I believe the parent was trying to apply common sense to the situation, which is not something the legal system is designed to do. Law enforcement arrests people, that's what they do. They are not interested in making things "right".
Actually no, bird shot is very likely not lethal at close range. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it generally lacks enough power to penetrate enough to hit vitals (at least when fired at the chest.. I suspect you could get lucky and hit a major artery, but that's not how people train defensively.) Now, whether or not the gun owner knew that is another question.
If this is all information the drone owner has to go with, I want to know how he figured out who shot the drone down? It appeared to be in range of any number of homes. Something doesn't smell right about this.
I'm not sure what sort of shot the accused used, but if it was your typical bird shot or target load, shooting into the air is hardly more dangerous than being outside when it's hailing. Very different from, say, firing a 9mm up in the air.
I've had a similar experience. Although I still have some back issues, for the most part, my posture, etc. have gotten much, much better since I've started standing. My standing workstation is a total hack job--basically a small, cheapy (non-standing) desk with some Ikea parts bolted on to it. It's hideous but I work from home as a contract worker and am on a budget, so it works just fine for that. To sit, I've got a backless bar stool thing (it's kind of an odd stool). Sitting in it matches the height of my makeshift desk. It is also uncomfortable to sit in for great lengths of time, as I tend to slouch and my back gets quite tired without a seat back to relax into. I've found this to be a very good quality, though, as with a comfortable chair I found myself far too likely to forget to stop my sitting break and start standing again--I'd just end up sitting in a tall chair at a tall desk all day long.
Oh, also, you know those kinks you get in your neck sometimes when you sleep on your bed all wrong? Well, those have almost all but gone away since I've started standing. If I do get one, a day's worth of standing almost always clears it right up. I also feel substantially better and, while I generally need to take a 30 minute break after work to sit down on a couch and rest, after that I have plenty of energy. Of course, it's very difficult to measure happiness, but I will say that in general, the times that I've deviated from my standing work station have been promptly followed by less satisfaction both with work and in my home life. I simply can't imagine going back to sitting all day.
I'm inclined to disagree. But that may be because I met my now wife (and mother of my three children) at the office. There isn't anything inherently wrong about office romances like your post suggests. Rather, relationships that get in the way of work are problematic. I don't see any need to single out romantic relationships. Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue. No pun intended.
It is doubtful that Amazon will shoot their prices up as soon as they reach a certain amount of market dominance. It may be that they stop lowering prices as aggressively. If they do raise prices, don't expect anything drastic unless other economic factors change as well.
Yeah. Actually I think that was some of the wisdom to creating "united states." The smaller the group, the more likely for that group to consist of like-minded people (especially if one can rather easily change groups.) Too bad that didn't last... Frankly, I think it was doomed to fail, though.
It's been a bit since I've read the constitution, but I don't believe that it ever defined what made someone a person or "property". The subsequent amendments which addressed blacks and women were necessary because at the time, it was the only way that the federal government could decree such a thing over the rights of the state. In other words, it wasn't that the constitution declared slavery legal or anything like that; such issues were up to the states to decide.
And how exactly can you extend responsibility to voters, who have no way of knowing or controlling the specifics of what goes on in government? I mean, don't get me wrong, it is partially their fault for being so ignorant, but legal responsibility?
Google does not arbitrarily filter search results. They filter search results in ways that makes them the most money. It's bad for business for them to simply remove search results because "they don't like you." Such a policy be bad for their own business, as it would hurt their search results, giving an excellent opportunity for competitors to claim a portion of their vast market share. Obviously there are complications to this, as Google does filter results in a way to promote their own business activities. But again, this is hardly arbitrary: they do so because they think it will make them more money.
So then the girls who have made the unfortunate decision of allowing compromising pictures to be taken of them should scour the internet for themselves so that they can make complaints? That hardly seems right. The children argument is a red herring; this has nothing to do with making the world safe for children; this is a matter of who holds the rights to the photo and what sorts of reasonable actions can be taken to protect the property owners. Also, how does this punish "everybody"? If anything, it seems like it only punishes people who are posting naked pictures of others. Well, I suppose it might make certain naked pictures harder to find. I guess if that's your concern, make your own site/app for doing just that. (Remember, Reddit is a for-profit company; they can and should do what they think is in the best interest of their customers.)
Right. And certainly if a guy takes a picture of his naked girlfriend, that girlfriend has the expectation that the picture is for his private use only.:)
Reddits policy change seems much different than Google's. As a free market, private property type, wouldn't you agree that reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
I don't think he meant that a comp sci grad knows nothing of the inner workings of the equipment he works on, only that he doesn't know every detail. Perhaps I assume too much, but you probably don't know every technical detail about the telescope you're using, yeah? I imagine the average astronomer knows at least enough to do his or her job and not a lot beyond that. The point is, that's how much the average comp sci guys know about EE. Enough.:)
That may be. Not to devalue the lives or importance of keeping children safe, but even if it's hundreds more, statistically, it's still a very, very small figure, especially when contrasted with injuries and deaths from auto accidents, disease, etc.
Yeah, absolutely. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you. Whether or not the improved safety is due to being left unattended less or not... I don't know if we can know that for sure.
Kidnapping as we general think of it (a stranger taking a child with nefarious intent) is exceptionally rare. In the United States, there are some 100 incidents per year. I don't mean to contradict anything you've said; I think you're right on the money. Just thought I'd throw a number out there. The thing that I don't understand is how do we get that it's all right to hold the parents responsible for someone else's actions? It's not like they deliberately had their children walk home in an area that they thought would result in injury or death to either child. If someone kidnaps, murders, rapes, etc, shouldn't that fall on the individual her perpetrated such crimes? Having laws on the book to to criminalize hypothetical scenarios doesn't seem helpful at all. (To be clear, I think there is a stark difference between allowing children to walk home, vs intentionally putting children in harm's way so that something likely will happen to them.)
An outcome that does not yield your personal preference of goodness or morality is not proof of the market not working. Rather, this sort of thing conveys that people just don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the parent was trying to apply common sense to the situation, which is not something the legal system is designed to do. Law enforcement arrests people, that's what they do. They are not interested in making things "right".
Actually no, bird shot is very likely not lethal at close range. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it generally lacks enough power to penetrate enough to hit vitals (at least when fired at the chest.. I suspect you could get lucky and hit a major artery, but that's not how people train defensively.) Now, whether or not the gun owner knew that is another question.
If this is all information the drone owner has to go with, I want to know how he figured out who shot the drone down? It appeared to be in range of any number of homes. Something doesn't smell right about this.
I'm not sure what sort of shot the accused used, but if it was your typical bird shot or target load, shooting into the air is hardly more dangerous than being outside when it's hailing. Very different from, say, firing a 9mm up in the air.
I've had a similar experience. Although I still have some back issues, for the most part, my posture, etc. have gotten much, much better since I've started standing. My standing workstation is a total hack job--basically a small, cheapy (non-standing) desk with some Ikea parts bolted on to it. It's hideous but I work from home as a contract worker and am on a budget, so it works just fine for that. To sit, I've got a backless bar stool thing (it's kind of an odd stool). Sitting in it matches the height of my makeshift desk. It is also uncomfortable to sit in for great lengths of time, as I tend to slouch and my back gets quite tired without a seat back to relax into. I've found this to be a very good quality, though, as with a comfortable chair I found myself far too likely to forget to stop my sitting break and start standing again--I'd just end up sitting in a tall chair at a tall desk all day long.
Oh, also, you know those kinks you get in your neck sometimes when you sleep on your bed all wrong? Well, those have almost all but gone away since I've started standing. If I do get one, a day's worth of standing almost always clears it right up. I also feel substantially better and, while I generally need to take a 30 minute break after work to sit down on a couch and rest, after that I have plenty of energy. Of course, it's very difficult to measure happiness, but I will say that in general, the times that I've deviated from my standing work station have been promptly followed by less satisfaction both with work and in my home life. I simply can't imagine going back to sitting all day.
I'm inclined to disagree. But that may be because I met my now wife (and mother of my three children) at the office. There isn't anything inherently wrong about office romances like your post suggests. Rather, relationships that get in the way of work are problematic. I don't see any need to single out romantic relationships. Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue. No pun intended.
So because it's been unstable for centuries, that justifies any acts that the US takes that could aid in its instability?
It is doubtful that Amazon will shoot their prices up as soon as they reach a certain amount of market dominance. It may be that they stop lowering prices as aggressively. If they do raise prices, don't expect anything drastic unless other economic factors change as well.
Doubtful. That's generally not what happens and it's typically a very bad business move.
Yeah. Actually I think that was some of the wisdom to creating "united states." The smaller the group, the more likely for that group to consist of like-minded people (especially if one can rather easily change groups.) Too bad that didn't last... Frankly, I think it was doomed to fail, though.
I didn't write the original message. I actually misread; I thought the author was talking about the constitution.
It's been a bit since I've read the constitution, but I don't believe that it ever defined what made someone a person or "property". The subsequent amendments which addressed blacks and women were necessary because at the time, it was the only way that the federal government could decree such a thing over the rights of the state. In other words, it wasn't that the constitution declared slavery legal or anything like that; such issues were up to the states to decide.
Whoops! I totally misread your post! Sorry.
And how exactly can you extend responsibility to voters, who have no way of knowing or controlling the specifics of what goes on in government? I mean, don't get me wrong, it is partially their fault for being so ignorant, but legal responsibility?
Why? I certainly don't. People don't actually care about important things.
And why should it, pray tell?
Google does not arbitrarily filter search results. They filter search results in ways that makes them the most money. It's bad for business for them to simply remove search results because "they don't like you." Such a policy be bad for their own business, as it would hurt their search results, giving an excellent opportunity for competitors to claim a portion of their vast market share. Obviously there are complications to this, as Google does filter results in a way to promote their own business activities. But again, this is hardly arbitrary: they do so because they think it will make them more money.
So then the girls who have made the unfortunate decision of allowing compromising pictures to be taken of them should scour the internet for themselves so that they can make complaints? That hardly seems right. The children argument is a red herring; this has nothing to do with making the world safe for children; this is a matter of who holds the rights to the photo and what sorts of reasonable actions can be taken to protect the property owners. Also, how does this punish "everybody"? If anything, it seems like it only punishes people who are posting naked pictures of others. Well, I suppose it might make certain naked pictures harder to find. I guess if that's your concern, make your own site/app for doing just that. (Remember, Reddit is a for-profit company; they can and should do what they think is in the best interest of their customers.)
Right. And certainly if a guy takes a picture of his naked girlfriend, that girlfriend has the expectation that the picture is for his private use only. :)
Reddits policy change seems much different than Google's. As a free market, private property type, wouldn't you agree that reddits policy change is moral in that it is an attempt to return property to its rightful owner?
I don't think he meant that a comp sci grad knows nothing of the inner workings of the equipment he works on, only that he doesn't know every detail. Perhaps I assume too much, but you probably don't know every technical detail about the telescope you're using, yeah? I imagine the average astronomer knows at least enough to do his or her job and not a lot beyond that. The point is, that's how much the average comp sci guys know about EE. Enough. :)
That may be. Not to devalue the lives or importance of keeping children safe, but even if it's hundreds more, statistically, it's still a very, very small figure, especially when contrasted with injuries and deaths from auto accidents, disease, etc.
Yeah, absolutely. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you. Whether or not the improved safety is due to being left unattended less or not... I don't know if we can know that for sure.
Kidnapping as we general think of it (a stranger taking a child with nefarious intent) is exceptionally rare. In the United States, there are some 100 incidents per year. I don't mean to contradict anything you've said; I think you're right on the money. Just thought I'd throw a number out there. The thing that I don't understand is how do we get that it's all right to hold the parents responsible for someone else's actions? It's not like they deliberately had their children walk home in an area that they thought would result in injury or death to either child. If someone kidnaps, murders, rapes, etc, shouldn't that fall on the individual her perpetrated such crimes? Having laws on the book to to criminalize hypothetical scenarios doesn't seem helpful at all. (To be clear, I think there is a stark difference between allowing children to walk home, vs intentionally putting children in harm's way so that something likely will happen to them.)
An outcome that does not yield your personal preference of goodness or morality is not proof of the market not working. Rather, this sort of thing conveys that people just don't care.