As I understand it (having never experienced it) that's the justification for the detention of shoplifters by those that are not deputized law enforcement. I expect it falls into the realm of what legally constitutes a citizen's arrest.
If the journalists were caught trespassing, being journalists does not give them any kind of extra protected class against such a charge. If it's true that the guards were only attempting to prevent their departure after informing them that police had been summoned, they probably would have been 'trespassed' off the property by law enforcement and warned that a future incident would result in arrest, unless they'd already been trespassed off the property by police previously, in which case they would certainly be justifiably subject to arrest.
Yep. Temporary fence is usually rented. There is normally no reason to rent more fence than necessary for the job, especially if the point of the fence is supposed to be to separate the more-dangerous hardhat area from the rest of the property.
In this particular case, even if a hired security guard overstepped and actually committed unjustified assault, that does not mean that the trespassers were right. The act of trespassing is a discrete act from assault, and if anything, the legal repercussions of a judgement in the trespassing case, which was the first act perpetuated, should prove relevant in an any assault case.
Either way this isn't really all that relevant and if I don't hear anything else about it I'm not going to be concerned in the slightest.
No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have not seen the configuration of the mail server, I do not know when it operated, and I do not know the intricacies of the law during that period.
I have not seen any good reporting on the configuration of the mail server, on when it operated, or on the law during that period. I have heard that the law changed sometime after the mail server was used, and that people have been attempting to tie the operation of the mail server pre-law to the post-law rules.
I do not find for or against Mrs. Clinton for the mail server. If the timetable for a change in law meant that she was not breaking the law, then I would find in favor of her, rather than simply discarding this as something upon which to judge her.
And all of this is silly since conventional e-mail is an inherently insecure communications medium to begin with, regardless of the destination.
Stop trying to offend with style. Find some goddamn substance instead.
First, are you sure that it actually was extra-legal, or are you only repeating what others have said?
All that I know is that it has been reported that she had an e-mail server of her own. I could not tell you when it operated and I do not know what laws or regulations existed at what point during its operation.
At this point, so many contradictory, technically incorrect, and outright silly things have been said by talking heads about this that I'm simply inclined to not bother to judge based on it. This is like when the supposed expert from one of the news channels reported on the hacker 4chan and the images of celebrities he stole and put up on the Internet, it was so full of derp that there was no point in even bothering to pay attention other than as a drinking game of factual inaccuracies. This episode should be interpreted the same way when nontechnical people are doing the talking, be they Mrs. Clinton, or the congress critters, or the reporters.
I changed-out my home consumer-grade broadband router with something a little more stout and I had forgotten how many of the mainstream ad servers I'd manually blocked by hostname. It was an eyeopener when browsing on my cell phone. The PCs all adblock but I'm still using that pre-Chrome browser on my phone, so no ad-blocking unless the masquerading gateway does it for me.
If ads were simple images in-line between the text I would probably not block them. Otherwise I have no reason to let them through.
Honestly, if any entity literally ran out of money and could no longer afford an enforcement action and simply stopped for budgetary reasons similar to Lucas' first movie THX1138, I would expect it would be the British.
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
No one wants to carry something of unproven technology with unknown reliability when it could be a matter of life-and-death that it functions.
Modern smokless-powder automatic and semi-automatic firearms are the pinnacles of a development cycle dating back to the first muskets and pistols. One can itemize each and every step that went into the original and successor designs for both the weapon and for the ammunition to end up where we are now. Any future weapon must be that reliable. Any future weapon must be that inexpensive. Any future weapon must be that effective. If it isn't, police will still carry conventional firearms along with it, like how cops still carry pistols when they might also carry tazers.
Guns are used to stop something. They happen to be effective at killing too, but something that is dead is stopped.
I don't think that anything will replace the gun as a general-purpose tool. Guns are simple- basic Newtonian physics. The nature of how the projectile is launched might evolve over time (as it already has, starting with loose powder poured in through the muzzle to the modern cartridge ammo, to the upcoming caseless ammo where the charge is bonded to to the round like "Metal Storm" uses) but the basic premise of throwing a solid object with a lot of momentum to cause damage to a target is too widely applicable to be easily replaced by any one other thing. It's effective against persons. It's somewhat effective against persons with body armor (broken ribs and the like). It's somewhat effective against people in concealment (shooting through barrier), and it can be effective against machinery (automobile radiators, tires, etc). It's simple. It's inexpensive. It takes very little training to use.
Trying to replace bullets and guns with another technology simply won't happen because nothing else is as reliable or as simple. If something else were, we'd already be using it.
That's also assuming that the criminal-types don't recruit military veterans into their ranks. Quite frankly the veterans and their families have to eat too, and while they might be better trained at the kind of assault I postulated, that doesn't mean that they'll have enough firepower to succeed or that it wouldn't simply be easier to associate with someone that already has the means, however unsavory their past has been.
I don't think it'll happen simply because pseudoanonymous is not the same as anonymous. There is a log of the transaction, and as has been established when there are patterns of long-term government collection of bulk data, that transaction, ten years later, could be tied to parties that participated if subsequent information eventually exposes who controlled what.
Could be. Depends on the relationship between the bodyguard and the client. If it's been good and the bodyguard himself and his family feel that they've disproportionately benefited from the client and if they trust him to continue to do better for them than they would do for themselves then it might not be a big deal. If the bodyguard either doesn't like his employer, doesn't think his employer will make good decisions in the new paradigm, or thinks that he can do just as well or better without him, you may well be right.
I see this list as "The following people bribed politicians, and here's how much". Sick and disgusting. Get the money out of the political system, NOW.
I see this list in the same fashion as the the French Elites in the prelude to the French Revolution, or in the Russian Elites in the prelude to the Soviet Revolution, or in any other of a number of revolutions where the trodden-upon had enough and took it upon themselves to upset the established order.
The wealthy always do the same thing; they assume that they can keep taking more and more for themselves forever while still having a stable society off of which to prosper. Granted, it does work for a very, very long time, but eventually either they have to cede some of their power back, or they get violently overthrown. The UK has seemingly understood this; the authority and influence of the Peers of the Realm is much diminished compared to what it was at its height, the rich, whether peers or "common" were forced to pay substantial taxes after World War II to pay for the war, and the Monarchy, while still rich, is not immune from judgement from the common person (see Edward VIII).
The United States is not a point where revolution is inevitable, but at the same time we're a potential powder-keg. Ironically permissive weapons laws supported by the rich donors in an attempt to help keep the population supporting their policies could spell their downfall- a rifle at a distance can probably defeat just about any form of security a wealthy person could establish if they want to live an open, public life.
I don't want to see a revolution, but I don't think that short-sighted policies designed to manipulate the system to self-enrichen already wealthy people will help to curtail one.
Try reading up on Biosphere II and you'll see how that's not really workable, and that was with environmental experts, access to sunlight, and lots of funding to supply everything that they could think of.
The Swiss maintain tight control on the ammunition though, so that rifle might not be as immediately useful as one would think.
I'd also be concerned that as military technology has changed, there might not be ammunition available for many of the rifles in-inventory. If new rifles are of a different caliber then ammunition calibers for old rifles may simply not be available if the authorities controlling supply have to make choices about what to keep on hand.
I think that without an external force of law it would quickly descend into something that mimics Lord of the Flies. First, if the nature of the economy is destroyed then money no longer acts as a relative-wealth scale within such a community. Second, local manmade rules that govern such a community, generally relying on an external force of law to be enforced, would no longer apply. Third, those within the community that are the first to realize this and are smart enough to know who to ally with and who to frag would probably take over or to factionalize into distinct groups. Machiavellian rules now immediately apply- each person or party would be in the position to build or betray alliances as necessary to attempt to fulfill their own objectives while realizing that everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
I think that your walled community would look more like Mogadishu in the early 2000s than like any sort of place I'd want to live.
Plus the rich can afford to have very temporary shelters where they expect to be (i.e., at their urban homes) and could also afford to maintain second homes in a rural area away from likely targets plus the transportation to make the trip after it's safe enough to come out of a temporary shelter.
If you think about the nature of targets, it makes the most sense to attack that which contributes to the opponent's warmaking effort. Known large formations (fleets at sea, any substantial field formations), concentrated military facilities (bases, forts, ports, depots), followed by definitive military production (factories and possibly the cities that contain them), followed by the infrastructure needed to rebuild (secondary factories and their cities, power plants, major power distribution stations) and somewhere in the mix, command-and-control that the opponent would use to attempt to direct their war effort (seats of government and possibly airports that could realistically be used by a commander-in-chief). Attacking just about anything else is a waste of resources.
Hence the need to be rural if such a thing happens. Don't be in cities, especially cities where the military-industrial complex has a manufacturing presence. Don't be near military facilities. Don't be near concentrations of government that could be important in the opponent's eyes, don't be too near critical infrastructure. Even ignoring the lack of damage from a military strike in a rural place, there are also simply fewer other people to compete for resources with even if one's entire facility is little more than a large farm or estate.
In all honesty, I expect a system somewhere between feudalism and the English structure of the landed gentry would become the norm for awhile. Wealthy people with estates that would be capable of organizing able-bodied people to see to their protection and the protection of their families, who would work the land to produce food while the landowner coordinates distribution and negotiates with other estates for the exchange of resources would probably be the easiest way to sustain the rural population once the cities and government are wiped out. After all, the landowner probably can't work the entire estate himself, nor can he defend it himself, but if he can organize others so that they as a group are formidable, and if he doesn't literally lord-over them demeaning them then it would probably be the most stable structure if the rest of the economy is otherwise destroyed. Very few individuals would have the skills to strike-out on their own and survive independently and would have to essentially be trappers; hunting would probably not sustain them and alone, they're probably not secure enough to subsistence farm if there's any risk of roving bands pillaging their crops.
Even military silos like the Titan II facilities required external security to prevent individual persons or small groups from being able to impact the base from above while they're locked down. Military fallout shelters can only operate independently of the atmosphere for a relatively short time, and I expect that civilian fallout shelters would have even shorter amounts of time that they could operate without being connected to the environment. If the fallout shelter actually worked properly (ie, could be sealed to the atmosphere when the atmosphere is temporarily hazardous) then it would have to be sealed-up well enough to limit air intake and exhaust to only a few places. Those places in-turn could be attacked by a surface aggressor such that the occupants asphyxiate or have to open the doors, at which time the base could be compromised, or worse, the aggressors could intentionally block any doors from being able to be opened while blocking airflow through the shelter specifically to kill the occupants before they then cut or dig their way in to get at the supplies without any resistance.
Even if the occupants have large stores of bottled oxygen they still need a means to get carbon dioxide out of the ambient air, so simply having oxygen on-hand would not necessarily be enough to prevent asphyxiation either.
I have a feeling that organized crime, which already has a lot of hooks into the underlying infrastructure of society that people don't like to think about, will probably be some of the best survivors in these circumstances. First, depending on what aspect they use as their angle, they might already have the warehousing and distribution part under their control. Second, as an entity that is already accustomed to using violence in business, continuing to use violence against others that are inexperienced in using violence to further their ends (ie, those that would seek to raid a warehouse of supplies) would have the upper hand in an engagement. Raiders that forced to be violent for the first time will probably not fare as well as veteran defenders that won't hesitate or won't hesitate as much.
So, it honestly depends on the warehouse owner/manager and the individual connections that the person has.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it (having never experienced it) that's the justification for the detention of shoplifters by those that are not deputized law enforcement. I expect it falls into the realm of what legally constitutes a citizen's arrest.
If the journalists were caught trespassing, being journalists does not give them any kind of extra protected class against such a charge. If it's true that the guards were only attempting to prevent their departure after informing them that police had been summoned, they probably would have been 'trespassed' off the property by law enforcement and warned that a future incident would result in arrest, unless they'd already been trespassed off the property by police previously, in which case they would certainly be justifiably subject to arrest.
Yep. Temporary fence is usually rented. There is normally no reason to rent more fence than necessary for the job, especially if the point of the fence is supposed to be to separate the more-dangerous hardhat area from the rest of the property.
In this particular case, even if a hired security guard overstepped and actually committed unjustified assault, that does not mean that the trespassers were right. The act of trespassing is a discrete act from assault, and if anything, the legal repercussions of a judgement in the trespassing case, which was the first act perpetuated, should prove relevant in an any assault case.
Either way this isn't really all that relevant and if I don't hear anything else about it I'm not going to be concerned in the slightest.
All right, explain your position then. Provide us with the details that you must obviously have that the rest of us aren't aware of.
Sorry Japan, India, Israel, and Florida, but your sacrifice will serve the greater good.
Gigabit on two ports is not the same as Gigabit on twelve ports or more.
No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have not seen the configuration of the mail server, I do not know when it operated, and I do not know the intricacies of the law during that period.
I have not seen any good reporting on the configuration of the mail server, on when it operated, or on the law during that period. I have heard that the law changed sometime after the mail server was used, and that people have been attempting to tie the operation of the mail server pre-law to the post-law rules.
I do not find for or against Mrs. Clinton for the mail server. If the timetable for a change in law meant that she was not breaking the law, then I would find in favor of her, rather than simply discarding this as something upon which to judge her.
And all of this is silly since conventional e-mail is an inherently insecure communications medium to begin with, regardless of the destination.
Stop trying to offend with style. Find some goddamn substance instead.
First, are you sure that it actually was extra-legal, or are you only repeating what others have said?
All that I know is that it has been reported that she had an e-mail server of her own. I could not tell you when it operated and I do not know what laws or regulations existed at what point during its operation.
At this point, so many contradictory, technically incorrect, and outright silly things have been said by talking heads about this that I'm simply inclined to not bother to judge based on it. This is like when the supposed expert from one of the news channels reported on the hacker 4chan and the images of celebrities he stole and put up on the Internet, it was so full of derp that there was no point in even bothering to pay attention other than as a drinking game of factual inaccuracies. This episode should be interpreted the same way when nontechnical people are doing the talking, be they Mrs. Clinton, or the congress critters, or the reporters.
I changed-out my home consumer-grade broadband router with something a little more stout and I had forgotten how many of the mainstream ad servers I'd manually blocked by hostname. It was an eyeopener when browsing on my cell phone. The PCs all adblock but I'm still using that pre-Chrome browser on my phone, so no ad-blocking unless the masquerading gateway does it for me.
If ads were simple images in-line between the text I would probably not block them. Otherwise I have no reason to let them through.
Honestly, if any entity literally ran out of money and could no longer afford an enforcement action and simply stopped for budgetary reasons similar to Lucas' first movie THX1138, I would expect it would be the British.
""London police has announced it will remove the dedicated officers" Who and from what department is replacing them?
Maybe these guys are now on the case...
Or, given that they spent $18,000,000 (or would it be 18,000,000 British Pounds?), perhaps that's the unit that was on the case from the beginning...
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
No one wants to carry something of unproven technology with unknown reliability when it could be a matter of life-and-death that it functions.
Modern smokless-powder automatic and semi-automatic firearms are the pinnacles of a development cycle dating back to the first muskets and pistols. One can itemize each and every step that went into the original and successor designs for both the weapon and for the ammunition to end up where we are now. Any future weapon must be that reliable. Any future weapon must be that inexpensive. Any future weapon must be that effective. If it isn't, police will still carry conventional firearms along with it, like how cops still carry pistols when they might also carry tazers.
Guns are used to stop something. They happen to be effective at killing too, but something that is dead is stopped.
I don't think that anything will replace the gun as a general-purpose tool. Guns are simple- basic Newtonian physics. The nature of how the projectile is launched might evolve over time (as it already has, starting with loose powder poured in through the muzzle to the modern cartridge ammo, to the upcoming caseless ammo where the charge is bonded to to the round like "Metal Storm" uses) but the basic premise of throwing a solid object with a lot of momentum to cause damage to a target is too widely applicable to be easily replaced by any one other thing. It's effective against persons. It's somewhat effective against persons with body armor (broken ribs and the like). It's somewhat effective against people in concealment (shooting through barrier), and it can be effective against machinery (automobile radiators, tires, etc). It's simple. It's inexpensive. It takes very little training to use.
Trying to replace bullets and guns with another technology simply won't happen because nothing else is as reliable or as simple. If something else were, we'd already be using it.
That's also assuming that the criminal-types don't recruit military veterans into their ranks. Quite frankly the veterans and their families have to eat too, and while they might be better trained at the kind of assault I postulated, that doesn't mean that they'll have enough firepower to succeed or that it wouldn't simply be easier to associate with someone that already has the means, however unsavory their past has been.
I don't think it'll happen simply because pseudoanonymous is not the same as anonymous. There is a log of the transaction, and as has been established when there are patterns of long-term government collection of bulk data, that transaction, ten years later, could be tied to parties that participated if subsequent information eventually exposes who controlled what.
Could be. Depends on the relationship between the bodyguard and the client. If it's been good and the bodyguard himself and his family feel that they've disproportionately benefited from the client and if they trust him to continue to do better for them than they would do for themselves then it might not be a big deal. If the bodyguard either doesn't like his employer, doesn't think his employer will make good decisions in the new paradigm, or thinks that he can do just as well or better without him, you may well be right.
Close. You wouldn't want to stick around though, because you're just as vulnerable as they were if you stay there.
I see this list as "The following people bribed politicians, and here's how much". Sick and disgusting. Get the money out of the political system, NOW.
I see this list in the same fashion as the the French Elites in the prelude to the French Revolution, or in the Russian Elites in the prelude to the Soviet Revolution, or in any other of a number of revolutions where the trodden-upon had enough and took it upon themselves to upset the established order.
The wealthy always do the same thing; they assume that they can keep taking more and more for themselves forever while still having a stable society off of which to prosper. Granted, it does work for a very, very long time, but eventually either they have to cede some of their power back, or they get violently overthrown. The UK has seemingly understood this; the authority and influence of the Peers of the Realm is much diminished compared to what it was at its height, the rich, whether peers or "common" were forced to pay substantial taxes after World War II to pay for the war, and the Monarchy, while still rich, is not immune from judgement from the common person (see Edward VIII).
The United States is not a point where revolution is inevitable, but at the same time we're a potential powder-keg. Ironically permissive weapons laws supported by the rich donors in an attempt to help keep the population supporting their policies could spell their downfall- a rifle at a distance can probably defeat just about any form of security a wealthy person could establish if they want to live an open, public life.
I don't want to see a revolution, but I don't think that short-sighted policies designed to manipulate the system to self-enrichen already wealthy people will help to curtail one.
Try reading up on Biosphere II and you'll see how that's not really workable, and that was with environmental experts, access to sunlight, and lots of funding to supply everything that they could think of.
The Swiss maintain tight control on the ammunition though, so that rifle might not be as immediately useful as one would think.
I'd also be concerned that as military technology has changed, there might not be ammunition available for many of the rifles in-inventory. If new rifles are of a different caliber then ammunition calibers for old rifles may simply not be available if the authorities controlling supply have to make choices about what to keep on hand.
I think that without an external force of law it would quickly descend into something that mimics Lord of the Flies. First, if the nature of the economy is destroyed then money no longer acts as a relative-wealth scale within such a community. Second, local manmade rules that govern such a community, generally relying on an external force of law to be enforced, would no longer apply. Third, those within the community that are the first to realize this and are smart enough to know who to ally with and who to frag would probably take over or to factionalize into distinct groups. Machiavellian rules now immediately apply- each person or party would be in the position to build or betray alliances as necessary to attempt to fulfill their own objectives while realizing that everyone else is doing the exact same thing.
I think that your walled community would look more like Mogadishu in the early 2000s than like any sort of place I'd want to live.
Plus the rich can afford to have very temporary shelters where they expect to be (i.e., at their urban homes) and could also afford to maintain second homes in a rural area away from likely targets plus the transportation to make the trip after it's safe enough to come out of a temporary shelter.
If you think about the nature of targets, it makes the most sense to attack that which contributes to the opponent's warmaking effort. Known large formations (fleets at sea, any substantial field formations), concentrated military facilities (bases, forts, ports, depots), followed by definitive military production (factories and possibly the cities that contain them), followed by the infrastructure needed to rebuild (secondary factories and their cities, power plants, major power distribution stations) and somewhere in the mix, command-and-control that the opponent would use to attempt to direct their war effort (seats of government and possibly airports that could realistically be used by a commander-in-chief). Attacking just about anything else is a waste of resources.
Hence the need to be rural if such a thing happens. Don't be in cities, especially cities where the military-industrial complex has a manufacturing presence. Don't be near military facilities. Don't be near concentrations of government that could be important in the opponent's eyes, don't be too near critical infrastructure. Even ignoring the lack of damage from a military strike in a rural place, there are also simply fewer other people to compete for resources with even if one's entire facility is little more than a large farm or estate.
In all honesty, I expect a system somewhere between feudalism and the English structure of the landed gentry would become the norm for awhile. Wealthy people with estates that would be capable of organizing able-bodied people to see to their protection and the protection of their families, who would work the land to produce food while the landowner coordinates distribution and negotiates with other estates for the exchange of resources would probably be the easiest way to sustain the rural population once the cities and government are wiped out. After all, the landowner probably can't work the entire estate himself, nor can he defend it himself, but if he can organize others so that they as a group are formidable, and if he doesn't literally lord-over them demeaning them then it would probably be the most stable structure if the rest of the economy is otherwise destroyed. Very few individuals would have the skills to strike-out on their own and survive independently and would have to essentially be trappers; hunting would probably not sustain them and alone, they're probably not secure enough to subsistence farm if there's any risk of roving bands pillaging their crops.
Even military silos like the Titan II facilities required external security to prevent individual persons or small groups from being able to impact the base from above while they're locked down. Military fallout shelters can only operate independently of the atmosphere for a relatively short time, and I expect that civilian fallout shelters would have even shorter amounts of time that they could operate without being connected to the environment. If the fallout shelter actually worked properly (ie, could be sealed to the atmosphere when the atmosphere is temporarily hazardous) then it would have to be sealed-up well enough to limit air intake and exhaust to only a few places. Those places in-turn could be attacked by a surface aggressor such that the occupants asphyxiate or have to open the doors, at which time the base could be compromised, or worse, the aggressors could intentionally block any doors from being able to be opened while blocking airflow through the shelter specifically to kill the occupants before they then cut or dig their way in to get at the supplies without any resistance.
Even if the occupants have large stores of bottled oxygen they still need a means to get carbon dioxide out of the ambient air, so simply having oxygen on-hand would not necessarily be enough to prevent asphyxiation either.
I have a feeling that organized crime, which already has a lot of hooks into the underlying infrastructure of society that people don't like to think about, will probably be some of the best survivors in these circumstances. First, depending on what aspect they use as their angle, they might already have the warehousing and distribution part under their control. Second, as an entity that is already accustomed to using violence in business, continuing to use violence against others that are inexperienced in using violence to further their ends (ie, those that would seek to raid a warehouse of supplies) would have the upper hand in an engagement. Raiders that forced to be violent for the first time will probably not fare as well as veteran defenders that won't hesitate or won't hesitate as much.
So, it honestly depends on the warehouse owner/manager and the individual connections that the person has.
sounds like an entry-level enemy from Legend of the Red Dragon, along with Ugly Old Hag, Bald Man, and Giant Mosquito...
At least this time he'd be topical and appropriate...