First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Some people do, others don't. You raise the chance that somebody will return fire.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice.
I would go even further and claim that "proper training and practice" should be a condition of getting and retaining a firearm permit.
Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Not everybody has to, just enough people.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
There's another alternative: people returning fire.
Scenario #1: The gunman does not want to get hit, takes cover. Result: fewer victims. Scenario #2: The gunman does not take cover, gets hit by a bullet. Result: fewer victims.
Yes, there's scenario #3 (people shoot randomly and hit each other) but the chance of it happening is greatly reduced by making mandatory yearly (at least) training a condition of getting and retaining a firearm license.
When I lived in a certain non-North-American country, I used to own a 9mm handgun. Had to go to the range every year and prove to the instructor on duty that I knew how to handle it, or my permit would be revoked. Mandatory conscription helped some as well.
What is sexist is not one of the people here thought the coder might have been bragging. Not one person even thought the coder could be a woman. It was just instantly a guy being sexist.
I am yet to see a female kernel developer bragging about the size of her breasts, not to mention slipping such references into code.
I believe that you are referring to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.
However, the language is quite explicit: "for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence [...]". Which is contrary you your original assertion.
(right after a court case where a pedo who never intended to meet his victim got off)
I apologize for getting this discussion off the original topic, but your statement is, for a lack of better word, interesting.
Firstly, if the person "never intended to meet [the child]", and presumably didn't, why would you call the child "his victim"?
Secondly, you seem to be conflating two different concepts. To wit: A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. A child molester is a person who physically abuses children (sexually or otherwise).
To illustrate the difference, ask yourself two simple yes/no questions: Q1. Are you sexually attracted to beautiful women? Q2. Are you a rapist, a potential rapist or an equivalent thereof?
If you answered "yes" to the first question but "no" to the other, please consider your reasons and try to apply them to other, similar, situations.
As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.
I'll explain.
Are there bad/corrupt cops? Yes. However, I can say the vast vast majority are out there trying to do a good job and follow the law.
Are those "vast vast majority" doing all in their power to rid the force of the bad/corrupt cops? Or do they prefer to turn the blind eye? Are you holding your peers, underlings *and* superiors to a higher standard than the general population? Would you arrest a fellow cop if they "stretched" the law? Would you write a ticket to a fellow cop if they speeded or did a "rolling stop"? Have you?
I went to college and majored in computer science, grew up reading slashdot etc etc. I'm a lot like everyone else here except when I go to work I wear a uniform with a badge and gun.
And that is exactly the difference. You have power to inflict violence, but no accountability to speak of. If you abuse your power, it will be swept under the rug. If it cannot be immediately swept under the rug, you will get a long paid vacation while the issue is "investigated", for long enough time for people to forget about it. If, in the rare case that something has to be done, it will be dealt with "administratively".
A false arrest is no different from kidnapping. Actually, it's worse, because the state issued you those uniform, badge and gun. How many times cops that falsely arrest someone are brought on kidnapping charges?
Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective.
And now, I will give you mine.
When (not if) you will abuse your powers, the system will rally behind you. Your fellow cops will give false testimony on your behalf The DA will not press charges "for lack of public interest" Etc., etc., etc.
And you will realize that you can do that, and you will do it again. With the best of intentions, of course, and only to people who are really despicable and totally deserve it. And then to people who are not that despicable...
Not really, it might just encourage the Americans to do better. They out-Sovieted the Soviets, perhaps it's time they try to out-Europe the Europeans instead.
Hmmm... Let's check your blog i’m a first-year law student
You could have mentioned this little tidbit of information but evidently decided not to. There may be noble lawyers out there (the EFF perhaps) but I would not hasten to include you in that group.
no one likes lawyers until they realize they are at a point in their lives where they need one.
That's te first reason that no one likes lawyers: the legal system is set up so that you need to retain a lawyer, and they are not cheap (Wikipedia: Surveys suggest that fees range from $150 to $1000 per hour when billed hourly). Apparently, justice is not an affordable commodity: it is often cheaper to cave in than to fight, not just in civil cases (settling) but in criminal ones as well (plea bargains). Public defenders are so overworked and underfunded that they cannot realistically do their job and since a consequence of the adversary system is that the side with the better lawyers often wins regardless of merits, lawyers are seen as either thugs or extortionists, depending on the side they are on.
And who do you think perpetuates such a system? Lawyers.
the role of the lawyer overall is to represent their client, zealously and loyally. that's likely the primary reason that the general public dislikes them: they take on the undesirable role of being an advocate for another, and this almost always means that the lawyer will be an adversary to whoever is in opposition to their client.
No, the primary reason that the general public dislikes them is, like I wrote above, the better (read: more expensive) lawyer will likely win regardless of merits in a large percentage of cases. The general public wants justice, not a game inherently biased in favour of those who learned to game the system or can afford to pay somebody to do that for them.
but here's the thing: at one point or another, every single person will find themselves in need of an advocate to protect and ensure his or her legal rights. that remains true whether the client is a hardworking laborer or even one of the vaunted rich CEOs. in the actual world, the system can be lopsided, with wealthy persons being able to afford high-powered lawyers.
Replace "can be" with "is extremely".
In a perfect world, *every* lawyer that practices privately would be required to serve as public defenders similarly to the jury duty of regular citizens (and for similar compensation). A lawyer that tried to avoid that duty or did not perform it *exclusively* and to the best of their abilities would be disbarred on the spot.
Some countries have socialized medicine and yet not a single one seems to have socialized justice. I wonder why.
nevertheless, there ARE lawyers willing to try to ensure that disparity is mitigated, if not eliminated.
[citation desperately needed]
Out of the 760,000 or so practicing lawyers in the US, how many are such valiant defenders of the poor as you paint them to be? (I assume you have data to back up your numbers).
the parent post tries to paint all lawyers as people who have chosen to do evil.
No, they just chose to perpetuate an evil system, and profit handsomely while they're at it.
if anything, the majority of lawyers are in the very business of making the world a better place, by defending the common person or the outcast
Wow, you make lawyers look almost as beneficial to society as payday lenders.
Copyright law does not accomplish its ostensible purpose. Far from ensuring a reward for creation, it ensures that a small group of very rich people stay very rich while the rest of us suffer culturally harmful limitations on artistic expression, appreciation, and participation.
So it *does* accomplish its purpose.
This is a perfect example of a law that should be purged.
The people in position to purge such laws are the ones benefiting from them, either directly or indirectly (bribes).
If the powers that serve us are reluctant to purge it, then they must be forced to do so.
Of course I could just transcode and avoid the whole VLC / hardware compatibility list whatever.
You could, but why make all that extra work for yourself?
Not to mention that, if it includes any sort of DRM, no matter how trivial, "breaking" is it is now illegal in Canada (thanks to our Beloved Conservative Overlords).
Some handicapped people don't have a "person pushing the wheelchair". They walk. Slowly, sometimes painfully, dragging their feet while leaning on their crutches. And yes, they can (and do) drive specially modified vehicles.
Simple solution has already be proposed. Queue trade requests in such a way that a random delay is inserted. The delay will be negligible and go unnoticed for humans but it would definitely screw up milliseconds traders.
There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. -- Henry Louis Mencken, "The Divine Afflatus"
The issue here is not technical but rather political: the people in the position to do something about the problem are those who benefit from it (either directly or indirectly).
HFT, insane "Intellectual Property" laws, Hollywood accounting -- they all benefit "those that matter" (or those that benefit those that matter). They will never be fixed because, in the eyes of those that could fix them, they are not broken.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Some people do, others don't. You raise the chance that somebody will return fire.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice.
I would go even further and claim that "proper training and practice" should be a condition of getting and retaining a firearm permit.
Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Not everybody has to, just enough people.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
See point #2 above.
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
There's another alternative: people returning fire.
Scenario #1: The gunman does not want to get hit, takes cover. Result: fewer victims.
Scenario #2: The gunman does not take cover, gets hit by a bullet. Result: fewer victims.
Yes, there's scenario #3 (people shoot randomly and hit each other) but the chance of it happening is greatly reduced by making mandatory yearly (at least) training a condition of getting and retaining a firearm license.
When I lived in a certain non-North-American country, I used to own a 9mm handgun. Had to go to the range every year and prove to the instructor on duty that I knew how to handle it, or my permit would be revoked. Mandatory conscription helped some as well.
If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot people. It's really not rocket science, what part of it is hard to understand?
How exactly do you intent to prevent criminals from getting guns?
The same way you prevent people from getting illegal drugs? How well does it work?
Humor is a protection and coping mechanism.
surveys have been constantly reporting that the ideal breast size is 'C' in terms of aesthetic appeal.
Eat that, Java advocates!
What is sexist is not one of the people here thought the coder might have been bragging. Not one person even thought the coder could be a woman. It was just instantly a guy being sexist.
I am yet to see a female kernel developer bragging about the size of her breasts, not to mention slipping such references into code.
I had originally put quotes around "Victim", but thought it saver to just call her a victim.
Then I have misunderstood you.
I still believe my point is valid though.
I simply used that language, because that is what the law believes.
Apparently not, since he "got off".
They are called Grooming Laws
I believe that you are referring to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.
However, the language is quite explicit: "for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence [...]".
Which is contrary you your original assertion.
(right after a court case where a pedo who never intended to meet his victim got off)
I apologize for getting this discussion off the original topic, but your statement is, for a lack of better word, interesting.
Firstly, if the person "never intended to meet [the child]", and presumably didn't, why would you call the child "his victim"?
Secondly, you seem to be conflating two different concepts. To wit:
A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
A child molester is a person who physically abuses children (sexually or otherwise).
To illustrate the difference, ask yourself two simple yes/no questions:
Q1. Are you sexually attracted to beautiful women?
Q2. Are you a rapist, a potential rapist or an equivalent thereof?
If you answered "yes" to the first question but "no" to the other, please consider your reasons and try to apply them to other, similar, situations.
Copyright is intended to help content creators profit from their work so they can make a living and create more content.
You've got that backwards.
Copyright is designed to encourage creators to create more content by enabling them to make a living from creating content if they're good at it.
Being able to live off selling media is the side-effect not the goal.
This point must be made over and over again.
Please mode AC parent up to increase visisbility.
Political contributions are not all bad. The need of politicians to raise money does force them to be somewhat responsive to the public.
But only to the part of the public willing to pay (bribe) them.
Please cite the criminal law section that says that.
When will they repeal the "circumvention" part of C-11?
As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.
I'll explain.
Are there bad/corrupt cops? Yes. However, I can say the vast vast majority are out there trying to do a good job and follow the law.
Are those "vast vast majority" doing all in their power to rid the force of the bad/corrupt cops? Or do they prefer to turn the blind eye?
Are you holding your peers, underlings *and* superiors to a higher standard than the general population?
Would you arrest a fellow cop if they "stretched" the law? Would you write a ticket to a fellow cop if they speeded or did a "rolling stop"? Have you?
I went to college and majored in computer science, grew up reading slashdot etc etc. I'm a lot like everyone else here except when I go to work I wear a uniform with a badge and gun.
And that is exactly the difference.
You have power to inflict violence, but no accountability to speak of.
If you abuse your power, it will be swept under the rug.
If it cannot be immediately swept under the rug, you will get a long paid vacation while the issue is "investigated", for long enough time for people to forget about it.
If, in the rare case that something has to be done, it will be dealt with "administratively".
A false arrest is no different from kidnapping. Actually, it's worse, because the state issued you those uniform, badge and gun.
How many times cops that falsely arrest someone are brought on kidnapping charges?
Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective.
And now, I will give you mine.
When (not if) you will abuse your powers, the system will rally behind you.
Your fellow cops will give false testimony on your behalf
The DA will not press charges "for lack of public interest"
Etc., etc., etc.
And you will realize that you can do that, and you will do it again.
With the best of intentions, of course, and only to people who are really despicable and totally deserve it.
And then to people who are not that despicable...
That's why I do not trust you.
If you ran the country, you'd be as corrupt as the rest of them.
Very sad july 4th for the USA
Not really, it might just encourage the Americans to do better.
They out-Sovieted the Soviets, perhaps it's time they try to out-Europe the Europeans instead.
10:56 Higgs says: "I'm glad it happened in my lifetime".
10:57 Boson says: "Me too".
being a lawyer is a noble profession.
Spoken like a true lawyer.
Hmmm... Let's check your blog
i’m a first-year law student
You could have mentioned this little tidbit of information but evidently decided not to. There may be noble lawyers out there (the EFF perhaps) but I would not hasten to include you in that group.
no one likes lawyers until they realize they are at a point in their lives where they need one.
That's te first reason that no one likes lawyers: the legal system is set up so that you need to retain a lawyer, and they are not cheap (Wikipedia: Surveys suggest that fees range from $150 to $1000 per hour when billed hourly). Apparently, justice is not an affordable commodity: it is often cheaper to cave in than to fight, not just in civil cases (settling) but in criminal ones as well (plea bargains). Public defenders are so overworked and underfunded that they cannot realistically do their job and since a consequence of the adversary system is that the side with the better lawyers often wins regardless of merits, lawyers are seen as either thugs or extortionists, depending on the side they are on.
And who do you think perpetuates such a system? Lawyers.
the role of the lawyer overall is to represent their client, zealously and loyally. that's likely the primary reason that the general public dislikes them: they take on the undesirable role of being an advocate for another, and this almost always means that the lawyer will be an adversary to whoever is in opposition to their client.
No, the primary reason that the general public dislikes them is, like I wrote above, the better (read: more expensive) lawyer will likely win regardless of merits in a large percentage of cases. The general public wants justice , not a game inherently biased in favour of those who learned to game the system or can afford to pay somebody to do that for them.
but here's the thing: at one point or another, every single person will find themselves in need of an advocate to protect and ensure his or her legal rights. that remains true whether the client is a hardworking laborer or even one of the vaunted rich CEOs. in the actual world, the system can be lopsided, with wealthy persons being able to afford high-powered lawyers.
Replace "can be" with "is extremely".
In a perfect world, *every* lawyer that practices privately would be required to serve as public defenders similarly to the jury duty of regular citizens (and for similar compensation). A lawyer that tried to avoid that duty or did not perform it *exclusively* and to the best of their abilities would be disbarred on the spot.
Some countries have socialized medicine and yet not a single one seems to have socialized justice. I wonder why.
nevertheless, there ARE lawyers willing to try to ensure that disparity is mitigated, if not eliminated.
[citation desperately needed]
Out of the 760,000 or so practicing lawyers in the US, how many are such valiant defenders of the poor as you paint them to be? (I assume you have data to back up your numbers).
the parent post tries to paint all lawyers as people who have chosen to do evil.
No, they just chose to perpetuate an evil system, and profit handsomely while they're at it.
if anything, the majority of lawyers are in the very business of making the world a better place, by defending the common person or the outcast
Wow, you make lawyers look almost as beneficial to society as payday lenders.
when no one else will.
Because you monopolistic fucks
Copyright law does not accomplish its ostensible purpose. Far from ensuring a reward for creation, it ensures that a small group of very rich people stay very rich while the rest of us suffer culturally harmful limitations on artistic expression, appreciation, and participation.
So it *does* accomplish its purpose.
This is a perfect example of a law that should be purged.
The people in position to purge such laws are the ones benefiting from them, either directly or indirectly (bribes).
If the powers that serve us are reluctant to purge it, then they must be forced to do so.
By whom?
Of course I could just transcode and avoid the whole VLC / hardware compatibility list whatever.
You could, but why make all that extra work for yourself?
Not to mention that, if it includes any sort of DRM, no matter how trivial, "breaking" is it is now illegal in Canada (thanks to our Beloved Conservative Overlords).
If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.
Probably because murder is considered a crime in both countries.
Wow, this post went from "+4 Insightful" to "0 Troll" in the time it took me to get a glass of milk -- WTFLOL?!
Behold the the power of milk!
Some handicapped people don't have a "person pushing the wheelchair".
They walk. Slowly, sometimes painfully, dragging their feet while leaning on their crutches.
And yes, they can (and do) drive specially modified vehicles.
Simple solution has already be proposed. Queue trade requests in such a way that a random delay is inserted. The delay will be negligible and go unnoticed for humans but it would definitely screw up milliseconds traders.
There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
-- Henry Louis Mencken, "The Divine Afflatus"
The issue here is not technical but rather political: the people in the position to do something about the problem are those who benefit from it (either directly or indirectly).
HFT, insane "Intellectual Property" laws, Hollywood accounting -- they all benefit "those that matter" (or those that benefit those that matter).
They will never be fixed because, in the eyes of those that could fix them, they are not broken.
Try kijiji
Add this one to the pool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtPGIzLuBVQ