It is a felony in California. After a rash of incidents that involved children getting a hold of guns, California passed a law that made the owner of the firearm strictly liable and responsible if a child was able to obtain possession of that firearm and do any damage with it. To go even further, when you purchase a firearm in California there is a disclosure of this law to the purchaser and the purchaser is forced to by a lock with a handgun.
After this law, the rate of incidents involving children accessing guns went down dramatically.
Citation needed, but if true this is the most informative comment here: it presents concrete steps which seem to have successfully addressed the problem and may provide a model for further work.
Personally I think a parent who loses a child has suffered enough ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but if data shows it saves kids lives, yes, we should move toward strict liability.
Where are the moderators keeping Slashdot on target for nerdy rather than pure, unadulterated SJW fodder?
Ironically, I may get modded down, demonstrating the answer.
Nerds have guns too, and kids. And brains with which to analyze such issues. Failing to talk about public policy issues that affect society would deprive the world of much nerdly wisdom.
Dyson is NOT a denialist. He accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. But he also feels that humanity has much bigger problems, and AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves... and he is right. If we focus on population control, 3rd world poverty, eradicating malaria, and raising literacy rates, then AGW will be a much easier problem to deal with in the future. My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
Not if the tesla drives energy innovation that helps deal with AGW.
The NYPD is WAY outside its jurisdiction here... it operates in NY under the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most well-respected in the country.
The Republicans are so fightable, and so terribly bad at making appear that they are not evil, stupid, backward, and generally raping the planet, that they are kind of uniting the Democrats behind a "We don't want to vote for Clinton but we have to vote for a not-Republican and Clinton is the only option the part leadership is letting us vote for" standard.
The Republicans are also throwing open their primaries as part of a strategy the last couple of elections, whereas the Clintons sewed up the party leadership in a serious way this election, undoubtedly with help from Obama after a backroom deal she made with him when he was elected and she got SecState.
The problems have been pointed out already. And if you do not know them by now you never will. This isnt a fucking debate team.
Sure, but that's true of almost everything else in the entire range of human experience, too. So debate team or no, it's much more helpful if there's a little shared substance in assertions. Otherwise you might as well be saying vaccines cause autism.
Unless it's a signed and notarised consent form how do you prove that? This is a private act with no witnesses possibly under the influence of alcohol.
That is a different problem--one of false accusation. The problem I am identifying is the problem of ambiguous consent involved in a huge percentage of cases that end up being considered rape because of ambiguity about consent. False accusation is much less common. Still, the solution is recorded consent, e.g. via app, etc... Someone can always change their mind or say they did, but it's much less likely to be a problem for you if you have a record of them saying yes.
So how is that rape? Miscommunication happens in every interaction including sexual reproduction. If your mechanic says your brakes are on their way out and should be replaced soon does not make him a murderer when they fail 6 months later. Soon is ill defined but for a mechanic it may mean a few weeks but you may think before the next inspection.
Rape is pretty well defined legally. Regretting after the fact or going along with it for whatever reason does not fall under the legal definition of rape. And yes, I know feminists are trying to reclassify all male advances towards females as rape but it doesn't make it right.
Rape is actually *terribly* defined legally. The legal definition of rape often requires "forcible" rape, but many states have read it out of the law. Most states also have different laws around statutory rape that on average people aren't really sure about but have guesses about, like "we think there's a 3-year difference that's okay".
It is rape in that scenario because there is sex in which one of the parties did not consent. They may not have *protested*, but they did not *consent*.
Nobody said regretting it after the fact made it rape.
"Going along with it for whatever reason" can fall under the legal definition of rape, depending on what you mean by "going along with it." The fact is that if you participate in sexual activity where consent is ambiguous, you may be raping someone. If you decide that this is not rape, congratulations, you have a view taken by a large minority of society, but *definitely* not by everyone, and much less likely to be taken by women.
Are you deliberately misreading that? It's not like "playing hard to get" was a phrase that some rapist just made up one day, it's a real thing that really happens. A lot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a real thing that really happens. A lot.
It does happen--studies show somewhere in the 20-40% of women range at some point refuse sexual advances when they want them. But you shouldn't assume that's what's happening, because 20-40% at *some* point saying one thing and meaning another, no matter how big your ego is, you should not assume they are talking about YOU.
If it was real criminal harassment she would have done the recording. This whole thing was probably her trying to get attention.
Worst case, she genuinely feel uncomfortable. So what? Women expressing their sexuality make me uncomfortable on daily basis; Stupid cleavage, stinking perfume, annoying clapping shoes and distracting cloth. I don't go around accusing them of sexual harassment. Maybe I should, maybe I should claim victim-hood status and gain women privilege. LOL.
Unless real actual rape (not stare rape, regret rape, drunk rape, revenge rape, etc. Real rape under duress WITH a police investigation) was involve I don't pay attention to these whore any more.
You clearly was hoping to get sex and I understand why you try to help her. But man up; you should have told that bitch to fuck off. Being a white knight mangina will get you no where.
Completely wrong. Just because you would protest does not mean another person would. A huge percentage of rape cases are actually cases of miscommunication where a woman perceives a rape and a man does not, because she did not protest assertively and he does not realize he is having sex with her without her consent. Criminal harassment occurs every day against a huge number of people who do not report it.
This is a change in dynamics. Two big things are going on: (1) Americans are probably being more successful at hacking, and (2) China is developing more IP. Historically, rising nations steal IP rampantly until they are mature and developing their own IP in a serious way, then they begin cracking down. The United States did it with textile technology back in the 1800s.
Encryption is either secure, or it's not. And no-one wants to use insecure encryption.
Not really. Encryption becomes more secure or more reliably secure as you do more correct things to it--extend key length, salt hashes where used, audit code, improve algorithms, etc... and less secure as other changes are made: faster machines, better algorithms, backdoors, quantum computing, etc...
Nobody wants and few educated people trust the government to read their mail or *preserve the security* of a backdoor, so it gets more resistance in tech circles.
Painting it as black and white is a useful communications tool, but also largely wrong--kind of like the government's position of "you can trust us to do this right!"
Teach them how to do basic home maintenance, budget management, interview skills, and professionalism as a requirement of graduating. You'll make a world of difference and they'll use all of it.
I accidentally emergency called 911 on a blackberry a few years back. I have no idea how long the call was going before I realized it was on, but there was nobody on the other end.
This may have affected the timing of the invasion somewhat, but IIRC the days were determined primarily by the moon and the weather. You had a window each month where you had minimal light because the moon wasn't lit or was barely lit. Then there was bad weather, so they called off one planned date.
That's why You always ask for such orders in writing. And always make copies. Bureaucracy is the process of constant preparation for an eventual litigation. If You don't get the orders, get out while You still can, because You WILL be held responsible for it. Be happy if You only get sacked, and not sued into oblivion.
Depending on the corporate structure, you doom your career with the company if you ask for such orders in writing.
We've all had to deal with asshole bosses and it is very tempting to say "Get rid of the bosses and just let people do their jobs without interference". But, you can't have a hundred people just doing whatever they want. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be the final authority when tough decisions need to be made. Otherwise, you've just got chaos. It may work for s short time, but in the long run, it simply isn't workable.
Anyone who has any real world experience knows that management by committee just doesn't work.
But you can make a group responsible for a task, and let them figure out how to do it. If they fail to deliver, let them go.
You are begging the question, by defining vehicular manslaughter as a crime. It doesn't have to be. We are creating a crime for "drunk driving and being unlucky enough that someone dies."
What is fair to the rulebreaker is punishing a drunk driver for the crime of manslaughter discounted by his chance of causing it. People are notoriously bad at estimating their chances of having a problem.
I think it's actually incredibly shortsighted to say the lucky ones cause no harm--they were lucky, and the harm they caused was the risk of death. They were just lucky enough not to personally cause death.
Nobody is arguing for maximum possible consequences, though--that would be insane. Nobody wants that because of marginal deterrence problems.
Speeding causes deaths, too. Should speeding, even a little, be punished as severely as drunk driving? People die from falling objects too; should you be sent to jail for accidentally knocking a flowerpot off your balcony? A lack of serious consequences is no defense for violating the rule, but it is a mitigating circumstance when it comes to setting the punishment. And conversely, rule-breaking may well earn you a stiffer punishment in case you do cause an accident. If you hit someone with your car and you were found to be speeding or drunk, you'll be more likely to be held fully responsible than if you were operating your car within the rules of the road.
Punishing a person more because they were unlucky and someone died is the cruel part.
Air safety is achieved by rigorous enforcement of rules. One can not show the lack of adverse consequences for a violated rule as defense for violating the rule. At the time the rule violation happened, the violator did not know it would have no adverse consequences.
As an engineer, I like this kind of thinking because it is fair and predictable--a person who breaks a rule gets the same punishment regardless of whether it causes harm, because the rule is deigned to prevent the *possibility* of harm.
As a human being, I know our society is too emotional to do that in the real world. We punish drunk driving differently if it causes a death, for example, and let the *luck* of whether someone dies greatly determine the outcome.
moron, congress can simply pass a law which contradicts the 2010 decision
this is not shariah law where the supreme court's rulings carry biblical weight. it's checks and balances. the supremes clearly fucked up, and their decision should be rendered moot
Constitutional decisions are decisions that cannot be overruled by an act of Congress. You can sometimes legislate around them (which is legal), and in theory you can make a contradictory law not subject to judicial review by SCOTUS (which may or may not provoke a constitutional crisis), but the real answer if you can't legislate around the ruling is you change the Constitution.
Do the right thing... for whom? Without a specifier it does not tell us anything. It is definitely not the same as "don't be evil", although we've figured out that Google has not followed that mantra for a while now (not at Apple levels yet!).
Do the right thing is more appealing as a marketing slogan because it caters to people who are stupider and more plentiful. It's useful for reaching them. It doesn't even admit to the possibility of evil, It's much more cliche, it probably tests better with focus groups, it's not quite as easy from a communications standpoint to be mocked with it, and it's even easier to make it mean whatever you want and trot it out to use as part of product launches--better, it's designed to do that *without* making someone think about whether something is evil. So suppose you have a business model built around collecting all the knowledge on the planet, monitoring communications, monitoring web sites, fundamentally monitoring behavior... and you want a nice, innocuous little logo.
They're a good company, but their business model is inherently at high risk for evil and abuse of power. So shifting away from the idea of evil is a good marketing decision.
Yes, but it waives sovereign immunity for torts, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If you had the right set of facts you could theoretically bring a civil fraud claim against them.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a felony in California. After a rash of incidents that involved children getting a hold of guns, California passed a law that made the owner of the firearm strictly liable and responsible if a child was able to obtain possession of that firearm and do any damage with it.
To go even further, when you purchase a firearm in California there is a disclosure of this law to the purchaser and the purchaser is forced to by a lock with a handgun.
After this law, the rate of incidents involving children accessing guns went down dramatically.
Citation needed, but if true this is the most informative comment here: it presents concrete steps which seem to have successfully addressed the problem and may provide a model for further work.
Personally I think a parent who loses a child has suffered enough ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but if data shows it saves kids lives, yes, we should move toward strict liability.
Where are the moderators keeping Slashdot on target for nerdy rather than pure, unadulterated SJW fodder?
Ironically, I may get modded down, demonstrating the answer.
Nerds have guns too, and kids. And brains with which to analyze such issues. Failing to talk about public policy issues that affect society would deprive the world of much nerdly wisdom.
Consider that Dyson, an AGW denialist ...
Dyson is NOT a denialist. He accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. But he also feels that humanity has much bigger problems, and AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves ... and he is right. If we focus on population control, 3rd world poverty, eradicating malaria, and raising literacy rates, then AGW will be a much easier problem to deal with in the future. My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
Not if the tesla drives energy innovation that helps deal with AGW.
The NYPD is WAY outside its jurisdiction here... it operates in NY under the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most well-respected in the country.
Why can't the Democrats do that same?
The Republicans are so fightable, and so terribly bad at making appear that they are not evil, stupid, backward, and generally raping the planet, that they are kind of uniting the Democrats behind a "We don't want to vote for Clinton but we have to vote for a not-Republican and Clinton is the only option the part leadership is letting us vote for" standard.
The Republicans are also throwing open their primaries as part of a strategy the last couple of elections, whereas the Clintons sewed up the party leadership in a serious way this election, undoubtedly with help from Obama after a backroom deal she made with him when he was elected and she got SecState.
The problems have been pointed out already. And if you do not know them by now you never will. This isnt a fucking debate team.
Sure, but that's true of almost everything else in the entire range of human experience, too. So debate team or no, it's much more helpful if there's a little shared substance in assertions. Otherwise you might as well be saying vaccines cause autism.
Unless it's a signed and notarised consent form how do you prove that? This is a private act with no witnesses possibly under the influence of alcohol.
That is a different problem--one of false accusation. The problem I am identifying is the problem of ambiguous consent involved in a huge percentage of cases that end up being considered rape because of ambiguity about consent. False accusation is much less common. Still, the solution is recorded consent, e.g. via app, etc... Someone can always change their mind or say they did, but it's much less likely to be a problem for you if you have a record of them saying yes.
So how is that rape? Miscommunication happens in every interaction including sexual reproduction. If your mechanic says your brakes are on their way out and should be replaced soon does not make him a murderer when they fail 6 months later. Soon is ill defined but for a mechanic it may mean a few weeks but you may think before the next inspection.
Rape is pretty well defined legally. Regretting after the fact or going along with it for whatever reason does not fall under the legal definition of rape. And yes, I know feminists are trying to reclassify all male advances towards females as rape but it doesn't make it right.
Rape is actually *terribly* defined legally. The legal definition of rape often requires "forcible" rape, but many states have read it out of the law. Most states also have different laws around statutory rape that on average people aren't really sure about but have guesses about, like "we think there's a 3-year difference that's okay".
It is rape in that scenario because there is sex in which one of the parties did not consent. They may not have *protested*, but they did not *consent*.
Nobody said regretting it after the fact made it rape.
"Going along with it for whatever reason" can fall under the legal definition of rape, depending on what you mean by "going along with it." The fact is that if you participate in sexual activity where consent is ambiguous, you may be raping someone. If you decide that this is not rape, congratulations, you have a view taken by a large minority of society, but *definitely* not by everyone, and much less likely to be taken by women.
This problem is fixed by making consent explicit.
Are you deliberately misreading that? It's not like "playing hard to get" was a phrase that some rapist just made up one day, it's a real thing that really happens. A lot. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still a real thing that really happens. A lot.
It does happen--studies show somewhere in the 20-40% of women range at some point refuse sexual advances when they want them. But you shouldn't assume that's what's happening, because 20-40% at *some* point saying one thing and meaning another, no matter how big your ego is, you should not assume they are talking about YOU.
If it was real criminal harassment she would have done the recording. This whole thing was probably her trying to get attention.
Worst case, she genuinely feel uncomfortable. So what? Women expressing their sexuality make me uncomfortable on daily basis; Stupid cleavage, stinking perfume, annoying clapping shoes and distracting cloth. I don't go around accusing them of sexual harassment. Maybe I should, maybe I should claim victim-hood status and gain women privilege. LOL.
Unless real actual rape (not stare rape, regret rape, drunk rape, revenge rape, etc. Real rape under duress WITH a police investigation) was involve I don't pay attention to these whore any more.
You clearly was hoping to get sex and I understand why you try to help her. But man up; you should have told that bitch to fuck off. Being a white knight mangina will get you no where.
Completely wrong. Just because you would protest does not mean another person would. A huge percentage of rape cases are actually cases of miscommunication where a woman perceives a rape and a man does not, because she did not protest assertively and he does not realize he is having sex with her without her consent. Criminal harassment occurs every day against a huge number of people who do not report it.
This is a change in dynamics. Two big things are going on: (1) Americans are probably being more successful at hacking, and (2) China is developing more IP. Historically, rising nations steal IP rampantly until they are mature and developing their own IP in a serious way, then they begin cracking down. The United States did it with textile technology back in the 1800s.
Encryption is either secure, or it's not. And no-one wants to use insecure encryption.
Not really. Encryption becomes more secure or more reliably secure as you do more correct things to it--extend key length, salt hashes where used, audit code, improve algorithms, etc... and less secure as other changes are made: faster machines, better algorithms, backdoors, quantum computing, etc...
Nobody wants and few educated people trust the government to read their mail or *preserve the security* of a backdoor, so it gets more resistance in tech circles.
Painting it as black and white is a useful communications tool, but also largely wrong--kind of like the government's position of "you can trust us to do this right!"
It seems like Debian has decided to live up to its logo, the spiral. In adopting systemd and abandoning LSB, Debian has begun its death spiral.
Identify the actual problem you are claiming is a problem. Random comments that XYZ is bad are unhelpful and not particularly nerdly.
Teach them how to do basic home maintenance, budget management, interview skills, and professionalism as a requirement of graduating. You'll make a world of difference and they'll use all of it.
I accidentally emergency called 911 on a blackberry a few years back. I have no idea how long the call was going before I realized it was on, but there was nobody on the other end.
This may have affected the timing of the invasion somewhat, but IIRC the days were determined primarily by the moon and the weather. You had a window each month where you had minimal light because the moon wasn't lit or was barely lit. Then there was bad weather, so they called off one planned date.
That's why You always ask for such orders in writing. And always make copies. Bureaucracy is the process of constant preparation for an eventual litigation.
If You don't get the orders, get out while You still can, because You WILL be held responsible for it. Be happy if You only get sacked, and not sued into oblivion.
Depending on the corporate structure, you doom your career with the company if you ask for such orders in writing.
And there's the problem.
We've all had to deal with asshole bosses and it is very tempting to say "Get rid of the bosses and just let people do their jobs without interference". But, you can't have a hundred people just doing whatever they want. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be the final authority when tough decisions need to be made. Otherwise, you've just got chaos. It may work for s short time, but in the long run, it simply isn't workable.
Anyone who has any real world experience knows that management by committee just doesn't work.
But you can make a group responsible for a task, and let them figure out how to do it. If they fail to deliver, let them go.
You are begging the question, by defining vehicular manslaughter as a crime. It doesn't have to be. We are creating a crime for "drunk driving and being unlucky enough that someone dies."
What is fair to the rulebreaker is punishing a drunk driver for the crime of manslaughter discounted by his chance of causing it. People are notoriously bad at estimating their chances of having a problem.
I think it's actually incredibly shortsighted to say the lucky ones cause no harm--they were lucky, and the harm they caused was the risk of death. They were just lucky enough not to personally cause death.
Nobody is arguing for maximum possible consequences, though--that would be insane. Nobody wants that because of marginal deterrence problems.
Speeding causes deaths, too. Should speeding, even a little, be punished as severely as drunk driving? People die from falling objects too; should you be sent to jail for accidentally knocking a flowerpot off your balcony? A lack of serious consequences is no defense for violating the rule, but it is a mitigating circumstance when it comes to setting the punishment. And conversely, rule-breaking may well earn you a stiffer punishment in case you do cause an accident. If you hit someone with your car and you were found to be speeding or drunk, you'll be more likely to be held fully responsible than if you were operating your car within the rules of the road.
Punishing a person more because they were unlucky and someone died is the cruel part.
Air safety is achieved by rigorous enforcement of rules. One can not show the lack of adverse consequences for a violated rule as defense for violating the rule. At the time the rule violation happened, the violator did not know it would have no adverse consequences.
As an engineer, I like this kind of thinking because it is fair and predictable--a person who breaks a rule gets the same punishment regardless of whether it causes harm, because the rule is deigned to prevent the *possibility* of harm.
As a human being, I know our society is too emotional to do that in the real world. We punish drunk driving differently if it causes a death, for example, and let the *luck* of whether someone dies greatly determine the outcome.
they may be making more money off real names. If you were facebook, you'd be insane not to have intelligence contracts.
moron, congress can simply pass a law which contradicts the 2010 decision
this is not shariah law where the supreme court's rulings carry biblical weight. it's checks and balances. the supremes clearly fucked up, and their decision should be rendered moot
Constitutional decisions are decisions that cannot be overruled by an act of Congress. You can sometimes legislate around them (which is legal), and in theory you can make a contradictory law not subject to judicial review by SCOTUS (which may or may not provoke a constitutional crisis), but the real answer if you can't legislate around the ruling is you change the Constitution.
Do the right thing... for whom? Without a specifier it does not tell us anything. It is definitely not the same as "don't be evil", although we've figured out that Google has not followed that mantra for a while now (not at Apple levels yet!).
Do the right thing is more appealing as a marketing slogan because it caters to people who are stupider and more plentiful. It's useful for reaching them. It doesn't even admit to the possibility of evil, It's much more cliche, it probably tests better with focus groups, it's not quite as easy from a communications standpoint to be mocked with it, and it's even easier to make it mean whatever you want and trot it out to use as part of product launches--better, it's designed to do that *without* making someone think about whether something is evil. So suppose you have a business model built around collecting all the knowledge on the planet, monitoring communications, monitoring web sites, fundamentally monitoring behavior... and you want a nice, innocuous little logo.
They're a good company, but their business model is inherently at high risk for evil and abuse of power. So shifting away from the idea of evil is a good marketing decision.
The US and about any country for that matter also has sovereign immunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, but it waives sovereign immunity for torts, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. If you had the right set of facts you could theoretically bring a civil fraud claim against them.