Criminal nuisance is basically creating a mob situation.
But he didn't create the mob. He didn't drag these people in in shackles and order them to do what they did. They independently chose to be there and they independently chose to become unruly.
Finally obstructing government administration should be pretty obvious but I can explain it for you since it is vague. How about getting in the way of the police and not helping them stop the mob you created.
Since he didn't create the mob, but rather it created itself, he didn't get in the way of police either. The police dumped their responsibility for controlling and/or dispersing the mob in his lap, and then arrested him for non-compliance, in effect, not doing their job for them.
So, in this case, they got lazy and dumped their responsibility on him, and then arrested him for non-compliance, which I assume made sense to them because at least it got the mob to disperse, right?
But they're not even attempting to perform their duties in the first place! It's their job to convince the mob to remain peaceful or peacefully disperse, not his. What they opted to do instead was dump their responsibility in his lap and then arrest him for not doing their job.
They could also order the mob to leave. What are the chances that they tried that first, it failed, so they got lazy and arrested the source of their attention rather than arrest the mob?
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a mob of sentient individuals cannot be held responsible for forming up into a mob and directly causing a nuisance while the target of their attention can be arrested for simply being present.
The Officer was asking him to peacefully disperse a mob that he had caused to gather.
This, I don't understand, at all. Peacefully disperse a mob? Isn't that their job?
Heck, why not arrest the members of said mob rather than arrest the target of the mob's attention? Shit, if the mob switched targets to the police, by this logic, aren't the police compelled to arrest themselves if they can't "peacefully disperse" said mob?
The problem is that even if the vendors had a policy of informing customers that they could decline to use the included OS and software, whatever refund they could get for declining the use of the license would be eaten by the consumer to pay a tech to unbox the system, hook it up, blow away the contents of the drive, invalidate the license key, and box it back up properly before handing it off/shipping it out to the consumer. The manufacturers could do this, but it's also likely that they'd have to pass the cost of shipping a computer sans shovelware and a prepackaged OS off to the consumer to not really validate getting much, if any refund at all, in the first place (not to mention the aforementioned process of blowing away the contents of the drive if we're talking about removing something already boxed and stocked on a shelf to be modified prior to shipping). It's probably a lot easier on everyone (but the consumer, but there's always a loser in these situations) to just make it entirely the consumer's responsibility of getting MS to issue a refund and invalidate the license key.
Which is why such paperwork is handled and contracts are signed before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. The problem here with this analogy is that the computer manufacturer and the operating system provider tend to be different entities, whereas typically the purchase of a vehicle includes the engine, from the same manufacturer, as part of the same overall deal you contractually agree to purchase before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. You become the registered owner of the vehicle, so even before you get physical possession of the vehicle, you are liable for anything untoward that happens with it (to the reasonable extents covered by law and warranties (and laws on warranties)) the moment those rights are signed over.
There is no "computer registration," though. The EULA is the operating system provider's (and in some cases, the computer manufacturer's) means of having you agree to their terms of use before you use their product, even if you've already purchased the computer. It seems to boil down to an issue of convenience, as they could go to all the trouble of making you agree to their license terms before you ever actually buy the computer (if bought online, forward the customer to a website where they sign a contract electronically before the purchase is completed; if bought at a brick and mortar store, an additional signature at the bottom of a printed EULA from Microsoft with copies kept by Microsoft, the retailer, and customer), but it's far easier and accomplishes the same goal by just making you agree to the EULA when you actually turn on and start using the computer, it being a reasonable assumption that the person agreeing to the EULA is the intended owner and user of the computer, and even more so since the EULA tends to only cover the use of the software as opposed to the use of the hardware.
After all, if you're using the OS provided with the computer, with the provided license, it's implied that you accepted the EULA. If you blew away the partition and installed your own OS of choice, then it's largely a non-issue outside of forfeiting your right to use that license later on, and haggling over how much you should be refunded, if at all.
In a way, yes. The GPS navigation system of my car will not let me use it until I accept the EULA, each time I start the car.
As applies to your analogy, one could argue the EULA was already accepted when you purchased the car and signed all of the paperwork involved. It'd be a colossal understatement to say that there's a lot of legalese you contractually agree to with the purchase of a new vehicle from a dealership (as opposed to a secondhand sale where you're basically taking the previous owner at his word).
Up to a point. if you maintained a 2000 Ford Taurus to be at the exact condition it was when you bought it new it'd be worth far more than the price you paid for it a long time down the road, simply due to historical value. You'd have something that few others could claim to have, and it'd be in perfect condition. For the sake of context, try finding a copy of Star Trek: Birth of the Federation for sale, and try not to be surprised at how much it costs, despite being an old, outdated game out of print.
How does the pricing scale when bulk ordering is taken into account? I can believe the OEM price of a single license of XP Home Edition being around $30, but I would have a hard time believing that OEMs aren't getting significant discounts for bulk orders.
Yeah, I've read about the DRAM-based devices that actually use the bus for more than just a source of power, and I agree, the price tag removes them from consideration.
The only thing the i-RAM has on a Flash-based SSD is number of write cycles before the thing starts going bad. It's effectively infinite, so long as the DRAM itself doesn't start developing issues.
Anyway, I just threw the i-RAM out there for the sake of comparison, it's cheap enough to at least be considered, even if only for the sake of novelty as opposed to actually being as practical as a Flash-based SSD.
Replacing private insurance with public insurance just shifts the burden of responsibility to an entity even less inclined to do a good job than a private corporation, seeing as a private corporation would go belly up if they lose their customers, or make such a bad name for themselves that nobody wants to be their customer in the first place. I don't like insurance because they make it so goddamn difficult to be their customer in the first place, even though I readily admit I understand why they make it so difficult.
I don't like the "public option" due to a general distrust of the government's capacity to do anything competently besides the one thing it has always been good at: screwing everyone over. If it turned out to be the exception rather than the rule, great, but it seems like the ultimate goal here is to drive private insurers out of business, make everyone beholden to the government for their health care, all out of some misguided belief that the government couldn't or wouldn't possibly screw us over any harder than the private insurers do.
I don't hate the medical profession, but my cynicism dictates that I have to take whatever they recommend with a grain of salt simply because they, too, are in this to make a profit. Ask a medical doctor why they chose that path in life, they'll likely say it's "to help people." Ask them why they didn't become a nurse, and they'll say "it doesn't pay enough."
If that was all there was to it, I wouldn't be worried either. Normal coastal erosion should be a far greater concern to coastline dwellers than the sea level rising to a relevant degree within their lifetimes, if this was all there was to it.
The climate change part resulting in economic devastation of areas completely reliant on stable and predictable weather patterns, of course, is likely the real source of worry. Just one example: the capsizing of fishing industries due to a change in migration patterns resulting from a change in weather patterns (like El Nino, but on a more permanent scale) or a drastic change in water temperature from the melting of the ice caps... that'd be something coastal dwellers would really have to worry about.
They'll map their Windows pagefile to it and between usual user loads and SuperFetch making a mess of the standby page tables, 20GB a day of pointless background load doesn't seem that unreasonable to expect. This puts it back within the realm of reliability for a standard hard drive, and performance aside, the next easiest way of justifying the higher cost per gigabyte is to claim far greater reliability.
Depending on what OS you use, you could buy a small, fast SSD in the form factor of a PCI card with four RAM slots, a SATA data connector, and a lithium-ion battery for the off-chance you lose power. Put your OS on that, and you've got something that'll boot in a few seconds rather than close to a minute, again depending on what OS you run.
I'm talking about the Gigabyte i-RAM, in case you've never heard of it.
If you're buying one of these, you're not buying high data density per dollar, you're buying raw performance. It's the same argument applied to the WD Raptors when they were unleashed upon the masses. Viability is always relative - someone out there with money to burn who wants speed they probably won't be able to quantify in real-world use will nevertheless buy the 1TB variant, just as there are plenty of people out there that buy $300K sports cars for whatever reasons.
Your "one step further" is advocacy of burning that bridge behind you. When you no longer share a roof with the parents, and have to worry about paying for such things as a roof over your head, why turn down a good (if not necessarily reliable) source of easy money?
It's no problem if it's an occaisonal question, but the learned helplessness that many people demonstrate is just insulting.
It's the path of least resistance if you've already established that you're willing to help them for free. The moment you establish that your time and energy will actually cost them something, then they'll either learn it on their own, or pay you to do it anyways.
The former is something we should be fearing, not encouraging, both because it denies us of easy money (if they managed to fix the problem), and assuming they invariably fuck something up down the line, and then call us to fix it, it'll likely never be as easy as fixing the original problem would've been.
Slashdot Mirror
So why not arrest them for rioting?
It was a rhetorical question, not meant to be answered.
In effect, compelling someone to do the job of a police officer? Ensuring the safety of the public is, after all, their job.
By that logic, why listen to anyone conscripted into doing the job of a police officer?
But he didn't create the mob. He didn't drag these people in in shackles and order them to do what they did. They independently chose to be there and they independently chose to become unruly.
Since he didn't create the mob, but rather it created itself, he didn't get in the way of police either. The police dumped their responsibility for controlling and/or dispersing the mob in his lap, and then arrested him for non-compliance, in effect, not doing their job for them.
So, in this case, they got lazy and dumped their responsibility on him, and then arrested him for non-compliance, which I assume made sense to them because at least it got the mob to disperse, right?
And how is it at all lawful to compel someone into doing the job of a police officer?
But they're not even attempting to perform their duties in the first place! It's their job to convince the mob to remain peaceful or peacefully disperse, not his. What they opted to do instead was dump their responsibility in his lap and then arrest him for not doing their job.
Isn't telling them to leave the job of the police? Shit, anyone who gets conscripted into doing a cop's job should get combat pay and benefits.
They could also order the mob to leave. What are the chances that they tried that first, it failed, so they got lazy and arrested the source of their attention rather than arrest the mob?
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a mob of sentient individuals cannot be held responsible for forming up into a mob and directly causing a nuisance while the target of their attention can be arrested for simply being present.
This, I don't understand, at all. Peacefully disperse a mob? Isn't that their job?
Heck, why not arrest the members of said mob rather than arrest the target of the mob's attention? Shit, if the mob switched targets to the police, by this logic, aren't the police compelled to arrest themselves if they can't "peacefully disperse" said mob?
The problem is that even if the vendors had a policy of informing customers that they could decline to use the included OS and software, whatever refund they could get for declining the use of the license would be eaten by the consumer to pay a tech to unbox the system, hook it up, blow away the contents of the drive, invalidate the license key, and box it back up properly before handing it off/shipping it out to the consumer. The manufacturers could do this, but it's also likely that they'd have to pass the cost of shipping a computer sans shovelware and a prepackaged OS off to the consumer to not really validate getting much, if any refund at all, in the first place (not to mention the aforementioned process of blowing away the contents of the drive if we're talking about removing something already boxed and stocked on a shelf to be modified prior to shipping). It's probably a lot easier on everyone (but the consumer, but there's always a loser in these situations) to just make it entirely the consumer's responsibility of getting MS to issue a refund and invalidate the license key.
Which is why such paperwork is handled and contracts are signed before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. The problem here with this analogy is that the computer manufacturer and the operating system provider tend to be different entities, whereas typically the purchase of a vehicle includes the engine, from the same manufacturer, as part of the same overall deal you contractually agree to purchase before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. You become the registered owner of the vehicle, so even before you get physical possession of the vehicle, you are liable for anything untoward that happens with it (to the reasonable extents covered by law and warranties (and laws on warranties)) the moment those rights are signed over.
There is no "computer registration," though. The EULA is the operating system provider's (and in some cases, the computer manufacturer's) means of having you agree to their terms of use before you use their product, even if you've already purchased the computer. It seems to boil down to an issue of convenience, as they could go to all the trouble of making you agree to their license terms before you ever actually buy the computer (if bought online, forward the customer to a website where they sign a contract electronically before the purchase is completed; if bought at a brick and mortar store, an additional signature at the bottom of a printed EULA from Microsoft with copies kept by Microsoft, the retailer, and customer), but it's far easier and accomplishes the same goal by just making you agree to the EULA when you actually turn on and start using the computer, it being a reasonable assumption that the person agreeing to the EULA is the intended owner and user of the computer, and even more so since the EULA tends to only cover the use of the software as opposed to the use of the hardware.
After all, if you're using the OS provided with the computer, with the provided license, it's implied that you accepted the EULA. If you blew away the partition and installed your own OS of choice, then it's largely a non-issue outside of forfeiting your right to use that license later on, and haggling over how much you should be refunded, if at all.
In a way, yes. The GPS navigation system of my car will not let me use it until I accept the EULA, each time I start the car.
As applies to your analogy, one could argue the EULA was already accepted when you purchased the car and signed all of the paperwork involved. It'd be a colossal understatement to say that there's a lot of legalese you contractually agree to with the purchase of a new vehicle from a dealership (as opposed to a secondhand sale where you're basically taking the previous owner at his word).
Up to a point. if you maintained a 2000 Ford Taurus to be at the exact condition it was when you bought it new it'd be worth far more than the price you paid for it a long time down the road, simply due to historical value. You'd have something that few others could claim to have, and it'd be in perfect condition. For the sake of context, try finding a copy of Star Trek: Birth of the Federation for sale, and try not to be surprised at how much it costs, despite being an old, outdated game out of print.
How does the pricing scale when bulk ordering is taken into account? I can believe the OEM price of a single license of XP Home Edition being around $30, but I would have a hard time believing that OEMs aren't getting significant discounts for bulk orders.
Yeah, I've read about the DRAM-based devices that actually use the bus for more than just a source of power, and I agree, the price tag removes them from consideration.
The only thing the i-RAM has on a Flash-based SSD is number of write cycles before the thing starts going bad. It's effectively infinite, so long as the DRAM itself doesn't start developing issues.
Anyway, I just threw the i-RAM out there for the sake of comparison, it's cheap enough to at least be considered, even if only for the sake of novelty as opposed to actually being as practical as a Flash-based SSD.
Replacing private insurance with public insurance just shifts the burden of responsibility to an entity even less inclined to do a good job than a private corporation, seeing as a private corporation would go belly up if they lose their customers, or make such a bad name for themselves that nobody wants to be their customer in the first place. I don't like insurance because they make it so goddamn difficult to be their customer in the first place, even though I readily admit I understand why they make it so difficult.
I don't like the "public option" due to a general distrust of the government's capacity to do anything competently besides the one thing it has always been good at: screwing everyone over. If it turned out to be the exception rather than the rule, great, but it seems like the ultimate goal here is to drive private insurers out of business, make everyone beholden to the government for their health care, all out of some misguided belief that the government couldn't or wouldn't possibly screw us over any harder than the private insurers do.
I don't hate the medical profession, but my cynicism dictates that I have to take whatever they recommend with a grain of salt simply because they, too, are in this to make a profit. Ask a medical doctor why they chose that path in life, they'll likely say it's "to help people." Ask them why they didn't become a nurse, and they'll say "it doesn't pay enough."
If that was all there was to it, I wouldn't be worried either. Normal coastal erosion should be a far greater concern to coastline dwellers than the sea level rising to a relevant degree within their lifetimes, if this was all there was to it.
The climate change part resulting in economic devastation of areas completely reliant on stable and predictable weather patterns, of course, is likely the real source of worry. Just one example: the capsizing of fishing industries due to a change in migration patterns resulting from a change in weather patterns (like El Nino, but on a more permanent scale) or a drastic change in water temperature from the melting of the ice caps... that'd be something coastal dwellers would really have to worry about.
They'll map their Windows pagefile to it and between usual user loads and SuperFetch making a mess of the standby page tables, 20GB a day of pointless background load doesn't seem that unreasonable to expect. This puts it back within the realm of reliability for a standard hard drive, and performance aside, the next easiest way of justifying the higher cost per gigabyte is to claim far greater reliability.
Depending on what OS you use, you could buy a small, fast SSD in the form factor of a PCI card with four RAM slots, a SATA data connector, and a lithium-ion battery for the off-chance you lose power. Put your OS on that, and you've got something that'll boot in a few seconds rather than close to a minute, again depending on what OS you run.
I'm talking about the Gigabyte i-RAM, in case you've never heard of it.
If you're buying one of these, you're not buying high data density per dollar, you're buying raw performance. It's the same argument applied to the WD Raptors when they were unleashed upon the masses. Viability is always relative - someone out there with money to burn who wants speed they probably won't be able to quantify in real-world use will nevertheless buy the 1TB variant, just as there are plenty of people out there that buy $300K sports cars for whatever reasons.
Your "one step further" is advocacy of burning that bridge behind you. When you no longer share a roof with the parents, and have to worry about paying for such things as a roof over your head, why turn down a good (if not necessarily reliable) source of easy money?
It's the path of least resistance if you've already established that you're willing to help them for free. The moment you establish that your time and energy will actually cost them something, then they'll either learn it on their own, or pay you to do it anyways.
The former is something we should be fearing, not encouraging, both because it denies us of easy money (if they managed to fix the problem), and assuming they invariably fuck something up down the line, and then call us to fix it, it'll likely never be as easy as fixing the original problem would've been.