I'm would think that if somebody were to post a juicy tidbit of Al Qaeda intel, the member(s) of AQ who come calling won't be putting much thought into locking the person up.
Dead or alive, it won't differ much in any escalation there may be.
On the other hand, a threat of terrorism or kidnapping against a US ally with the US holding the object of ransom would be an undesirable headache. It's one thing to have a terrorist problem, but it's a whole new entity when it can be used to strain relations with an ally. Somehow I doubt the US would want to look at an ally and say "Sorry it really sucks for you, but we're not gonna give him up."
174 comments and nobody's mentioned this, but what happened to the presumption of innocence?
I mean, a guy arrested at the scene of a mass shooting, covered in blood and holding an assault rifle, screaming about how the aliens in his head told him to murder all of mankind... still gets a trial. Timothy McVeigh (the second biggest terrorist to attack US soil) got a trial. People who systematically abduct and rape hundreds of little girls and hide their bodies in barrels get a trial.
I guess you missed the numerous occasions Osama took credit for and bragged about what he had done, and openly stated he will continue to do so. And oh yeah... his open declaration of war against the US.
Action movies lie to you. Dead guys give zero intel and create martyrs. Killing him was, by a huge long away, out and out the worst way to handle it. Bring him in alive. See what he knows. Then put him in prison for the rest of his days.
This was a poor choice.
Yeah, and open the opportunity for kidnappings and more acts of terrorism under the demands that we release him.
Where was JJJr when wainwrights and pinsetters lost their jobs?
Can't help but think this movie was just an intro
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
I can't help but feel this movie (which more accurately should have been named "Flynn's Legacy) was nothing much more than an introduction to a franchise series. Too many obvious loose ends. Tron basically resets, but then is left floating under water (water?) leaving his status a mystery. Sam basically downloads the grid onto a memory card (that smartphone of his apparently can do anything), then makes it a point to hang it around his next on a chain. The corruption of ENCOM is left unresolved (excepting that Sam decides he's going to act the role of major shareholder). Edward Dillinger's namesake is introduced at the beginning of the movie, and is obviously setup to seek out revenge for his father.
I saw no mention in the study on verifying the accuracy and quality of the ebook version. I myself have some of Hemingway's work on my Kindle and was frustrated at how poorly they were converted to ebook format.
I've taken note many times how I tend to chew through books a lot faster on my Kindle than I do with dead tree books. Except those books where I find myself stumbling on misspellings, typos, etc... sometimes to the point where it was obvious an entire word was misinterpreted when going through it's OCR process. When I stumble upon a book as poor as that, my reading speed slows to a crawl.
I find it amusing that in the thread where they recant the bans... the community manager goes on to explain that forum guidelines have been edited to explain that admitting to using or promoting one (adblockers) will result in a warning and then a perma-ban.
After which he goes on to admit and explain how he uses an adblocker.
Let's just dismiss that he supported the French in suppressing slave rebellion to include funding and providing weapons. Never spoke out publicly against slavery. Signed an act that allowed hunters to enter free states to recover runaway slaves. Supported only whites to become citizens of the United States. And only supported emancipation of his slaves as long as he could find a buyer to pay him for it. As well his 'secret will' to free the slaves was to go into effect after his wife Martha died (who incidentally died after George).
George inherited 10 slaves, and by the time of his death had hundreds of them.
But hey... after enjoying the benefits of slaves his whole life; then to make them free after not only his own death, but ensured his surviving wife enjoyed the benefits as well until her death... to let them all go when you're done with them... that makes it all peachy.
It's not the publisher handling the DRM, but rather the distributor. Amazon handles their own DRM, and you're not locked into one single device as they will send any ebook you've purchased from them to multiple devices you've registered, as well keep them sync'd between devices.
If Amazon finds the cost of maintaining DRM on their books negligible and still willing to maintain a lower price for ebooks, more power to them. Why should a publisher even care what a seller charges for the ebook? It's not like the seller is paying the publisher any less.
A coder with great math skills can write some really slick algorithms. However, more often than not, despite how well their algorithms are documented, if they're working with a team of developers they are usually pushed to dumb down their code so as to accommodate the skills of everybody else on the team ('team' more accurately meaning 'project manager') to make it more 'readable'.
Google also pays to be the default search engine. That's where Mozilla gets the bulk of their revenue.
Yes, however there is a difference. In the VZW-Microsoft deal, while they claim Bing is the Default search engine, it is actually the only search engine available in the BlackBerry browser's search tool. All other search engines were removed completely, as well there is no mechanic in place to add new search engines. Whereas with Mozilla you still have all options left intact, and you can add more as well.
Nah, it just means that all those Trekkies who wasted away years of their lives obsessing over Star Trek lore and continuity can no longer get into heated debates to show who's a bigger fan with any new installment.
errrm...
In that scenario wouldn't you already be sitting on 21 and therefore not need the jack?
Besides which, the flaw in that line of logic is that the next card coming is the one You need. The moment you start assuming that, you've already lost because you're not playing the odds anymore.
Simply because there was no 'program' running that identified the woman. A police investigator used a database as a resource, and as a result he was able to track down probable leads. He followed up with police in her new locale to confirm identity, then apprehended her. If it turned out not to be her, the detective would have not apprehended her, and simply gone on his merry way.
DHS isn't running a program to nab people. They simply maintain their database and make it accessible to other law enforcement agencies. A detective was able to use the shared resource and couple it with a little bit of ingenuity and was successful. This is a good thing.
Possibly because at it's basest level, punishment is supposed to be about rehabilitation? A punishment makes you not want to do something again (generally).
Actually... no.
At the base level, Punishment is intended to prevent the crimes from being committed before they happen. A lot of modern judicial systems do believe in rehabilitation and re-establish the convicted back into society. However, only after they have served their punishment.
The punishment/sentence handed down isn't only directed toward those who have already committed a crime, but also to put forth a message to anybody contemplating committing a crime that, "If you commit murder... this is what is going to happen to you."
Have you not heard the term "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime?"
Given that she spent 35 years on the outside with no further crimes, I'd say that she's pretty rehabilitated already...
That's dangerously close to giving the populace a 1 time get out of jail free card for murder if they promise not to do it again.
If you had a family member murdered by their spouse (or anybody for that matter), and you could confidently believe them if stated they would never do it again, would you be perfectly content with letting them go on without fulfilling their sentence? Yes the American Justice system does believe in rehabilitation, but that's not the sole purpose of prison time.
We're not talking about somebody who boosted a bunch of stereo equipment from a neighbor's home. This is a woman who was convicted of murder.
The news piece on this story is definately spun as a sympathy piece. However if the woman is truly innocent, there are different avenues to pursue her freedom (granted not that easy). And perhaps she's guilty and has indeed learned her lesson... however she still needs to atone for her deeds.
If they're being used to chase down anyone the government wants for anything, it's another step toward a police state.
That's a pretty loose view on what it was used for. The Department of HS didn't track this woman down. The database they created is a shared resource that other agencies can use as well. And kudos for that! If it weren't, then there'd be a lot of criticism (here on/. as well) about information being kept secret, and retarding the ability of law enforcement to track down criminals.
In this case, the database wasn't misused. A state police department detective was able to use the database to catch an escapee convicted of murder.
I can't help but imagine the outrage the masses would display if it were the other way around. Imagine the outcry if a convicted criminal were to repeat their offense, and it was later found that this database had information to catch them but wasn't used.
If there weren't consumers on the street willing to pay these prices, it wouldn't happen.
Bash me for being a republican, I really don't care... however... being a republican I believe in less government involvement... I take responsibility in my own actions rather than waiting for government to step in. If Brokers are capitalizing on consumers paying stupid money to get tickets... well it's the fault of the consumers who are dumb enough to pay those prices.
Will I pay $2k to a broker so my daughter and niece can go see Hanna Montana? Hell No!
Will I trade in crazy cash or capital investments to see my Rockies in the World Series? (yes I am from Colorado) Hell no!
Wanna cry to the government because somebody is charging too much? Quit Crying! Just don't pay it.
Do your children hate you because you won't cater to the needs dictated by Jessica, Britney, Paris, Lyndsey, etc etc etc...? They'll get over it.
Same applies to all of us (including me) sports fanatics. I would sacrifice a substantial amount to go see World Series game when one of my teams are in contention. However I won't do it in favor of feeding somebody else's greed.
"Wouldn't the phone belong to the person who bought it, not Apple?"
Sure... the hardware does belong to the person who purchased it. And said purchaser can do whatever they want with it. However, the purchaser is not within their rights to expect it to do be supported by apple or their cellular provider if they make changes to the firmware/software. If you expect your hardware to operate different from the software provided by the manufacturer... well then you should expect to be able to write your own software to make it work.
Yes you own the hardware, but deviate from your service agreement and you're outa luck unless you can fix it yourself.
The same applies to everybody screaming about iPods not working with *nix platforms anymore. In what world do people live in that they believe there is some ultimate law that says everything needs to be compatible with *nix systems?
Do whatever you wish with your proudly owned hardware. Just don't forget that ultimately it is up to you to maintain it's functionality if you choose to forfeit the seller's support.
By your own statement... "All drinking does is slow your reaction times" is the number one cause of Weaving. Were you inhibited with alcohol when you even decided to publish your response?
While I find the intent of this noble... the fundamental flaw in this whole idea is simply...the vehicle acting on its own based on finding an impaired driver behind the wheel....
What happens when a driver has been drinking and is cruising through busy traffic? Not maintaining a strait line? Sweat detected on the gear shifter? What happens? The car puts you through a shutdown forcing you to stop? Unless the robotics are sophisticated enough to measure traffic, pull you over safely onto a shoulder which may or may not exist, this can spell disaster on the road.
I can see it now...rush hour traffic (yes...some people DO drink midday) and the general flow of traffic on a highway or neighborhood street is flowing fast. Suddenly the car in front of you shuts down or does something unpredictable because it detected a driver may be impaired and decides to act outside of normal human behaviour and creates a pileup.
Myself personally, I'd sooner rely on my instincts and observation to note that the car in front of me might have a drunk driver behind the wheel (which I have had the unfortunate occasion to note more than once), than have the added random factor of response due to mechanical takeover (did that make sense?).
The only real solution is to prevent the driver from even being able to start their car before getting on the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Well apparently not everyone. Hence the perceived need for censorship.
I'm would think that if somebody were to post a juicy tidbit of Al Qaeda intel, the member(s) of AQ who come calling won't be putting much thought into locking the person up.
About as long as it would take for some schmoe to decide it's worth signing his/her own death warrant.
Dead or alive, it won't differ much in any escalation there may be.
On the other hand, a threat of terrorism or kidnapping against a US ally with the US holding the object of ransom would be an undesirable headache. It's one thing to have a terrorist problem, but it's a whole new entity when it can be used to strain relations with an ally. Somehow I doubt the US would want to look at an ally and say "Sorry it really sucks for you, but we're not gonna give him up."
174 comments and nobody's mentioned this, but what happened to the presumption of innocence?
I mean, a guy arrested at the scene of a mass shooting, covered in blood and holding an assault rifle, screaming about how the aliens in his head told him to murder all of mankind... still gets a trial. Timothy McVeigh (the second biggest terrorist to attack US soil) got a trial. People who systematically abduct and rape hundreds of little girls and hide their bodies in barrels get a trial.
I guess you missed the numerous occasions Osama took credit for and bragged about what he had done, and openly stated he will continue to do so. And oh yeah... his open declaration of war against the US.
Action movies lie to you. Dead guys give zero intel and create martyrs. Killing him was, by a huge long away, out and out the worst way to handle it. Bring him in alive. See what he knows. Then put him in prison for the rest of his days.
This was a poor choice.
Yeah, and open the opportunity for kidnappings and more acts of terrorism under the demands that we release him.
Where was JJJr when wainwrights and pinsetters lost their jobs?
I can't help but feel this movie (which more accurately should have been named "Flynn's Legacy) was nothing much more than an introduction to a franchise series. Too many obvious loose ends. Tron basically resets, but then is left floating under water (water?) leaving his status a mystery. Sam basically downloads the grid onto a memory card (that smartphone of his apparently can do anything), then makes it a point to hang it around his next on a chain. The corruption of ENCOM is left unresolved (excepting that Sam decides he's going to act the role of major shareholder). Edward Dillinger's namesake is introduced at the beginning of the movie, and is obviously setup to seek out revenge for his father.
I saw no mention in the study on verifying the accuracy and quality of the ebook version. I myself have some of Hemingway's work on my Kindle and was frustrated at how poorly they were converted to ebook format.
I've taken note many times how I tend to chew through books a lot faster on my Kindle than I do with dead tree books. Except those books where I find myself stumbling on misspellings, typos, etc... sometimes to the point where it was obvious an entire word was misinterpreted when going through it's OCR process. When I stumble upon a book as poor as that, my reading speed slows to a crawl.
I find it amusing that in the thread where they recant the bans... the community manager goes on to explain that forum guidelines have been edited to explain that admitting to using or promoting one (adblockers) will result in a warning and then a perma-ban.
After which he goes on to admit and explain how he uses an adblocker.
Well that makes it all okay then doesn't it?
Let's just dismiss that he supported the French in suppressing slave rebellion to include funding and providing weapons. Never spoke out publicly against slavery. Signed an act that allowed hunters to enter free states to recover runaway slaves. Supported only whites to become citizens of the United States. And only supported emancipation of his slaves as long as he could find a buyer to pay him for it. As well his 'secret will' to free the slaves was to go into effect after his wife Martha died (who incidentally died after George).
George inherited 10 slaves, and by the time of his death had hundreds of them.
But hey... after enjoying the benefits of slaves his whole life; then to make them free after not only his own death, but ensured his surviving wife enjoyed the benefits as well until her death... to let them all go when you're done with them... that makes it all peachy.
It's not the publisher handling the DRM, but rather the distributor. Amazon handles their own DRM, and you're not locked into one single device as they will send any ebook you've purchased from them to multiple devices you've registered, as well keep them sync'd between devices.
If Amazon finds the cost of maintaining DRM on their books negligible and still willing to maintain a lower price for ebooks, more power to them. Why should a publisher even care what a seller charges for the ebook? It's not like the seller is paying the publisher any less.
A coder with great math skills can write some really slick algorithms. However, more often than not, despite how well their algorithms are documented, if they're working with a team of developers they are usually pushed to dumb down their code so as to accommodate the skills of everybody else on the team ('team' more accurately meaning 'project manager') to make it more 'readable'.
Google also pays to be the default search engine. That's where Mozilla gets the bulk of their revenue.
Yes, however there is a difference. In the VZW-Microsoft deal, while they claim Bing is the Default search engine, it is actually the only search engine available in the BlackBerry browser's search tool. All other search engines were removed completely, as well there is no mechanic in place to add new search engines. Whereas with Mozilla you still have all options left intact, and you can add more as well.
Nah, it just means that all those Trekkies who wasted away years of their lives obsessing over Star Trek lore and continuity can no longer get into heated debates to show who's a bigger fan with any new installment.
Well, not for the next decade anyway.
errrm... In that scenario wouldn't you already be sitting on 21 and therefore not need the jack? Besides which, the flaw in that line of logic is that the next card coming is the one You need. The moment you start assuming that, you've already lost because you're not playing the odds anymore.
You seem to be missing the point. They aren't distributing anything.
It would be like saying "the bank is over there" and then getting busted because somebody else overheard you and robbed it.
Remember that if ever a site is available that points somebody towards your credit card/bank information.
Probably none...
Simply because there was no 'program' running that identified the woman. A police investigator used a database as a resource, and as a result he was able to track down probable leads. He followed up with police in her new locale to confirm identity, then apprehended her. If it turned out not to be her, the detective would have not apprehended her, and simply gone on his merry way.
DHS isn't running a program to nab people. They simply maintain their database and make it accessible to other law enforcement agencies. A detective was able to use the shared resource and couple it with a little bit of ingenuity and was successful. This is a good thing.
Possibly because at it's basest level, punishment is supposed to be about rehabilitation? A punishment makes you not want to do something again (generally).
Actually... no.
At the base level, Punishment is intended to prevent the crimes from being committed before they happen. A lot of modern judicial systems do believe in rehabilitation and re-establish the convicted back into society. However, only after they have served their punishment.
The punishment/sentence handed down isn't only directed toward those who have already committed a crime, but also to put forth a message to anybody contemplating committing a crime that, "If you commit murder... this is what is going to happen to you."
Have you not heard the term "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime?"
Given that she spent 35 years on the outside with no further crimes, I'd say that she's pretty rehabilitated already...
That's dangerously close to giving the populace a 1 time get out of jail free card for murder if they promise not to do it again.
If you had a family member murdered by their spouse (or anybody for that matter), and you could confidently believe them if stated they would never do it again, would you be perfectly content with letting them go on without fulfilling their sentence? Yes the American Justice system does believe in rehabilitation, but that's not the sole purpose of prison time.
We're not talking about somebody who boosted a bunch of stereo equipment from a neighbor's home. This is a woman who was convicted of murder.
The news piece on this story is definately spun as a sympathy piece. However if the woman is truly innocent, there are different avenues to pursue her freedom (granted not that easy). And perhaps she's guilty and has indeed learned her lesson... however she still needs to atone for her deeds.
If they're being used to chase down anyone the government wants for anything, it's another step toward a police state.
That's a pretty loose view on what it was used for. The Department of HS didn't track this woman down. The database they created is a shared resource that other agencies can use as well. And kudos for that! If it weren't, then there'd be a lot of criticism (here on /. as well) about information being kept secret, and retarding the ability of law enforcement to track down criminals.
In this case, the database wasn't misused. A state police department detective was able to use the database to catch an escapee convicted of murder.
I can't help but imagine the outrage the masses would display if it were the other way around. Imagine the outcry if a convicted criminal were to repeat their offense, and it was later found that this database had information to catch them but wasn't used.
Seriously...
If there weren't consumers on the street willing to pay these prices, it wouldn't happen.
Bash me for being a republican, I really don't care... however... being a republican I believe in less government involvement... I take responsibility in my own actions rather than waiting for government to step in. If Brokers are capitalizing on consumers paying stupid money to get tickets... well it's the fault of the consumers who are dumb enough to pay those prices.
Will I pay $2k to a broker so my daughter and niece can go see Hanna Montana? Hell No!
Will I trade in crazy cash or capital investments to see my Rockies in the World Series? (yes I am from Colorado) Hell no!
Wanna cry to the government because somebody is charging too much? Quit Crying! Just don't pay it.
Do your children hate you because you won't cater to the needs dictated by Jessica, Britney, Paris, Lyndsey, etc etc etc...? They'll get over it.
Same applies to all of us (including me) sports fanatics. I would sacrifice a substantial amount to go see World Series game when one of my teams are in contention. However I won't do it in favor of feeding somebody else's greed.
Sure... the hardware does belong to the person who purchased it. And said purchaser can do whatever they want with it. However, the purchaser is not within their rights to expect it to do be supported by apple or their cellular provider if they make changes to the firmware/software. If you expect your hardware to operate different from the software provided by the manufacturer... well then you should expect to be able to write your own software to make it work.
Yes you own the hardware, but deviate from your service agreement and you're outa luck unless you can fix it yourself.
The same applies to everybody screaming about iPods not working with *nix platforms anymore. In what world do people live in that they believe there is some ultimate law that says everything needs to be compatible with *nix systems?
Do whatever you wish with your proudly owned hardware. Just don't forget that ultimately it is up to you to maintain it's functionality if you choose to forfeit the seller's support.
You sir... are blowing smoke up your own ass...
By your own statement... "All drinking does is slow your reaction times" is the number one cause of Weaving. Were you inhibited with alcohol when you even decided to publish your response?
While I find the intent of this noble... the fundamental flaw in this whole idea is simply...the vehicle acting on its own based on finding an impaired driver behind the wheel....
What happens when a driver has been drinking and is cruising through busy traffic? Not maintaining a strait line? Sweat detected on the gear shifter? What happens? The car puts you through a shutdown forcing you to stop? Unless the robotics are sophisticated enough to measure traffic, pull you over safely onto a shoulder which may or may not exist, this can spell disaster on the road.
I can see it now...rush hour traffic (yes...some people DO drink midday) and the general flow of traffic on a highway or neighborhood street is flowing fast. Suddenly the car in front of you shuts down or does something unpredictable because it detected a driver may be impaired and decides to act outside of normal human behaviour and creates a pileup.
Myself personally, I'd sooner rely on my instincts and observation to note that the car in front of me might have a drunk driver behind the wheel (which I have had the unfortunate occasion to note more than once), than have the added random factor of response due to mechanical takeover (did that make sense?).
The only real solution is to prevent the driver from even being able to start their car before getting on the road.
Seriously... I'm going to sit idly by and wait until the first virtual rape case comes out.