The sad fact is that, even if found not guilty (not guilty is not the same as being found innocent btw), thug Trayvon's family will probably win a civil 'wrongful death' suit against him like what happened to the Juice.
It stopped being a safe neighborhood when the residents felt the NEED for an armed vigilante.
I personally think EVERYONE should be armed and have proper training in firearm use and safety, as well as knife fighting and martial arts training for when firearms are impractical. When criminals realize that citizens will no longer consider themselves victims and are willing to stand their ground, criminals will think twice.
Yes, I am implying Trayvon is likely a criminal, I've lived in both Sanford and that part of Miami, and everyone knows his HS is filled with thugs, as Trayvon appears to be from his suspension records and twitter feeds.
Equal Opportunity does not guarantee Equal Outcome.
This applies to economics as well, hence why equal distribution of wealth is pointless. Fiscal fools and bad luck, versus prepared individuals and good luck will always act as entropy. It's absurd to try and restore balance by rewarding the fools with the fruits of the successful by force of law.
Racism is the belief in the *superiority* of a group due to genetics (or skin color).
Sexism is the belief in the *superiority* of a gender.
Prejudice is the forming of opinions of an un-encountered person from a group based on past experiences with other members of a group before facts are known. (not to be confused with racism)
Bigot is an intolerant jackass unwilling to change own prejudices.
Speciest is the belief in the superiority of a given species, such as Human.
Feminist is the belief in the superiority of the female gender and the advocation thereof. (Do not confuse with equality. that is a different word)
Why not just fix your crummy code that is vulnerable to SQL injection? Really, who doesn't sanitize their inputs anyway? Never trust anything submitted by anyone until you have verified it against your own rules. Good old Little Bobby Tables
OK, so the universe is about 13.7 billion years old... Our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old... So our solar system has been around for 1/3 of time. The average star age is 1-10 billion years.
For some reason, that doesn't seem very long, I was under the impression that the universe was much older and that stars have formed, died, and material reformed hundreds to thousands of times in a given area, now it seems like half a dozen repetitions of this cycle in a given area would be optimistic.
I am not whomever the anon person is. I don't often need swearing to write large pretentious stick-in-the-mud responses. Dry humor is much more fun to work with. Besides, I'm of the John Hancock school of thinking: If I have something worth saying, I'll put my name writ large so even a king with bad eyesight could read it.
As for proving your innocence, I don't see the need. I'm don't see guilt of anything more egregious than the simple mistaking of someone else's posts with my own long winded diatribes. If you insist that I am the anon person, good for you, have fun with that.
Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?
You are mistaken in beleiving I was continuing this thread as an anon coward. I'm sure you note the clear change in written tone. I had taken your advice and let the thread drop, as you quite clearly have your own position and philosophy that is antipodal to mine in regards to open wifi as a "social responsibility".
However, since you decided to bring me back into this with accusations of cowardice, I will continue my original train of thought and hopefully be done with it.
As you say earlier, there is a difference between social responsibilites and legal law. However, one is often the basis for the other. My contention with the EFF article is based entirely on the "socially responsible" aspect of it.
As an exercise in logic, let us invert the wording of "socially responsible" such that it still has the same meaning...
To not have an open wifi access point when I could provide one would thus be "socially irresponsible", as it is quite a boolean statement. One is either responsible, or irresponsible, there is no middle state of this binary existence. By not offering up freely my access point, bandwidth, and eletrical costs to provide a signal I am fully capable of generating to any taker, I am to be considered a non-responsible member of a society that values open wifi as a responsibility of it's citizens. Because I possess the means and ability to eminate and receive wifi signals and forward data back and forth across my connection, I would be detrimental force upon society if I did not openly exercise my ability to do so with an anonymous population.
If it is the author of the article's goal to have this kind of society where my withholding of service I myself pay for, from others that are not compensating me in some fashion (via monetary or derived emotional satisfaction), where I am thus painted as villainous or at the least anti-social for not offering up the fruits of my time and effort, than that author and any group that consciously stands behind him and his concept of social responsibility can quite simply go to hell.
Let us further apply this concept of social responsibility to other avenues. Is it socially irresponsible to not give tithings to one's church? I contend that anything I give to a church/temple/whatever is a donation that I may choose to give or withhold of my own volition. If I have the means to give, and I choose not to, am I thus socially irresponsible?
If I lived in a certain country in europe during the mid 20th century, and it was my "social responsibility" to turn in any undersirables to the secret police, and I had knowledge of the location of said individuals, would I be socially irresponsible for not divulging their location?
Yes yes, Godwin's Law and all that, but instead of outright dismissing this case using Godwin's Law as justification without analysis, let's look at it's lesson.
Here was a society that enough people believed doing such a thing was considered the expected duty to be performed by upstanding members of their society. This social responsibility was also made law, and those that withheld information, yet did not aide the victimized group, were still socially irresponsible and subject to scorn from thier peers as well as legal implications.
To be an outcast and punished for withholding access to information.
"All information wants to be free" is often heard. I am willing to guess that information in this case had no desire to be free and wanted to kept as quiet as possible, but that is a different discussion.
Lets offer up some more examples, you mention surplus.
Is it socially responsible to offer up surplus ammunition, guns, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, sonic electronic ball breakers, knives, and sharp sticks in a basket on the corner to any passerby?
I have them surplus. I make them freely available. I may log who takes them, but I should not be responsible for
Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.
Reasonable rate is determined by the person wanting said service. It may be available for a price they are unwilling to pay. It's their choice not to pay, and not have the service of that provider. City/Campus/Office wifi and bandwidth is still paid for by someone. For the city, this is via tax dollars, for the campus, via tuition, for offices, by the business itself. It is the decisions of those entities whether or not to allow universal access onto thier networks. I should not expect access unless I am paying taxes for the city municipal wifi, or a student of the university that is paying for the campus wifi, nor should I expect access to be handed out freely simply because I exist and have a wifi capable device.
But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:
I take the term rabble to infer a hostile group or mob. Perhaps my definition is different than others, I don't often consider my fellow person a member of 'rabble'.
For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money (the combination of time and effort in easily transferrable form) of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.
The Internet isn't worthwhile?
Is a car? Is fuel? Is paper, pen, and ink? Is television? Is Radio? All these things are worthwhile to someone. They are also all paid for by someone. The person paying the bill chooses whether or not that product or service is freely available or not, and under what conditions, exceptions, and warranties apply to said product or service.
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.
It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.
The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". Social Responsibilities often become law. It is my social responsibility to pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities. It is my social responsibility to report for jury duty so that the justice system can operate. It is my social responsibility not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud. It is my social responsibility to not harm or kill my fellow man. These are social responsibilities, or requirements if you will, that society requires to exist. Sharing my wifi is not a requirement of a society to exist.
Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.
No culture should be trying to instill shame or guilt on an individual for an activity they choose not to participate in or could not have participated in that does not cause harm or deprive another huma
The story IS rather bland, I skip most of the conversation and get straight to the scenario. I don't find the 3D too bad, I just move the map around until I can accurately position my waypount marker exactly where I want it.
Range info would be great, perhaps as a cutoff line arcing the field of view lines. Likewise, rifles and snipers rifles would be nice to have optimal range arc lines on thier FoV lines. An explosion radius for Rockets and Nades would also help. Perfectly playable without it, I've gotten used to guestimating the ranges.
My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.
I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.
Frozen Synapse is highly addicting. I love posting my victories on youtube and replaying my loses to study mistakes. Definately try all the various game modes.
I actually find Light Extermination more challenging than Dark Extermination. In Dark, you need to have line of sight to know an enemie's exact position. In Light, all positions are known and it's more an exercise of System Mastery than luck in discovering your enemy first. You work each 5 second turn to squeeze the most optimization from your turn. More like chess... with rocket launchers...
I bought 2 bundles. The charity and devs got the lion's share. I gave EFF pennies, I respected them until recently. Very disappointed in their open wifi access point commie nonsense. Those pennies are acknowledgement of the handling of GURPS Cyberpunk, back before they drank the koolaid.
They are in fact breaking the law. They do not have permits and are obstructing traffic and others violations.
They can protest just fine like any other group by getting a permit, sometimes having the requirement of insurance for the event. I don't think anyone is stopping them from going the legal route to protest.
Even the biggoted idiots in the KKK are smart enough to get permits and follow the rules during thier displays of thier own ass-hattedness.
Instead, they are behaving like 60s loons and spoiled children, purposefully trying to provoke response so they can show off "look, police state, abuse of power, blah blah blah" and how they are "for the cause" because they "stood up to the man" and got knocked on thier posteriors.
Just because these morons want to shout and disrupt, the rest of the populace just wants to get about thier day and don't need these idiots in the streets and blocking shops.
Actually, that is, IMO, a rather stupid approach.
I taught my daughter how to read musical scales and how each note represents a key on the piano and started her off with twinkle twinkle little star, a familiar "hello, world" song.
You don't start with gimped lame toy instruments. The kids aren't stupid, they know they are playing "fakey" things and are insulted.
They are nothing more than mass produced, cheaply made things for parents to expose thier children to an inkling of music without a heavy investment cost.
Teaching... right.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad fact is that, even if found not guilty (not guilty is not the same as being found innocent btw), thug Trayvon's family will probably win a civil 'wrongful death' suit against him like what happened to the Juice.
It stopped being a safe neighborhood when the residents felt the NEED for an armed vigilante.
I personally think EVERYONE should be armed and have proper training in firearm use and safety, as well as knife fighting and martial arts training for when firearms are impractical. When criminals realize that citizens will no longer consider themselves victims and are willing to stand their ground, criminals will think twice.
Yes, I am implying Trayvon is likely a criminal, I've lived in both Sanford and that part of Miami, and everyone knows his HS is filled with thugs, as Trayvon appears to be from his suspension records and twitter feeds.
Equal Opportunity does not guarantee Equal Outcome.
This applies to economics as well, hence why equal distribution of wealth is pointless. Fiscal fools and bad luck, versus prepared individuals and good luck will always act as entropy. It's absurd to try and restore balance by rewarding the fools with the fruits of the successful by force of law.
Racism is the belief in the *superiority* of a group due to genetics (or skin color).
Sexism is the belief in the *superiority* of a gender.
Prejudice is the forming of opinions of an un-encountered person from a group based on past experiences with other members of a group before facts are known. (not to be confused with racism)
Bigot is an intolerant jackass unwilling to change own prejudices.
Speciest is the belief in the superiority of a given species, such as Human.
Feminist is the belief in the superiority of the female gender and the advocation thereof. (Do not confuse with equality. that is a different word)
Please note these terms and use them properly
yes, feminists, please move to middle east.
thanks.
-Manly Men
Why not just fix your crummy code that is vulnerable to SQL injection?
Really, who doesn't sanitize their inputs anyway? Never trust anything submitted by anyone until you have verified it against your own rules.
Good old Little Bobby Tables
How does this design vary from say, Pebble Bed reactors?
I seem to be liking what i've read about Pebble Bed Reactors
OK, so the universe is about 13.7 billion years old... Our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old...
So our solar system has been around for 1/3 of time. The average star age is 1-10 billion years.
For some reason, that doesn't seem very long, I was under the impression that the universe was much older and that stars have formed, died, and material reformed hundreds to thousands of times in a given area, now it seems like half a dozen repetitions of this cycle in a given area would be optimistic.
I am not whomever the anon person is. I don't often need swearing to write large pretentious stick-in-the-mud responses. Dry humor is much more fun to work with. Besides, I'm of the John Hancock school of thinking: If I have something worth saying, I'll put my name writ large so even a king with bad eyesight could read it.
As for proving your innocence, I don't see the need. I'm don't see guilt of anything more egregious than the simple mistaking of someone else's posts with my own long winded diatribes. If you insist that I am the anon person, good for you, have fun with that.
Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?
You are mistaken in beleiving I was continuing this thread as an anon coward. I'm sure you note the clear change in written tone. I had taken your advice and let the thread drop, as you quite clearly have your own position and philosophy that is antipodal to mine in regards to open wifi as a "social responsibility".
However, since you decided to bring me back into this with accusations of cowardice, I will continue my original train of thought and hopefully be done with it.
As you say earlier, there is a difference between social responsibilites and legal law. However, one is often the basis for the other. My contention with the EFF article is based entirely on the "socially responsible" aspect of it.
As an exercise in logic, let us invert the wording of "socially responsible" such that it still has the same meaning...
To not have an open wifi access point when I could provide one would thus be "socially irresponsible", as it is quite a boolean statement. One is either responsible, or irresponsible, there is no middle state of this binary existence. By not offering up freely my access point, bandwidth, and eletrical costs to provide a signal I am fully capable of generating to any taker, I am to be considered a non-responsible member of a society that values open wifi as a responsibility of it's citizens. Because I possess the means and ability to eminate and receive wifi signals and forward data back and forth across my connection, I would be detrimental force upon society if I did not openly exercise my ability to do so with an anonymous population.
If it is the author of the article's goal to have this kind of society where my withholding of service I myself pay for, from others that are not compensating me in some fashion (via monetary or derived emotional satisfaction), where I am thus painted as villainous or at the least anti-social for not offering up the fruits of my time and effort, than that author and any group that consciously stands behind him and his concept of social responsibility can quite simply go to hell.
Let us further apply this concept of social responsibility to other avenues. Is it socially irresponsible to not give tithings to one's church? I contend that anything I give to a church/temple/whatever is a donation that I may choose to give or withhold of my own volition. If I have the means to give, and I choose not to, am I thus socially irresponsible?
If I lived in a certain country in europe during the mid 20th century, and it was my "social responsibility" to turn in any undersirables to the secret police, and I had knowledge of the location of said individuals, would I be socially irresponsible for not divulging their location?
Yes yes, Godwin's Law and all that, but instead of outright dismissing this case using Godwin's Law as justification without analysis, let's look at it's lesson.
Here was a society that enough people believed doing such a thing was considered the expected duty to be performed by upstanding members of their society. This social responsibility was also made law, and those that withheld information, yet did not aide the victimized group, were still socially irresponsible and subject to scorn from thier peers as well as legal implications.
To be an outcast and punished for withholding access to information.
"All information wants to be free" is often heard. I am willing to guess that information in this case had no desire to be free and wanted to kept as quiet as possible, but that is a different discussion.
Lets offer up some more examples, you mention surplus.
Is it socially responsible to offer up surplus ammunition, guns, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, sonic electronic ball breakers, knives, and sharp sticks in a basket on the corner to any passerby?
I have them surplus. I make them freely available. I may log who takes them, but I should not be responsible for
Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.
Reasonable rate is determined by the person wanting said service. It may be available for a price they are unwilling to pay. It's their choice not to pay, and not have the service of that provider. City/Campus/Office wifi and bandwidth is still paid for by someone. For the city, this is via tax dollars, for the campus, via tuition, for offices, by the business itself. It is the decisions of those entities whether or not to allow universal access onto thier networks. I should not expect access unless I am paying taxes for the city municipal wifi, or a student of the university that is paying for the campus wifi, nor should I expect access to be handed out freely simply because I exist and have a wifi capable device.
But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:
I take the term rabble to infer a hostile group or mob. Perhaps my definition is different than others, I don't often consider my fellow person a member of 'rabble'.
For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money (the combination of time and effort in easily transferrable form) of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.
The Internet isn't worthwhile?
Is a car? Is fuel? Is paper, pen, and ink? Is television? Is Radio?
All these things are worthwhile to someone. They are also all paid for by someone. The person paying the bill chooses whether or not that product or service is freely available or not, and under what conditions, exceptions, and warranties apply to said product or service.
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.
It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.
The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". Social Responsibilities often become law. It is my social responsibility to pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities. It is my social responsibility to report for jury duty so that the justice system can operate. It is my social responsibility not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud. It is my social responsibility to not harm or kill my fellow man. These are social responsibilities, or requirements if you will, that society requires to exist. Sharing my wifi is not a requirement of a society to exist.
Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.
No culture should be trying to instill shame or guilt on an individual for an activity they choose not to participate in or could not have participated in that does not cause harm or deprive another huma
The story IS rather bland, I skip most of the conversation and get straight to the scenario. I don't find the 3D too bad, I just move the map around until I can accurately position my waypount marker exactly where I want it.
Range info would be great, perhaps as a cutoff line arcing the field of view lines. Likewise, rifles and snipers rifles would be nice to have optimal range arc lines on thier FoV lines. An explosion radius for Rockets and Nades would also help. Perfectly playable without it, I've gotten used to guestimating the ranges.
My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.
I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.
Frozen Synapse is highly addicting. I love posting my victories on youtube and replaying my loses to study mistakes. Definately try all the various game modes.
I actually find Light Extermination more challenging than Dark Extermination. In Dark, you need to have line of sight to know an enemie's exact position. In Light, all positions are known and it's more an exercise of System Mastery than luck in discovering your enemy first. You work each 5 second turn to squeeze the most optimization from your turn. More like chess... with rocket launchers...
I bought 2 bundles. The charity and devs got the lion's share. I gave EFF pennies, I respected them until recently. Very disappointed in their open wifi access point commie nonsense. Those pennies are acknowledgement of the handling of GURPS Cyberpunk, back before they drank the koolaid.
They are in fact breaking the law. They do not have permits and are obstructing traffic and others violations. They can protest just fine like any other group by getting a permit, sometimes having the requirement of insurance for the event. I don't think anyone is stopping them from going the legal route to protest. Even the biggoted idiots in the KKK are smart enough to get permits and follow the rules during thier displays of thier own ass-hattedness. Instead, they are behaving like 60s loons and spoiled children, purposefully trying to provoke response so they can show off "look, police state, abuse of power, blah blah blah" and how they are "for the cause" because they "stood up to the man" and got knocked on thier posteriors. Just because these morons want to shout and disrupt, the rest of the populace just wants to get about thier day and don't need these idiots in the streets and blocking shops.
Actually, that is, IMO, a rather stupid approach. I taught my daughter how to read musical scales and how each note represents a key on the piano and started her off with twinkle twinkle little star, a familiar "hello, world" song. You don't start with gimped lame toy instruments. The kids aren't stupid, they know they are playing "fakey" things and are insulted. They are nothing more than mass produced, cheaply made things for parents to expose thier children to an inkling of music without a heavy investment cost. Teaching... right.