Here's what road rage isn't: writing down the guy's license plate, looking up his address at the DMV, then a week or two later, driving over to the next town and slashing their tires. The second you start planning to attack someone, it stops being a crime of 'passion'.
do we know it happend two weeks later? Maybe they did have the argument two weeks before, and the guy was re-reading the chat logs and then snapped after reading it for the tenth time. Also, who says road rage can't be someone writing a license plate number down and tracking someone and killing them? That is road rage, taken to a new level. Road rage also doesn't have to be side swiping, it could be someone trying to kill someone. I once saw this old guy try and hit a guy on a motorcycle because the guy on the motorcycle was driving on the shoulder of the road.
Crimes of passion, btw, can take days to happen...generally a crime of passion is caused because the perpetrater had a mental loss of control...this could last for days depending on the situation. "planning" the attack is arbitrary... Lets give an example: Person X walks home and finds his wife having sex with person Y. Person X could instantly jump on person Y and beat him with his fists to death...Or person X could go to the kitchen, grab a knife and then come back to the bedroom and stab person Y to death. Obviously the second option took a bit more planning, but I would still call that a crime of passion. Crime of passion usually implies the person had a sudden loss on a grip of reality.
Except that in real life, would someone have pushed this guy as far as he was pushed in this chat room. I am not condoning this in the least. He had a 70 mile drive to cool off, but there is a severe lack of tact on the internet these days. While the importance of maintaining ones anonymity is mentioned, what about being civil to another human being?
Probably not, but it happens (obviously). People should be civil, but they aren't. Also, it may not have been the victims fault - he may not have started the argument on the chat site. And someone cursing another person out may be un-civil, but that person trying to kill me is a bit of an extreme response. The axe guy is crazy.
That seemed odd to me, and Wikipedia's definition is exactly what I thought:
"A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially assault or murder, against a spouse or other loved one because of sudden strong impulse such as a jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime."
I've never heard it used to mean anything else than that.
Read the entire post...here let me highlight my fillings. Yes he had 70 miles to think about it, but I doubt he started to drive those 70 miles and along the way he thought "maybe it would be a good idea to kill them, and let me stop by the hardware store and get an axe"....he probably got pissed at the guy, had a strong impulse to kill him, found out where the guy lives and immediately drove up. The fact it took him 70 miles to get there does not preclude it from being a crime of passion. Now if it is found the guy spent days plotting this, i would say premed, but if he immediately jumped in his car (and by immediate, i mean within a reasonable time) i would say crime of passion.....though again, i refer to my bold faced portion "popular usage".
And if we were to go by your wiki definition, it would fail because it does not meet the following criteria: against a spouse or other loved one
The GP is right. The story has little to do with the internet. It has at least as much to do with automobiles as it does the internet.
No, the story has everything to do with the net. It is not saying the net is at fault, it is giving a cautionary tale - don't put out information that will give people a chance to track you down, because someone might be crazy. If it wasn't for the Internet portion of the story, this would not have made more then local news.
Why would someone who's going to kill another person at random for no reason need to use the Internet to track down the person they're going to kill, when they can find thousands of random people to kill for no reason just by walking around literally anywhere? Worrying that having your address online is going to lead to someone randomly killing you after they find it is infinitely less rational than worrying that someone's going to randomly come to your house and kill you if your house is visible to people walking past it, and therefore living in a hole in the ground with no visible entrance.
It wasn't random...if you RTFA you would know that. They had met and talked in a chat channel and got in an argument.
No, it demonstrate the importance of acting civilized and how people should stop acting like savages just because they are not in front of the person they are communicating with.
I agree with your claim, but there are people out there who will go and try and kill other people w/o needing a reason - because they are mentally crazy....so when you give someone the name of a small town you live in, your name and your picture....well yea not that hard to find someone....Then there are the issues with kids (child sex predators come to mind). We tell our kids to be carefully (well hopefully we do) but then it comes time for us to be careful and we think we are immune? As if it takes skill to hit someone with an axe or pull a trigger of a gun...
When I drive in my car, and do road rage - that is fine, if I am alone...if someone shoots me nobody else gets hurt. But if i am in the car with someone, i dont rage....why get my friend/family hurt for my stupidty.
As i posted to another guy...I did not take it as the article blamming the net. In fact, at no point does the article say it was the fault of the Internet. Just as someone meantioned other types of rages (i.e. crimes of passion), and you are mentioning the highway....ever heard of the saying "road rage"...does that mean we are blaming the road for the anger someone displays towards another while driving? no....it just the road is the medium.
I didn't take the article as saying it was the internet that made the guy snap, it was the internet that provided a link for him to snap at this particular person. The axe guy probably would have snapped against someone else, eventually. The moral of the article: be careful as to whom you give your info to.
Crimes of passion do not have to happen instantaneously. Also, they are not saying it is a crime of passion, they are saying this is the first case (they know of) where a person got pissed at someone they met from the net, and took physical action towards that person. Stop making it sound like they are claiming the net is a bad thing.
I have no idea why the above is moderated insightful. This has everything to do with the Internet. Put it this way, these guys live 70 miles apart, and if they didn't meet on the Internet they would have (most likely) never met each other. The Internet provides you a way of meeting people you would otherwise have no chance of ever meeting/talking to.
They got angry at each other from the net, and unfortunately one of the people was unstable. So yea, this has a lot to do with the net.....nobody is claiming the net is bad, just, like any other tool, be careful how you use it.
Playing with MAYA-II takes a long time," Macdonald admits. The system needs between 2 and 30 minutes to compute each move and a second machine is required to translate the fluorescent signals generated each time into a move in the game.
No wonder it wins, it bores you to death by taking so long and hopes you fall asleep or quit.
Will you live to be 100000 years old? It might actually matter at that point. But only if the myth were true.
My name is Dunceon McLeod of the Clan McLeod
Lemme guess, you believed the Bush intelligence that Saddam had WMD, right? Well, sure you did...after all, at the time
that was the best evidence we had, right?
Just because evidence may not be correct in the future does not mean we should discount it today. That would be silly. But, I didn't care if Bush was correct about the WMDs, I think we should have gone in there just cause (as my HS teacher used to say) "Saddam Hussein is so damn insane"
Oh sure, I believe that at aerosol can could definitely cause harm to the Ozone layer...if it were about half the size of the Asian continent then, sure, it might do something negative. It would definitely get in the way of travel and would surely cover up a lot of land, though. It would also be unsightly.
HELLO!!!! 80's hair bands, they bought enough hairspray, that the sales tax was able to support the US National Military budget. Thank god the Cold War ended when the hair bands went out of style (you think this may be coincidence, but I think not).
We are talking about health issues to us (humans) and other life on this planet. I think that qualifies as "really matter". People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco - who apparantly are still in denial about smoking causing lung cancer...their scientists also say this is not accurate.
Until the models get better, assuming they can get better, I will use their scientific evidence because to sit here and do nothing is a pretty bad idea...or do you still think aerosol cans with CFCs pose no harm to the ozone?
In the years since 1998, not only has the Earth's temp not risen, but it has fallen slightly...and I mean so slightly that it is practically immeasurable. But, it definitely hasn't risen at all.
Are you being serious or sarcastic? Because I have seen (don't have them on me) reports that say otherwise...plus, most recently, it has been in the news that the polar caps are melting at record speeds AND it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. Given that information, how do you say the temperature has dropped? If the temperature dropped wouldn't the polar caps grow?
Are you insane? We can't predict the weather, with any certainty, a few hours out. The news, yesterday, reported overcast day, but no rain....yea no rain, it poured so freakin hard my neighbors roof began to leak. Yea, don't mess with it, this stuff happens in the millions of years range...global warming is due to us being stupid, the changes our orbit exhibits is miniscule.
Or....people, w/o a clue, are reading this and blowing it out of proportions by not keeping it in context. Changes to our atmosphere, because of orbital deviance, happens in the millions of years category.....changes in our environment, due to global warming is happening on a monthly/yearly basis.
So yea, if I edited portions of the article I could make it sound like the orbit change is the reason for global warming.... then again, if i took bits and pieces of the quoran (sp) I could tell people that Allah demands we kill anyone who is not muslim, even if it means we have to kill ourselves to do it.
Moral of the story: Use the whole story, and keep it in context.
And what if ICANN now is in the hands of the international community (some "neutral" group...you know "neutral" like the UN) and then XYZ Spam You By the Trillions, LLC gets sued in the US for spamming everything and their grandmother 1000 times/day....Now part of the action is to remove their domain name. Does this new body get a chance to shut them down? Well if they weren't supposed to shutdown Spamhaus (which did NOT defend themselves) what gives them the right ot shutdown XYZ company? It works both ways.
As I recall, Spamhaus fired their law team right after they requested (and thus accepted jurisdiction) a change of courts. Not too bright.
Be it the right decision or the wrong decision (to fire their law team) I won't argue (hey the team may have been stupid) --- the absolute wrong decision was for them to NOT defend themselves....put it this way...if you are standing on a street and someone decides to beat you up...do you stand there, with your arms to your side and let them hit you in the face, or do you at least raise your arms trying to block some of the blows? If you went with the first option, you are a moron and an abomination of nature. If you went with the second option you just did what every living thing does when it is threatened - defend itself.
Erm, nope...
Most 'other civilized countries' whould have applied, at the very very least, common sense to a judgment. Yes, even when the accused thus not defend himself.
No, in most civilized countries if one party does not show up to support their argument they lose. How is a judge supposed to make an informed decision in favor of one side when that side is not there to, oh i don't know, inform him. It is spamhaus' fault for not showing up....period. They have money, they have lawyers, they f'd up. Do I like it that they lost, no, is it their fault yes.
"There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant" (to the girls).
Why would this be politically incorrect? This is a statement of fact. Pregnancy is an on/off state. You are either pregnant or you are not. Any girl who says "i am a little bit pregnant" needs to wonder why her parents didn't use a condom.
I say if a spammer in russia sends spam to the US then he falls under US jursidiction. The crime, in my opinion, was comitted both in Russia and in the US, as such both countries should have a hand in pimp slapping the spammer. Now Russia may not have such laws, but the US does, and if Russia would like positive commerce treaties with the US - and assuming the US was smart enough to put such laws in the treaty - then Russia will extradite the criminal.
The #2 reason is that if they were to spend the money to defend themselves, they would open a precedent for any other spammer to sue them the same way
No i do not understand this. In fact someone else mentioned it but it seems silly. If John decides to sue Bobby for X reason....if Bobby defends against X reason or not does prevent Dave from sueing Bobby for X reason. Remember, this is civil, not criminal, and that means the person can be sued a billion times over. So why not defend yourself? Spamhaus is also big enough that they have lawyers on the payroll who could have said "hey if you don't defend yoursel,f you will lose your domain name."
Yes an OS "wears" out. Eventually, when the life of the product expires, it will lose support. Eventually software companies will stop making compatible software. This has always been the case, and it will be the case. I am sure some/. member can tell you of features Vista will have that are behind the scenes and needed.
If all you "heard" about vista is bad things, then you obviously have not bothered to look at both sides of the spectrum. Take a look, you may be surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what road rage isn't: writing down the guy's license plate, looking up his address at the DMV, then a week or two later, driving over to the next town and slashing their tires. The second you start planning to attack someone, it stops being a crime of 'passion'.
do we know it happend two weeks later? Maybe they did have the argument two weeks before, and the guy was re-reading the chat logs and then snapped after reading it for the tenth time. Also, who says road rage can't be someone writing a license plate number down and tracking someone and killing them? That is road rage, taken to a new level. Road rage also doesn't have to be side swiping, it could be someone trying to kill someone. I once saw this old guy try and hit a guy on a motorcycle because the guy on the motorcycle was driving on the shoulder of the road.
Crimes of passion, btw, can take days to happen...generally a crime of passion is caused because the perpetrater had a mental loss of control...this could last for days depending on the situation. "planning" the attack is arbitrary... Lets give an example: Person X walks home and finds his wife having sex with person Y. Person X could instantly jump on person Y and beat him with his fists to death...Or person X could go to the kitchen, grab a knife and then come back to the bedroom and stab person Y to death. Obviously the second option took a bit more planning, but I would still call that a crime of passion. Crime of passion usually implies the person had a sudden loss on a grip of reality.
Except that in real life, would someone have pushed this guy as far as he was pushed in this chat room. I am not condoning this in the least. He had a 70 mile drive to cool off, but there is a severe lack of tact on the internet these days. While the importance of maintaining ones anonymity is mentioned, what about being civil to another human being?
Probably not, but it happens (obviously). People should be civil, but they aren't. Also, it may not have been the victims fault - he may not have started the argument on the chat site. And someone cursing another person out may be un-civil, but that person trying to kill me is a bit of an extreme response. The axe guy is crazy.
That seemed odd to me, and Wikipedia's definition is exactly what I thought: "A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially assault or murder, against a spouse or other loved one because of sudden strong impulse such as a jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime."
I've never heard it used to mean anything else than that.
Read the entire post...here let me highlight my fillings. Yes he had 70 miles to think about it, but I doubt he started to drive those 70 miles and along the way he thought "maybe it would be a good idea to kill them, and let me stop by the hardware store and get an axe"....he probably got pissed at the guy, had a strong impulse to kill him, found out where the guy lives and immediately drove up. The fact it took him 70 miles to get there does not preclude it from being a crime of passion. Now if it is found the guy spent days plotting this, i would say premed, but if he immediately jumped in his car (and by immediate, i mean within a reasonable time) i would say crime of passion.....though again, i refer to my bold faced portion "popular usage".
And if we were to go by your wiki definition, it would fail because it does not meet the following criteria: against a spouse or other loved one
The GP is right. The story has little to do with the internet. It has at least as much to do with automobiles as it does the internet.
No, the story has everything to do with the net. It is not saying the net is at fault, it is giving a cautionary tale - don't put out information that will give people a chance to track you down, because someone might be crazy. If it wasn't for the Internet portion of the story, this would not have made more then local news.
Why would someone who's going to kill another person at random for no reason need to use the Internet to track down the person they're going to kill, when they can find thousands of random people to kill for no reason just by walking around literally anywhere? Worrying that having your address online is going to lead to someone randomly killing you after they find it is infinitely less rational than worrying that someone's going to randomly come to your house and kill you if your house is visible to people walking past it, and therefore living in a hole in the ground with no visible entrance.
It wasn't random...if you RTFA you would know that. They had met and talked in a chat channel and got in an argument.
No, it demonstrate the importance of acting civilized and how people should stop acting like savages just because they are not in front of the person they are communicating with.
I agree with your claim, but there are people out there who will go and try and kill other people w/o needing a reason - because they are mentally crazy....so when you give someone the name of a small town you live in, your name and your picture....well yea not that hard to find someone....Then there are the issues with kids (child sex predators come to mind). We tell our kids to be carefully (well hopefully we do) but then it comes time for us to be careful and we think we are immune? As if it takes skill to hit someone with an axe or pull a trigger of a gun...
When I drive in my car, and do road rage - that is fine, if I am alone...if someone shoots me nobody else gets hurt. But if i am in the car with someone, i dont rage....why get my friend/family hurt for my stupidty.
As i posted to another guy...I did not take it as the article blamming the net. In fact, at no point does the article say it was the fault of the Internet. Just as someone meantioned other types of rages (i.e. crimes of passion), and you are mentioning the highway....ever heard of the saying "road rage"...does that mean we are blaming the road for the anger someone displays towards another while driving? no....it just the road is the medium.
I didn't take the article as saying it was the internet that made the guy snap, it was the internet that provided a link for him to snap at this particular person. The axe guy probably would have snapped against someone else, eventually. The moral of the article: be careful as to whom you give your info to.
Crimes of passion do not have to happen instantaneously. Also, they are not saying it is a crime of passion, they are saying this is the first case (they know of) where a person got pissed at someone they met from the net, and took physical action towards that person. Stop making it sound like they are claiming the net is a bad thing.
I have no idea why the above is moderated insightful. This has everything to do with the Internet. Put it this way, these guys live 70 miles apart, and if they didn't meet on the Internet they would have (most likely) never met each other. The Internet provides you a way of meeting people you would otherwise have no chance of ever meeting/talking to.
They got angry at each other from the net, and unfortunately one of the people was unstable. So yea, this has a lot to do with the net.....nobody is claiming the net is bad, just, like any other tool, be careful how you use it.
Playing with MAYA-II takes a long time," Macdonald admits. The system needs between 2 and 30 minutes to compute each move and a second machine is required to translate the fluorescent signals generated each time into a move in the game.
No wonder it wins, it bores you to death by taking so long and hopes you fall asleep or quit.
Will you live to be 100000 years old? It might actually matter at that point. But only if the myth were true.
My name is Dunceon McLeod of the Clan McLeod
Lemme guess, you believed the Bush intelligence that Saddam had WMD, right? Well, sure you did...after all, at the time that was the best evidence we had, right?
Just because evidence may not be correct in the future does not mean we should discount it today. That would be silly. But, I didn't care if Bush was correct about the WMDs, I think we should have gone in there just cause (as my HS teacher used to say) "Saddam Hussein is so damn insane"
Oh sure, I believe that at aerosol can could definitely cause harm to the Ozone layer...if it were about half the size of the Asian continent then, sure, it might do something negative. It would definitely get in the way of travel and would surely cover up a lot of land, though. It would also be unsightly.
HELLO!!!! 80's hair bands, they bought enough hairspray, that the sales tax was able to support the US National Military budget. Thank god the Cold War ended when the hair bands went out of style (you think this may be coincidence, but I think not).
At the end of the day, does it really matter?
We are talking about health issues to us (humans) and other life on this planet. I think that qualifies as "really matter". People who doubt global warming effects are along the lines of the CEOs of big tobacco - who apparantly are still in denial about smoking causing lung cancer...their scientists also say this is not accurate.
Until the models get better, assuming they can get better, I will use their scientific evidence because to sit here and do nothing is a pretty bad idea...or do you still think aerosol cans with CFCs pose no harm to the ozone?
In the years since 1998, not only has the Earth's temp not risen, but it has fallen slightly...and I mean so slightly that it is practically immeasurable. But, it definitely hasn't risen at all.
Are you being serious or sarcastic? Because I have seen (don't have them on me) reports that say otherwise...plus, most recently, it has been in the news that the polar caps are melting at record speeds AND it is not possible to take a cruise from Northern Europe straight to the North Pole. Given that information, how do you say the temperature has dropped? If the temperature dropped wouldn't the polar caps grow?
Are you insane? We can't predict the weather, with any certainty, a few hours out. The news, yesterday, reported overcast day, but no rain....yea no rain, it poured so freakin hard my neighbors roof began to leak. Yea, don't mess with it, this stuff happens in the millions of years range...global warming is due to us being stupid, the changes our orbit exhibits is miniscule.
Or....people, w/o a clue, are reading this and blowing it out of proportions by not keeping it in context. Changes to our atmosphere, because of orbital deviance, happens in the millions of years category.....changes in our environment, due to global warming is happening on a monthly/yearly basis.
So yea, if I edited portions of the article I could make it sound like the orbit change is the reason for global warming.... then again, if i took bits and pieces of the quoran (sp) I could tell people that Allah demands we kill anyone who is not muslim, even if it means we have to kill ourselves to do it.
Moral of the story: Use the whole story, and keep it in context.
And what if ICANN now is in the hands of the international community (some "neutral" group...you know "neutral" like the UN) and then XYZ Spam You By the Trillions, LLC gets sued in the US for spamming everything and their grandmother 1000 times/day....Now part of the action is to remove their domain name. Does this new body get a chance to shut them down? Well if they weren't supposed to shutdown Spamhaus (which did NOT defend themselves) what gives them the right ot shutdown XYZ company? It works both ways.
As I recall, Spamhaus fired their law team right after they requested (and thus accepted jurisdiction) a change of courts. Not too bright.
Be it the right decision or the wrong decision (to fire their law team) I won't argue (hey the team may have been stupid) --- the absolute wrong decision was for them to NOT defend themselves....put it this way...if you are standing on a street and someone decides to beat you up...do you stand there, with your arms to your side and let them hit you in the face, or do you at least raise your arms trying to block some of the blows? If you went with the first option, you are a moron and an abomination of nature. If you went with the second option you just did what every living thing does when it is threatened - defend itself.
Erm, nope... Most 'other civilized countries' whould have applied, at the very very least, common sense to a judgment. Yes, even when the accused thus not defend himself.
No, in most civilized countries if one party does not show up to support their argument they lose. How is a judge supposed to make an informed decision in favor of one side when that side is not there to, oh i don't know, inform him. It is spamhaus' fault for not showing up....period. They have money, they have lawyers, they f'd up. Do I like it that they lost, no, is it their fault yes.
"There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant" (to the girls).
Why would this be politically incorrect? This is a statement of fact. Pregnancy is an on/off state. You are either pregnant or you are not. Any girl who says "i am a little bit pregnant" needs to wonder why her parents didn't use a condom.
I say if a spammer in russia sends spam to the US then he falls under US jursidiction. The crime, in my opinion, was comitted both in Russia and in the US, as such both countries should have a hand in pimp slapping the spammer. Now Russia may not have such laws, but the US does, and if Russia would like positive commerce treaties with the US - and assuming the US was smart enough to put such laws in the treaty - then Russia will extradite the criminal.
The #2 reason is that if they were to spend the money to defend themselves, they would open a precedent for any other spammer to sue them the same way
No i do not understand this. In fact someone else mentioned it but it seems silly. If John decides to sue Bobby for X reason....if Bobby defends against X reason or not does prevent Dave from sueing Bobby for X reason. Remember, this is civil, not criminal, and that means the person can be sued a billion times over. So why not defend yourself? Spamhaus is also big enough that they have lawyers on the payroll who could have said "hey if you don't defend yoursel,f you will lose your domain name."
Intelligent people "who have been attacking the problem for 15 years" can still fail to see an "obvious" solution
Or maybe the issue was not so obvious.
So what you are hypothesizing is that in a few years we will see a Microsoft Zune or iPods with Sony EbolaFlash® memory chip technology.
I just patented, copyrighted this technology. You will now have to pay me 1,000,000$ each time your post is viewed.
Yes an OS "wears" out. Eventually, when the life of the product expires, it will lose support. Eventually software companies will stop making compatible software. This has always been the case, and it will be the case. I am sure some /. member can tell you of features Vista will have that are behind the scenes and needed.
If all you "heard" about vista is bad things, then you obviously have not bothered to look at both sides of the spectrum. Take a look, you may be surprised.