. She should have shot some video. She claims she won a summary judgement. There's a record of that. If she hired a second contractor to fix the damage done by the first, that second contractor should be able to testify to the state of the place when he started work.
Slashdot Mirror
And the students? By showing up for school beyond such a date, you agree, but oh by the way, compulsory education. This thing doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being legal. Whoever is responsible for this should be thrown out on their ear and never hold a position higher than janitor.
I'm fully aware that criminals aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack, and sometimes their actions are not strictly in line with logic. Nevertheless, I think it's a dumb idea to create systems with perverse incentives or disincentives, and I do think that applies to creating one where there is no penalty for additional crime. I think that explains cases where someone robs and shoots someone else. The penalty for attempted or actual murder is a lot higher, but the perceived likelihood of getting caught is a lot less if your victim isn't around to be your accuser. Sick, but logical. Now, you want to create a system where such a person, having robbed and killed someone, faces no additional penalties for going on a spree until they get caught and call me the moron? I guess we'll just disagree, then.
I do partly disagree with you, though. Prison is absolutely to stop criminals. Not by example, but by segregation. If we convict you of a crime, we put you in a box where you can't commit crimes against people who are not in prison anymore. All the non-inmates are safe from whatever you'd do to them because you are confined to that box.
This is the first question you should ask. Once upon a time I worked for a department that managed its own email, and hence had it's own domain. Someone had the bright idea of consolidating to just use the central email solution in the interest of saving time/money, in spite of the fact that managing mail took very little time and very little money. Transitioning everyone took a lot more time than managing the original process, shoehorned people into arbitrarily small mail quotas (hint: do not tell people who cost $100+/hour that they need to manage their email to fit in an amount of disk that you can buy for a dollar), made them less efficient and less happy as they had to switch from mail clients they knew well and were happy with to unfamiliar ones they didn't like.
In the end, we spent more time and money making everyone less happy and less efficient than if we'd just left it alone.
As far as simply avoiding clashes, consider that this is one of the benefits of there being a hierarchy in DNS. You can have bob.smith@finance.domain.com, bob.smith@engineering.domain.com, bob.smith@sales.domain.com, etc. Is there an actual requirement for everyone to be @domain.com, or is someone just empire building?
Corrollary: Once you've committed a crime or crimes sufficient to get a 25 year sentence, you may as well keep going because the punishment isn't any worse.
See the problem?
This is a ridiculous assertion, and completely wrong. They have us jumping at shadows and wasting billions of dollars on useless schemes.
Who cares what his credentials are? He's making a claim that a lot of people can verify. Is his claim false?
They are, which is not at all. My ISP doesn't have certificates installed in my browser, and aren't secretly decrypting my SSL traffic (unless SSL is fundamentally broken in a way which isn't publicly known yet).
Presumably, they're in public or they wouldn't be recordable. I hear what you're saying, though. There are a lot of absolute slimeballs out there who record awfulness for the amusement of losers on the internet. Don't be one of those people.
You're not claiming that the guy with a badge never reports just the facts (or version thereof) that makes him look like the good guy, are you? Really, all I need to see is ONE video of a handcuffed young man getting shot by police who then start rounding up the cell phones of people who were recording to say that this right ALWAYS needs to be protected. We grant police tremendous power. It's not asking much at all to claim that, in return, we get to have video of you exercising that power. If that bothers you, find another line of work where the lives of the public are not in your hands.
No, I WANT them to be wonderful people who never abuse their authority. Some of them are. We've probably all seen those internet videos of the state trooper shows the patience of a saint while some nutjob is verbally going off on them. Some of them aren't. One of the reasons I'm quite happy with the idea of videos is that once you get into a courtroom, what the police say is disproportionally believed over what you say. It is as if by putting on the uniform and badge, regular people become paragons of virtue. Well, that's simply not true. They remain regular people.
It's already legal to video tape them. Some of them don't know this, or pretend not to know it, but it's true. And yes, it will make it a little harder on them. Sorry (not really), but the point here is to strike a balance with the rights of the accused. If you're going to arrest me and accuse me of a crime (and have the right to beat the snot out of me if I resist arrest), then I'd like video of the whole thing.
Building a 6' thick concrete or lead shield isn't hard. The problem would be the massively larger energy requirements for accelerating and decelerating a much more massive vessel. The same is true of an asteroid. Sure, using one might solve the radiation problem, but pushing really heavy things around is hard.
Not online, though. I was fortunate to live near a great school and started taking part time classes before transitioning to full time classes. A full time, daytime course load while working full time IS possible if you have an understanding employer and your work schedule can flex. I'm not going to say it was easy. Less sleep happened than I'd like and my life was basically work and school, but I got through it.
Frequency matters. I can sit in front of my IR heat dish and dump watts/cm^2 into my body and get no effect other than pleasant warmth. When you start talking about ionizing radiation, that is individual photons that are energetic enough to knock electrons off atoms, you get effects that you'll never see simply by dumping energy into a volume.
I'm not bothering to look up what radiation these scanners use, merely pointing out that comparing watts is not what you want to be doing.
Of course they don't. They have the right to use them with your permission, which you grant when you accept the ToS. I think it's stupid, too, but that's how it works.
People have gotten used to the notion that people will throw a useful service out there and let you use it for free forever. Frankly, that's stupid and we should all know better. They're either going to find a way to get money out of it, which is either going to mean selling the things you put in there or selling information derived from the things you put in there, they're going to start showing you ads, or they're going to start charging you to use it.
Friend of mine has dozens of firearms and used to make his own ammo. That's not at all a predictor of going mental. I know you weren't saying it was, btw, but there are those reading it who think so. This friend of mine is pushing 70 now, and is a happy, well adjusted grandfather.
Owning and "stockpiling" are not the same thing. This guy's mom owned a few guns, not a stockpile. I haven't seen that the shooter personally owned any, which means you'd have either not looked at this woman at all, because she wasn't stockpiling anything, or looked at her and found (presumably) a regular schoolteacher with no criminal record, and not been overly concerned.
As far as I've seen, all those who subscribe to the "Nobama will take our gunz!!11!!!" paranoia buy them and then don't do anything with them, so again, I ask what you think you're going to find. It's actually fairly rational to buy things that you think aren't going to be available soon. You'll just find a lot of people that think the likelihood of gun control tightening has gone up, not a bunch of crazed loons ready to shoot up the town.
I don't know, I actually think it's morally wrong NOT to question things. I have a certain set of opinions about this whole issue, but I think I'd be wrong if I didn't question them myself, so you certainly have my blessing to do so. I'm even willing to change my mind. I just think that when you look into these stockpilers you'll find a bunch of collectors and perhaps some survivalists (who will hunker down in their bunkers and look silly, but shoot no one), and you'll miss the serial killers and mass shooters who only need one or two, or any of a set of other weapons.
I do think there's a moral wrong committed if we go around harassing people for lawful conduct if there's not some clear causal path to illegal conduct. So, do your study, but if you find your stockpilers aren't any more likely to commit crime than those who don't, leave them alone.
No doubt. I enjoy target shooting, but not enough to waste a single life or a single wound. The argument for private weaponry is self defense. People like me don't really need it (right here, right now) because we lead safe lives where we're very unlikely to need to defend ourselves, and if we do, a gun in a drawer at home isn't likely to help much. Not everybody lives that sort of life, unfortunately.
Just replying to my own post because I can't reply to all of yours collectively. I think it's really interesting that there's a split between those are who are sure there would be more and those who are sure there would be less. And those on both sides think those on the other are intolerable morons. You know what that means, don't you?
Collectively, we have no idea if there would be more or fewer.
Good lord, uber, I didn't say any of those things. I'm simply reducing the debate to the part that matters because people tend to get wrapped up in emotion and forget that our actual goal is (or should be) fewer dead or injured people. Not once did I opine which direction the solution lies in. If we arm "every grade-school teacher" and that results in a safer world, then yeah, I'm for it. If it results in a more dangerous one, I'm against it. (Note I *still* didn't say which of those I believe is true. For all you know, I agree with you.)
The news is still in flux about this, but what I've heard so far is that he shot up the office THEN went to his mother's classroom. And, of course, nothing is a sure proof against crime. Police, who are armed and trained, are still sometimes victims.
Just for the record, I also don't think Obama is a communist (Democrat, last I checked), I don't have a dirt farm and he doesn't want it (though he does subscribe to the typical democrat political beliefs which involve taxing my dirt-farm to give it to people with lesser dirt-farms, as opposed to the republican ideal of taxing my dirt farm to buy more tanks), I don't carry, I seriously doubt I'll ever be mugged, and I live in an area where deer frequent my front yard. Some people want to shoot them, but I rather like having them around. Other than that, you described me to a T. :P
Quite true. I'm not debating the lethality of guns vs. knives, I'm pointing out that the AC's claim is false.
No, they don't. They're also used for target shooting, competition (think martial arts), collecting (I know a guy who has swords on the wall at his place of business), and probably more if I think about it. The overwhelming majority of weapons owners are not and never will be violent criminals.
Nonsense. Some days I really want automated cars and I want human drivers banned because they do stupid things and get OTHER people killed. I really don't give a damn what the primary purpose of your car is if you end up killing me or someone else with it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
Right, it does. How much did we just spend on the election? Let's tax that. Stupidest waste of money I've seen yet.
Well, not immediately, but sooner. The question is, if all, or more realistically, some number of people in schools had ready access to a firearm, would there be more deaths or fewer?
> Family
Minefield, and irrelevant to the job. You find out they have a same-sex partner, for example, don't hire them for some completely unrelated reason, and get sued.
> For example, if they keep bragging on a son for their athletic or academic achievements, this could be a competitive type who cares a lot about climbing the corporate ladder.
No, don't do this. Your inferences may be wildly off. You might hire a real slacker who is just really proud of his/her kids. Quit trying to be an amateur psychologist or detective. There are a lot of people who think they can do this sort of thing, and a lot of them are wrong.
It's not hard to break 100. Most cars will do it.
Once upon a time I asked a state trooper how fast his car would go. He told me either 132 or 143 mph, but that was only because it had a limiter on it to keep it going no faster than the speed rating on the tires. If the car in question was a former police car, it would do 100 without even breaking a sweat.
They have tremendous bearing. In fact, I don't care how good your work is if you're going to rob me while you're doing it. You're taking the most conservative approach possible in assuming that she might have misplaced the jewelry or outright lied about it. I don't have jewelry, personally, but I have a safe with papers I don't want to lose or burn in a fire. I know exactly where it is. I see it every day. If I hire you to work on my house, give you a key, no one else has a key, and it goes missing, you're darned right I'll suspect you took it. I won't straight out accuse you, but I will absolutely call the police and tell them it went missing and you're the only one with a key. Draw your own conclusion.
This just sucks, and she's an evil person. The original story, though, has verifiable facts. There would be witnesses. She should have shot some video. She claims she won a summary judgement. There's a record of that. If she hired a second contractor to fix the damage done by the first, that second contractor should be able to testify to the state of the place when he started work.