This guy is brilliant. The idiots are the people sitting around outside yakking on their cellphones who want to label it a "private conversation". Not when you're inflicting it on everyone at the next table.
And this guy:
Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."
Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"
Passer-by: "Yeah."
Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."
Passer-by: "So?" (pushes Surveillance Camera Man).
If you're ready to assault this guy, why are you not out wrecking the surveillance state, spraypainting cameras and calling for better privacy laws? The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
On what planet is men wrongfully being accused of rape an issue even *visible* next to women being raped?
On what planet is it ok to excuse a crime by saying that another crime happens more often?
or bend over backwards to pretend there isn't enough information to have an opinion either way
Unless you're looking at police reports or other data I haven't seen in this thread, there is no reliable information about what happened. That's not pretense, that's fact. In any disputed event, testimony from one of the disputants is not reliable without some sort of physical evidence or corroborating neutral testimony. You talk about items found in Gont's room -- but so far as I've seen we have only Weidman's say-so that those items were found there. Still nothing but she said, he said.
If police or conference organizers confirm the items' presence in Gont's room, then yes, that would be corroborating evidence. Until then, with no knowledge of the character of either party and no reliable evidence, the only rational course is respect skepticism of both account, withholding judgement and remaining open to evidence as it comes in.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a rational explanation that doesn't include the stronger person being a predator who engineered a situation where they expected to face no consequences for their actions
There is no "rational" explanation here. Either the man is a rapist -- irrational behavior -- or the woman is a liar and an abuser -- irrational behavior. If we go looking for rationality in a situation where we know one or both persons involved behaved irrationally, we're going to have trouble.
It does happen that smaller women physically attack larger men. (Though I have no knowledge of the size or strength of the people involved here -- I'm assuming your characterization of Weidman as "physically weaker" is based on some knowledge.) And it does happen that women make false allegations of rape. Did these things happen here? I don't know.
But either way it does point up an important real-world security rule: don't be alone and unobserved with someone you don't trust.
This will simply not work - it's a technical solution to a social problem
When the social problem (spying on people in order to improve the mind control that is advertising) is an abuse of technology (cookies, Javascript), a technical solution can be appropriate.
The person who initiates the process by first making the item available does not have the right to give it away in the first place
Sharing information is a basic human right, and no one has any right to use force to prevent a person from sharing information that they have.
you think it is perfectly acceptable to not pay for something that someone else produced because somehow, magically, people don't need to get paid for what they produce.
I failed to pay for access to things other people produced for a long time before the net came around. We called it a "library".
One can believe that it's good for authors and musicians and the like to get paid, without believing that a state-backed artificial monopoly on the making of copies is a useful or even acceptable means to that end.
No, we should be promoting a having healthy BMI as a body image.
BMI is actually a poor measure of health on an individual basis, as it doesn't distinguish fat from muscle. Body fat percentage is what we really need to be aware of. It's hard to measure accurately, though; skinfold or electrical impedance tests can help you track whether your own is going up or down but are hard to accurately translate into absolute numbers.
Congress and the Supreme Court are a huge part of the Constitution. If they don't work...
Sorry, but did you just wake up from a long nap? Congress has been badly broken for decades, and the SCOTUS is a wretched hive of scum and villainy featuring at least one justice who apparently doesn't believe women are people and one who is a known liar, not to mention Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
No, what is right for society is what is granted through consensus.
Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.
You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that
So...like, negatively bad, since Manning's actions were good? Or do you mean "bad" as in "it's bad for the government to go after legitimate whistle blowers?"
He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence
Sure he does: stay out of the U.S. (At least until such time as it is not longer an authoritarian "security" state.)
even the UN and damn near every country "thought" they had WMDs at the time it happened.
Uh, no. Everyone with a lick of sense knew that the evidence that Iraq had WMD was tissue-paper thin, and the UN and damn near every country recognized the invasion of Iraq as a crime.
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I insist that you answer yes or no!"
When the questioner gets to set not only the question but the range of acceptable answers -- just as you have tried to do here -- the right to remain silent is vital.
For the government to convict you of lying about not committing the murder, they would also have to convict you of the murder, and if they can convict you of murder, then you're already screwed anyway, regardless of whether they also convict you of lying about being innocent.
The penalty for murder is greater than the penalty for perjury, yes; but that's not true for all crimes. "Making false statements" was part of Martha Stewart's conviction. And cops will lead you into false statements, that's their job. If you can watch this video and not understand the importance of the Fifth Amendment, you're hopeless.
Nothing like getting to where you are flying and by reflex reaching for that Swiss Army Knife I always carry, because something needs a little tweak.
As idiotic as the rule is, you can still put your SAK in your checked baggage, and so reload it at your destination. (Even though the airlines are working hard to make checking bags expensive and difficult.)
Any group surveiling the cops shouldn't be selling those cops stuff. "Hey, the XYZ PD just ordered another $500k of merch from us, I think we can 'lose' that embarrassing video."
Taser International is a bunch of evil fuckwads who've made their bankrolls selling lethal electrical torture devices to police. Their irresponsible marketing has lead to an increase in the use of excessive force by cops. My trust in them is zero.
But very few people can make open relationships work in practice - jealousy seems to be genetic as well.
Very few people can make closed monogamous relationships work in practice either. Almost no one spends their whole live with just one person. It's a much bigger gap from real monogamy -- only ever having a romantic/sexual relation with one person -- to serial monogamy, than from serial monogamy to polyamory.
I think if we could transition from the pre-birth-control "get married before you have sex" to a birth-control-works "get married before you have kids" there would be great benefit.
It would be better if we transitioned to "have a committed agreement about child raising before you have kids". We need to please stop with the idea that marriage has to do with child rearing.
I think people stray from their partners for immediate, temporary gratification because of hormones and the excitement. If this option was on the table, folks would learn quickly the value of having one person
That's your experience.
Thousands of polyamorous people have a quite different experience.
I don't see the difference between this and finger printing.
The state has no right to force me to subject my body to any medical procedure, however trivial, and no right to any part of my living flesh. None. At all. Not a microgram.
If they have actual probable cause to believe I may be involved in the commission of a specific crime for which they have DNA evidence, they can (with a warrant) search my home for hair and skin flakes. Or if they have enough evidence for an arrest they can lock me up in a clean room for the night and take my sheddings. So it's not even the case that this gives them critical evidence they can't get any other way -- it's all about the convenience of the police and the assertion of state authority over the bodies of citizens.
I'm not a Christian, but I always liked Jesus's line "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." My living flesh -- that matter whose dance is *I* -- is not Caesar's. It is the most divine thing I know, and I will not surrender it to the state willingly. Should the matter ever arise, they will have to take it from me by violence. I reserve the right to defend myself against such an assault, though I also reserve the right to decide that resistance is tactically unwise.
An "assault weapon" is nothing but a semi-automatic rifle that cosmetically resembles an assault rifle. (q.v.) too much for the comfort of some legislator or bureaucrat. It's a meaningless term introduced by gun control advocates to muddy the waters.
An "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of select-fire operation (i.e., can be set to semi- or fully-automatic mode) and that fires an intermediate power cartridge. An example is the M-16. Such rifles are not generally available to the average civilian, you need special licenses.
If this company is making "assault rifles", they will have few civilian customers.
Tis a horrifying world where a Ruger 10/22 is an assault rifle!
"This Ruger 10/22 rifle with a pistol grip and a folding stock was classified as an assault weapon under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban." --- the wik
My job as a doctor is not to lecture that patient or make fun of them, but to try to help them as much as I can with the tools I have at my disposal.
One of the tools a doctor has at their disposal is the lecture -- often dubbed "patient education". It has far fewer side effects than drugs or surgery.
OTOH, to give a good lecture, one must understand the subject. Most doctors know fsck-all about nutrition, or healthy lifestyles in general. An astounding 44 percent of male physicians are overweight. Maybe this bias is frustration at their own failures.
There was no due process because it was a psych eval not a criminal hearing.
An involuntary psychiatric evaluation, like any other form of arrest (the deprivation of a person of their liberty)still has to follow a legal process -- i.e., due process of law. As I stated, it seems that this was followed. If they have evidence that it wasn't, by all means they should pursue a lawsuit, but having read the FB posts in question I put their odds at slim to none.
How you get "sensationalism" out of what I said is beyond me.
He apparently was denied this due process and that is what is is suing for.
He was apparently treated exactly as the appropriate law says people making threats and displaying signs of possibly violent mental illness should be treated. There was probable cause to believe that he had violated the law; arresting him was thus in accord with due process.
The fundamental tenet of the gun rights advocates is that, armed citizenry will take down tyrannical governments.
No, the fundamental tenet of gun rights advocates is that self-defense, which includes the right to own the tools of self-defense, is a basic human right. That fact remains true whether tyrants can survive armed populations or not.
Now it is true as a matter of history that one point the "Founding Fathers" considered was that a nation that relied on a militia (armed and trained body of citizens) for its defense, rather than a standing army, had a built-in defense again its government going tyrannical.
These 3D printed cheap plastic guns are going to flood Africa and other such places with very cheap guns.
Guns are already cheap and easy to make. That's the whole design philosophy of the AK-47 -- you can already get them for around $50 in some parts of Africa.
Now anyone and everyone can get access to training and education, to better themselves in their spare time.
Just like anyone could previously by reading a gorram book at the public library.
Calling a set of taped lectures a "massive open on-line course" is just another silly bit of overhyping "X, but on the Interwebz!" Yes, it is nice that the net makes more content available more efficiently, but this is an evolutionary step, not any sort of revolution.
There are not an insignificant number of cases where a normally responsible person becomes an irresponsible person,
When we're talking about irresponsible enough to commit homicide, yes, that is an insignificant number. (In terms of frequency; of course in personal terms any murder is highly significant to those, to friends and family of both the victim and, in a different sense, the murderer.)
Murder is something people work their way up to. 90% of murder suspects in Milwaukee in 2001 had a criminal record; the same proportion was found in NYC in 2003 through 2005. Keep in mind this is just guys (mostly, some women too) who got caught at previous crimes, more would have committed crimes and not been caught, and more would have displayed irresponsible but non-criminal behavior (the sort of stuff a good mental health system would catch).
The good citizen who suddenly snaps and kills is a favorite fictional trope, but bears little relationship to criminological reality.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy is brilliant. The idiots are the people sitting around outside yakking on their cellphones who want to label it a "private conversation". Not when you're inflicting it on everyone at the next table.
And this guy:
Passer-by: "I don't really care for other people to just be taking a random video of me."
Surveillance Camera Man: "Didn't you just come out the drugstore?"
Passer-by: "Yeah."
Surveillance Camera Man: "They have cameras in there."
Passer-by: "So?" (pushes Surveillance Camera Man).
If you're ready to assault this guy, why are you not out wrecking the surveillance state, spraypainting cameras and calling for better privacy laws? The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
On what planet is it ok to excuse a crime by saying that another crime happens more often?
Unless you're looking at police reports or other data I haven't seen in this thread, there is no reliable information about what happened. That's not pretense, that's fact. In any disputed event, testimony from one of the disputants is not reliable without some sort of physical evidence or corroborating neutral testimony. You talk about items found in Gont's room -- but so far as I've seen we have only Weidman's say-so that those items were found there. Still nothing but she said, he said.
If police or conference organizers confirm the items' presence in Gont's room, then yes, that would be corroborating evidence. Until then, with no knowledge of the character of either party and no reliable evidence, the only rational course is respect skepticism of both account, withholding judgement and remaining open to evidence as it comes in.
There is no "rational" explanation here. Either the man is a rapist -- irrational behavior -- or the woman is a liar and an abuser -- irrational behavior. If we go looking for rationality in a situation where we know one or both persons involved behaved irrationally, we're going to have trouble.
It does happen that smaller women physically attack larger men. (Though I have no knowledge of the size or strength of the people involved here -- I'm assuming your characterization of Weidman as "physically weaker" is based on some knowledge.) And it does happen that women make false allegations of rape. Did these things happen here? I don't know. But either way it does point up an important real-world security rule: don't be alone and unobserved with someone you don't trust.
When the social problem (spying on people in order to improve the mind control that is advertising) is an abuse of technology (cookies, Javascript), a technical solution can be appropriate.
Or use it, then delete the cookies. You are allowing only session cookies except for a handful of sites, right? Restart your browser, cookies go away.
I wouldn't type a query like that into Google, but privacy-respecting search engine DuckDuckGo reveals several sources for inflatable sex goats.
Sharing information is a basic human right, and no one has any right to use force to prevent a person from sharing information that they have.
I failed to pay for access to things other people produced for a long time before the net came around. We called it a "library".
One can believe that it's good for authors and musicians and the like to get paid, without believing that a state-backed artificial monopoly on the making of copies is a useful or even acceptable means to that end.
BMI is actually a poor measure of health on an individual basis, as it doesn't distinguish fat from muscle. Body fat percentage is what we really need to be aware of. It's hard to measure accurately, though; skinfold or electrical impedance tests can help you track whether your own is going up or down but are hard to accurately translate into absolute numbers.
Sorry, but did you just wake up from a long nap? Congress has been badly broken for decades, and the SCOTUS is a wretched hive of scum and villainy featuring at least one justice who apparently doesn't believe women are people and one who is a known liar, not to mention Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.
So...like, negatively bad, since Manning's actions were good? Or do you mean "bad" as in "it's bad for the government to go after legitimate whistle blowers?"
Sure he does: stay out of the U.S. (At least until such time as it is not longer an authoritarian "security" state.)
Uh, no. Everyone with a lick of sense knew that the evidence that Iraq had WMD was tissue-paper thin, and the UN and damn near every country recognized the invasion of Iraq as a crime.
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I insist that you answer yes or no!"
When the questioner gets to set not only the question but the range of acceptable answers -- just as you have tried to do here -- the right to remain silent is vital.
The penalty for murder is greater than the penalty for perjury, yes; but that's not true for all crimes. "Making false statements" was part of Martha Stewart's conviction. And cops will lead you into false statements, that's their job. If you can watch this video and not understand the importance of the Fifth Amendment, you're hopeless.
As idiotic as the rule is, you can still put your SAK in your checked baggage, and so reload it at your destination. (Even though the airlines are working hard to make checking bags expensive and difficult.)
Any group surveiling the cops shouldn't be selling those cops stuff. "Hey, the XYZ PD just ordered another $500k of merch from us, I think we can 'lose' that embarrassing video."
Taser International is a bunch of evil fuckwads who've made their bankrolls selling lethal electrical torture devices to police. Their irresponsible marketing has lead to an increase in the use of excessive force by cops. My trust in them is zero.
Very few people can make closed monogamous relationships work in practice either. Almost no one spends their whole live with just one person. It's a much bigger gap from real monogamy -- only ever having a romantic/sexual relation with one person -- to serial monogamy, than from serial monogamy to polyamory.
It would be better if we transitioned to "have a committed agreement about child raising before you have kids". We need to please stop with the idea that marriage has to do with child rearing.
That's your experience.
Thousands of polyamorous people have a quite different experience.
The state has no right to force me to subject my body to any medical procedure, however trivial, and no right to any part of my living flesh. None. At all. Not a microgram.
If they have actual probable cause to believe I may be involved in the commission of a specific crime for which they have DNA evidence, they can (with a warrant) search my home for hair and skin flakes. Or if they have enough evidence for an arrest they can lock me up in a clean room for the night and take my sheddings. So it's not even the case that this gives them critical evidence they can't get any other way -- it's all about the convenience of the police and the assertion of state authority over the bodies of citizens.
I'm not a Christian, but I always liked Jesus's line "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." My living flesh -- that matter whose dance is *I* -- is not Caesar's. It is the most divine thing I know, and I will not surrender it to the state willingly. Should the matter ever arise, they will have to take it from me by violence. I reserve the right to defend myself against such an assault, though I also reserve the right to decide that resistance is tactically unwise.
An "assault weapon" is nothing but a semi-automatic rifle that cosmetically resembles an assault rifle. (q.v.) too much for the comfort of some legislator or bureaucrat. It's a meaningless term introduced by gun control advocates to muddy the waters.
An "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of select-fire operation (i.e., can be set to semi- or fully-automatic mode) and that fires an intermediate power cartridge. An example is the M-16. Such rifles are not generally available to the average civilian, you need special licenses.
If this company is making "assault rifles", they will have few civilian customers.
One of the tools a doctor has at their disposal is the lecture -- often dubbed "patient education". It has far fewer side effects than drugs or surgery.
OTOH, to give a good lecture, one must understand the subject. Most doctors know fsck-all about nutrition, or healthy lifestyles in general. An astounding 44 percent of male physicians are overweight. Maybe this bias is frustration at their own failures.
An involuntary psychiatric evaluation, like any other form of arrest (the deprivation of a person of their liberty)still has to follow a legal process -- i.e., due process of law. As I stated, it seems that this was followed. If they have evidence that it wasn't, by all means they should pursue a lawsuit, but having read the FB posts in question I put their odds at slim to none.
How you get "sensationalism" out of what I said is beyond me.
He was apparently treated exactly as the appropriate law says people making threats and displaying signs of possibly violent mental illness should be treated. There was probable cause to believe that he had violated the law; arresting him was thus in accord with due process.
No, the fundamental tenet of gun rights advocates is that self-defense, which includes the right to own the tools of self-defense, is a basic human right. That fact remains true whether tyrants can survive armed populations or not.
Now it is true as a matter of history that one point the "Founding Fathers" considered was that a nation that relied on a militia (armed and trained body of citizens) for its defense, rather than a standing army, had a built-in defense again its government going tyrannical.
Guns are already cheap and easy to make. That's the whole design philosophy of the AK-47 -- you can already get them for around $50 in some parts of Africa.
Just like anyone could previously by reading a gorram book at the public library.
Calling a set of taped lectures a "massive open on-line course" is just another silly bit of overhyping "X, but on the Interwebz!" Yes, it is nice that the net makes more content available more efficiently, but this is an evolutionary step, not any sort of revolution.
When we're talking about irresponsible enough to commit homicide, yes, that is an insignificant number. (In terms of frequency; of course in personal terms any murder is highly significant to those, to friends and family of both the victim and, in a different sense, the murderer.)
Murder is something people work their way up to. 90% of murder suspects in Milwaukee in 2001 had a criminal record; the same proportion was found in NYC in 2003 through 2005. Keep in mind this is just guys (mostly, some women too) who got caught at previous crimes, more would have committed crimes and not been caught, and more would have displayed irresponsible but non-criminal behavior (the sort of stuff a good mental health system would catch).
The good citizen who suddenly snaps and kills is a favorite fictional trope, but bears little relationship to criminological reality.