And while we're at it, if we allow people to drink caffeine, we may as well allow them to smoke crack. After all, it's just a stronger stimulant.
And if we allow people to drive cars, then why don't we just allow people to drive aircraft carriers and tanks?
There are degrees in this world, young grasshapper. Something of degree 100 (gun) is not equivalent to something of degree 1,000,000 (nuke), no matter how your tiny mind may try to frame such 2 disparate things as "the same".
But it's not, so we're not. And, similarly, everyone doesn't know runes, so it works. I happen to believe putting your passwords in a text file on your computer is far worse than writing them down. Writing down is the lesser of two evils. And for true security, every password should be different. Could you really memorize 10 passwords like: IeOuu8p 0oP!84... Or worse, an assigned password that you didn't create? Probably not. We all have our limits. Writing down is necessary. The whole point of this article was that it's not worth worrying about 100% compliance, but rather attacking problems from different angles. Using an alternate alphabet is one of those angles. And when I left, I wrote "See ya, but I wouldn't want to be ya" on my whiteboard. It took them weeks to decypher it, haha. Though I used the variation with W and P reversed from what they looked up, so they thought it was "See ya, but I wouldn't pant to be ya", which delayed their translation:)
Furthermore, people don't know it's a password. Do you go around translating every foreign character you see? Didn't think so.
Not legally, no. If there's a way from stopping someone from hurting themselves, and you don't take it, you're liable. I'm sorry, but that's how it works. Personal responsibility is a great thing, but according to some people here, simply looking at a tiger is taunting. Certainly nobody is expected to take the "responsibility value" of their very life for simply looking at something - or even danging your legs at a vantage point that is *supposed* to be higher than it can jump. My example was about legal liability, but even in terms of personal responsibility -- They didn't climb over a fence and go into a swimming pool. At worst, they stood on the edge of a fence, and then walked away from the danger. Problem is, the danger was not contained properly.
Point taken, but that's not what they did. You don't have a reasonable expectation of safety when you are inside a tiger cage. You do have a reasonable expectation of safety when you are in the grounds of a public zoo -- or any other public place. In general, if anything happens to you safety-wise that could have been prevented - you are liable. If you have a 6 foot fence around your pool, but your pool isn't covered, and kids climb the fence, get into the pool, and die (I believe this is the 2nd leading cause of teenage deaths after car accidents) -- Guess what. You're liable.
You missed my snapping fingers joke/point, which was a reference to correlation not being causation, and people saying "Ever since i started snapping my fingers, i haven't been attacked by tigers. It's working, see!". Usually this is said in response to an anti-terrorism measure passed by Bush to make people feel safer, and never in context of a story about an actual tiger.
But anyway..... To be serious... If all it takes is looking one in the eye to make it charge you, then that makes it that much more the zoo's fault for not having a safe enclosure made to the nationally recommended height...
more like 800 lbs (I dunno really), but I like how if they made a person mad and the person killed all 3 of them -- everyone would hate the person, and he would be charged with a murder. But suddenly when an animal does it, somehow the victim becomes the perpetrator. This is supposedly because the animal is stupider, so my question is -- If I taunt a 350 lb retarded person and he kills me and 2 of my friends, is that justice too?
Well, if that is the case, then point taken. I still think the zoo's at fault, and I still don't really object to them shooting it. And I don't care about image. But -- interesting point. I'll keep that in mind. I mean, so far I've been snapping my fingers, and it has been preventing tiger attacks -- but you never know.
Too bad the tiger couldn't have killed the instigator. That would have been better and placed less blame on the zoo, right? Because a person forfeits their right to life when they taunt a supposedly-caged animal, right? It's one of those death penalty offenses, like murder, right?
see, yelling and making yourself larger usually repels predators. I think it may have been the slingshots they had on them (I have received some updated news since my first barrage of comments -- it worked, I got other people do to the research for me!)
But as far as I'm concerned, even if they went there with Ninja throwing stars, and threw them into the eyeballs of the tigers, the zoo is still 100% at fault and liable. Though cruelty to animal charges would certainly be possible. These people asking for manslaughter charges are a bit over the top. The zoo has been trying to save face from the start, saying the wall would hvae been high enough "for another 100 yeras" except for these guys. I'm like -- Uhh, no. The wall isn't high enough of it's possible for any tiger to get over it under any circumstances. Period. Anything less is taking a calculated risk on someone else's lives. Had those people known the real risk, they might not have 'taunted'...
I had mentioned this in another comment that pointed out this new news, which is quite interesting. But be that as it may:
Taunting is quite vague. If they were just yelling and posturing and screaming, that's just a human being a human; it's our nature to act like the apes we are. I don't think that should result in even 1% of a loss of liability owed to them. I also don't think dangling anything into the cage is any more than a violation of zoo rules that should result in them getting kicked out. I don't think it makes them liable for what happened. People are going to be the apes they are.
But say, for example, they threw ninja throwing stars into the tiger's flesh.... THAT is morally reprehensible. However, I would still judge the zoo to be 100% liable in the event of the tiger leaping a wall that was NOT tall enough (I would expect cruelty to animal criminal charges though!!!).
A cage/enclosure is supposed to guarantee unconditional safety, and that is most certainly an expectation the public has when entering a zoo. If they posted a sign "caution: walls are 25% shorter than they should be, and tigers can jump 25% higher when taunted", I actually think nobody would want to go there. And if they did, it would constitute such a real risk that it would be borderline child-abuse to bring your child to the zoo! No, no, no. We all have a reasonable expectation of safety at the zoo.
And the paramedics wouldn't even show up for like what, 30 minutes? They were scared of the tiger that was lose, and wouldn't show. They waited for the police. Clearly, the authorities DO NOT WORK in this situation, yet the zoo still can't bother to have ONE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL who can fire a tranquilizer gun from a safe vantage? The zoo was pretty damn helpless here, and it's pretty much all their fault. I don't know the "violence timeline", but if any injuries occurred near the end of it, those specifically could have been avoided by the zoo having trained personnel on hand. And if their walls aren't high enough to prevent a tiger from jumping them (they weren't!) -- then the onus is on them that much more to have trained personnel on hand to diffuse such a situation.
Interesting update, thanks. Be that as it may, I don't really care if they threw items into the pen. It's still the zoo's fault. Even if they threw throwing stars into the tiger's eyeballs, I still think it's the zoo's fault. I don't think standing on the edge of a rail, or even dangling something into the cage, is at all morally reprehensible. Throwing stars thrown in the tiger's eyeballs would most definitely be morally reprehensible.
also we must define taunting. physical taunting, or just yelling? The word apparently makes most people think of *physical* attack. If it's just yelling, then I'm quite pissed at all the people who somehow think it's acceptable that the tiger did this. "Oh, he's just being a tiger, doing what tigers do!" Yes, well, so were the humans.. Under the expectation that a zoo would not release a wild animal on them. And would at least have a goddamned security guard with a tranquilizer gun! WTF! The ambulance wouldn't even come until the police arrived because everyone was so scared. If the authorities can't deal with a situation, then that just puts more onus on the zoo to have someone on hand at all times who can deal with such threats. If we have cops tasering elementary school children, we can certainly have a security guard with a tranq-gun in a zoo. Zoo's fault. 100%.
Yelling and waving is taunting?!? Most people I've talked to assumed taunting meant some type of physical abuse (Throwing rocks). If their "Taunting" is simply yelling and waving their arms, then that makes me think it's pretty much 0% their fault. Hell, yelling and waving arms usually REPELS animals, even predators -- even bears.
Every follow-up article (which people don't usually bother to read) has said that the investigation concluded THERE WAS NO TAUNTING. That was just FUD on the zoo's part. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
Every follow-up article (which people don't usually bother to read) has said that the investigation concluded THERE WAS NO TAUNTING. That was just FUD on the zoo's part. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
All follow-up articles stated that the authorities concluded, after investigation, that there was NO taunting.
Also: This specific tiger had already attacked humans multiple times before!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
"Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 350-pound tiger"
Considering that this tiger had already attacked humans multiple times before, are you really so naive and falsely optimistic as to think tigers never go around indiscriminately killing? Have you ever owned a cat???
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
"Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 350-pound tiger"
Read the goddamn follow-up articles. They were just trying to save face. And it worked on schmoes like you who swallow it up and don't consider that it might be a bunch of bullshit. You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.
Slashdot Mirror
And if we allow people to drive cars, then why don't we just allow people to drive aircraft carriers and tanks?
There are degrees in this world, young grasshapper. Something of degree 100 (gun) is not equivalent to something of degree 1,000,000 (nuke), no matter how your tiny mind may try to frame such 2 disparate things as "the same".
And Britain? They have something like 5% of the guns, something ridiculously low -- but still around 60% of the murder rate.
Correlation is not causation. More guns is not more death.
"We pretend to enjoy working here, and they pretend to enjoy paying us." Not quite as bad, but still two-faced.
Furthermore, people don't know it's a password. Do you go around translating every foreign character you see? Didn't think so.
I write my passwords that I can't remember on my whiteboard - in runes.
You got me, man. I didn't know there were two...
Please watch "kids" (1995ish).
Not legally, no. If there's a way from stopping someone from hurting themselves, and you don't take it, you're liable. I'm sorry, but that's how it works. Personal responsibility is a great thing, but according to some people here, simply looking at a tiger is taunting. Certainly nobody is expected to take the "responsibility value" of their very life for simply looking at something - or even danging your legs at a vantage point that is *supposed* to be higher than it can jump. My example was about legal liability, but even in terms of personal responsibility -- They didn't climb over a fence and go into a swimming pool. At worst, they stood on the edge of a fence, and then walked away from the danger. Problem is, the danger was not contained properly.
Point taken, but that's not what they did. You don't have a reasonable expectation of safety when you are inside a tiger cage. You do have a reasonable expectation of safety when you are in the grounds of a public zoo -- or any other public place. In general, if anything happens to you safety-wise that could have been prevented - you are liable. If you have a 6 foot fence around your pool, but your pool isn't covered, and kids climb the fence, get into the pool, and die (I believe this is the 2nd leading cause of teenage deaths after car accidents) -- Guess what. You're liable.
But anyway..... To be serious... If all it takes is looking one in the eye to make it charge you, then that makes it that much more the zoo's fault for not having a safe enclosure made to the nationally recommended height...
more like 800 lbs (I dunno really), but I like how if they made a person mad and the person killed all 3 of them -- everyone would hate the person, and he would be charged with a murder. But suddenly when an animal does it, somehow the victim becomes the perpetrator. This is supposedly because the animal is stupider, so my question is -- If I taunt a 350 lb retarded person and he kills me and 2 of my friends, is that justice too?
Here's a laugh: guy brings lion to a party where the lion taunts the guests.
Too bad the tiger couldn't have killed the instigator. That would have been better and placed less blame on the zoo, right? Because a person forfeits their right to life when they taunt a supposedly-caged animal, right? It's one of those death penalty offenses, like murder, right?
But as far as I'm concerned, even if they went there with Ninja throwing stars, and threw them into the eyeballs of the tigers, the zoo is still 100% at fault and liable. Though cruelty to animal charges would certainly be possible. These people asking for manslaughter charges are a bit over the top. The zoo has been trying to save face from the start, saying the wall would hvae been high enough "for another 100 yeras" except for these guys. I'm like -- Uhh, no. The wall isn't high enough of it's possible for any tiger to get over it under any circumstances. Period. Anything less is taking a calculated risk on someone else's lives. Had those people known the real risk, they might not have 'taunted'...
Taunting is quite vague. If they were just yelling and posturing and screaming, that's just a human being a human; it's our nature to act like the apes we are. I don't think that should result in even 1% of a loss of liability owed to them. I also don't think dangling anything into the cage is any more than a violation of zoo rules that should result in them getting kicked out. I don't think it makes them liable for what happened. People are going to be the apes they are.
But say, for example, they threw ninja throwing stars into the tiger's flesh.... THAT is morally reprehensible. However, I would still judge the zoo to be 100% liable in the event of the tiger leaping a wall that was NOT tall enough (I would expect cruelty to animal criminal charges though!!!).
A cage/enclosure is supposed to guarantee unconditional safety, and that is most certainly an expectation the public has when entering a zoo. If they posted a sign "caution: walls are 25% shorter than they should be, and tigers can jump 25% higher when taunted", I actually think nobody would want to go there. And if they did, it would constitute such a real risk that it would be borderline child-abuse to bring your child to the zoo! No, no, no. We all have a reasonable expectation of safety at the zoo.
And the paramedics wouldn't even show up for like what, 30 minutes? They were scared of the tiger that was lose, and wouldn't show. They waited for the police. Clearly, the authorities DO NOT WORK in this situation, yet the zoo still can't bother to have ONE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL who can fire a tranquilizer gun from a safe vantage? The zoo was pretty damn helpless here, and it's pretty much all their fault. I don't know the "violence timeline", but if any injuries occurred near the end of it, those specifically could have been avoided by the zoo having trained personnel on hand. And if their walls aren't high enough to prevent a tiger from jumping them (they weren't!) -- then the onus is on them that much more to have trained personnel on hand to diffuse such a situation.
Interesting update, thanks. Be that as it may, I don't really care if they threw items into the pen. It's still the zoo's fault. Even if they threw throwing stars into the tiger's eyeballs, I still think it's the zoo's fault. I don't think standing on the edge of a rail, or even dangling something into the cage, is at all morally reprehensible. Throwing stars thrown in the tiger's eyeballs would most definitely be morally reprehensible.
also we must define taunting. physical taunting, or just yelling? The word apparently makes most people think of *physical* attack. If it's just yelling, then I'm quite pissed at all the people who somehow think it's acceptable that the tiger did this. "Oh, he's just being a tiger, doing what tigers do!" Yes, well, so were the humans.. Under the expectation that a zoo would not release a wild animal on them. And would at least have a goddamned security guard with a tranquilizer gun! WTF! The ambulance wouldn't even come until the police arrived because everyone was so scared. If the authorities can't deal with a situation, then that just puts more onus on the zoo to have someone on hand at all times who can deal with such threats. If we have cops tasering elementary school children, we can certainly have a security guard with a tranq-gun in a zoo. Zoo's fault. 100%.
Yelling and waving is taunting?!? Most people I've talked to assumed taunting meant some type of physical abuse (Throwing rocks). If their "Taunting" is simply yelling and waving their arms, then that makes me think it's pretty much 0% their fault. Hell, yelling and waving arms usually REPELS animals, even predators -- even bears.
Every follow-up article (which people don't usually bother to read) has said that the investigation concluded THERE WAS NO TAUNTING. That was just FUD on the zoo's part. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
Every follow-up article (which people don't usually bother to read) has said that the investigation concluded THERE WAS NO TAUNTING. That was just FUD on the zoo's part. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
You have discovered Cygwin.
All follow-up articles stated that the authorities concluded, after investigation, that there was NO taunting. Also: This specific tiger had already attacked humans multiple times before! http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText "Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 350-pound tiger"
Considering that this tiger had already attacked humans multiple times before, are you really so naive and falsely optimistic as to think tigers never go around indiscriminately killing? Have you ever owned a cat??? http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText "Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 350-pound tiger"
Read the goddamn follow-up articles. They were just trying to save face. And it worked on schmoes like you who swallow it up and don't consider that it might be a bunch of bullshit. You know they seized their cellphones and such and found 0 evidence of taunting.
Read the follow-up articles. There's a discussion going on about it HERE.