Tony Martin, as much as I sympathise with what he went through, didn't shoot a burglar in self-defence. He shot and killed a burglar who was running away from him in the back. Furthermore, throughout his trial he made a point of making it clear that he felt no remorse at killing him and all but said that he'd do the same thing again.
I don't think you'd find too many juries in the US or elsewhere that would have let him walk under those circumstances.
The very fact that you feel the need to know someone's skin colour before you feel you can judge whether or not he was the victim of harrassment speaks for itself.
I think I might already have pointed out that there's a difference between defending yourself and taking the law into your own hands.
People get prosecuted, found guilty by a jury of their peers and then sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for simply defending themselves. That kind of stuff only happens to people who cross the line further than reasonable doubt will allow.
Ironic that it was an Englishman who said that "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
Last year, according to the US law enforcement website, PoliceOne.com, there were nearly 150 federal, state and local law officers killed in the US. (Incidentally, 60,000 officers were assaulted, and 20,000 suffered injuries as a result.)
The exact number of officers that were murdered isn't given, but it's at least 56 (52 were shot to death; two suffered fatal beatings; one was stabbed to death; one was strangled). How many of the other deaths were murders isn't clear and I won't begin to speculate how many of those who were struck and killed by vehicles were hit accidentally or intentionally, etc.
The source also states that there have been 54 consecutive years in which more than 100 law enforcement officers have been killed in the performance of duty, and that more than 1,600 officers have died in the last 10 years alone.
(By the way, that 100+ deaths per year for 54 years completely contradicts your quick googling. Either your source is wrong or the PoliceOne.com website is wrong. Somehow, I don't think that it's the PoliceOne.com that's in error.)
Now let's compare that data to that of the source you quoted, a BBC News story from early 2003.
In 30 years, 70 British officers were killed in the line of duty, 14 of them in the year that you mention, 2002. However, as the story doesn't provide a breakdown, it's impossible to say how many of those deaths were accidental and how many were considered murders. Also, in the context of 30 years' worth of data, 14 deaths in one year seems like a statistical anomaly; after all, this is a fifth of all the deaths for the 30 year period.
So, for the 30 years up to and including 2002, 70 policemen died in the UK, and during that same period at least 3,000 died in the US (of course, that figure is the lowest possible number: remember, at least 100 US police officers died every year for the last 54 years).
And for last year, 2003, at least 56 US police officers were murdered. I'm not sure what the UK figure was (and I have looked for it) but I will bet you my life savings and all my worldly possessions that it's in single figures, probably even less than five.
Doesn't look too good for your argument now, does it?
The lesson here? Next time you call bullshit, at least have some proper data to back up your claim.
I'm of average height and build. I've lived in London for 32 years and I've never been the victim of any personal crime, neither do I know anyone who has been. Furthermore, I've only ever seen one mugging in my life, and that was a purse-snatching that was over in less than five seconds.
This is a city with a population of over 7.5 million, with millions more commuting into it every day. This isn't a cosy hamlet we're talking about, it's one of the biggest cities on the planet, with all the good and bad things that come with that tag.
I know hundreds of people who live and work all over the city. Yet not one of them has ever been attacked in any way. Does that suggest a crime-ridden society to you?
90 percent tax? "Rights taken away for generations", which "ain't gonna change"? "Dictators"?
I guess my democratically-elected government, which has a tiered personal taxation system that has 0, 10, 25 and 40 percent tax bands (that provides me with a virtually-free education, a free health service, etc) and has a comprehensive human rights act in place must have moved out of Europe whilst I wasn't looking.
Either that or you're an troll living in the ignorance bliss that I previously mentioned.
Oh wait, we haven't moved an inch and we're still in Europe. I guess we know what that means then...
I'm not making assumptions. It's the hundreds of Americans, many of whom will freely admit that they don't even own a passport, that I read describing Britain as a criminal's paradise everytime guns or violence is discussed on Slashdot or elsewhere that are making the assumptions.
I've been to the US, and for more than just a couple of weeks on holiday. I've got friends and family who live there, some of whom have experienced life on both sides of the pond. None of them has ever told me anything other than what I've said here: most Americans truly do believe that Britain is a violent society, where people live in constant fear of personal violence.
I think you've missed the subtle point I was trying to make though, which was that the "right" to walk around with a deadly weapon doesn't make you or your society safer.
Of course policemen dying in the line of duty make the news everywhere, but it's such a common occurance in the US and such an uncommon one in Britain and the level of attention and shock that such a murder creates in each society reflects that.
A US police officer being gunned down is a minor news story because it's an everyday event, and because a single police officer or civilian being gunned down is nothing out of the ordinary, which is reflective of the level of violence in US society.
However, a UK police officer being stabbed and killed isn't an everyday event. In fact, it's damn rare for a British policeman to be murdered and very out of the ordinary, and, similarly, this is a reflection of the level of violence in British society.
I'm not saying that Britain is crime-free, only that it's a safer place to live than America despite what many Americans are led to believe.
Last week a police officer was killed (stabbed by a suspect he was chasing) in the line of duty in Birmingham, UK. It was the biggest news story (front page of all papers, lead item on TV news, etc) for 24 hours.
In the US, how many police officers would have to die in a single incident to get that level of blanket news coverage? How many are shot and killed every week?
Yet somehow most Americans buy into the myth that Britain is a more violent society than their own? Ignorance is bliss.
You seem to be assuming that those things are illegal everywhere. They're not. Making sure you don't get in trouble for carrying self defense tools is a good idea. Telling people that any offensive weapon is obviously illegal is just trolling.
No, I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply answering the question that's being asked about improving personal security in London.
Why London? Well, the Ask Slashdot question refers to London. In fact, as I personally know the Ask Slashdotter in question (If you're reading this, CGP, hi. I'll see you on Thursday and I'll bring the DVD), I know he's referring to London, UK as opposed to any other London. And, as I know the law of the land, I'm giving specific advice that relates to his situation. Forgive me, but I has assumed that was the whole point of posting an Ask Slashdot question.
It's a fact that possession of an offensive weapon (eg, a knife) without a legitimate reason for possession (eg, you've just bought it, or you're a chef carrying your tools from A to B) is a criminal offense in the UK. You may not have known that but now you do.
So, although you may believe that "telling people that any offensive weapon is obviously illegal is just trolling", in this case, it isn't "just trolling", it's just answering the damn question.
Now, Mr. I-Think-I-Know-It-All-But-Actually-I-Don't AC, go waste your time bugging someone else.
You have every right to defend yourself against a mugger in Britain. As long as you use no more force than is necessary then the law is on your side.
If someone tries to rob you then you have the right to protect yourself and apprehend them. What you don't have the right to do is kick the shit out of them because they tried to rob you.
There's a world of difference between having no right to defend yourself and not having the right to use a mugging attempt as a reason to do an American History X on someone.
Hey, great idea! Once you're in custody, in the back of a police car, after you've been arrested for carrying an offensive weapon your chances of being mugged drop dramatically!
Seriously, carrying a concealed weapon that could get you a criminal record and a nice custodial sentence of your own is not the way to avoid trouble.
Sorry, but you are either a troll, a racist or an ignorant fool.
1. It's OK for an "American Joe Blow" (I assume you mean someone with white skin) to mess around with a soldering-iron but someone from "Middle-Eastern ethnic group" (or anyone with brown skin) isn't allowed to do the same without being harrassed or treated like a criminal by law enforcement figures?
Someone who's a "native American" treated this way has a right to be angry? What, and someone with who's not a "native American" (or, from what you've written, is an "American Indian") has no right to be angry at all if their privacy is abused and they're harrassed in this manner?
2. Do you realise that not all terrorists have brown skin? Did the Unabomber have brown skin? Did Timothy McVeigh?
More importantly, do you realise that not all people with brown skin are terrorists? Or to assume something of someone, or to treat someone differently, solely because of the colour of their skin is racist? Do you realise that such behaviour is, by definition, against the Constitution of the United States?
Seriously, opinions like the one that you've just voiced (that it's OK to treat someone differently because of the colour of their skin, their ethnicity or their nationality) are the reason why terrorism exist in the first place. Bigotry breeds fear, fear breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence.
You'll eat better, more healthy and more tasty food plus you'll acquire a social skill that might - note: might - help you get and hold onto a girlfriend.
I've yet to meet a woman who's impressed by a man who can work a microwave. However, women do go for a guy who really can cook.
Virtually all professional news photographers use digital cameras. Being able to use a laptop and a mobile phone to create and send instant contact sheets to show your editor which photos he has to pick from is far more convenient than heading for the nearest development lab.
I think you'll find that most pros (at least most of those who have to worry about things like deadlines) have embraced digital photography, and for reasons beyond picture quality. That's not to say that picture quality is an issue with the high-end cameras that these guys are using, only to reiterate that it's the convenience and flexibility that going digital affords them that are the overwhelming reasons why most pros have abandoned film cameras.
Yes, movies are a "hits" business but care to name some non-Pixar animations that Disney has released recently?
I can think of one non-Pixar animation that's been a hit for Disney in recent years - The Lion King - and plenty of turkeys that barely made back their money (if that) - Prince of Egypt, etc.
And that one hit is a movie that's almost a decade old: clearly, Disney's in-house animation team isn't scoring touchdowns of the Snow White, The Jungle Book or Bambi variety, so what makes you think that they'll do anything but fumble the ball when it's handed to them once the deal with Pixar is finished?
Pixar's talent and ability is established. It's star is in the ascendency. Disney's 2D animation talent and ability hasn't been able to compete. It's star is in the descendency. Disney's 3D talent and ability (if it has any) is unproven. So what makes you think that Disney is the one that stands to gain more than it looses from the split?
At least the one company that truly stands for browser innovation will have some more cash to spend on product development. Pity it's just a drop in the ocean to Microsoft though.
Well the a 5m parachute deployment because of faulty programming, or any other software error, is easily checked by going over the code.
But, yes, your basic point is correct: Beagle 2, which only came about because of the sheer will and determination of a handful of dedicated individuals, and on a shoestring budget, was in space exploration terms a last minute afterthought. As such, it didn't have the time or budget for being test and retested several times before the mission launch date.
Step 1: Patent generic idea Step 2: Wait a few years for people to adopt it Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit!!
You do realise that I patented this "Step 1... Step x: Profit!" formula years ago, don't you?
Any day now I'm going to announce my patent licensing scheme to the world and Slashdot, crippled by the potential fees, is going to capitulate and become my biatch.
So, say goodbye to the reign of Taco and hello to the reign of WIAK! The King is dead: long live the King!
And lets not forget the obvious - IE6 is always going to be bad for this. Mozilla gets updated each and every day and has a regular release schedule.
Let's get one thing straight: this sort of browser hijacking isn't aimed at defeating technically-minded people like you or I, it's aimed at non-technical users, such as friends and relatives we might have encouraged to switch away from Microsoft Internet Explorer, or people who've installed Mozilla Firefox from a magazine cover disc, etc.
For the most part, these non-technical users aren't going to be actively updating their software on a regular basis. They're not going to be looking out for potential security risks and their solutions because they thought that they were leaving all that behind when they switched over from MSIE. In all probability, many if not most of these users won't even know that they've been hijacked if and when that happens.
To suggest that browser hijacking doesn't have the potential to be a major problem for Mozilla users is rather short-sighted. Being dismissive about it is like adopting a "head in the sand" security policy, and no better than a "security through obscurity" one.
Slashdot Mirror
Tony Martin, as much as I sympathise with what he went through, didn't shoot a burglar in self-defence. He shot and killed a burglar who was running away from him in the back. Furthermore, throughout his trial he made a point of making it clear that he felt no remorse at killing him and all but said that he'd do the same thing again.
I don't think you'd find too many juries in the US or elsewhere that would have let him walk under those circumstances.
The very fact that you feel the need to know someone's skin colour before you feel you can judge whether or not he was the victim of harrassment speaks for itself.
I think I might already have pointed out that there's a difference between defending yourself and taking the law into your own hands.
People get prosecuted, found guilty by a jury of their peers and then sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for simply defending themselves. That kind of stuff only happens to people who cross the line further than reasonable doubt will allow.
Ironic that it was an Englishman who said that "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
Last year, according to the US law enforcement website, PoliceOne.com, there were nearly 150 federal, state and local law officers killed in the US. (Incidentally, 60,000 officers were assaulted, and 20,000 suffered injuries as a result.)
The exact number of officers that were murdered isn't given, but it's at least 56 (52 were shot to death; two suffered fatal beatings; one was stabbed to death; one was strangled). How many of the other deaths were murders isn't clear and I won't begin to speculate how many of those who were struck and killed by vehicles were hit accidentally or intentionally, etc.
The source also states that there have been 54 consecutive years in which more than 100 law enforcement officers have been killed in the performance of duty, and that more than 1,600 officers have died in the last 10 years alone.
(By the way, that 100+ deaths per year for 54 years completely contradicts your quick googling. Either your source is wrong or the PoliceOne.com website is wrong. Somehow, I don't think that it's the PoliceOne.com that's in error.)
Now let's compare that data to that of the source you quoted, a BBC News story from early 2003.
In 30 years, 70 British officers were killed in the line of duty, 14 of them in the year that you mention, 2002. However, as the story doesn't provide a breakdown, it's impossible to say how many of those deaths were accidental and how many were considered murders. Also, in the context of 30 years' worth of data, 14 deaths in one year seems like a statistical anomaly; after all, this is a fifth of all the deaths for the 30 year period.
So, for the 30 years up to and including 2002, 70 policemen died in the UK, and during that same period at least 3,000 died in the US (of course, that figure is the lowest possible number: remember, at least 100 US police officers died every year for the last 54 years).
And for last year, 2003, at least 56 US police officers were murdered. I'm not sure what the UK figure was (and I have looked for it) but I will bet you my life savings and all my worldly possessions that it's in single figures, probably even less than five.
Doesn't look too good for your argument now, does it?
The lesson here? Next time you call bullshit, at least have some proper data to back up your claim.
I'm of average height and build. I've lived in London for 32 years and I've never been the victim of any personal crime, neither do I know anyone who has been. Furthermore, I've only ever seen one mugging in my life, and that was a purse-snatching that was over in less than five seconds.
This is a city with a population of over 7.5 million, with millions more commuting into it every day. This isn't a cosy hamlet we're talking about, it's one of the biggest cities on the planet, with all the good and bad things that come with that tag.
I know hundreds of people who live and work all over the city. Yet not one of them has ever been attacked in any way. Does that suggest a crime-ridden society to you?
90 percent tax? "Rights taken away for generations", which "ain't gonna change"? "Dictators"?
I guess my democratically-elected government, which has a tiered personal taxation system that has 0, 10, 25 and 40 percent tax bands (that provides me with a virtually-free education, a free health service, etc) and has a comprehensive human rights act in place must have moved out of Europe whilst I wasn't looking.
Either that or you're an troll living in the ignorance bliss that I previously mentioned.
Oh wait, we haven't moved an inch and we're still in Europe. I guess we know what that means then...
I'm not making assumptions. It's the hundreds of Americans, many of whom will freely admit that they don't even own a passport, that I read describing Britain as a criminal's paradise everytime guns or violence is discussed on Slashdot or elsewhere that are making the assumptions.
I've been to the US, and for more than just a couple of weeks on holiday. I've got friends and family who live there, some of whom have experienced life on both sides of the pond. None of them has ever told me anything other than what I've said here: most Americans truly do believe that Britain is a violent society, where people live in constant fear of personal violence.
I think you've missed the subtle point I was trying to make though, which was that the "right" to walk around with a deadly weapon doesn't make you or your society safer.
Of course policemen dying in the line of duty make the news everywhere, but it's such a common occurance in the US and such an uncommon one in Britain and the level of attention and shock that such a murder creates in each society reflects that.
A US police officer being gunned down is a minor news story because it's an everyday event, and because a single police officer or civilian being gunned down is nothing out of the ordinary, which is reflective of the level of violence in US society.
However, a UK police officer being stabbed and killed isn't an everyday event. In fact, it's damn rare for a British policeman to be murdered and very out of the ordinary, and, similarly, this is a reflection of the level of violence in British society.
I'm not saying that Britain is crime-free, only that it's a safer place to live than America despite what many Americans are led to believe.
Perhaps Americans value liberty more than safety. (But then, to the British, perhaps safety is liberty.)
Explain the USA PATRIOT Act in that context then, please.
Last week a police officer was killed (stabbed by a suspect he was chasing) in the line of duty in Birmingham, UK. It was the biggest news story (front page of all papers, lead item on TV news, etc) for 24 hours.
In the US, how many police officers would have to die in a single incident to get that level of blanket news coverage? How many are shot and killed every week?
Yet somehow most Americans buy into the myth that Britain is a more violent society than their own? Ignorance is bliss.
bit of a hot-head, aren't we?
Bit of an idiot who's too dumb to tell when he's lost the argument, aren't we?
You seem to be assuming that those things are illegal everywhere. They're not. Making sure you don't get in trouble for carrying self defense tools is a good idea. Telling people that any offensive weapon is obviously illegal is just trolling.
No, I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply answering the question that's being asked about improving personal security in London.
Why London? Well, the Ask Slashdot question refers to London. In fact, as I personally know the Ask Slashdotter in question (If you're reading this, CGP, hi. I'll see you on Thursday and I'll bring the DVD), I know he's referring to London, UK as opposed to any other London. And, as I know the law of the land, I'm giving specific advice that relates to his situation. Forgive me, but I has assumed that was the whole point of posting an Ask Slashdot question.
It's a fact that possession of an offensive weapon (eg, a knife) without a legitimate reason for possession (eg, you've just bought it, or you're a chef carrying your tools from A to B) is a criminal offense in the UK. You may not have known that but now you do.
So, although you may believe that "telling people that any offensive weapon is obviously illegal is just trolling", in this case, it isn't "just trolling", it's just answering the damn question.
Now, Mr. I-Think-I-Know-It-All-But-Actually-I-Don't AC, go waste your time bugging someone else.
You have every right to defend yourself against a mugger in Britain. As long as you use no more force than is necessary then the law is on your side.
If someone tries to rob you then you have the right to protect yourself and apprehend them. What you don't have the right to do is kick the shit out of them because they tried to rob you.
There's a world of difference between having no right to defend yourself and not having the right to use a mugging attempt as a reason to do an American History X on someone.
Hey, great idea! Once you're in custody, in the back of a police car, after you've been arrested for carrying an offensive weapon your chances of being mugged drop dramatically!
Seriously, carrying a concealed weapon that could get you a criminal record and a nice custodial sentence of your own is not the way to avoid trouble.
Sorry, but you are either a troll, a racist or an ignorant fool.
1. It's OK for an "American Joe Blow" (I assume you mean someone with white skin) to mess around with a soldering-iron but someone from "Middle-Eastern ethnic group" (or anyone with brown skin) isn't allowed to do the same without being harrassed or treated like a criminal by law enforcement figures?
Someone who's a "native American" treated this way has a right to be angry? What, and someone with who's not a "native American" (or, from what you've written, is an "American Indian") has no right to be angry at all if their privacy is abused and they're harrassed in this manner?
2. Do you realise that not all terrorists have brown skin? Did the Unabomber have brown skin? Did Timothy McVeigh?
More importantly, do you realise that not all people with brown skin are terrorists? Or to assume something of someone, or to treat someone differently, solely because of the colour of their skin is racist? Do you realise that such behaviour is, by definition, against the Constitution of the United States?
Seriously, opinions like the one that you've just voiced (that it's OK to treat someone differently because of the colour of their skin, their ethnicity or their nationality) are the reason why terrorism exist in the first place. Bigotry breeds fear, fear breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence.
You'll eat better, more healthy and more tasty food plus you'll acquire a social skill that might - note: might - help you get and hold onto a girlfriend.
I've yet to meet a woman who's impressed by a man who can work a microwave. However, women do go for a guy who really can cook.
Virtually all professional news photographers use digital cameras. Being able to use a laptop and a mobile phone to create and send instant contact sheets to show your editor which photos he has to pick from is far more convenient than heading for the nearest development lab.
I think you'll find that most pros (at least most of those who have to worry about things like deadlines) have embraced digital photography, and for reasons beyond picture quality. That's not to say that picture quality is an issue with the high-end cameras that these guys are using, only to reiterate that it's the convenience and flexibility that going digital affords them that are the overwhelming reasons why most pros have abandoned film cameras.
As an Opera user, I have to say I'm impressed. I know that it's the best browser out there, but I didn't know so many others did too.
My apologies if I mislabelled Prince of Egypt as being a Disney movie if it isn't.
My point stands though: apart from The Lion King, Disney's done nothing noteworthy animation-wise for some considerable time.
Yes, movies are a "hits" business but care to name some non-Pixar animations that Disney has released recently?
I can think of one non-Pixar animation that's been a hit for Disney in recent years - The Lion King - and plenty of turkeys that barely made back their money (if that) - Prince of Egypt, etc.
And that one hit is a movie that's almost a decade old: clearly, Disney's in-house animation team isn't scoring touchdowns of the Snow White, The Jungle Book or Bambi variety, so what makes you think that they'll do anything but fumble the ball when it's handed to them once the deal with Pixar is finished?
Pixar's talent and ability is established. It's star is in the ascendency. Disney's 2D animation talent and ability hasn't been able to compete. It's star is in the descendency. Disney's 3D talent and ability (if it has any) is unproven. So what makes you think that Disney is the one that stands to gain more than it looses from the split?
At least the one company that truly stands for browser innovation will have some more cash to spend on product development. Pity it's just a drop in the ocean to Microsoft though.
It's his right to say what he wants... but it's not his right to lie or to distort the truth with the intention of deceiving his audience.
Which many believe is exactly what he does.
Just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice...
Well the a 5m parachute deployment because of faulty programming, or any other software error, is easily checked by going over the code.
But, yes, your basic point is correct: Beagle 2, which only came about because of the sheer will and determination of a handful of dedicated individuals, and on a shoestring budget, was in space exploration terms a last minute afterthought. As such, it didn't have the time or budget for being test and retested several times before the mission launch date.
Which is a more popular topic in a bar (or anywhere, really), the search for the Higgs Boson, or 'Who will win the league'?
When it's his turn to buy the drinks, the search for Higgs Boson wins hands down.
Step 1: Patent generic idea
Step 2: Wait a few years for people to adopt it
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!!
You do realise that I patented this "Step 1... Step x: Profit!" formula years ago, don't you?
Any day now I'm going to announce my patent licensing scheme to the world and Slashdot, crippled by the potential fees, is going to capitulate and become my biatch.
So, say goodbye to the reign of Taco and hello to the reign of WIAK! The King is dead: long live the King!
And lets not forget the obvious - IE6 is always going to be bad for this. Mozilla gets updated each and every day and has a regular release schedule.
Let's get one thing straight: this sort of browser hijacking isn't aimed at defeating technically-minded people like you or I, it's aimed at non-technical users, such as friends and relatives we might have encouraged to switch away from Microsoft Internet Explorer, or people who've installed Mozilla Firefox from a magazine cover disc, etc.
For the most part, these non-technical users aren't going to be actively updating their software on a regular basis. They're not going to be looking out for potential security risks and their solutions because they thought that they were leaving all that behind when they switched over from MSIE. In all probability, many if not most of these users won't even know that they've been hijacked if and when that happens.
To suggest that browser hijacking doesn't have the potential to be a major problem for Mozilla users is rather short-sighted. Being dismissive about it is like adopting a "head in the sand" security policy, and no better than a "security through obscurity" one.