Hackers don't usually go into the same jails as violent crime offenders.
They do if the hacker failed to play ball with the prosecution and the prosecution wants to send a message... or hell, just if the prosecution wants to send a message. Then the Business Software Alliance gets to start their whispering campaign "violate a software license and get raped in prison" again. Disgusting, all of them. We've got a society where obedience to the law is enforced by the threat of prison rape.
Yes, but many people have. The legal system isn't perfect, and isn't even reliable. I've seen evidence that about 1/3 of civil cases are wrongly decided. Once you go into court, you're throwing the dice. Guilty people go free and innocent people are convicted.
Once I'm being beaten up, it's worse than throwing the dice; I'm depending on a combination of luck and my attacker's mercy.
Straw man. Nobody in the American political discourse has proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Name one. There are absolute pacifists, but they've never been elected to office.
I know of no officeholders with those beliefs, but it's certainly been brought up in this very comment section. And the more mainstream view -- which you apparently share -- of prohibiting possession of the means of deadly force is tantamount to the same thing.
If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.
That's right. If you're getting beaten up, you're not in a good position to tell whether deadly force is justified.
The standard is not whether the other guy is actually going to kill me. The standard is whether or not I believe he is going to kill me or inflict grave bodily harm upon me, and whether a reasonable person -- one in my position as victim, not a disinterested observer -- would believe that he was going to be killed or have grave bodily harm inflicted upon him.
I don't trust you to make a rational decision in the heat of the moment. You're going to kill someone who never would have killed you. I want to prevent you from carrying handguns around, if possible.
You would take that decision from my hands and place it in the hands of my attacker. In order to save the life of a violent criminal, you would require me to accept being physically beaten by that criminal, beaten to any extent that criminal wishes, up to and including my own death. I don't find that to be a reasonable position.
I just gave you one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori There are many others. There are handgun-control web sites where law students have compiled long lists of such cases.
And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You said that in "most" self defense killings, "the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury". That requires two numbers, one being the number of justified self defense killings, and the other being the number of mistaken self defense killings. Anecdotes about mistaken ones don't cut it.
I don't think the law is going to accommodate you. You can't shoot the other guy just because he's beating you up. There are barroom fights and traffic confrontations all the time. Legislators don't want to turn them into homicides.
Have you ever been beat up? Gotten into a fight with a guy who seriously outclassed you and was looking to do you harm? Had your nose broken, your head bashed on the ground, and your attacker is on top of you and continuing to hit you and you can't physically stop him? Maybe you're a physically powerful person and don't get it, but the fact is in that situation, a reasonable person would in fact be in fear of great bodily harm if not death.
If you're getting beaten up and you kill the other guy with a gun, you're going to have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Most likely you didn't. Most shooters act in the heat of the moment.
If you're not acting in the heat of the moment, it's probably not self defense.
Afterwards, on calm reflection, that fear doesn't look reasonable. Add a gun to the fight, you wind up in jail for 20 years.
Really? Many people have responded to a beating with a shooting without spending 20 years in jail.
The law has to restrict people from shooting other people. Any law has to come down to allowing one person to kill another person only when the shooter had a "reasonable" belief that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
No, actually; other standards are possible. Some have proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Going the other way, one could envision a standard of allowing deadly force in self defense against any assault.
You can never tell when you kill the other guy that the legal system is going to decide that your killing was "reasonable."
If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.
In most of these killings, the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Citation needed. One example doesn't make "most".
People get into fights all the time.
I don't.
They seldom get killed in fistfights. Put a gun in the situation, and people will get killed.
If people who go around being other people with their fists get killed by those people, that's all right with me.
You're looking at it from the perspective of the shooter.
I'm looking it from the perspective of the guy who is being beaten up. I don't want the law to take the position that I should take a beating rather than use deadly force against the person beating me.
but there's a whole slew of unknowns regarding the particular intersection of the HR worker's personal judgement and an individual's lifestyle that makes it a sensitive action to take.
One of the few photos of myself on my facebook page is a picture of me with an empty birdbath-sized margarita glass in front of me. Judging from my expression, I drank that margarita (and, in fact, I did. And it was very good. Unfortunately, the restaurant is out of business now.). Another photo is me with two beers in front of me. I leave these up there to ensure that I never get hired by the sort of tight-assed company which would judge me according to essentially-innocuous pictures on social media.
In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker.
Florida's requirement (and it is not atypical) is that you do have a right to use deadly force in self defense if you're in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. If you're getting pounded in the head and your attacker has already broken your nose, that fear might well be there, and it would be reasonable.
If you go around with a concealed handgun, confronting other people, and somebody fights back, you don't have a right to kill him. Try it and you'll wind up like Zimmerman.
Alive? A bit of doggerel from Usenet covers that one -- "Avoid the legal nets / that entangled Bernie Goetz / Yell 'Help Help Police' / Like Kitty Genovese"
Of course, your little narrative assumes that physically attacking someone who merely "confronts" you is "fighting back", an assumption I think is at odds with the law.
Extremely easy for you probably, but not for 99% of the people stealing cellphones, I can guarantee you.
Unfortunately, there are people in the criminal world who specialize in doing things other criminals cannot; chop shop operators reduce cars to parts for resale, fences resell stolen property, money launderers of various sorts make ill-gotten gains look legitimate. I suspect that were IMEI blacklisting to become ubiquitous, we would see criminals specializing in reprogramming IMEIs. Might slow the torrent of theft, though.
Injuries do take time to show. The copious amounts of blood that should end up on you when you shoot someone directly above you while you are lying on the ground show up right away, however. This tends to lend credence to the idea that Martin was essentially executed rather than being killed in the heat of combat.
The copious amounts of blood from a shooting tend to come out the exit wound (and there was none in this case). You get some from the entry wound, but not nearly as much. Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.
Zimmerman was told to de-escalate the situation by the 911 operator by staying in his vehicle and instead he decided to escalate. That's murder.
And you can cite the Florida law requiring persons to obey the instructions of 911 operators, and which further provide that self-defense is rules out if that law is broken?
Be nice if it could be my house! I want to avoid turning the heat on till Thanksgiving if possible, but it's getting a bit tough.
Figure out a way to efficiently transport low-grade heat long distances (or even extremely efficiently transport it short distances), and you might not get a Nobel prize, but you could get quite wealthy, and even feel good about all the energy the world saves.
Until it's revealed that the materials used cause cancer in cute puppies, but, eh, maybe they won't find out until you're dead.
The internet only serves to make that easier because such geniuses can give advice to others which will serve to point them in the right direction. In turn the slacker-genius may end up not taking any credit, but stay true to the slacker-genius nature of not doing much of the work either.
If they'd just take the credit, they wouldn't be decried as slackers but hailed as leaders.
My advise is concentrate on dodging the really big turds and get on with doing what you enjoy. Myself and the rest of the "boomer generation" will be dead soon enough
'Itâ(TM)s amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired.'
I can just see something like Corlianus playing out all over this page. People who think they are God's gift to man, but certainly not leaders of men, and they want special treatment, well... just because. Good luck with that, friends.
Ah, so you recognize no form of greatness other than leadership? There is no place in your world, aside from the very bottom, for those who can do and do well, but not lead? Have it your way, but don't be surprised when you find yourself without their services.
Why bother looking. The local country jail is brimming with just such credentials.
Naa, those are the guys who couldn't cut it. A real genius quickly realizes petty crime doesn't pay, and non-petty crime is dangerous and a lot of hard work (you think it's easy running a drug cartel?). No, the real psychopathic geniuses will quickly figure out the place you can get the biggest payoff with the least work is Wall Street. If they're megalomaniacs, they might go for politics instead.
- stigmatizes children in a way that causes a wide disconnect between their self-esteem and self-confidence.
I think it's more likely the intelligence of the child which stigmatizes them.
- encourages kids for being "smart" or "intelligent" which rewards them for something they cannot control, and causes weird neuroses.
Right, we should constantly knock them down, making their intellectual prowess not a thing of pride but just an inborn advantage they should feel vaguely guilty for possessing.
- isolates kids from their peer group based on criteria they don't understand, and prevents them from forming natural relationships with their classmates.
Again, their intelligence alone will do that in most cases -- unless you group them with other intelligent kids.
- presumes that these "gifted" kids can be engineered somehow into whatever the popular ideal of citizenship is.
True of school in general, though I will grant that the "ideal" for the gifted kids tends to be different.
- discourages solving problems with discipline and work, which is why you see so many "gifted" drop outs and burnouts.
Damn you brat, don't solve that problem the easy and intelligent way; struggle through it hard way we told you; tedium is good for you.
- shields "normal" kids from the disruptive exposure to intelligence that they too should understand and adapt to.
Normal kids already understand intelligence -- it's a reason to call a kid names and physically abuse him.
I am curious as to why engine breaking vs normal breaking would make a difference.
Engine braking can't lock your brakes. If you try to use too much engine braking, your wheels will start to slip but not as severely as if you apply too much normal braking and lock them up. Engine braking also typically applies only to two wheels, which can be an advantage (sometimes, with RWD, so you can steer with the fronts while slowing with the rear) or disadvantage (most of the time).
I don't see why a good ABS wouldn't do better than engine braking -- it would maintain a fairly constant amount of slip. IIRC, good ABS does beat professional drivers on ice.
Small potatoes. Just cross a few cold viruses with the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein. It's already been done. Release, enjoy apocalypse (until you die drowning in your own blood).
It doesn't matter how powerful your computer is, when you've got only the barest idea of the inputs and the parameters of your model, the output is still going to be crap. Assuming your model is any good in the first place, which is unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
...because this is like asking how to be a plumber without dealing with sewage.
They've rediscovered forward error correction?
They do if the hacker failed to play ball with the prosecution and the prosecution wants to send a message... or hell, just if the prosecution wants to send a message. Then the Business Software Alliance gets to start their whispering campaign "violate a software license and get raped in prison" again. Disgusting, all of them. We've got a society where obedience to the law is enforced by the threat of prison rape.
Once I'm being beaten up, it's worse than throwing the dice; I'm depending on a combination of luck and my attacker's mercy.
I know of no officeholders with those beliefs, but it's certainly been brought up in this very comment section. And the more mainstream view -- which you apparently share -- of prohibiting possession of the means of deadly force is tantamount to the same thing.
The standard is not whether the other guy is actually going to kill me. The standard is whether or not I believe he is going to kill me or inflict grave bodily harm upon me, and whether a reasonable person -- one in my position as victim, not a disinterested observer -- would believe that he was going to be killed or have grave bodily harm inflicted upon him.
You would take that decision from my hands and place it in the hands of my attacker. In order to save the life of a violent criminal, you would require me to accept being physically beaten by that criminal, beaten to any extent that criminal wishes, up to and including my own death. I don't find that to be a reasonable position.
And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You said that in "most" self defense killings, "the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury". That requires two numbers, one being the number of justified self defense killings, and the other being the number of mistaken self defense killings. Anecdotes about mistaken ones don't cut it.
Have you ever been beat up? Gotten into a fight with a guy who seriously outclassed you and was looking to do you harm? Had your nose broken, your head bashed on the ground, and your attacker is on top of you and continuing to hit you and you can't physically stop him? Maybe you're a physically powerful person and don't get it, but the fact is in that situation, a reasonable person would in fact be in fear of great bodily harm if not death.
If you're not acting in the heat of the moment, it's probably not self defense.
Really? Many people have responded to a beating with a shooting without spending 20 years in jail.
No, actually; other standards are possible. Some have proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Going the other way, one could envision a standard of allowing deadly force in self defense against any assault.
If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.
Citation needed. One example doesn't make "most".
I don't.
If people who go around being other people with their fists get killed by those people, that's all right with me.
I'm looking it from the perspective of the guy who is being beaten up. I don't want the law to take the position that I should take a beating rather than use deadly force against the person beating me.
I'd rather the law not restrict me to those choices, which is why I am in favor of allowing the use of deadly force in self defense.
Sorry, a previous filing by Mr. A. Coward means you fail to get the patent, and you owe HIM royalties.
One of the few photos of myself on my facebook page is a picture of me with an empty birdbath-sized margarita glass in front of me. Judging from my expression, I drank that margarita (and, in fact, I did. And it was very good. Unfortunately, the restaurant is out of business now.). Another photo is me with two beers in front of me. I leave these up there to ensure that I never get hired by the sort of tight-assed company which would judge me according to essentially-innocuous pictures on social media.
Florida's requirement (and it is not atypical) is that you do have a right to use deadly force in self defense if you're in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. If you're getting pounded in the head and your attacker has already broken your nose, that fear might well be there, and it would be reasonable.
Alive? A bit of doggerel from Usenet covers that one -- "Avoid the legal nets / that entangled Bernie Goetz / Yell 'Help Help Police' / Like Kitty Genovese"
Of course, your little narrative assumes that physically attacking someone who merely "confronts" you is "fighting back", an assumption I think is at odds with the law.
Unfortunately, there are people in the criminal world who specialize in doing things other criminals cannot; chop shop operators reduce cars to parts for resale, fences resell stolen property, money launderers of various sorts make ill-gotten gains look legitimate. I suspect that were IMEI blacklisting to become ubiquitous, we would see criminals specializing in reprogramming IMEIs. Might slow the torrent of theft, though.
The copious amounts of blood from a shooting tend to come out the exit wound (and there was none in this case). You get some from the entry wound, but not nearly as much. Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.
And you can cite the Florida law requiring persons to obey the instructions of 911 operators, and which further provide that self-defense is rules out if that law is broken?
Figure out a way to efficiently transport low-grade heat long distances (or even extremely efficiently transport it short distances), and you might not get a Nobel prize, but you could get quite wealthy, and even feel good about all the energy the world saves.
Until it's revealed that the materials used cause cancer in cute puppies, but, eh, maybe they won't find out until you're dead.
If they'd just take the credit, they wouldn't be decried as slackers but hailed as leaders.
'Itâ(TM)s amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired.'
Ah, so you recognize no form of greatness other than leadership? There is no place in your world, aside from the very bottom, for those who can do and do well, but not lead? Have it your way, but don't be surprised when you find yourself without their services.
Of course, I knew that, and have actually been to Evian-les-Bains. As my hair would show.
Naa, those are the guys who couldn't cut it. A real genius quickly realizes petty crime doesn't pay, and non-petty crime is dangerous and a lot of hard work (you think it's easy running a drug cartel?). No, the real psychopathic geniuses will quickly figure out the place you can get the biggest payoff with the least work is Wall Street. If they're megalomaniacs, they might go for politics instead.
I think it's more likely the intelligence of the child which stigmatizes them.
Right, we should constantly knock them down, making their intellectual prowess not a thing of pride but just an inborn advantage they should feel vaguely guilty for possessing.
Again, their intelligence alone will do that in most cases -- unless you group them with other intelligent kids.
True of school in general, though I will grant that the "ideal" for the gifted kids tends to be different.
Damn you brat, don't solve that problem the easy and intelligent way; struggle through it hard way we told you; tedium is good for you.
Normal kids already understand intelligence -- it's a reason to call a kid names and physically abuse him.
Engine braking can't lock your brakes. If you try to use too much engine braking, your wheels will start to slip but not as severely as if you apply too much normal braking and lock them up. Engine braking also typically applies only to two wheels, which can be an advantage (sometimes, with RWD, so you can steer with the fronts while slowing with the rear) or disadvantage (most of the time).
I don't see why a good ABS wouldn't do better than engine braking -- it would maintain a fairly constant amount of slip. IIRC, good ABS does beat professional drivers on ice.
They laughed at me when I would drink nothing but Evian or, in a pinch, Perrier. Now my hair proves nothing about where I've been.
NYC would just chalk him up as another failed terrorist. And the people would accept that.
All regulated to death in NYC.
Small potatoes. Just cross a few cold viruses with the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein. It's already been done. Release, enjoy apocalypse (until you die drowning in your own blood).
It doesn't matter how powerful your computer is, when you've got only the barest idea of the inputs and the parameters of your model, the output is still going to be crap. Assuming your model is any good in the first place, which is unlikely.