Like for example it did not contain any mention of a fact that the proponents of the so-called "intellectual property" are incapable of explaining away the rather prickly conundrum at its core, which is the fact that information does not have the required attributes to be "owned"
I see. so you ARE retarded.
My initial statement to you was based on your rather...."interesting" phrasing in response to someone else. As an impartial third party, I can tell you that you came across as a complete moron, and perhaps a psychopath. I actually had no idea what point you were trying to make - I could only tell that you were mentally unbalanced.
Now that I've seen your actual "point" (I use the word loosely) I can also tell that you're not just nuts, but also totally wrong. Information certainly can and is owned on a regular basis. When the first caveman figured out how to make fire, he owned that process. Like with all other possessions, he had control over whom he shared that knowledge with.
In fact, "knowledge" goes back much farther than that - our very DNA is a form of knowledge. Throughout the history of our planet, different forms of life have "learned" new survival strategies. Sometimes this was in the form of new DNA, while at other times it was a learned behaviour. In either case, passage of this knowledge was never free and indiscriminate - in the case of DNA, it was passed on to offspring through breeding, while in the case of leaned behaviours it was passed on to the immediate family group. Evolution is based on this process. For you to argue that knowledge shouldn't be controlled is utterly ludicrous. You're being as much of an idiot as any full-out Trotskyite commie.
Just out of curiosity....are you retarded? That was the most fact-free and vitriol-filled post I've ever seen on slashdot....and that's saying something!
So if you ask me where to buy a gun, I say "go to walmart". You go to walmart buy it, then kill someone.... That means I coordinated the murder?
If buying a gun were illegal, then you'd be breaking the law just by helping me get one.
Or, to use your analogy, if I said to you "I want to kill my wife....can you tell me where to buy a gun?", a prosecutor could certainly make the case that you were an accessory to murder.
It is sad to think of it like that. I guess ensuring copyright laws are enforced is worth more than human lives.
Go for a walk through any third-world ghetto, dressed as you are now, and you'll find exactly how much a human life is worth. The best damn teacher I ever knew got killed in Mexico over his shoes and his wife's purse.
Copyright laws help bring about all the things in life which you take for granted. Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws. Those laws helped encourage people to invent and create, which in turn enriched out culture and our society. Without them, chances are that you wouldn't give a damn about the "value" of human life. You'd be too worried about where your next meal would come from.
Renate is to travel to Earth on a secret mission with her fiance, the handsome and high-ranking Klaus, a true Nazi down to his jackboots. Their mission: to assassinate the president of the United States, Jenna Bush.
Yeah, listen, I can argue with retards like you and not lose interest, but I don't generally argue with liars. When your own sources contradict what you're saying yet you still continue to argue... well, you're pretty much useless. Goodbye.
so, do you agree that that's a 110% screwed up situation?
Not at all. Just like cops aren't expected to be judge and executioner, so you also do not get to be your own judge. Otherwise everyone, including murderers caught red-handed at the scene of the crime, could simply claim they were resisting arrest because they thought the police had no right to arrest them. The only even slightly "fair" system is one where you're required to cooperate until your guilt or innocence can be properly established.
If the "arrest" was not legal then you still get done by the police for "resisting arrest". You'll often get people convicted of this when the original "offence" was not persued.
So how can you "resist arrest" when there was no offence to require arrest?
I don't normally reply to AC's, but that's a fair question, and worth answering (even if the remainder of your comment is a bit troll-ish).
The short answer is that there doesn't have to BE an "offence" in order for you to be placed under arrest. There's no requirement for the police to give you a reason for your arrest, and they generally don't even have to charge you as long as they release you within 24 hours.
That is why you should NEVER resist arrest, regardless of your guilt or innocence. If you are truly being arrested for no reason, the worst that happens is you spend a night in jail, and then have a damn good case for suing the police. On the other hand, if you resist arrest, not only are you throwing away any possibility of winning such a lawsuit, but you are giving them the right to use force to subdue you, AND you're giving them an offence to charge you with.
Dude, are you that convinced that you can change reality by just refusing to believe it?
No, I'm pretty sure it won't work, but for some reason you keep trying. It's strange - your own sources contradict you, yet you continue to spew bullshit.
He was already walking towards the door. How more clear does it have to be before your brain can comprehend it?
Yes, he attempted to walk away when the police questioned him. That's a wee bit different than what you claimed earlier, now isn't it? It's also a really REALLY bad idea. Try driving away from a cop while he's asking for your licence and registration, and see what happens. It's like the retard WANTED to get arrested.
So let's get this straight: (1) They have a glorified cattle-prod which is known to be potentially lethal to people with heart problems, or if used repeatedly. (2) He tells them he has a medical problem... so (3) They zap him again.
Well, gee, that's some human empathy in action for ya.
Damn right. Should have kept zapping the little asshole. Anyone who's seen the video knows that the prick kept resisting arrest. If he KNOWS that he has a medical condition, then he should have STOPPED STRUGGLING. Unfortunately for him, it turns out that he's just about as bright as you are. It's like someone with an allergy to bee-stings sticking his arm into a bee-hive. That probably sounds like a good idea to you too, huh?
Exactly how is _that_ justified?
It's not. It also has nothing to do with your original claim. In fact, the vast majority of your response has nothing to do with your original claim. You're just changing the subject because you've been caught in a lie.
As for avoiding conflict. It'll help if somebody worked out better "protocols" so that people and cops can interact nonlethally in "charged" situations, and perhaps even avoid escalating things to an arrest.
99% of these incidences are caused by civilians acting like idiots. You can make all the "protocols" you want - it won't change thing.
Heh. Dude, just because you don't know about it, doesn't make it a lie, ya know?
I'm quite aware of the incident you're referring to, thanks. It's a lie because you lied about the events. The incident had nothing to do with a library card and the suspect was NOT leaving, so that's at least two direct lies in your "summary" of the event. You also lied by omission by failing to state that he was tasered because he was resisting arrest.
But I assume again you won't have the cognitive skills to understand the above, so never mind;)
No, he emphatically doesn't. Within medium to close range, i think 21 feet is the number, a man with a knife has a statistical advantage over a man with a gun.
I'm quite aware of that, since I've had extensive close-quarters combat training. However, it has nothing to do with anything. Even if it were a relevant point, Tasers have a range of 35 feet.
My brother is a corrections officer and he says there is rarely a case where a taser is the best solution.
Then he's welcome to never use one. For everyone else, tasers continue to be invaluable tools.
In many ways, what is known as mysticism is the remaining difference between a scientist who still believes in free will, and one who believes that we are nothing but chemical machines either trudging down predestined paths or rolling dice all day long.
Any decent scientist will tell you that free will has nothing to do with whether or not we're "chemical machines". Most would find your argument humorous at best.
But I know from searching within myself that I have some kind of connection to something we have not yet categorized.
Actually, we've categorized it, and filed it under "bovine excrement".
he officers on the scene tased him because it is painful. They accused him, judged him and punished him on the scene because they thought that he deserved it.
No, they tased him because he was resisting arrest. I've never used a taser to subdue a suspect, but I HAVE used pressure-point manipulation in order to cause pain and guarantee compliance. It's the same principle - if the guy is hurting, he's not going to be doing much struggling. It's not torture, it's called "doing my job".
They knew he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a crime if he were arrested. Of course that is wrong and according to statute they are all felons and should serve long prison terms.
Don't be an idiot. The guy was trespassing ans resisting arrest. How exactly you figure that he wouldn't be convicted is beyond me. You must know of some secret legal code which makes it ok to do whatever the fuck you want as long as you're screaming incoherent bullshit at a political candidate.
I've been hit with a taser in training too and am quite familiar with it's effects, so I'm really surprised that you would classify pepper spray/mace as worse than a taser. I've never experienced the effects of pepper spray, but I HAVE been subject to the effects of CS gas (tear gas), and I always assumed that the two would be roughly equivalent. Do you find this to be the case? If so, I think the effects of these gasses/sprays vary widely from person to person, since I'd much rather get gassed than tasered.
The police have had that for CENTURIES.
It's called a "Baton"
Yes, call me back when you've done a comparison study of how many people have died or been seriously injured due to the use of police batons vs. the use of tasers.
And it's a whole lot more controllable and accountable....
Using a stick is more accountable than using a taser? How do you figure? Tasers at least have to be recharged, meaning there's a way of confirming whether or not they were discharged during a cop's shift. How exactly do you keep track of whether or not a stick was used?
UNTESTED MEDICAL DEVICE
Heh. Actually, the "baton" is just as much an "untested medical device" as the taser is.
student doesn't have his library card at the library, and is already leaving (so wtf of a danger did he pose?), campus security guards tase him repeatedly.
Well, since this one is a total lie, it kinda casts doubt on the rest of your scenarios too. I pretty much stopped reading there.
And, at the risk of repeating what numerous other commenters have said, THE TASER IS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE FIREARMS. I'm not sure where people like you got that silly idea, but your RTFO. The taser is an intermediate weapon - if anything, it's meant to replace the "baton" or "night-stick", although it CAN replace firearms in certain circumstances.
Right, that works. As long as you punish people who use a taser when a bullet wouldn't be merited the same as if they had shot the bullet. Which so far nobody is doing.
Of course they're not. The very idea is ludicrous. Tasers aren't meant to replace guns - they're meant as an intermediate step between manual restraint and firearms. As such, they're MEANT to be used in circumstances where a bullet wouldn't be merited. How can you be so confused about such a basic concept?
I would *certainly* rather be handcuffed and pushed outside rather then risk death by taser for spending too long on my question at a political speech.
That's total flame-bait right there, but it's still semi-early and I'm hung over so what the hell. The idiot that got zapped at that speech didn't just "spend too long" on a question, he disrupted the entire event, refused to leave when ordered to do so, and then resisted arrest. Plus he was warned multiple times that he would be tased if he continued to resist. In short, he was begging to get zapped, and his request was fulfilled.
Tazers are not used instead of firearms, they are used instead of physical restraint. A cop would never use a tazer in a life threatening situation when he already has a firearm, they are only used in situations where physical restraint is required and are no different to a baton in that regard.
This isn't strictly true. Think of a police officer facing a perp armed with a knife. In the old days, the cop would have immediately gone for his gun. Today, he has the option of using his taser instead (although he may still chose to use his firearm). But no cop would ever have attempted to use a "baton" in such circumstances. A taser might not be meant to replace the firearm, but it's certainly a lot more versatile than a stick.
What we see here is the abuse of the baton to the point where it is torturous and deadly. This does not mean ban the baton, instead we must remove the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of such force and restrain the excesses of brutality they have caused.
Nonsense. There were certainly many cases where perps have died in police custody before the invention of the taser. Any time you have human beings attempting to subdue other human beings, you are going to have cases where someone gets injured or killed. That's the nature of conflict The solution is simple: avoid conflict. Don't break the law and don't screw with the police, and
you won't have anything to worry about.
Your entire argument ignores the GP's statement. They will sell to whomever they *can* which is limited by law.
lol
Isn't that a little like saying "Those damn evil US Soldiers will kill anyone they can!....... limited by law".
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, huh?
The only saving grace is that the old Soviet stuff is cheaper, easier to maintain and has much more ammo available for it. That's why they aren't running around with M-16s in the first place. It sure isn't because the weapons aren't available. You can just go to a gun show or certain sites online and buy an M-16 if you really want one.
Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. But thanks for the input, Captain Obvious!
Moot question, we've outsourced nearly 100% of weapons manufacturing to foreign nations anyway.
That's a lie, as has already been shown by Kierthos.
That said, Al Quaeda was formed and trained by the CIA, and their initial cache of weapons consisted largely of American arms.
Another lie. The CIA helped fund the original Afghan insurgency, meaning the local tribal warlords. Al Qaeda came on to the scene much later, and brought their own sources of funding. The CIA never had anything to do with them. Actually, you made two lies in one sentence, because their weapons certainly weren't American. Last I checked, the US doesn't make AK-47's, or RPG's.
If Al Quaeda could actually afford American weapons in any significant quantity, I'm sure they'd be happy to buy them from any number of people who would just love to sell them.
Osama Bin Laden's personal fortune is estimated at around $300 million. He could easily afford US-made weapons, even without dipping into all the funding generated by various mosques and organizations which have ties to Al Qaeda. Your argument is ridiculous.
How many Western technologies wwere the KGB able to acquire through espionage? That number would be a solid start.
Ah, so technology aquired through espionage = technology sold by US. Right.
That little piece of idiocy is a perfect way to cap-off you gormless rant. Please stop now, before you embarrass yourself any further.
Now just to be consistent, I'm sure you consider the money Iran gives to Hezbollah charity as well?
I don't know. Charity is defined as a gift meant to promote the public good. Hezbollah hasn't done much in that regard, even for their own people.
I suppose that, in the sense that Iran believes that money is being used for the greater good of the Muslim world, you could say it was charity. On the other hand, the results speak for themselves, and it does say a lot about their ideology that they're funding an organization whose only purpose is to kill civilians.
The sickening party lie, that somehow it is acceptable today because someone from another political party did it a decade ago but not quite so bad is just a disingenuous lie.
You sure like to repeat yourself a lot.
Anyway, nobody ever suggested it was ok. I just find it amusing, seing as how 90% of the complaints we hear are motivated only by the political ideology of the person doing the complaining. When democrats are in power, republicans demonize them while the democrats stay silent, or make half-assed excuses for their leadership. When Republicans are in power, Democrats demonize them while republicans stay silent, or make half-assed excuses for their leadership. The whole thing is quite silly, and never really gets any results. If you want to change things, you have to approach these things in a rational manner, instead of screaming your head off about the BUSHITLERNAZI IN AMERIKKKKA!!!
Slashdot Mirror
My initial statement to you was based on your rather...."interesting" phrasing in response to someone else. As an impartial third party, I can tell you that you came across as a complete moron, and perhaps a psychopath. I actually had no idea what point you were trying to make - I could only tell that you were mentally unbalanced.
Now that I've seen your actual "point" (I use the word loosely) I can also tell that you're not just nuts, but also totally wrong. Information certainly can and is owned on a regular basis. When the first caveman figured out how to make fire, he owned that process. Like with all other possessions, he had control over whom he shared that knowledge with.
In fact, "knowledge" goes back much farther than that - our very DNA is a form of knowledge. Throughout the history of our planet, different forms of life have "learned" new survival strategies. Sometimes this was in the form of new DNA, while at other times it was a learned behaviour. In either case, passage of this knowledge was never free and indiscriminate - in the case of DNA, it was passed on to offspring through breeding, while in the case of leaned behaviours it was passed on to the immediate family group. Evolution is based on this process. For you to argue that knowledge shouldn't be controlled is utterly ludicrous. You're being as much of an idiot as any full-out Trotskyite commie.
Just out of curiosity....are you retarded? That was the most fact-free and vitriol-filled post I've ever seen on slashdot....and that's saying something!
Or, to use your analogy, if I said to you "I want to kill my wife....can you tell me where to buy a gun?", a prosecutor could certainly make the case that you were an accessory to murder.
Copyright laws help bring about all the things in life which you take for granted. Take a look around your room - I guarantee that every item you see at least partly owes it's existence to intellectual property laws. Those laws helped encourage people to invent and create, which in turn enriched out culture and our society. Without them, chances are that you wouldn't give a damn about the "value" of human life. You'd be too worried about where your next meal would come from.
Renate is to travel to Earth on a secret mission with her fiance, the handsome and high-ranking Klaus, a true Nazi down to his jackboots. Their mission: to assassinate the president of the United States, Jenna Bush.
I think that answers your question.
Clearly it's a documentary!
Yeah, listen, I can argue with retards like you and not lose interest, but I don't generally argue with liars. When your own sources contradict what you're saying yet you still continue to argue ... well, you're pretty much useless. Goodbye.
The short answer is that there doesn't have to BE an "offence" in order for you to be placed under arrest. There's no requirement for the police to give you a reason for your arrest, and they generally don't even have to charge you as long as they release you within 24 hours.
That is why you should NEVER resist arrest, regardless of your guilt or innocence. If you are truly being arrested for no reason, the worst that happens is you spend a night in jail, and then have a damn good case for suing the police. On the other hand, if you resist arrest, not only are you throwing away any possibility of winning such a lawsuit, but you are giving them the right to use force to subdue you, AND you're giving them an offence to charge you with.
But I assume again you won't have the cognitive skills to understand the above, so never mind
Actually, we've categorized it, and filed it under "bovine excrement".
Don't be an idiot. The guy was trespassing ans resisting arrest. How exactly you figure that he wouldn't be convicted is beyond me. You must know of some secret legal code which makes it ok to do whatever the fuck you want as long as you're screaming incoherent bullshit at a political candidate.
I've been hit with a taser in training too and am quite familiar with it's effects, so I'm really surprised that you would classify pepper spray/mace as worse than a taser. I've never experienced the effects of pepper spray, but I HAVE been subject to the effects of CS gas (tear gas), and I always assumed that the two would be roughly equivalent. Do you find this to be the case? If so, I think the effects of these gasses/sprays vary widely from person to person, since I'd much rather get gassed than tasered.
Using a stick is more accountable than using a taser? How do you figure? Tasers at least have to be recharged, meaning there's a way of confirming whether or not they were discharged during a cop's shift. How exactly do you keep track of whether or not a stick was used?
Heh. Actually, the "baton" is just as much an "untested medical device" as the taser is.
And, at the risk of repeating what numerous other commenters have said, THE TASER IS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE FIREARMS. I'm not sure where people like you got that silly idea, but your RTFO. The taser is an intermediate weapon - if anything, it's meant to replace the "baton" or "night-stick", although it CAN replace firearms in certain circumstances.
That's total flame-bait right there, but it's still semi-early and I'm hung over so what the hell. The idiot that got zapped at that speech didn't just "spend too long" on a question, he disrupted the entire event, refused to leave when ordered to do so, and then resisted arrest. Plus he was warned multiple times that he would be tased if he continued to resist. In short, he was begging to get zapped, and his request was fulfilled.
Nonsense. There were certainly many cases where perps have died in police custody before the invention of the taser. Any time you have human beings attempting to subdue other human beings, you are going to have cases where someone gets injured or killed. That's the nature of conflict The solution is simple: avoid conflict. Don't break the law and don't screw with the police, and you won't have anything to worry about.
Isn't that a little like saying "Those damn evil US Soldiers will kill anyone they can!
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, huh?
Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. But thanks for the input, Captain Obvious!
Another lie. The CIA helped fund the original Afghan insurgency, meaning the local tribal warlords. Al Qaeda came on to the scene much later, and brought their own sources of funding. The CIA never had anything to do with them. Actually, you made two lies in one sentence, because their weapons certainly weren't American. Last I checked, the US doesn't make AK-47's, or RPG's. Osama Bin Laden's personal fortune is estimated at around $300 million. He could easily afford US-made weapons, even without dipping into all the funding generated by various mosques and organizations which have ties to Al Qaeda. Your argument is ridiculous.
Ah, so technology aquired through espionage = technology sold by US. Right.
That little piece of idiocy is a perfect way to cap-off you gormless rant. Please stop now, before you embarrass yourself any further.
Ok, ok, you probably think that's an unfair question. How 'bout this: how many American-made weapons has Al-Qaeda purchased?
Well...say SOMETHING. The silence is deafening!
Ok, last question: how much US technology was sold to ANY communist nation during the cold war?
????
So, basically, you're full of shit, right?
Now just to be consistent, I'm sure you consider the money Iran gives to Hezbollah charity as well? I don't know. Charity is defined as a gift meant to promote the public good. Hezbollah hasn't done much in that regard, even for their own people.
I suppose that, in the sense that Iran believes that money is being used for the greater good of the Muslim world, you could say it was charity. On the other hand, the results speak for themselves, and it does say a lot about their ideology that they're funding an organization whose only purpose is to kill civilians.
Anyway, nobody ever suggested it was ok. I just find it amusing, seing as how 90% of the complaints we hear are motivated only by the political ideology of the person doing the complaining. When democrats are in power, republicans demonize them while the democrats stay silent, or make half-assed excuses for their leadership. When Republicans are in power, Democrats demonize them while republicans stay silent, or make half-assed excuses for their leadership. The whole thing is quite silly, and never really gets any results. If you want to change things, you have to approach these things in a rational manner, instead of screaming your head off about the BUSHITLERNAZI IN AMERIKKKKA!!!