I do find it curious that people are getting modded 'insightful' for suggesting that allowing everybody on the campus to carry a firearm would have prevented this incident (despite, as another poster highlighted, causing considerably more incidents, albeit of lesser individual magnitude) yet my sardonic take on the situation is deemed to be trolling.
Guess Americans don't have a sense of humour. I know I'm laughing.
20+ americans dead a tragedy? Or just a good start.
This isn't opportunistic trash. This is mocking the bullshit Americans spew about their constitution and the rights it gives them. Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other. I'm kind of amused by the number of people that take offence at this.
Aww, c'mon - it's not hard to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one. Sure, it's against the law - but so's shooting people.
As for whether this would be possible without fully automatic weapons? Definitely. None of the shooting 'rampages' in the UK have involved automatic weapons.
Would the body count be quite as high? Probably not - unless he was stopping to apply the coup de grace each time. Which is possible.
You'd still have a similar number of casualties though.
From the empty-cartridges-for-sale dept From the jack-thompson-wet-dream dept From the come-back-jon-katz dept From the shortage-of-engineering-graduates dept
Were you here in the Jon Katz days? Half the blinking articles were about Columbine.
Lonely disaffected socially excluded individuals reading slashdot seem to like reading about similar people that fight back.
Expect to see a discussion on the weaponry used, there's already discussion around whether it was video gaming that made him do it, there'll be follow-up articles about people being banned from school for wearing trenchcoats and obviously there'll be Europeans exhibiting schadenfreude.
This is classic Slashdot material, expect a couple of thousand posts and a similar number of mod points wasted here.
What's the cost of accidents caused by them ignoring traffic laws designed to increase safety? Why is a police officer driving more effective than one that's stationary, able to look around and notice things without crashing. Would you support the police operating only outside of rush-hour, so they can get about more freely?
If they view something that can be interpreted as sexually, racially, or some otherly discriminatory then anybody else seeing it on their screen can raise a grievance about it.
If they're doing non-work things for 80% of the day then unless they're a security guard sat a desk waiting for someone to break in then they're highly unlikely to be acceptably productive. They may have completed all the work, they may do as much work as their colleagues, but if they're that good, give them more work to do.
Finally, monitoring tends not to be on a per-individual basis unless/until that individual draws attention to themselves. High bandwidth use is picked up and identified as a cost saving opportunity, abusive emails may be flagged by keyword tracking and investigated, many companies have a flat 'no online gambling at work' rule so visiting casino sites draws immediate ire. All these things involve monitoring but aren't initially targeted at any specific individual.
I believe there is case law in the UK that you can't fire someone for the same activities accepted as the norm within the company. Or more specifically, if it's quite normal for people to use the phone and email system for private matters, then that ceases to be a sackable offence, even if it's against the defined policy.
I'm sure excessive use would still be an acceptable reason, but that's rather more difficult to prove.
Incidentally, as the article mentioned, the snooping is far from prohibited by law. Indeed, in the UK it's commonplace, and everywhere I've worked has stated clearly that not only the email headers (as in her case) but also the email contents are not private and are subject to monitoring.
I could share war stories, but I'll leave that for the people that actually do monitor email for a living - I just hear these things second-hand.
It would be easy to say "ah, but that's different" but also lazy. As it's 2.15am I just can't be bothered to go and research cross-border crime complications in Ireland and I'm happy to concede I haven't put much thought into the rights and wrongs of extradition in that situation.
I still believe McKinnon should not be extradited to the US.
Fortunately I live in a country capable of defending itself.
Maybe it's living in an island nation, I don't worry about shooting people across a border. If I set up a big cannon and started shooting France, despite the massive public support I'd get, the British police would pretty quickly arrest me. It's illegal here too. The French police don't need to do a thing.
You think I give a shit which jurisdiction they were in. He was in the UK. Either he broke UK law, or he didn't. Whether he broke US law is completely and totally irrelevant.
If he goes to the US and breaks the laws there, then prosecute him under them. If he doesn't go to the US, don't demand his extradition because he's caused some embarrassment. Shit, I hope he tries to kill anybody that holds him captive in the US - it would be a pretty clear case of self-defense.
That'll be a massive relief to all the people that have died in US custody while under arrest and/or torture for terrorism related charges (assuming any charges had actually been made).
No idea why you've been modded down to 0, but you're entirely correct.
He did something stupid, so lets put him on trial and (if found guilty) send him to prison.
He did it while he was in the UK. So lets try him in the UK.
Extraditing him to a country reknowned for its inability to apply justice fairly, where a prosecutor is making pretty fucking wrong statements about how he'll be treated, where torture is Government sanctioned and prison-rape a national pastime is what's pissing off so many people in the UK.
Nobody (I've heard) is saying he should get off scot-free. What is being said is, he's in the UK, he broke UK laws, try him here, and don't hand him over to the US.
Do you really think that any court in America would give this punk the death penalty?
Yes.
Oh, it wont be for 'hacking', it'll be some contrived terrorism charge endangering the American national security or some such bullshit.
But basically, he wont get a fair trial, he wont get a reasonable punishment, he should not be getting fucking extradited. I'm pissed off with my own government for even considering permitting this.
Work for myself? I don't have a burning desire to create any specific piece of software. I can't be arsed marketing it.
If I go contract, I get told what to do by idiots. If I go consultancy, I am the idiot. If I work for myself, I have to run a business, devise a product, create it, market it, sell it, support it.
I have friends that do all those things. Me, I'd rather be working for a multi-billion company, making decisions that affect tens of thousands of employees. It's what I'm good at, and what I enjoy.
I love programming but I can't do it now, I need to be doing more. If I didn't enjoy what I am doing, I'd get the hell out.
I went into IT because I love programming. I evolved into Software Engineering because it made the programming easier. I learned how to design because you can't do SE without it. I became an architect because I had to design beyond my immediate system. I got frustrated by the shortsightedness of the people giving me projects and became an enteprise architect so that I could influence the broader picture. I expect to find I lack sufficient authority and move into IT director type roles to gain that ability to make the decisions I feel are necessary.
I still love programming. I just couldn't take a programming job any more. I'd get too annoyed at the crap development processes, the poor design, the inadequate architecture, the incompetence of the business and the inability to change things at a high enough level.
So find an area you love, yes. But expect it to change. Go with the flow. And remember the advice from Ferris : Stop and take a look around once in a while.
You may say you've proven it, but I don't believe you.
I am unable to find a way of depicting the relationships between nodes 233, 192, 118, 222, 228 and 27 with no intersecting lines on a single plane.
I can draw it with just one intersecting line, with relative ease - don't even need to use curved lines. But I need to see an implementation of a 0 intersecting line drawing before I'll acknowledge it can be done.
I wonder if the weight of a compressor would cause more mileage reduction than the benefit you'd get from using it to aid braking? Want to slow down, engage the on-board air compressor, refill the fuel tank.
They code everything according to 'design patterns' making it a nightmare to debug.
That truly is a nightmare place that you work; design patterns everywhere else lead to simpler, more understandable code that results in fewer initial bugs and far easier maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
I do find it curious that people are getting modded 'insightful' for suggesting that allowing everybody on the campus to carry a firearm would have prevented this incident (despite, as another poster highlighted, causing considerably more incidents, albeit of lesser individual magnitude) yet my sardonic take on the situation is deemed to be trolling.
Guess Americans don't have a sense of humour. I know I'm laughing.
20+ americans dead a tragedy? Or just a good start.
This isn't opportunistic trash. This is mocking the bullshit Americans spew about their constitution and the rights it gives them. Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other. I'm kind of amused by the number of people that take offence at this.
Aww, c'mon - it's not hard to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one. Sure, it's against the law - but so's shooting people.
As for whether this would be possible without fully automatic weapons? Definitely. None of the shooting 'rampages' in the UK have involved automatic weapons.
Would the body count be quite as high? Probably not - unless he was stopping to apply the coup de grace each time. Which is possible.
You'd still have a similar number of casualties though.
or actually make it funny.
From the empty-cartridges-for-sale dept
From the jack-thompson-wet-dream dept
From the come-back-jon-katz dept
From the shortage-of-engineering-graduates dept
Doesn't black humour exist in the US?
Were you here in the Jon Katz days? Half the blinking articles were about Columbine.
Lonely disaffected socially excluded individuals reading slashdot seem to like reading about similar people that fight back.
Expect to see a discussion on the weaponry used, there's already discussion around whether it was video gaming that made him do it, there'll be follow-up articles about people being banned from school for wearing trenchcoats and obviously there'll be Europeans exhibiting schadenfreude.
This is classic Slashdot material, expect a couple of thousand posts and a similar number of mod points wasted here.
hurrah for the constitutional right to bear arms and shoot your fellow Americans.
What's the cost of accidents caused by them ignoring traffic laws designed to increase safety?
Why is a police officer driving more effective than one that's stationary, able to look around and notice things without crashing.
Would you support the police operating only outside of rush-hour, so they can get about more freely?
You're right, it's a weak argument.
If they view something that can be interpreted as sexually, racially, or some otherly discriminatory then anybody else seeing it on their screen can raise a grievance about it.
If they're doing non-work things for 80% of the day then unless they're a security guard sat a desk waiting for someone to break in then they're highly unlikely to be acceptably productive. They may have completed all the work, they may do as much work as their colleagues, but if they're that good, give them more work to do.
Finally, monitoring tends not to be on a per-individual basis unless/until that individual draws attention to themselves. High bandwidth use is picked up and identified as a cost saving opportunity, abusive emails may be flagged by keyword tracking and investigated, many companies have a flat 'no online gambling at work' rule so visiting casino sites draws immediate ire. All these things involve monitoring but aren't initially targeted at any specific individual.
I believe there is case law in the UK that you can't fire someone for the same activities accepted as the norm within the company. Or more specifically, if it's quite normal for people to use the phone and email system for private matters, then that ceases to be a sackable offence, even if it's against the defined policy.
I'm sure excessive use would still be an acceptable reason, but that's rather more difficult to prove.
Incidentally, as the article mentioned, the snooping is far from prohibited by law. Indeed, in the UK it's commonplace, and everywhere I've worked has stated clearly that not only the email headers (as in her case) but also the email contents are not private and are subject to monitoring.
I could share war stories, but I'll leave that for the people that actually do monitor email for a living - I just hear these things second-hand.
Hang on? You mean we don't own Ireland any more?
(kidding)
It would be easy to say "ah, but that's different" but also lazy. As it's 2.15am I just can't be bothered to go and research cross-border crime complications in Ireland and I'm happy to concede I haven't put much thought into the rights and wrongs of extradition in that situation.
I still believe McKinnon should not be extradited to the US.
Fortunately I live in a country capable of defending itself.
Maybe it's living in an island nation, I don't worry about shooting people across a border. If I set up a big cannon and started shooting France, despite the massive public support I'd get, the British police would pretty quickly arrest me. It's illegal here too. The French police don't need to do a thing.
You think I give a shit which jurisdiction they were in. He was in the UK. Either he broke UK law, or he didn't. Whether he broke US law is completely and totally irrelevant.
If he goes to the US and breaks the laws there, then prosecute him under them. If he doesn't go to the US, don't demand his extradition because he's caused some embarrassment. Shit, I hope he tries to kill anybody that holds him captive in the US - it would be a pretty clear case of self-defense.
There's a pretty fucking big difference between a casus belli and going "ooh, look - default passwords"
No analogy required. He was 3000 miles away from the US. Extradition should be rejected out of hand and not even considered.
The UK have laws against hacking. If he broke them, prosecute him under them. If he didn't break them, he wasn't doing anything illegal.
Next you'll be suggesting the US should be handing over all of its citizens to Burma for watching TV.
That'll be a massive relief to all the people that have died in US custody while under arrest and/or torture for terrorism related charges (assuming any charges had actually been made).
Which part of "He wasn't in fucking America and should not be exposed to that country's barbaric approach to justice" are you struggling with?
He is alleged to have committed a crime in the UK. So take him to court in the UK and try him under the laws of that country.
The US should just fuck off out of it.
No idea why you've been modded down to 0, but you're entirely correct.
He did something stupid, so lets put him on trial and (if found guilty) send him to prison.
He did it while he was in the UK. So lets try him in the UK.
Extraditing him to a country reknowned for its inability to apply justice fairly, where a prosecutor is making pretty fucking wrong statements about how he'll be treated, where torture is Government sanctioned and prison-rape a national pastime is what's pissing off so many people in the UK.
Nobody (I've heard) is saying he should get off scot-free. What is being said is, he's in the UK, he broke UK laws, try him here, and don't hand him over to the US.
Do you really think that any court in America would give this punk the death penalty?
Yes.
Oh, it wont be for 'hacking', it'll be some contrived terrorism charge endangering the American national security or some such bullshit.
But basically, he wont get a fair trial, he wont get a reasonable punishment, he should not be getting fucking extradited. I'm pissed off with my own government for even considering permitting this.
Work for myself? I don't have a burning desire to create any specific piece of software. I can't be arsed marketing it.
If I go contract, I get told what to do by idiots.
If I go consultancy, I am the idiot.
If I work for myself, I have to run a business, devise a product, create it, market it, sell it, support it.
I have friends that do all those things. Me, I'd rather be working for a multi-billion company, making decisions that affect tens of thousands of employees. It's what I'm good at, and what I enjoy.
I love programming but I can't do it now, I need to be doing more. If I didn't enjoy what I am doing, I'd get the hell out.
I'm learning piano ready - it's my ideal retirement job.
Sadly, no.
I went into IT because I love programming.
I evolved into Software Engineering because it made the programming easier.
I learned how to design because you can't do SE without it.
I became an architect because I had to design beyond my immediate system.
I got frustrated by the shortsightedness of the people giving me projects and became an enteprise architect so that I could influence the broader picture.
I expect to find I lack sufficient authority and move into IT director type roles to gain that ability to make the decisions I feel are necessary.
I still love programming. I just couldn't take a programming job any more. I'd get too annoyed at the crap development processes, the poor design, the inadequate architecture, the incompetence of the business and the inability to change things at a high enough level.
So find an area you love, yes. But expect it to change. Go with the flow. And remember the advice from Ferris : Stop and take a look around once in a while.
You may say you've proven it, but I don't believe you.
I am unable to find a way of depicting the relationships between nodes 233, 192, 118, 222, 228 and 27 with no intersecting lines on a single plane.
I can draw it with just one intersecting line, with relative ease - don't even need to use curved lines. But I need to see an implementation of a 0 intersecting line drawing before I'll acknowledge it can be done.
Free is not the same as freeware.
I wonder if the weight of a compressor would cause more mileage reduction than the benefit you'd get from using it to aid braking? Want to slow down, engage the on-board air compressor, refill the fuel tank.
They code everything according to 'design patterns' making it a nightmare to debug.
That truly is a nightmare place that you work; design patterns everywhere else lead to simpler, more understandable code that results in fewer initial bugs and far easier maintenance.