As a letter in the Australian said recently "You really have to pity the Australian farmer; they have the drought of the century every two years."
People must have short memories, as the rural sector always has its hands out. Telephone services aren't as good? You're living in the middle of the fucking desert! It's getting to the point where you can get better and cheaper high-bandwidth net access in some rural areas than you can in the city, and guess how much that's costing the taxpayers. Agrarian bloody socialism, that's what it is.
Yeah, that's what I meant, the price has nothing to do with the cost of presenting it, it's more based around what people are willing to pay.:/
I'll pay to see a good film, or a bad film that only looks good on a big screen... but I don't have the time or the money to waste on bad films, so if I do watch a bootleg I'm also likely to have seen it at least once on the big screen. Saw LoTR: FotR twice in the cinema, and I'd like to again prior to the release of the second movie. Not great, but definitely very good.:)
Is it possible they're spending more money to stop it than they would lose if the practice continued?:) After all, installing it in every cinema out there won't be cheap... probably won't make any difference to the price of a movie ticket, though.
This shithead is such a pansy that he's shooting people from great distance, in the back, and is STILL too scared to take a shot at someone who could concievably fight back!
I think it has more to do with a form of cruelty, a theory advanced by one of the other replies... he's "sending a message", the message being that he's really one sick fuck.:(
Traits that should be looked at when trying to decide if a person is a potential killer include: Social withdrawal, abnormal dependence's on ones mother or ulcerated relations with ones parents, hypochondria or other attention seeking behavior including forms of clothing, delusional mind as to grandeur, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, inability to take criticisms, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert ones self, parental taunts as to ones inability to be sufficient (or as I prefer to call it - the Hitchcock 'Psycho' syndrome), mood disorders, and a general failing in attempts to succeed.
I was getting a bit worried after this; I fit many of these points, and so do quite a few people I know:/
Of course these are very general points, and even if someone had the majority of these (as I do), it would not necessarily mean that they would become serial killers, it is only meant as a point of reference.
the first 5 murders had increased the homicide rate by 300%
You really have to wonder "why there"... but I imagine there are never really any answers with these sorts of things.
According to that page, however, the sniper isn't a serial killer since there wasn't a "cooling off" period...
Serial killers are also usually more personal according to traditional profiles; they tend to prefer to kill at close range. They also tend to be secretive about it, with good reason (from their viewpoint, anyway) as they know that what they are doing is wrong and likely to get them locked up for life or killed depending on the jurisdiction. Neither of these seem to apply here... this is more like the (Malay? Sumatran?) tradition of 'amok', going crazy with a sword or whatever in the local marketplace until killed.
(My reading in this area isn't all that broad, but I do have some books on some of the more famous cases (Wests, Yorkshire Ripper, etc.), and the city I live in (Adelaide, South Australia) is notorious for serial murders, so you do see quite a bit about it in the media:/)
As the use of the internet develops more granularity - i.e. people spend more time in smaller groups, not all huddling around google, bbc and yahoo, this will become a viable route for this 'big news' to get through.
That's assuming the Internet doesn't get legislated down to "Television Plus" thanks to Disney et. al.
I agree with what you're saying, but I find debating the relative levels of dishonour of "shooting someone in the back from 900 yards" and "shooting someone traditionally defenseless in the back from 900 yards" both macabre and pointless.
He's already so low that this particular choice doesn't really surprise me, it just reinforces the need to catch the bastard quickly.:/
the fact seems to be that our culture-- maybe all cultures for all I know-- places a higher value on the lives of the very young, the very old, and women than on the lives of adult men.
I can understand that... I just noticed this when the police chief said that shooting children was "crossing over the line". I'd like to think that I'm on the same side of the line as the children, i.e. that shooting at me is unacceptable. (I don't live in the US... maybe common-or-garden public shootings occur often enough over there that this is no longer a reasonable expectation?)
35-year-old white man
I wasn't talking about colour here -- that would fall into that standard pro/anti-reverse discrimination line of argument, and I'm more interested in discussing people's ingrained notions of degrees of fairness/unfairness.
The average serial killer profile in the US is often white middle-class male, isn't it? Are there any useful statistics on this?
Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else? Are 35-year-old men some sort of second-class citizen, not worthy of sorrow? Sure, they may be more able to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, but that's not going to do them a lot of good when a sniper shoots them in the middle of the suburbs...
Well, so much for that week long LAN party idea...
This is just a slight technical hitch. We're going to need intravenous food and caffeine, and bedpans (and people to clean them up) to take care of the other end.:)
"Best case" is that people are being this secretive because dodgy but legal things are happening, I imagine. When it does come out (and these things usually do in time) it will reflect poorly on those involved, but it won't be actionable in a legal sense. Otherwise why the need for secrecy? It's not like they're planning my surprise birtday party or anything...
Massive amounts of money, pretty high potential for conflict of interest... they're skating pretty close to the line, and I was glad to see that letter calling them on it. I think that ICANN's behaviour is scandalous.
Laugh all you want now, but I'll be the one laughing (along with John Gilmore) when the handcuffs are slapped on and Vint and his buddies are doing the perp walk for the cameras.
End the artificial monopoly! Open up the root name servers! Viva la common bloody sense!!!
(BTW -- I fully expect to get modded down for this, but my karma is pretty high anyway -- maybe high 40s if it were still numeric. At least it lets me blow off some steam at these crooks.:)
Slashdot Mirror
and the JVM has already been distributed with most copies of Windows
Isn't that only v1.1? The class libraries improved quite a bit after that.
Switch channels, yes.
Microsoft has been strong in marketing and weak in technology since, oh, the early MS-DOS days. Doesn't seem to have harmed them yet, worse luck.
Oh my God... The dead have risen and they're advocating Windows!
Look into our human rights record before you go buying any plane tickets.
There's definitely been a lot of BitKeeper discussion on linux-kernel in the past, including the recent kerfuffle with the anti-compete clauses.
Hopefully whoever moderated this interesting was... err... taking the piss as well.
As a letter in the Australian said recently "You really have to pity the Australian farmer; they have the drought of the century every two years."
People must have short memories, as the rural sector always has its hands out. Telephone services aren't as good? You're living in the middle of the fucking desert! It's getting to the point where you can get better and cheaper high-bandwidth net access in some rural areas than you can in the city, and guess how much that's costing the taxpayers. Agrarian bloody socialism, that's what it is.
Yeah, that's what I meant, the price has nothing to do with the cost of presenting it, it's more based around what people are willing to pay. :/
:)
I'll pay to see a good film, or a bad film that only looks good on a big screen... but I don't have the time or the money to waste on bad films, so if I do watch a bootleg I'm also likely to have seen it at least once on the big screen. Saw LoTR: FotR twice in the cinema, and I'd like to again prior to the release of the second movie. Not great, but definitely very good.
Is it possible they're spending more money to stop it than they would lose if the practice continued? :) After all, installing it in every cinema out there won't be cheap... probably won't make any difference to the price of a movie ticket, though.
Sounds like the guy who keeps spamming me to enter online "competitions"... :)
That's good, because most of us gamers are also short and semi-interesting as well...
:)
Speak for yourself! I'm tall and completely not interesting.
This shithead is such a pansy that he's shooting people from great distance, in the back, and is STILL too scared to take a shot at someone who could concievably fight back!
:(
I think it has more to do with a form of cruelty, a theory advanced by one of the other replies... he's "sending a message", the message being that he's really one sick fuck.
From that page you linked to:
:/
:)
Traits that should be looked at when trying to decide if a person is a potential killer include: Social withdrawal, abnormal dependence's on ones mother or ulcerated relations with ones parents, hypochondria or other attention seeking behavior including forms of clothing, delusional mind as to grandeur, severe depression, a general feeling of emptiness as to the future, inability to take criticisms, a general feeling of being mistreated, inability to assert ones self, parental taunts as to ones inability to be sufficient (or as I prefer to call it - the Hitchcock 'Psycho' syndrome), mood disorders, and a general failing in attempts to succeed.
I was getting a bit worried after this; I fit many of these points, and so do quite a few people I know
Of course these are very general points, and even if someone had the majority of these (as I do), it would not necessarily mean that they would become serial killers, it is only meant as a point of reference.
Phew!
I'd say public shootings are still pretty uncommon occurrences.
:)
Good to hear, because you wouldn't know it from the media reports.
the first 5 murders had increased the homicide rate by 300%
:/)
You really have to wonder "why there"... but I imagine there are never really any answers with these sorts of things.
According to that page, however, the sniper isn't a serial killer since there wasn't a "cooling off" period...
Serial killers are also usually more personal according to traditional profiles; they tend to prefer to kill at close range. They also tend to be secretive about it, with good reason (from their viewpoint, anyway) as they know that what they are doing is wrong and likely to get them locked up for life or killed depending on the jurisdiction. Neither of these seem to apply here... this is more like the (Malay? Sumatran?) tradition of 'amok', going crazy with a sword or whatever in the local marketplace until killed.
(My reading in this area isn't all that broad, but I do have some books on some of the more famous cases (Wests, Yorkshire Ripper, etc.), and the city I live in (Adelaide, South Australia) is notorious for serial murders, so you do see quite a bit about it in the media
As the use of the internet develops more granularity - i.e. people spend more time in smaller groups, not all huddling around google, bbc and yahoo, this will become a viable route for this 'big news' to get through.
That's assuming the Internet doesn't get legislated down to "Television Plus" thanks to Disney et. al.
I agree with what you're saying, but I find debating the relative levels of dishonour of "shooting someone in the back from 900 yards" and "shooting someone traditionally defenseless in the back from 900 yards" both macabre and pointless.
:/
He's already so low that this particular choice doesn't really surprise me, it just reinforces the need to catch the bastard quickly.
the fact seems to be that our culture-- maybe all cultures for all I know-- places a higher value on the lives of the very young, the very old, and women than on the lives of adult men.
I can understand that... I just noticed this when the police chief said that shooting children was "crossing over the line". I'd like to think that I'm on the same side of the line as the children, i.e. that shooting at me is unacceptable. (I don't live in the US... maybe common-or-garden public shootings occur often enough over there that this is no longer a reasonable expectation?)
35-year-old white man
I wasn't talking about colour here -- that would fall into that standard pro/anti-reverse discrimination line of argument, and I'm more interested in discussing people's ingrained notions of degrees of fairness/unfairness.
The average serial killer profile in the US is often white middle-class male, isn't it? Are there any useful statistics on this?
Hey, I own 4 Lynxes. I never bought a Game Boy because whenever the pixels moved it all devolved into a blurry mess.
:)
But then I own two Amigas as well. Guess I just pick 'em really well.
Shooting old men and children and women.
Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else? Are 35-year-old men some sort of second-class citizen, not worthy of sorrow? Sure, they may be more able to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, but that's not going to do them a lot of good when a sniper shoots them in the middle of the suburbs...
Well, so much for that week long LAN party idea...
:)
This is just a slight technical hitch. We're going to need intravenous food and caffeine, and bedpans (and people to clean them up) to take care of the other end.
"Best case" is that people are being this secretive because dodgy but legal things are happening, I imagine. When it does come out (and these things usually do in time) it will reflect poorly on those involved, but it won't be actionable in a legal sense. Otherwise why the need for secrecy? It's not like they're planning my surprise birtday party or anything...
Massive amounts of money, pretty high potential for conflict of interest... they're skating pretty close to the line, and I was glad to see that letter calling them on it. I think that ICANN's behaviour is scandalous.
or is it something else?
:)
Kickbacks.
Laugh all you want now, but I'll be the one laughing (along with John Gilmore) when the handcuffs are slapped on and Vint and his buddies are doing the perp walk for the cameras.
End the artificial monopoly! Open up the root name servers! Viva la common bloody sense!!!
(BTW -- I fully expect to get modded down for this, but my karma is pretty high anyway -- maybe high 40s if it were still numeric. At least it lets me blow off some steam at these crooks.
So the Heaven's Gate people were right, just a little premature? :)
(Seriously, they were creepy... the leader never seemed to blink, for example.)