Just because you cause somebody to experience fear does not make you a terrorist.
No. It's the motivation that defines terrorism.
Terrorism is the threat or carrying-out of violence with an intent to cause political change to your target population. It's the same as extortion, but the demand isn't monetary.
This kid is not a terrorist because his motivation was the same as a graffiti artist - to have a little fun at someone else's expense.
IF he set out to expose how shitty the security of 911 is and followed up with messages sent to the media threatening to engage in a campaign of SWATting until 911 got fixed... That would be terrorism.
I don't know how many times the medical examiner has to write homicide on the death certificate of somebody who just happened to die while being arrested before something gets done.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. "Homicide" simply means one person dying at the hands of another. No value judgement is involved. "Murder" is a sub-set of "homicide," but that's not the ME's call to make.
If the guy that was targeted thought someone was breaking in and tried to defend himself, he would probably have been killed
Go read TFA. He actually did think someone was breaking in, and he armed himself with a knife and went out into the back yard to investigate, whereupon he was tackled by the SWAT team. It was a much, much closer thing than I think you realize.
Taxes are bad for many, many reasons. Not least of which is that they empower the government. The government should have sufficient power to keep the peace, and that's all. Any more power than that always winds up finding the wrong hands (of course people will disagree on whose hands those are) and making us all worse off.
What poppycock. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here. The suggestion that congress couldn't undo a tax ban that has no sunset date later is just laughable - particularly when it involves the prospect of further picking the taxpayer's pockets (which we know politicians have no qualms about doing).
Well, that is one way to totally shut down lobbyists.
There is one problem, however. I'm a USian, not an ausie, but I'd be surprised if the parallel situation didn't exist there.
There is more to being an elected representative than voting. Elected representatives also respond to constituent requests for assistance with dealing with intractable governmental problems, they hold hearings, complete with the power to subpoena witnesses, and (in general), they hold oversight over government agencies, including those whose business is secret. Those are all things that an electoral tabula rasa wouldn't reasonably be able to delegate to the electorate.
Sorry, I just get exasperated by how often it needs to be said during the various litigation-based discussions that happen here. When you start using the language of criminal trials, then all sorts of other issues get muddled, such as the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" = criminal, "preponderance of the evidence" = civil), the rights of a defendant outlined in the bill of rights (generally inapplicable in civil cases), etc.
The jury found that she committed a tort, and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Damn, it's disturbing that we need to make this correction so often.
I think she was probably informed by the prosecution that she had broken the law. But I could be wrong.
You certainly are. You meant to say, "I think she was probably informed by the plaintiff that she had committed a tort.
I've never tried it or anything, but it might actually work if you address the back of the envelope after sealing it and conspicuously apply the stamp across the envelope seal.
If you're sophisticated enough to set up such a system then you can still be found responsible either for setting up an attractive nuisance or simple negligence. In short, if you go to great pains to insure that it's possible to say, "anyone could have done it, your honor," then you did it.
Seriously, though: The internet was created by adults for adults. As such it has its share of "neighborhoods" that are "not safe for minors". They're the virtual equivalent of singles bars, strip-joints, adult bookstores, red-light districts, criminal and gang hangouts, etc.
What parent would let their child go unescorted to such places in the real world? Why should parental responsibility end when the world is virtual?
Now, I'm on your side. But I will play devil's advocate here and say that the difference between the real world and the virtual one in your example is that zoning laws are typically supposed to make it longer-than-bike-riding distance for a kid to travel from his or her home or school to the Red Light District(tm). And the proprietor is supposed to watch everyone coming in and shoo them away if they're don't at least look like they're a grown-up.
On the Internet, there are no such distance limitations. You could switch from reading this comment to surfing porn as fast as google will take you there. Hell, I suspect some of you even have some porn bookmarked. And as we all have heard, nobody knows you're a dog when you're on the Internet, so apart from the "click here if you're not at least 18" links on the front page of every porn site out there, there's nothing reasonable (in the 1st amendment sense) for the proprietor to do to exclude the young 'uns.
DHCP (and bootp and RARP before it) served primarily the purpose of letting an otherwise unconfigured node discover which IPv4 address it should use. Along with that, DHCP could deliver more information important to the node as well - default router, DNS information and so on.
With IPv6, the basic networking information is automatically configured when a node connects to the network. DHCP's purpose in such environments is to allow unconfigured nodes, once they've configured IPv6, to discover things like DNS servers and the like.
Personally, I thought a better idea for DNS would be anycasting - a designated site-local address could be set aside for DNS servers. With such a setup, your average *nix box could operate without a resolv.conf (or equiv) file at all. And, of course, once you have DNS set up, you could use CNAME or SRV records for just about anything else. But RFC 3879 has deprecated them, so none of that.
However, the city makes way more money from parking tickets than from parking meters. You're assuming the level of compliance with no-parking zones times the average fine for violations exceeds the level of compliance with parking meters times their average violation fine.
This assumption may be valid, but then again, it may not.
I think it's a trade-off between safety and predictability on one side and efficiency and progress on the other.
This is largely explained by the public attitude of both sides. To wit:
The soviets launched in secret. When they had a success, they shouted it from the rooftops. When they had a failure, they brushed it under the carpet. If Yuri Gagarin had died in his attempt to be the first man in space, I suspect they would have simply not told anybody and tried again the next week. Heck, by FAI rules at the time, his flight shouldn't have counted, since he parachuted away from the spacecraft during reentry rather than land inside it. The soviets didn't actually land inside their spacecraft until Voskhod 1, in October of 1964, by which time NASA's Mercury project had been over for more than a year. They got away with it because.... wait for it.... nobody was watching.
By contrast, NASA performed all of their activities totally in the public eye. As such, every failure was a public embarrassment and the loss of an Astronaut would have been totally unacceptable. The Apollo 1 fire kept NASA out of orbit for a year and a half while they investigated the cause(s) and fixed a bunch of problems.
I have perfect pitch, but in my case I think it's in the form of a virtual 880Hz tuning fork in my brain. I can't just instantly say, "oh, that's C#". I would have to internally recognize that it's a major third higher than A and then say that it's C#. Since I'm not in the music business, I don't get regular practice, so I may be off a bit sometimes, but I do believe I'm right more often than not.
I think it's an ability that can be practiced and obtained - not something inborn. Just try and recognize tonal sounds around you. For example, most domestic car horns are an F and an A. The Italian sports cars that sound more "sportier" are usually an A and a C#. Train horns are harder because they're usually 5 note diminished chords.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of at least one OEM that bundles a browser other than Internet Explorer.
No. It's the motivation that defines terrorism.
Terrorism is the threat or carrying-out of violence with an intent to cause political change to your target population. It's the same as extortion, but the demand isn't monetary.
This kid is not a terrorist because his motivation was the same as a graffiti artist - to have a little fun at someone else's expense.
IF he set out to expose how shitty the security of 911 is and followed up with messages sent to the media threatening to engage in a campaign of SWATting until 911 got fixed... That would be terrorism.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. "Homicide" simply means one person dying at the hands of another. No value judgement is involved. "Murder" is a sub-set of "homicide," but that's not the ME's call to make.
Go read TFA. He actually did think someone was breaking in, and he armed himself with a knife and went out into the back yard to investigate, whereupon he was tackled by the SWAT team. It was a much, much closer thing than I think you realize.
Taxes are bad for many, many reasons. Not least of which is that they empower the government. The government should have sufficient power to keep the peace, and that's all. Any more power than that always winds up finding the wrong hands (of course people will disagree on whose hands those are) and making us all worse off.
What poppycock. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here. The suggestion that congress couldn't undo a tax ban that has no sunset date later is just laughable - particularly when it involves the prospect of further picking the taxpayer's pockets (which we know politicians have no qualms about doing).
Well, that is one way to totally shut down lobbyists.
There is one problem, however. I'm a USian, not an ausie, but I'd be surprised if the parallel situation didn't exist there.
There is more to being an elected representative than voting. Elected representatives also respond to constituent requests for assistance with dealing with intractable governmental problems, they hold hearings, complete with the power to subpoena witnesses, and (in general), they hold oversight over government agencies, including those whose business is secret. Those are all things that an electoral tabula rasa wouldn't reasonably be able to delegate to the electorate.
Sorry, I just get exasperated by how often it needs to be said during the various litigation-based discussions that happen here. When you start using the language of criminal trials, then all sorts of other issues get muddled, such as the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" = criminal, "preponderance of the evidence" = civil), the rights of a defendant outlined in the bill of rights (generally inapplicable in civil cases), etc.
The jury found that she committed a tort, and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
You're thinking of "torte," or perhaps "tart." Different word.
She was not, and could not, be "convicted" of anything because it is a civil case!
You certainly are. You meant to say, "I think she was probably informed by the plaintiff that she had committed a tort.
civil case != criminal case.
I've never tried it or anything, but it might actually work if you address the back of the envelope after sealing it and conspicuously apply the stamp across the envelope seal.
If you're sophisticated enough to set up such a system then you can still be found responsible either for setting up an attractive nuisance or simple negligence. In short, if you go to great pains to insure that it's possible to say, "anyone could have done it, your honor," then you did it.
What parent would let their child go unescorted to such places in the real world? Why should parental responsibility end when the world is virtual?
Now, I'm on your side. But I will play devil's advocate here and say that the difference between the real world and the virtual one in your example is that zoning laws are typically supposed to make it longer-than-bike-riding distance for a kid to travel from his or her home or school to the Red Light District(tm). And the proprietor is supposed to watch everyone coming in and shoo them away if they're don't at least look like they're a grown-up.
On the Internet, there are no such distance limitations. You could switch from reading this comment to surfing porn as fast as google will take you there. Hell, I suspect some of you even have some porn bookmarked. And as we all have heard, nobody knows you're a dog when you're on the Internet, so apart from the "click here if you're not at least 18" links on the front page of every porn site out there, there's nothing reasonable (in the 1st amendment sense) for the proprietor to do to exclude the young 'uns.
I absolutely agree. Only the really hot ones.
I went to UOP. My answer to your kind offer is, "No, thanks."
It remains to be seen: which will happen first? Affordable solar power, or the Year of Desktop Linux.
RTFA. It's not the station, it's the Soyuz capsule you use to get there, or leave in a hurry (if necessary).
DHCP (and bootp and RARP before it) served primarily the purpose of letting an otherwise unconfigured node discover which IPv4 address it should use. Along with that, DHCP could deliver more information important to the node as well - default router, DNS information and so on.
With IPv6, the basic networking information is automatically configured when a node connects to the network. DHCP's purpose in such environments is to allow unconfigured nodes, once they've configured IPv6, to discover things like DNS servers and the like.
Personally, I thought a better idea for DNS would be anycasting - a designated site-local address could be set aside for DNS servers. With such a setup, your average *nix box could operate without a resolv.conf (or equiv) file at all. And, of course, once you have DNS set up, you could use CNAME or SRV records for just about anything else. But RFC 3879 has deprecated them, so none of that.
This assumption may be valid, but then again, it may not.
And I just took an LSAT sample exam, so there. :)
Good, that works for us too. BTW, I hope you enjoy those 61% tax brackets.
How about a replacement for Microsoft Office. Oh wait. That's $20 less than $100.
This is largely explained by the public attitude of both sides. To wit:
The soviets launched in secret. When they had a success, they shouted it from the rooftops. When they had a failure, they brushed it under the carpet. If Yuri Gagarin had died in his attempt to be the first man in space, I suspect they would have simply not told anybody and tried again the next week. Heck, by FAI rules at the time, his flight shouldn't have counted, since he parachuted away from the spacecraft during reentry rather than land inside it. The soviets didn't actually land inside their spacecraft until Voskhod 1, in October of 1964, by which time NASA's Mercury project had been over for more than a year. They got away with it because.... wait for it.... nobody was watching.
By contrast, NASA performed all of their activities totally in the public eye. As such, every failure was a public embarrassment and the loss of an Astronaut would have been totally unacceptable. The Apollo 1 fire kept NASA out of orbit for a year and a half while they investigated the cause(s) and fixed a bunch of problems.
I have perfect pitch, but in my case I think it's in the form of a virtual 880Hz tuning fork in my brain. I can't just instantly say, "oh, that's C#". I would have to internally recognize that it's a major third higher than A and then say that it's C#. Since I'm not in the music business, I don't get regular practice, so I may be off a bit sometimes, but I do believe I'm right more often than not.
I think it's an ability that can be practiced and obtained - not something inborn. Just try and recognize tonal sounds around you. For example, most domestic car horns are an F and an A. The Italian sports cars that sound more "sportier" are usually an A and a C#. Train horns are harder because they're usually 5 note diminished chords.