How can they be net neutral yet block pirate bay? Either it's all just internet traffic or it's something to stick your dirty fingers in in order to increase profit for you and your cronies.
They are as conflicted and subject to legal trolling as any other country.
Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.
Unless you're a cop and the black guy is running to catch a subway train.
He wasn't black but the rest of your story is right. The kind of police who are allowed to carry guns in the UK ( which isn't too many ) effectively have a license to kill without the risk of being brought to justice. The IPCC whitewashes all police killings. How you justify several police holding down an innocent, unarmed, and non-threatening man, and shooting him 7 times in the head is a mystery to me but that's what the IPCC does.
The same happened with Ian Tomlinson who the police beat to death just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think there were some other cases of unprovoked police killings but I don't remember them right now.
you're not from the UK are you? Ok, then stop spreading FUD.
Aiding and abetting a criminal is not the same as simply knowing them or being there when they commit a crime.
Actually there is such a law. If you are in a group and someone in that group committed a murder every single member of the group is guilty of murder and can be tried and convicted for it even if you didn't know of, or approve of the murder you are still guilty of it.
IANAL, but ifaik you can use lethal force if it's reasonable to do so in the prevention of some crimes - such as murder. For example, if you killed someone that was apparently trying to murder you, you wouldn't commit murder yourself if your actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In practice they would try you for murder and you would have to prove you could not have acted any other way.
if I hadn't had training then I might be tempted to punch them in the face, which can kill much more easily than people think.
There was a case in the UK of a drunk guy staggering though a town center somewhere. For no real reason someone punched him in the head once as he walked past. The drunk fell to the ground and died and they had a big manhunt to catch the murderer. The victim had no medical history that indicated head or brain problems, there was no reason to think one punch would do more than hurt him a bit. The victim looked like any other man before the attack, not weak or frail.
So yes. just backing up your statement that it's quite possible to accidentally kill someone by punching them once in the head.
The law allows you to use proportionate violence in self-defence. If you are attacked then you can defend yourself. Claiming that you have to allow youself to get beaten is an ignorant strawman argument.
UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later. If a mugger walks into a police station bloody and beaten and you are not hurt worse the police will come for you. If you don't have reliable witnesses or video evidence they might just jail you. Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.
The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.
The Tories want civil unrest as it promotes a kneejerk reaction by the unwashed and cowardly masses. "Protect us!" Someone with a disciplined approach to self defence is dangerous whichever side listens to him.
There are thousands of self defense schools in the UK and thousands of fighting sport schools that teach stuff like boxing. They are not banned.
This guy was banned not because he promotes self-defense but because he promotes causing people crippling pain and maiming them. There is a world of difference between dealing with an attacker and hurting him if you need to and maiming him for a laugh and because you think you can legally get away with it.
Frankly this guy sounds like an animal looking for some excuse to rip apart weaker animals. The UK government did the right thing.
Sure, which one do you think will do better, Camilla or Kate?
How about electing a leader? The whole concept of kings and queens is a throwback to genetic memory, these people are no better at leading the country then the people who empty the bins in the street would be.
Says who? There were only 2 witnesses to this and one of them is dead.
The only facts seem to be Martin's death and Zimmerman going out of his way to confront Martin. What exactly happened between these two will never be known.
This seems like such an unstable system that it's practically a security issue. Could someone, in theory, purposely send bad traffic to as many internet relays (or whatever) as possible, causing them to stall and shutting down huge chunks of the internet?
You want to DDOS core routers? You would need an insane amount of bandwidth. The only company that has enough malware on enough computers is Microsoft, they demonstracted this with SQL slammer.
Buffering is a way of speeding servers up immensely. Memory is orders of magnitude faster than disk, and piling RAM on and creating huge caches can only help performance. I call bullshit on your entire claim. This summary is so awful, I don't even want to read whatever article you linked to.
I call bullshit on people calling bullshit on things without putting in the effort to even try and understand the story. It's about buffering in network devices causing excessive lag as TCP/IP wasn't built to handle large amounts of invisible store and forward buffering between endpoints. Huge caches don't always help performance, it depends on the nature of the thing being cached.
Doesn't even matter. The TSA are meant to ensure the safety of air travel not dictate what is and isn't allowed in people's blood streams.
The TSA should not be allowed to subject medical devices they can't understand to radiation that they also can't understand. If I started shooting mazers at wheelchair users people would think I was a looney.
A safer rail system was canceled in the UK for exactly that reason. The extra deaths from driving while they put the thing together far outweighed the saved lives from potential train crashes.
You are claiming that either there are no updates for OpenBSD or they are too hard to apply? Read the OpenBSD website, they have errata for each release.
You think the IPtables forward chain make more sense than having comming and outgoing rules for each interface!? You don't get how firewalls work.
You use GUI's to configure a firewall!? You really don't get how firewalls work and should not be allowed anywhere near them.
IPSec with telnet? If you are trying to say that's better than OpenSSH?
Your sentence structure makes your post really hard to read.
You are either trolling me or you are a prime example of why security in big companies is one large bag of fail. I've worked with 'security' departments before that understood nothing but their arbitary rulebook and you do sound pretty much like them.
I replaced our Sonicwall with OpenBSD+PF nearly 8 years ago. The only user-visible difference is that we stopped having unplanned network outages.
s/sonicwall/pfsense/ and I did the same. It worked great.
I don't get why anyone wants stuff like pfsense. If people can't understand pf's easy syntax they can't really understand the network traffic it's manipulating.
I care about the base install. It's all you need to make a highly secure firewall. I want as little as possible running on my firewalls.
PF is actually easier to setup and maintain complex sets of rules than iptables is. I know there isn't much you can't do with iptables but pf makes most of it way easier. Plus the iptables concept of a forward chain really is a bad thing.
You claim *BSD lacks all kinds of things but most of these look like big company process things that could be applied to the BSD's in just the same way they are applied to windows. Access limiting for example.. Well were do you think openssh came from?
OpenBSD works fine in my 'production corporate environment' thanks.
So your answer is to destroy the internet because dodgy people are using it. That's like blowing up cities because dodgy people trade there too or banning all money because it's 'crime-enabling'.
We are better off living in the current imperfect world than your fascist dream.
Some don't play to win, but enjoy the fun of the game.
I don't see the Olympics being much fun what with heavily armed jackbooted thugs marching up and down every street in London. I left the country, I'm thinking about leaving the continent too.
I really feel sorry for the mugs who got their tax money robbed to fund this folly.
Slashdot Mirror
How can they be net neutral yet block pirate bay? Either it's all just internet traffic or it's something to stick your dirty fingers in in order to increase profit for you and your cronies.
They are as conflicted and subject to legal trolling as any other country.
Unlike the USA the UK has a concept of minimum force. If you see a black guy in your neighbourhood and think he may be causing trouble you are not just allowed to kill him.
Unless you're a cop and the black guy is running to catch a subway train.
You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes ?
He wasn't black but the rest of your story is right. The kind of police who are allowed to carry guns in the UK ( which isn't too many ) effectively have a license to kill without the risk of being brought to justice. The IPCC whitewashes all police killings. How you justify several police holding down an innocent, unarmed, and non-threatening man, and shooting him 7 times in the head is a mystery to me but that's what the IPCC does.
The same happened with Ian Tomlinson who the police beat to death just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think there were some other cases of unprovoked police killings but I don't remember them right now.
you're not from the UK are you? Ok, then stop spreading FUD.
Aiding and abetting a criminal is not the same as simply knowing them or being there when they commit a crime.
Actually there is such a law. If you are in a group and someone in that group committed a murder every single member of the group is guilty of murder and can be tried and convicted for it even if you didn't know of, or approve of the murder you are still guilty of it.
It's called 'joint enterprise' or something like that. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/joint-enterprise-am-i-a-murderer-pt-3-3/9434.html
IANAL, but ifaik you can use lethal force if it's reasonable to do so in the prevention of some crimes - such as murder. For example, if you killed someone that was apparently trying to murder you, you wouldn't commit murder yourself if your actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In practice they would try you for murder and you would have to prove you could not have acted any other way.
if I hadn't had training then I might be tempted to punch them in the face, which can kill much more easily than people think.
There was a case in the UK of a drunk guy staggering though a town center somewhere. For no real reason someone punched him in the head once as he walked past. The drunk fell to the ground and died and they had a big manhunt to catch the murderer. The victim had no medical history that indicated head or brain problems, there was no reason to think one punch would do more than hurt him a bit. The victim looked like any other man before the attack, not weak or frail.
So yes. just backing up your statement that it's quite possible to accidentally kill someone by punching them once in the head.
The law allows you to use proportionate violence in self-defence. If you are attacked then you can defend yourself. Claiming that you have to allow youself to get beaten is an ignorant strawman argument.
UK law only allows you to defend yourself if you can prove your innocence later. If a mugger walks into a police station bloody and beaten and you are not hurt worse the police will come for you. If you don't have reliable witnesses or video evidence they might just jail you. Don't ever get the impression the UK police care about anyone, the way they see it the victims did something to deserve it.
The thing is if you really have to defend yourself then you have a right that transcends national laws to do so, criminal justice system be dammed.
The Tories want civil unrest as it promotes a kneejerk reaction by the unwashed and cowardly masses. "Protect us!" Someone with a disciplined approach to self defence is dangerous whichever side listens to him.
There are thousands of self defense schools in the UK and thousands of fighting sport schools that teach stuff like boxing. They are not banned.
This guy was banned not because he promotes self-defense but because he promotes causing people crippling pain and maiming them. There is a world of difference between dealing with an attacker and hurting him if you need to and maiming him for a laugh and because you think you can legally get away with it.
Frankly this guy sounds like an animal looking for some excuse to rip apart weaker animals. The UK government did the right thing.
Sure, which one do you think will do better, Camilla or Kate?
How about electing a leader? The whole concept of kings and queens is a throwback to genetic memory, these people are no better at leading the country then the people who empty the bins in the street would be.
They don't understand the internet, they shouldn't be making decisions about it. Can't we retire this queen, and get a new one?
For French values of 'retire'.
Says who? There were only 2 witnesses to this and one of them is dead.
The only facts seem to be Martin's death and Zimmerman going out of his way to confront Martin. What exactly happened between these two will never be known.
This seems like such an unstable system that it's practically a security issue. Could someone, in theory, purposely send bad traffic to as many internet relays (or whatever) as possible, causing them to stall and shutting down huge chunks of the internet?
You want to DDOS core routers? You would need an insane amount of bandwidth. The only company that has enough malware on enough computers is Microsoft, they demonstracted this with SQL slammer.
Buffering is a way of speeding servers up immensely. Memory is orders of magnitude faster than disk, and piling RAM on and creating huge caches can only help performance. I call bullshit on your entire claim. This summary is so awful, I don't even want to read whatever article you linked to.
I call bullshit on people calling bullshit on things without putting in the effort to even try and understand the story. It's about buffering in network devices causing excessive lag as TCP/IP wasn't built to handle large amounts of invisible store and forward buffering between endpoints. Huge caches don't always help performance, it depends on the nature of the thing being cached.
'i call bullshit' is a stupid phrase too.
She was smuggling cocaine inside her insulin.
Doesn't even matter. The TSA are meant to ensure the safety of air travel not dictate what is and isn't allowed in people's blood streams.
The TSA should not be allowed to subject medical devices they can't understand to radiation that they also can't understand. If I started shooting mazers at wheelchair users people would think I was a looney.
A safer rail system was canceled in the UK for exactly that reason. The extra deaths from driving while they put the thing together far outweighed the saved lives from potential train crashes.
Can you find a link to the TSA/driving study?
You are claiming that either there are no updates for OpenBSD or they are too hard to apply? Read the OpenBSD website, they have errata for each release.
You think the IPtables forward chain make more sense than having comming and outgoing rules for each interface!? You don't get how firewalls work.
You use GUI's to configure a firewall!? You really don't get how firewalls work and should not be allowed anywhere near them.
IPSec with telnet? If you are trying to say that's better than OpenSSH?
Your sentence structure makes your post really hard to read.
You are either trolling me or you are a prime example of why security in big companies is one large bag of fail. I've worked with 'security' departments before that understood nothing but their arbitary rulebook and you do sound pretty much like them.
It works fine however if you run this stuff under vmware you are destroying the security advantage that OpenBSD gives you.
I'm not running everything under vmware anyway. I have a few production servers under KVM but most of it is on bare metal.
I replaced our Sonicwall with OpenBSD+PF nearly 8 years ago. The only user-visible difference is that we stopped having unplanned network outages.
s/sonicwall/pfsense/ and I did the same. It worked great.
I don't get why anyone wants stuff like pfsense. If people can't understand pf's easy syntax they can't really understand the network traffic it's manipulating.
I care about the base install. It's all you need to make a highly secure firewall. I want as little as possible running on my firewalls.
PF is actually easier to setup and maintain complex sets of rules than iptables is. I know there isn't much you can't do with iptables but pf makes most of it way easier. Plus the iptables concept of a forward chain really is a bad thing.
You claim *BSD lacks all kinds of things but most of these look like big company process things that could be applied to the BSD's in just the same way they are applied to windows. Access limiting for example.. Well were do you think openssh came from?
OpenBSD works fine in my 'production corporate environment' thanks.
In a free market, the government provides protection from force and fraud. Black markets are closer to feudalism than capitalism.
Free market's don't involve the government at all. Fraud is always possible.
If taxes and governments are involved it's not really 'free' as in 'free beer' or as in 'freedom'. It's a regulated market.
So your answer is to destroy the internet because dodgy people are using it. That's like blowing up cities because dodgy people trade there too or banning all money because it's 'crime-enabling'.
We are better off living in the current imperfect world than your fascist dream.
Further here in AZ, that is NOT an illegal silencer (unless you don't purchase the very
cheap $200 license to own a silencer).
Going off at a tangent here but what possible reason does anyone have to own a silencer?
Genuine question BTW.
It was nice knowing the internet. Now the wicked people have figured out how to pervert it we can kiss it goodbye.
What we need is a new internet free from political manipulations. Something mesh based and truely free would be nice.
An iphone like Nokia Linux phone would have been 100% win!
You mean the N9?
I don't know. They don't market that thing and it's not in any of the shops near where I live.
...fly into Charles de Gaulle and drive.
Or take the same money and sit on a beach in asia. Cheaper, more relaxing, less chance of getting robbed, shot, or beaten up.
Or if you are on a budget try Amsterdam. It has hookers, weed, cheese, and funny houses.
Some don't play to win, but enjoy the fun of the game.
I don't see the Olympics being much fun what with heavily armed jackbooted thugs marching up and down every street in London. I left the country, I'm thinking about leaving the continent too.
I really feel sorry for the mugs who got their tax money robbed to fund this folly.