> It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.
Well, I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that she got a restraining order against SCO (perhaps after the Maureen O'Gara stalking bit?), so that would sound like one good reason to me.
Another would be that I *really* have to wonder what she allegedly knows about--everything she's found, she's put up on Groklaw that I've seen. The only exception might be some sealed filings that SCO somehow... mistakenly... made available anyhow. PJ was too honest to even read them, so far as I know. She mentioned that she knew about them, preferred to do everything honestly.
Oh, and IANAL, but you quash subpoenas:] There's no 's' in quash. Alas, PJ never posted an article on how subpoenas work, so I don't know enough to know what she might do, but I suspect she'll get a lawyer to handle it for her whenever she finds out about it.
> As it stands, you don't exist either. I could say I was her next door neighbor, and that'd just extend one more layer of "doesn't exist" as well. Who knows me?
So... you have to trace yourself back to Kevin Bacon?:]
If you read someone's writing enough, you feel like you know them. You recognize it almost as well as you'd recognize their voice. It shows through in their humor, their choice of words, and even mundane things like how they format and punctuate their work.
I've read Groklaw for a very long time now. If you go way back there, to when Darl was making ridiculous pronouncements every week or so and things were hectic, you'll probably find that I submitted more than a few SCO-related stories to Slashdot that all had links pointing back to Groklaw.
In no event did I suspect, even for a moment, that there was anyone other than PJ writing those articles. Okay, true, Mathfox, Marbux, AllParadox and co. have written a Groklaw article or two, but it was under their own names, and it was very clear that the writing changed even if you didn't bother to read who the post was from.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you're 100% right and this is just more SCO BS. They're just trying something sleazy to get back at a poor innocent lady who did nothing but expose all the inconsistencies in their arguments. To me, it's payback, pure and simple. I'm just sorry that PJ is their target.
It won't help one bit, of course.
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't think it will help SCO at all. I think it's just a dirty trick they're using to punish PJ for speaking out against what they've been doing. But we all knew that, huh?
I hope that when she feels better again, she finds some good way to respond to this deposition without giving SCO any opening to make all of her personal details public (like Maureen O'Gara once attempted to) and without opening herself up to any other form of harassment.
And I don't blame her one bit for being sick. Just thinking about the crap they're pulling now is enough to make me sick. She has every right to feel like a psycho ex is stalking her:(
It's yet another SCO delay tactic, in my estimation. I think everyone should know by now just how far they've drawn out this process. There was a mention on Pacer that said something about getting an extension of time to do more depositions.
Oh, and of course you'd be right to think that they're probably trying to make her personal information public. I think most people here should remember when Maureen O'Gara wrote that nasty piece with information gathered by SCO's PIs, who have been stalking PJ for a long time now, so far as I'm aware.
As for what they'll do with that information, I don't know. But SCO put out fake signs back when they were picketed, so no matter what they do I bet it'll be something mean. Of course, if *that* happens, you can bet that someone will be looking up Darl's home phone number and posting it in that Slashdot story. You know, just in case someone wanted to help him understand why people don't like it when you post their personal information...:]
My chemistry teacher, not the military, taught me most of what I know about explosives. Most of the theory on how to kill with explosives is the simple, direct opposite of how you keep yourself safe from them, after all, but I admit to watching too much MacGyver as a kid.
Of course, there wasn't so much paranoia then. Back then I was having fun with my teacher and learning about chemistry. Nowadays, they'd probably freak out and think of it as some kind of suspicious, "terrorist" activity even though we never synthesized more than a small, safe amount of anything and followed all the safety guidelines to make sure no one could possibly get hurt. We were doing science, after all, not just trying to blow things up.
It's too bad I doubt they'll let cool teachers like him do fun things to get kids interested in chemistry any more, though, thanks to paranoia like this.
The lawsuits are what destroy people (or attempt to) when they drag out the proceedings with dirty bastard SCO-like maneuvers. The settlement offers, by contrast, merely extort people so as to look good when compared to the prospects of a lawsuit.
They play hardball in court, as you can see--they'll go after you viciously even if they have good reason to think you're innocent, go after your kids even if there's little reason to think they're involved, and run away attempting to leave you stuck with thousands in legal fees if things start to look bad for them in court. I mean, we have at least one case where they're trying to extort a sick old lady who doesn't know anything about computers; they don't seem to employ ANY common sense in picking their cases and I've seen WAY too many times where they've misidentified files and filed DMCA takedown notices over crap they definitely don't own to believe that they put any effort into making sure they actually have a case.
Which is why I'm glad to have good lawyers like these guys fighting the heartless bastards.
> Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
That doesn't make much sense? A grand jury only decides who, if anyone, to indict with a crime, after which they get charged, etc. and tried with a 'petit' (smaller) jury who hear your case. After you're indicted, I don't think any of the same jurors are used to judge your case.
If you read TFA, you'll see that what he's worried about is that police will get the identities of the local anarchists who didn't necessarily do anything wrong and that that will set them up for future surveillance and whatnot. After all, the authorities have kept tabs on the membership of both peaceful and radical groups for a long time now, although I hope they're no longer doing some of the awful things they used to in the civil rights days.
So he's protecting a bunch of anonymous anarchists who were nearby when the cop was attacked--someone must've seen it, but he says that he was videotaping the other cop at the time (and there were only two, all told, according to his account over where he was).
As for the escalation of events, they describe that, too. Apparently there were only these two cops, he says that they were trying to drive down the street, but the protesters were in the way, so they accelerated a bit to get people to move, and that set people off. The one guy ran (and got videotaped) while the other guy got whacked over the head from behind. At least, from the account he gives.
What really makes me wonder, though, is given that he names the anarchist group that some of these people were from in the interview--won't the police just go investigate the whole group, now? I'm not sure that mention did them any favors, but all I really know about this is what I read in the article.
I've always loved the silly (and sometimes crazy) copyright notices that come with FAQs. How many people even read this crap? :]
(Some "junk characters" were stripped to appease the lameness filter.)
/\ i. Legal / \ / \ /______\ This FAQ was fully written by me and submitted to Gamefaqs.com / \ / \ under my jurisdiction. Therefore it abides by federal copyright / \ / \ standards, and if you rip off it in any form, you will be sent / \/ \ to the gallows. No, actually most of this text is taken -------------- verbatim from the game, so I have no dominion over it in a litigious sense.
> If you take out a Microsoft patent license, then you make copies of a Fedora CD to install throughout your organization, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Microsoft knows this.
Actually, that makes me wonder if it couldn't give the FSF and others a case against Microsoft. I wonder, too, if they're not already contemplating this in their deliberations over the Novell/Microsoft deal.
You see, I understand that there's this crazy tort called "interference with a contractual relation"... now, ignoring all the legal details [1], that tort is caused when a third party induces someone to break their contract with you. So if Microsoft is inducing people to break the GPL, it *might* be something you could sue them for. Of course, at a bare minimum, you'd have to prove that it was inducing them to actually breach the GPL and even though I believe that's the intended interpretation of section 7, there might be strong enough legal arguments to the contrary, etc.
[1] I wonder about lots of things, like what's the venue? Isn't the GPL a license, not a contract, so does that principle still apply--it seems like it should, but... ? What documented proof is there? What other laws or legal principles apply? couldn't I be utterly wrong about this, given that I'm not a lawyer? Isn't it hard to sue Microsoft even if you're legally right, when even the nearly bankrupt SCO can put up such a long & expensive fight?
Well, my personal solution is contempt for all advertising in general, except for the most up-front types (and there aren't enough of those for me to easily think up an example). Sadly, this leaves the marketers to turn, like you said, to attempt to subvert anything we still trust--thus the viral advertisements.
The only solution I have for that is to hold a severe grudge against their products. Thus, companies like SCO, Sony, HP, Lexmark and Microsoft are ones I will never willingly give money to any longer. Granted, their transgressions weren't all advertising related, but exactly the same principle applies--it's a "grim trigger" strategy one way or the other.
That said, there's still something of an arms race. They won't ever stop thinking up new tricks and I have no intention of putting up with whatever new tricks they come up with. If they just want to let us know that they had good products, that's one thing, but some modern marketing techniques are based upon psychological tricks to manipulate people and I won't put up with that.
This is Microsoft, I can honestly see them doing something as customer-hostile as this without reservations.
Why waste thousands of dollars on a patent you have no intention of using in any form? You can't be sued for infringement if you're not doing anything at all like it, and I don't buy that Microsoft is so nice as to want to protect us from intrusive advertising. I mean, how much market share did they have to lose to Firefox before they put a pop-up blocker into IE?
I'm happy to *choose* to support artists. Hell, at least once I cracked a game and then paid for it--some small-time shareware game; I was having fun and didn't want to wait to be sent the code to keep playing. It was just some guy selling his work for a few dollars and I respected the work he'd put into it. I even emailed him my crack with an explanation of how I did it.
But as you can see, I'm no fan of "moral rights" to art, nor of copyright in general. Hell, I'm the type of person that releases my own work with only the stipulation that I *NOT* be given any credit for it! So I'm not going to put up with DRM. When it gets in my way, I will hack it in some way.
That said, I really prefer Free software, where I don't have to put up with that crap.
Well, there IS the old trick of having a small explosive that attracts rescue workers who are then killed by a larger one. I believe the IRA once used a tactic like this.
That said, you're 100% correct that you do not call attention to the device itself. Especially not like that, because then you wouldn't have any idea when the rescue workers might show up because you don't know when authorities might respond.
> They have a goal completely unrelated to us being afraid. The fear that results from their activities is supposed to cause us to cave in to their demands.
So... the fear causes us to give in to their demands, but it's "completely unrelated" to us being afraid!? Okay...:]
Anyhow, I do know about their political aspirations, but I refuse to give in to fear. If they were willing to settle things with peaceful diplomacy instead of killing people whenever they got mad, they might have accomplished something by now. Of course, I suppose I also understand why they don't want anything like peace, which makes me hate them for it in spite of my better instincts.
Actually, that's probably a good thing. A device that small wouldn't cause any significant damage unless someone was holding it, so if no one was nearby, we'd have been fine (even if if had been high explosive).
And I suspect that many people did notice them, but realized that they were harmless. That, too, would be a good thing.
I just hope that the lesson people take from this is "DON'T PANIC"... it's still good advice:]
* Boston had a legitimate bomb scare at a hospital on the same day.
So the more rational folks were busy? I guess.
* The hoaxsters may have called in the bomb threat themselves, explaining why no other city reacted this way, and also why they are facing prosecution.
Well, what I saw mentioned was that they called in and said that the devices were harmless. That's not quite the same as calling it in and claiming it's threatening.
* The dread-haired guy videotaped police officers removing one of his devices and didn't step in to inform them of its benign nature.
Videotaping things like that is what he does for a living, so that's not unreasonable. I also can't blame him for not letting the people know--they're the freaking bomb squad and they *should* know what is or isn't a bomb. That said, as per above, they apparently called their boss to let the city know that the devices were harmless. I can't say that that's unreasonable, and it's not like the police were going to get hurt by a glorified Lite Brite.
I really can't see why people don't realize that the hype is due to politicians trying to cover their collective asses for an overreaction which no other city managed. I am glad, however, to have heard replies from many other city residents who are rightfully embarrassed by the city's response on their behalf. Hopefully their influence well help their city become one that is actually prepared for terrorist attack, should such a thing happen again.
Remember, every time you feel terror, the terrorists win.
> COME ON! It's a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger! What retard would possibly not know it's a bomb?
The kind who knows that real bombs have payloads. The kind that knows that a device that small isn't going to cause structural damage to something like a bridge even if it was 100% high explosive. The kind who knows that they were very, very poorly placed as anti-personnel devices, called unnecessary attention to themselves, and probably wouldn't have been able to kill anyone at all, unless that person had been standing right next to them.
You know, the kind of person who might be found on a bomb squad:] Well, a competent bomb squad, like those found in all the other cities...
I, for one, find it incredibly disturbing that authorities could mistake this for a bomb. That, to me, shows that they are ill-prepared. I've heard many times how they "still had to take it seriously" but they didn't. Anyone *competent* should've known several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:
* No source of shrapnel, that plus the odd placing makes them incredibly ineffective as anti-personnel weapons.
* They're WAY too small to cause structural damage, even if the batteries were supposed to be shaped charges. I'm sorry, but I don't see an explosive that size as being able to even scratch a bridge like that.
* No payload -- batteries don't explode (Sony's catch on fire, at most) and even if they did, and even if they were shaped charges, they're oriented completely wrong on the device, so I don't see how they were supposed to cause anti-personnel damage.
* You do NOT call attention to a device like that with blinking lights. SOME of us would know it was a bomb even if it had a cartoon on it and others would assume it was one anyhow. Now, it's true that the IRA used to do something somewhat similar, but what they did was have a small explosion to attract rescue workers & such, then a larger one to kill them. You don't attract people with blinking lights, you'd never be able to properly time the explosion unless you were standing there, waiting to get caught.
So what have we learned here? Hopefully that a terrorist's purpose is to cause terror. Every time you panic, the terrorists win.
Maybe it's too early to say, but have you seen any change in their legal tactics since this ruling came down? Do you think they're likely to start doing things much differently now?
> Final Fantasy Tactics Advance just again the same story, game itself not so hard, last boss impossible. All my characters where powerful enough that no enemy in the game stood a chance against them, yet the final boss killed them without problem over and over again. Look in the FAQ revealed that it might be a good idea to have a healer with me, which I didn't, didn't needed it for the rest of the game. I gave up at this point, since there just wasn't any fun in killing dozens and dozens of enemies just for leveling up purpose, heck, the fast way to level up was by actually attacking your own teammates, then healing them, then attacking them again. That was just to stupid, I gave up, never came back.
Slashdot Mirror
> It takes a good reason to get a judge to squash but it CAN be done.
:] There's no 's' in quash. Alas, PJ never posted an article on how subpoenas work, so I don't know enough to know what she might do, but I suspect she'll get a lawyer to handle it for her whenever she finds out about it.
Well, I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that she got a restraining order against SCO (perhaps after the Maureen O'Gara stalking bit?), so that would sound like one good reason to me.
Another would be that I *really* have to wonder what she allegedly knows about--everything she's found, she's put up on Groklaw that I've seen. The only exception might be some sealed filings that SCO somehow... mistakenly... made available anyhow. PJ was too honest to even read them, so far as I know. She mentioned that she knew about them, preferred to do everything honestly.
Oh, and IANAL, but you quash subpoenas
I think this story deserves the "insovietrussia" tag... :]
> As it stands, you don't exist either. I could say I was her next door neighbor, and that'd just extend one more layer of "doesn't exist" as well. Who knows me?
:]
So... you have to trace yourself back to Kevin Bacon?
If you read someone's writing enough, you feel like you know them. You recognize it almost as well as you'd recognize their voice. It shows through in their humor, their choice of words, and even mundane things like how they format and punctuate their work.
I've read Groklaw for a very long time now. If you go way back there, to when Darl was making ridiculous pronouncements every week or so and things were hectic, you'll probably find that I submitted more than a few SCO-related stories to Slashdot that all had links pointing back to Groklaw.
In no event did I suspect, even for a moment, that there was anyone other than PJ writing those articles. Okay, true, Mathfox, Marbux, AllParadox and co. have written a Groklaw article or two, but it was under their own names, and it was very clear that the writing changed even if you didn't bother to read who the post was from.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you're 100% right and this is just more SCO BS. They're just trying something sleazy to get back at a poor innocent lady who did nothing but expose all the inconsistencies in their arguments. To me, it's payback, pure and simple. I'm just sorry that PJ is their target.
I don't think it will help SCO at all. I think it's just a dirty trick they're using to punish PJ for speaking out against what they've been doing. But we all knew that, huh?
:(
I hope that when she feels better again, she finds some good way to respond to this deposition without giving SCO any opening to make all of her personal details public (like Maureen O'Gara once attempted to) and without opening herself up to any other form of harassment.
And I don't blame her one bit for being sick. Just thinking about the crap they're pulling now is enough to make me sick. She has every right to feel like a psycho ex is stalking her
It's yet another SCO delay tactic, in my estimation. I think everyone should know by now just how far they've drawn out this process. There was a mention on Pacer that said something about getting an extension of time to do more depositions.
:]
Oh, and of course you'd be right to think that they're probably trying to make her personal information public. I think most people here should remember when Maureen O'Gara wrote that nasty piece with information gathered by SCO's PIs, who have been stalking PJ for a long time now, so far as I'm aware.
As for what they'll do with that information, I don't know. But SCO put out fake signs back when they were picketed, so no matter what they do I bet it'll be something mean. Of course, if *that* happens, you can bet that someone will be looking up Darl's home phone number and posting it in that Slashdot story. You know, just in case someone wanted to help him understand why people don't like it when you post their personal information...
Did you notice that the person who submitted this was named "GnaGnaGna"? I'm not convinced it's even a real question.
My chemistry teacher, not the military, taught me most of what I know about explosives. Most of the theory on how to kill with explosives is the simple, direct opposite of how you keep yourself safe from them, after all, but I admit to watching too much MacGyver as a kid.
Of course, there wasn't so much paranoia then. Back then I was having fun with my teacher and learning about chemistry. Nowadays, they'd probably freak out and think of it as some kind of suspicious, "terrorist" activity even though we never synthesized more than a small, safe amount of anything and followed all the safety guidelines to make sure no one could possibly get hurt. We were doing science, after all, not just trying to blow things up.
It's too bad I doubt they'll let cool teachers like him do fun things to get kids interested in chemistry any more, though, thanks to paranoia like this.
The lawsuits are what destroy people (or attempt to) when they drag out the proceedings with dirty bastard SCO-like maneuvers. The settlement offers, by contrast, merely extort people so as to look good when compared to the prospects of a lawsuit.
They play hardball in court, as you can see--they'll go after you viciously even if they have good reason to think you're innocent, go after your kids even if there's little reason to think they're involved, and run away attempting to leave you stuck with thousands in legal fees if things start to look bad for them in court. I mean, we have at least one case where they're trying to extort a sick old lady who doesn't know anything about computers; they don't seem to employ ANY common sense in picking their cases and I've seen WAY too many times where they've misidentified files and filed DMCA takedown notices over crap they definitely don't own to believe that they put any effort into making sure they actually have a case.
Which is why I'm glad to have good lawyers like these guys fighting the heartless bastards.
> Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
That doesn't make much sense? A grand jury only decides who, if anyone, to indict with a crime, after which they get charged, etc. and tried with a 'petit' (smaller) jury who hear your case. After you're indicted, I don't think any of the same jurors are used to judge your case.
If you read TFA, you'll see that what he's worried about is that police will get the identities of the local anarchists who didn't necessarily do anything wrong and that that will set them up for future surveillance and whatnot. After all, the authorities have kept tabs on the membership of both peaceful and radical groups for a long time now, although I hope they're no longer doing some of the awful things they used to in the civil rights days.
So he's protecting a bunch of anonymous anarchists who were nearby when the cop was attacked--someone must've seen it, but he says that he was videotaping the other cop at the time (and there were only two, all told, according to his account over where he was).
As for the escalation of events, they describe that, too. Apparently there were only these two cops, he says that they were trying to drive down the street, but the protesters were in the way, so they accelerated a bit to get people to move, and that set people off. The one guy ran (and got videotaped) while the other guy got whacked over the head from behind. At least, from the account he gives.
What really makes me wonder, though, is given that he names the anarchist group that some of these people were from in the interview--won't the police just go investigate the whole group, now? I'm not sure that mention did them any favors, but all I really know about this is what I read in the article.
I've always loved the silly (and sometimes crazy) copyright notices that come with FAQs. How many people even read this crap? :]
/\ i. Legal
/ \ / \ standards, and if you rip off it in any form, you will be sent
/ \/ \ to the gallows. No, actually most of this text is taken
(Some "junk characters" were stripped to appease the lameness filter.)
/ \
/______\ This FAQ was fully written by me and submitted to Gamefaqs.com
/ \ / \ under my jurisdiction. Therefore it abides by federal copyright
/ \
-------------- verbatim from the game, so I have no dominion over it in a
litigious sense.
> If you take out a Microsoft patent license, then you make copies of a Fedora CD to install throughout your organization, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Microsoft knows this.
... now, ignoring all the legal details [1], that tort is caused when a third party induces someone to break their contract with you. So if Microsoft is inducing people to break the GPL, it *might* be something you could sue them for. Of course, at a bare minimum, you'd have to prove that it was inducing them to actually breach the GPL and even though I believe that's the intended interpretation of section 7, there might be strong enough legal arguments to the contrary, etc.
Actually, that makes me wonder if it couldn't give the FSF and others a case against Microsoft. I wonder, too, if they're not already contemplating this in their deliberations over the Novell/Microsoft deal.
You see, I understand that there's this crazy tort called "interference with a contractual relation"
[1] I wonder about lots of things, like what's the venue? Isn't the GPL a license, not a contract, so does that principle still apply--it seems like it should, but... ? What documented proof is there? What other laws or legal principles apply? couldn't I be utterly wrong about this, given that I'm not a lawyer? Isn't it hard to sue Microsoft even if you're legally right, when even the nearly bankrupt SCO can put up such a long & expensive fight?
Well, my personal solution is contempt for all advertising in general, except for the most up-front types (and there aren't enough of those for me to easily think up an example). Sadly, this leaves the marketers to turn, like you said, to attempt to subvert anything we still trust--thus the viral advertisements.
The only solution I have for that is to hold a severe grudge against their products. Thus, companies like SCO, Sony, HP, Lexmark and Microsoft are ones I will never willingly give money to any longer. Granted, their transgressions weren't all advertising related, but exactly the same principle applies--it's a "grim trigger" strategy one way or the other.
That said, there's still something of an arms race. They won't ever stop thinking up new tricks and I have no intention of putting up with whatever new tricks they come up with. If they just want to let us know that they had good products, that's one thing, but some modern marketing techniques are based upon psychological tricks to manipulate people and I won't put up with that.
An iPød bit my sister! :]
This is Microsoft, I can honestly see them doing something as customer-hostile as this without reservations.
Why waste thousands of dollars on a patent you have no intention of using in any form? You can't be sued for infringement if you're not doing anything at all like it, and I don't buy that Microsoft is so nice as to want to protect us from intrusive advertising. I mean, how much market share did they have to lose to Firefox before they put a pop-up blocker into IE?
I'm happy to *choose* to support artists. Hell, at least once I cracked a game and then paid for it--some small-time shareware game; I was having fun and didn't want to wait to be sent the code to keep playing. It was just some guy selling his work for a few dollars and I respected the work he'd put into it. I even emailed him my crack with an explanation of how I did it.
But as you can see, I'm no fan of "moral rights" to art, nor of copyright in general. Hell, I'm the type of person that releases my own work with only the stipulation that I *NOT* be given any credit for it! So I'm not going to put up with DRM. When it gets in my way, I will hack it in some way.
That said, I really prefer Free software, where I don't have to put up with that crap.
Well, there IS the old trick of having a small explosive that attracts rescue workers who are then killed by a larger one. I believe the IRA once used a tactic like this.
That said, you're 100% correct that you do not call attention to the device itself. Especially not like that, because then you wouldn't have any idea when the rescue workers might show up because you don't know when authorities might respond.
> They have a goal completely unrelated to us being afraid. The fear that results from their activities is supposed to cause us to cave in to their demands.
:]
So... the fear causes us to give in to their demands, but it's "completely unrelated" to us being afraid!? Okay...
Anyhow, I do know about their political aspirations, but I refuse to give in to fear. If they were willing to settle things with peaceful diplomacy instead of killing people whenever they got mad, they might have accomplished something by now. Of course, I suppose I also understand why they don't want anything like peace, which makes me hate them for it in spite of my better instincts.
Actually, that's probably a good thing. A device that small wouldn't cause any significant damage unless someone was holding it, so if no one was nearby, we'd have been fine (even if if had been high explosive).
... it's still good advice :]
And I suspect that many people did notice them, but realized that they were harmless. That, too, would be a good thing.
I just hope that the lesson people take from this is "DON'T PANIC"
* Boston had a legitimate bomb scare at a hospital on the same day.
So the more rational folks were busy? I guess.
* The hoaxsters may have called in the bomb threat themselves, explaining why no other city reacted this way, and also why they are facing prosecution.
Well, what I saw mentioned was that they called in and said that the devices were harmless. That's not quite the same as calling it in and claiming it's threatening.
* The dread-haired guy videotaped police officers removing one of his devices and didn't step in to inform them of its benign nature.
Videotaping things like that is what he does for a living, so that's not unreasonable. I also can't blame him for not letting the people know--they're the freaking bomb squad and they *should* know what is or isn't a bomb. That said, as per above, they apparently called their boss to let the city know that the devices were harmless. I can't say that that's unreasonable, and it's not like the police were going to get hurt by a glorified Lite Brite.
I really can't see why people don't realize that the hype is due to politicians trying to cover their collective asses for an overreaction which no other city managed. I am glad, however, to have heard replies from many other city residents who are rightfully embarrassed by the city's response on their behalf. Hopefully their influence well help their city become one that is actually prepared for terrorist attack, should such a thing happen again.
Remember, every time you feel terror, the terrorists win.
Another city in California found *real* pipe bombs when draining an aqueduct. And they didn't panic, either. There's a difference between taking the threat seriously and shutting down the city out of fear. They should take it seriously, but calm down once they know they're fake.
Like I said, every time you panic, the terrorists win.
> COME ON! It's a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger! What retard would possibly not know it's a bomb?
:] Well, a competent bomb squad, like those found in all the other cities...
The kind who knows that real bombs have payloads. The kind that knows that a device that small isn't going to cause structural damage to something like a bridge even if it was 100% high explosive. The kind who knows that they were very, very poorly placed as anti-personnel devices, called unnecessary attention to themselves, and probably wouldn't have been able to kill anyone at all, unless that person had been standing right next to them.
You know, the kind of person who might be found on a bomb squad
--
Every time you panic, the terrorists win.
I, for one, find it incredibly disturbing that authorities could mistake this for a bomb. That, to me, shows that they are ill-prepared. I've heard many times how they "still had to take it seriously" but they didn't. Anyone *competent* should've known several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:
* No source of shrapnel, that plus the odd placing makes them incredibly ineffective as anti-personnel weapons.
* They're WAY too small to cause structural damage, even if the batteries were supposed to be shaped charges. I'm sorry, but I don't see an explosive that size as being able to even scratch a bridge like that.
* No payload -- batteries don't explode (Sony's catch on fire, at most) and even if they did, and even if they were shaped charges, they're oriented completely wrong on the device, so I don't see how they were supposed to cause anti-personnel damage.
* You do NOT call attention to a device like that with blinking lights. SOME of us would know it was a bomb even if it had a cartoon on it and others would assume it was one anyhow. Now, it's true that the IRA used to do something somewhat similar, but what they did was have a small explosion to attract rescue workers & such, then a larger one to kill them. You don't attract people with blinking lights, you'd never be able to properly time the explosion unless you were standing there, waiting to get caught.
So what have we learned here? Hopefully that a terrorist's purpose is to cause terror.
Every time you panic, the terrorists win.
Maybe it's too early to say, but have you seen any change in their legal tactics since this ruling came down? Do you think they're likely to start doing things much differently now?
> Final Fantasy Tactics Advance just again the same story, game itself not so hard, last boss impossible. All my characters where powerful enough that no enemy in the game stood a chance against them, yet the final boss killed them without problem over and over again. Look in the FAQ revealed that it might be a good idea to have a healer with me, which I didn't, didn't needed it for the rest of the game. I gave up at this point, since there just wasn't any fun in killing dozens and dozens of enemies just for leveling up purpose, heck, the fast way to level up was by actually attacking your own teammates, then healing them, then attacking them again. That was just to stupid, I gave up, never came back.
Try Damage > MP for your reaction ability.