I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby For a buck, for a buck If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch You're out of luck, you're out of luck. The ship is sinking The ship is sinking The ship is sinking
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room The poor, the lame, the blind Who are the ones that we kept in charge? Killers, thieves, and lawyers!
God's Away, God's Away God's away on Business. Business. God's Away, God's Away God's away on Business. Business.
Digging up the dead with a shovel and a pick It's a job, it's a job Bloody moon rising with a plague and a flood(6) Join the mob, join the mob It's all over. It's all over. It's all over.
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room The poor, the lame, the blind Who are the ones that we kept in charge? Killers, thieves, and lawyers!
God's Away, God's Away God's away on Business. Business. God's Away, God's Away God's away on Business. Business.
Goddamn there's always such a big temptation To be good, To be good There's always free Cheddar in a mousetrap, baby It's a deal, it's a deal God's away, God's away, God's away On Business. Business.
I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby, Let her ring, let her ring
God's Away, God's Away God's away on Business. Business...
A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said.
So?
The recording has not one goddamn thing to do with A hearing everything B said. It has to do with C,D,E,F,G,AAA,QQ and fucking ZZTop hearing everything B said. They were not who B was privately speaking to.
Sure, A can tell everyone what B said, but it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that if C,D,E,F,G,AAA,QQ and ZZTop want to hear what B said from his own lips, they ought to have been there when he said it.
Whether you agree or not, it's definitely a privacy issue. If you were speaking with your doctor or shrink, would you be okay with them secretly recording you?
The fact that gun ownership is relatively common in the US and yet they still have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world (for a 1st world country at least) pretty much stabs the "everyone having guns makes everyone safer" hypothesis in the heart and burns the corpse.
Don't use grownup words like "hypothesis" when you're making an un-falsifiable statement. You have no easy way to measure how much less safe American people would be if disarmed, save by disarming them; and then, it's too late.
Most people aren't murderers, they aren't prepared to enter into a kill or be killed situation and are far more likely to just enter shock or be taken by surprise.
Most people are exactly as you say. For the rest of us, there's CCW.
By the time the chaos and confusion has died down enough to figure out what is going on and begin some sort of resistance to it, the cops have generally turned up already anyway.
Incorrect. The cops show up in time to stop a violent crime in progress roughly 5% of the time. As in, roll a natural twenty on your Rescued By Cops saving throw, or too fucking bad for you. Also, they're more likely to shoot the wrong person than an armed citizen who's already on the scene (or is the victim of the attack), for the simple reason that people who are already present when shit starts WILL ALWAYS have a better chance at figuring out what's going on than people who show up even a short while later. Look it up.
Worse; if you take that declaration of principle literally, imhassi would be "alright" with a law requiring that children be euthanized prior to school age.
Methinks you need to check your sense of proportion. If you're even paying attention to a single $500k budget item during the current crisis, you might as well be bailing out the Titanic with a soup ladle.
Now it so happened in the days of old Edo, as Tokyo was once called, that the storytellers told marvelous tales of the wit and wisdom of His Honorable Honor, Ooka Tadasuke.
This famous judge never refused to hear a complaint, even if it seemed strange or unreasonable. People sometimes came to his court with the most unusual cases, but Ooka always agreed to listen. And the strangest case of all was the famous Case of the Stolen Smell.
It all began when a poor student rented a room over a tempura shop - a shop where fried food could be bought. The student was a most likeable young man, but the shopkeeper was a miser who suspected everyone of trying to get the better of him. One day he heard the student talking with one of his friends.
"It is sad to be so poor that one can only afford to eat plain rice," the friend complained.
"Oh," said the student, "I have found a very satisfactory answer to the problem. I eat my rice each day while the shopkeeper downstairs fries his fish. The smell comes up, and my humble rice seems to have much more flavor. It is really the smell, you know, that makes things taste so good."
The shopkeeper was furious. To think that someone was enjoying the smell of his fish for nothing! "Thief!" he shouted, "I demand that you pay me for the smells you have stolen."
"A smell is a smell," the young man replied. "Anyone can smell what he wants to. I will pay you nothing!"
Scarlet with rage, the shopkeeper rushed to Ooka's court and charged the student with theft. Of course, everyone laughed at him, for how could anyone steal a smell? Ooka would surely send the man about his business. But to everyone's astonishment, the judge agreed to hear the case.
"Every man is entitled to his hour in court," he explained. "If this man feels strongly enough about his smell to make a complaint, it is only right that I, as city magistrate, should hear the case." He frowned at the amused spectators.
Gravely, Ooka sat on the dais and heard the evidence. Then he delivered his verdict.
"The student is obviously guilty," he said severely. "Taking another person's property is theft, and I cannot see that a smell is different from any other property."
The shopkeeper was delighted, but the student was horrified. He was very poor, and he owed the shopkeeper for three month's smelling. He would surely be thrown into prison.
"How much money have you?," Ooka asked him.
"Only five mon, Honorable Honor," the boy replied. "I need that to pay my rent, or I will be thrown out into the street."
"Let me see the money," said the judge.
The young man held out his hand. Ooka nodded and told him to drop the coins from one hand to the other.
The judge listened to the pleasant clink of the money and said to the shopkeeper, "You have now been paid. If you have any other complaints in the future, please bring them to the court. It is our wish that all injustices be punished and all virtue rewarded.
"But most Honorable Honor," the shopkeeper protested, "I did not get the money! The thief dropped it from one hand to the other. See! I have nothing." He held up his empty hands to show the judge.
Ooka stared at him gravely. "It is the court's judgement that the punishment should fit the crime. I have decided that the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money. Justice has prevailed as usual in my court."
You don't think a pharmaceutical would love to become commonly known as X Corp., inventors of the cure for skin cancer?
If they could become known as that without actually doing it they would, right? Every single pharmaceutical company. Go on, try and tell me with a straight face that they wouldn't.
"Possession of an Offensive Weapon Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold, 24.106a)
The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use". The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (24-115 Archbold).
Lord Lane, CJ. in R v Simpson (C), (78 Cr.App.R.115), identified three categories of offensive weapons:
those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988; those adapted for such a purpose; those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person. In the first two categories, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse."
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS ANY WEAPON IN THE UK. If you pick up any object and use it to intentionally injure someone, you are guilty of carrying an Offensive Weapon. If questioned by police, and you indicate that under dire circumstances you MIGHT intentionally injure someone with it, you can be arrested. This has happened.
Since you made this post, if you ever carry "Cricket bats, hatchets, baseball bats, kitchen knives, cast iron saucepans, large dogs, stout wooden sticks, spades, iron bars, pickaxes, metal chairs and many other things" in the UK, you are immediately guilty of this offence, as you have stated intent to use them to cause injury.
Sure, you'll probably never actually run afoul of this, because they probably won't be able to trace this Slashdot post to your physical person. And to be fair, a lot of people with legit reasons to carry tools have been arrested but subsequently released with (or without) great apology from police and/or judges. But don't kid yourself about your ability to legally go armed in the UK...
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms" - Alan Greenspan
Sure, it may end up like that for a while, but then some upstart company will launch a line of un-walled, de-locked tablets with all sorts of nifty peripheral and configuration options, using a commercial where some hot transhumanist babe throws a sledgehammer through a giant screen showing Steve Jobs's face...
Osgeld, everything you type here makes it appear that the IT guy takes forever to do stuff for you because, in between his meetings and paperwork, he's busy helping other people in the company who aren't gigantic suppurating assholes.
I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that's the case you're doing everything you can to hard-sell to the reader.
I don't know why everyone is complaining this much. I never had a single problem with their DRM.
You want OTHER PEOPLE to stop complaining because YOU'VE never had a problem?
Oh and to those saying that removing DRM will stop piracy...
Which would be... nobody?
People aren't saying that removing DRM will stop piracy. People are saying that removing DRM will encourage sales. Because people hate intrusive DRM on games they buy. You dumbshit.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: you've never had a problem, so no one else has either...
A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so exponentially more awesome stuff can be achieved with the same proportion of people being harmed in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
And then it hit New Jersey at dead-low tide during a new moon - one couldn't get any luckier than that.
Because moon phases and tides are notoriously hard to predict.
I... wait, what?!
I don't even ...
You are seriously suggesting that the hurricane touched land during low tide because humans are good at predicting tide schedules?
Apparently, someone with reading comprehension issues and all the poetry of soul that a thermal label printer might possess disagrees with you...
...but every verse sounds weirdly relevant.
-------------------
I'd sell your heart to the junkman baby
For a buck, for a buck
If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch
You're out of luck, you're out of luck.
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
The ship is sinking
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers!
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
Digging up the dead with a shovel and a pick
It's a job, it's a job
Bloody moon rising with a plague and a flood(6)
Join the mob, join the mob
It's all over.
It's all over.
It's all over.
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers!
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business.
Goddamn there's always such a big temptation
To be good, To be good
There's always free Cheddar in a mousetrap, baby
It's a deal, it's a deal
God's away, God's away, God's away On Business.
Business.
I narrow my eyes like a coin slot baby,
Let her ring, let her ring
God's Away, God's Away
God's away on Business.
Business...
MOD. UP.
(Also, I'm totally stealing this and posting it in other places).
A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said.
So?
The recording has not one goddamn thing to do with A hearing everything B said. It has to do with C,D,E,F,G,AAA,QQ and fucking ZZTop hearing everything B said. They were not who B was privately speaking to.
Sure, A can tell everyone what B said, but it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that if C,D,E,F,G,AAA,QQ and ZZTop want to hear what B said from his own lips, they ought to have been there when he said it.
Whether you agree or not, it's definitely a privacy issue. If you were speaking with your doctor or shrink, would you be okay with them secretly recording you?
The fact that gun ownership is relatively common in the US and yet they still have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world (for a 1st world country at least) pretty much stabs the "everyone having guns makes everyone safer" hypothesis in the heart and burns the corpse.
Don't use grownup words like "hypothesis" when you're making an un-falsifiable statement. You have no easy way to measure how much less safe American people would be if disarmed, save by disarming them; and then, it's too late.
Most people aren't murderers, they aren't prepared to enter into a kill or be killed situation and are far more likely to just enter shock or be taken by surprise.
Most people are exactly as you say. For the rest of us, there's CCW.
By the time the chaos and confusion has died down enough to figure out what is going on and begin some sort of resistance to it, the cops have generally turned up already anyway.
Incorrect. The cops show up in time to stop a violent crime in progress roughly 5% of the time. As in, roll a natural twenty on your Rescued By Cops saving throw, or too fucking bad for you. Also, they're more likely to shoot the wrong person than an armed citizen who's already on the scene (or is the victim of the attack), for the simple reason that people who are already present when shit starts WILL ALWAYS have a better chance at figuring out what's going on than people who show up even a short while later. Look it up.
replace "White Sox" with your favorite team that plays a real sport based on physical prowess.
Man, way to dis the White Sox. Those guys work hard, no need to be like that.
Probably more like they very non-specifically stop getting paid if they happen not to...
Worse; if you take that declaration of principle literally, imhassi would be "alright" with a law requiring that children be euthanized prior to school age.
Methinks you need to check your sense of proportion. If you're even paying attention to a single $500k budget item during the current crisis, you might as well be bailing out the Titanic with a soup ladle.
"I owe the credit card company twelve thousand dollars, why don't I skip breakfast today?"
Now it so happened in the days of old Edo, as Tokyo was once called, that the storytellers told marvelous tales of the wit and wisdom of His Honorable Honor, Ooka Tadasuke.
This famous judge never refused to hear a complaint, even if it seemed strange or unreasonable. People sometimes came to his court with the most unusual cases, but Ooka always agreed to listen. And the strangest case of all was the famous Case of the Stolen Smell.
It all began when a poor student rented a room over a tempura shop - a shop where fried food could be bought. The student was a most likeable young man, but the shopkeeper was a miser who suspected everyone of trying to get the better of him. One day he heard the student talking with one of his friends.
"It is sad to be so poor that one can only afford to eat plain rice," the friend complained.
"Oh," said the student, "I have found a very satisfactory answer to the problem. I eat my rice each day while the shopkeeper downstairs fries his fish. The smell comes up, and my humble rice seems to have much more flavor. It is really the smell, you know, that makes things taste so good."
The shopkeeper was furious. To think that someone was enjoying the smell of his fish for nothing! "Thief!" he shouted, "I demand that you pay me for the smells you have stolen."
"A smell is a smell," the young man replied. "Anyone can smell what he wants to. I will pay you nothing!"
Scarlet with rage, the shopkeeper rushed to Ooka's court and charged the student with theft. Of course, everyone laughed at him, for how could anyone steal a smell? Ooka would surely send the man about his business. But to everyone's astonishment, the judge agreed to hear the case.
"Every man is entitled to his hour in court," he explained. "If this man feels strongly enough about his smell to make a complaint, it is only right that I, as city magistrate, should hear the case." He frowned at the amused spectators.
Gravely, Ooka sat on the dais and heard the evidence. Then he delivered his verdict.
"The student is obviously guilty," he said severely. "Taking another person's property is theft, and I cannot see that a smell is different from any other property."
The shopkeeper was delighted, but the student was horrified. He was very poor, and he owed the shopkeeper for three month's smelling. He would surely be thrown into prison.
"How much money have you?," Ooka asked him.
"Only five mon, Honorable Honor," the boy replied. "I need that to pay my rent, or I will be thrown out into the street."
"Let me see the money," said the judge.
The young man held out his hand. Ooka nodded and told him to drop the coins from one hand to the other.
The judge listened to the pleasant clink of the money and said to the shopkeeper, "You have now been paid. If you have any other complaints in the future, please bring them to the court. It is our wish that all injustices be punished and all virtue rewarded.
"But most Honorable Honor," the shopkeeper protested, "I did not get the money! The thief dropped it from one hand to the other. See! I have nothing." He held up his empty hands to show the judge.
Ooka stared at him gravely. "It is the court's judgement that the punishment should fit the crime. I have decided that the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money. Justice has prevailed as usual in my court."
You don't think a pharmaceutical would love to become commonly known as X Corp., inventors of the cure for skin cancer?
If they could become known as that without actually doing it they would, right? Every single pharmaceutical company. Go on, try and tell me with a straight face that they wouldn't.
"Possession of an Offensive Weapon
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold, 24.106a)
The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use". The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (24-115 Archbold).
Lord Lane, CJ. in R v Simpson (C), (78 Cr.App.R.115), identified three categories of offensive weapons:
those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988;
those adapted for such a purpose;
those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
In the first two categories, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse."
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POSSESS ANY WEAPON IN THE UK. If you pick up any object and use it to intentionally injure someone, you are guilty of carrying an Offensive Weapon. If questioned by police, and you indicate that under dire circumstances you MIGHT intentionally injure someone with it, you can be arrested. This has happened.
Since you made this post, if you ever carry "Cricket bats, hatchets, baseball bats, kitchen knives, cast iron saucepans, large dogs, stout wooden sticks, spades, iron bars, pickaxes, metal chairs and many other things" in the UK, you are immediately guilty of this offence, as you have stated intent to use them to cause injury.
Sure, you'll probably never actually run afoul of this, because they probably won't be able to trace this Slashdot post to your physical person. And to be fair, a lot of people with legit reasons to carry tools have been arrested but subsequently released with (or without) great apology from police and/or judges. But don't kid yourself about your ability to legally go armed in the UK...
What would the cops expect you to do? Open the door and invite them in for tea and crumpets?
Short answer: "Yes."
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms" - Alan Greenspan
Sure, it may end up like that for a while, but then some upstart company will launch a line of un-walled, de-locked tablets with all sorts of nifty peripheral and configuration options, using a commercial where some hot transhumanist babe throws a sledgehammer through a giant screen showing Steve Jobs's face...
Firefly is dead because Fox didn't want anyone to see it.
FTFY.
Only if it's the world's biggest airplane.
" Think of how much our system is already taxed when HVAC units have to cool a 10-degree-higher heat wave."
If there was ever an obvious case for solar, this is it.
Why new AC is allowed to be installed without at least some kind of photovoltaic offset continues to be a mystery...
Yeesh, sounds like they should rename it to CANTBUS.
corporate backers...
Any idea that the US government is representing the will of the American people is an illusion.
You keep talking about corporate backers getting what they want, but then you end with that sentence. I don't get it, it seems self-contradictory.
Osgeld, everything you type here makes it appear that the IT guy takes forever to do stuff for you because, in between his meetings and paperwork, he's busy helping other people in the company who aren't gigantic suppurating assholes.
I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that's the case you're doing everything you can to hard-sell to the reader.
I don't know why everyone is complaining this much. I never had a single problem with their DRM.
You want OTHER PEOPLE to stop complaining because YOU'VE never had a problem?
Oh and to those saying that removing DRM will stop piracy...
Which would be... nobody?
People aren't saying that removing DRM will stop piracy. People are saying that removing DRM will encourage sales. Because people hate intrusive DRM on games they buy. You dumbshit.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: you've never had a problem, so no one else has either...
A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so exponentially more awesome stuff can be achieved with the same proportion of people being harmed in the process.
FTFY, you milquetoast pansy.