It's not the same as re-telling a secret. You have an intellectual property interest in your own likeness. Whether you agree or disagree with whether that "should" be the case, unless the pictures were taken in public, or she waived her rights for the distribution of those images, she has a cause of action against the person who distributed them without her permission.
Look at it this way. In the most straightforward case, if you sneak into someone's house and take a picture of them when they're naked, clearly the fact that you own the camera doesn't mean you own the right to distribute such a picture. The person whose picture is being taken didn't consent. Now, let's take a case where the person consents to the picture. Does that consent to have a picture being taken implicitly grant the right to distribute those pictures? At a minimum, it would depend on the facts. A picture taken of someone posing for a picture in front of a fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends, you could argue the right to redistribute was implied in that consent, and certainly it's not really practical to get a signed consent form of all the people in the picture. Nude photos taken in a private bedroom? You can be damned sure that consent to have the picture taken did not carry with it the right to redistribute unless that was explicit (and as the person doing the redistribution you would probably need it to be in writing to cover your ass).
That was true initially, but after the problem was realized they got full ownership over much of the IP. As of now they do own a few hundred articles.... Well, I mean, as of before this ruling. They are again back to owning 0 now.
If putting out a good, clean product is nowhere in the requirements for your software, why would you compensate the people enough to retain people competent enough to put out a good, clean product?
Do you remember that slacker in your CS/IT classes? You know who I'm talking about, the one who never did any of the work in group projects but took all of the credit when it was time to present it to the class. The one who has the same degree you do, but couldn't code his way out of a cardboard box. They need jobs too!
Sorry, but the Tech world has been somewhat insulated from the recession, and finding a job in CS/IT isn't that hard right now. If you're stuck at Zynga, there might be a reason.
If the cheapest you can get them is $200 it doesn't matter that someone else can get it for $5.
When dealing with illegal substances or information the markets are rather fragmented and you work with what is available to you.
Hi, you've missed the point of my post entirely. The point is not that the people involved were charging too much. The point is that, ultimately, someone could very likely have paid as little as $5 in order to commit fraud and totally destroy your financial stability, at least for a time. The fact that the market price for such data is so low shows just how saturated the market is for people who want to buy this kind of stuff.
If you work in computer security and have dealt with the black market for stolen identities, you'll find out that $200 an identity is really pricey. It's a little scary, but the market rate for this kind of information is more like $5 a pop.
The problem isn't the loans in a practical sense. The real problem is companies driving degree inflation.
Companies drove us here because a 4 year degree student is "better" even if it doesn't really matter.
Companies don't drive degree inflation, supply and demand drive degree inflation. If companies couldn't recruit college graduates at a reasonable cost because there weren't enough of them, they'd have to look at qualified people without a degree. But, with the government these days pushing the idea that a college education is a right and the long term stated goal of having 100% college graduates, the supply of college graduates is so high that they fill up all the jobs that actually need a degree and there is still a large qualified pool of graduates willing to work for jobs that don't really need one.
Now, given the supply is there, and when you're interviewing the the average entry level job candidate 90% of them are going to look more or less the same, why wouldn't you hire the one that has the extra line item of a B.A. or B.S.? Sure if a non-degree holder stands out, you'd hire them, but "stands out" by definition means they are the exception, not the rule.
This makes as much sense as suggesting that gun control will prevent gun crime. Inappropriate behavior between students and teachers is already illegal. Outlawing one medium for student-teacher communication just means they will find a different medium. This type of stuff has a tendency to route itself around roadblocks. The progression from a free country to a nanny state is sickening to watch.
For those of you who have posted that this is a good law on the basis that a teacher with good common sense would already have this policy, my response to you is that it is not the government's place to legislate common sense. People should be free to make their own decisions, and the government should only step in when actual harm is caused. The act of friending a student on Facebook poses no harm in and of itself.
I see nothing in "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion" that suggests endorsement by the Tolkien Estate, check.
and that's where you're wrong. By referencing Tolkien at all, You are indicating that Tolkien was watching Evangelion instead of reading, which puts it into the direct sponship of Evangelion.
Buzz!! Wrong
Read the sentence again. Where in the sentence does it suggest that Tolkien was watching Evangelion? The sentence implies that if the person reading the button was reading Tolkien, he should know that the wearer of the button was watching Evangelion instead. In essence, the wearer of the button is suggesting that watching Evangelion is a better use of his time than reading Tolkien. Nothing in the sentence links Tolkien to support or not support Evangelion in any way or form. You fail at basic reading comprehension.
So, if Apple knowingly overbilled their customers and sent out bills to that effect, isn't that mail fraud? All you need is some thugs chasing Tom Cruise around and you could make a movie out of this!
Professional music won't go away, but if you pick on a particular band or orchestra that is popular at the moment, that almost certainly will go out of fashion.
Most artists are fads, sure, but there are a few from each generation that are timeless. Johnny Cash, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, are still considered good music, even today. The question is whether FB has that kind of staying power. I guess we'll find out.
Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.
Different business models. Android is aiming for it to be installed on everything, so the Android device market is not designed to be a high margin businesses. Since there are no iOS makers except iPhone, they charge what they want and people are forced to pay. Their net profits has exceeded that of the Android market this past year despite a smaller market share. As long as what Apple disciples are willing to pay allows them to net more money than an open system, there's no incentive for them to change business models.
If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.
There was a time when the algorithm for testing Microsoft keys was that the sum of the digits was divisible by 7 (I think).
There was a time when I found that the Microsoft keys were interchangeable among products. I was able to install Windows 95 using the license key from Microsoft Works, I think.
I would imagine this was because whether a number was divisible by 7 was not dependent on the application.
Microsoft should patch windows to fail to resolve any DNS requests for apple.com and any websites dedicated to promoting Apple products. In addition, HTC could break apple related websites on all of their phones. Then, when Apple complains, just reply "Wait, that's not ok? But, we were just following your lead, asshole!"
Remember when Network Solutions tried to hijack all the failed DNS requests to redirect to their webpage? The community backlash was terrible. People started planning on coding changes to Mozilla to block that from happening, as well as other technical solutions. Apple needs to remember 1 thing about technology. In the long run, you play nice, or you lose, because when you piss everyone off, people will find the weakest link in the chain and screw you. No one holds the keys to all the layers of technologies that have to work together for something work, especially when that something is a communications device and must play with others.
From the wisdom of Princess Leia herself, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?
Ok, seriously, people need to stop talking like a DSLR and a compact one is essentially the same. You have clearly not tried to shoot photos at extreme distances in low light. The difference between a quality DSLR in the hands of an expert versus a compact ones can be very extreme depending on environmental factors. Here in the states, the place I've seen it come up on the most is at concerts, where a DSLR with a good lens will make the pictures appear like you've got front row seats when you're really up in the balcony, and the auto-focusing compact cameras simply cannot keep up with that, as their smaller lenses have to compensate via slower shutter speeds making the images blurry. We need to at least admit that there is a theoretical point to banning DSLR's if you're trying to prevent espionage.
Don't get me wrong. Realistically speaking, the Kuwait ban is worthless, since anyone willing to risk their lives for espionage probably is willing to chance it with a DSLR and a fake media badge, but I'm sure to them it looked good on paper.
He's just used to having to re-invent the OS every few years and have it be incompatible with the previous version. He is working for Microsoft after all. I'm sure he's only saying that because he sees Linux 95 in the near future.
My main issue is, you're making these judgments about what is the smartest move based on perfect knowledge. If you set up the scenario, you already know the answer to what the wisest play in terms of personal safety is.
Sure, in a situation where the entire family sleeps in 1 room where you know for sure there is an intruder in the house, locking the door and calling the police is by far the smartest move for your own safety. I even said as much in one of my original responses.
What happens when your wife wakes you up at 2 AM because she heard a noise downstairs? Up until this point, your experience is that this has always been the shutters fluttering against the wind, or some other benign source. Do you lock the doors and call the police? Most people are likely to go check what the noise was because they are not omniscient. The may run into danger through no fault of their own. Yes, if my significant other asks me to check on a noise in another part of our home, it's always been benign, and yes, I've always been armed when doing so for as long as I can remember, because I was a Boy Scout and am always prepared. If I also heard the noise and was reasonably sure it was a burglar, there's no way I would have put myself at risk (and her at risk) by leaving the room. But if I ever do have a burglar break in, there's no way to know for sure whether I will know in advance whether it's a burglar or not.
What if you have a daughter in another bedroom? Do you lock the door and call the police? Or do you go get her and bring her back to the bedroom first?
We can both present an infinite number of hypothetical situations. In some, going around the house is reckless and likely will get one hurt or killed. In others, it is the necessary thing to do. The problem is, with the infinite variations, there are clear cut situations, and there are gray area situations. There are many situations where a reasonable person believes they are in far more danger than they actually are. Many of these situations occur when the person at home is sleeping, and has been startled. Do you have any idea what the massive adrenaline boost associated with fearing for one's life does to your motor reflex skills and you ability to think about complex problems? Do you have any experience with what happens when that is mixed with being awoken halfway through your sleep cycle?
We can sit here and armchair quarterback all we like, but the reality is we are second guessing the decision of a person who is defending his life and his family's life in a moment of great stress. Doing so while we sip a latte at Starbucks is hardly fair. This is why I'm glad these laws are in place, so I don't get judged by a jury of people who have no clue what being in a situation like that is like, and believe that everyone should have done what a person who has perfect knowledge and was not under duress would have done.
I don't disagree with your statistics, I disagree about some of the conclusions you draw from them however.
I do not believe it is because the homicide to burglary rate is the reason for this difference in thinking. Sure, I recognize that even in the U.S., a burglar breaking into my house is probably more interested in my things than me. I'm just not willing to bet my life that a case I may run into falls into the majority, and I don't think that anyone should be asked to bet their life on it.
The reason that these laws are necessary is because without these laws, self-defense shootings, or even cases where a gun is used in self defense but no one was killed (the offender was scared off by the sight of the gun, or perhaps the shot missed but the burglar got away), enter a very legal gray area. A situation can very easily arise where a person in 1 county who shoots someone in self defense won't even be arrested, but someone who lives 10 miles away in a different county who reacts the same way to the exact same situation will be arrested, charged, and subjected to a lengthy trial where the caliber of his lawyer and the whim of the jury may cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars and his job, which is not required to wait on him as he goes to trial.
The outcome that person faces depends largely on local forces, which officer happened to respond, which local DA happened to look at the case. The politics and attitudes of these individuals makes a big difference in what an individual has to go through.
By having these laws, these people have an immunity to such prosecutions. A person shouldn't have to think "Well, he's got a gun pointed at me and he looks like he's about to shoot, but I hope he doesn't flinch when I pull the trigger, because if he turns his back to me while I'm shooting him, it'll hit him in the back and I could be accused of murdering a fleeing intruder." Yes, this has happened prior to these laws. CSI is just a TV show, in the real world a lot of conclusions like these are drawn from limited evidence.
Even in cases where no one was shot, brandishing charges and attempted manslaughter charges could occur.
So I guess you can say that, because of flaws in our criminal justice system, these laws are there to protect the innocent homeowner, and yes, it's quite possible non-violent burglars are at greater risk of getting shot. But, I would argue that 1) no system is perfect, and 2) when a person is in real fear for their life, the presence or absence of a castle doctrine law is not going to be the deciding factor in whether they shoot back. Other experiences and personality traits in their life influence whether they are able to take a life in self defense far more than whether or not they are aware of a castle doctrine law.
Sure, not all burglars are would-be murderers. So, let me ask you this. What is the acceptable loss rate of innocents? Your argument seems to be that, in order to protect the lives of burglars who are not would-be murderers, people in their own home must have more evidence that their life is in danger. Now, maybe you've had experience in attempting to gather this evidence in the first couple of minutes after being startled awake in the middle of the night. Most people I would wager are not such experts.
So, let's assume for a moment that this person defending this home has taken your advice, and decides to shoot only when there is a "sufficient" threat to his life. He opens the bedroom to check on his daughter who is asleep in the bedroom down the hall. He opens the door and there stands an intruder in his hallway. Now, at that moment in time, what are the odds that the person presents a deadly threat to him, and, if given the opportunity, would attack him with a crowbar/knife/gun or other potentially lethal weapon in order to succeed in the robbery for drug money or other purpose, or at the very least to ensure his successful escape? 50%? 30%? 10%? At what % is it OK for the guy to shoot, and at what point do you doom him to play Russian roulette on the hope that the odds leave his daughter with a father?
Given he just woke up 2 minutes ago and was only up and about because the wife told him to check on the noise, and he is still half asleep when he sees the intruder, to what degree of accuracy do you propose he can judge the threat with? Even if he has his firearm at the ready, and the intruder's weapon is still tucked into his pants, what are the odds he gets an accurate shot off before the fully awake and alert intruder even if he makes the decision to fire first? Now, what if in his half-awake state the weapon the guy had in his hand that he thought was a gun turned out to be a crowbar? Do we use hindsight and say he was not justified, that the level of threat against him dropped to the point that he's no longer justified in shooting him, but must play Russian roulette instead? What if the crowbar he thought the guy had turned out to be a gun? Is this an acceptable loss that society endures to make sure that the guys with crowbars don't get shot?
Placing the life of the criminal on even footing with the homeowner necessarily puts the life of the homeowner at greater risk. Minimizing casualties is great, but minimizing innocent casualties must come as a greater priority. Otherwise, any restriction put upon him only puts him at greater risk in order reduce the risk to the criminal, in which case your priorities are seriously messed up.
Anyone who has responded to me talking about valuing property more than the life of the burglar is frankly arguing a straw man. In every scenario where there is an intruder in the house, the homeowner must assume the threat on his life in non-zero, because it is.
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not. You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about. If you hear someone in your child's room, you should have the right to walk in with a gun out, if someone is heading towards YOUR room, you should have the right to, again, get out your gun and point it at the door (but not fire as soon as that door opens unless you have a damn good reason to think the person is literally ABOUT to kill yo).
As I said before, the point at which lethal force is acceptable must be at a point where the person defending himself can be reasonably sure he will succeed. Sorry, I'm not going to wait until someone draws his gun and points it at me. Why would I put myself in a situation where I am in a "fair fight" with a criminal? There's a saying that goes something like "If it's a fair fight, your tactics suck." If a criminal enters my house, my goal is to live. If I best accomplish my goal by holing up in my bedroom, that's what I'm going to do. If I best accomplish my goal by shooting him before he sees me and has a chance to draw his gun and shoot me, that's what I'm going to do. There's nothing noble about letting the criminal get the first shot off.
None of this actually discourages crime though. They still have home breakins in Texas. Most of the time it's just some stupid kids. People don't become criminals because they're smart, so you can't assume they'll do the smart thing.
I honestly do not care if there is only a negligible reduction in crime. I do not care if criminals are dumb and will ignore the existence of stand your ground laws. Those provisions are not there for the benefit of deterrence. Those provisions are there to protect the livelihoods of law abiding citizens in their own home. If a person is in fear of his life in his own home, he should not have to second guess himself nor should he need be omniscient of the details of his situation in order to properly assess whether lethal force is necessary. Such provisions prevent people who fired a weapon in self-defense from having to face a costly trial (in both money and reputation).
Many people, especially people from other countries, seem shocked that we value the life of the innocent homeowner over that of the criminal. Frankly, I'm glad I don't live in those countries.
I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.
States with Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming
Keep in mind this includes very liberal states such as California and Illinois, so this does in fact show a general consensus among most of America. Even in states without such laws, convictions for people defending themselves in their own home are very rare, assuming who they shot was a stranger and not someone they knew.
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
We don't have time to interview the criminal to find out what his true intentions are. If there is one place where a man should have the right to feel absolutely secure, it should in their own home. No, "life is sacred" does not work both ways. The lives of law abiding people is sacred. The lives of people who agreed to abide by the rules of a civilized society is sacred. The life of those who have broken that trust by breaking into someone's home violating that person's right to remain secure in that home (not merely trespassing on their property) is not sacred.
The castle doctrine that is found in most states in the U.S. guarantees that right to its citizens. The law is there because we are more concerned about the right to life of the law abiding person in their own home, and will not second guess the exact circumstances of a person who defends themselves at home. It is utterly ridiculous for a person to have to prove that there was not a viable escape route, that, in a moment of duress within their own home, they had to have 20/20 hindsight about the circumstance that they were in. How is the person supposed to know that jumping out the window would be safe, that there wasn't some accomplice who went to the backdoor? A person who is awoken at 3AM from a person breaking a window and entering his home has no idea what kind of danger he is in. Regardless of how much he trusts the police, he can't change the fact that the average response time of an officer to a Code 3 situation is around 8 minutes. The fact is that there is never a sure way to know whether retreat is the better option. And given that a person isn't omniscient, we have decided in most of the U.S. that the law is going to remove this ridiculous need for proof from the person trying to defend his life in his own home.
Does this mean that it's a smart idea for a person to run through the house guns blazing if someone breaks into his home? No, of course not. Most experts will tell you that the best course of action is to gather your family, hole up in the bedroom, call the police, and be ready to shoot only if the person breaking into the house attempts to break into that sanctuary. But, because there are an infinite number of circumstances that may arise that takes that option off the table, it is not the government's place to second guess the judgment of the law abiding citizen over that of a criminal.
If it is permissible to kill someone in self defense if they have a gun pointed at you an are ready and willing to shoot, the practical line at which lethal force becomes permissible MUST be at a point before it is too late for the person defending themselves to succeed at doing so. If your line for when it's ok to shoot a person is after they've shot at you, then that line is worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the same as re-telling a secret. You have an intellectual property interest in your own likeness. Whether you agree or disagree with whether that "should" be the case, unless the pictures were taken in public, or she waived her rights for the distribution of those images, she has a cause of action against the person who distributed them without her permission.
Look at it this way. In the most straightforward case, if you sneak into someone's house and take a picture of them when they're naked, clearly the fact that you own the camera doesn't mean you own the right to distribute such a picture. The person whose picture is being taken didn't consent. Now, let's take a case where the person consents to the picture. Does that consent to have a picture being taken implicitly grant the right to distribute those pictures? At a minimum, it would depend on the facts. A picture taken of someone posing for a picture in front of a fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends, you could argue the right to redistribute was implied in that consent, and certainly it's not really practical to get a signed consent form of all the people in the picture. Nude photos taken in a private bedroom? You can be damned sure that consent to have the picture taken did not carry with it the right to redistribute unless that was explicit (and as the person doing the redistribution you would probably need it to be in writing to cover your ass).
That was true initially, but after the problem was realized they got full ownership over much of the IP. As of now they do own a few hundred articles.... Well, I mean, as of before this ruling. They are again back to owning 0 now.
If putting out a good, clean product is nowhere in the requirements for your software, why would you compensate the people enough to retain people competent enough to put out a good, clean product? Do you remember that slacker in your CS/IT classes? You know who I'm talking about, the one who never did any of the work in group projects but took all of the credit when it was time to present it to the class. The one who has the same degree you do, but couldn't code his way out of a cardboard box. They need jobs too! Sorry, but the Tech world has been somewhat insulated from the recession, and finding a job in CS/IT isn't that hard right now. If you're stuck at Zynga, there might be a reason.
If the cheapest you can get them is $200 it doesn't matter that someone else can get it for $5.
When dealing with illegal substances or information the markets are rather fragmented and you work with what is available to you.
Hi, you've missed the point of my post entirely. The point is not that the people involved were charging too much. The point is that, ultimately, someone could very likely have paid as little as $5 in order to commit fraud and totally destroy your financial stability, at least for a time. The fact that the market price for such data is so low shows just how saturated the market is for people who want to buy this kind of stuff.
If you work in computer security and have dealt with the black market for stolen identities, you'll find out that $200 an identity is really pricey. It's a little scary, but the market rate for this kind of information is more like $5 a pop.
The problem isn't the loans in a practical sense. The real problem is companies driving degree inflation. Companies drove us here because a 4 year degree student is "better" even if it doesn't really matter.
Companies don't drive degree inflation, supply and demand drive degree inflation. If companies couldn't recruit college graduates at a reasonable cost because there weren't enough of them, they'd have to look at qualified people without a degree. But, with the government these days pushing the idea that a college education is a right and the long term stated goal of having 100% college graduates, the supply of college graduates is so high that they fill up all the jobs that actually need a degree and there is still a large qualified pool of graduates willing to work for jobs that don't really need one.
Now, given the supply is there, and when you're interviewing the the average entry level job candidate 90% of them are going to look more or less the same, why wouldn't you hire the one that has the extra line item of a B.A. or B.S.? Sure if a non-degree holder stands out, you'd hire them, but "stands out" by definition means they are the exception, not the rule.
This makes as much sense as suggesting that gun control will prevent gun crime. Inappropriate behavior between students and teachers is already illegal. Outlawing one medium for student-teacher communication just means they will find a different medium. This type of stuff has a tendency to route itself around roadblocks. The progression from a free country to a nanny state is sickening to watch. For those of you who have posted that this is a good law on the basis that a teacher with good common sense would already have this policy, my response to you is that it is not the government's place to legislate common sense. People should be free to make their own decisions, and the government should only step in when actual harm is caused. The act of friending a student on Facebook poses no harm in and of itself.
Buzz!! Wrong
I see nothing in "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion" that suggests endorsement by the Tolkien Estate, check.
and that's where you're wrong. By referencing Tolkien at all, You are indicating that Tolkien was watching Evangelion instead of reading, which puts it into the direct sponship of Evangelion.
Buzz!! Wrong Read the sentence again. Where in the sentence does it suggest that Tolkien was watching Evangelion? The sentence implies that if the person reading the button was reading Tolkien, he should know that the wearer of the button was watching Evangelion instead. In essence, the wearer of the button is suggesting that watching Evangelion is a better use of his time than reading Tolkien. Nothing in the sentence links Tolkien to support or not support Evangelion in any way or form. You fail at basic reading comprehension.
So, if Apple knowingly overbilled their customers and sent out bills to that effect, isn't that mail fraud? All you need is some thugs chasing Tom Cruise around and you could make a movie out of this!
Professional music won't go away, but if you pick on a particular band or orchestra that is popular at the moment, that almost certainly will go out of fashion.
Most artists are fads, sure, but there are a few from each generation that are timeless. Johnny Cash, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, are still considered good music, even today. The question is whether FB has that kind of staying power. I guess we'll find out.
Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.
Different business models. Android is aiming for it to be installed on everything, so the Android device market is not designed to be a high margin businesses. Since there are no iOS makers except iPhone, they charge what they want and people are forced to pay. Their net profits has exceeded that of the Android market this past year despite a smaller market share. As long as what Apple disciples are willing to pay allows them to net more money than an open system, there's no incentive for them to change business models.
If Apple's market share shrinks to the point that serious handheld app developers no longer feel to make an iPhone version of their apps at all, maybe at that point Apple would be forced to switch, but until then, they're raking in the bucks.
There was a time when I found that the Microsoft keys were interchangeable among products. I was able to install Windows 95 using the license key from Microsoft Works, I think.
I would imagine this was because whether a number was divisible by 7 was not dependent on the application.
Microsoft should patch windows to fail to resolve any DNS requests for apple.com and any websites dedicated to promoting Apple products. In addition, HTC could break apple related websites on all of their phones. Then, when Apple complains, just reply "Wait, that's not ok? But, we were just following your lead, asshole!"
Remember when Network Solutions tried to hijack all the failed DNS requests to redirect to their webpage? The community backlash was terrible. People started planning on coding changes to Mozilla to block that from happening, as well as other technical solutions. Apple needs to remember 1 thing about technology. In the long run, you play nice, or you lose, because when you piss everyone off, people will find the weakest link in the chain and screw you. No one holds the keys to all the layers of technologies that have to work together for something work, especially when that something is a communications device and must play with others.
From the wisdom of Princess Leia herself, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Why? Seriously, what benefit is there banning DSLRs over other cameras? It can't be the existence of telephoto lenses, because there are lots of compacts that have large zooms. Maybe it's a war on artful, quality photos?
Ok, seriously, people need to stop talking like a DSLR and a compact one is essentially the same. You have clearly not tried to shoot photos at extreme distances in low light. The difference between a quality DSLR in the hands of an expert versus a compact ones can be very extreme depending on environmental factors. Here in the states, the place I've seen it come up on the most is at concerts, where a DSLR with a good lens will make the pictures appear like you've got front row seats when you're really up in the balcony, and the auto-focusing compact cameras simply cannot keep up with that, as their smaller lenses have to compensate via slower shutter speeds making the images blurry. We need to at least admit that there is a theoretical point to banning DSLR's if you're trying to prevent espionage.
Don't get me wrong. Realistically speaking, the Kuwait ban is worthless, since anyone willing to risk their lives for espionage probably is willing to chance it with a DSLR and a fake media badge, but I'm sure to them it looked good on paper.
He's just used to having to re-invent the OS every few years and have it be incompatible with the previous version. He is working for Microsoft after all. I'm sure he's only saying that because he sees Linux 95 in the near future.
My main issue is, you're making these judgments about what is the smartest move based on perfect knowledge. If you set up the scenario, you already know the answer to what the wisest play in terms of personal safety is.
Sure, in a situation where the entire family sleeps in 1 room where you know for sure there is an intruder in the house, locking the door and calling the police is by far the smartest move for your own safety. I even said as much in one of my original responses.
What happens when your wife wakes you up at 2 AM because she heard a noise downstairs? Up until this point, your experience is that this has always been the shutters fluttering against the wind, or some other benign source. Do you lock the doors and call the police? Most people are likely to go check what the noise was because they are not omniscient. The may run into danger through no fault of their own. Yes, if my significant other asks me to check on a noise in another part of our home, it's always been benign, and yes, I've always been armed when doing so for as long as I can remember, because I was a Boy Scout and am always prepared. If I also heard the noise and was reasonably sure it was a burglar, there's no way I would have put myself at risk (and her at risk) by leaving the room. But if I ever do have a burglar break in, there's no way to know for sure whether I will know in advance whether it's a burglar or not.
What if you have a daughter in another bedroom? Do you lock the door and call the police? Or do you go get her and bring her back to the bedroom first?
We can both present an infinite number of hypothetical situations. In some, going around the house is reckless and likely will get one hurt or killed. In others, it is the necessary thing to do. The problem is, with the infinite variations, there are clear cut situations, and there are gray area situations. There are many situations where a reasonable person believes they are in far more danger than they actually are. Many of these situations occur when the person at home is sleeping, and has been startled. Do you have any idea what the massive adrenaline boost associated with fearing for one's life does to your motor reflex skills and you ability to think about complex problems? Do you have any experience with what happens when that is mixed with being awoken halfway through your sleep cycle?
We can sit here and armchair quarterback all we like, but the reality is we are second guessing the decision of a person who is defending his life and his family's life in a moment of great stress. Doing so while we sip a latte at Starbucks is hardly fair. This is why I'm glad these laws are in place, so I don't get judged by a jury of people who have no clue what being in a situation like that is like, and believe that everyone should have done what a person who has perfect knowledge and was not under duress would have done.
I don't disagree with your statistics, I disagree about some of the conclusions you draw from them however.
I do not believe it is because the homicide to burglary rate is the reason for this difference in thinking. Sure, I recognize that even in the U.S., a burglar breaking into my house is probably more interested in my things than me. I'm just not willing to bet my life that a case I may run into falls into the majority, and I don't think that anyone should be asked to bet their life on it.
The reason that these laws are necessary is because without these laws, self-defense shootings, or even cases where a gun is used in self defense but no one was killed (the offender was scared off by the sight of the gun, or perhaps the shot missed but the burglar got away), enter a very legal gray area. A situation can very easily arise where a person in 1 county who shoots someone in self defense won't even be arrested, but someone who lives 10 miles away in a different county who reacts the same way to the exact same situation will be arrested, charged, and subjected to a lengthy trial where the caliber of his lawyer and the whim of the jury may cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars and his job, which is not required to wait on him as he goes to trial.
The outcome that person faces depends largely on local forces, which officer happened to respond, which local DA happened to look at the case. The politics and attitudes of these individuals makes a big difference in what an individual has to go through.
By having these laws, these people have an immunity to such prosecutions. A person shouldn't have to think "Well, he's got a gun pointed at me and he looks like he's about to shoot, but I hope he doesn't flinch when I pull the trigger, because if he turns his back to me while I'm shooting him, it'll hit him in the back and I could be accused of murdering a fleeing intruder." Yes, this has happened prior to these laws. CSI is just a TV show, in the real world a lot of conclusions like these are drawn from limited evidence.
Even in cases where no one was shot, brandishing charges and attempted manslaughter charges could occur.
So I guess you can say that, because of flaws in our criminal justice system, these laws are there to protect the innocent homeowner, and yes, it's quite possible non-violent burglars are at greater risk of getting shot. But, I would argue that 1) no system is perfect, and 2) when a person is in real fear for their life, the presence or absence of a castle doctrine law is not going to be the deciding factor in whether they shoot back. Other experiences and personality traits in their life influence whether they are able to take a life in self defense far more than whether or not they are aware of a castle doctrine law.
Dear Nintendo, Congratulations, your request for trademark of the phrase "It's on rike Donkey Kong" has been approved. Sincerely, The Trademark Office
I find your comment to be lacist.
Sure, not all burglars are would-be murderers. So, let me ask you this. What is the acceptable loss rate of innocents? Your argument seems to be that, in order to protect the lives of burglars who are not would-be murderers, people in their own home must have more evidence that their life is in danger. Now, maybe you've had experience in attempting to gather this evidence in the first couple of minutes after being startled awake in the middle of the night. Most people I would wager are not such experts.
So, let's assume for a moment that this person defending this home has taken your advice, and decides to shoot only when there is a "sufficient" threat to his life. He opens the bedroom to check on his daughter who is asleep in the bedroom down the hall. He opens the door and there stands an intruder in his hallway. Now, at that moment in time, what are the odds that the person presents a deadly threat to him, and, if given the opportunity, would attack him with a crowbar/knife/gun or other potentially lethal weapon in order to succeed in the robbery for drug money or other purpose, or at the very least to ensure his successful escape? 50%? 30%? 10%? At what % is it OK for the guy to shoot, and at what point do you doom him to play Russian roulette on the hope that the odds leave his daughter with a father?
Given he just woke up 2 minutes ago and was only up and about because the wife told him to check on the noise, and he is still half asleep when he sees the intruder, to what degree of accuracy do you propose he can judge the threat with? Even if he has his firearm at the ready, and the intruder's weapon is still tucked into his pants, what are the odds he gets an accurate shot off before the fully awake and alert intruder even if he makes the decision to fire first? Now, what if in his half-awake state the weapon the guy had in his hand that he thought was a gun turned out to be a crowbar? Do we use hindsight and say he was not justified, that the level of threat against him dropped to the point that he's no longer justified in shooting him, but must play Russian roulette instead? What if the crowbar he thought the guy had turned out to be a gun? Is this an acceptable loss that society endures to make sure that the guys with crowbars don't get shot?
Placing the life of the criminal on even footing with the homeowner necessarily puts the life of the homeowner at greater risk. Minimizing casualties is great, but minimizing innocent casualties must come as a greater priority. Otherwise, any restriction put upon him only puts him at greater risk in order reduce the risk to the criminal, in which case your priorities are seriously messed up.
Anyone who has responded to me talking about valuing property more than the life of the burglar is frankly arguing a straw man. In every scenario where there is an intruder in the house, the homeowner must assume the threat on his life in non-zero, because it is.
There is no way to know with any degree of accuracy if the criminal you're staring at with your TV is willing to do harm to you to ensure his success and/or escape or not. You're asking the homeowner to put his life at risk for that of the criminal's.
How do you know the criminal was only interested in property? Do you have psychic powers?
You have no right to murder anyone who you are not sure is trying to actively murder you or someone you care about. If you hear someone in your child's room, you should have the right to walk in with a gun out, if someone is heading towards YOUR room, you should have the right to, again, get out your gun and point it at the door (but not fire as soon as that door opens unless you have a damn good reason to think the person is literally ABOUT to kill yo).
As I said before, the point at which lethal force is acceptable must be at a point where the person defending himself can be reasonably sure he will succeed. Sorry, I'm not going to wait until someone draws his gun and points it at me. Why would I put myself in a situation where I am in a "fair fight" with a criminal? There's a saying that goes something like "If it's a fair fight, your tactics suck." If a criminal enters my house, my goal is to live. If I best accomplish my goal by holing up in my bedroom, that's what I'm going to do. If I best accomplish my goal by shooting him before he sees me and has a chance to draw his gun and shoot me, that's what I'm going to do. There's nothing noble about letting the criminal get the first shot off.
None of this actually discourages crime though. They still have home breakins in Texas. Most of the time it's just some stupid kids. People don't become criminals because they're smart, so you can't assume they'll do the smart thing.
I honestly do not care if there is only a negligible reduction in crime. I do not care if criminals are dumb and will ignore the existence of stand your ground laws. Those provisions are not there for the benefit of deterrence. Those provisions are there to protect the livelihoods of law abiding citizens in their own home. If a person is in fear of his life in his own home, he should not have to second guess himself nor should he need be omniscient of the details of his situation in order to properly assess whether lethal force is necessary. Such provisions prevent people who fired a weapon in self-defense from having to face a costly trial (in both money and reputation).
Many people, especially people from other countries, seem shocked that we value the life of the innocent homeowner over that of the criminal. Frankly, I'm glad I don't live in those countries.
I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.
States with Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming
Keep in mind this includes very liberal states such as California and Illinois, so this does in fact show a general consensus among most of America. Even in states without such laws, convictions for people defending themselves in their own home are very rare, assuming who they shot was a stranger and not someone they knew.
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
We don't have time to interview the criminal to find out what his true intentions are. If there is one place where a man should have the right to feel absolutely secure, it should in their own home. No, "life is sacred" does not work both ways. The lives of law abiding people is sacred. The lives of people who agreed to abide by the rules of a civilized society is sacred. The life of those who have broken that trust by breaking into someone's home violating that person's right to remain secure in that home (not merely trespassing on their property) is not sacred.
The castle doctrine that is found in most states in the U.S. guarantees that right to its citizens. The law is there because we are more concerned about the right to life of the law abiding person in their own home, and will not second guess the exact circumstances of a person who defends themselves at home. It is utterly ridiculous for a person to have to prove that there was not a viable escape route, that, in a moment of duress within their own home, they had to have 20/20 hindsight about the circumstance that they were in. How is the person supposed to know that jumping out the window would be safe, that there wasn't some accomplice who went to the backdoor? A person who is awoken at 3AM from a person breaking a window and entering his home has no idea what kind of danger he is in. Regardless of how much he trusts the police, he can't change the fact that the average response time of an officer to a Code 3 situation is around 8 minutes. The fact is that there is never a sure way to know whether retreat is the better option. And given that a person isn't omniscient, we have decided in most of the U.S. that the law is going to remove this ridiculous need for proof from the person trying to defend his life in his own home.
Does this mean that it's a smart idea for a person to run through the house guns blazing if someone breaks into his home? No, of course not. Most experts will tell you that the best course of action is to gather your family, hole up in the bedroom, call the police, and be ready to shoot only if the person breaking into the house attempts to break into that sanctuary. But, because there are an infinite number of circumstances that may arise that takes that option off the table, it is not the government's place to second guess the judgment of the law abiding citizen over that of a criminal.
If it is permissible to kill someone in self defense if they have a gun pointed at you an are ready and willing to shoot, the practical line at which lethal force becomes permissible MUST be at a point before it is too late for the person defending themselves to succeed at doing so. If your line for when it's ok to shoot a person is after they've shot at you, then that line is worthless.