It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:
I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.
I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.
There might be a few libertarians who want that. But most of them do not. Care if I apply to you the beliefs of the nuttiest members of whatever group you belong to?
This appears to be a case where the employee was using his vehicle for work-related transportation, and his supervisors began to suspect that the hours he was reporting were not the hours he was actually working. So instead of hiring someone to follow the employee (read: expensive), they attached a cheap GPS tracker and then retrieved it days or weeks later.
Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker.:P
I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
Re:Without remorse there is no rehabilitation.
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
What specific things did Kevin do that you consider "some of the most amoral and harmful acts in modern computing history"? Because I do not think any of the "attacks" he perpetrated were as harmful than, say, the 15th most destructive computer virus.
Also, I am curious what you would consider an appropriate level of "remorse" for Kevin's crime.
I don't get it. The gizmodo article does a good job to show how some of the e-mails paint a really bad picture of certain police officials. But then it includes this as an example of a "request for the Texan chiefs to investigate an officer's affair with a married woman", and comments that this is "tax dollars at work"...
From: Doug Lauersdorf Sent: Thu 9/16/2010 10:06 AM To: Bob Wieners; Luke Loeser Subject: Complainant
Chiefs:
I conducted a preliminary inquiry into information received from Detective Price who received a call from Mr. Clements wanting us to know that one of our officers on midnight shift was having an affair with his wife. He also complained that the officer had run his criminal history. I asked KC to contact DPS to research their database to ascertain any person(s) that had ran his information to obtain information from any of the following: CCH, TDL, NCIC, TCIC, SETCIC, etc. The search revealed that the only person with the Friendswood Police Department that had run him was Elaine who had ran the information at KCÃââs direction at my request. This matter is mute until the time comes when he initiates the complaint process and provides us with the officerÃââs name.
Sergeant Douglas E. Lauersdorf
Ok, Gizmodo. You were spot on with the other e-mails, but this does not at all fit into your story. For starters, it is not a request, but rather a report. Second, the investigation was on the improper use of police computer files, not the marital affair.
See, use of police databases for personal reasons is a major no-no. And suspicions of such conduct is almost always looked into.
In this particular instance, the effort was suspended because they did not know which particular officer was being accused. Had they known, they could have looked specifically at his search history (for say, misspelled names of the complainant).
Anyway, the racist and other unprofessional e-mails should cause heads to roll. But in this last case I see nothing improper. Except that it is "moot", not "mute", Sgt Lauersdorf.:)
That is the best long-term global strategy, but in the long-term we're all dead.
In the mean time you have to expect that developing countries are going to go lax on their environmental standards for a time so that they can catch up.
Please. More like: Unemployment or pollution in China; Chinese people have made their choice a long time ago.
China knows what increasing environmental standards will do to them. It is the same thing they did to us: shift manufacturing elsewhere. That is not to say they should not raise their standards; but it is hard to ignore the costs of doing so.
Placing this on the shoulder of American consumers ignores the fact that if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America.
You have (rightly or wrongly) taken from the schools a lot of their powers in regards to disciplining students. So where the school can not, the parents must. Except, the parents are not fulfilling their obligations in this regard, and the schools can not hold parents thusly responsible.
But the courts can.
Therefore, the school will begin referring your unique snowflake to the courts when their behavior exceeds what little remedies you have left available to the schools.
Where do you draw the line? Do you allow Apple to tie firmware in with the hardware? What about operating systems? Does the operating system include the interface?
Okay, but the Dark Knight would be a little more careful about protecting his identify than risk being outed by putting his real family name on the dashboard MFD.
That does not make the tax regressive, because the tax is not on income. It is a tax on sales. And the rate is the same regardless of whether you spend 50% of your income on "stuff", or 25%. That makes it flat.
Sales tax is not regressive, it is flat. The rate of tax is the same regardless of whether you are a high or low income earner. Just because there are more low income earners than high, resulting in a larger proportion of overall revenues coming from low income earners, does not make the tax regressive.
I suspect in Rhode Island, as it is in Michigan, that what you refer to is a "use tax". Which is a thinly veiled end-run around the interstate commerce clause whose intent is to restore what perceive as loss revenue from interstate sales.
So it isn't different than ordering something over the internet. In both cases you are responsible for the tax because you are the one using the item. Requiring retailers to collect the tax is pretty silly, considering there is no way for retailers to know where you actually intend to use the item.
I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the sex offender registry. It is not for people with a proven attraction to minors (which is not a crime by the way, just saying). It is for criminals whose crime is sexual in nature, regardless of whether the victims were minors or not. So you will find everyone from rapists to flashers on the registry.
Claims he is not a "dangerous sexual offender" does reconcile with his behavior. In this case, the individual attempted to frame his neighbors as child pornographers. In doing so, he victimized the children depicted in those photographs as well as the neighbors.
I often balk at the sentences our judicial system hands down (too much punishment for minor offenses, too little for major offenses), but in this case I think the punishment fits the crime.
That money that is being "horded" by the rich is not "dead money". It is invested, or at the very least deposited into a bank where it is being lent out. Rich people who keep their entire fortune in cash sitting in their home safes...don't stay rich for very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Most absolutist pacifists I know, of which this professor seems like one, abhor violence even in movies.
Hey, maybe you're right. It just seems weird that the professor went off on the police chief but did never explained why the quote was not a threat.
It is funny because I understand the poster to be saying exactly what you think it says as well. Except neither the professor nor police chief seem to think it says that at all. The police chief, obviously, sees it as threatening. And the professor? Well, I can not imagine a person who writes this in his e-mail is someone who supports self-defense rights:
I am a committed pacifist and a devotee of non-violence, and I don't appreciate card carrying members of the NRA who are wearing side arms and truncheons lecturing me about violence.
I really do want to know what the professor thinks the poster's quote means.
There might be a few libertarians who want that. But most of them do not. Care if I apply to you the beliefs of the nuttiest members of whatever group you belong to?
Oh wait, he doesn't.
This appears to be a case where the employee was using his vehicle for work-related transportation, and his supervisors began to suspect that the hours he was reporting were not the hours he was actually working. So instead of hiring someone to follow the employee (read: expensive), they attached a cheap GPS tracker and then retrieved it days or weeks later.
Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker. :P
I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
I agree: Squid + SARG is the best free solution.
What specific things did Kevin do that you consider "some of the most amoral and harmful acts in modern computing history"? Because I do not think any of the "attacks" he perpetrated were as harmful than, say, the 15th most destructive computer virus.
Also, I am curious what you would consider an appropriate level of "remorse" for Kevin's crime.
I don't get it. The gizmodo article does a good job to show how some of the e-mails paint a really bad picture of certain police officials. But then it includes this as an example of a "request for the Texan chiefs to investigate an officer's affair with a married woman", and comments that this is "tax dollars at work"...
From: Doug Lauersdorf
Sent: Thu 9/16/2010 10:06 AM
To: Bob Wieners; Luke Loeser
Subject: Complainant
Chiefs:
I conducted a preliminary inquiry into information received from Detective Price who received a call from Mr. Clements wanting us to know that one of our officers on midnight shift was having an affair with his wife. He also complained that the officer had run his criminal history. I asked KC to contact DPS to research their database to ascertain any person(s) that had ran his information to obtain information from any of the following: CCH, TDL, NCIC, TCIC, SETCIC, etc. The search revealed that the only person with the Friendswood Police Department that had run him was Elaine who had ran the information at KCÃââs direction at my request. This matter is mute until the time comes when he initiates the complaint process and provides us with the officerÃââs name.
Sergeant Douglas E. Lauersdorf
Ok, Gizmodo. You were spot on with the other e-mails, but this does not at all fit into your story. For starters, it is not a request, but rather a report. Second, the investigation was on the improper use of police computer files, not the marital affair.
See, use of police databases for personal reasons is a major no-no. And suspicions of such conduct is almost always looked into.
In this particular instance, the effort was suspended because they did not know which particular officer was being accused. Had they known, they could have looked specifically at his search history (for say, misspelled names of the complainant).
Anyway, the racist and other unprofessional e-mails should cause heads to roll. But in this last case I see nothing improper. Except that it is "moot", not "mute", Sgt Lauersdorf. :)
That is the best long-term global strategy, but in the long-term we're all dead.
In the mean time you have to expect that developing countries are going to go lax on their environmental standards for a time so that they can catch up.
Please. More like: Unemployment or pollution in China; Chinese people have made their choice a long time ago.
China knows what increasing environmental standards will do to them. It is the same thing they did to us: shift manufacturing elsewhere. That is not to say they should not raise their standards; but it is hard to ignore the costs of doing so.
Placing this on the shoulder of American consumers ignores the fact that if Americans did not demand low prices, much of that manufacturing would have stayed in America.
You have (rightly or wrongly) taken from the schools a lot of their powers in regards to disciplining students. So where the school can not, the parents must. Except, the parents are not fulfilling their obligations in this regard, and the schools can not hold parents thusly responsible.
But the courts can.
Therefore, the school will begin referring your unique snowflake to the courts when their behavior exceeds what little remedies you have left available to the schools.
Did nobody see this coming?
Ahh, you're strawmanning the argument. Got it. Carry on.
You need a new IT guy. Placing a computer in a cabinet under your desk is perfectly okay, and sufficient ventilation can be arranged.
Oh, you don't want to pay for it? Now you see where your analogy has come full circle to prove the OP.
I dunno, did you just multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate?
Where do you draw the line? Do you allow Apple to tie firmware in with the hardware? What about operating systems? Does the operating system include the interface?
Get an ax!
Okay, but the Dark Knight would be a little more careful about protecting his identify than risk being outed by putting his real family name on the dashboard MFD.
That does not make the tax regressive, because the tax is not on income. It is a tax on sales. And the rate is the same regardless of whether you spend 50% of your income on "stuff", or 25%. That makes it flat.
Sales tax is not regressive, it is flat. The rate of tax is the same regardless of whether you are a high or low income earner. Just because there are more low income earners than high, resulting in a larger proportion of overall revenues coming from low income earners, does not make the tax regressive.
I suspect in Rhode Island, as it is in Michigan, that what you refer to is a "use tax". Which is a thinly veiled end-run around the interstate commerce clause whose intent is to restore what perceive as loss revenue from interstate sales.
So it isn't different than ordering something over the internet. In both cases you are responsible for the tax because you are the one using the item. Requiring retailers to collect the tax is pretty silly, considering there is no way for retailers to know where you actually intend to use the item.
Err: does NOT reconcile with his behavior.
I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the sex offender registry. It is not for people with a proven attraction to minors (which is not a crime by the way, just saying). It is for criminals whose crime is sexual in nature, regardless of whether the victims were minors or not. So you will find everyone from rapists to flashers on the registry.
Claims he is not a "dangerous sexual offender" does reconcile with his behavior. In this case, the individual attempted to frame his neighbors as child pornographers. In doing so, he victimized the children depicted in those photographs as well as the neighbors.
I often balk at the sentences our judicial system hands down (too much punishment for minor offenses, too little for major offenses), but in this case I think the punishment fits the crime.
That money that is being "horded" by the rich is not "dead money". It is invested, or at the very least deposited into a bank where it is being lent out. Rich people who keep their entire fortune in cash sitting in their home safes...don't stay rich for very long.