This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat"
In most cases, the cop can't shoot. The naked guy has to "present himself as a threat" (to the person he's running towards) and then the cop can shoot the naked, unarmed man. Its a bad situation (for the shooter, even a cop) when the victim is shot in the back. The jury generally will only disregard its evident meaning when the victim is armed.
A US civil court has no power to effect criminal punishment upon a defendant. They cannot convict them of a felony, they cannot imprison them. A civil court can only seize assets of the defendant. That's why they're called civil courts.
The guy who wins a self defense case can only be charged as such in a criminal court. The person who defended himself in criminal court only demonstrated that the state could not prove the person is guilty of murder (beyond reasonable doubt). In civil court, the plaintiff only has to demonstrate the defendant is likely to be guilty. The civil court can only take away the defendant's money. (The double jeopardy doctrine only applies to criminally prosecuted crimes.)
...hopefully for a long time. Because you put the guy playing video games in imminent danger. If you support the 2A, you have to realize the deadly nature of firearms.
A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.
The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat. The perpetrator doesn't get shot only when they do not present a threat to either the police or bystanders/hostages.
SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result. Either the caller is correctly reporting an imminently dangerous situation, or they are lying and putting their target under deadly threat. SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.
I am so happy that your influence on society is limited to Slashdot. Only the fucking clueless would want to wipe out an institution like the stock market, which has operated for centuries, and is a means to provide transparency to the general public, and allow people that aren't part of the 0.01% to possess wealth that isn't real estate.
The only thing wrong with patents (a means that allows people capable of solving intractable problems to be rewarded for their efforts) has occurred in the past 30 years; which converted a temporary, government enforced monopoly (to reward intellectual "property"), into a monopoly that can last over a century!
At least take a fucking introductory economics course, followed by an introductory finance course, so you'd at least have a grasp at how basic finance works! Stock markets and patents aren't evil; its lazy American voters who are evil, because they allow greedy individuals to corrupt perfectly good laws and regulations.
The group he objects to being associated with is specifically about encouraging under-represented groups to participate more often in open source.
The group he objects to being associated with specifically discriminates against people who state anything that can be construed as critical towards peers when they belong to a "protected" group.
It literally has no effect on his contributions.
Until he may say something that could be construed as negative towards "protected" individuals.
You're being naive. Conferences and social networks are still means by which people "move up in the pecking order". And now these formerly volunteer organizations are becoming conduits to salaried positions.
If I am just a volunteer contributor then I should be able to be racist, mysoginistic, all inclusive, homosexual, heterosexual, pansexual or any shade of human you prefer.
No, in the LLVM community (or any community), you should not be racist, mysoginistic, etc. to your peers. It is cancer to any group effort. But no one should be attacking you for your beliefs if you are not even expressing them in a public forum (this is what is colloquially referred to as "witchhunt").
and has decided to leave causing a gaping hole and potentially the death of the entire project.
Losing the 5th most active contributor will definitely leave a gaping hole, but I seriously doubt it will lead to the death of the LLVM project. Your hyperbole is just as stupid and SJW witchhunts.
...but Linus doesn't participate in the LLVM. Its going to get interesting when the corporate sponsors of linux decide they have to move on from the linux kernel in order to satisfy some gender biased notion of what's "fair" to some minority group.
Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project.
No, the LLVM organization is choosing to align itself with a discriminatory group, while LLVM pretends to be non-discriminatory by creating a code of conduct to be used as a tool to persecute members who disagree with discriminatory behavior.
Outreach is a good thing, but outreachy is a discriminatory group. If the LLVM organization was truly about fair treatment for everyone, they wouldn't be actively aligning with discriminatory groups.
Among other aspects, he's not getting paid for being the fifth highest contributor of submissions for LLVM, and yet for some reason he's being told that his contributions aren't as important as potentially getting more token women contributions.
How does a higher percentage of participation from women in an organization help the organization if it doesn't result in a greater rate of code improvement?
Bingo. Too understated as well. An organization that specifically chooses to exclude one gender, and only benefit the other gender is basically an organization that discriminates based on sex.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could be pro-active for once and tell the router makers about all the holes you exploit?
Stupid, the router makers already know about the holes. They're just too languid in their response time to issue a patch. And even worse, admins and infrastructure managers are too slow to apply those patches and replace unpatchable (too old) machines.
Slashdot Mirror
'Murica. Love it or leave it.
This is how a naked guy running away down a rural highway can get shot for "being a threat"
In most cases, the cop can't shoot. The naked guy has to "present himself as a threat" (to the person he's running towards) and then the cop can shoot the naked, unarmed man. Its a bad situation (for the shooter, even a cop) when the victim is shot in the back. The jury generally will only disregard its evident meaning when the victim is armed.
A US civil court has no power to effect criminal punishment upon a defendant. They cannot convict them of a felony, they cannot imprison them. A civil court can only seize assets of the defendant. That's why they're called civil courts.
The guy who wins a self defense case can only be charged as such in a criminal court. The person who defended himself in criminal court only demonstrated that the state could not prove the person is guilty of murder (beyond reasonable doubt). In civil court, the plaintiff only has to demonstrate the defendant is likely to be guilty. The civil court can only take away the defendant's money. (The double jeopardy doctrine only applies to criminally prosecuted crimes.)
You're totally culpable if there was not a fire. Its only not your fault if there actually was a fire.
...hopefully for a long time. Because you put the guy playing video games in imminent danger. If you support the 2A, you have to realize the deadly nature of firearms.
If you're an LA policeman, you do...
Apparently, stupid morons like you are in need of a horse fucking.
A reasonable person would expect they would verify claims before acting on them.
The law doesn't operate with an incontrovertible definition of "reasonable". SWAT teams operate on the notion of safety of bystanders first. They can only maximize their safety by killing the threat. The perpetrator doesn't get shot only when they do not present a threat to either the police or bystanders/hostages.
SWAT doesn't go out of their way to verify there is a combat situation before acting, because "surprise" and "speed" is how they maximize the probability of a positive result. Either the caller is correctly reporting an imminently dangerous situation, or they are lying and putting their target under deadly threat. SWAT only has to demonstrate that they operated within their RoE.
I am so happy that your influence on society is limited to Slashdot. Only the fucking clueless would want to wipe out an institution like the stock market, which has operated for centuries, and is a means to provide transparency to the general public, and allow people that aren't part of the 0.01% to possess wealth that isn't real estate.
The only thing wrong with patents (a means that allows people capable of solving intractable problems to be rewarded for their efforts) has occurred in the past 30 years; which converted a temporary, government enforced monopoly (to reward intellectual "property"), into a monopoly that can last over a century!
At least take a fucking introductory economics course, followed by an introductory finance course, so you'd at least have a grasp at how basic finance works! Stock markets and patents aren't evil; its lazy American voters who are evil, because they allow greedy individuals to corrupt perfectly good laws and regulations.
The group he objects to being associated with is specifically about encouraging under-represented groups to participate more often in open source.
The group he objects to being associated with specifically discriminates against people who state anything that can be construed as critical towards peers when they belong to a "protected" group.
It literally has no effect on his contributions.
Until he may say something that could be construed as negative towards "protected" individuals.
You're being naive. Conferences and social networks are still means by which people "move up in the pecking order". And now these formerly volunteer organizations are becoming conduits to salaried positions.
If I am just a volunteer contributor then I should be able to be racist, mysoginistic, all inclusive, homosexual, heterosexual, pansexual or any shade of human you prefer.
No, in the LLVM community (or any community), you should not be racist, mysoginistic, etc. to your peers. It is cancer to any group effort. But no one should be attacking you for your beliefs if you are not even expressing them in a public forum (this is what is colloquially referred to as "witchhunt").
and has decided to leave causing a gaping hole and potentially the death of the entire project.
Losing the 5th most active contributor will definitely leave a gaping hole, but I seriously doubt it will lead to the death of the LLVM project. Your hyperbole is just as stupid and SJW witchhunts.
...but Linus doesn't participate in the LLVM. Its going to get interesting when the corporate sponsors of linux decide they have to move on from the linux kernel in order to satisfy some gender biased notion of what's "fair" to some minority group.
Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project.
No, the LLVM organization is choosing to align itself with a discriminatory group, while LLVM pretends to be non-discriminatory by creating a code of conduct to be used as a tool to persecute members who disagree with discriminatory behavior.
Outreach is a good thing, but outreachy is a discriminatory group. If the LLVM organization was truly about fair treatment for everyone, they wouldn't be actively aligning with discriminatory groups.
If you go all Moneyball, and actually LOOK for "totally kickass" people you'll find diversity by accident.
While I think that notion is a product of wishful thinking, I believe prioritizing diversity hires is an equal dose of delusional thinking.
Among other aspects, he's not getting paid for being the fifth highest contributor of submissions for LLVM, and yet for some reason he's being told that his contributions aren't as important as potentially getting more token women contributions.
How does a higher percentage of participation from women in an organization help the organization if it doesn't result in a greater rate of code improvement?
Bingo. Too understated as well. An organization that specifically chooses to exclude one gender, and only benefit the other gender is basically an organization that discriminates based on sex.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could be pro-active for once and tell the router makers about all the holes you exploit?
Stupid, the router makers already know about the holes. They're just too languid in their response time to issue a patch. And even worse, admins and infrastructure managers are too slow to apply those patches and replace unpatchable (too old) machines.
Unlikely, since the oldest known evidence of writing is like 6,000 years, if you're not counting cave art.
Homo Sapien was around 70K years ago. They had the same genetic makeup as you do today, so the women would be body hairless as well.
and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Who's left? Sol's left, or Scholtz Star's left? How do you express left in three dimensions?
Who gives a fuck about Aleppo? Why would I vote for the candidate that wanted Americans to die, parked in Aleppo for twenty years?
This was my reaction after reading that startling factoid. Unfortunately, I suspect its a screwup on the writer's part.