If your particular mental illness makes you a danger to the public, and you are incapable of controlling your behaviour, the right place for you is certainly not in prison. It's in a fucking maximum security hospital.
If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime.
Bullshit. They just overturned the conviction of the Robin Hood airport "bomb" tweeter because it was perfectly obvious he was joking.
You do realize that people say things they don't actually intend on doing, right? I suppose I'd be arrested for threatening harm to someone by telling them to "break a leg" in modern day England.
As always, it would depend on context.
If you said "break a leg" to a friend shortly before they went on stage, that;'s one thing. If you said "break a leg" as you dropped rocks on a policemen that's another.
That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.
Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.
Certain levels of rudeness will still get you a punch in the nose. If this teentard twitterer had been standing next to Tom Daley and brought his dead dad into the conversation, I imagine he'd have received proof of this.
So you are going to criminalize thought crimes? Is it better to hold back all your anger until you snap and take out everyone in your office or is it better to get it off your chest and let people tell you it's wrong? If you criminalize hate speech people will hold on to it until they can no longer take it.
If someone is so full of rage that they are capable of taking out everyone in their office because their brains work funny, it would indeed be a good thing if we had some Minority Report style pre-cog system to weed them out and get them some help.
Quite what this and the standard slashdot "1984 was supposed to be a warning not a procedure manual" retard world view has to do with anything I'm not quite sure. This obnoxious little tick didn't commit "thought crime" he committed "actually writing it out on twitter like a cunt" crime.
Yeah that's utterly ridiculous, i drive a classic car which as with most classic cars is not exceptionally reliable, so i always carry a set of tools around in the back.
In fact, this car actually comes with a toolkit which is fitted into its own dedicated compartment of the car!
*sigh*
Yes, that's what's known as having a perfectly valid reason to be carrying those tools.
If you work as a chef, you can take a case full of razor sharp knives on the bus with you. Most sixteen year olds, however, aren't chefs, so they need some other reason to explain carrying a 12 inch carving knife. ("for getting stabby with" isn't seen as a valid reason by most people) or else they'll be in trouble.
at least two people have been convicted of knife crime for having a multitool on their person and not being able to show a reasonable excuse for having it at that time
In other words, they had it with them in public, probably after going to the pub and getting into some sort of trouble (or else how would the police have found it on them)? It is exactly the same as if they were carrying any other c. 3 inch sharp bladed weapon.
People can't have it both ways, complain about teenagers carrying knives, then think there should be an exemption for multiu-tools because it's generally older/middle class people who have them. I have a bladed Leatherman, as well as several other knivves for various purposes (gardening pruning knife, various kitchen knives...) but I wouldn't take any of them out shopping in the supermarket or going to buy a kebab.
In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.
Yes, obviously it's as ridiculously simple as that. Any random person they find with any hand tool is immediately charged with going equipped to commit burglary. Your criminal past, the location and circumstances and surrounding activities observed by the police, your lack of a plausible explanation for carrying the tools, all these are irrelevant.
It must be fucking carnage outside B & Q on a Sunday afternoon where you live.
There are plenty of examples of hate speech, that at least in the U.S. would still be acceptable legally.
Yes, we know. You Americans seem to think that having the freedom to do something is the most important thing in the world. Well, it's not if you're the victim. Ask the families of the civilians killed in Iraq about their fucking freedom.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.
And only in a country with such a constitution like the US would it be impossible to impose sensible gun control laws or prevent cunts like the Westboro retards being slung in jail.
The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."
Setting aside the fact that I didn't realise Tom Daley was illiterate, IMHO the correct response is to ask the troll to meet up for some diving practice in a drained pool.
Saying what you think can most certainly be immoral.
If I go up to the parents of a child who has just been killed in a train accident and start telling train jokes, making choo choo noises and laughing, and so on, deliberately to hurt them, that is immoral or ethically unacceptable by any reasonable standard.
The questin is whether it should be illegal (as it is here in the UK where a twatty troll recently was convicted for online harrasment of parents whose kids had just committed suicide, IIRC).
Now, just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it is lying to yourself to pretend that all free speech is always morally good or neutral.
The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish
The idea that there's only one true, right opinion on this subject is rubbish. Perhaps free speech is not valuable to you, but other minds think differently.
Something can be valuable without being an inviolable ideal. I'm all in favour of free speech as long as people take the consequences of their words. We invented the law to avoid the instinctive reaction to someone spouting filth in your face, which is to hit them very hard. Instead we let the law punish them.
You might think it's no big deal to taunt someone with the fact that their parent is dead. Personally, if someone did that to me, I'd be tempted to find out where they lived and saw their knackers off with a blunt hacksaw, but hey ho there are obviously a lot more forgiving people on slashdot than I realised.
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy. People will say deeply offensive things to you in life; adults simply shrug and move on with life, they don't throiw temper tantrums, or ask Mommy to make it stop.
Stalking is different, but we're not talking about stalking here, but one-off remarks.
Where I come from, if someone says something deeply offensive to you, you don't shrug and ignore it, you twat them.
No offence, but I think Microsoft have got a better idea of the future of computing than you, and it doesn't involve desktops, except as a relatively niche market
A reasonable tablet/phone (I assume they will end up merging, but don''t ask me how) will be all the computer that most people ever need, indeed it probably already is, so Microsoft need to get in there before it's too late.
I suppose I just don't get excited by phones anymore. Either IOS or Droid does everything that you could really need from a phone. I'm not saying that its perfect, but it seems like we've got to the point where its good enough for 99.99999999% of the situations that will arise.
We live in a consumer-capitalist society. Everyone has to "upgrade" their stuff as often as possible. There's always some new feature that you didn't realise you needed. Until phones become sentient AIs with the right to vote, there will always be something else we can bolt on to sell version x+1
Slashdot Mirror
If your particular mental illness makes you a danger to the public, and you are incapable of controlling your behaviour, the right place for you is certainly not in prison. It's in a fucking maximum security hospital.
If I say to you that I am going to kill you when I catch up with you and you know I am joking, under the old laws there was no crime but under the current system it is a crime.
Bullshit. They just overturned the conviction of the Robin Hood airport "bomb" tweeter because it was perfectly obvious he was joking.
You do realize that people say things they don't actually intend on doing, right? I suppose I'd be arrested for threatening harm to someone by telling them to "break a leg" in modern day England.
As always, it would depend on context.
If you said "break a leg" to a friend shortly before they went on stage, that;'s one thing. If you said "break a leg" as you dropped rocks on a policemen that's another.
That was back when punching someone in the nose for being rude was also not seen as a crime.
Perhaps we'd be better off going back to that.
Certain levels of rudeness will still get you a punch in the nose. If this teentard twitterer had been standing next to Tom Daley and brought his dead dad into the conversation, I imagine he'd have received proof of this.
So you are going to criminalize thought crimes? Is it better to hold back all your anger until you snap and take out everyone in your office or is it better to get it off your chest and let people tell you it's wrong? If you criminalize hate speech people will hold on to it until they can no longer take it.
If someone is so full of rage that they are capable of taking out everyone in their office because their brains work funny, it would indeed be a good thing if we had some Minority Report style pre-cog system to weed them out and get them some help.
Quite what this and the standard slashdot "1984 was supposed to be a warning not a procedure manual" retard world view has to do with anything I'm not quite sure. This obnoxious little tick didn't commit "thought crime" he committed "actually writing it out on twitter like a cunt" crime.
I have friends that would send those tweets to people in jest... I couldn't imagine being arrested because of it.
Translation: I am a thoughtless, insensitive, sociopathic little shitweasel with no ability to see beyond my own instant gratification.
Yeah that's utterly ridiculous, i drive a classic car which as with most classic cars is not exceptionally reliable, so i always carry a set of tools around in the back. In fact, this car actually comes with a toolkit which is fitted into its own dedicated compartment of the car!
*sigh*
Yes, that's what's known as having a perfectly valid reason to be carrying those tools.
If you work as a chef, you can take a case full of razor sharp knives on the bus with you. Most sixteen year olds, however, aren't chefs, so they need some other reason to explain carrying a 12 inch carving knife. ("for getting stabby with" isn't seen as a valid reason by most people) or else they'll be in trouble.
at least two people have been convicted of knife crime for having a multitool on their person and not being able to show a reasonable excuse for having it at that time
In other words, they had it with them in public, probably after going to the pub and getting into some sort of trouble (or else how would the police have found it on them)? It is exactly the same as if they were carrying any other c. 3 inch sharp bladed weapon.
People can't have it both ways, complain about teenagers carrying knives, then think there should be an exemption for multiu-tools because it's generally older/middle class people who have them. I have a bladed Leatherman, as well as several other knivves for various purposes (gardening pruning knife, various kitchen knives...) but I wouldn't take any of them out shopping in the supermarket or going to buy a kebab.
In England you can be arrested for "going equipped". For example if you have a crowbar, pliers and other tools in your car they will claim that you are going equipped to commit burglary, you don't actually need to do the crime.
Yes, obviously it's as ridiculously simple as that. Any random person they find with any hand tool is immediately charged with going equipped to commit burglary. Your criminal past, the location and circumstances and surrounding activities observed by the police, your lack of a plausible explanation for carrying the tools, all these are irrelevant.
It must be fucking carnage outside B & Q on a Sunday afternoon where you live.
There are plenty of examples of hate speech, that at least in the U.S. would still be acceptable legally.
Yes, we know. You Americans seem to think that having the freedom to do something is the most important thing in the world. Well, it's not if you're the victim. Ask the families of the civilians killed in Iraq about their fucking freedom.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logical justification for such a retarded law. Only in a country without a constitution would this kind of idiocy be possible.
And only in a country with such a constitution like the US would it be impossible to impose sensible gun control laws or prevent cunts like the Westboro retards being slung in jail.
Just saying.
"The idea that your feelings are the most holy ideal is rubbish."
The idea that you would still be able to walk or breathe unaided after sending me a tweet like this cunt did is rubbish.
He had a Twitter account. That's not private. If he didn't want contact from yahoos then he should, eliminate the twitter account or restrict access.!
A crime is a crime whether it's committed in public or in private.
Just taking the second example given, it is perfectly possible to harass an enemy once.
The correct response is for the Athlete to either do nothing, or to tweet back and say, "you don't my dad; and your a real jerk who will probably never get laid, have sucky life."
Setting aside the fact that I didn't realise Tom Daley was illiterate, IMHO the correct response is to ask the troll to meet up for some diving practice in a drained pool.
Saying what you think can most certainly be immoral.
If I go up to the parents of a child who has just been killed in a train accident and start telling train jokes, making choo choo noises and laughing, and so on, deliberately to hurt them, that is immoral or ethically unacceptable by any reasonable standard.
The questin is whether it should be illegal (as it is here in the UK where a twatty troll recently was convicted for online harrasment of parents whose kids had just committed suicide, IIRC).
Now, just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, but it is lying to yourself to pretend that all free speech is always morally good or neutral.
People should have a thicker skin, its only words and words cannot hurt you, didn't they teach you that in school?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
I remember hearing that, and it was bollocks then just like it's bollocks now.
Every fight I've ever seen or been involved in has started with words.
The idea that free speech is the most holy ideal is rubbish
The idea that there's only one true, right opinion on this subject is rubbish. Perhaps free speech is not valuable to you, but other minds think differently.
Something can be valuable without being an inviolable ideal. I'm all in favour of free speech as long as people take the consequences of their words. We invented the law to avoid the instinctive reaction to someone spouting filth in your face, which is to hit them very hard. Instead we let the law punish them.
You might think it's no big deal to taunt someone with the fact that their parent is dead. Personally, if someone did that to me, I'd be tempted to find out where they lived and saw their knackers off with a blunt hacksaw, but hey ho there are obviously a lot more forgiving people on slashdot than I realised.
Exactly. This kid is an ass for saying such a thing, but it clearly doesn't necessitate government action.
He just needs a little spanking from Tom Daley and his friends. Simples.
No, the soultion for this sort of "harassing" is just learn to ignore people. That's it - that's the entire remedy. People will say deeply offensive things to you in life; adults simply shrug and move on with life, they don't throiw temper tantrums, or ask Mommy to make it stop.
Stalking is different, but we're not talking about stalking here, but one-off remarks.
Where I come from, if someone says something deeply offensive to you, you don't shrug and ignore it, you twat them.
Just saying.
Nobody can predict the tech future that far out.
Maybe not, but you still have to try, or else abandon yourself to randomness and chance alone.
No offence, but I think Microsoft have got a better idea of the future of computing than you, and it doesn't involve desktops, except as a relatively niche market
A reasonable tablet/phone (I assume they will end up merging, but don''t ask me how) will be all the computer that most people ever need, indeed it probably already is, so Microsoft need to get in there before it's too late.
I suppose I just don't get excited by phones anymore. Either IOS or Droid does everything that you could really need from a phone. I'm not saying that its perfect, but it seems like we've got to the point where its good enough for 99.99999999% of the situations that will arise.
We live in a consumer-capitalist society. Everyone has to "upgrade" their stuff as often as possible. There's always some new feature that you didn't realise you needed. Until phones become sentient AIs with the right to vote, there will always be something else we can bolt on to sell version x+1
MS are not cool.
Oh well, they must be terrible then.
I didn't realise slashdot had turned into another online coffee shop full of hipstes with ironic spectacles and facial hair.
so its a chicken and hen problem.
It's egg, dude.
Or you translating some remarkably tedious non-English saying "which came first, the chicken or the chicken?"