However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.
Alert... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
Wow, you are delusional. There is a ban on mass gatherings due to the current state of emergency, which is temporary. Individuals still have free speech. The press still has free speech. This protest simply got caught up in the mass gatherings ban, nothing more. The French government is not on the path to dictatorship.
The complete lack of anything resembling an explosive or detonator makes anyone suspecting it to be a bomb very stupid.
Clock components can be used as an improvised detonator, the alarm circuitry. So we do have sufficient suspicion for a hoax. Note that in Wozniak's incident we had a box that ticked, which also indicates clock parts, so the long established precedent is not one of high realism.
I can tell you that the events of the last week have been a big blow for the motivation of many climate activists. Cancelling these demonstrations - for which preparations have been ongoing for the last year - has been very unhealthy for the green movement in general.... Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find this the least bit conspicious?
No I don't find it suspicious because I reject the notion that the movement has been harmed. If your members so lack motivation and commitment that having to delay/reschedule a protest has seriously harmed the movement then you did not have a serious movement that any government would be concerned about.
Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.
Nice try at casting a Red Herring into the ring, comparing this kids non ticking device to Wozniak's which sat in a locker ticking and would tick faster when the locker door was opened. Even Wozniak admits it was supposed to seem like a bomb. So lets' not compare... ahem.... Apples to oranges, OK?
Sorry, its not a red herring. You are conflating a lack of intent to mean that an investigation was not warranted. That is wrong, lack of intent is determined by investigation, by having the kid sit down with the police for a few hours. In the Woz case they determined intent was present, in the recent case they determined intent was not preset. However prior to investigation there was a suspected hoax bomb in both these cases, a violation of the law, not a school policy infraction. A suspected hoax warrants a police investigation. The outcome of the investigation does not change this.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
...that's not suspicious at all. No hidden agenda there, no sir-ee-bob...
Right, because the French gov't wants to suppress opinions that the French gov't agrees with? That climate change is real and its an important issue that must be dealt with?
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests.
An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
"Never let a crisis go to waste" -- Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago (which is the most violet and corrupt city in the United States of America).
That might be Saul Alinsky, a 1960s organizer and radical, author of "Rules for Radicals". A mentor of sorts to Emanuel and Obama.
Also related to Che Guevara, the communist revolutionary who wrote in his "Guerrilla Warfare" that when the peasants are safe and content one must create the conditions by which the government will abuse and kill them so as to bring the peasants to the side of revolution. That their previous safety and comfort is an obstacle to revolution. In other words manufacture a crisis if there is none. ISIS wants a crackdown on muslims in the west for these reasons.
Because there was no joke, there was no bomb, and there was no hoax. Period.
Intent can not be determined without investigation. Having the kid, and Wozniak in his day, spend a few hours answering questions with the police is **investigation**. Investigations happen when there is **suspicion**. A suspected bomb hoax warrants investigation. Whether it is later determined that intent was or was not present does not change this.
He was told not to show it to people by one teacher yet he kept doing so
Irrelevant. Hoax requires intent. No intent, no hoax.
Yes, I've said that dozens of times. However a suspected hoax warrant police investigation to determine intent. **Suspected** is the point most people are failing to recognize.
This is something the police do every day.
They freak out over supposed bomb threats at schools, while not evacuating the school, every day? The district and the police were incompetent reactionaries no matter which way you try to polish this turd.
Yes schools are a mess with their zero tolerance policies. However a hoax bomb is illegal, not simply a violation of school policy. A hoax bomb does not have to be ultra realistic, again, Woz's hoax was a box that ticked, not visible explosive simulant.
This is not a case of racism or islamophobia. What happened to this kid is "normal", right or wrong, it is "normal" behavior for schools and has been for decades.
But this wasn't an opaque box, there wasn't anywhere the hoax explosive could be. If there can be no explosive (or detonator) in it, and if he's not even presenting it as a bomb, then it's not a hoax bomb, whether there's superficial resemblances or not.
It is only not a hoax bomb because of the lack of intent, and not because of the lack of a visible explosive simulant. The resemblance to a major component, a detonator, is enough to qualify it as a **suspected** hoax bomb. Again, note the word **suspected**, that it the bit you seem to be consistently missing.
Also note that in the real world not only are actual bombs making use of off the shelf consumer electronics for detonation purposes, but detonators and explosives are sometimes things that are transported/infiltrated separately and assembled on site. The lack of a visible explosive simulant does *not* suggest that no investigation is necessary.
Yes, but to be a hoax *bomb* there would have to be a hoax *explosive*.
Actually no, not at all. Just a sufficient resemblance to bomb components. Visible "detonator" circuitry would be sufficient. Again, Steve Wozniak, his hoax bomb was a box that made ticking noises, no visible explosive simulant.
Did he even claim it was a fake bomb at any time
The resemblance was sufficient to have a suspected hoax bomb and to have the police determine if there was intent to hoax or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance. The police determining that it was an accidental resemblance in no way disproves that we had a **suspected** hoax bomb at an earlier moment in time.
The police were called in, they investigated, they found no intent and therefore no crime. The police did their job.
You are having difficulty understanding that there is no evidence that he was trying to trick people into thinking it was a bomb.
No, you are having great difficult in understanding. I have pointed out numerous times that the fact that he was not charged indicates that police determined that there was no intent, that it was an accidental resemblance. However the resemblance to bomb components was sufficient for police to investigate a suspected bomb hoax, that means talking to the person who brought it to school.
Where is your proof?
Clock components have been used is improvised detonators. Once upon a time mechanical clocks, now electronic clocks. The circuitry that delivers electric current to a wire once a predetermined time is reached, the clock's alarm, is quite convenient in this regard. As is a cell phone ringer circuit. Go talk to an Iraqi/Afghan vet about the creative use of ordinary consumer electronics components.
Again, in liberal California a white kid named Steve Wozniak was arrested for brining a hoax bomb to school and his hoax was just a box that made ticking noises. 1960s so it was going with the old school mechanical clock theme.
It was a CLOCK. It was counting UP. Not Down as one would expect in a timer.
More IMPORTANTLY, where is the explosive !!!!!!
What good is a counter without explosives and detonator ???
Any Vet with bomb training would instantly recognize that it is a clock not a hoax bomb.
Really, because counting up to a time where an alarm has been set and external circuitry becomes powered up to do something like power speakers is not something that can be adapted for other uses? Hollywood has confused you.
Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved.
As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.
if it's offtheshelf clock parts, what part looks like explosive? what, is he going to short the battery and make it blow up?
Its not required for a hoax to have a visible explosive simulant. A hoax mainly requires the intent to scare people with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Its reasonable to have police determine the kids intentions, if he intended to prank anyone or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance, and accidental resemblance seems to be what they determined so the case ended there.
It definitely happened to a white kid in the 60s, Steve Wozniak.
Also a hoax bomb does not have to appear to be a genuine threat to a knowledgable person. There merely needs to be the intention to scare someone with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Woz's hoax bomb was a box that ticked, no visible explosive simulant.
Turning off an alarm that has been set would be a reasonable part of "not showing it to anyone else".
If they had no intention of prosecuting they should have never talked to the child forget removing him from the school,...
Whether they intended to prosecute or not the kid was still a valid suspect in a potential criminal act. It was necessary to determine his intent. Starting from the position that this is most likely just an unfortunate resemblance does not change this, neither does the fact given his age if it were a stupid prank there will most likely be no prosecution, just administrative punishment by the school.
In any case a police officer should never talk to a child without a parents permission to get more than basic info (name address parents contact info). A large civil penalty could help impress this on the police, I rather wish it were on the individual officers involved but we have thrown up far to many protections for that to be the case.
And the stupidity you suggest is why things can no longer be handled in a reasonable informal basis as they were in the past. Your path will increase the number of overreactions and child arrests. My friends and I trespassed in some abandoned buildings when we were kids. The police caught us, asked us what we were doing and when satisfied that were we just "exploring" explained to us how old building like this can be dangerous and to stay out of them. You would put an end to informal interactions like that.
I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn. The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism. Only indirect inference has been used, what I refer to as "measurable".
"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And neither does god. It just adds "magic" into the equation.
Of course a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable for magic. Any species that acquired the knowledge and technology to move from on universe to another would probably seem to have godlike powers to humans.
The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes".
Your off topic. I wrote that perhaps god pre-existed the universe, not that he created it. Hypothetically if an intelligent creature evolves in a parent universe and attains sufficient knowledge and technology perhaps they can somehow "move" into a child universe. Going with the a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable from magic / godly powers idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Alert ... logic FAIL!!!!!
It doesn't matter why these people tried to demonstrate. They wanted to be on the streets making their political views known and the government suppressed their rights to political speech. Suppressing demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them is a path that every dictatorship has gone down.
Frankly, I cannot believe how naive and childish you are in thinking that just because the protesters may have agreed in some small way with government policy means that suppressing the protest was the action of a government that is interested in freedom of speech.
Wow, you are delusional. There is a ban on mass gatherings due to the current state of emergency, which is temporary. Individuals still have free speech. The press still has free speech. This protest simply got caught up in the mass gatherings ban, nothing more. The French government is not on the path to dictatorship.
The complete lack of anything resembling an explosive or detonator makes anyone suspecting it to be a bomb very stupid.
Clock components can be used as an improvised detonator, the alarm circuitry. So we do have sufficient suspicion for a hoax. Note that in Wozniak's incident we had a box that ticked, which also indicates clock parts, so the long established precedent is not one of high realism.
I can tell you that the events of the last week have been a big blow for the motivation of many climate activists. Cancelling these demonstrations - for which preparations have been ongoing for the last year - has been very unhealthy for the green movement in general. ... Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find this the least bit conspicious?
No I don't find it suspicious because I reject the notion that the movement has been harmed. If your members so lack motivation and commitment that having to delay/reschedule a protest has seriously harmed the movement then you did not have a serious movement that any government would be concerned about.
Just because they may not have been about to protest against the French government does not stop it from being dissent.
However protesters and government being in agreement does squash your silly suggestion that its part of some government conspiracy heading towards dictatorship.
Nice try at casting a Red Herring into the ring, comparing this kids non ticking device to Wozniak's which sat in a locker ticking and would tick faster when the locker door was opened. Even Wozniak admits it was supposed to seem like a bomb. So lets' not compare ... ahem .... Apples to oranges, OK?
Sorry, its not a red herring. You are conflating a lack of intent to mean that an investigation was not warranted. That is wrong, lack of intent is determined by investigation, by having the kid sit down with the police for a few hours. In the Woz case they determined intent was present, in the recent case they determined intent was not preset. However prior to investigation there was a suspected hoax bomb in both these cases, a violation of the law, not a school policy infraction. A suspected hoax warrants a police investigation. The outcome of the investigation does not change this.
Perhaps it has more to do with getting the populace used to suppression of dissent?
What dissent? The protesters and the government agree.
Turn anything you can into a tool to fix things you think are wrong with the world? Perish the thought.
Like get peasants killed, sacrificed, to fulfill your dream of communist revolution as in Che's advice?
...that's not suspicious at all. No hidden agenda there, no sir-ee-bob...
Right, because the French gov't wants to suppress opinions that the French gov't agrees with? That climate change is real and its an important issue that must be dealt with?
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
"Never let a crisis go to waste" -- Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago (which is the most violet and corrupt city in the United States of America).
That might be Saul Alinsky, a 1960s organizer and radical, author of "Rules for Radicals". A mentor of sorts to Emanuel and Obama.
Also related to Che Guevara, the communist revolutionary who wrote in his "Guerrilla Warfare" that when the peasants are safe and content one must create the conditions by which the government will abuse and kill them so as to bring the peasants to the side of revolution. That their previous safety and comfort is an obstacle to revolution. In other words manufacture a crisis if there is none. ISIS wants a crackdown on muslims in the west for these reasons.
Because there was no joke, there was no bomb, and there was no hoax. Period.
Intent can not be determined without investigation. Having the kid, and Wozniak in his day, spend a few hours answering questions with the police is **investigation**. Investigations happen when there is **suspicion**. A suspected bomb hoax warrants investigation. Whether it is later determined that intent was or was not present does not change this.
Irrelevant. Hoax requires intent. No intent, no hoax.
Yes, I've said that dozens of times. However a suspected hoax warrant police investigation to determine intent. **Suspected** is the point most people are failing to recognize.
They freak out over supposed bomb threats at schools, while not evacuating the school, every day? The district and the police were incompetent reactionaries no matter which way you try to polish this turd.
Yes schools are a mess with their zero tolerance policies. However a hoax bomb is illegal, not simply a violation of school policy. A hoax bomb does not have to be ultra realistic, again, Woz's hoax was a box that ticked, not visible explosive simulant.
This is not a case of racism or islamophobia. What happened to this kid is "normal", right or wrong, it is "normal" behavior for schools and has been for decades.
But this wasn't an opaque box, there wasn't anywhere the hoax explosive could be. If there can be no explosive (or detonator) in it, and if he's not even presenting it as a bomb, then it's not a hoax bomb, whether there's superficial resemblances or not.
It is only not a hoax bomb because of the lack of intent, and not because of the lack of a visible explosive simulant. The resemblance to a major component, a detonator, is enough to qualify it as a **suspected** hoax bomb. Again, note the word **suspected**, that it the bit you seem to be consistently missing.
Also note that in the real world not only are actual bombs making use of off the shelf consumer electronics for detonation purposes, but detonators and explosives are sometimes things that are transported/infiltrated separately and assembled on site. The lack of a visible explosive simulant does *not* suggest that no investigation is necessary.
Yes, but to be a hoax *bomb* there would have to be a hoax *explosive*.
Actually no, not at all. Just a sufficient resemblance to bomb components. Visible "detonator" circuitry would be sufficient. Again, Steve Wozniak, his hoax bomb was a box that made ticking noises, no visible explosive simulant.
Did he even claim it was a fake bomb at any time
The resemblance was sufficient to have a suspected hoax bomb and to have the police determine if there was intent to hoax or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance. The police determining that it was an accidental resemblance in no way disproves that we had a **suspected** hoax bomb at an earlier moment in time.
The police were called in, they investigated, they found no intent and therefore no crime. The police did their job.
You are having difficulty understanding that there is no evidence that he was trying to trick people into thinking it was a bomb.
No, you are having great difficult in understanding. I have pointed out numerous times that the fact that he was not charged indicates that police determined that there was no intent, that it was an accidental resemblance. However the resemblance to bomb components was sufficient for police to investigate a suspected bomb hoax, that means talking to the person who brought it to school.
Where is your proof?
Clock components have been used is improvised detonators. Once upon a time mechanical clocks, now electronic clocks. The circuitry that delivers electric current to a wire once a predetermined time is reached, the clock's alarm, is quite convenient in this regard. As is a cell phone ringer circuit. Go talk to an Iraqi/Afghan vet about the creative use of ordinary consumer electronics components.
Again, in liberal California a white kid named Steve Wozniak was arrested for brining a hoax bomb to school and his hoax was just a box that made ticking noises. 1960s so it was going with the old school mechanical clock theme.
It was a CLOCK. It was counting UP. Not Down as one would expect in a timer. More IMPORTANTLY, where is the explosive !!!!!! What good is a counter without explosives and detonator ??? Any Vet with bomb training would instantly recognize that it is a clock not a hoax bomb.
Really, because counting up to a time where an alarm has been set and external circuitry becomes powered up to do something like power speakers is not something that can be adapted for other uses? Hollywood has confused you.
... the kid was not arrested ...
Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested, after being questioned for an hour and a half (how is that even possible?), and was taken to a detention centre, fingerprinted, photographed, and questioned further.
He was not charged. Possibly that's what you meant.
Bringing a hoax bomb to school is illegal. Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, was arrested and spent some hours with law enforcement when he brought a hoax bomb to his high school. A box that ticked, and then ticked faster when it was moved. As for whether what this kid did was a hoax bomb, any Iraqi / Afghanistan vet can explain to you how the detonators of IEDs are sometimes made from the components of off-the-shelf consumer devices. So, its not unreasonable to see disassembled clock parts in a negative light.
if it's offtheshelf clock parts, what part looks like explosive? what, is he going to short the battery and make it blow up?
Its not required for a hoax to have a visible explosive simulant. A hoax mainly requires the intent to scare people with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Its reasonable to have police determine the kids intentions, if he intended to prank anyone or if it was just an unfortunate accidental resemblance, and accidental resemblance seems to be what they determined so the case ended there.
It definitely happened to a white kid in the 60s, Steve Wozniak.
Also a hoax bomb does not have to appear to be a genuine threat to a knowledgable person. There merely needs to be the intention to scare someone with something that can be mistaken for a bomb. Woz's hoax bomb was a box that ticked, no visible explosive simulant.
Turning off an alarm that has been set would be a reasonable part of "not showing it to anyone else".
If they had no intention of prosecuting they should have never talked to the child forget removing him from the school, ...
Whether they intended to prosecute or not the kid was still a valid suspect in a potential criminal act. It was necessary to determine his intent. Starting from the position that this is most likely just an unfortunate resemblance does not change this, neither does the fact given his age if it were a stupid prank there will most likely be no prosecution, just administrative punishment by the school.
In any case a police officer should never talk to a child without a parents permission to get more than basic info (name address parents contact info). A large civil penalty could help impress this on the police, I rather wish it were on the individual officers involved but we have thrown up far to many protections for that to be the case.
And the stupidity you suggest is why things can no longer be handled in a reasonable informal basis as they were in the past. Your path will increase the number of overreactions and child arrests. My friends and I trespassed in some abandoned buildings when we were kids. The police caught us, asked us what we were doing and when satisfied that were we just "exploring" explained to us how old building like this can be dangerous and to stay out of them. You would put an end to informal interactions like that.
Not when they are not attached to explosives.
You are having difficulty with the word "hoax". "Hoax" has more to do with generating a desired reaction than being an accurate simulant.
i don't know, but i'm not going to second-guess a man that invents calculus out of whole cloth... i think he should get the benefit of the doubt no?
all i'm saying, is i'm going to enjoy the shit out of 2059.
Einstein might say you really want to do the partying in 2058.
I am quite familiar with how science works. And the terminology you are using is wrong. Dark matter is observable, it just doesn't interact electromagnetically, so it doesn't absorb or emit light. This makes it less observable not unobservable. Just like how infrared is less observable to humans not unobservable with the right instruments.
No, your understanding is coming up short. Your infrared analogy is complete failure, an instrument to detect dark matter is as real today as your beloved unicorn. The direct detection problem, what I refer to as "observable" is not limited to electromagnetism. Only indirect inference has been used, what I refer to as "measurable".
"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And a beginning of the Universe from absolutely nothing is not magic how exactly?
Not "the" universe, "a" universe. One of many. There are various theories presented by world class physicists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And neither does god. It just adds "magic" into the equation.
Of course a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable for magic. Any species that acquired the knowledge and technology to move from on universe to another would probably seem to have godlike powers to humans.
The root question of "does something need to cause the Universe?" simply becomes plural "Universes".
Your off topic. I wrote that perhaps god pre-existed the universe, not that he created it. Hypothetically if an intelligent creature evolves in a parent universe and attains sufficient knowledge and technology perhaps they can somehow "move" into a child universe. Going with the a sufficiently high level of technology is indistinguishable from magic / godly powers idea.