dude...do you even know the definition of "malicious"?
You can't be malicious without knowing it....
or are you suggesting that this guy intended to hurt people without realizing that he intended to do so? sounds more like insanity than stupidity to me.
I don't think you need to know the proper definition to use the term. Nor do you need to be able to grow one to refer to one, regardless of whether you are using the term correctly.
Yes, agree, the gun is not relevant to whether you've commited a crime (in all the cases mentioned). But it is relevant to what crime has been committed. we're talking about a bunch of different crimes:
murder: killing someone is a stronger offence than trying to kill them.
Breaking and entering: actually doing it is a stronger offence than... I dunno, travelling to a location, with the intent to break in? What constitutes an "attempt to break and enter"? The moment the thought enters one's head? You probably won't be (successfully) charged with shoplifting if you don't steal anything after you break/enter. (i.e. you leave and get caught on the way out)
Brandishing a gun is illegal no matter where you do it, if there are others present who are not okay with your actions.
If you could somehow prove that you had no intention to rob the bank in which you were brandishing a gun (a tough one, I should think), charges of "attempted bank robbery" would likely not stick.
as to the piece of paper, you're probably not going to get charged with armed robbery unless you have some kind of armament.
Also, a check is precisely that, a note saying "give me the money" (assuming "me" is the person named on the check) More completely it says: [My bank], pay [person to whom the check is written] $[amount]. -[signature]
I don't think the FBI has ever contacted me in regards to check cashing.
So I think my point is pretty well proven, that success does matter. Intent is of little importance even for determining what crime has been commited. Success is much more important.
And that's good. A person who drives to a bank, armed, in a ski mask, and then decides not to even attempt to rob a bank (even though they intended to) does not deserve punishment, while someone who beats someone severely, directly causing their death (hit them in the temple accidently, or whatever) does deserve punishment. IMO.
It's unfair to on one hand charge someone with something, and simultaneously claim that it didn't happen. So either they did gather the cc numbers and should (perhaps) be charged with their theft (whatever that means, which is imo nothing) or they did not and should be charged only with the *attempted* theft of credit card numbers.
No, I won't blow it off. But I wouldn't want to see him charged with murder either. Attempted murder sure. Murder, no.
I'm of the opinion that even if someone successfully "stole" every credit card number in existence, but never used them for anything, they'd not have commited credit fraud, theft, or anything else.
Yes. You can be arrested. But being arrested (and even charged) is not the same as stealing it. You will not be arrested for, or charged with, stealing the money.
I don't recall saying that "MRUDERES" get less time (though other posts have claimed that, and I suspect it has happend at least once in US history)
Sure it's B&E...because you did, in fact, break and enter. But if you opened the door to an unlocked bank vault, walked in, looked at the money in there, and left without taking anything (even if you went in there intending to take it all) you couldn't really be (reasonably) considered to have stolen it. Going into a bank brandishing a gun is endangering the lives of others, even if you don't get money.
Ah, yes. It's all clear to me now. Man, they sure did VIEW A LOT OF TRANSACTIONS! They *STOLE* those transactions! It's GRAND THEFT!! Oh wait, they didn't actually steal anything. Never mind.
This is like installing a camera at a bank and watching people withdraw and deposit money. Sure, you see a lot of transactions, but do you get any of it? Hell no!
Or if you consider what they could possibly have done if they had actually got some CC numbers...man, they could have STOLEN SO MUCH MONEY FROM LOWE'S. O wait, no...it would be stealing from the Lowe's customers? Oh wait, they'll dispute the charges. So they're stealing from the credit card companies? Oh wait no...they didn't actually get anything. Nevermind.
Would it really tend to be the same curve as the general population, or are those with more expertise in a given area also more likely to be editting in the first place?
Second, on the subject of creating an evaluation mechanism for Wikipedia, here's something I think might work: create a "sign off" function, allowing anyone logged in (or maybe anyone at all, once per IP or such) to say that they've looked and read the entry and they think that it's correct. Then, these scores could be used to evaluate editors, giving high marks to someone who has lots of edits that lots of people say are correct. Future edits could be scored based on the score of the editor. Users could choose to view an entry at a low level which would give the very latest edits, or a higher one which would give an article containing only edits with high-scoring editors. Signatures older than a certain time or certain revision sequence could be discarded. This would benefit the most active editors.
Of course, this is off the top of my head and probably has some massive stupidity and some hideous exploit. Really I think the strength of the Wiki lies in my first suggestion, that those that are stupid are also lazy, or that the experts on a topic are likely to be more enthusiastic about their areas of expertise than those with little knowledge on the subject.
Were the players for some reason obligated to trade with this NPC? As far as I understand, they were not.
Re:IP problems |= nuclear stockpiling
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 1
Except that it's hard to imagine the use of golden eggs in an offensive manner. And I don't know of any other weapon used as nukes were (MAD). Before nukes, it was possible to hit first and win.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the current kernel is 2.x, I think it'd be easy to get support for a distro released with it.
dude...do you even know the definition of "malicious"?
You can't be malicious without knowing it....
or are you suggesting that this guy intended to hurt people without realizing that he intended to do so? sounds more like insanity than stupidity to me.
Wow...wouldn't the dropped overpass itself be more of a problem than some rocks from same?
How am I missing phone calls? I'm on >=56K (~1.5M) ...
What's the relationship between internet connection speed and missed phone calls?
I don't think you need to know the proper definition to use the term. Nor do you need to be able to grow one to refer to one, regardless of whether you are using the term correctly.
Yes, agree, the gun is not relevant to whether you've commited a crime (in all the cases mentioned). But it is relevant to what crime has been committed. we're talking about a bunch of different crimes:
... I dunno, travelling to a location, with the intent to break in? What constitutes an "attempt to break and enter"? The moment the thought enters one's head? You probably won't be (successfully) charged with shoplifting if you don't steal anything after you break/enter. (i.e. you leave and get caught on the way out)
murder: killing someone is a stronger offence than trying to kill them.
Breaking and entering: actually doing it is a stronger offence than
Brandishing a gun is illegal no matter where you do it, if there are others present who are not okay with your actions.
If you could somehow prove that you had no intention to rob the bank in which you were brandishing a gun (a tough one, I should think), charges of "attempted bank robbery" would likely not stick.
as to the piece of paper, you're probably not going to get charged with armed robbery unless you have some kind of armament.
Also, a check is precisely that, a note saying "give me the money" (assuming "me" is the person named on the check) More completely it says:
[My bank], pay [person to whom the check is written] $[amount]. -[signature]
I don't think the FBI has ever contacted me in regards to check cashing.
So I think my point is pretty well proven, that success does matter. Intent is of little importance even for determining what crime has been commited. Success is much more important.
And that's good. A person who drives to a bank, armed, in a ski mask, and then decides not to even attempt to rob a bank (even though they intended to) does not deserve punishment, while someone who beats someone severely, directly causing their death (hit them in the temple accidently, or whatever) does deserve punishment. IMO.
It's unfair to on one hand charge someone with something, and simultaneously claim that it didn't happen. So either they did gather the cc numbers and should (perhaps) be charged with their theft (whatever that means, which is imo nothing) or they did not and should be charged only with the *attempted* theft of credit card numbers.
No, I won't blow it off. But I wouldn't want to see him charged with murder either. Attempted murder sure. Murder, no.
I'm of the opinion that even if someone successfully "stole" every credit card number in existence, but never used them for anything, they'd not have commited credit fraud, theft, or anything else.
Yes. You can be arrested. But being arrested (and even charged) is not the same as stealing it. You will not be arrested for, or charged with, stealing the money.
I don't recall saying that "MRUDERES" get less time (though other posts have claimed that, and I suspect it has happend at least once in US history)
Is your uncle Noel Coward by any chance?
I was not attempting to be insightful. Didn't realize all comments had to be.
'"not stealing credit card numbers" is a crime' was a small, presumably unsuccessful attempt to apply poor logic to achieve humor.
You can see my posting history and content/scores thereof as well as I can.
of course stealing cc numbers is a crime.
I was arguing that the crime in question is not theft, not that theft is not a crime nor that attempted theft is not a crime.
Oh, and thanks for the personal attack. That was awesome.
Sure it's B&E...because you did, in fact, break and enter. But if you opened the door to an unlocked bank vault, walked in, looked at the money in there, and left without taking anything (even if you went in there intending to take it all) you couldn't really be (reasonably) considered to have stolen it.
Going into a bank brandishing a gun is endangering the lives of others, even if you don't get money.
I've got a clue, thanks.
It's only larceny if you take something.
I'll buy "attempted larceny". But it is not, in fact, larceny.
Also, since it's merely information, you can't really take it in the first place (since you're not depriving someone of their stuff.)
Am I commiting larceny when I photocopy a page from a book at the library? Don't think so!
Right, but they didn't get any CC numbers.
So I guess "not stealing credit card numbers" is a crime too then, eh?
Guess I'm going to jail.
Great logic there!
Someone attacks someone with intent to kill them, but does not succeed. It's clearly a murder since success is not an element of a crime.
You idiot.
Ah, yes. It's all clear to me now. Man, they sure did VIEW A LOT OF TRANSACTIONS! They *STOLE* those transactions! It's GRAND THEFT!!
Oh wait, they didn't actually steal anything. Never mind.
This is like installing a camera at a bank and watching people withdraw and deposit money. Sure, you see a lot of transactions, but do you get any of it? Hell no!
Or if you consider what they could possibly have done if they had actually got some CC numbers...man, they could have STOLEN SO MUCH MONEY FROM LOWE'S. O wait, no...it would be stealing from the Lowe's customers? Oh wait, they'll dispute the charges. So they're stealing from the credit card companies? Oh wait no...they didn't actually get anything. Nevermind.
Would it really tend to be the same curve as the general population, or are those with more expertise in a given area also more likely to be editting in the first place?
Second, on the subject of creating an evaluation mechanism for Wikipedia, here's something I think might work: create a "sign off" function, allowing anyone logged in (or maybe anyone at all, once per IP or such) to say that they've looked and read the entry and they think that it's correct.
Then, these scores could be used to evaluate editors, giving high marks to someone who has lots of edits that lots of people say are correct.
Future edits could be scored based on the score of the editor. Users could choose to view an entry at a low level which would give the very latest edits, or a higher one which would give an article containing only edits with high-scoring editors.
Signatures older than a certain time or certain revision sequence could be discarded. This would benefit the most active editors.
Of course, this is off the top of my head and probably has some massive stupidity and some hideous exploit. Really I think the strength of the Wiki lies in my first suggestion, that those that are stupid are also lazy, or that the experts on a topic are likely to be more enthusiastic about their areas of expertise than those with little knowledge on the subject.
Or better yet, 1 AM ....
I thought libertarians' word was "liberty". That's how the etymology looks to me anyway.
...did I miss a Nazi reference? I don't see one.
I think the ancestor meant to say "facetiously"
Though, "fascistic" is a word, so I don't see why "fasistically"|"fascisticly"could not be.
Then explain to me why I own a 300 baud acoustically-coupled modem?
or does "acoustically-coupled" refer to something other than placing the handset in a receptacle on the modem?
...and to help you out a bit, it's "Zim" not "Zeb". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/
Were the players for some reason obligated to trade with this NPC? As far as I understand, they were not.
Except that it's hard to imagine the use of golden eggs in an offensive manner. And I don't know of any other weapon used as nukes were (MAD). Before nukes, it was possible to hit first and win.