Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
"I think it's based mostly on what the DVD includes, but having a good movie behind it never hurts!"
It certainly seems like that to me too. If you read the descriptions, they talk about the extras and quality of the picture and sound moreso than anything about the quality of the movie.
I'm sure being a good movie doesn't exactly decrease the chances of getting a good place in the list, but it doesn't gurantee it, nor does being a mediocre movie remove it from the running.
What's the difference between "sharing" the music in the form of 0s and 1s that go over a wire and selling bootleg CDs with 0s and 1s embedded in the surface of the disc?
The very first degree specifically requires intent
Or extreme recklessness under circumstances manifesting depraved indifference (par. 3). (Or something that looks to be similar to the felony-murder rule for assault.)
Shining a laser on someone does not cause injury. I just walked up to my cat, laser in hand, and "drilled" the sucker right into her head at point blank range for a over a minute.
Then I "drilled" myself right in the forehead. Without looking in a mirror I couldn't even tell where the dot was. It doesn't even cause sensation, let alone injury.
In her eye? That's what we're talking about... if you could blind someone with one of these things. See Alexo's response to you earlier; he seems to indicate that you'll do it if you can hit their eye.
As for consent, I took you to mean earlier to go out and try it on a random person.
I don't know if you're entirely correct about consent. Consent isn't an absolute absolution of any legal requirements. You can't consent to being murdered, for instance. (Well, you can, but it's no defense to the person who does it.) But I do concede that it's probably closer than the limited exceptions I was trying to get at.
In any case, consent isn't at play in the particular example of shining a LASER at someone.
Assault is a crime of intent. With no intent, there is no assault. Criminal Negligence, perhaps.
This isn't true. Read the laws in New York (it's the first one listed, 120.00, then 120.05 and 120.10; all three degrees of assault have provisions that don't require intent), Pennsylvania (again, both simple and aggrivated assult have provisions for at least reckless injury under some conditions), Texas, North Dakota (PDF file; simple assault has negligent assault), and New Jersey. I can't link to NJ's because it's in a subscription service (Westlaw), but the relevant portions are the same as PA.
There are jurisdictions where this isn't true (California and Georga (warning: very large and slow-loading version of the entire penal code), the latter of which doesn't even have a crime called assault), but since the Model Penal Code and subsequent revisions of most states' criminal law, they are a minority.
Another solution I discovered (though it doesn't work as well, at least for me) is to get VDMSound. It's an emulator that will give you a virtual sound card in dos programs. I've tried it in two of them and it works decently.
Speaking of Descent, do you happen to know if you can get sound working with DII and Windows XP or if XP's stingyness with the hardware and DOS programs will prevent that?
I can't say for sure, but I would guess yes. Someone has got to have the software around somewhere. (Does the LOC take software?) Then it just becomes a point of finding hardware to use it on, same as if you need to play back a reel-to-reel tape.
Okay, it is illegal to knowingly or recklessly cause physical harm to someone. There's of course an exemption (though in case law rather than written into the statutes) for recognized sports when the conduct is within both the rules and customs of that sport. But if two people get into a bar fight, they can be charged with assault.
Shining LASERs at people isn't a recognized sport, not is it any other exemption. If you did manage to blind them, you could easily be convicted of assault. If the jurisdiction has a separate charge of maiming, it's possible you'd be guilty of that too.
How couldn't you have been charged with assault? The only times that'd be legal is if they had provoked you and you were defending yourself, you were defending someone else, or it was the lesser of two evils.
The distance would also work to your advantage however. The beam would disperse somewhat making a larger target. How much larger at that distance, I don't know. If you can aim well enough to get it on the plane itself, I think you could probably get it to hit the cockpit. Airplane approaches are pretty smooth.
I don't have a cat, or I'd be somewhat tempted to try. But keep in mind too that green LASERs are about 50 times brighter than red ones (number from Thinkgeek page), so if you're basing this off of what you've done with a red one, you might want to think again.
You don't need intent. Doing something dangerous, even if it is just a moment of stupidity, can be illegal. See reckless endangerment.
It appears that there aren't many states with a full-blown endangerment crime, but all I looked at had one for kids. Surely there were a few kids on the plane.
Try going outside and waving an ordinary flashlight around at the trees and stuff and observe what happens. The only difference here is that it was a "laser."
And it affected the vision of the pilots of TWO planes while landing. Oh, and it was an industrial LASER. Those aren't the sort of thing you should be playing with.
Patriot Act or not, this guy is clearly guilty of at least reckless endangerment of everyone on the plane.
Even the sale of Slate notwithstanding, the journalistic independence Slate had was quite admirable on the part of MS; few companies would keep a news source like that on a looser leash.
Slate was very critical of MS during the anti-trust trial, has been reasonably critical of their software (even going so far, as another user mentioned, as to reccomend Firefox).
Windows' Find has been able to search in files (just a dumb ASCII search though) since Win95. NTFS provides metadata, but it is about as far from userfriendly as you can get and essentially unused.
Actually, it's a thought... maybe other people would see the post and go "oh, I thought that... but it's wrong" instead of being buried.
It'd also prevent again the (hypothetical *cough*) case where a post you're responding to is modded down to -1 thus making you look like a dweeb who is saying something completely out of the context of the conversation. Not that that happened or anything...
I didn't mean to deny them credit per se, and had we actually invaded Cuba their recon would have been invaluable. The poster I was responding to seemed to be talking about the actual discovery of the missiles, which the low-level flights weren't responsible for.
AFAIK, the low level flights were only started after the U2 photography showed installation of the missiles. I think it may have even been after JFK made his address to the nation concerning the missiles, which would have been a good week later.
Actually, if you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis (and I don't know any other event you could be talking about), it wasn't satellite recon that gave us those shots, it was U2 surveillance.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think it's based mostly on what the DVD includes, but having a good movie behind it never hurts!"
It certainly seems like that to me too. If you read the descriptions, they talk about the extras and quality of the picture and sound moreso than anything about the quality of the movie.
I'm sure being a good movie doesn't exactly decrease the chances of getting a good place in the list, but it doesn't gurantee it, nor does being a mediocre movie remove it from the running.
Read one of the goals: net radio. Can you get internet music stations while you're walking around with your iPod?
Didn't think so.
What's the difference between "sharing" the music in the form of 0s and 1s that go over a wire and selling bootleg CDs with 0s and 1s embedded in the surface of the disc?
The very first degree specifically requires intent
Or extreme recklessness under circumstances manifesting depraved indifference (par. 3). (Or something that looks to be similar to the felony-murder rule for assault.)
Shining a laser on someone does not cause injury. I just walked up to my cat, laser in hand, and "drilled" the sucker right into her head at point blank range for a over a minute.
Then I "drilled" myself right in the forehead. Without looking in a mirror I couldn't even tell where the dot was. It doesn't even cause sensation, let alone injury.
In her eye? That's what we're talking about... if you could blind someone with one of these things. See Alexo's response to you earlier; he seems to indicate that you'll do it if you can hit their eye.
As for consent, I took you to mean earlier to go out and try it on a random person.
I don't know if you're entirely correct about consent. Consent isn't an absolute absolution of any legal requirements. You can't consent to being murdered, for instance. (Well, you can, but it's no defense to the person who does it.) But I do concede that it's probably closer than the limited exceptions I was trying to get at.
In any case, consent isn't at play in the particular example of shining a LASER at someone.
Assault is a crime of intent. With no intent, there is no assault. Criminal Negligence, perhaps.
This isn't true. Read the laws in New York (it's the first one listed, 120.00, then 120.05 and 120.10; all three degrees of assault have provisions that don't require intent), Pennsylvania (again, both simple and aggrivated assult have provisions for at least reckless injury under some conditions), Texas, North Dakota (PDF file; simple assault has negligent assault), and New Jersey. I can't link to NJ's because it's in a subscription service (Westlaw), but the relevant portions are the same as PA.
There are jurisdictions where this isn't true (California and Georga (warning: very large and slow-loading version of the entire penal code), the latter of which doesn't even have a crime called assault), but since the Model Penal Code and subsequent revisions of most states' criminal law, they are a minority.
Dude, thanks.
Another solution I discovered (though it doesn't work as well, at least for me) is to get VDMSound. It's an emulator that will give you a virtual sound card in dos programs. I've tried it in two of them and it works decently.
Speaking of Descent, do you happen to know if you can get sound working with DII and Windows XP or if XP's stingyness with the hardware and DOS programs will prevent that?
I can't say for sure, but I would guess yes. Someone has got to have the software around somewhere. (Does the LOC take software?) Then it just becomes a point of finding hardware to use it on, same as if you need to play back a reel-to-reel tape.
Okay, it is illegal to knowingly or recklessly cause physical harm to someone. There's of course an exemption (though in case law rather than written into the statutes) for recognized sports when the conduct is within both the rules and customs of that sport. But if two people get into a bar fight, they can be charged with assault.
Shining LASERs at people isn't a recognized sport, not is it any other exemption. If you did manage to blind them, you could easily be convicted of assault. If the jurisdiction has a separate charge of maiming, it's possible you'd be guilty of that too.
How couldn't you have been charged with assault? The only times that'd be legal is if they had provoked you and you were defending yourself, you were defending someone else, or it was the lesser of two evils.
The distance would also work to your advantage however. The beam would disperse somewhat making a larger target. How much larger at that distance, I don't know. If you can aim well enough to get it on the plane itself, I think you could probably get it to hit the cockpit. Airplane approaches are pretty smooth.
I don't have a cat, or I'd be somewhat tempted to try. But keep in mind too that green LASERs are about 50 times brighter than red ones (number from Thinkgeek page), so if you're basing this off of what you've done with a red one, you might want to think again.
There is no law against shining a laser pointer at someone.
Unless it works, in which case you'd be had for assault.
I'm not sure what sort of "powerful" laser pointer you have in mind. Go down to Best Buy and try to buy one of these "powerful" pointers.
Green LASERS have a much higher output power than red ones.
You don't need intent. Doing something dangerous, even if it is just a moment of stupidity, can be illegal. See reckless endangerment.
It appears that there aren't many states with a full-blown endangerment crime, but all I looked at had one for kids. Surely there were a few kids on the plane.
Imagine trying to "bring down" a car with a laser pointer. I'll be you couldn't do it in a Godzillion years.
I've been momentarily blinded by oncoming headlights. It wouldn't be difficult.
Try going outside and waving an ordinary flashlight around at the trees and stuff and observe what happens. The only difference here is that it was a "laser."
And it affected the vision of the pilots of TWO planes while landing. Oh, and it was an industrial LASER. Those aren't the sort of thing you should be playing with.
Patriot Act or not, this guy is clearly guilty of at least reckless endangerment of everyone on the plane.
What about "for all intents and purposes"? The variations on that are staggering
Even the sale of Slate notwithstanding, the journalistic independence Slate had was quite admirable on the part of MS; few companies would keep a news source like that on a looser leash.
Slate was very critical of MS during the anti-trust trial, has been reasonably critical of their software (even going so far, as another user mentioned, as to reccomend Firefox).
Windows' Find has been able to search in files (just a dumb ASCII search though) since Win95. NTFS provides metadata, but it is about as far from userfriendly as you can get and essentially unused.
Actually, it's a thought... maybe other people would see the post and go "oh, I thought that... but it's wrong" instead of being buried.
It'd also prevent again the (hypothetical *cough*) case where a post you're responding to is modded down to -1 thus making you look like a dweeb who is saying something completely out of the context of the conversation. Not that that happened or anything...
While I wish this were true, it's another illustration why /. needs a (-1, Wrong) mod...
17 USC 506 describes the criminal copyright offenses.
I don't know exactly what information was gleaned from the U2 vs. low-level flights, but it's quite possible.
I didn't mean to deny them credit per se, and had we actually invaded Cuba their recon would have been invaluable. The poster I was responding to seemed to be talking about the actual discovery of the missiles, which the low-level flights weren't responsible for.
You could consider it a trademark offense (and it is), but the bigger issue would be false advertising/breach of contract.
AFAIK, the low level flights were only started after the U2 photography showed installation of the missiles. I think it may have even been after JFK made his address to the nation concerning the missiles, which would have been a good week later.
Actually, if you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis (and I don't know any other event you could be talking about), it wasn't satellite recon that gave us those shots, it was U2 surveillance.