Well, given a little background with clockboy and his family, i can believe it. Or in other words, i think this might be intentional in order to present a narrative for some other agenda. Cameron just came out threatening deportation of Muslim women who don't learn English and said that the traditional patriarchal society where women are not allowed out of the house without a male family member or suffer violence against them is unacceptable.
So perhaps this was orchestrated in order to present a narrative that Muslims in the UK are being discriminated against to head off legislation in the works.
Actually, I find his comments rather insightful if you can find the audio. Of course if you said anything like that in the US, your political career would be over and you would be branded a racists.
Here is how it works in the real world. Politicians make a law saying all telephone metadata must be saved for X amount of time. Then they make a law saying they can take it and sort through it and do anything they want to it for as long as they want. But interestingly, the government is the only ones allowed to do this because of you know, privacy concerns. So when challenged on constitutional grounds, it is claimed that it's business records that belong to businesses and not individuals so no civil or constitutional rights are violated and their constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce allows them access to it so the constitution actually allows spying on the internet and phone conversations of all citizens.
Where is the legal mechanism? Just wait until it is invented if it isn't already and hiding in plain sight. It will get trotted out like you are a 3 year old who cannot connect the dots if they were in a straight line, It would just be a matter of time.
How major internet companies conspiring to repress other people's uses of the internet wouldn't violated anti trust laws is another question that should be asked.
Way to miss the Forrest for the trees. They both were pitching a message that wasn't entirely well received by a lot of people at the time. If a company or a group of companies can ban together and stop the messages that people in power do not like to hear, well,we would still be in the 1960s with separate water fountains, separate entrances, and lynchings because they looked at me the wrong way.
His parents likely have spoken about it in front of him. I knew by the time i was in first grade that i lived in a aframe colonial house and my cousin lived in a modern ranch style house just from my parents talking in front of me.
But it doesn't really matter. This is a non-story anyways. The kid admitted something, a quick investigation happened and it was determined to be a mistake. If your 10 year old went to school and said you beat him or you leave your crack pipe out when you pass out and your his sister was playing with it, the cops would show up to your house too.
If they have a feedback on that page suggest that they work on the problem of their menu bar. It doesn't resize with the page and leaves navigation to the impossible on my phone as all the menu options are off the page with no way to scroll to it.
The footage would be tagged by incident and date/time. Its how it is done here. Suppose you were pulled over, the initial officer generates an incident report. If two other officers show up, they are added to the report. You get a warning -verbal for not using a turn signal long enough and it is noted. You can later get a copy of the incident report along with the footage (I'm familiar with dash camera footage ) by request. All you need is your name and date and it will pull up the incident where everything can be referenced from there.
It isn't just bulk footage. It is separated by incidents.
Do you want a gang banger killing you and your family because a police body cam caught you telling a cop you could identify the robber if you saw them again? How about even just threatening you of that if you say anything else or identify the right person?
Sure there is the ability to abuse this process. But retaliating against witnesses is so common throughout history that there are actually laws in place because of it. Of course laws do not matter much to criminals who are already breaking laws.
I feel your pain there. It is insane that they use them in the middle of the night. I figured existing noise ordinances would disallow that and most people were bitching because they had to turn the TV up a bit to watch "the price is right" or some other program in the middle of the day.
I live in the country and do have to put up with combines and tractors in the middle of the night certain times of the year. But that is a short window and a noise machine can usually drown them out enough not to bother my sleep. I do sleep weird hours because of work though. Bedtime for me is usually around 7-8pm and I'm out the door by 2am on a work day so I do have to sleep while normal life for most people is happening. During these times, I hardly ever get bothered by neighbors but they are quite a distance away and usually invite me if they are having a party or something so I know before hand to whip the noise machine out.
I assure you that the honeycomb technology is similar only in name. Ours was derived from computer models and everyone knows that "on a computer" makes similar things novel and unique.
No, I'm making the argument that not enough people disagree with the actions of the government which is not the same as agreeing. Some people won't even know about the actions and some simply will not care one way or another if they did. Add in the ones who do support the actions and you find yourself in a minority.
Now when you look at the amount of people who do not like the government or the direction it is moving in you will find union in mostly the sentiment but the reasons are all over the place. Some may disagree with tax policy and even disagree with each other in that (too much, not enough, not the right thing or group of people ). Some may disagree with foreign aid or policy and again can disagree within the same group.
Right now we have a crisis with federalism in which one group says the federal government can only do what the constitution allows it to do ( which would allow very little abuse) and another says the constitution is outdated and should be ignored or the federal government can do anything it wants (because they want it to do something the people don't voluntarily want but allows you lots of abuse too ).
Anyways, The point was that disagreement is not equal and if your point of contention is not enough to get you elected to office, it likely isn't shared strongly enough by others.
The constitution upholds you running for office if you do not like what is happening. If you think that doesn't work you have to accept that is because the majority doesn't agree with you. It is that simple.
And yes. I am a US voter and I do support giving aid to Israel. I don't support the spying on citizens though but I also do not care about foreigners being spied on.
The old testament is nothing but a history lesson that describes the history of the covenants made between the people and God. It doesn't matter what people pull up, the new testament is what makes people christian- the covenant with Jesus. BTW, before the new testament, the Christians were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Anything you can say about the old testament includes Jews and not just Christians.
What you are really saying is that people use all sorts of things to justify their evil and abhorrent behavior and it is possible they will take either out of misunderstanding or purposeful distortion, religious texts out of context to justify their actions and hate. For some reason you seem to be fixated on the ones calling themselves christian and attributing it to the entire class of people identifying themselves to be christian and claiming the fault is in the old testament which if anything should make the Jews the same way. Somehow it doesn't even though the old testament is virtually identical to Jewish cannon interpretations.
The catholic church is not all Christians and nothing in the new testament or publicly available catholic dogma allows any abuse of children. What you say is not untrue but it doesn't address the topic or the question asked. It's like saying black people robbed a store so all black people are criminals therefore we do not need to find anything that makes them criminal.
I see you can offer uncited allegations but skirt around the actual question. I'm sure what you say happened is possible and could have happened, but you failed to show any passages in the new testament making it part of the christian ideology.
There are horrible stories all over the place involving all sorts of people. Until you can show the passages in the new testament calling for it, all you are doing is showing that you are not intelligent enough to understand your own bigotry. None of what you mentioned is part of Christianity or referenced in any part of the new testament. If it was, you could easily find passages showing the calling for it.
It's obvious you don't know. Only one quote on that page came from the new testament and would be considered a practice of Christianity and even then it was taken out of context. It's a fucking parable.
I guess there are a lot of liars in that world of yours where you cannot be assed to find out the truth and just go with anything you think sounds good.
Do you have some problem with comprehension? The bible says things and if you or anyone else wants to claim it says something, it actually needs to say it. If what is claimed is actually in there, it is truthful in reality (it really does say that).
And yes, the bible does contain a story about a big fish. It also contains stories about a lot of fish and a little amount of fish. Those are all statements that are truthful in reality. The bible doesn't say anything about fish is not something that is truthful in reality.
You would find yourself hurt and in life threatening situations. My 115 lbs rottweiler would likely jump threw the window and attack you should you throw rocks and break it. The cameras would catch you screwing with the mail box and I would just have the feds answer that question. As for the tires, well you would have to trespass onto my property and carry a tool of some sort which I could construe as a weapon when I shoot you in self defense trying to figure out why my other dogs (a little yard shitter mut but has it's own doggy door) is going apeshit crazy around the car.
Of course that is if you disguise your face in order to avoid being detected by the cameras. Otherwise, I would just give the footage to the police and my lawyer and proceed to make your life a real living hell.
Put a wall up to keep the noise out like everyone else does. Why am I or anyone else not free on my property because you don't like something on yours?
I wish we were neighbors. I would have so much fun with you. I'd put bird feeders on poles right at the property line so birds would shit all over your car when it is parked in the driveway. Might even do it to encourage them to shit all over your deck in the back so you can really enjoy a cook out. I remember once when I was living in town, a neighbor got pissed because I had a party and called the cops. I put a sign up telling everyone in the neighborhood what they did. They tried to get the city to force me to take it down so I added part about voting the city council members out of office and said it was a political sign and I was within my first amendment rights. They harassed me a few times until they realized I put up a small FM transmitter and looped the recordings with a sign stating the station to listen to. The 200 foot range wasn't enough so I tied it into the power lines coming from the house and you could hear it everywhere on the block (although with a little static).
I even spruced up the power on a universial remote control and played havoc with a TV they placed within view of a window. I would turn it off on them, turn the channels. Turn the volume up all the way when they weren't home. All from my property.
A lot of people who commit crimes search the interweb for directions on how to commit at least parts of their crimes. Most high profile crimes have "their computer search history" as an element of evidence against them.
So lets say I put up a short story on how to rob a bank. I imagine every possible way and come up with something that sounds fool proof. So some terrorist wannabe finds it online or through some infection leaking documents from my computer and thinks it is fool proof also. He takes a copy and uses it as a blue print to rob a bank in order to pay arms dealers for his biological weapons (who turn out to be FBI agents pawning mycelium spores).
It will server more trouble than any security and it will likely do it to innocent people. It will likely carry a bunch of false positives and because people like to brag about how cool their special police work is, it is likely to ruin the reputation of anyone investigated beyond repair. I mean would you hire, date, or let your kids socialize with someone (or even relatives of them) who was arrested in connection to some terrorist organization?
They knew there was more out there than what they were in. In the old testament, the jews were only supposed to be given a small portion of the world and had rules for dealing with gentiles that did not involve in killing or converting any of them. In fact, the jews of the old testament thought they were the chosen people and you needed to be of ancestry so conversion wasn't really a factor.
The Christians in the new testament also knew about the rest of the world (maybe not the Americas) but the roman empire certainly was not the entire world. And again, nothing in the christian bible says kill non believers or anything. In fact, it hints that evil will spread around the world, there will be an Antichrist and all hell will break loose, there will be war and then Jesus will come back and kill everything and take everyone to heaven.
I'm not sure if you even know what you are trying to say but it doesn't come out like anything truthful in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Give him a break. He was high.
Well, given a little background with clockboy and his family, i can believe it. Or in other words, i think this might be intentional in order to present a narrative for some other agenda. Cameron just came out threatening deportation of Muslim women who don't learn English and said that the traditional patriarchal society where women are not allowed out of the house without a male family member or suffer violence against them is unacceptable.
So perhaps this was orchestrated in order to present a narrative that Muslims in the UK are being discriminated against to head off legislation in the works.
Actually, I find his comments rather insightful if you can find the audio. Of course if you said anything like that in the US, your political career would be over and you would be branded a racists.
Here is how it works in the real world. Politicians make a law saying all telephone metadata must be saved for X amount of time. Then they make a law saying they can take it and sort through it and do anything they want to it for as long as they want. But interestingly, the government is the only ones allowed to do this because of you know, privacy concerns. So when challenged on constitutional grounds, it is claimed that it's business records that belong to businesses and not individuals so no civil or constitutional rights are violated and their constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce allows them access to it so the constitution actually allows spying on the internet and phone conversations of all citizens.
Where is the legal mechanism? Just wait until it is invented if it isn't already and hiding in plain sight. It will get trotted out like you are a 3 year old who cannot connect the dots if they were in a straight line, It would just be a matter of time.
How major internet companies conspiring to repress other people's uses of the internet wouldn't violated anti trust laws is another question that should be asked.
Way to miss the Forrest for the trees. They both were pitching a message that wasn't entirely well received by a lot of people at the time. If a company or a group of companies can ban together and stop the messages that people in power do not like to hear, well,we would still be in the 1960s with separate water fountains, separate entrances, and lynchings because they looked at me the wrong way.
Clockboy at least had a tech angle -although a flimsy on when you realize why he did it.
His parents likely have spoken about it in front of him. I knew by the time i was in first grade that i lived in a aframe colonial house and my cousin lived in a modern ranch style house just from my parents talking in front of me.
But it doesn't really matter. This is a non-story anyways. The kid admitted something, a quick investigation happened and it was determined to be a mistake. If your 10 year old went to school and said you beat him or you leave your crack pipe out when you pass out and your his sister was playing with it, the cops would show up to your house too.
If they have a feedback on that page suggest that they work on the problem of their menu bar. It doesn't resize with the page and leaves navigation to the impossible on my phone as all the menu options are off the page with no way to scroll to it.
Possible but they might tie it through onstar which has aftermarket installation abilities too.
The same can happen with gpl'd code. In fact, I have sold gpl software several times and nothing stops it from happening.
The footage would be tagged by incident and date/time. Its how it is done here. Suppose you were pulled over, the initial officer generates an incident report. If two other officers show up, they are added to the report. You get a warning -verbal for not using a turn signal long enough and it is noted. You can later get a copy of the incident report along with the footage (I'm familiar with dash camera footage ) by request. All you need is your name and date and it will pull up the incident where everything can be referenced from there.
It isn't just bulk footage. It is separated by incidents.
Do you want a gang banger killing you and your family because a police body cam caught you telling a cop you could identify the robber if you saw them again? How about even just threatening you of that if you say anything else or identify the right person?
Sure there is the ability to abuse this process. But retaliating against witnesses is so common throughout history that there are actually laws in place because of it. Of course laws do not matter much to criminals who are already breaking laws.
I feel your pain there. It is insane that they use them in the middle of the night. I figured existing noise ordinances would disallow that and most people were bitching because they had to turn the TV up a bit to watch "the price is right" or some other program in the middle of the day.
I live in the country and do have to put up with combines and tractors in the middle of the night certain times of the year. But that is a short window and a noise machine can usually drown them out enough not to bother my sleep. I do sleep weird hours because of work though. Bedtime for me is usually around 7-8pm and I'm out the door by 2am on a work day so I do have to sleep while normal life for most people is happening. During these times, I hardly ever get bothered by neighbors but they are quite a distance away and usually invite me if they are having a party or something so I know before hand to whip the noise machine out.
I assure you that the honeycomb technology is similar only in name. Ours was derived from computer models and everyone knows that "on a computer" makes similar things novel and unique.
No, I'm making the argument that not enough people disagree with the actions of the government which is not the same as agreeing. Some people won't even know about the actions and some simply will not care one way or another if they did. Add in the ones who do support the actions and you find yourself in a minority.
Now when you look at the amount of people who do not like the government or the direction it is moving in you will find union in mostly the sentiment but the reasons are all over the place. Some may disagree with tax policy and even disagree with each other in that (too much, not enough, not the right thing or group of people ). Some may disagree with foreign aid or policy and again can disagree within the same group.
Right now we have a crisis with federalism in which one group says the federal government can only do what the constitution allows it to do ( which would allow very little abuse) and another says the constitution is outdated and should be ignored or the federal government can do anything it wants (because they want it to do something the people don't voluntarily want but allows you lots of abuse too ).
Anyways, The point was that disagreement is not equal and if your point of contention is not enough to get you elected to office, it likely isn't shared strongly enough by others.
The constitution upholds you running for office if you do not like what is happening. If you think that doesn't work you have to accept that is because the majority doesn't agree with you. It is that simple.
And yes. I am a US voter and I do support giving aid to Israel. I don't support the spying on citizens though but I also do not care about foreigners being spied on.
Sure did happen. But it still doesn't say you are to go fourth and kill or convert people.
I guess you do have that comprehension problem after all.
The old testament is nothing but a history lesson that describes the history of the covenants made between the people and God. It doesn't matter what people pull up, the new testament is what makes people christian- the covenant with Jesus. BTW, before the new testament, the Christians were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Anything you can say about the old testament includes Jews and not just Christians.
What you are really saying is that people use all sorts of things to justify their evil and abhorrent behavior and it is possible they will take either out of misunderstanding or purposeful distortion, religious texts out of context to justify their actions and hate. For some reason you seem to be fixated on the ones calling themselves christian and attributing it to the entire class of people identifying themselves to be christian and claiming the fault is in the old testament which if anything should make the Jews the same way. Somehow it doesn't even though the old testament is virtually identical to Jewish cannon interpretations.
The catholic church is not all Christians and nothing in the new testament or publicly available catholic dogma allows any abuse of children. What you say is not untrue but it doesn't address the topic or the question asked. It's like saying black people robbed a store so all black people are criminals therefore we do not need to find anything that makes them criminal.
Really, how ignorant can you be?
I see you can offer uncited allegations but skirt around the actual question. I'm sure what you say happened is possible and could have happened, but you failed to show any passages in the new testament making it part of the christian ideology.
There are horrible stories all over the place involving all sorts of people. Until you can show the passages in the new testament calling for it, all you are doing is showing that you are not intelligent enough to understand your own bigotry. None of what you mentioned is part of Christianity or referenced in any part of the new testament. If it was, you could easily find passages showing the calling for it.
It's obvious you don't know. Only one quote on that page came from the new testament and would be considered a practice of Christianity and even then it was taken out of context. It's a fucking parable.
I guess there are a lot of liars in that world of yours where you cannot be assed to find out the truth and just go with anything you think sounds good.
Do you have some problem with comprehension? The bible says things and if you or anyone else wants to claim it says something, it actually needs to say it. If what is claimed is actually in there, it is truthful in reality (it really does say that).
And yes, the bible does contain a story about a big fish. It also contains stories about a lot of fish and a little amount of fish. Those are all statements that are truthful in reality. The bible doesn't say anything about fish is not something that is truthful in reality.
You would find yourself hurt and in life threatening situations. My 115 lbs rottweiler would likely jump threw the window and attack you should you throw rocks and break it. The cameras would catch you screwing with the mail box and I would just have the feds answer that question. As for the tires, well you would have to trespass onto my property and carry a tool of some sort which I could construe as a weapon when I shoot you in self defense trying to figure out why my other dogs (a little yard shitter mut but has it's own doggy door) is going apeshit crazy around the car.
Of course that is if you disguise your face in order to avoid being detected by the cameras. Otherwise, I would just give the footage to the police and my lawyer and proceed to make your life a real living hell.
Put a wall up to keep the noise out like everyone else does. Why am I or anyone else not free on my property because you don't like something on yours?
I wish we were neighbors. I would have so much fun with you. I'd put bird feeders on poles right at the property line so birds would shit all over your car when it is parked in the driveway. Might even do it to encourage them to shit all over your deck in the back so you can really enjoy a cook out. I remember once when I was living in town, a neighbor got pissed because I had a party and called the cops. I put a sign up telling everyone in the neighborhood what they did. They tried to get the city to force me to take it down so I added part about voting the city council members out of office and said it was a political sign and I was within my first amendment rights. They harassed me a few times until they realized I put up a small FM transmitter and looped the recordings with a sign stating the station to listen to. The 200 foot range wasn't enough so I tied it into the power lines coming from the house and you could hear it everywhere on the block (although with a little static).
I even spruced up the power on a universial remote control and played havoc with a TV they placed within view of a window. I would turn it off on them, turn the channels. Turn the volume up all the way when they weren't home. All from my property.
All kinds of fun.
Exactly. And it is wrong.
A lot of people who commit crimes search the interweb for directions on how to commit at least parts of their crimes. Most high profile crimes have "their computer search history" as an element of evidence against them.
So lets say I put up a short story on how to rob a bank. I imagine every possible way and come up with something that sounds fool proof. So some terrorist wannabe finds it online or through some infection leaking documents from my computer and thinks it is fool proof also. He takes a copy and uses it as a blue print to rob a bank in order to pay arms dealers for his biological weapons (who turn out to be FBI agents pawning mycelium spores).
It will server more trouble than any security and it will likely do it to innocent people. It will likely carry a bunch of false positives and because people like to brag about how cool their special police work is, it is likely to ruin the reputation of anyone investigated beyond repair. I mean would you hire, date, or let your kids socialize with someone (or even relatives of them) who was arrested in connection to some terrorist organization?
What? lol..
They knew there was more out there than what they were in. In the old testament, the jews were only supposed to be given a small portion of the world and had rules for dealing with gentiles that did not involve in killing or converting any of them. In fact, the jews of the old testament thought they were the chosen people and you needed to be of ancestry so conversion wasn't really a factor.
The Christians in the new testament also knew about the rest of the world (maybe not the Americas) but the roman empire certainly was not the entire world. And again, nothing in the christian bible says kill non believers or anything. In fact, it hints that evil will spread around the world, there will be an Antichrist and all hell will break loose, there will be war and then Jesus will come back and kill everything and take everyone to heaven.
I'm not sure if you even know what you are trying to say but it doesn't come out like anything truthful in reality.