And he could have taken it to trial and: 1) Perhaps won the case, and spent zero time in jail; 2) Perhaps lost, and gotten the 6-month sentence recommended by prosecutors; 3) Perhaps lost, and gotten MORE than that time, up to and including 35 years;
That's not justice. If six months is an acceptable punishment, why is 35 years even on the table? Those are pretty big stakes to be gambling on.
Even if you are innocent and know you're innocent, would you gamble on a trial going wrong and you being in prison for the bulk of your life (just for having the audacity to ask for a trial)? The prosecutors were continuously telling him that they has his ass nailed. How does that capricious and malevolent system in any way represent justice?
I just wanted to point out that this is an opinion, just like a conspiracy investigation would be based on an opinion. We simply don't know, and neither opinion can be turned into fact without investigating and fact finding.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, investigating and fact finding are options that I fear we'll never get. Sometimes, I think your bleaker assessment of the situation is likely to be the truth. Maybe I'm just trying to keep my cynicism in check by thinking up less horrible explanations.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that Google doesn't mine its users' mail for advertising purposes? I use Gmail and it's pretty clear that my email content affects the Adsense ads I get elsewhere.
Microsoft may be worthless scumbags, but that doesn't make Google an angel. Likewise, pointing out the creepy aspects of Google doesn't make someone a Microsoft shill. FFS, it's like the Republican-Democrat team rally garbage in here.
A beautiful idea for an ideal world. What would actually happen is that any drug that the government-run program found that looked promising would be passed (though some wandwavingly bullshit justification) to the private companies to be sold to the public. Any drugs that didn't pan out would be retained by the government program. We'd just end up with a further refinement of the current system where now all of the expensive R&D work is payed for by the tax payers and all of the benefit goes to the rent-seeking drug companies.
If you served in the military, you should know that you trained with FMJ rounds because they were your duty round. As per the Hague Convention of 1899, expanding or fragmenting bullets are not allowed for military use. If you deployed, you'd notice that you were only issued FMJ then, as well. You are right that not training with AP was likely a matter of cost, as was the HE.
Personally, I think it all comes down to an utter disregard for taxpayer money. It's like play money to them and if buying way more ammo than they need fills out their budget, then so be it. They'll likely dump it in a few years when they get sick of warehousing it and then repeat the order a few years after that. I hope I'm wrong, but these agencies bumble every step of the way. It's hard to believe they can pull off anything malicious of this scale without screwing it up.
While I would guess that most Americans have no idea what 'mens rea' is, they should all understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Mens rea isn't innocent until proven guilty, it's criminal intent. Older laws required mens rea to convict, but many (most?) new laws are written with strict liability so that mens rea is no longer required. With regard to strict liability laws, it doesn't matter if you meant to break the law or even knew you were breaking it.
Speaking of which, the DHS this year purchased 1.2 billion hollow point bullets (add in other Government agencies and you have over 2 billion rounds of killing bullets, not target bullets).
Law enforcement, who have no real limit on funding and whose lives are likely to depend on predictable function of their firearms, practice with duty ammo. Thus, it makes no sense for DHS (or the police in general) to even buy non-duty ammo. Most of this purchased ammo is for practice and periodic qualification. Not that DHS isn't creepy and all, but this particularly isn't a source of concern.
I live in Washington, I can grow it in my front yard if I want to! Of course then I'd have the neighbor kids stomping through the iris bed, so it has to stay inside.
This is a picture of Colorado. We can grow it in our front lawns here, too!
It really isn't a security issue, because a corporate network will first route to it's internal networks, and only if the destination is not internal will it fall back to the default route to the Internet.
In this day of phones, laptops, and other devices that enter and leave the network, it could be a real security issue, too. Leaving the network with hard-coded IPs for internal bank systems may leave software on the laptop connecting to (or blindly sending data to) the real owners of the IP addresses. Rejoining the network with a screwed up routing table may lead to the same situation from inside the bank network.
For crying out loud. Could a bunch of computer geeks be any worse with consistent terminology??
gmuslera: When you say "public IP", you're talking about using someone else's assigned IP addresses internally with NAT.
LordLimecat was talking about not using NAT and using your own assigned IP addresses internally (securing your network with a firewall).
Reading this discussion, where everyone is using their own definitions for words and nobody is reading anyone else's post for comprehension, is like listening to politics!
Except that skin colour is the most obvious indicators of race. It's not 100% definitive, but it does give a lot of information.
Note: I'm not trying to call you racist, but please note that this, is in fact, a subtle judgement of people on the basis of their skin color. Whether you intended it or not, it's there. It's this kind of thing that PC language is attempting to draw attention to and avoid.
That doesn't even make any sense. Skin color is a great way to describe people and identify individual people that you are unfamiliar with. Using color words to approximate skin color (white, black, etc) carries no judgement at all and is an entirely superficial description. The PC practice of linking skin color to assumed ancestral heritage and reframing the physical description of the person as a cultural identity is what is racist.
(Not all people of African descent have particularly dark skin, but if the American PC definition of black = African American holds, they can't identify with their heritage. Likewise, not all black people want to identify with African heritage (or even come from African ancestry) and assuming that you can link the color of their skin with African heritage is presumptuous. This is where the subtle judgement comes into play. The PC speaker claims to know about the heritage and culturural values of a person based on the color of their skin. The goal of PC doesn't seem to be to avoid racism, but to perpetuate it in a modern, socially acceptable way.)
Threaded barrels are not illegal in any way (federally). The ever popular Walther P22 has a threaded barrel, for instance. Some states have laws about this, though. (For instance, the same tiny plinking gun was (is?) banned in CA because of the threaded barrel.
Did you tell them that you ditched, and why? Because if you've already paid for lifetime upgrades, they may not know that they lost a customer. I guess they screwed you and you don't owe them anything, but letting them know may stop other companies from doing the same in the future.
Let me add one to that list. Personally, I think the writers of focus stealing apps should be dragged out back and shot. Once you've adopted that mindset, there's no redemption. Apple's own apps are increasingly guilty of this and it's driving me crazy. Unfortunately, this was never much better on Linux and Windows has always made focus stealing a defining lifestyle choice.
Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development.
No, it's not. Maybe in your culture it is, but the rest of the world finds it bizarre. Other languages lack the "teen" suffix to the numbers 13-19 so they don't even know what a "teenager" is. Plenty of older children the world round are well-behaved and wish nothing more than to follow in the footsteps of their parents.
That's not necessarily a bad aspect of our culture. Rejecting the prior generation's solution to problems when you're young and learning to synthesize your solutions with theirs when you're a little older is why our culture is so great at invention and innovation.
Some cultures have so much respect for their elders' way of doing things that they continue bizarre rituals and have no idea what they were even supposed to accomplish anymore. The more these cultures emphasize tradition and denigrate rebellion, the less technological and scientific progress seem to come from them.
This obviously doesn't fully explain the differences between our cultures, but there is clearly some value in bucking the system as a teen (especially when it's followed by the "mature" 20's).
The point of traffic light control is to allow cars to move through the system as quickly as possible. This is most easily achieved by forcing them to make as few stops as possible. Of course cars will still have to stop, but ensuring that consecutive intersections can be passed through without stopping keeps the traffic flowing and relieves congestion. There's a whole field of science dedicated to this, it's not like it's a mystery. But forcing everyone to stop at every intersection is clearly not the ideal solution.
That's not perfectly sensible at all. Firstly, you've heard of that law and even you aren't confident what it says. Most people think going over the speed limit involves the risk of getting a ticket. If you expect people to drive at a certain speed, consistently apply that expectation (including speed limits). If you expect people to drive 40 mph, don't tell them you'll punish them if they drive over 35 mph (even if you secretly won't).
Secondly, the lights are timed such that unless you are driving >= 40 mph, you will not make it through consecutive lights. It only takes one (or two, for a two lane street) cars to make everybody behind them have to stop at every light.
I even know the lights on my way to work are timed for 30mph despite the posted limit being 35.
That sounds annoying, but not as bad as where I live. Here, the lights are timed for 40 despite the posted limit being 35. Talk about perverse incentives.
If you didn't see the light turn green, plan for it to go red at anytime and slow down accordingly.
That's bullshit and would seriously screw up the flow of traffic. We already have a system in place to warn of impending red lights: yellow lights. How about we keep using that system?
"It's" vs "its" is grade school English. The GP post may be a troll, but he's got a point. The rules of the English language are shockingly simple and mixing up homophones doesn't make a great case for the intelligence of the writer. I say this as a scientist, not an English major.
I got the impression that in recent years they were more concerned with protecting foolish students from the full rigour of the criminal justice system than persecuting them.
That's my impression of US campus police, too. I'm sure there are anecdotes that contradict this, but in my experience you really have to fuck up for them to get involved. Campus cops always seemed to me the perfect manifestation of police. Super reasonable and helpful, not interested in hassling people just to satisfy their power trip, but on the scene if actual bad stuff was happening.
It is just that some areas are more control freaks, and always want other people to change.
You're talking about the phone book company being control freaks, right? The city was just trying to provide a way for the people who don't use the phone books to stop receiving them. I'm failing to see how the city, or the people who want less garbage delivered to their house, is being unreasonable here.
Nobody was trying to deprive the old folks of their precious yellow pages.
Slashdot Mirror
And he could have taken it to trial and:
1) Perhaps won the case, and spent zero time in jail;
2) Perhaps lost, and gotten the 6-month sentence recommended by prosecutors;
3) Perhaps lost, and gotten MORE than that time, up to and including 35 years;
That's not justice. If six months is an acceptable punishment, why is 35 years even on the table? Those are pretty big stakes to be gambling on.
Even if you are innocent and know you're innocent, would you gamble on a trial going wrong and you being in prison for the bulk of your life (just for having the audacity to ask for a trial)? The prosecutors were continuously telling him that they has his ass nailed. How does that capricious and malevolent system in any way represent justice?
I just wanted to point out that this is an opinion, just like a conspiracy investigation would be based on an opinion. We simply don't know, and neither opinion can be turned into fact without investigating and fact finding.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, investigating and fact finding are options that I fear we'll never get. Sometimes, I think your bleaker assessment of the situation is likely to be the truth. Maybe I'm just trying to keep my cynicism in check by thinking up less horrible explanations.
"Seem" [sic] like?
Grammar nazi fail.
Large amounts of cash seem like a pretty legitimate use for a secret compartment in a car, in many neighborhoods throughout the US.
"Of cash" is a prepositional phrase, so "amounts" is the subject of the verb "seem":
Large amounts seem like a pretty legitimate use...
What does that even mean? Are you saying that Google doesn't mine its users' mail for advertising purposes? I use Gmail and it's pretty clear that my email content affects the Adsense ads I get elsewhere.
Microsoft may be worthless scumbags, but that doesn't make Google an angel. Likewise, pointing out the creepy aspects of Google doesn't make someone a Microsoft shill. FFS, it's like the Republican-Democrat team rally garbage in here.
A beautiful idea for an ideal world. What would actually happen is that any drug that the government-run program found that looked promising would be passed (though some wandwavingly bullshit justification) to the private companies to be sold to the public. Any drugs that didn't pan out would be retained by the government program. We'd just end up with a further refinement of the current system where now all of the expensive R&D work is payed for by the tax payers and all of the benefit goes to the rent-seeking drug companies.
If you served in the military, you should know that you trained with FMJ rounds because they were your duty round. As per the Hague Convention of 1899, expanding or fragmenting bullets are not allowed for military use. If you deployed, you'd notice that you were only issued FMJ then, as well. You are right that not training with AP was likely a matter of cost, as was the HE.
Personally, I think it all comes down to an utter disregard for taxpayer money. It's like play money to them and if buying way more ammo than they need fills out their budget, then so be it. They'll likely dump it in a few years when they get sick of warehousing it and then repeat the order a few years after that. I hope I'm wrong, but these agencies bumble every step of the way. It's hard to believe they can pull off anything malicious of this scale without screwing it up.
While I would guess that most Americans have no idea what 'mens rea' is, they should all understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Mens rea isn't innocent until proven guilty, it's criminal intent. Older laws required mens rea to convict, but many (most?) new laws are written with strict liability so that mens rea is no longer required. With regard to strict liability laws, it doesn't matter if you meant to break the law or even knew you were breaking it.
Speaking of which, the DHS this year purchased 1.2 billion hollow point bullets (add in other Government agencies and you have over 2 billion rounds of killing bullets, not target bullets).
Law enforcement, who have no real limit on funding and whose lives are likely to depend on predictable function of their firearms, practice with duty ammo. Thus, it makes no sense for DHS (or the police in general) to even buy non-duty ammo. Most of this purchased ammo is for practice and periodic qualification. Not that DHS isn't creepy and all, but this particularly isn't a source of concern.
I assume you mean pore through as I cannot figure out how one pours documentation.
The documentation is poor. As you're poring through it, you see all of the gaps in their coverage. It's those gaps that you pour through.
I live in Washington, I can grow it in my front yard if I want to! Of course then I'd have the neighbor kids stomping through the iris bed, so it has to stay inside.
This is a picture of Colorado. We can grow it in our front lawns here, too!
It really isn't a security issue, because a corporate network will first route to it's internal networks, and only if the destination is not internal will it fall back to the default route to the Internet.
In this day of phones, laptops, and other devices that enter and leave the network, it could be a real security issue, too. Leaving the network with hard-coded IPs for internal bank systems may leave software on the laptop connecting to (or blindly sending data to) the real owners of the IP addresses. Rejoining the network with a screwed up routing table may lead to the same situation from inside the bank network.
For crying out loud. Could a bunch of computer geeks be any worse with consistent terminology??
gmuslera: When you say "public IP", you're talking about using someone else's assigned IP addresses internally with NAT.
LordLimecat was talking about not using NAT and using your own assigned IP addresses internally (securing your network with a firewall).
Reading this discussion, where everyone is using their own definitions for words and nobody is reading anyone else's post for comprehension, is like listening to politics!
Except that skin colour is the most obvious indicators of race. It's not 100% definitive, but it does give a lot of information.
Note: I'm not trying to call you racist, but please note that this, is in fact, a subtle judgement of people on the basis of their skin color. Whether you intended it or not, it's there. It's this kind of thing that PC language is attempting to draw attention to and avoid.
That doesn't even make any sense. Skin color is a great way to describe people and identify individual people that you are unfamiliar with. Using color words to approximate skin color (white, black, etc) carries no judgement at all and is an entirely superficial description. The PC practice of linking skin color to assumed ancestral heritage and reframing the physical description of the person as a cultural identity is what is racist.
(Not all people of African descent have particularly dark skin, but if the American PC definition of black = African American holds, they can't identify with their heritage. Likewise, not all black people want to identify with African heritage (or even come from African ancestry) and assuming that you can link the color of their skin with African heritage is presumptuous. This is where the subtle judgement comes into play. The PC speaker claims to know about the heritage and culturural values of a person based on the color of their skin. The goal of PC doesn't seem to be to avoid racism, but to perpetuate it in a modern, socially acceptable way.)
Threaded barrels are not illegal in any way (federally). The ever popular Walther P22 has a threaded barrel, for instance. Some states have laws about this, though. (For instance, the same tiny plinking gun was (is?) banned in CA because of the threaded barrel.
Did you tell them that you ditched, and why? Because if you've already paid for lifetime upgrades, they may not know that they lost a customer. I guess they screwed you and you don't owe them anything, but letting them know may stop other companies from doing the same in the future.
So you shouldn't be able to record your own life because you wouldn't want someone else recording yours?
Non-sequitor much? This conversation is about corporations tracking your every move, not about home videos.
*Focus stealing*
Let me add one to that list. Personally, I think the writers of focus stealing apps should be dragged out back and shot. Once you've adopted that mindset, there's no redemption. Apple's own apps are increasingly guilty of this and it's driving me crazy. Unfortunately, this was never much better on Linux and Windows has always made focus stealing a defining lifestyle choice.
Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development.
No, it's not. Maybe in your culture it is, but the rest of the world finds it bizarre. Other languages lack the "teen" suffix to the numbers 13-19 so they don't even know what a "teenager" is. Plenty of older children the world round are well-behaved and wish nothing more than to follow in the footsteps of their parents.
That's not necessarily a bad aspect of our culture. Rejecting the prior generation's solution to problems when you're young and learning to synthesize your solutions with theirs when you're a little older is why our culture is so great at invention and innovation.
Some cultures have so much respect for their elders' way of doing things that they continue bizarre rituals and have no idea what they were even supposed to accomplish anymore. The more these cultures emphasize tradition and denigrate rebellion, the less technological and scientific progress seem to come from them.
This obviously doesn't fully explain the differences between our cultures, but there is clearly some value in bucking the system as a teen (especially when it's followed by the "mature" 20's).
The point of traffic light control is to allow cars to move through the system as quickly as possible. This is most easily achieved by forcing them to make as few stops as possible. Of course cars will still have to stop, but ensuring that consecutive intersections can be passed through without stopping keeps the traffic flowing and relieves congestion. There's a whole field of science dedicated to this, it's not like it's a mystery. But forcing everyone to stop at every intersection is clearly not the ideal solution.
That's not perfectly sensible at all. Firstly, you've heard of that law and even you aren't confident what it says. Most people think going over the speed limit involves the risk of getting a ticket. If you expect people to drive at a certain speed, consistently apply that expectation (including speed limits). If you expect people to drive 40 mph, don't tell them you'll punish them if they drive over 35 mph (even if you secretly won't).
Secondly, the lights are timed such that unless you are driving >= 40 mph, you will not make it through consecutive lights. It only takes one (or two, for a two lane street) cars to make everybody behind them have to stop at every light.
So it's basically like all other radio-based protocols, but at lower frequencies?
Yup; definitely worthy of a patent.
Except it's sound, not radio.
I even know the lights on my way to work are timed for 30mph despite the posted limit being 35.
That sounds annoying, but not as bad as where I live. Here, the lights are timed for 40 despite the posted limit being 35. Talk about perverse incentives.
If you didn't see the light turn green, plan for it to go red at anytime and slow down accordingly.
That's bullshit and would seriously screw up the flow of traffic. We already have a system in place to warn of impending red lights: yellow lights. How about we keep using that system?
"It's" vs "its" is grade school English. The GP post may be a troll, but he's got a point. The rules of the English language are shockingly simple and mixing up homophones doesn't make a great case for the intelligence of the writer. I say this as a scientist, not an English major.
I got the impression that in recent years they were more concerned with protecting foolish students from the full rigour of the criminal justice system than persecuting them.
That's my impression of US campus police, too. I'm sure there are anecdotes that contradict this, but in my experience you really have to fuck up for them to get involved. Campus cops always seemed to me the perfect manifestation of police. Super reasonable and helpful, not interested in hassling people just to satisfy their power trip, but on the scene if actual bad stuff was happening.
It is just that some areas are more control freaks, and always want other people to change.
You're talking about the phone book company being control freaks, right? The city was just trying to provide a way for the people who don't use the phone books to stop receiving them. I'm failing to see how the city, or the people who want less garbage delivered to their house, is being unreasonable here.
Nobody was trying to deprive the old folks of their precious yellow pages.