I don't think dropping nuclear weapons on the Japanese ended the war. My reasons for saying this are too lengthy to go into here, but I invite anyone reading this to research the matter closely.
"Quite frankly, the British system as it's been described to me is assinine."
I don't think you have understood it.
" You should never, EVER be restricted to a fair fight when you are defending yourself."
We aren't.
" You should be allowed to strike first and with more force than is brought against you."
We are - as long is it is reasonable to suppose that the assailant might bring more force if we don't. Otherwise, it would be legal to kill a child who steals sweets from a shop, for a very real example.
(If you say that is not an appropriate example, them where *would* you draw the line?).
"The goal of the law should be to protect the right of the victim to survive, not be fairly matched with his attacker."
It is. If for example we thought an attacker might have a knife or gun, it would be quite legal to stab or shoot them. If it is reasonable to challenge them first, then the law expects that such a challenge is given, but it does not expect the victim to put themselves at unreasonable risk to do so.
"In a fair fight the attacker might win."
True - it is nothing to do with fairness though, only what is reasonable in defending yourself (but not to defend your property, which is I think where US law differs).
An unfair fight might very well be reasonable force.
The key concept here is that is it illegal in the UK to injure or kill anyone, -whether a criminal or not- as an act of revenge. It was revenge in Tony Martin's case, the jury found.
"What if I used a baseball bat to kill an attempted murderer? Would that be OK to you?" - I can't speak for the other poster, but killing an 'attempted murderer' with a baseball bat would be perfectly legal under UK law, - as indeed it would be to shoot him.
I realise that many poeple are passionate about this , and I believe that the law in the US is different from in the UK. However, when you say:
"Yes, they should prepare for the possibility of being shot for shoplifting. Actions have consequences.", then would you find it acceptable if instead of holding shoplifters and calling the police, shop staff were allowed to summarily execute shoplifters and throw their bodies in a dumpster out back? - it would certainly speed-up the courts and thin-out the prison population.
This is a reductio ad absurdum, but it seems to be what you are suggesting should be the law.
" You can't use ANY force in subduing a criminal in the UK "
- I don't know if you are trolling, or you just don't know what you are talking about, but it is quite legal to use deadly force to subdue a criminal in the UK if that force is reasonable for self-defense.
On the other hand, you can't shoot someone dead just because they were tresspassing but are now fleeing for their lives.
The warning shot *could* be followed up by an aimed shot, but only if the warning is ignored - if the burglar is running away, then he is not threatening you and shooting him is murder under UK law.
Read the last segment from the article that was posted: "Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald said it was very rare for prosecutions to be brought against people who defended themselves in their own homes.
'As long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor,'Macdonald said.
He said there were examples of homeowners not being prosecuted after intruders had been fatally stabbed or shot, hit over the head with bats or metal bars.
Firstly, they weren't hosting a website, but DC+ hubs. They were not distributing material but allowing others to find each other and request files from one-another.
I do think that a lot of the p2p movement is civil disobedience. - personally I believe that the laws regarding copyright need to be reconsidered, given the changed technological situation. I believe that it is wrong to create scarcity in order to inflate prices - the cost to copy a tune or video is now virtually nil, and business pricing and distribution-systems should reflect this change. The intent of many who run p2p systems is not to collect material without paying the asking-price, but to make interesting material more available and to force the copyrighted industries to update their business models. You may say that p2p is trivial, but so is which seat you sit in on a bus. - There is something much bigger going on here. The creation of a global multimedia library which all can contribute to and consult should be celebrated, not attacked.
There is a limit to how far you should obey laws which are wrong (I think this is beyond dispute, without invoking whatever is Slashdot's equivalent of Godwin's law).
At what point is disobedience justified? - I am tempted to argue that the suppression of the now-possible global multimedia library which p2p users are trying to provide is a step too far. Copyright has not always existed, and it may now have outlived its value to humanity as a whole.
Hmm I thought Canada was in the Americas. Anyway, Japan, The USA, Canada and The UK are all in the Northern Hemisphere. If you think in terms of Eastern and Western Hemispheres (I prefer not to), then The Americas are in the Western, Japan in the Eastern, and The UK in both:) Perhaps there is somebody from the Southern Hemisphere in this thread somewhere?
From the 'Do the math' document on that site: "According to nutrition experts, it takes 3,500 extra calories a day above a person's natural metabolism to gain one pound." This is nonsense! - like most of the information presented there. The website also misses the point of the film which is all about the line between corporate and individual responsibility - he doesn't claim that he is acting responsibly, but as many do act.
On the other hand, if the owner of a node knows what is being cached by their own machine, and that turns out to be CP, then that owner is in a very dubious legal position, even if they choose to delete the files.
I wouldn't want to run any system where others decide what files are to be stored on my machine.
This is a consequence of the copyright-enforcers forcing filesharing onto anonymous systems.
The (relatively) innocent copyrighted files will found via the same search systems as all kinds of illegal material.
- It will happen with any sufficiently strong anonymizing system as far as I can see, as Child Porn traders for instance, can be traced if they use 'traditional' p2p systems.
This will expose ordinary filesharers to nastier or more dangerous material than at present, and allow them to collect/distribute anything anonymously if they so choose.
It's a pity this fact isn't more apparent to policymakers and the public alike.
There is already a usenet group for.torrent files: alt.binaries.torrents However, the trackers for those torrents still have to be centralised under the current BT system. alt.binaries.torrents actually has a full dump of the last day of suprnova in it currently, but how many of the trackers are still up is anybody's guess.
Hmm, that's interesting. I used to get a lot of spam advertising anti-spam services (which may or may not have involved trojans or phishing ploys).
However, of the 53 spams in my spam folder right now none are for anti-spam stuff.
- Maybe those spammers gave up, in which case their targets can't be as dumb as I thought...
Hopefully anyone knowledgeable enough to know what the Lycos Screensaver did would not run an unsolicited email attachment. - However, there seems to be no limit to human gullibility so we shall have to see..
I read a suggestion once that cats play with their prey for a while before attempting to eat it to make sure it is dead and wont injure the cat. Predators have a lot to lose if they are injured.
Either way, the cat has no moral framework to judge its own behaviour in - an animal (or indeed, a human child) may do something nasty just because it likes it without being culpable...
For what is worth, I remember getting many hits on Google Images for Abu Ghraib and Lyndie England some time ago. It was about 4 months ago, I can't be sure what spelling I used and I have no evidence to show you, sorry. I don't buy the idea that the spider is simply out of date. Searching Google Images for 'Margaret Hassan' who was taken hostage 3 weeks ago produces one clear hit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think dropping nuclear weapons on the Japanese ended the war.
My reasons for saying this are too lengthy to go into here, but I invite anyone reading this to research the matter closely.
"Quite frankly, the British system as it's been described to me is assinine." I don't think you have understood it. " You should never, EVER be restricted to a fair fight when you are defending yourself." We aren't. " You should be allowed to strike first and with more force than is brought against you." We are - as long is it is reasonable to suppose that the assailant might bring more force if we don't. Otherwise, it would be legal to kill a child who steals sweets from a shop, for a very real example. (If you say that is not an appropriate example, them where *would* you draw the line?). "The goal of the law should be to protect the right of the victim to survive, not be fairly matched with his attacker." It is. If for example we thought an attacker might have a knife or gun, it would be quite legal to stab or shoot them. If it is reasonable to challenge them first, then the law expects that such a challenge is given, but it does not expect the victim to put themselves at unreasonable risk to do so. "In a fair fight the attacker might win." True - it is nothing to do with fairness though, only what is reasonable in defending yourself (but not to defend your property, which is I think where US law differs). An unfair fight might very well be reasonable force. The key concept here is that is it illegal in the UK to injure or kill anyone, -whether a criminal or not- as an act of revenge. It was revenge in Tony Martin's case, the jury found.
"What if I used a baseball bat to kill an attempted murderer? Would that be OK to you?" - I can't speak for the other poster, but killing an 'attempted murderer' with a baseball bat would be perfectly legal under UK law, - as indeed it would be to shoot him.
I realise that many poeple are passionate about this , and I believe that the law in the US is different from in the UK. However, when you say: "Yes, they should prepare for the possibility of being shot for shoplifting. Actions have consequences.", then would you find it acceptable if instead of holding shoplifters and calling the police, shop staff were allowed to summarily execute shoplifters and throw their bodies in a dumpster out back? - it would certainly speed-up the courts and thin-out the prison population. This is a reductio ad absurdum, but it seems to be what you are suggesting should be the law.
" You can't use ANY force in subduing a criminal in the UK " - I don't know if you are trolling, or you just don't know what you are talking about, but it is quite legal to use deadly force to subdue a criminal in the UK if that force is reasonable for self-defense. On the other hand, you can't shoot someone dead just because they were tresspassing but are now fleeing for their lives.
The warning shot *could* be followed up by an aimed shot, but only if the warning is ignored - if the burglar is running away, then he is not threatening you and shooting him is murder under UK law.
Read the last segment from the article that was posted:
"Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald said it was very rare for prosecutions to be brought against people who defended themselves in their own homes.
'As long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor,'Macdonald said.
He said there were examples of homeowners not being prosecuted after intruders had been fatally stabbed or shot, hit over the head with bats or metal bars.
Last one to open a burger restaurant on Mars is a sissy!
Hey - don't call Roosevelt a douchbag!
Firstly, they weren't hosting a website, but DC+ hubs.
They were not distributing material but allowing others to find each other and request files from one-another.
I do think that a lot of the p2p movement is civil disobedience. - personally I believe that the laws regarding copyright need to be reconsidered, given the changed technological situation. I believe that it is wrong to create scarcity in order to inflate prices - the cost to copy a tune or video is now virtually nil, and business pricing and distribution-systems should reflect this change.
The intent of many who run p2p systems is not to collect material without paying the asking-price, but to make interesting material more available and to force the copyrighted industries to update their business models.
You may say that p2p is trivial, but so is which seat you sit in on a bus. - There is something much bigger going on here.
The creation of a global multimedia library which all can contribute to and consult should be celebrated, not attacked.
Yes, they were Direct Connect hubs. This means the accused may not have actually hosted the infringing material, similar to Napster.
There is a limit to how far you should obey laws which are wrong (I think this is beyond dispute, without invoking whatever is Slashdot's equivalent of Godwin's law).
At what point is disobedience justified? - I am tempted to argue that the suppression of the now-possible global multimedia library which p2p users are trying to provide is a step too far.
Copyright has not always existed, and it may now have outlived its value to humanity as a whole.
Hmm I thought Canada was in the Americas. :)
Anyway, Japan, The USA, Canada and The UK are all in the Northern Hemisphere.
If you think in terms of Eastern and Western Hemispheres (I prefer not to), then The Americas are in the Western, Japan in the Eastern, and The UK in both
Perhaps there is somebody from the Southern Hemisphere in this thread somewhere?
Your trolling attempt aside, what % of the world's population would you say are US citizens?
From the 'Do the math' document on that site:
"According to nutrition experts, it takes 3,500 extra calories a day above a person's natural metabolism to gain one pound."
This is nonsense! - like most of the information presented there.
The website also misses the point of the film which is all about the line between corporate and individual responsibility - he doesn't claim that he is acting responsibly, but as many do act.
On the other hand, if the owner of a node knows what is being cached by their own machine, and that turns out to be CP, then that owner is in a very dubious legal position, even if they choose to delete the files. I wouldn't want to run any system where others decide what files are to be stored on my machine.
This is a consequence of the copyright-enforcers forcing filesharing onto anonymous systems. The (relatively) innocent copyrighted files will found via the same search systems as all kinds of illegal material. - It will happen with any sufficiently strong anonymizing system as far as I can see, as Child Porn traders for instance, can be traced if they use 'traditional' p2p systems. This will expose ordinary filesharers to nastier or more dangerous material than at present, and allow them to collect/distribute anything anonymously if they so choose. It's a pity this fact isn't more apparent to policymakers and the public alike.
There is already a usenet group for .torrent files: alt.binaries.torrents
However, the trackers for those torrents still have to be centralised under the current BT system.
alt.binaries.torrents actually has a full dump of the last day of suprnova in it currently, but how many of the trackers are still up is anybody's guess.
Well....I can't see how they are worse than the Christians, especially with a historical perspective.
(This is not a troll).
Hmm, that's interesting. I used to get a lot of spam advertising anti-spam services (which may or may not have involved trojans or phishing ploys). However, of the 53 spams in my spam folder right now none are for anti-spam stuff. - Maybe those spammers gave up, in which case their targets can't be as dumb as I thought...
Hopefully anyone knowledgeable enough to know what the Lycos Screensaver did would not run an unsolicited email attachment.
- However, there seems to be no limit to human gullibility so we shall have to see..
eh? who else has web-controlled guns?? (and can I play?)
I read a suggestion once that cats play with their prey for a while before attempting to eat it to make sure it is dead and wont injure the cat.
Predators have a lot to lose if they are injured.
Either way, the cat has no moral framework to judge its own behaviour in - an animal (or indeed, a human child) may do something nasty just because it likes it without being culpable...
For what is worth, I remember getting many hits on Google Images for Abu Ghraib and Lyndie England some time ago.
It was about 4 months ago, I can't be sure what spelling I used and I have no evidence to show you, sorry.
I don't buy the idea that the spider is simply out of date.
Searching Google Images for 'Margaret Hassan' who was taken hostage 3 weeks ago produces one clear hit.
So Bill Gates gets banned - that's you if you come in with those cards...
You could leave your cards at home but so can anyone else that gets banned.
ok, 60% then ;-)