The real question is why is it illegal and should it be illegal. Vigilantism is normally thought of a determining guilt on your own and punishing somebody after the fact. Usually because some fault in the legal system has let them off. Causing injury during the commision of a crime instead of after the fact may be thought of as vigilantism by some. But that definition has some serious flaws, mainly the implication that a victim(say a woman being raped) is unqualified to determin that they are actually a victim. Most actions taken during the commision of a crime really should be thought of as self defense. Vigilantism should only come into play after, not during, the crime. For the example here, putting razors in your own food is just stupid, but should be considered an act of defense of ones own property. Putting razor blades in someone elses food because you think they are the thief is vigilantism.
What US laws could be applied to actions in a foriegn country? Gitmo has nothing to do with the US legal system since all the actions that those people took are outside the bounds of US legal juristiction (outside the borders of the country). Just as nobody can be charged in the US for smoking weed in Amsterdam, none of the people in gitmo that they can be charged with in the US legal system.
Might I point out that we were supposed to run out of food in the late 70's, run out of oil in the late 70's, early 80's, early 90's, and right about now. As the fuel runs low it will cost more so people will invest more in other fuel. Governments don't need to pay for the research as long as they get out of the way.
I think the point is: products compete for consumers, people compete for jobs, and countries compete for corporations. If you country has odious incorporation rules why would a company choose to move to, or stay in, your country? When I buy a product, I don't go to stores that give me bad service and make it a pain to purchase from them. If someone wants to make it hard for me to give them my money I go somewhere else. If a country makes it hard, or a pain to employ people there the corporations will go somewhere else.
One issue could be the unemployment benifits in Europe. How long does the company have to keep paying the people after they are laid off? A move that doesn't save very much operational money could eaisly be justified by increased flexibility in the future.
Now if the company can't get rid of you when they want to, should you be able to walk away from the company whenever you want to? I costs a lot to search for, hire, train, and integrate a new person into a company. Should the company be able to demand compensation from you if you quit?
The whole point of this conversation is about what is least difficult for non-technical people to do. A binary build update for programs written for a windows environment(not specifically a microsoft program) can be posted on a vendors web site and most everybody knows download, double click setup. An update from a software vendor can be posted as soon as the vendor is finished with it. For a linux distro using a central repository, the end user must wait until the repository gets around to adding the update. Those with technical knowledge can download, make && install the updates as quickly as they could install updates in a windows world. But if we want linux to grow beyond 10% market share if must be usable by the vast majority who have no idea what a command line is. That means easy to use GUI interface. Telling people, as some have suggested, that they don't need anything not included in a distro, although possibly true for most people, is a counter productive way to go about converting them to linux. Do we want Atari to be able to make games for linux? Do we want Solid Edge (a 3D design tool) to be made for linux? Most users have some type of niche market they are interested in, be it games, or engineering design that linux is a poor choice for. A standards binary install would go a long way to fixing these issues.
Thant only works when the program is in the central repository. Most people know that the first thing you do in windows is get the newest update to a program when you install it. Try to do that with the "nice" mandrake interface. I haven't figured it out. I eaither have to install months old versions of sofware or play around with make && install commands. This really hurts when you need the newest bug fix. That is the major advantage of windows at the moment. I can install whatever I need up to date with the latest bug fixes for the program. No centrally managed repository will ever have everything everybody needs up to date.
Assuming the drives function a good way to do this is to add a removable drive carrier for each device type SCSI IDE etc.. that you need to erase into a computer with wiping software installed. Just drop the drive into the carrier, insert into computer, Scan for hardware changes, wipe drive. Data Express make some really good ones. I currenly use this type of setup in a disaster recovery server to backup drives that are not connected to the network for various reasons.
It is NOT I repeat NOT a plausible defense to say you were just following orders. In every brief on the subject, starting with one in the first weeks of basic training, US solider is told he has a duty to follow all legal orders. He is told in the same brief that it is also his duty to disobey and prevent others from obeying an illegal order.
I would argue that Microsoft thinks that anybody with multilingual needs will find a way to afford MSDN/volume licensing. Otherwise they just don't need it bad enough.
Because achiving the power savings through conservation would require dictating the houses people live in, the cars people drive, and what appliances people could have. I like owning my house and I don't like the idea that someone will tell me I have to buy a new car, new HVAC, and redo all the windows and insilation in my home. Pretty much it involves the nationalization of the economy and elimination of private property rights.
But why wouldn't I want to own my own car? As long as I own it then it will always be there when I need it, not stocked for most probable usage limit like comcast sell bandwith.
A safe stopping distance from the moving and decelerating mini is not the same as the distance to avoid the child since, untill fully stopped, the mini is still moving forward. If you leave enough distance between vehicles to stop before hitting a stationary object the vehicle in fron of you swerves to avoid then the new system will waste more space than people do today.
Of course once you drop below a certian population density there is no efficient way to run it. I live in a city of 250,000. The places I need to go are scatered all over the city. There is no way any public transportation would be cheaper or faster than my car.
Of course since I'm a good drive I would pay a lot more if I was lumped into the same category as everybody else. Also why would we want to set up a system where there are no ramifications for someones personall actions? I like the idea that idiots pay a lot due to their foolisness.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is why is it illegal and should it be illegal. Vigilantism is normally thought of a determining guilt on your own and punishing somebody after the fact. Usually because some fault in the legal system has let them off. Causing injury during the commision of a crime instead of after the fact may be thought of as vigilantism by some. But that definition has some serious flaws, mainly the implication that a victim(say a woman being raped) is unqualified to determin that they are actually a victim. Most actions taken during the commision of a crime really should be thought of as self defense. Vigilantism should only come into play after, not during, the crime. For the example here, putting razors in your own food is just stupid, but should be considered an act of defense of ones own property. Putting razor blades in someone elses food because you think they are the thief is vigilantism.
Muzzle energy doesn't matter, the energy at impact is what is important. The farther the distance the greater the advantage of a .45 over 9mm
What US laws could be applied to actions in a foriegn country? Gitmo has nothing to do with the US legal system since all the actions that those people took are outside the bounds of US legal juristiction (outside the borders of the country). Just as nobody can be charged in the US for smoking weed in Amsterdam, none of the people in gitmo that they can be charged with in the US legal system.
Might I point out that we were supposed to run out of food in the late 70's, run out of oil in the late 70's, early 80's, early 90's, and right about now. As the fuel runs low it will cost more so people will invest more in other fuel. Governments don't need to pay for the research as long as they get out of the way.
I think the point is: products compete for consumers, people compete for jobs, and countries compete for corporations. If you country has odious incorporation rules why would a company choose to move to, or stay in, your country? When I buy a product, I don't go to stores that give me bad service and make it a pain to purchase from them. If someone wants to make it hard for me to give them my money I go somewhere else. If a country makes it hard, or a pain to employ people there the corporations will go somewhere else.
One issue could be the unemployment benifits in Europe. How long does the company have to keep paying the people after they are laid off? A move that doesn't save very much operational money could eaisly be justified by increased flexibility in the future.
Now if the company can't get rid of you when they want to, should you be able to walk away from the company whenever you want to? I costs a lot to search for, hire, train, and integrate a new person into a company. Should the company be able to demand compensation from you if you quit?
The whole point of this conversation is about what is least difficult for non-technical people to do. A binary build update for programs written for a windows environment(not specifically a microsoft program) can be posted on a vendors web site and most everybody knows download, double click setup. An update from a software vendor can be posted as soon as the vendor is finished with it. For a linux distro using a central repository, the end user must wait until the repository gets around to adding the update. Those with technical knowledge can download, make && install the updates as quickly as they could install updates in a windows world. But if we want linux to grow beyond 10% market share if must be usable by the vast majority who have no idea what a command line is. That means easy to use GUI interface. Telling people, as some have suggested, that they don't need anything not included in a distro, although possibly true for most people, is a counter productive way to go about converting them to linux. Do we want Atari to be able to make games for linux? Do we want Solid Edge (a 3D design tool) to be made for linux? Most users have some type of niche market they are interested in, be it games, or engineering design that linux is a poor choice for. A standards binary install would go a long way to fixing these issues.
Thant only works when the program is in the central repository. Most people know that the first thing you do in windows is get the newest update to a program when you install it. Try to do that with the "nice" mandrake interface. I haven't figured it out. I eaither have to install months old versions of sofware or play around with make && install commands. This really hurts when you need the newest bug fix. That is the major advantage of windows at the moment. I can install whatever I need up to date with the latest bug fixes for the program. No centrally managed repository will ever have everything everybody needs up to date.
Assuming the drives function a good way to do this is to add a removable drive carrier for each device type SCSI IDE etc.. that you need to erase into a computer with wiping software installed. Just drop the drive into the carrier, insert into computer, Scan for hardware changes, wipe drive. Data Express make some really good ones. I currenly use this type of setup in a disaster recovery server to backup drives that are not connected to the network for various reasons.
It is NOT I repeat NOT a plausible defense to say you were just following orders. In every brief on the subject, starting with one in the first weeks of basic training, US solider is told he has a duty to follow all legal orders. He is told in the same brief that it is also his duty to disobey and prevent others from obeying an illegal order.
Nit-pick It's G.I. Joe. Short for Government Issue Joe. Is a term from WWII for the us soldier.
You can always join the army. I hear they would be happy to cover all expenses to teach you arabic.
Is invaded an accurate description? That implies a purposful attempt to take over.
I would argue that Microsoft thinks that anybody with multilingual needs will find a way to afford MSDN/volume licensing. Otherwise they just don't need it bad enough.
That isn't a grant. That is Boeing being really good at playing the proposal system.
Because achiving the power savings through conservation would require dictating the houses people live in, the cars people drive, and what appliances people could have. I like owning my house and I don't like the idea that someone will tell me I have to buy a new car, new HVAC, and redo all the windows and insilation in my home. Pretty much it involves the nationalization of the economy and elimination of private property rights.
Wouldn't standardization of plant design halt improvments in plant design?
But why wouldn't I want to own my own car? As long as I own it then it will always be there when I need it, not stocked for most probable usage limit like comcast sell bandwith.
A safe stopping distance from the moving and decelerating mini is not the same as the distance to avoid the child since, untill fully stopped, the mini is still moving forward. If you leave enough distance between vehicles to stop before hitting a stationary object the vehicle in fron of you swerves to avoid then the new system will waste more space than people do today.
Of course once you drop below a certian population density there is no efficient way to run it. I live in a city of 250,000. The places I need to go are scatered all over the city. There is no way any public transportation would be cheaper or faster than my car.
Of course since I'm a good drive I would pay a lot more if I was lumped into the same category as everybody else. Also why would we want to set up a system where there are no ramifications for someones personall actions? I like the idea that idiots pay a lot due to their foolisness.
The radar and terren following equipment costs more than most people spend on cars in 20 years.
I do a full days worth of errands and don't burn up $2 in gas. Why would I want to pay that much for just one ride?
If this will let you drive faster then you aren't pressing the gas pedel far enough.