Depends on the state. Some states allow violence to stop felonies in progress, and attempted murder is certainly a felony.
It also seems quite possible that someone attempting murder using a car bomb is likely to attempt to murder any witnesses. Especially if that witness is their intended target.
What happens if you turn your phone off for the theatre, etc? Still a text?
In such cases the network typically sends such a text when the handset is unreachable. Switching it off sends a signal which tells the network it is unreachable so that it dosn't need to bother trying to find it if a call comes in. If the handset has not sent such a signal (e.g. battery removed or something blocking the signal) the network is going to take various steps to try and find it first.
This is speech to text, which is actually harder than text to speech. One tricky problem is recognising every possible dialect/accent of every possible language. Even just just in California you will probably come unstuck if you only handle North American versions of English and Spanish.
According to the article, the last time they tightened gun laws in Germany was in 2002 in response to a guy killing 16 people. So... that's what, 31 people in 7 years? About 4.5 a year? Statistically, you're more likely to win the lottery than be shot by a crazed gunman. Or be struck by lightning. Hell, you take a bigger risk just crossing the street.
5 people a year would probably be well behind "freak accidents" in a small country. Never mind one with a population of 80 odd million.
This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public.
You also see this with other minor risks such as terrorism. With the latest being swine flu...
Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve?
These are politicians, those in Germany are unlikely to behave very differently from those elsewhere in the world.
It saddens me to see how they are going after everything but the cause of it.
Probably because doing this would not be simple and/or be mutually exclusive with some policy or other.
Banning paintballing isn't going to solve a thing, stuff like this is still going to happen. Next thing you know they are going to try and ban all FPS games over there.
Or "laser tag" type games, even water pistols.
Get to the root of the problem, not something they "think" is the cause.
Something that they really need to remember is that murder is murder regardless of the weapon being used. What's to say that in the absence of a gun this criminal wouldn't have used a bomb, knife, axe, car, club, rock, etc, etc as a weapon?
Excuse me but, don't goats emit carbon in the form of CO2 just by breathing - and methane by farting?
None of which is "fossil carbon". They also make rather less noise than the average lawn mower (especially those with 2 stroke engines) and don't require constant human supervision. I've yet to see a lawn mower which can produce milk, meat and leather too:)
The point is that by using minor obfuscation terrorists can evade all the pervasive surveillance there is,
Assuming that these terrorists are using the same telecommunication systems as random members of the public.
while that same surveillance will pick up anything spoken in innocence by people not using such minor obfuscation.
There are two effects at work here. The first that actual terrorists are so rare that any "hit" would be virtually certain to be a false positive. The other is that someone acting a role can come across as more convincing than someone who actually is whatever. This being a technique employed by con artists.
In other words, it's proof that pervasive surveillance is *not* a technique for catching terrorists, which leads to the obvious question - what is it a technique for doing?
Also consider the historical behaviour of the sorts of people who tend to wind up in charge of surveillance...
The good-quality pirate copies aren't camcorded: they're copies of the DVDs sent to reviewers, or professionally recorded in the projection-rooms of the theaters they're playing in.
Or leaked from someone inside the production process...
One story people working in Manhattan remember all too well is how lightly the evacuation was taken when the WTC fell. When the first tower was struck, people in the second tower were told to stay put.
It's one thing to be nervous when a plane flies by. It's entirely another thing to evacuate multiple buildings when a plane flies by.
AFAIK no buildings were evacuated over Cactus 1549. It isn't that irrational for people to leave tall buildings when a plane is flying in a strange way, especially in a part of the world where wide bodied jet airliners have been used as improvised cruise missiles.
We are a nation of overreactors. When we see a bag someone has left on a bench, we have to evacuate 4 square miles and call in the bomb squad.
If there is a history of people leaving bombs on benches and what's left looks not unlike an actual bomb you'd probably expect most people to leave the area.
The point is that the police are judge, jury and executioner in such matters. It may not be illegal to photograph them, but they'll seize your camera anyway, and arrest you if you protest. Getting a ruling 6 months later that they acted illegally is no consolation for the bruises.
Especially given that this "ruling" is unlikely to result in the police officer concerned facing charges for "assault", "theft", "criminal damage", "false imprisonment", etc. Never mind whatever it was they might have been doing that they didn't want to have been recorded doing in the first place.
It's recently been made illegal to photograph the police in the UK because the pictures might be useful to terrorists - it doesn't matter if you intend to use such pictures for terrorism, only that a terrorist might possibly want to have one of the pictures.
It probably dosn't matter even if there is no real (as opposed to fictional) terrorist who would want it. Of course law breaking police officers most likely regard any witnesses as "terrorists".
I think we need a modern version of the Monty Pythons to ridicule the government paranoia and the cop-o-cracy that is invading our lives everyday and without notice.
Instead what we get are real police trying to act like extras from the "Keystone Cops".
Jacqui 'Jackboots' Smith is definitely a Nazi. This moron is one of the most stupid, ignorant, and illiberal people ever to assume power in the UK (with a feeble minority, it has to be said)
IMHO she is in no way a "moron". She's actually a clever (and highly sucessful) con artist. Something which undoubtedly helped her to become an MP in the first place... A stupid person just couldn't fiddle their "expenses" they way she has managed either.
Has all of their "big brother" work been effective though?
Depends who's definition of "effective" you want to use.
If people who wish to argue against these measures want to prevent or change where things are going, perhaps a new argument is in order. "It won't work" and "it doesn't work!"
More specifically "Doing this isn't going to stop criminals and terrorists. At best it is an entirely pointless exercise. However in the real world it's more likely to help these kinds of people".
But in the most incompetent way possible. Letting the ISP's store the data? So you're telling me that tracking the communications of the worlds most dangerous terrorists is so incredibly important that it can potentially be left in the hands of a 20 year old intern charged with swapping the backups tapes? Hyperbole of course, but come on, if you (the UK gov) aren't storing the data, do you really know it will be available when you need it?
What's to say that the "20 year old intern" wouldn't be just as involved if "government" were handling such a database. Especially since it would probably just be outsourced to some contractor... Also a government's definition of "dangerous terrorist" and that of the average member of the public probably arn't the same in the first place.
When will governments figure out that pushing big brother tactics on their constituents doesnt help them find the badguys
Generally the people who make up governments are not interested in finding "bad guys". Especially since many cases all they need do is look in the mirror...
in fact all it does is make the law abiding masses paranoid and pushes the ones they are after further underground into darknets, and other more nefarious methods.
Including joining the police force/security services/etc.
Lest anything I say be construed as some sort of gladness... let me be clear... I'm not "happy" this young lady is dead, nor do I take any special "joy" from pointing a finger at the responsible parties... the adults... the parents... I'm just joining in the discussion to say they have nobody to sue but themselves. If I could wish that girl alive I would.
To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.
Or even the two people concerned...
Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.
None of this young woman's stupidity in any way excuses that of what are (or at least should be) highly trained professionals.
Live Performances however might be worth something.
It most evidently is valued when tickets can sell out within hours of going on sale...
The same applies to all forms of entertainment that can be digitalized, copies aren't worth anything and people are waking up to that fact. Find another way to make money then to peddle worthless copies.
They may have other values. Such as making people aware of a singer, actor, musical, etc. e.g. How many people would have paid to see actor David Tennant playing Hamlet if that had been his very first acting role?
Actually, that's exactly the way it works for me. I don't get "residuals" on the work I do. The second I stop working, I stop getting paid too,
If you stop working then anything your employer still owes you is a finite amount (except for possible court fees and interest if they fail to pay you promptly).
I don't continue receiving money for my work for the rest of my life, despite the fact that it will still be benefitting my employer.
Also the amount they paid you is whatever was agreed at the time, regardless of the "value" of your work over the next half century or so.
Removing copyright would simply level the playing field. Ideas aren't inherently scarce. If you can make money off selling them, or performing certain types of them, or coming up with them for people who enjoy your work, good on you. (People do sell bottled water, and water, at least in the US, is not inherently scarce and is effectively free, so it can work). If not, go find something else to do, and get paid in the same way on the same terms all the rest of us do. Quit whining that you have a "right" to a profit from doing anything at all.
Even in the entertainments industry you will find that many people are paid in the "normal way". i.e. they paid X amount of money for doing Y hours of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the state. Some states allow violence to stop felonies in progress, and attempted murder is certainly a felony.
It also seems quite possible that someone attempting murder using a car bomb is likely to attempt to murder any witnesses. Especially if that witness is their intended target.
I'm guessing there's laws against private citizens attaching random item X to other person's property Y.
But probably not laws against owners/employers attaching items to their property.
What happens if you turn your phone off for the theatre, etc? Still a text?
In such cases the network typically sends such a text when the handset is unreachable. Switching it off sends a signal which tells the network it is unreachable so that it dosn't need to bother trying to find it if a call comes in. If the handset has not sent such a signal (e.g. battery removed or something blocking the signal) the network is going to take various steps to try and find it first.
Text to speech isn't anywhere near 100% yet.
This is speech to text, which is actually harder than text to speech. One tricky problem is recognising every possible dialect/accent of every possible language. Even just just in California you will probably come unstuck if you only handle North American versions of English and Spanish.
You're right, what you can't do is resell an OEM copy by itself.
Depends where you are. In Germany you can, since a court ruled that "retail"/"OEM" distinctions have no basis in law.
According to the article, the last time they tightened gun laws in Germany was in 2002 in response to a guy killing 16 people. So... that's what, 31 people in 7 years? About 4.5 a year? Statistically, you're more likely to win the lottery than be shot by a crazed gunman. Or be struck by lightning. Hell, you take a bigger risk just crossing the street.
5 people a year would probably be well behind "freak accidents" in a small country. Never mind one with a population of 80 odd million.
This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public.
You also see this with other minor risks such as terrorism. With the latest being swine flu...
Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve?
These are politicians, those in Germany are unlikely to behave very differently from those elsewhere in the world.
It saddens me to see how they are going after everything but the cause of it.
Probably because doing this would not be simple and/or be mutually exclusive with some policy or other.
Banning paintballing isn't going to solve a thing, stuff like this is still going to happen. Next thing you know they are going to try and ban all FPS games over there.
Or "laser tag" type games, even water pistols.
Get to the root of the problem, not something they "think" is the cause.
Something that they really need to remember is that murder is murder regardless of the weapon being used. What's to say that in the absence of a gun this criminal wouldn't have used a bomb, knife, axe, car, club, rock, etc, etc as a weapon?
Excuse me but, don't goats emit carbon in the form of CO2 just by breathing - and methane by farting?
:)
None of which is "fossil carbon". They also make rather less noise than the average lawn mower (especially those with 2 stroke engines) and don't require constant human supervision. I've yet to see a lawn mower which can produce milk, meat and leather too
The point is that by using minor obfuscation terrorists can evade all the pervasive surveillance there is,
Assuming that these terrorists are using the same telecommunication systems as random members of the public.
while that same surveillance will pick up anything spoken in innocence by people not using such minor obfuscation.
There are two effects at work here. The first that actual terrorists are so rare that any "hit" would be virtually certain to be a false positive. The other is that someone acting a role can come across as more convincing than someone who actually is whatever. This being a technique employed by con artists.
In other words, it's proof that pervasive surveillance is *not* a technique for catching terrorists, which leads to the obvious question - what is it a technique for doing?
Also consider the historical behaviour of the sorts of people who tend to wind up in charge of surveillance...
The good-quality pirate copies aren't camcorded: they're copies of the DVDs sent to reviewers, or professionally recorded in the projection-rooms of the theaters they're playing in.
Or leaked from someone inside the production process...
One story people working in Manhattan remember all too well is how lightly the evacuation was taken when the WTC fell. When the first tower was struck, people in the second tower were told to stay put.
Even to return to their offices.
It's one thing to be nervous when a plane flies by. It's entirely another thing to evacuate multiple buildings when a plane flies by.
AFAIK no buildings were evacuated over Cactus 1549.
It isn't that irrational for people to leave tall buildings when a plane is flying in a strange way, especially in a part of the world where wide bodied jet airliners have been used as improvised cruise missiles.
We are a nation of overreactors. When we see a bag someone has left on a bench, we have to evacuate 4 square miles and call in the bomb squad.
If there is a history of people leaving bombs on benches and what's left looks not unlike an actual bomb you'd probably expect most people to leave the area.
The point is that the police are judge, jury and executioner in such matters. It may not be illegal to photograph them, but they'll seize your camera anyway, and arrest you if you protest. Getting a ruling 6 months later that they acted illegally is no consolation for the bruises.
Especially given that this "ruling" is unlikely to result in the police officer concerned facing charges for "assault", "theft", "criminal damage", "false imprisonment", etc. Never mind whatever it was they might have been doing that they didn't want to have been recorded doing in the first place.
It's recently been made illegal to photograph the police in the UK because the pictures might be useful to terrorists - it doesn't matter if you intend to use such pictures for terrorism, only that a terrorist might possibly want to have one of the pictures.
It probably dosn't matter even if there is no real (as opposed to fictional) terrorist who would want it. Of course law breaking police officers most likely regard any witnesses as "terrorists".
I think we need a modern version of the Monty Pythons to ridicule the government paranoia and the cop-o-cracy that is invading our lives everyday and without notice.
Instead what we get are real police trying to act like extras from the "Keystone Cops".
Jacqui 'Jackboots' Smith is definitely a Nazi. This moron is one of the most stupid, ignorant, and illiberal people ever to assume power in the UK (with a feeble minority, it has to be said)
IMHO she is in no way a "moron". She's actually a clever (and highly sucessful) con artist. Something which undoubtedly helped her to become an MP in the first place... A stupid person just couldn't fiddle their "expenses" they way she has managed either.
Has all of their "big brother" work been effective though?
Depends who's definition of "effective" you want to use.
If people who wish to argue against these measures want to prevent or change where things are going, perhaps a new argument is in order. "It won't work" and "it doesn't work!"
More specifically "Doing this isn't going to stop criminals and terrorists. At best it is an entirely pointless exercise. However in the real world it's more likely to help these kinds of people".
Then how does the Labour party stay in power??
This is New Labour who got into power in the first place by being more "Tory" than the Conservative party.
But in the most incompetent way possible. Letting the ISP's store the data? So you're telling me that tracking the communications of the worlds most dangerous terrorists is so incredibly important that it can potentially be left in the hands of a 20 year old intern charged with swapping the backups tapes? Hyperbole of course, but come on, if you (the UK gov) aren't storing the data, do you really know it will be available when you need it?
What's to say that the "20 year old intern" wouldn't be just as involved if "government" were handling such a database. Especially since it would probably just be outsourced to some contractor...
Also a government's definition of "dangerous terrorist" and that of the average member of the public probably arn't the same in the first place.
Organized Criminals and terrorists will just start using payphones and traditional mail (post).
Assuming they are not doing so already. As well as other "low tech" methods of communication.
When will governments figure out that pushing big brother tactics on their constituents doesnt help them find the badguys
Generally the people who make up governments are not interested in finding "bad guys". Especially since many cases all they need do is look in the mirror...
in fact all it does is make the law abiding masses paranoid and pushes the ones they are after further underground into darknets, and other more nefarious methods.
Including joining the police force/security services/etc.
Lest anything I say be construed as some sort of gladness... let me be clear... I'm not "happy" this young lady is dead, nor do I take any special "joy" from pointing a finger at the responsible parties... the adults... the parents... I'm just joining in the discussion to say they have nobody to sue but themselves. If I could wish that girl alive I would.
Are 18 year olds not "adults" in California?
To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.
Or even the two people concerned...
Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.
None of this young woman's stupidity in any way excuses that of what are (or at least should be) highly trained professionals.
Live Performances however might be worth something.
It most evidently is valued when tickets can sell out within hours of going on sale...
The same applies to all forms of entertainment that can be digitalized, copies aren't worth anything and people are waking up to that fact. Find another way to make money then to peddle worthless copies.
They may have other values. Such as making people aware of a singer, actor, musical, etc. e.g. How many people would have paid to see actor David Tennant playing Hamlet if that had been his very first acting role?
Actually, that's exactly the way it works for me. I don't get "residuals" on the work I do. The second I stop working, I stop getting paid too,
If you stop working then anything your employer still owes you is a finite amount (except for possible court fees and interest if they fail to pay you promptly).
I don't continue receiving money for my work for the rest of my life, despite the fact that it will still be benefitting my employer.
Also the amount they paid you is whatever was agreed at the time, regardless of the "value" of your work over the next half century or so.
Removing copyright would simply level the playing field. Ideas aren't inherently scarce. If you can make money off selling them, or performing certain types of them, or coming up with them for people who enjoy your work, good on you. (People do sell bottled water, and water, at least in the US, is not inherently scarce and is effectively free, so it can work). If not, go find something else to do, and get paid in the same way on the same terms all the rest of us do. Quit whining that you have a "right" to a profit from doing anything at all.
Even in the entertainments industry you will find that many people are paid in the "normal way". i.e. they paid X amount of money for doing Y hours of work.