This is what I came here to say. If you think that those apps are legitimate or at least only a positive, you are either very desperate, underage, or a moron of the highest order. In the case of the first, I'm sorry you don't have the brains to find actual free porn/cheesecake pics, in the case of the second you're not clever enough to ascend to the next level of porn, and in the case of the third your phone is too smart for you, please take it back.
Ah right. It's the user's fault. The classic excuse for bad IT systems.
Plenty of dumb people manage to commit mass murder. e.g. The columbine shooters were far from grade A students.
The 7/7 bombers and the 21/7 bombers in London used the same unsophisticated recipe for bomb making. The 21/7 bombs failed to go off. The 7/7 bombs killed 56 people.
You can just assume stupid people are only a danger to themselves.
There's no plea bargaining in the UK. But there is the danger that a judge is going to give a heavier sentence if he thinks you've wasted the court's time by pleading not guilty on an open and shut case.
The case is so stacked against him because he's guilty as charged. Collecting information for terrorism and expressing intent to do it is criminal.
Individually they are potential. We don't know who is going to get killed. But there is no doubt that there are going to be future mass murders, and they may or may not be stopped, depending on whether threats are taken seriously or not.
I'm not saying that that justifies anything done in the name of terrorism. TSA at airports for example is way over the top. But when someone is caught with clear intent, it's stupid to not take action.
There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise.
You don't think the presence of explosive recipes, instructions for the manufacture of ricin, and price lists for military weapons on the same USB drive isn't evidence as to what he meant by Jihad?
I encourage you to read the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (217 A III)
I guess you didn't read as far as article 30.
Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I'm afraid you've got your priorities wrong. You seem to think your personal concept of a right to plan mass-murder is more important than the right to life of the victims.
How can an eye witness be evidence of anything? How can a fingerprint be evidence of anything? How can a fibre identified by forensics be evidence of anything.
The purpose of the prosecutions and defence debate, the advice of the judge and the deliberations of the jury is to put all evidence together with all arguments about unreliability and decide whether the prosecution has proved the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The entire case is not what was presented in the summary. Nor, for the minority of commenters that actually read it, what was in the article.
Presumably you didn't read the article, given that the second line reveals a guilty plea.
Right. So you wouldn't have stopped e.g. the Columbine shooters. (15 dead). Or Breivik in Norway (77 dead). or the hundreds of other mass murderers who drew suspicion to themselves whilst they were still planning, but the suspicions weren't acted on.
There's a big difference between naive ideology of freedom to browse whatever you like and the reality of psychopaths actively planning to commit mass murder.
According to the authoritative Dictionary of Islam jihad is defined as: "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad... enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims."
As for the letter, this makes people uncomfortable, but only because it's a follower of some *other* religion that's prepared for war.
Nonsense. Terrorist is as far from the thoughts of the vast majority of Muslims as it is from Christians or Atheists.
If you actually believe that justice was done, I challenge you to reflect on your reasoning and tell me if you genuinely believe the evidence is sufficient to believe that there was a possibility of real harm. I suspect that you'll find that you only feel that the detective and the judge have done right by society because the "criminal" in question was Muslim.
You couldn't be further from the truth. That's not my opinion of Muslims, and my reaction would be the same to a Christian, Atheists, animal rights protestor, or whatever.
The looking for information isn't enough. The combination of that and the expression of intent in a letter is.
So what if his spirtial guidance turned out to be 'don't do it man'!... you shouldn't punish people for being tempted, because EVERYONE is tempted to do what is wrong from time to time. It is only when they actually DO it that they have DONE something illegal.
What he'd already done is illegal in the UK. Temptation is in the head. By the time you've collected hard o find information and declared in a letter to someone you're prepared for it, you should be assumed to be well beyond the temptation phase.
Too often in one-man massacre situations, the signs had been there before the day. But no one acted on it. It's good that this particular madman has been stopped in his tracks.
If I wrote a letter that said I am prepared financially and spiritually for violence and had a shopping list containing weapons. Should I be arrested?
If the violence was of a terrorist nature, and you also had information or materials that would help you to do thise things, then under British law, yes.
If I have a erection and tell a friend, "Man, I'd really like to rape that chick." Should I be arrested?
That's not terrorism, so certainly not under the same law, no. There may be some other law you break though.
The question isn't whether terrorism should be illegal, it's whether unclear and unsubstantiated intent is illegal. Were the plans for when and where he would strike? No, just a letter saying he was ready if called.
The text of the letter wasn't in the article so we don't know that. But the suggestion is he was seeking spiritual guidance,and was planning an attack himself, not offering to join someone else's plot.
As much as I detest violence and (insert all bad things here), I vehemently oppose others controlling what I'm allowed to think.
There's a difference between thinking something should be opposed and planning a terrorist attack on it. I defend your right to think. I don't defend your right to plan a terrorist attack. If it stays in your head it's still in the realm of fantasy. By the time you've downloaded plans for explosives, ricin, price lists for military weapons, and sent messages to people telling them you are prepared, it's safest to assume you're way past the fantasy stage.
But there's the crux - where's the evidence this is preliminary to a serious crime? Where is there anything which strongly indicates *intent* to build a bomb or commit a crime.
Why don't you RTFA? "A further examination of the stick revealed a letter, addressed to an unknown recipient, in which the author - again anonymous but referring to himself as a 24-year-old man - seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad." That is clear intent.
Yes, mod parent up - the UK's Bill Gates (Sinclair) versus a young Steve Jobs (Curry/Hauser - discuss?)
I've never really thought about it before, but yes there is a big similarity. The cheap, market share leading but clunky Sinclair computers, vs the high design values at a higher price of the Acorn computers. And then there's Clive Sinclair's phone throwing echoed in Ballmer's chair throwing.
Thing is, Tiny Tower looks like it was inspired by Zynga games in the first place. The look of it, the gameplay, the business model. It looks like Farmville goes high-rise.
So the copying here isn't just one way. And It wasn't initiated by Zynga.
Not that I want to defend Zynga. From previous stories they come across as scumbags. But an indie copying from Zynga isn't exactly on the moral high ground either.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I came here to say. If you think that those apps are legitimate or at least only a positive, you are either very desperate, underage, or a moron of the highest order. In the case of the first, I'm sorry you don't have the brains to find actual free porn/cheesecake pics, in the case of the second you're not clever enough to ascend to the next level of porn, and in the case of the third your phone is too smart for you, please take it back.
Ah right. It's the user's fault. The classic excuse for bad IT systems.
Walled garden is the way to go.
Android users very satisfied: 47%
iPhone users very satisfied: 75%
http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/01/09/iphone-satisfaction-at-75-closest-competitor-at-47/
Plenty of dumb people manage to commit mass murder. e.g. The columbine shooters were far from grade A students.
The 7/7 bombers and the 21/7 bombers in London used the same unsophisticated recipe for bomb making. The 21/7 bombs failed to go off. The 7/7 bombs killed 56 people.
You can just assume stupid people are only a danger to themselves.
There's no plea bargaining in the UK. But there is the danger that a judge is going to give a heavier sentence if he thinks you've wasted the court's time by pleading not guilty on an open and shut case.
The case is so stacked against him because he's guilty as charged. Collecting information for terrorism and expressing intent to do it is criminal.
You'd be like one of the teachers that did nothing about the suspicious behaviour of this guy then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16742608
Individually they are potential. We don't know who is going to get killed. But there is no doubt that there are going to be future mass murders, and they may or may not be stopped, depending on whether threats are taken seriously or not.
I'm not saying that that justifies anything done in the name of terrorism. TSA at airports for example is way over the top. But when someone is caught with clear intent, it's stupid to not take action.
You'd certainly have to investigate them. Remove them from certain categories of jobs. And if they've committed crimes, detain them.
If his letter said he was on "a jihad against bad music" he probably wouldn't have been sent to prison.
Are you suggesting that everyone that owns a handgun and has written an angry letter to the OpEd section should be arrested?
In Britain, yes. It's illegal to own handguns.
There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise.
You don't think the presence of explosive recipes, instructions for the manufacture of ricin, and price lists for military weapons on the same USB drive isn't evidence as to what he meant by Jihad?
Or the fact that he pleaded guilty.
You're not exactly Sherlock Holmes, are you.
I encourage you to read the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (217 A III)
I guess you didn't read as far as article 30.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I'm afraid you've got your priorities wrong. You seem to think your personal concept of a right to plan mass-murder is more important than the right to life of the victims.
How can an eye witness be evidence of anything?
How can a fingerprint be evidence of anything?
How can a fibre identified by forensics be evidence of anything.
The purpose of the prosecutions and defence debate, the advice of the judge and the deliberations of the jury is to put all evidence together with all arguments about unreliability and decide whether the prosecution has proved the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The entire case is not what was presented in the summary. Nor, for the minority of commenters that actually read it, what was in the article.
Presumably you didn't read the article, given that the second line reveals a guilty plea.
Right. So you wouldn't have stopped e.g. the Columbine shooters. (15 dead). Or Breivik in Norway (77 dead). or the hundreds of other mass murderers who drew suspicion to themselves whilst they were still planning, but the suspicions weren't acted on.
There's a big difference between naive ideology of freedom to browse whatever you like and the reality of psychopaths actively planning to commit mass murder.
The funny thing is, you're not as anonymous as you think you are.
What are you? A bar room brawler? You don't know me, asshole.
Or money from a bank robbery. Or drugs. Or the severed head of a prostitute...
Believe it or not the justice system is aware of the possibility of planting of evidence. That didn't arrive with USB sticks.
In this case the father of the man in question handed over the USB stick voluntarily, not realising what was on it.
Thanks for the link.
According to the authoritative Dictionary of Islam jihad is defined as: "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad ... enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims."
That's exactly what I thought it meant.
As for the letter, this makes people uncomfortable, but only because it's a follower of some *other* religion that's prepared for war.
Nonsense. Terrorist is as far from the thoughts of the vast majority of Muslims as it is from Christians or Atheists.
If you actually believe that justice was done, I challenge you to reflect on your reasoning and tell me if you genuinely believe the evidence is sufficient to believe that there was a possibility of real harm. I suspect that you'll find that you only feel that the detective and the judge have done right by society because the "criminal" in question was Muslim.
You couldn't be further from the truth. That's not my opinion of Muslims, and my reaction would be the same to a Christian, Atheists, animal rights protestor, or whatever.
The looking for information isn't enough. The combination of that and the expression of intent in a letter is.
Who said specific time and place was a requirement for intent? Certainly not the law.
So what if his spirtial guidance turned out to be 'don't do it man'! ... you shouldn't punish people for being tempted, because EVERYONE is tempted to do what is wrong from time to time. It is only when they actually DO it that they have DONE something illegal.
What he'd already done is illegal in the UK. Temptation is in the head. By the time you've collected hard o find information and declared in a letter to someone you're prepared for it, you should be assumed to be well beyond the temptation phase.
Too often in one-man massacre situations, the signs had been there before the day. But no one acted on it. It's good that this particular madman has been stopped in his tracks.
Prepared for jihad. That's your argument.
It demonstrates intent.
If I wrote a letter that said I am prepared financially and spiritually for violence and had a shopping list containing weapons. Should I be arrested?
If the violence was of a terrorist nature, and you also had information or materials that would help you to do thise things, then under British law, yes.
If I have a erection and tell a friend, "Man, I'd really like to rape that chick." Should I be arrested?
That's not terrorism, so certainly not under the same law, no. There may be some other law you break though.
The question isn't whether terrorism should be illegal, it's whether unclear and unsubstantiated intent is illegal. Were the plans for when and where he would strike?
No, just a letter saying he was ready if called.
The text of the letter wasn't in the article so we don't know that. But the suggestion is he was seeking spiritual guidance,and was planning an attack himself, not offering to join someone else's plot.
As much as I detest violence and (insert all bad things here), I vehemently oppose others controlling what I'm allowed to think.
There's a difference between thinking something should be opposed and planning a terrorist attack on it. I defend your right to think. I don't defend your right to plan a terrorist attack. If it stays in your head it's still in the realm of fantasy. By the time you've downloaded plans for explosives, ricin, price lists for military weapons, and sent messages to people telling them you are prepared, it's safest to assume you're way past the fantasy stage.
But there's the crux - where's the evidence this is preliminary to a serious crime? Where is there anything which strongly indicates *intent* to build a bomb or commit a crime.
Why don't you RTFA?
"A further examination of the stick revealed a letter, addressed to an unknown recipient, in which the author - again anonymous but referring to himself as a 24-year-old man - seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad."
That is clear intent.
Yes, mod parent up - the UK's Bill Gates (Sinclair) versus a young Steve Jobs (Curry/Hauser - discuss?)
I've never really thought about it before, but yes there is a big similarity. The cheap, market share leading but clunky Sinclair computers, vs the high design values at a higher price of the Acorn computers. And then there's Clive Sinclair's phone throwing echoed in Ballmer's chair throwing.
Apple charges $150 for a 1TB drive.
Thing is, Tiny Tower looks like it was inspired by Zynga games in the first place. The look of it, the gameplay, the business model. It looks like Farmville goes high-rise.
So the copying here isn't just one way. And It wasn't initiated by Zynga.
Not that I want to defend Zynga. From previous stories they come across as scumbags. But an indie copying from Zynga isn't exactly on the moral high ground either.