I don't want a curfew but you stated it and now I'm curious...
How exactly does a curfew harm society? Are you worried that it will cost you your third shift job down at the factory because I think they'll make an exception for you.
I did and I think you're making it up. So, I asked for your source so that I can compare them for credibility. In other words, nothing I found supports your claim. You made the claim, proof is nice.
The right to not have militarized police with fully automatic weapons enter a law abiding citizens home?
I understand they were asked to remain in their home - not forced.
I understand that one though. However, they probably didn't force their way in - they probably just asked. That's perfectly lawful. Some exceptions apply and they can enter without your permission, such as warrants and probable cause, of course.
How do you reach that conclusion? Seriously, how did you logically reach that conclusion. That's like assuming just because someone doesn't hit you for calling them a name you're good to go on the whole kick in the nuts thing. Not to mention that no civil rights were violated by asking people to remain indoors. Not one...
You know that they weren't doing this because of the deaths but because there was an armed gunman running around throwing grenades and the likes, right? It's the internet, you don't have to pretend to be a tough guy - we don't care. This was not a response to the bombing on Monday and your concern trolling is a bit overdone.
On this particular day the odds may have been very different and there was no way to know the odds so some people were cautioned and stayed indoors as recommended. You're going to harp on smart people doing smart things and you consider yourself to be better because of this, why?
Three people died in Boston. Almost ten times as many died in a Baghdad bombing. And lots more COULD have died from the Texas fertilizer plant disaster.
Which gets the largest share of media attention? Oh yes, the one that happened at a major sporting event. Wow. And how did it end? Once the lockdown was set to end, and some guy went to look around his house. What does that tell me? That it could have ended hours before if they hadn't had everybody locked up like a bunch of fools sitting in their houses.
Yes, it could have ended sooner and it could have ended with a purple gorilla eating fruitcake. What, pray tell, are the odds that it would have ended sooner if the guy was at work or are you assuming that he'd have been out back checking out his wrapped up boat, perhaps staring wishfully at it constantly as he both longs for the day he can get back on the water and looks at it with some fear because he knows when he goes back on the water he'll have to avenge his father's death at the hand (or is that tentacle) of a giant squid?
But yes, that definitely would have been result had they had streets full of people (with a guy out there chucking grenades, maybe wearing a bomb as they seemed to think at the time, and certainly armed) while the cops continued their pursuit. Yes. That certainly means that "it could have ended hours before" and wouldn't have been a safety issue at all.
Not to mention it was a request, not an official order... But no, you have used your brain to reach logical conclusions and nothing I say is going to change that.
Hyperbole much? Anyhow, yes - three. Do the grievously wounded count for anything because there was a bunch of them. What number makes it acceptable to you? Is this number something you just invented or will you be outraged for anything you can articulate?
My concern is them stomping house to house demanding (if I understood correctly) that the LEOs be given access with neither probable cause (IMHO - I welcome an expert chiming in on that, I am not one and admit it) nor a warrant.
Locking a city down they can probably get away with and most certainly will given that it was just a request, it's just stupid, but the second one is quite clearly unacceptable.
My first programming language was BASIC (Level 1 basic) on the TRS-80 with 4K (4 kilobytes!!!) of memory.
Heh... The Trash 80!
I learned BASIC on a PET, upgraded to a VIC 20, and then I spent a summer pounding away on a friend's TRS-80 II (or III maybe, we're talking 30 years ago so my brain is a bit fuzzy) and that made me decide to get a TRS-80 4. I remember regretting purchasing it and not waiting a while longer. If I'd waited I probably would have ended up with an Amiga (1000 or 2000, again, I can't really remember because it was a lot of years ago) which was a much nicer computer - you could even multitask.
If I'd ended up with the Amiga then things may have been different. Buying the Trash 80 meant that a small group of us all had the same type of computer and a lot of the programs that would run on one would run on the others even if their model was different. I think we'd occasionally have to make small changes but nothing major. As I never got the Amiga I'm not 100% positive but IIRC it came with AmigaBASIC (from Microsoft actually) which wasn't at all compatible with anything else on the market.
Anyhow, I spent ages sharing and swapping out changes with a buddy. I'd written and kept poking at, for years actually, a text based RPG that was probably a lot less fun than it seemed like at the time. It kept us busy and amused for quite a while, we poked at the game individually and collaboratively for years. We'd make changes and had our own versions (we were OSS before it was cool I guess, well, not really - I'm not sure much was closed source back then) that we'd design for our friends and each other to play.
I was in touch with Robert (my buddy from way back then) probably about a year ago and the subject came up. He still has a couple of old floppy disks but no way to check them. I could probably cobble something together to read the disks (there are actually a couple of old working drives in the attic) but I've actually since found old (remember the old dot matrix printers?) source printed out and have considered seeing if I could put the game back together again. I probably should seeing as I have the time.
Wow... Now that I'm thinking about it... Even the "combat system" was pretty much stolen from AD&D (first edition 'cause we're old and second hadn't been invented yet I don't think). Damn we were geeks. Oh well...
I am not sure what my point is. I guess it boils down to: Finding a way to give a kid access to programming resources being a potentially good thing.
Not everyone is going to want to learn how to do it well, not everyone is going to be able to develop skills to do it well, and not every kid will find it entertaining.
The kids that do find they're able, willing, and enjoy it should certainly be exposed to programming though I'm not sure if they'll need any guidance to get there - they may find that path on their own and not need anyone urging them at all. We didn't need to be guided, we were irresistibly attracted to it by a force similar to gravity. I'm not sure how I'd have reacted if someone had tried to guide or coerce me but I probably still would have loved it and found said guide to be a resource and bugged the hell out of them with every little question I came up with.
Actually, I don't believe they asked you if you thought it a bit foolish. So as to avoid this in the future could you say specifically why you think that would be foolish?
LOL That is kind of cute. I read all of the replies but few seemed to actually understand what I'd written so I didn't bother responding to them. I'm thinking adjustable output power placed in the center of a home and fairly low power should do the trick well enough to cover my hypothetical. One could even put receivers around the edge of the property and when they received the jamming signal they'll send a message to dial the power back so it automatically doesn't go beyond the edge of the property even when weather patterns change. It's a perfectly stupid device that I don't want and I can't think of a reasonable reason to acquire but it's a fun exercise about what rights we have and, obviously, don't have.
Rape harms someone else. The two aren't even remotely similar. If you have a logical answer I'm open to it though. "It's illegal because it's illegal, also rape." That's not actually a good answer but if you try again you might do a better job. You may also wish to read the entire conversation, it may help you formulate a better response.
It is a fictional device in my scenario (one which specifically ensures that the jamming doesn't impact any neighboring property at all) so yes they're guaranteeing it.
I agree that it should end at the property line, if not then it should be illegal unless (of course) you get a crazy neighbor who doesn't mind but it should be illegal by default as one shouldn't be able to hinder what another person does on their property. That's why I included this caveat: "This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property."
I still can't think of a reason as to why someone would want to restrict this on private property. I can think of a few places where it would be nice where there is public access. It does, though, seem a strange restriction of freedom to outlaw the devices entirely.
I could see a jamming device that had an adjustable power output where you'd put it in the center of your domicile and then adjust the output until it reached the edge of your property but, at the same time, I could see the market for said device being limited to three crazy guys in Alabama.
When they said "permit" they implied something active, to me at least. No specific permit is required to have it happen due to happenstance which makes me think they were speaking specifically about jamming. I don't suppose they'll return to clarify.
We all know that this is a persona you use online and that in real life you're a coward at worst and passive aggressive at best. You can save the tough guy talk. Nobody believes you. In fact, you don't even have to do the whole "reply to me and try to pretend to be manly" thing to cover your broken ego. It's okay and we're still not going to believe that you have the courage to disturb anyone.
I like that idea assuming I understand it correctly. It seems odd (I'm absolutely not an expert) that you'd have to get carrier specific equipment. Don't a lot of carriers offer peering with other carriers on their equipment? Does that mean they had to add extra equipment to their towers in order to enable peering? I'd have guessed that just having 3G, CDMA, etc would have been sufficient, those aren't standardized and are carrier-centric? (Much thanks, I value learning things. I know *gasp* that I don't know everything as is customary to pretend online. So, I suck up knowledge any chance I get.)
From what you said, it's do-able though the logistics would make it a bit tough and efficacy mean that someone could bypass it easily enough? I would not be surprised if society decided that, at some point, we'll have to deal with this situation. I could see us deciding that we'll allow businesses and private property owners to jam signals on their property and that legislation will be interesting to look at.
I'm aware that blocking or jamming is currently illegal. That's not in question. My question is concerning the correctness of that fact. Basically, should it be illegal?
Assuming that it is possible without harming any signal on neighboring property should someone have the right to jam cellphone (or any RF) on their own property?
Hell, I can't even think of a reason why someone would want to do so on their personal property. I'm just not sure if it should be illegal. I can't personally come up with a good reason to block RF on your private property - not even a single good reason. I can't come up with a good reason as to why it should be illegal to jam (again, assuming no impact on neighboring properties) either.
It's mostly mental bubblegum that this article and some comments made me think about. I don't actually want to block someone's signal. I'm aware that it is illegal. My question concerns whether it should be illegal and where the line concerning freedom is drawn.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want a curfew but you stated it and now I'm curious...
How exactly does a curfew harm society? Are you worried that it will cost you your third shift job down at the factory because I think they'll make an exception for you.
That is not proof. How many did we lose in 9/11 and how many military personnel died in the past ten years?
I did and I think you're making it up. So, I asked for your source so that I can compare them for credibility. In other words, nothing I found supports your claim. You made the claim, proof is nice.
The right to leave your own home?
The right to not have militarized police with fully automatic weapons enter a law abiding citizens home?
I understand they were asked to remain in their home - not forced.
I understand that one though. However, they probably didn't force their way in - they probably just asked. That's perfectly lawful. Some exceptions apply and they can enter without your permission, such as warrants and probable cause, of course.
How do you reach that conclusion? Seriously, how did you logically reach that conclusion. That's like assuming just because someone doesn't hit you for calling them a name you're good to go on the whole kick in the nuts thing. Not to mention that no civil rights were violated by asking people to remain indoors. Not one...
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/20/bombs-grenades-guns-how-the-boston-suspects-escaped-from-police/
You know that they weren't doing this because of the deaths but because there was an armed gunman running around throwing grenades and the likes, right? It's the internet, you don't have to pretend to be a tough guy - we don't care. This was not a response to the bombing on Monday and your concern trolling is a bit overdone.
On this particular day the odds may have been very different and there was no way to know the odds so some people were cautioned and stayed indoors as recommended. You're going to harp on smart people doing smart things and you consider yourself to be better because of this, why?
Three people died in Boston. Almost ten times as many died in a Baghdad bombing. And lots more COULD have died from the Texas fertilizer plant disaster.
Which gets the largest share of media attention? Oh yes, the one that happened at a major sporting event. Wow. And how did it end? Once the lockdown was set to end, and some guy went to look around his house. What does that tell me? That it could have ended hours before if they hadn't had everybody locked up like a bunch of fools sitting in their houses.
Yes, it could have ended sooner and it could have ended with a purple gorilla eating fruitcake. What, pray tell, are the odds that it would have ended sooner if the guy was at work or are you assuming that he'd have been out back checking out his wrapped up boat, perhaps staring wishfully at it constantly as he both longs for the day he can get back on the water and looks at it with some fear because he knows when he goes back on the water he'll have to avenge his father's death at the hand (or is that tentacle) of a giant squid?
But yes, that definitely would have been result had they had streets full of people (with a guy out there chucking grenades, maybe wearing a bomb as they seemed to think at the time, and certainly armed) while the cops continued their pursuit. Yes. That certainly means that "it could have ended hours before" and wouldn't have been a safety issue at all.
Not to mention it was a request, not an official order... But no, you have used your brain to reach logical conclusions and nothing I say is going to change that.
Three.
Hyperbole much? Anyhow, yes - three. Do the grievously wounded count for anything because there was a bunch of them. What number makes it acceptable to you? Is this number something you just invented or will you be outraged for anything you can articulate?
My concern is them stomping house to house demanding (if I understood correctly) that the LEOs be given access with neither probable cause (IMHO - I welcome an expert chiming in on that, I am not one and admit it) nor a warrant.
Locking a city down they can probably get away with and most certainly will given that it was just a request, it's just stupid, but the second one is quite clearly unacceptable.
Your main concern isn't the increases in government power, control, and loss of freedom but is, instead, about money?
Fact of the matter is police kill more innocent Americans every year (except one) than terrorists do.
Do you have a citation for that?
Bad English! *wags finger* No participle for you!
*sighs*
I'm not even sorry for that.
My first programming language was BASIC (Level 1 basic) on the TRS-80 with 4K (4 kilobytes!!!) of memory.
Heh... The Trash 80!
I learned BASIC on a PET, upgraded to a VIC 20, and then I spent a summer pounding away on a friend's TRS-80 II (or III maybe, we're talking 30 years ago so my brain is a bit fuzzy) and that made me decide to get a TRS-80 4. I remember regretting purchasing it and not waiting a while longer. If I'd waited I probably would have ended up with an Amiga (1000 or 2000, again, I can't really remember because it was a lot of years ago) which was a much nicer computer - you could even multitask.
If I'd ended up with the Amiga then things may have been different. Buying the Trash 80 meant that a small group of us all had the same type of computer and a lot of the programs that would run on one would run on the others even if their model was different. I think we'd occasionally have to make small changes but nothing major. As I never got the Amiga I'm not 100% positive but IIRC it came with AmigaBASIC (from Microsoft actually) which wasn't at all compatible with anything else on the market.
Anyhow, I spent ages sharing and swapping out changes with a buddy. I'd written and kept poking at, for years actually, a text based RPG that was probably a lot less fun than it seemed like at the time. It kept us busy and amused for quite a while, we poked at the game individually and collaboratively for years. We'd make changes and had our own versions (we were OSS before it was cool I guess, well, not really - I'm not sure much was closed source back then) that we'd design for our friends and each other to play.
I was in touch with Robert (my buddy from way back then) probably about a year ago and the subject came up. He still has a couple of old floppy disks but no way to check them. I could probably cobble something together to read the disks (there are actually a couple of old working drives in the attic) but I've actually since found old (remember the old dot matrix printers?) source printed out and have considered seeing if I could put the game back together again. I probably should seeing as I have the time.
Wow... Now that I'm thinking about it... Even the "combat system" was pretty much stolen from AD&D (first edition 'cause we're old and second hadn't been invented yet I don't think). Damn we were geeks. Oh well...
I am not sure what my point is. I guess it boils down to: Finding a way to give a kid access to programming resources being a potentially good thing.
Not everyone is going to want to learn how to do it well, not everyone is going to be able to develop skills to do it well, and not every kid will find it entertaining.
The kids that do find they're able, willing, and enjoy it should certainly be exposed to programming though I'm not sure if they'll need any guidance to get there - they may find that path on their own and not need anyone urging them at all. We didn't need to be guided, we were irresistibly attracted to it by a force similar to gravity. I'm not sure how I'd have reacted if someone had tried to guide or coerce me but I probably still would have loved it and found said guide to be a resource and bugged the hell out of them with every little question I came up with.
I am not sure why but this is actually in my favorites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_educational_programming_languages
Some research there may help too. I don't have anything of value (beyond said link) to add to this conversation really.
Actually, I don't believe they asked you if you thought it a bit foolish. So as to avoid this in the future could you say specifically why you think that would be foolish?
LOL That is kind of cute. I read all of the replies but few seemed to actually understand what I'd written so I didn't bother responding to them. I'm thinking adjustable output power placed in the center of a home and fairly low power should do the trick well enough to cover my hypothetical. One could even put receivers around the edge of the property and when they received the jamming signal they'll send a message to dial the power back so it automatically doesn't go beyond the edge of the property even when weather patterns change. It's a perfectly stupid device that I don't want and I can't think of a reasonable reason to acquire but it's a fun exercise about what rights we have and, obviously, don't have.
Rape harms someone else. The two aren't even remotely similar. If you have a logical answer I'm open to it though. "It's illegal because it's illegal, also rape." That's not actually a good answer but if you try again you might do a better job. You may also wish to read the entire conversation, it may help you formulate a better response.
Go get 'em tiger, I'm rooting for your next try.
It is a fictional device in my scenario (one which specifically ensures that the jamming doesn't impact any neighboring property at all) so yes they're guaranteeing it.
I agree that it should end at the property line, if not then it should be illegal unless (of course) you get a crazy neighbor who doesn't mind but it should be illegal by default as one shouldn't be able to hinder what another person does on their property. That's why I included this caveat: "This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property."
I still can't think of a reason as to why someone would want to restrict this on private property. I can think of a few places where it would be nice where there is public access. It does, though, seem a strange restriction of freedom to outlaw the devices entirely.
I could see a jamming device that had an adjustable power output where you'd put it in the center of your domicile and then adjust the output until it reached the edge of your property but, at the same time, I could see the market for said device being limited to three crazy guys in Alabama.
When they said "permit" they implied something active, to me at least. No specific permit is required to have it happen due to happenstance which makes me think they were speaking specifically about jamming. I don't suppose they'll return to clarify.
It is a lie. They don't do anything of the sort. Anonymity is second only to alcohol when it comes to faux courage.
We all know that this is a persona you use online and that in real life you're a coward at worst and passive aggressive at best. You can save the tough guy talk. Nobody believes you. In fact, you don't even have to do the whole "reply to me and try to pretend to be manly" thing to cover your broken ego. It's okay and we're still not going to believe that you have the courage to disturb anyone.
I like that idea assuming I understand it correctly. It seems odd (I'm absolutely not an expert) that you'd have to get carrier specific equipment. Don't a lot of carriers offer peering with other carriers on their equipment? Does that mean they had to add extra equipment to their towers in order to enable peering? I'd have guessed that just having 3G, CDMA, etc would have been sufficient, those aren't standardized and are carrier-centric? (Much thanks, I value learning things. I know *gasp* that I don't know everything as is customary to pretend online. So, I suck up knowledge any chance I get.)
From what you said, it's do-able though the logistics would make it a bit tough and efficacy mean that someone could bypass it easily enough? I would not be surprised if society decided that, at some point, we'll have to deal with this situation. I could see us deciding that we'll allow businesses and private property owners to jam signals on their property and that legislation will be interesting to look at.
I'm aware that blocking or jamming is currently illegal. That's not in question. My question is concerning the correctness of that fact. Basically, should it be illegal?
Assuming that it is possible without harming any signal on neighboring property should someone have the right to jam cellphone (or any RF) on their own property?
Hell, I can't even think of a reason why someone would want to do so on their personal property. I'm just not sure if it should be illegal. I can't personally come up with a good reason to block RF on your private property - not even a single good reason. I can't come up with a good reason as to why it should be illegal to jam (again, assuming no impact on neighboring properties) either.
It's mostly mental bubblegum that this article and some comments made me think about. I don't actually want to block someone's signal. I'm aware that it is illegal. My question concerns whether it should be illegal and where the line concerning freedom is drawn.
Freedom to control what happens on your private property.