Simple solution: take two stupid people who are having a loud and inane conversation, and place them very close together. Turn one of them upside-down. Et voilà! Noise-cancelling idiots.
...Well, maybe it doesn't really work like that, but it's a lot of fun to try!
You seem awfully confident of that. After all, there's no proof that McVeigh wasn't part of a larger "war", just as there's no proof Padilla wasn't an "enemy combatant." We know his motives; you have, of course, heard of Waco? The question I would ask of those who support Padilla's detention is much more germane: where is the proof against him?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's okay to hold "enemy combatants" without proof. If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?" Padilla was not captured in a combatant capacity on a battlefield; he was detained in an airport upon arrival. Do you have sufficient faith in our government to trust some elected official's secret say-so to determine who is detained without due process?
I know I should refrain from commenting on this thread, since the article is a dupe, but oh well.
IANAL, but that law seems a bit vague to me. What exactly is the definition of "authorization" in that context? None is given that I can see, not even in the definitions section (815.03). If "authorization" means explicit permission from a human being in charge of the computer system in 815.06, then would that not make every person who's surfed the web in the state of Florida a felon? But if "authorization" simply means the implicit permission of machine-allowed access, then how on earth are they going charge him under its provisions? More details about the prosecution would certainly be nice...
The parent makes a good point. I'm not as certain about the state laws that may apply, but in any case, it's hard to argue that open WAP's are not configured to be available to the general public. It's not really a case of accessing a network without permission; it's a case of requesting permission to access the network and being granted that permission by the AP. The ability of the AP to grant that permission is, after all, entirely under the control of the user.
You might have a point, but I'd like to pose these questions: who is worth that much? Managers? Marketers? Executives? What makes a CEO worth as much as 500 programmers? These questions could be rhetorical, but I'm not really sure.:-)
In any case, six-figure salaries aren't really uncommon for senior programmers / engineers with a couple decades of experience.
I think Morpheus went on about how the human nervous system produced enough electricity to power a light bulb, and that the machines tapped into that energy to run themselves.
That would be a very weak light bulb...
The human body takes in energy at a rate of about 100 Watts (based on a 2000-kilocalorie diet; add 50% if you're an American (Just kidding!;-)). In other words, if you used 100% of a human's available energy, you could power a bright light bulb. However, most of that energy is expelled as heat from various biological processes, and a great deal of the rest is converted to mechanical energy. The electrical energy in the actual nervous system is miniscule, and would probably not even light a small LED.
But it's not really a very good reason to moderate his comments as "Troll" regardless of the content. Moderators should look at the contents of a comment when moderating, not at the poster's UID or whether or not he bought it off eBay.:-)
The point of the mod system is to highlight comments that are worth reading, not to be a tool for those who hold grudges against specific people.
I live near Seattle, and whenever I'm there, I crack out the laptop with the WiFi card to do a little hunting for wide-open access points. There are so many of them it's not even funny - there's no need to pay for Internet service in Seattle; just mooch off of some unsuspec-- er, I mean, gracious bandwidth donor!;-)
Once, I even managed to check my e-mail while moving south on I-5. (Traffic was really bad, and no, I wasn't at the wheel...)
I am myself a gun owner and a vocal proponent of the Second Amendment, and I have to say I could not disagree more with what you are saying. It's this kind of testosterone-driven false bravado and thoughtless remarks that give real firearm enthusiasts a bad name.
Deadly force is a last-resort measure that should be employed only when there is direct risk to your life or the lives of others. If someone else is threatening or attacking you with a gun, or if someone comes at you with a knife or something, or someone is subjecting another person to such a threat, you are justified in shooting them. But how can you justify taking someone's life because they're about to make off with your hubcaps or your computer?
The power to take a life carries a tremendous responsibility to use that power only when it is necessary in order to protect the lives of others. Anyone who says otherwise clearly does not understand the responsibility that comes with wielding deadly force, and the sooner the crackpots who kill some poor kid to save their property are hauled off to prison, the better.
Your post smacks of the attitude of a kid who's never actually held a gun, much less been in a situation where it was necessary to use it. I haven't had to fire upon another human being either, but I know people who have; my father's gun saved his life on several occasions, and a friend of mine is a police officer. Think before you speak, maybe.
P.S: I have to say I do agree that sometimes deadly force should be used to stop a car chase. If the suspect represents a direct threat to innocent life, or the moment they make an assault with their vehicle, any measure required to stop them should be employed. However, in a pursuit situation, the best option is to simply let the suspect get away - unless you know that they do in fact pose an immediate threat (say, they're an escaping murder, or they have a hostage, or something of that magnitude), it's simply not worth the risk to public safety that is involved in a high-speed pursuit. It's sad the number of times innocent people have been injured or killed because the cops didn't want to let a drug dealer or two-bit robber get away.
Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).
I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311.
In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.
As another poster pointed out, increased lactation due to chemical treatment and breeding is one good explanation.
There's another important factor too: lactating wild bovines have, you know, calves to deal with all that milk. In many modern dairy farms, the calves are taken away and killed for veal shortly after birth, leaving the cows with a lot of milk and no place to put it but their bountiful udders. Hence the exigency of timely milking.
Furthermore, one could argue that it is hypocritical to deny these "inalienable" rights to people simply because they are not citizens of or located in the United States. I know that the Declaration of Independence is not part of our Law, but it is an embodiment of the same founding principles enshrined in our Constitution. It would seem to me that if "all men are created equal", it would be arrogant and improper to aggressively deny others those "inalienable" rights we hold four ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the doctrine of pre-emptive attack worked out real well for Japan... :-P
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's okay to hold "enemy combatants" without proof. If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?" Padilla was not captured in a combatant capacity on a battlefield; he was detained in an airport upon arrival. Do you have sufficient faith in our government to trust some elected official's secret say-so to determine who is detained without due process?
IANAL, but that law seems a bit vague to me. What exactly is the definition of "authorization" in that context? None is given that I can see, not even in the definitions section (815.03). If "authorization" means explicit permission from a human being in charge of the computer system in 815.06, then would that not make every person who's surfed the web in the state of Florida a felon? But if "authorization" simply means the implicit permission of machine-allowed access, then how on earth are they going charge him under its provisions? More details about the prosecution would certainly be nice...
The parent makes a good point. I'm not as certain about the state laws that may apply, but in any case, it's hard to argue that open WAP's are not configured to be available to the general public. It's not really a case of accessing a network without permission; it's a case of requesting permission to access the network and being granted that permission by the AP. The ability of the AP to grant that permission is, after all, entirely under the control of the user.
Q: How many Apple Newton users does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Faux! There to eat lemons, axe gravy soup.
In any case, six-figure salaries aren't really uncommon for senior programmers / engineers with a couple decades of experience.
"Low-hanging fruit??" Oh, you bastard. :-)
Take another look - there are two puns in that sentence. ;-)
Damn... I didn't even get past "computatizzle optimizzle" before my soda was all over the keyboard.
Wow, at least you're honest. :-)
That would be a very weak light bulb...
The human body takes in energy at a rate of about 100 Watts (based on a 2000-kilocalorie diet; add 50% if you're an American (Just kidding! ;-)). In other words, if you used 100% of a human's available energy, you could power a bright light bulb. However, most of that energy is expelled as heat from various biological processes, and a great deal of the rest is converted to mechanical energy. The electrical energy in the actual nervous system is miniscule, and would probably not even light a small LED.
We already have one - it's called "Insightful." :-)
But it's not really a very good reason to moderate his comments as "Troll" regardless of the content. Moderators should look at the contents of a comment when moderating, not at the poster's UID or whether or not he bought it off eBay. :-)
The point of the mod system is to highlight comments that are worth reading, not to be a tool for those who hold grudges against specific people.
Yes, I know that the 'NO CARRIER' meme only applies to modems. It's just a joke, goofy. :-)
I'll have you know that at this very moment I am driving down the freeway while writing thiYTY$#%F*&#@(#
++ATH
NO CARRIER
I live near Seattle, and whenever I'm there, I crack out the laptop with the WiFi card to do a little hunting for wide-open access points. There are so many of them it's not even funny - there's no need to pay for Internet service in Seattle; just mooch off of some unsuspec-- er, I mean, gracious bandwidth donor! ;-)
Once, I even managed to check my e-mail while moving south on I-5. (Traffic was really bad, and no, I wasn't at the wheel...)
I am myself a gun owner and a vocal proponent of the Second Amendment, and I have to say I could not disagree more with what you are saying. It's this kind of testosterone-driven false bravado and thoughtless remarks that give real firearm enthusiasts a bad name.
Deadly force is a last-resort measure that should be employed only when there is direct risk to your life or the lives of others. If someone else is threatening or attacking you with a gun, or if someone comes at you with a knife or something, or someone is subjecting another person to such a threat, you are justified in shooting them. But how can you justify taking someone's life because they're about to make off with your hubcaps or your computer?
The power to take a life carries a tremendous responsibility to use that power only when it is necessary in order to protect the lives of others. Anyone who says otherwise clearly does not understand the responsibility that comes with wielding deadly force, and the sooner the crackpots who kill some poor kid to save their property are hauled off to prison, the better.
Your post smacks of the attitude of a kid who's never actually held a gun, much less been in a situation where it was necessary to use it. I haven't had to fire upon another human being either, but I know people who have; my father's gun saved his life on several occasions, and a friend of mine is a police officer. Think before you speak, maybe.
P.S: I have to say I do agree that sometimes deadly force should be used to stop a car chase. If the suspect represents a direct threat to innocent life, or the moment they make an assault with their vehicle, any measure required to stop them should be employed. However, in a pursuit situation, the best option is to simply let the suspect get away - unless you know that they do in fact pose an immediate threat (say, they're an escaping murder, or they have a hostage, or something of that magnitude), it's simply not worth the risk to public safety that is involved in a high-speed pursuit. It's sad the number of times innocent people have been injured or killed because the cops didn't want to let a drug dealer or two-bit robber get away.
It's no use. He probably transposed half the digits in his own phone number. ;-)
I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311.
In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.
There's another important factor too: lactating wild bovines have, you know, calves to deal with all that milk. In many modern dairy farms, the calves are taken away and killed for veal shortly after birth, leaving the cows with a lot of milk and no place to put it but their bountiful udders. Hence the exigency of timely milking.
Furthermore, one could argue that it is hypocritical to deny these "inalienable" rights to people simply because they are not citizens of or located in the United States. I know that the Declaration of Independence is not part of our Law, but it is an embodiment of the same founding principles enshrined in our Constitution. It would seem to me that if "all men are created equal", it would be arrogant and improper to aggressively deny others those "inalienable" rights we hold four ourselves.
What I want to know is who modded the grandparent as "Flamebait." Must've been something he said. :-)