No, vigilantism is you attempting to "bring him to justice" or making him "pay for his crime". Defense is stopping him before he kills/rapes again. It's not my job to make him pay for his crime, it's my responsibility as a citizen of society to protect myself and those around me from danger.
Using my bank story:
Vigilantism: The guy empties his gun into the teller, drops the gun, sees he has no exit, falls to the floor with his hands on his head, I put one in the back of his head.
Defense: The guy empties his gun into the teller, grabs another magazine from his pocket and reloads, I put one in the back of his head.
See the difference? You would not call #2 "defense" because he was not an actual danger at that moment. I would because he was still a threat, just as he was still a threat when he ran out the door with a loaded gun and an obvious will to use it.
So unless you want to argue that shooting a rapist in the back as he walks away from the scene of the crime is "defense" you've just been tilting at windmills.
And what makes you think that he won't go around the corner and rape the next person he comes across. Maybe this time it will be someone you know. Maybe this time the victim's family will walk in on it and the perpetrator will feel it necessary to kill them all instead of being identified.
Using your logic, when a bank robber who just killed the manager and a teller is walking out of a building, it is wrong to shoot him, even though he has proven a capacity and willingness to murder, and who knows how many innocent people may accidentally wander across his path as he is fleeing the scene.
Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.
I would say she "killed" him inasmuch as Frodo "killed" Sauron and Wormtongue "killed" Saruman. Poof, they're gone, no more to trouble Middle Earth. Are they dead, well, no, not technically, but then again, I thought not enough people actually died in Tolkien's original, at least not enough popular characters. Sure, you hear about an army of dwarves dying here, and a couple thousand humans biting it over there, but it was all so detached.
To get somewhat back on topic, if Tolkien had written the Ringwraiths with the same level of absolute violence that the Sopranos writers used (for example, dropping farmer Maggot with a mace to the head, or, on finding the hobbits had tricked them at the Inn, they go ahead and burn it down just in case they were still in the building) I think it would have fit better. To me, the ringwraiths weren't quite "evil" enough. Scary, hell yes, but not evil like their master.
Do me a favor, go repeat that statement to 100 random strangers, count the number of glassy eyes and slack jaws, and divide by three. That is the approximate percentage of people who will never run Linux on the Desktop in its current evolutionary state.
I did not know that, thanks. I'll have to get a copy. Does Saruman stab Frodo? How does Saruman make Wormtongue snap (obviously not in reference to killing Lotho, if they're not in the Shire). Are there any other critical story lines included in extended edition that were left out of regular? Thanks again.
Forget Bombadil, I want Wormtongue slitting Saruman's throat. At least Bombadil was left out completely. Saruman was brought in, developed, made an interesting part of the story, then dropped like a red hot palantir.
email: bobsmith@gmail.com
i use: TDWH+bobsmith@gmail.com
result: I get my mail
email: Jonah+JJameson@gmail.com
I use: Jonah+JJameson@gmail.com
result: all the investment emails of a successful newspaper editor are now forwarded to an adult film star.
Here's how I have heard it explained by someone who was neither.
A geek is what you call yourself, a nerd is what other people call you.
I prefer this explanation:
A geek has a narrower interest span than a nerd. A geek is extremely good at one thing and also knows a bit more than average about many other interests he or she might have. A geek is also more outgoing and more social than nerds. A geek is more 'self oriented' while a nerd is 'interest oriented'. A geek may give up or switch to some other interest if there are benifits in it, but a nerd will not - if he did he would fall under the geek definition.
Right, cause I know I have a hard time interpreting both color and depth with my eyes. C'mon, you really think my brain couldn't handle infrared as well?
We do this kind of thing every day, but we take it for granted because we have always done it. You watch TV, listen to the news, and make sure your kid isn't choking on his Cheerios all at the same time. You use transparency on your PC to watch two windows at once. I can tell you what was on NPR last night, and I'm pretty sure I didn't run over any little old ladies crossing the street.
The interesting part is the mixing of the senses: "Seeing" music, "smelling" sounds, etc., or using one sense for something not currently interpreted by your senses: "Feeling" north or "seeing" wi-fi. How cool would it be to never get lost, or be able to just look around and find a hotspot?
Unfortunately they have a blanket policy stating that certain things must remain as installed in order not to void your warranty.
Of course, whether they can legally do that is a different question entirely. I don't know what, if any, serious consumer protection laws are available in the US. However, I'm guessing there are things like fitness for purpose implied in a sale of new goods that can't be disclaimed.
Since we love car/computer analogies on/., I'll share my own anecdote. I purchased a new Jeep Wrangler, had a suspension lift installed on it (by the dealer!), and found out that I voided the warranty on the transmission. Apparently my Jeep (you know, that they advertise as "trail rated") is is only warranted for "off-road" use if you keep it original (which gives you a whopping 10 inches of ground clearance, or something like that).
On a positive note, I left that dealership, never to return, and took my Jeep to a local garage. The mechanic was familiar with the problem, adjusted some stuff on the tranny, and I was good to go -- $60 and he didn't try to upsell me any headlight fluid exchange or seat rotation services.
No, as I stated above, it means until you comply with the order OR until you can appeal. My understanding is that, except in extreme cases of contempt (see the NY Times reporter / Plame incident) people who have an arguably valid reason for their contempt can be ordered released by the appellate court pending the results of that appeal.
Of course, the majority of my legal expertise comes from Steve Martini, John Grisham, and the mass media, so I could very well be engaging in anal elocution.
This is something I don't understand about the US judicial system, and maybe NYCL can help explain it. If a judge orders someone to do something, and they refuse, isn't it then the justice department's responsibility to enforce that judge's order? Why do we so often see a judge's orders ignored, challenged, appealed, ad nauseum?
As an example, I heard on NPR yesterday President Bush's counsel inform the reporter that, should the House vote to subpoena Rove et. al., the White House would be refusing that order. He flat out told them, "No, we will not comply with a judge's order." Now, I understand there is a stickler here with Executive Privilege, but this seems to me to be a growing trend. What happened to the good old days when a judge would give an order, a person would refuse, and they would be thrown in jail for contempt until a) they complied, or b) an appeals court overruled the judge? Am I just naive in my belief that the judicial system was supposed to, I don't know, be able to actually enforce their decisions?
I had to read your first sentence several times before I realized that you meant "than" and not "then". A little justification for the spelling Nazis, as this post was somewhat incoherent due to the spelling error. Surprisingly, the sentence was still grammatically correct with the spelling error, which was probably the reason it took me a moment to catch it.
As someone who suffers from OCD and TTM (although some say they are one and the same affliction) as well as a moderate case of germophobia, I can attest to this. Usually the uber-organized among us do have some sort of mental health issues, and making sure our Coke can is equidistant to the back and side of our desks is our way of coping.
However, productivity and quality are two different things. I work with someone who is the antithesis of neat and orderly. Spilled food on his clothes, papers strewn every which way, a whiteboard with approximately 3.4 cm^2 of unused space, etc. We are both technical equals, but he does seem to turn out more work than I do. However, my code is easy to read and well commented, and my system proposals are well-organized things of beauty. His code will occasionally contain a line break, and his customer communications are a hodge-podge of spelling and grammar mistakes, with some questionable colloquialisms thrown in for good measure. Guess who the customer prefers to work with, even if it tacks on an extra week or three to the end of the project?
Even the few parents who have kids because they actually want kids are often the most selfish people -- as soon as people become parents, they automatically assume their needs are more important than everyone else's.
Survival of the species. Of course my own offspring are more important than everyone else. In nature, even in species with very strong social values, it is not uncommon for a parent to sacrifice themselves or other members of their troop to save the life of their own single child. I would gladly throw a half-dozen complete strangers or myself in front of a bullet to save my kid.
Why doesn't the architecture of my house fall under this rule? I know that professional photographers have to be careful when taking photos of a city because certain building owners will not allow photos of their business. Wouldn't the same rule apply? Are they going to get signed releases from everyone?
Very little of my house is visible from public access. However, driving a hundred yards or so down my driveway will offer you a nice, clean picture. The first time I see photos of my house which I know had to have been taken from my private property, can I have their asses thrown in jail for trespassing?
If I have 10 possible vulnerable points to look through versus 1000 possible vulnerable points, wouldn't I want to tackle the smaller job?
BadAnalogy(TM) time. If I want to invade a foreign country, one which has 10 bridges leading to it, and one which has 1000, I'm going to assume (rightly so) that the defending nation is going to have a harder time securing those 1000 bridges than the one securing 10 bridges. Yes, it is easier for me to determine which are undefended in the 10 bridge scenario...it is also far more likely that nation has in-depth knowledge of the defensibility of those bridges. As the defender, I'm much more likely to catch a guard napping when I only have 10 bridges to monitor.
On the Japanese store, by the way, they don't sell it at all. Guess they saw the video for "Hit me Baby" and figured "Like the schoolgirl outfit, but needs more tentacles. Or cowbell."
I got a fever. And the only prescription... is more cowbell!
Actually, the statement "those cases are bullshit" is accurate, but not the way you mean. It's bullshit in that this rarely happens.
My uncle got plastered at a bar, crashed into the back of a trailer parked along the side of the road, and died instantly. BAL was something crazy like.21. His brothers and sisters tried to sue the bar (they had to know he was way above the legal limit), and also the owner of the trailer (parked on the shoulder, overnight, barely off the road, no flashers or flares or little orange triangle signs). They got nothing from either party, and all they were suing for was the cost of the funeral!
I think that when you see news reports of someone getting a huge settlement, your natural reaction is to assume this happens all the time. My guess is for every one McDonald's coffee lawsuit won, there are 5,000 that are thrown out of court.
Why could this be done in the past, and is too much to do now?
Business Hours
When my dad and mom both worked, my dad had to be at work at 6:00 and my mom at 7:00. Dad was home by 3:30, mom by 5:00. Today, most people don't start until at least 8:00, and, at least in the IT world, often work over. I often did not get home until 6:30. After supper, homework, showers, that leaves 30-60 minutes to spend with my kids. I finally realized that, like you said, with just a little sacrifice on my part (not sleeping in), and since we had flexible schedules, I could be at work at 6:00 and get an extra two hours with my kids. Well worth it, and has shown an incredible difference in my oldest's attitude and behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
No, vigilantism is you attempting to "bring him to justice" or making him "pay for his crime". Defense is stopping him before he kills/rapes again. It's not my job to make him pay for his crime, it's my responsibility as a citizen of society to protect myself and those around me from danger.
Using my bank story:
Vigilantism: The guy empties his gun into the teller, drops the gun, sees he has no exit, falls to the floor with his hands on his head, I put one in the back of his head.
Defense: The guy empties his gun into the teller, grabs another magazine from his pocket and reloads, I put one in the back of his head.
See the difference? You would not call #2 "defense" because he was not an actual danger at that moment. I would because he was still a threat, just as he was still a threat when he ran out the door with a loaded gun and an obvious will to use it.
And what makes you think that he won't go around the corner and rape the next person he comes across. Maybe this time it will be someone you know. Maybe this time the victim's family will walk in on it and the perpetrator will feel it necessary to kill them all instead of being identified.
Using your logic, when a bank robber who just killed the manager and a teller is walking out of a building, it is wrong to shoot him, even though he has proven a capacity and willingness to murder, and who knows how many innocent people may accidentally wander across his path as he is fleeing the scene.
I think you're relying on semantics.
I would say she "killed" him inasmuch as Frodo "killed" Sauron and Wormtongue "killed" Saruman. Poof, they're gone, no more to trouble Middle Earth. Are they dead, well, no, not technically, but then again, I thought not enough people actually died in Tolkien's original, at least not enough popular characters. Sure, you hear about an army of dwarves dying here, and a couple thousand humans biting it over there, but it was all so detached.
To get somewhat back on topic, if Tolkien had written the Ringwraiths with the same level of absolute violence that the Sopranos writers used (for example, dropping farmer Maggot with a mace to the head, or, on finding the hobbits had tricked them at the Inn, they go ahead and burn it down just in case they were still in the building) I think it would have fit better. To me, the ringwraiths weren't quite "evil" enough. Scary, hell yes, but not evil like their master.
Of course, how could he have been so stupid?
Do me a favor, go repeat that statement to 100 random strangers, count the number of glassy eyes and slack jaws, and divide by three. That is the approximate percentage of people who will never run Linux on the Desktop in its current evolutionary state.
I did not know that, thanks. I'll have to get a copy. Does Saruman stab Frodo? How does Saruman make Wormtongue snap (obviously not in reference to killing Lotho, if they're not in the Shire). Are there any other critical story lines included in extended edition that were left out of regular? Thanks again.
Forget Bombadil, I want Wormtongue slitting Saruman's throat. At least Bombadil was left out completely. Saruman was brought in, developed, made an interesting part of the story, then dropped like a red hot palantir.
Read it again.
email: bobsmith@gmail.com
i use: TDWH+bobsmith@gmail.com
result: I get my mail
email: Jonah+JJameson@gmail.com
I use: Jonah+JJameson@gmail.com
result: all the investment emails of a successful newspaper editor are now forwarded to an adult film star.
Here's how I have heard it explained by someone who was neither.
I prefer this explanation:
Right, cause I know I have a hard time interpreting both color and depth with my eyes. C'mon, you really think my brain couldn't handle infrared as well?
We do this kind of thing every day, but we take it for granted because we have always done it. You watch TV, listen to the news, and make sure your kid isn't choking on his Cheerios all at the same time. You use transparency on your PC to watch two windows at once. I can tell you what was on NPR last night, and I'm pretty sure I didn't run over any little old ladies crossing the street.
The interesting part is the mixing of the senses: "Seeing" music, "smelling" sounds, etc., or using one sense for something not currently interpreted by your senses: "Feeling" north or "seeing" wi-fi. How cool would it be to never get lost, or be able to just look around and find a hotspot?
Exactly, and how are you going to get that firewall installed on XP SP2 before you are able...to...uh, never mind.
Since we love car/computer analogies on /., I'll share my own anecdote. I purchased a new Jeep Wrangler, had a suspension lift installed on it (by the dealer!), and found out that I voided the warranty on the transmission. Apparently my Jeep (you know, that they advertise as "trail rated") is is only warranted for "off-road" use if you keep it original (which gives you a whopping 10 inches of ground clearance, or something like that).
On a positive note, I left that dealership, never to return, and took my Jeep to a local garage. The mechanic was familiar with the problem, adjusted some stuff on the tranny, and I was good to go -- $60 and he didn't try to upsell me any headlight fluid exchange or seat rotation services.
Lumberyard milquetoast tire iron? I roughshod pothole squiggle bass, you insensitive clod!
No, as I stated above, it means until you comply with the order OR until you can appeal. My understanding is that, except in extreme cases of contempt (see the NY Times reporter / Plame incident) people who have an arguably valid reason for their contempt can be ordered released by the appellate court pending the results of that appeal.
Of course, the majority of my legal expertise comes from Steve Martini, John Grisham, and the mass media, so I could very well be engaging in anal elocution.
This is something I don't understand about the US judicial system, and maybe NYCL can help explain it. If a judge orders someone to do something, and they refuse, isn't it then the justice department's responsibility to enforce that judge's order? Why do we so often see a judge's orders ignored, challenged, appealed, ad nauseum?
As an example, I heard on NPR yesterday President Bush's counsel inform the reporter that, should the House vote to subpoena Rove et. al., the White House would be refusing that order. He flat out told them, "No, we will not comply with a judge's order." Now, I understand there is a stickler here with Executive Privilege, but this seems to me to be a growing trend. What happened to the good old days when a judge would give an order, a person would refuse, and they would be thrown in jail for contempt until a) they complied, or b) an appeals court overruled the judge? Am I just naive in my belief that the judicial system was supposed to, I don't know, be able to actually enforce their decisions?
I had to read your first sentence several times before I realized that you meant "than" and not "then". A little justification for the spelling Nazis, as this post was somewhat incoherent due to the spelling error. Surprisingly, the sentence was still grammatically correct with the spelling error, which was probably the reason it took me a moment to catch it.
As someone who suffers from OCD and TTM (although some say they are one and the same affliction) as well as a moderate case of germophobia, I can attest to this. Usually the uber-organized among us do have some sort of mental health issues, and making sure our Coke can is equidistant to the back and side of our desks is our way of coping.
However, productivity and quality are two different things. I work with someone who is the antithesis of neat and orderly. Spilled food on his clothes, papers strewn every which way, a whiteboard with approximately 3.4 cm^2 of unused space, etc. We are both technical equals, but he does seem to turn out more work than I do. However, my code is easy to read and well commented, and my system proposals are well-organized things of beauty. His code will occasionally contain a line break, and his customer communications are a hodge-podge of spelling and grammar mistakes, with some questionable colloquialisms thrown in for good measure. Guess who the customer prefers to work with, even if it tacks on an extra week or three to the end of the project?
Survival of the species. Of course my own offspring are more important than everyone else. In nature, even in species with very strong social values, it is not uncommon for a parent to sacrifice themselves or other members of their troop to save the life of their own single child. I would gladly throw a half-dozen complete strangers or myself in front of a bullet to save my kid.
Why doesn't the architecture of my house fall under this rule? I know that professional photographers have to be careful when taking photos of a city because certain building owners will not allow photos of their business. Wouldn't the same rule apply? Are they going to get signed releases from everyone?
Very little of my house is visible from public access. However, driving a hundred yards or so down my driveway will offer you a nice, clean picture. The first time I see photos of my house which I know had to have been taken from my private property, can I have their asses thrown in jail for trespassing?
BadAnalogy(TM) time. If I want to invade a foreign country, one which has 10 bridges leading to it, and one which has 1000, I'm going to assume (rightly so) that the defending nation is going to have a harder time securing those 1000 bridges than the one securing 10 bridges. Yes, it is easier for me to determine which are undefended in the 10 bridge scenario...it is also far more likely that nation has in-depth knowledge of the defensibility of those bridges. As the defender, I'm much more likely to catch a guard napping when I only have 10 bridges to monitor.
I got a fever. And the only prescription... is more cowbell!
Ah, the glory days when SNL was funny.
Sorry, but the shame, good sir, lies with you. Douglas Adams is the foremost authority on time travel verb usage, not some two-bit blogger.
From the link you provided
This is slashdot. Attempting to improve upon DNA is grounds for drawing and quartering
So, I wiollen have given myself the plans tomorrow so that I wiollen be submitting them a few years ago to get the grant money.
There, fixed that for you.
Actually, the statement "those cases are bullshit" is accurate, but not the way you mean. It's bullshit in that this rarely happens.
My uncle got plastered at a bar, crashed into the back of a trailer parked along the side of the road, and died instantly. BAL was something crazy like .21. His brothers and sisters tried to sue the bar (they had to know he was way above the legal limit), and also the owner of the trailer (parked on the shoulder, overnight, barely off the road, no flashers or flares or little orange triangle signs). They got nothing from either party, and all they were suing for was the cost of the funeral!
I think that when you see news reports of someone getting a huge settlement, your natural reaction is to assume this happens all the time. My guess is for every one McDonald's coffee lawsuit won, there are 5,000 that are thrown out of court.
Business Hours
When my dad and mom both worked, my dad had to be at work at 6:00 and my mom at 7:00. Dad was home by 3:30, mom by 5:00. Today, most people don't start until at least 8:00, and, at least in the IT world, often work over. I often did not get home until 6:30. After supper, homework, showers, that leaves 30-60 minutes to spend with my kids. I finally realized that, like you said, with just a little sacrifice on my part (not sleeping in), and since we had flexible schedules, I could be at work at 6:00 and get an extra two hours with my kids. Well worth it, and has shown an incredible difference in my oldest's attitude and behavior.