more than one good guy will pull out a gun, they won't all be accurate, and the bad guy being killed would not guarantee the shooting stops, because -- and here's the crucial bit -- the good guys won't be wearing special good guy uniforms. So each good guy could make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad.
I really am quite sick of this strawman. Look, I own firearms, but I am not a member of the black helicopter crowd. I have a concealed carry license but I rarely (count on one hand, 2016 year to date) use it, because I do not feel the need to be armed everywhere I go. I do not own what is commonly but inaccurately referred to as an assault rifle. I do not feel that "MORE GUNS EVERYWHERE" is the best solution to the problem of mentally deranged spree killers. Even if you increased the number of individuals who regularly carry by a factor of ten they're still going to be squarely in the minority. In short, the "good guys" will not and can not be everywhere.
All that said, your argument is stupid. It's the stuff of people who do not like firearms and grasp to any argument -- no matter how tenuous -- that can be made to discredit their use. You want to know how you tell the good guys from the bad in the midst of such chaos? The good guys are not fucking walking around shooting masses of unarmed people who are begging for their lives!!!!
I also find the "do nothing, wait for the professionals" argument offensive. If someone is walking around killing innocent people you do whatever you fucking can to stop him. You do not cower and beg for your life; you fight back with any and all means at your disposal. This is the same "you've already lost" victim mentality that advises women to tell a would-be rapist she's menstruating. Fight or flight is an instinct that's billions of years old; it needs to be embraced, not discouraged. The most important part of self-defense isn't your weaponry, or your training, it's your mindset.
Eh, it's kind of like your Android phone not making root readily available. It's there to protect the unwashed masses from themselves. Serious hobbyists (or bad actors) don't have much difficulty getting around the restrictions. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that "geofencing" software will keep a terrorist from flying a drone into restricted airspace. What it will do is keep the "hold my beer and watch this!" crowd from flying their drone into the glide path of a 747.
It is to many people, particularly those that came of age after the internet went mainstream, as well as those that are older and less technically adept.
Like it or hate it, Facebook is the Internet to a lot of people. Try having a brick and mortar business these days without a presence on Facebook. There are countless people that will go looking for something on Facebook long before they think of a simple Google search. Why do you think Google has invested so much effort into social media despite their many failures? They're terrified of people like this.
At the rate things are going the "dark web" isn't going to be warez, criminals, and black hats; it's going to be anything that's not on Facebook and Twitter.
The EU isn't a defensive alliance; that's what NATO is for and Turkey is already a NATO member. One that's keeping us from forming a coherent policy against ISIS, incidentally, since our natural allies in the region and only proven effective anti-ISIS force happen to be Turkey's sworn enemy.
When USENET, IRC, and other mediums that were hard to censor were the rule rather than the exception? Now the "go to" places are all for profit enterprises, Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. They may profess to follow Western ideals, they may even actually believe in them, but when push comes to shove they'll always do what's necessary to enrich the bottom line.
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
You don't like it when other folks are better than you at your own game ?
Better than us at our own game? I bet the Western World would be really competitive at manufacturing injection molded plastic garbage if we discarded all of our pesky labor and environmental laws.
"Thank you China; you make our Happy Meals possible." -Stephen Colbert
When I upgraded to Windows 10 yesterday, there was a screen that came up that asked me if I wanted to reset the default apps. I said no for my browser and media player, and when it completed, Chrome and VLC were still the default applications. I think it's a little underhanded, but not as underhanded as the article suggests.
Mozilla is whining anyway; when they switched search providers from Google to Yahoo I had to go through and specify it on EVERY INSTANCE of Firefox I have. Since I use --no-remote and segment my web browsing this was actually a royal pain in the ass. Granted, Google was the old "default," so I had never changed it, but it was still an undesired change in behavior. If they're going to whine about Microsoft doing the same thing then they ought to look at their own behavior.
Firefox is still my browser of choice for personal use but for others I've started to recommend Chrome. It's just less hassle to support it for your luser friends. The future of Firefox and Mozilla is not an encouraging one, which is a pity.
That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.
No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.
This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.
In Common Law jurisdictions we have another principle that goes back for 800+ years: mens rea. Meaning that you have to have a guilty mind (i.e., intent) to have broken the law. Unfortunately this principle is being steadily eroded in favor of "strict liability" laws that require no intent, thus criminalizing more behavior and further expanding the power of the State.
Webster defines terrorism (emphasis mine) as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"
The FBI also requires a political bent: "Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"
Swatting is not terrorism, at least in this instance. Not by the definition of the word or as it is commonly applied by western law enforcement agencies. *shrug* Sometimes an asshat is just that, an asshat, with no deeper motivation than the desire to be a dickhead.
No it's not. Terrorism is activity meant to terrorize an entire population and/or influence the public policy of a Government. Falsely reporting an incident does not rise to the level of terrorism and when people keep using the 'T' word to cover all manner of crimes that aren't terrorism they undermine the meaning and impact of the word.
Now anyone developing engines using any kind of fusion is going to have a visit from Boeings lawyers over something they have done nothing to make work.
If you can develop a working fusion engine you'll have so much fucking money that it won't matter. Seriously, you'll be able to swim in your money like Scrooge McDuck. I highly doubt that Boeing's patent is a deal-breaker for the person that's smart enough to solve this engineering challenge. "Aww, shucks, I was going to change the course of human civilization but now I've got lawyers and paperwork to deal with. Screw it, I'm gonna go watch American Idol."
Felony endangerment doesn't garner a 10 year sentence in any American State that I'm familiar with, much less in Canada. That's the whole point of this subthread, I was questioning the person that said "at least 10 years" for this offense. Adults wouldn't get ten years for doing it; a juvenile certainly won't.
If data gets too slow it becomes useless. In general I like your idea (use QoS to prioritize low usage customers ahead of high usage ones) and have advocated for it before, but I'm not at all certain you'd be able to price data at $30/mo in such a scenario.
The exact economics of the wireless industry are not known to any of us outside of upper level management at the carriers, but what we do know is that data is the GROWTH market. Voice isn't dying, but it's less and less important to young people, and there's a limit to how much money you could raise by tariffing it at higher rates. The carriers are looking at tens of billions of dollars of CapEx to keep pace with the growing demand for data; they're not going to find that money by inflating voice rates.
Slashdot Mirror
more than one good guy will pull out a gun, they won't all be accurate, and the bad guy being killed would not guarantee the shooting stops, because -- and here's the crucial bit -- the good guys won't be wearing special good guy uniforms. So each good guy could make an unintended error and shoot another good guy, because there's no easy way to tell good from bad.
I really am quite sick of this strawman. Look, I own firearms, but I am not a member of the black helicopter crowd. I have a concealed carry license but I rarely (count on one hand, 2016 year to date) use it, because I do not feel the need to be armed everywhere I go. I do not own what is commonly but inaccurately referred to as an assault rifle. I do not feel that "MORE GUNS EVERYWHERE" is the best solution to the problem of mentally deranged spree killers. Even if you increased the number of individuals who regularly carry by a factor of ten they're still going to be squarely in the minority. In short, the "good guys" will not and can not be everywhere.
All that said, your argument is stupid. It's the stuff of people who do not like firearms and grasp to any argument -- no matter how tenuous -- that can be made to discredit their use. You want to know how you tell the good guys from the bad in the midst of such chaos? The good guys are not fucking walking around shooting masses of unarmed people who are begging for their lives!!!!
I also find the "do nothing, wait for the professionals" argument offensive. If someone is walking around killing innocent people you do whatever you fucking can to stop him. You do not cower and beg for your life; you fight back with any and all means at your disposal. This is the same "you've already lost" victim mentality that advises women to tell a would-be rapist she's menstruating. Fight or flight is an instinct that's billions of years old; it needs to be embraced, not discouraged. The most important part of self-defense isn't your weaponry, or your training, it's your mindset.
I think you're thinking of calculus not political science, the least scientific of all sciences.
Fixed it for you.
AGL != MSL
Eh, it's kind of like your Android phone not making root readily available. It's there to protect the unwashed masses from themselves. Serious hobbyists (or bad actors) don't have much difficulty getting around the restrictions. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that "geofencing" software will keep a terrorist from flying a drone into restricted airspace. What it will do is keep the "hold my beer and watch this!" crowd from flying their drone into the glide path of a 747.
remember, Facebook != Internet
It is to many people, particularly those that came of age after the internet went mainstream, as well as those that are older and less technically adept.
Like it or hate it, Facebook is the Internet to a lot of people. Try having a brick and mortar business these days without a presence on Facebook. There are countless people that will go looking for something on Facebook long before they think of a simple Google search. Why do you think Google has invested so much effort into social media despite their many failures? They're terrified of people like this.
At the rate things are going the "dark web" isn't going to be warez, criminals, and black hats; it's going to be anything that's not on Facebook and Twitter.
I was actually thinking about their "complex" (understatement) relationship with the Kurds.
The EU isn't a defensive alliance; that's what NATO is for and Turkey is already a NATO member. One that's keeping us from forming a coherent policy against ISIS, incidentally, since our natural allies in the region and only proven effective anti-ISIS force happen to be Turkey's sworn enemy.
When USENET, IRC, and other mediums that were hard to censor were the rule rather than the exception? Now the "go to" places are all for profit enterprises, Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. They may profess to follow Western ideals, they may even actually believe in them, but when push comes to shove they'll always do what's necessary to enrich the bottom line.
As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.
Now we have the worst economy in the euro zone
Not even close my Suomalainen friend. Not even close. :)
You realize nobody actually uses Kelvin to talk about air temperature in any context outside of the laboratory, right?
You don't like it when other folks are better than you at your own game ?
Better than us at our own game? I bet the Western World would be really competitive at manufacturing injection molded plastic garbage if we discarded all of our pesky labor and environmental laws.
"Thank you China; you make our Happy Meals possible." -Stephen Colbert
When I upgraded to Windows 10 yesterday, there was a screen that came up that asked me if I wanted to reset the default apps. I said no for my browser and media player, and when it completed, Chrome and VLC were still the default applications. I think it's a little underhanded, but not as underhanded as the article suggests.
Mozilla is whining anyway; when they switched search providers from Google to Yahoo I had to go through and specify it on EVERY INSTANCE of Firefox I have. Since I use --no-remote and segment my web browsing this was actually a royal pain in the ass. Granted, Google was the old "default," so I had never changed it, but it was still an undesired change in behavior. If they're going to whine about Microsoft doing the same thing then they ought to look at their own behavior.
Firefox is still my browser of choice for personal use but for others I've started to recommend Chrome. It's just less hassle to support it for your luser friends. The future of Firefox and Mozilla is not an encouraging one, which is a pity.
uploads a supposedly-encrypted form of your wireless AP's password to a Microsoft server for safe-keeping
It's a bit hard to get outraged at MSFT when GOOG has been doing the exact same thing for the last three or four Android versions.
That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.
No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.
Powerline and pipeline patrol? Aerial photography?
Seems like those are applications that scream, "CHEAPER TO DO WITH DRONES!" to me. :)
My Western Electric Model 1500 begs to differ.
There's an easier way. Just put the phone in airplane mode. Problem solved.
(Some minor loss in functionality may occur, but you can never be too safe....)
You can get all of that stuff from alt.binaries.erotica.* without needing a YouTube account. ;)
This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.
In Common Law jurisdictions we have another principle that goes back for 800+ years: mens rea. Meaning that you have to have a guilty mind (i.e., intent) to have broken the law. Unfortunately this principle is being steadily eroded in favor of "strict liability" laws that require no intent, thus criminalizing more behavior and further expanding the power of the State.
Webster defines terrorism (emphasis mine) as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"
The FBI also requires a political bent: "Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"
Swatting is not terrorism, at least in this instance. Not by the definition of the word or as it is commonly applied by western law enforcement agencies. *shrug* Sometimes an asshat is just that, an asshat, with no deeper motivation than the desire to be a dickhead.
No it's not. Terrorism is activity meant to terrorize an entire population and/or influence the public policy of a Government. Falsely reporting an incident does not rise to the level of terrorism and when people keep using the 'T' word to cover all manner of crimes that aren't terrorism they undermine the meaning and impact of the word.
Now anyone developing engines using any kind of fusion is going to have a visit from Boeings lawyers over something they have done nothing to make work.
If you can develop a working fusion engine you'll have so much fucking money that it won't matter. Seriously, you'll be able to swim in your money like Scrooge McDuck. I highly doubt that Boeing's patent is a deal-breaker for the person that's smart enough to solve this engineering challenge. "Aww, shucks, I was going to change the course of human civilization but now I've got lawyers and paperwork to deal with. Screw it, I'm gonna go watch American Idol."
Felony endangerment doesn't garner a 10 year sentence in any American State that I'm familiar with, much less in Canada. That's the whole point of this subthread, I was questioning the person that said "at least 10 years" for this offense. Adults wouldn't get ten years for doing it; a juvenile certainly won't.
If data gets too slow it becomes useless. In general I like your idea (use QoS to prioritize low usage customers ahead of high usage ones) and have advocated for it before, but I'm not at all certain you'd be able to price data at $30/mo in such a scenario. The exact economics of the wireless industry are not known to any of us outside of upper level management at the carriers, but what we do know is that data is the GROWTH market. Voice isn't dying, but it's less and less important to young people, and there's a limit to how much money you could raise by tariffing it at higher rates. The carriers are looking at tens of billions of dollars of CapEx to keep pace with the growing demand for data; they're not going to find that money by inflating voice rates.