I hate to break this to you, but angry mobs aren't just going to forget what caused them to air their grievances after being dispersed. In fact, denying them the ability to do so usually means the next step is violent civil resistance.
This being a non-lethal weapon is precisely why it's worse than a lethal one, at least in the long term. If the army opens fire on a bunch of protestors and blows away 2 or 3 dozen, there are usually consequences from either their superiors (trial/imprisonment) or the protestors (further resistance).
The power to simply inflict torture-level pain on people who have no broken any law without oversight or evidence is one of the most horrifying things I can thing of.
Sabotage can help to empower the people and take away the brunt of opression (eg: liberation of the bastille and the boston tea party), but in most cases is merely the start of a revolution.
I can't recall an example where a corrupt government has stepped down even in the face of massive civil unrest and rebellion. Is isn't until the architects are in direct mortal danger (the french king and queen were executed before they abdicate and Cornwallis only surrendered when his army was surrounded and had no other choice but to be destroyed) that Changes will happen.
Hey, I don't agree with it. I was just pointing it out.
As you've demonstrated, the effect of intent on being charged with a crime varies depending on the crime. Specifically, how much "they" dislike the crime.
They'll just pass laws prohibiting US-based credit card companies from dealing with those places. If they can't have the tax, they'll make sure you can't still enjoy the game.
Why do governments tax anything in the first place?
The same reason a dogs licks their balls. Because they can.
As to your comment about the guns, taxes usually increase in a fairly consistent matter through a nation's history up until enough people with guns have had enough.
Well, it still was your intent in that case (apparently), and you'll be in trouble if they can prove it because you'll be guilty of purjury in addition. But yeah, I may have used a bad example with attempted murder.
What's with both the article and summary playing to the channel 5 action stopper team "Why?!?!?" question?
Duh, that's the point of blackmail. You don't show your hand until you have something that will discourage the victim from turning you into the police. Obviously, the guy could've released the method to the public and caused Google more than letting him go.
The system was designed to require both intent and action necessary to commit a crime, though now just intent can be a crime (attempted murder) or just action (tons of things).
Ideally, no, that act would not fall under copyright infringement by itself without intent.
Am I the only one that thought that trapping your hand inside the top of the door (the first to be eaten into the ceiling) and pulling the MANUAL RELEASE LEVER is an extraordinarily bad idea?
Does anyoe else question the validity of a study that dumbs down it's arguements to a lettered scale, using novelty instead of oh, I dunno, facts, to get their point across.
They would've done better to say "Ladies and Gentlemen, our Video Game Alert Scale has now been raised to burnt sienna..."
Slashdot Mirror
How about not doing whatever it is that's causing widespread unrest?
I hate to break this to you, but angry mobs aren't just going to forget what caused them to air their grievances after being dispersed. In fact, denying them the ability to do so usually means the next step is violent civil resistance.
Even if you can reflect the rays from your body perfectly, won't it make it that much more potent against those that are unshielded?
Now, reflecting the rays back towards the soldiers with shields would be pretty damn clever.
This being a non-lethal weapon is precisely why it's worse than a lethal one, at least in the long term. If the army opens fire on a bunch of protestors and blows away 2 or 3 dozen, there are usually consequences from either their superiors (trial/imprisonment) or the protestors (further resistance).
The power to simply inflict torture-level pain on people who have no broken any law without oversight or evidence is one of the most horrifying things I can thing of.
And exactly what kind of ads would be thematic in WoW? A blacksmithing company?
Just wait until someone comes out with a WoW adblock extension.
Now, we don't have to worry about the tubes getting clogged. Because there is a backup now. 2 means two tubes, right?
I wouldn't, but is there an applicable part of the law that says they can't?
Isn't the whole notion of trademark law based on "finders keepers?" Why not the same with registering domain names?
Sabotage can help to empower the people and take away the brunt of opression (eg: liberation of the bastille and the boston tea party), but in most cases is merely the start of a revolution.
I can't recall an example where a corrupt government has stepped down even in the face of massive civil unrest and rebellion. Is isn't until the architects are in direct mortal danger (the french king and queen were executed before they abdicate and Cornwallis only surrendered when his army was surrounded and had no other choice but to be destroyed) that Changes will happen.
The English, French, and American Revolutions were all instigated partly by new or opressive taxes
Hey, I don't agree with it. I was just pointing it out.
As you've demonstrated, the effect of intent on being charged with a crime varies depending on the crime. Specifically, how much "they" dislike the crime.
They'll just pass laws prohibiting US-based credit card companies from dealing with those places. If they can't have the tax, they'll make sure you can't still enjoy the game.
Why do governments tax anything in the first place?
The same reason a dogs licks their balls. Because they can.
As to your comment about the guns, taxes usually increase in a fairly consistent matter through a nation's history up until enough people with guns have had enough.
Well, it still was your intent in that case (apparently), and you'll be in trouble if they can prove it because you'll be guilty of purjury in addition. But yeah, I may have used a bad example with attempted murder.
What's with both the article and summary playing to the channel 5 action stopper team "Why?!?!?" question?
Duh, that's the point of blackmail. You don't show your hand until you have something that will discourage the victim from turning you into the police. Obviously, the guy could've released the method to the public and caused Google more than letting him go.
BC: We're rolling out with some content DRM'd, using Windows DRM
Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.
The system was designed to require both intent and action necessary to commit a crime, though now just intent can be a crime (attempted murder) or just action (tons of things).
Ideally, no, that act would not fall under copyright infringement by itself without intent.
Am I the only one that thought that trapping your hand inside the top of the door (the first to be eaten into the ceiling) and pulling the MANUAL RELEASE LEVER is an extraordinarily bad idea?
his life got turned upside down
Yes, but was it "flipped" as well?
Perhaps, while we sit here, he would like to take a minute and tell us.
In the UK, they already have your DNA if you've ever been arrested for anything of late (even if the charges were dropped).
Does anyoe else question the validity of a study that dumbs down it's arguements to a lettered scale, using novelty instead of oh, I dunno, facts, to get their point across.
They would've done better to say "Ladies and Gentlemen, our Video Game Alert Scale has now been raised to burnt sienna..."
Love is an emotion too.
I think because civil courts deal with "liability" not "responsibility" (that's criminal).
Regardless of you being in the right, you still owe the other party for court/other costs. See also: OJ
We need to rethink this idea that humans have evolved to be ABLE to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day, 200 days a year and function. They didn't.
More basic than that -- they can't. Evolution usually takes, oh, several million years?