Only if you believe it's impossible for an unarmed man (or boy) to kill you or do serious bodily harm to you. Since there are plenty of examples of that happening, I'd say no, defending yourself with a gun against someone attacking you with their body is not excessive force.
I'm with you on this one. This strikes me as epic stupidity. Sending something to a planet where we haven't found any life yet to get DNA from the life we haven't ever found? Knock yourself out, I guess, but none of my tax dollars, please.
It's not an act of war. It's almost certainly a crime, though. Nation A doesn't get to write laws that say they can do whatever they want within Nation B's borders. They can certainly declare that THEY aren't going to prosecute their own employees for hacking Nation B's computers, but any of those employees setting foot within Nation B's jurisdiction shouldn't be surprised when they're prosecuted.
Also if they are mucking around with the files on a computer what is to say that they are not going to PLANT evidence??
Not really any different from any current searches.
10 microbes/ml * 1 ml/1000 ul = 0.01 microbes/ul, not 10,000/ul.
So yeah, it's probably correct as originally written. I was a little surprised that 10 per ml is clean room levels, though, but I don't work in or near one.
Coursera's answer should simply be "We're not operating in Minnesota. Our servers are in $PLACE. Minnesota has no jurisdiction in $PLACE. Have a nice day."
I don't think she was putting naked pictures of herself on the internet. My impression from reading this story in the past was that she exposed herself to one person on a webcam. You might equate that with "putting naked pictures of yourself on the internet", and technically, I'd agree with you, but she probably didn't understand that. Is it plausible she didn't realize that person could keep the image? Yeah. Naive, but yeah. Is it plausible she was deceived into trusting that the person was a kid like her? Yeah. That he wouldn't share the image? Yeah.
I don't think there's a particular age when you learn this. I think there's an event. It can be putting pictures of yourself online and being ashamed when they get passed around the school. It can be a parent warning you that such things happen. It can be reading about it. Keep in mind you're talking about a 14 year old whose experience of sexuality and intimacy was probably exactly zero.
There is no "they did the time, justice was served" feeling there.
Nor should there be. The scales of justice are an illusion, unless you can actually go around and find people who would say "Yes, I'd let you commit $ACT against me if you are then confined to jail for $YEARS." If you can't find people who think that's a fair trade, justice has not been served.
That's beside the point, though. Putting someone in jail is not to "serve justice" as far as I'm concerned. I want someone in jail if they've committed a crime mostly because they've clearly declared their willingness to violate others, and a propensity to do so. As far as I'm concerned, once someone does that, we have the right to kick them out of the playground. Sure, for less serious offenses we should give people a chance to learn from their mistakes, but sure I think people who molest childen get to go to jail forever for it. I don't want them raped in prison, I just want them kept away from the rest of us.
Well, extending this brilliant system of paying the schools for students who are in attendance should obviously just be extended to pay the teachers the same way.
Seriously, though, there's something not being said here. Funding schools like this is stupid. Either there's a reason, like administrators were gaming the system (and should be fired) or the school district is entirely peopled with imbeciles.
I used to work in research. I'm on ~10 or so papers. Not one thin dime of that money went into the research we did. Every penny of it was paid by taxpayers in the form of NIH grants, or private drug companies.
Not that I'm supporting bypassing the paywall, but your theory that the money supports research is a load of crap.
cars, running water, telephone, electricity, sewers, public schools, TV, radio
And of those, which are you guaranteed access to whether or not you have the means to pay? I believe the only one it public schools, and there's a semantic argument to be made that that's an entitlement, not a right. Note that entitlement doesn't mean bad, it's just a thing we've elected to make available to everyone or some subset of people at no or reduced cost.
You're posing a false dichotomy. In the US, if you can't afford it, there are people who will give it to you. There are government programs that give you money if you're not working. You don't have a right to these things, however. These are things we, as a society, have CHOSEN to give. So, yes, you have absolutely no right to demand the farmer to buy a farm, spend money on seed, fertilizer, equipment, employees, and expend labor to produce food for you, for nothing.
There's a difference between the way we should treat each other out of a sense of mutual responsibility and generosity and "rights".
I'm glad to hear so many championing common sense. Of course it isn't a right. No one has a right to other people's property or the fruits of other people's labor, and that's what network connectivity of all kinds is.
The most egregious of which was fMRI to authenticate you...at an ad agency. That's seriously expensive hardware. I *might* buy something like that at classified sites, but not in 15 years. And anyway, it's cheaper to have conventional authentication and security guards who are there every day and simply know what you look like.
Or, you could look at it from the opposite perspective. Instead of letting people decide how important it was to them to get a new disk drive, the shops artificially capped their availability for everyone. If I'm running a large data store of $IMPORTANT_DATA, then I probably need whatever number of drives it takes, and I really don't care much what it costs. If I'm the neighborhood cat lady who takes billions of pictures of her cats, then I can put that on hold for a while until the shortage goes away. This is what a supply limited price increase does. Things that are less important get put off until later. I'm not the cat lady, but I *did* put off buying drives during the worst of the price increase. Rationing means the cat lady gets to keep taking pictures but people who really need a lot of data space and for whom it's worth real money to get it can't have it.
I'd absolutely give them my money (if I used such a service, which I don't, so...sorry). If I pay someone to provide a service, I for darn sure want them to find a way to keep the servers humming whatever the market or weather throws at them.
You think this doesn't happen with email addresses now? MadDog@domain.com isn't even that bad. I just appreciate people telling us up front they have no common sense. Saves an interview.
I would love to not have to have a car. It's an eye opener when you stop to figure out how much owning a car actually costs. I considered public transportation for work, but it's 25 minutes to drive or 1h20m to ride. I'm not giving up 2 hours out of what's left of my day. And for people with families, there are lots of places you'll need to go that public transport doesn't, or lots of times you'll need to go that it's not available. Sign me up when it's an option, though. Maybe when I'm older.
Spot on. I half intended to make a sarcastic post about how all we need is to get everyone to be willing to drive a plastic car with a 40 hp engine, but truly for a lot of people including me, a small (but safe) car is sufficient.
I actually sold cars briefly. One customer who stuck in my mind was a little old lady who really wanted an 8 cylinder engine. This was about 1990. She might have settled for a 6, but a 4 was no sale, no way. Blew my mind. My own 4 cylinder car sitting in the parking lot, barely out of econo-box class, would do 120 mph. What the hell did she think she needed an 8 cylinder engine for?!? She would not be swayed. A lot of us, me included, are not so different from that old lady.
I'd be happy to discuss most anything, but I'd appreciate if you rebut arguments I made rather than make logical leaps to absurd conclusions that don't follow from anything I said.
Of course people with training make mistakes. Fewer, I'd argue, and if you disagree please come to my house next time you need surgery. I've never been to med school, but I did stay Holiday Inn Express last night.
I hear ya, but getting to that mythical perfect world seems like a useful thing to do. Throwing your hands up and saying "Nope, ain't gonna happen!"...not so much.
Anyway, I wasn't saying the solution was banning them. I'm losing my willingness to tolerate these sort of dumbasses, though. Once upon a time I would have been in the "show me actual harm" crowd, but right now I'm willing to put him away for a while merely for trying to cause harm. I guess that's where I get to on things like this. This guy isn't necessarily stupid. He's malicious. He might be stupid, too.
There's a resort I go to that sold these. It got to the point where going there was a nuisance for all the dumbasses shining them around. They were banned around a year ago. It'll be interesting to see how many are shining around next time I go back. In your theoretical world, banning things doesn't work. In the real world, it sometimes does make a difference. Not always, of course. Prohibition is a great example where it didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you believe it's impossible for an unarmed man (or boy) to kill you or do serious bodily harm to you. Since there are plenty of examples of that happening, I'd say no, defending yourself with a gun against someone attacking you with their body is not excessive force.
I'm with you on this one. This strikes me as epic stupidity. Sending something to a planet where we haven't found any life yet to get DNA from the life we haven't ever found? Knock yourself out, I guess, but none of my tax dollars, please.
Less atmosphere would mean more radiation, so if anything, the DNA would degrade faster.
It's not an act of war. It's almost certainly a crime, though. Nation A doesn't get to write laws that say they can do whatever they want within Nation B's borders. They can certainly declare that THEY aren't going to prosecute their own employees for hacking Nation B's computers, but any of those employees setting foot within Nation B's jurisdiction shouldn't be surprised when they're prosecuted.
Not really any different from any current searches.
Miscalculation, there.
10 microbes/ml * 1 ml/1000 ul = 0.01 microbes/ul, not 10,000/ul.
So yeah, it's probably correct as originally written. I was a little surprised that 10 per ml is clean room levels, though, but I don't work in or near one.
Coursera's answer should simply be "We're not operating in Minnesota. Our servers are in $PLACE. Minnesota has no jurisdiction in $PLACE. Have a nice day."
I don't think she was putting naked pictures of herself on the internet. My impression from reading this story in the past was that she exposed herself to one person on a webcam. You might equate that with "putting naked pictures of yourself on the internet", and technically, I'd agree with you, but she probably didn't understand that. Is it plausible she didn't realize that person could keep the image? Yeah. Naive, but yeah. Is it plausible she was deceived into trusting that the person was a kid like her? Yeah. That he wouldn't share the image? Yeah.
I don't think there's a particular age when you learn this. I think there's an event. It can be putting pictures of yourself online and being ashamed when they get passed around the school. It can be a parent warning you that such things happen. It can be reading about it. Keep in mind you're talking about a 14 year old whose experience of sexuality and intimacy was probably exactly zero.
Correct. I'm not trying to attack the poster, I'm disagreeing with that sentiment.
No, she wasn't stupid. She was a child. There's a term for acting stupidly due to youth. Innocence.
Nor should there be. The scales of justice are an illusion, unless you can actually go around and find people who would say "Yes, I'd let you commit $ACT against me if you are then confined to jail for $YEARS." If you can't find people who think that's a fair trade, justice has not been served.
That's beside the point, though. Putting someone in jail is not to "serve justice" as far as I'm concerned. I want someone in jail if they've committed a crime mostly because they've clearly declared their willingness to violate others, and a propensity to do so. As far as I'm concerned, once someone does that, we have the right to kick them out of the playground. Sure, for less serious offenses we should give people a chance to learn from their mistakes, but sure I think people who molest childen get to go to jail forever for it. I don't want them raped in prison, I just want them kept away from the rest of us.
Long before Slashdot commenters learn to RTFA, I fear.
Well, extending this brilliant system of paying the schools for students who are in attendance should obviously just be extended to pay the teachers the same way.
Seriously, though, there's something not being said here. Funding schools like this is stupid. Either there's a reason, like administrators were gaming the system (and should be fired) or the school district is entirely peopled with imbeciles.
That's hilarious. I suppose the real criminal NEVER would have signed paperwork swearing he wasn't the real criminal.
I used to work in research. I'm on ~10 or so papers. Not one thin dime of that money went into the research we did. Every penny of it was paid by taxpayers in the form of NIH grants, or private drug companies.
Not that I'm supporting bypassing the paywall, but your theory that the money supports research is a load of crap.
And of those, which are you guaranteed access to whether or not you have the means to pay? I believe the only one it public schools, and there's a semantic argument to be made that that's an entitlement, not a right. Note that entitlement doesn't mean bad, it's just a thing we've elected to make available to everyone or some subset of people at no or reduced cost.
You're posing a false dichotomy. In the US, if you can't afford it, there are people who will give it to you. There are government programs that give you money if you're not working. You don't have a right to these things, however. These are things we, as a society, have CHOSEN to give. So, yes, you have absolutely no right to demand the farmer to buy a farm, spend money on seed, fertilizer, equipment, employees, and expend labor to produce food for you, for nothing.
There's a difference between the way we should treat each other out of a sense of mutual responsibility and generosity and "rights".
I'm glad to hear so many championing common sense. Of course it isn't a right. No one has a right to other people's property or the fruits of other people's labor, and that's what network connectivity of all kinds is.
The most egregious of which was fMRI to authenticate you...at an ad agency. That's seriously expensive hardware. I *might* buy something like that at classified sites, but not in 15 years. And anyway, it's cheaper to have conventional authentication and security guards who are there every day and simply know what you look like.
No kidding. I got to that part and thought "The 1970s called. They want their conversion to metric back."
Didn't happen then. Not going to happen in the 2020s.
Or, you could look at it from the opposite perspective. Instead of letting people decide how important it was to them to get a new disk drive, the shops artificially capped their availability for everyone. If I'm running a large data store of $IMPORTANT_DATA, then I probably need whatever number of drives it takes, and I really don't care much what it costs. If I'm the neighborhood cat lady who takes billions of pictures of her cats, then I can put that on hold for a while until the shortage goes away. This is what a supply limited price increase does. Things that are less important get put off until later. I'm not the cat lady, but I *did* put off buying drives during the worst of the price increase. Rationing means the cat lady gets to keep taking pictures but people who really need a lot of data space and for whom it's worth real money to get it can't have it.
I'd absolutely give them my money (if I used such a service, which I don't, so...sorry). If I pay someone to provide a service, I for darn sure want them to find a way to keep the servers humming whatever the market or weather throws at them.
You think this doesn't happen with email addresses now? MadDog@domain.com isn't even that bad. I just appreciate people telling us up front they have no common sense. Saves an interview.
I would love to not have to have a car. It's an eye opener when you stop to figure out how much owning a car actually costs. I considered public transportation for work, but it's 25 minutes to drive or 1h20m to ride. I'm not giving up 2 hours out of what's left of my day. And for people with families, there are lots of places you'll need to go that public transport doesn't, or lots of times you'll need to go that it's not available. Sign me up when it's an option, though. Maybe when I'm older.
Spot on. I half intended to make a sarcastic post about how all we need is to get everyone to be willing to drive a plastic car with a 40 hp engine, but truly for a lot of people including me, a small (but safe) car is sufficient.
I actually sold cars briefly. One customer who stuck in my mind was a little old lady who really wanted an 8 cylinder engine. This was about 1990. She might have settled for a 6, but a 4 was no sale, no way. Blew my mind. My own 4 cylinder car sitting in the parking lot, barely out of econo-box class, would do 120 mph. What the hell did she think she needed an 8 cylinder engine for?!? She would not be swayed. A lot of us, me included, are not so different from that old lady.
I'd be happy to discuss most anything, but I'd appreciate if you rebut arguments I made rather than make logical leaps to absurd conclusions that don't follow from anything I said.
Of course people with training make mistakes. Fewer, I'd argue, and if you disagree please come to my house next time you need surgery. I've never been to med school, but I did stay Holiday Inn Express last night.
I hear ya, but getting to that mythical perfect world seems like a useful thing to do. Throwing your hands up and saying "Nope, ain't gonna happen!"...not so much.
Anyway, I wasn't saying the solution was banning them. I'm losing my willingness to tolerate these sort of dumbasses, though. Once upon a time I would have been in the "show me actual harm" crowd, but right now I'm willing to put him away for a while merely for trying to cause harm. I guess that's where I get to on things like this. This guy isn't necessarily stupid. He's malicious. He might be stupid, too.
There's a resort I go to that sold these. It got to the point where going there was a nuisance for all the dumbasses shining them around. They were banned around a year ago. It'll be interesting to see how many are shining around next time I go back. In your theoretical world, banning things doesn't work. In the real world, it sometimes does make a difference. Not always, of course. Prohibition is a great example where it didn't.