That 3 year old will now grow up KNOWING that there is actual buried treasure just under the surface... man, he'll think anything is possible if you just get the right tools and go do it!
They got beaten up by public bystanders (or that's the way I choose to remember it).
Meh, they rammed the doors with a minivan and then a guy kicked a flaming terrorist in the balls so hard that he broke his foot (yay!), but I meant: Wear the explosives (on your person or in a bag), walk up to the security line all cool and badass like in the matrix and then go boom. It happens a lot in the middle east, but over in America it's always this Will E. Coyote bullshit. I find their lack of pragmatism quite suspicious.
the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors.
And yet they don't... no one has walked into an airport and blown that up, even though it would work GREAT. It's as if there isn't a vast network of resourceful bombers looking to cause as much harm as possible... only a handful of amateurs. It's exactly as if that threat was overblown in order to gain power though fear.
You can claim all you want that the simple desire to board an aircraft to travel in an efficient and cost-effective manner is a defacto abandonment of fourth amendment rights
STFU with your strawman, you blabbering idiot; telling you that you had that fact wrong doesn't mean I think this TSA bullshit is right, you fucktard.
Are we supposed to amend what we tell our children to "no one can touch you there, unless they happen to have some kind of perceived authority over you or if they're wearing a uniform"?
The clients were publishers, not ordinary working people, weren't they? Implying that they were swindled by fast-talking lawyers seems rather naive.
I don't think/. is saying they were swindled, I think they mean to say that the publishers weren't as fucking blindly stupid as they seemed to be: It's not that they couldn't imagine this shit being a bad move, they just fell into their own greedy lawyer-trap.
>Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.
That should probably be true of death threats made seriously but it certainly isn't currently the case for Muslims in England and Wales, for example those that called for beheadings in protests on the street weren't even cautioned despite police presence and there was no doubt that it was not a joke.
Apply the law fairly and use cautions where the balance of probability suggests that someone was just being silly rather than serious.
See, that's not it. It's not the tone of the comment, it's the likelihood that it would be put in action. Inciting a specific kind of violence towards a specific person, VS generally wishing hypothetical beheadings.
Anyway, like I said to others: This is an accusation,there will be a trial, he probably won't be fund guilty, but UK politicians will make less stupid jokes in the net few years, publicly at least.
Just so you know, the data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement don't have anything to do with this particular bit of madness despite the misleading summary.
I'm often complaining about misleading summaries, but this it ain't: It's the latest in a string of changes to communications law in the country, and comes as the government mulls data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
That seems factually correct. I have seen a string of stupid internet law news from down under, and ACTA is being considered right now.
The summary I see does not imply a causal link, but you claim that it does. Maybe you should, you know, work on your reading comprehension skills instead of bitching at slashdot about its summary? Or point out the evil bit I missed, if that's the case.
Costing yourself many times the amount to get a fraction of it back as a tax writeoff is hardly fighting back. That's like shooting yourself in the leg to protest the poor medical health system in order to put more pressure on the system.
It's what the french ISPs are doing to protest adopi and it pissed off the government: It works.
This woman publicly stated that Iran should be allowed to stone women to death.
No, she did not.
Specifically, she said British politicians have no moral authority to criticize other countries for human rights violations because of the human rights violations they have allowed
Her: "You have no moral authority to talk about other people's morality" Him: "Someone should stone that woman to death for speaking her mind!" You: "I'm with him!"
The guy was just making a joke. It seems obvious from the context. Or do you seriously believe that someone would use twitter to solicit a murder? Especially someone aspiring to public life. And then follow it with a joking comment.
Why is it that common sense is so uncommon?
Maybe this arrest will teach that politician the common sense it takes to refrain from making a public death threat followed by "just kidding".
Both the twitter posts cited in the article are jokes in poor taste by frustrated people, but are they evidence of intent to kill someone or blow up a plane? People bent on that sort of act rarely advertise their intent on some public media.
What's next? Being prosecuted for threatening to kill someone's character in World of Warcraft?
When I was a cop
You dont understand the difference between advertising your intent to harm someone and asking others to hurt someone; you don't understand the difference between using the internet to threaten someone with physical violence and using the internet to threaten to play a game according to its rules... you must have been a great cop.
Re:Is there a Grokking the Blender?
on
Blender 3D 2.49
·
· Score: 1
I think Blender is a lot like Gimp, very powerful, but the UI sucks. I learned how to use Gimp by reading and following the instructions in the Grokking the Gimp tutorial
I think the Blender UI is very fun to use and that using the gimp feels like trying to fuck a cactus. I'll give that tutorial a try, and you give blender a chance.
I'm trying to migrate from Autodesk-Adobe to open source, because that constant need to buy hardware to match the upgrade specs to get the bug fixes is really chaffing me, but that cactus is really prickly.
Slashdot Mirror
That 3 year old will now grow up KNOWING that there is actual buried treasure just under the surface... man, he'll think anything is possible if you just get the right tools and go do it!
Well, to be fair - it's kind of hard to become an experienced suicide bomber, if you're any good at it.
*golf clap* : )
They tried in Glasgow Airport, Scotland.
They got beaten up by public bystanders (or that's the way I choose to remember it).
Meh, they rammed the doors with a minivan and then a guy kicked a flaming terrorist in the balls so hard that he broke his foot (yay!), but I meant: Wear the explosives (on your person or in a bag), walk up to the security line all cool and badass like in the matrix and then go boom. It happens a lot in the middle east, but over in America it's always this Will E. Coyote bullshit. I find their lack of pragmatism quite suspicious.
the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors.
And yet they don't... no one has walked into an airport and blown that up, even though it would work GREAT. It's as if there isn't a vast network of resourceful bombers looking to cause as much harm as possible... only a handful of amateurs. It's exactly as if that threat was overblown in order to gain power though fear.
You can claim all you want that the simple desire to board an aircraft to travel in an efficient and cost-effective manner is a defacto abandonment of fourth amendment rights
STFU with your strawman, you blabbering idiot; telling you that you had that fact wrong doesn't mean I think this TSA bullshit is right, you fucktard.
Heh it'll be funny if more US citizens start finding it less hassle to sneak into their own country like illegal immigrants.
Civil disobedience FTW
Once again, Customs is a legitimate and competent part of the government. The TSA is neither.
Competent? Oh, well, yeah, there was that y2k bomb that customs found at the border... ok, I'll grant you that.
It all started on 9/11
Completely myopic... it accelerated on 9/11.
Are we supposed to amend what we tell our children to "no one can touch you there, unless they happen to have some kind of perceived authority over you or if they're wearing a uniform"?
That would be doubleplus good, yes.
You are being obtuse. Intent is 90% of the law.
Not with regards to child pornography. Possession, period, is 100% of the law.
People employed by law agencies to investigate and prosecute child pornography are allowed to be in possession of the incriminating evidence.
The clients were publishers, not ordinary working people, weren't they? Implying that they were swindled by fast-talking lawyers seems rather naive.
I don't think /. is saying they were swindled, I think they mean to say that the publishers weren't as fucking blindly stupid as they seemed to be: It's not that they couldn't imagine this shit being a bad move, they just fell into their own greedy lawyer-trap.
>Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.
That should probably be true of death threats made seriously but it certainly isn't currently the case for Muslims in England and Wales, for example those that called for beheadings in protests on the street weren't even cautioned despite police presence and there was no doubt that it was not a joke.
Apply the law fairly and use cautions where the balance of probability suggests that someone was just being silly rather than serious.
See, that's not it. It's not the tone of the comment, it's the likelihood that it would be put in action. Inciting a specific kind of violence towards a specific person, VS generally wishing hypothetical beheadings.
Anyway, like I said to others: This is an accusation,there will be a trial, he probably won't be fund guilty, but UK politicians will make less stupid jokes in the net few years, publicly at least.
Just so you know, the data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement don't have anything to do with this particular bit of madness despite the misleading summary.
I'm often complaining about misleading summaries, but this it ain't:
It's the latest in a string of changes to communications law in the country, and comes as the government mulls data retention and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
That seems factually correct. I have seen a string of stupid internet law news from down under, and ACTA is being considered right now.
The summary I see does not imply a causal link, but you claim that it does. Maybe you should, you know, work on your reading comprehension skills instead of bitching at slashdot about its summary? Or point out the evil bit I missed, if that's the case.
paper format, print them out, delete the digital
Costing yourself many times the amount to get a fraction of it back as a tax writeoff is hardly fighting back. That's like shooting yourself in the leg to protest the poor medical health system in order to put more pressure on the system.
It's what the french ISPs are doing to protest adopi and it pissed off the government: It works.
That is an extremely far stretch. Not to mention if you lose sleep over a comment like that you are an idiot anyway.
Read this, fool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#Assassination
in the US where the supreme court has ruled again-and-again that speech is fully protected.
I find it odd that people keep believing this myth despite the free-speech cages and all the other obvious signs that this is blatantly untrue.
This woman publicly stated that Iran should be allowed to stone women to death.
No, she did not.
Specifically, she said British politicians have no moral authority to criticize other countries for human rights violations because of the human rights violations they have allowed
Her: "You have no moral authority to talk about other people's morality"
Him: "Someone should stone that woman to death for speaking her mind!"
You: "I'm with him!"
She's right; you're stupid.
Given the context it is entirely obvious it is a joke.
If so, he will obviously be acquitted. But someone in high visibility plays high stakes when they take a jab.
The guy was just making a joke. It seems obvious from the context. Or do you seriously believe that someone would use twitter to solicit a murder? Especially someone aspiring to public life. And then follow it with a joking comment.
Why is it that common sense is so uncommon?
Maybe this arrest will teach that politician the common sense it takes to refrain from making a public death threat followed by "just kidding".
Both the twitter posts cited in the article are jokes in poor taste by frustrated people, but are they evidence of intent to kill someone or blow up a plane? People bent on that sort of act rarely advertise their intent on some public media.
What's next? Being prosecuted for threatening to kill someone's character in World of Warcraft?
When I was a cop
You dont understand the difference between advertising your intent to harm someone and asking others to hurt someone; you don't understand the difference between using the internet to threaten someone with physical violence and using the internet to threaten to play a game according to its rules... you must have been a great cop.
who really cares if this man says something like that, as long as he doesn't follow through with it
The person losing sleep over fear of violence and the people in the path of the motor vehicle being operated by that sleep-deprived person.
Maybe, but he still shouldn't be arrested for it!
Your freedom to swing your words stops at deathtreats.
deca
my cue for bed
with a Slashdot UID as low as yours, perhaps.
That roused a decathousander! Well done.
I think Blender is a lot like Gimp, very powerful, but the UI sucks. I learned how to use Gimp by reading and following the instructions in the Grokking the Gimp tutorial
I think the Blender UI is very fun to use and that using the gimp feels like trying to fuck a cactus. I'll give that tutorial a try, and you give blender a chance.
I'm trying to migrate from Autodesk-Adobe to open source, because that constant need to buy hardware to match the upgrade specs to get the bug fixes is really chaffing me, but that cactus is really prickly.