Just out of curiousity, did anyone else happen to read this at the end of TFA:
If you have any concerns about violent extremist activity within your community, please contact your local Neighbourhood Policing Team or call the confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321.
...and get a bit creeped out? Watch your neighbors, citizen. You never know which of them might be potential terrorists!
His crime was possession of the information which is illegal in the UK so there was a "physical crime".
True enough. I think most of us Yanks here on/. are arguing more to the point that this alone shouldn't be a crime*. That's my point anyway, but hey, it's not our country <shrug>
*Yes, you mentioned the kiddie porn example, which is also illegal in the U.S. IMHO, that's a flawed analogy. Who was harmed in the making of a bomb recipe? No one. You have to actually build and detonate the bomb before anyone is harmed. With kiddie porn, the argument goes (and I happen to agree), that the children are harmed in the making of the "information" and therefore, by acquiring the "information" you are feeding the demand for such materials, leading to more harm being done to minors. It's a somewhat subtle distinction, I'll admit, and not everyone may agree with my point of view. I'm okay with that. Others are allowed to be wrong;)
I've spent the last couple of days browsing the Internet for Hogue grips and an extra magazine for my.380 pistol. Early last year, I was browsing the Internet for a Ruger Redhawk and later, for a Ruger Blackhawk. Both of these hand guns are "dangerous weapons." Does that make me a "potential terrorist?"
The correct answer is "No." I was shopping for items legally allowed by the 2nd Amendment, and I have no -- that's ZERO -- intention of using those items to harm anyone. Last year, I was looking for a.44 Magnum because I just moved to a new house in a sparsely populated area with a number of bears wandering around. I'd rather neither me, my 10 y.o. daughter or my two dogs not become an ursine snack, so I wanted something a little less cumbersome than my shotgun to carry when working in my yard. For the.380, despite the relatively low power of the gun, it's more brutal to shoot than my Blackhawk because it's so small and so light. However, I enjoy taking it to the local shooting range, so I was looking for some nicer grips for it.
Consider this: As I've already stated, I enjoy target shooting. I also enjoy model rocketry and radio control aircraft. Should I be considered a potential terrorist because I've looked up information related to firearms, creating propellants out of sugar and potassium nitrate, and building amateur drones complete with GPS guidance and cameras? With that combined knowledge, I could perhaps build an amateur V2 missile, and the fact that a cop could potentially come to that same conclusion based on my recent Internet activity -- even though I have absolutely no intention of doing any such thing, just to be clear -- quite honestly scares the crap out of me.
If he's actually acquired the materials, constructed the bomb and is now walking down the street expressing his desire to use it, that's one thing. However, if all he's done is look at how to construct one on the Internet, then locking him up is a travesty of justice, IMHO.
Guess what? EVERYBODY is a potential terrorist. You may not -- in fact, I sincerely hope you do not -- have any desire to commit an act of terrorism, but unless you are in a coma, you have the ability to commit acts of terrorism. Should we lock everyone up, then?
Like a lot of people, you apparently tend to think in binary: "It either is or is not. There is no in between." Unfortunately, the real world is continuous, not discrete, and both the U.K. and the U.S. are well on their way towards being police states. Neither country may be as bad as WWII Germany or Stalin's U.S.S.R., but that does not in any way mean that we are not trending in that direction.
Wrong. It's smarter to watch him, and maybe nab a few other bad guys as well when/IF he actually tries to do something. In the meantime, you're on to him.
A TRS-80 Model III was my second computer (followed by a C-64):) IIRC, there was the basic manual for the TRS-80, and then a two volume advanced manual. I spent a lot of time in those, as well. You are correct; they were quite good, too.
Also, there is some speculation that some aftermarket parts screw up other parts. As an example, I have used K&N air filters on the two Eagle Talons I used to own. I noticed that in both Talons, I had to replace the mass airflow sensor shortly after installing the air filters. A Google search suggested that the oil on the K&&N filters was possibly leaking through the filter and coating the wire on the MAF sensor, causing it to fail. Sounds plausible, I guess, but I don't know the K&N was really the culprit on my cars.
<shrug>
It's Apple vs. PC. Is it better to own the ecosystem, and guarantee that your products work well together, or better to allow customers to add the components they want at the risk of a potentially less stable product? You can make an argument either way.
This may not be exactly what you are asking about, but as I understand, every make and model of car currently sold in the U.S. must come with a mandatory 7-year warranty on the catalytic converter for emissions purposes. It is illegal to remove the factory catalytic converter and install any aftermarket catalytic converter unless the converter has failed (in which case, it is eligible to be replaced under warranty).
Many hot-rodders attempt to get around this restriction by sticking a screwdriver through the converter and claim it was "damaged" during normal use so they can install a less restrictive aftermarket unit before the warranty period has expired.
Likewise. I was just slightly younger than you (6th grade) when my dad bought a ZX-81 kit. That computer was my introduction to programming and computing. I definitely second your review of the manual. I used to pore over it for hours trying to learn what all of the functions did, and how to use them. In particular, I remember the sample programs they included in the manual for drawing sine curves and asymptotes. I remember taking pre-algebra in 7th grade and the light bulb clicked in my head. "Oh...so that's how they generated those graphs!" and I've loved math ever since.
I still have that computer, after finding it my parents garage after my dad passed away a few years ago...
We're talking about a hypothetical future which doesn't even exist yet, and you are telling us flat out that it won't happen? Must be some crystal ball you've got there...
To apply a little more substance to my argument, can you say "Global Hawk" or "Predator"? Twenty or thirty years ago, no one would have expected unmanned aircraft to be in the airspace either, but here they are.
You are assuming that all a cop wants to do is issue a citation. Here are some more plausible possibilities, just off the top of my head:
1) There's an emergency up ahead, and police need to stop all the vehicles headed in that direction to prevent the emergency from escalating.
2) The vehicle is driverless, but not necessarily riderless -- i.e., the police need to rescue a kidnapping victim, or apprehend a wanted felon/terrorist (hey, it's the current buzzword), or search for narcotics, or...
3) You gave other reasons yourself (namely, inspecting it for malfunction/damage or impounding it). In those cases, a citation may not be necessary, but it might be necessary to remove it from the road because it presents a hazard to others.
4) What if it's not properly tagged?
Keep in mind, if the vehicle is autonomous, it probably won't be speeding, it probably won't run red lights or stop signs, it probably won't be driving recklessly (unless it has faulty sensors). Unlike with human-piloted automobiles, I think issuing citations for anything other than expired tags would be rather unlikely.
...like whether the police should have the right to pull over autonomous vehicles...
How, exactly, would the police pull over an autonomous vehicle if there was no way to remotely access it? Therefore, hedwards was correct: there will be a way to crack the security and force the car to pull over, thus rendering autonomous vehicles vulnerable to the highwaymen. Hmmm...sounds like it could be the plot to a cool sci-fi story...
Ummm...no, not exactly, at least not yet. The FAA allows the "amateur" use of drones, provided they are flown at no more than 400 feet above the ground (AGL), and if they are not used for any type of commercial activity. They are supposed to finalize rules for commercial use of drones in the National Airspace System some time this year, although I've heard rumors that the rules may be delayed a bit.
What TSA is doing in the airports gives the illusion that the government is "doing something". Meanwhile, we are still as vulnerable as we were before for the very reason you mention. All you've done with the security checkpoints is move the weakest link in the security chain to a different location. You've arguably (*VERY* arguably) made the airliners themselves safer, but the people traveling on them are every bit as exposed as they were before, because there is still a point on the journey where a person with ill intent can attack them with a minimal chance of detection beforehand. Meanwhile, we are being fondled and ripped off by thugs with badges before we can get to the gate...sigh.
How is one related to another? Integrity. If you are willing to violate one law (requiring a warrant), then it is reasonable to suspect they might violate another (falsifying evidence). If you aren't willing to play by the rules, you can't be trusted and therefore your evidence is suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
His crime was possession of the information which is illegal in the UK so there was a "physical crime".
True enough. I think most of us Yanks here on /. are arguing more to the point that this alone shouldn't be a crime*. That's my point anyway, but hey, it's not our country <shrug>
;)
*Yes, you mentioned the kiddie porn example, which is also illegal in the U.S. IMHO, that's a flawed analogy. Who was harmed in the making of a bomb recipe? No one. You have to actually build and detonate the bomb before anyone is harmed. With kiddie porn, the argument goes (and I happen to agree), that the children are harmed in the making of the "information" and therefore, by acquiring the "information" you are feeding the demand for such materials, leading to more harm being done to minors. It's a somewhat subtle distinction, I'll admit, and not everyone may agree with my point of view. I'm okay with that. Others are allowed to be wrong
I've spent the last couple of days browsing the Internet for Hogue grips and an extra magazine for my .380 pistol. Early last year, I was browsing the Internet for a Ruger Redhawk and later, for a Ruger Blackhawk. Both of these hand guns are "dangerous weapons." Does that make me a "potential terrorist?"
.44 Magnum because I just moved to a new house in a sparsely populated area with a number of bears wandering around. I'd rather neither me, my 10 y.o. daughter or my two dogs not become an ursine snack, so I wanted something a little less cumbersome than my shotgun to carry when working in my yard. For the .380, despite the relatively low power of the gun, it's more brutal to shoot than my Blackhawk because it's so small and so light. However, I enjoy taking it to the local shooting range, so I was looking for some nicer grips for it.
The correct answer is "No." I was shopping for items legally allowed by the 2nd Amendment, and I have no -- that's ZERO -- intention of using those items to harm anyone. Last year, I was looking for a
Consider this: As I've already stated, I enjoy target shooting. I also enjoy model rocketry and radio control aircraft. Should I be considered a potential terrorist because I've looked up information related to firearms, creating propellants out of sugar and potassium nitrate, and building amateur drones complete with GPS guidance and cameras? With that combined knowledge, I could perhaps build an amateur V2 missile, and the fact that a cop could potentially come to that same conclusion based on my recent Internet activity -- even though I have absolutely no intention of doing any such thing, just to be clear -- quite honestly scares the crap out of me.
Exactly.
If he's actually acquired the materials, constructed the bomb and is now walking down the street expressing his desire to use it, that's one thing. However, if all he's done is look at how to construct one on the Internet, then locking him up is a travesty of justice, IMHO.
Guess what? EVERYBODY is a potential terrorist. You may not -- in fact, I sincerely hope you do not -- have any desire to commit an act of terrorism, but unless you are in a coma, you have the ability to commit acts of terrorism. Should we lock everyone up, then?
Like a lot of people, you apparently tend to think in binary: "It either is or is not. There is no in between." Unfortunately, the real world is continuous, not discrete, and both the U.K. and the U.S. are well on their way towards being police states. Neither country may be as bad as WWII Germany or Stalin's U.S.S.R., but that does not in any way mean that we are not trending in that direction.
Wrong. It's smarter to watch him, and maybe nab a few other bad guys as well when/ IF he actually tries to do something. In the meantime, you're on to him.
Good times :)
A TRS-80 Model III was my second computer (followed by a C-64) :) IIRC, there was the basic manual for the TRS-80, and then a two volume advanced manual. I spent a lot of time in those, as well. You are correct; they were quite good, too.
Also, there is some speculation that some aftermarket parts screw up other parts. As an example, I have used K&N air filters on the two Eagle Talons I used to own. I noticed that in both Talons, I had to replace the mass airflow sensor shortly after installing the air filters. A Google search suggested that the oil on the K&&N filters was possibly leaking through the filter and coating the wire on the MAF sensor, causing it to fail. Sounds plausible, I guess, but I don't know the K&N was really the culprit on my cars.
<shrug>
It's Apple vs. PC. Is it better to own the ecosystem, and guarantee that your products work well together, or better to allow customers to add the components they want at the risk of a potentially less stable product? You can make an argument either way.
Good point. I was assuming unmodified, autonomous vehicles without human operators and that's not necessarily a safe assumption.
This may not be exactly what you are asking about, but as I understand, every make and model of car currently sold in the U.S. must come with a mandatory 7-year warranty on the catalytic converter for emissions purposes. It is illegal to remove the factory catalytic converter and install any aftermarket catalytic converter unless the converter has failed (in which case, it is eligible to be replaced under warranty).
Many hot-rodders attempt to get around this restriction by sticking a screwdriver through the converter and claim it was "damaged" during normal use so they can install a less restrictive aftermarket unit before the warranty period has expired.
Be that as it may, it was many peoples' introduction to computers, including me. You never forget your first... ;)
Likewise. I was just slightly younger than you (6th grade) when my dad bought a ZX-81 kit. That computer was my introduction to programming and computing. I definitely second your review of the manual. I used to pore over it for hours trying to learn what all of the functions did, and how to use them. In particular, I remember the sample programs they included in the manual for drawing sine curves and asymptotes. I remember taking pre-algebra in 7th grade and the light bulb clicked in my head. "Oh...so that's how they generated those graphs!" and I've loved math ever since.
I still have that computer, after finding it my parents garage after my dad passed away a few years ago...
Dangit...there was supposed to be an "imagine" in there somewhere ;)
IF there is a driver. I can shipping companies, for example, being all over autonomous, driverless vehicles.
We're talking about a hypothetical future which doesn't even exist yet, and you are telling us flat out that it won't happen? Must be some crystal ball you've got there...
To apply a little more substance to my argument, can you say "Global Hawk" or "Predator"? Twenty or thirty years ago, no one would have expected unmanned aircraft to be in the airspace either, but here they are.
Cargo vans?
Woohoo! BSOD at highway speeds. That'll be great.
And what would be the point of pulling it over?
You are assuming that all a cop wants to do is issue a citation. Here are some more plausible possibilities, just off the top of my head:
1) There's an emergency up ahead, and police need to stop all the vehicles headed in that direction to prevent the emergency from escalating.
2) The vehicle is driverless, but not necessarily riderless -- i.e., the police need to rescue a kidnapping victim, or apprehend a wanted felon/terrorist (hey, it's the current buzzword), or search for narcotics, or...
3) You gave other reasons yourself (namely, inspecting it for malfunction/damage or impounding it). In those cases, a citation may not be necessary, but it might be necessary to remove it from the road because it presents a hazard to others.
4) What if it's not properly tagged?
Keep in mind, if the vehicle is autonomous, it probably won't be speeding, it probably won't run red lights or stop signs, it probably won't be driving recklessly (unless it has faulty sensors). Unlike with human-piloted automobiles, I think issuing citations for anything other than expired tags would be rather unlikely.
How, exactly, would the police pull over an autonomous vehicle if there was no way to remotely access it? Therefore, hedwards was correct: there will be a way to crack the security and force the car to pull over, thus rendering autonomous vehicles vulnerable to the highwaymen. Hmmm...sounds like it could be the plot to a cool sci-fi story...
That wasn't a joke going over my head...it was only an illegally operated amateur-operated drone!
Ummm...no, not exactly, at least not yet. The FAA allows the "amateur" use of drones, provided they are flown at no more than 400 feet above the ground (AGL), and if they are not used for any type of commercial activity. They are supposed to finalize rules for commercial use of drones in the National Airspace System some time this year, although I've heard rumors that the rules may be delayed a bit.
Yup.
What TSA is doing in the airports gives the illusion that the government is "doing something". Meanwhile, we are still as vulnerable as we were before for the very reason you mention. All you've done with the security checkpoints is move the weakest link in the security chain to a different location. You've arguably (*VERY* arguably) made the airliners themselves safer, but the people traveling on them are every bit as exposed as they were before, because there is still a point on the journey where a person with ill intent can attack them with a minimal chance of detection beforehand. Meanwhile, we are being fondled and ripped off by thugs with badges before we can get to the gate...sigh.
How is one related to another? Integrity. If you are willing to violate one law (requiring a warrant), then it is reasonable to suspect they might violate another (falsifying evidence). If you aren't willing to play by the rules, you can't be trusted and therefore your evidence is suspect.