If he had a DVR security system and multiple cameras.... well, they'd be gone too, wouldn't they?
I'd assume the DVR and all would be 'hidden' somewhere outta the way like the attic?
I'd think concealing the cameras would be a good idea too.
I don't understand how a DVR will prevent a burglary. At best it might provide evidence to convict someone. If they're caught. If the police can be bothered to look at it.
Civilization and "civilized" is not some binary status that is involves forfeiture of one's life for doing anything wrong. There are degrees of wrongness, and for most people, property damage is not the same amount of wrong as bodily harm. Valuing a few thousand dollars of entertainment products over someone's life, regardless of which one made choices leading up to that situation, seems more contrasted at civilized life than someone who at worst just wants more stuff, or at best is trying to survive because they ran out of options or are not very bright.
It's not the stuff that's the problem, it's the rest of what may happen. What was a simple burglary can turn into a robbery and rape simply because the house was occupied by a girl home sick from school. Maybe the victim gets home while it's going on and the criminal turns into a stabbing machine to make sure they get away uncaught.
If you want to bet your life that a criminal will be honorable enough to let you live, go right ahead. But to call someone that values their life over the life of someone who chooses to do harm as more wrong is condescending and insulting.
Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?
Thank you. When people whip out the crime statistics to prove how much safer we'd be without firearms, notice they always always stop right after homicide. All other crime? Well, what's a little terror in your life... your life we saved by banning firearms donchaknow.
Better yet, get rid of your guns when you have children. Anyone who thinks locking them up is going to prevent kids from getting hold of a gun 24/7 for 18 years is deluding themselves.
While we're at it, get rid of your knives, cleaning chemicals, oven, washing machine, bookcases, coffee table, electrical outlets, etc.
18,000 kids are injured each year from a TV falling onto them. Compare to how many are shooting themselves by playing with a gun that the careless adults should have taught to respect instead.
So best wishes to all those saying "over my dead body" and I hope that any interference YOU cause by use of an unlicensed device doesn't kill anyone (preventing Emergency communications, reseting a pacemaker to it's test settings, etc).
Is there any evidence that these killing events are actually happening? Surely the FCC would have cited these are reasons people should turn off their signal boosters and register with their cell providers?
If you are scared to talk about your idea in public, it is a terrible idea.
You mean not enabling some mechanical turk of 12 bottom-tier developers crap something out and claim 100% market share for your killer idea while you're still in the system design stage is a terrible idea?
As much as I love, and often go-to the name "Shaniqua", I can't help but find your post just a tad offensive/racist with regard to US education. I know you didn't mean to imply that blacks would have this parenting issue, but your post sure did. But maybe that's just because racist old me, thinking of Shaniqua as a less than 'unique' name in the American black community.
You can't ignore that a big deal in the black community is the stigma of being labeled an Uncle Tom or an Oreo. Making education a priority is akin to selling out to "The Man" and somehow dilutes their history, which is of course ridiculous. The focus then is on prideful acts: focus on sports and being a sports star, gangs and your brothers instead of actual family and your community, making money selling drugs because you can't hold a job because you don't want to be somebody's bitch.
American Blacks (leaving out African-American because we're talking many many generations in the states) that can push past the stigma and "race pressure" become very successful and can break the cycle (as in their kids will likely also be successful), but unfortunately ignorance prevails most of the time, and there are those on the political arena that gain an awful lot from maintaining a permanent underclass.
It's interesting how the women's rights arguments turned out.
They said women are their own people, and can pursue their own interests, and they are not property, and men cannot order them to behave a certain way.
So women, armed with choice, get out of the kitchen and do what they want. Getting educated if they want to, getting careers if they want to, getting married if they want to, so on and so on. Yet I've noticed some women choose to get back into the kitchen, yet the housewife label has been thoroughly stigmatized and associated with patriarchal oppression. A woman chooses to use her sexuality to make money, no different from how an athlete would use his muscles to make money, and she's told she shouldn't want to be a sex object.
The loudest voices wanted women to have choice only as an illusion, what they really wanted is for women to choose only what criers deem worthy.
Anytime you see someone arguing that free-will sex work, be it pornography, strippers, prostitutes, should be outlawed as a civil rights issue is someone who doesn't actually believe in civil rights.
A counterinsurgency war is fought in the hearts and minds of the civilians in the occupied territory. These people can pick up a gun at any time and join the resistance, just like Americans civilians joined the resistance against the British during the Revolutionary War. Victory is achieved when there are too few resisters, a condition of which is that very few civilians join the resistance.
So, the question is how do we curtail the number of civilians joining the resistance? Unless we have an answer to this question, then we will lose.
Because all the families of the innocents slain fucking hate you, and your country, and all that drone killings represent. I mean seriously, congratulations: you ran some software someone else made, and you followed orders from someone else to drop a bomb on something you didn't personally go to. Thanks a lot?
Just curious, how does one get the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality unless A) you are actually impacted by it, and B) you lack the due process to appeal?
And thanks to the 2012 NDAA, add a "C) you are killed by a drone and can't complain?"
The Republicans tried their hardest to manufacture one with Benghazi,
Have you seen any of the hearings? Some of the revelations are pretty shocking. Secretary Clinton and President Obama were asleep at the wheel even more than President Bush was regarding the 9/11 intelligence. I guess the attention not paid to that was better spent on the election campaign, with a complicit media keeping it off the front page. Unless, of course, these champions of free speech were maligning and blaming some anti-Islamic -- but free speech -- trailer on YouTube. (Yet no one blames anti-Christian anything as prompting Westboro Baptist Fucking Nuts Church from doing something uncivil.)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
If I committed crimes and acted in bad faith while people died through my actions and inactions, my arrest records, mug shots, and all my secrets would be revealed in court. Rightly so, I would also argue.
So the question is, has Wikileaks published the contents of people's lives who have not done any wrong? If they start doing that, then we can start the criticism.
The lack of consequences to the behavior of governments is because the people don't demand them, because they have swallowed the pill that Wikileaks puts troops in harms way, that trumped up and manufactured rape charges are true, and that those who leak information to them are traitors. Plus they wouldn't even do anything anyway if doors were getting kicked in and people getting rounded up into boxcars.
Exposing secrets of powerful institutions that can manipulate the fate of humanity isn't in the same league as the secrets that organization may hold. Isn't even the same galaxy.
You can't take revenge and prosecute the powers that be. If you could, they wouldn't be powers and they wouldn't require whistleblowing. Wikileaks, on the otherhand, is very destructible.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd assume the DVR and all would be 'hidden' somewhere outta the way like the attic?
I'd think concealing the cameras would be a good idea too.
I don't understand how a DVR will prevent a burglary. At best it might provide evidence to convict someone. If they're caught. If the police can be bothered to look at it.
Civilization and "civilized" is not some binary status that is involves forfeiture of one's life for doing anything wrong. There are degrees of wrongness, and for most people, property damage is not the same amount of wrong as bodily harm. Valuing a few thousand dollars of entertainment products over someone's life, regardless of which one made choices leading up to that situation, seems more contrasted at civilized life than someone who at worst just wants more stuff, or at best is trying to survive because they ran out of options or are not very bright.
It's not the stuff that's the problem, it's the rest of what may happen. What was a simple burglary can turn into a robbery and rape simply because the house was occupied by a girl home sick from school. Maybe the victim gets home while it's going on and the criminal turns into a stabbing machine to make sure they get away uncaught.
If you want to bet your life that a criminal will be honorable enough to let you live, go right ahead. But to call someone that values their life over the life of someone who chooses to do harm as more wrong is condescending and insulting.
If he had that, some piece of shit criminal would now be running around with his ar-15 illegally.
I'm as pro gun as anyone out there, but I'm baffled why gun safes are not mandatory for those who wish to keep a gun at home*.
*while they are presumably away from home... a rifle isn't exactly a good concealable weapon
I suggest a dictionary.
Didn't you read the summary? They took EVERYTHING.
::CLANG:: In the red corner, the libertarians. In the blue corner, the Keynesians. Round 1 FIGHT!
Two fruitcakes enter!
Half a dozen fruitcakes leave!
There is only one fruitcake.
Does that mean Mathematicians are in the next title fight?
So this is what happens when trolls collide
But what's the rate of assault?
Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?
Thank you. When people whip out the crime statistics to prove how much safer we'd be without firearms, notice they always always stop right after homicide. All other crime? Well, what's a little terror in your life... your life we saved by banning firearms donchaknow.
Better yet, get rid of your guns when you have children. Anyone who thinks locking them up is going to prevent kids from getting hold of a gun 24/7 for 18 years is deluding themselves.
While we're at it, get rid of your knives, cleaning chemicals, oven, washing machine, bookcases, coffee table, electrical outlets, etc.
18,000 kids are injured each year from a TV falling onto them. Compare to how many are shooting themselves by playing with a gun that the careless adults should have taught to respect instead.
So, like during the 80's, the solution is clear. Children should have the tips of their fingers painted fluorescent orange.
So best wishes to all those saying "over my dead body" and I hope that any interference YOU cause by use of an unlicensed device doesn't kill anyone (preventing Emergency communications, reseting a pacemaker to it's test settings, etc).
Is there any evidence that these killing events are actually happening? Surely the FCC would have cited these are reasons people should turn off their signal boosters and register with their cell providers?
If you are scared to talk about your idea in public, it is a terrible idea.
You mean not enabling some mechanical turk of 12 bottom-tier developers crap something out and claim 100% market share for your killer idea while you're still in the system design stage is a terrible idea?
What you are witnessing is the disintegration of American secondary education.
Along with everything else that was once good about America.
I dunno, cheeseburgers are larger and tastier than ever.
As much as I love, and often go-to the name "Shaniqua", I can't help but find your post just a tad offensive/racist with regard to US education. I know you didn't mean to imply that blacks would have this parenting issue, but your post sure did. But maybe that's just because racist old me, thinking of Shaniqua as a less than 'unique' name in the American black community.
You can't ignore that a big deal in the black community is the stigma of being labeled an Uncle Tom or an Oreo. Making education a priority is akin to selling out to "The Man" and somehow dilutes their history, which is of course ridiculous. The focus then is on prideful acts: focus on sports and being a sports star, gangs and your brothers instead of actual family and your community, making money selling drugs because you can't hold a job because you don't want to be somebody's bitch.
American Blacks (leaving out African-American because we're talking many many generations in the states) that can push past the stigma and "race pressure" become very successful and can break the cycle (as in their kids will likely also be successful), but unfortunately ignorance prevails most of the time, and there are those on the political arena that gain an awful lot from maintaining a permanent underclass.
I agree, but it seems the bar on the graduating end of things is being lowered as well.
I still use a CRT so I can cook my lunch by placing it on the top of the monitor case.
It's interesting how the women's rights arguments turned out.
They said women are their own people, and can pursue their own interests, and they are not property, and men cannot order them to behave a certain way.
So women, armed with choice, get out of the kitchen and do what they want. Getting educated if they want to, getting careers if they want to, getting married if they want to, so on and so on. Yet I've noticed some women choose to get back into the kitchen, yet the housewife label has been thoroughly stigmatized and associated with patriarchal oppression. A woman chooses to use her sexuality to make money, no different from how an athlete would use his muscles to make money, and she's told she shouldn't want to be a sex object.
The loudest voices wanted women to have choice only as an illusion, what they really wanted is for women to choose only what criers deem worthy.
Anytime you see someone arguing that free-will sex work, be it pornography, strippers, prostitutes, should be outlawed as a civil rights issue is someone who doesn't actually believe in civil rights.
A counterinsurgency war is fought in the hearts and minds of the civilians in the occupied territory. These people can pick up a gun at any time and join the resistance, just like Americans civilians joined the resistance against the British during the Revolutionary War. Victory is achieved when there are too few resisters, a condition of which is that very few civilians join the resistance.
So, the question is how do we curtail the number of civilians joining the resistance? Unless we have an answer to this question, then we will lose.
The answer is clear: kill all the civilians.
Because all the families of the innocents slain fucking hate you, and your country, and all that drone killings represent. I mean seriously, congratulations: you ran some software someone else made, and you followed orders from someone else to drop a bomb on something you didn't personally go to. Thanks a lot?
That's ok.
They were all bad.
The government said so.
It just shows how low the US can go.
Is it that much different than "paid administrative leave" and "zero-risk desk work" rewarded to heavy handed, violent, and corrupt police officers?
Yeah, C++, C#, VB.NET and F# are ALL dying languages. Fucking moron.
F# ? I agree it's not dying, but only because it never lived.
It sure is a good thing the 360 only plays disc based games, huh?
If he's giving his games to his nephews, it's safe to say he only has disc based games.
Just curious, how does one get the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality unless A) you are actually impacted by it, and B) you lack the due process to appeal?
And thanks to the 2012 NDAA, add a "C) you are killed by a drone and can't complain?"
The Republicans tried their hardest to manufacture one with Benghazi,
Have you seen any of the hearings? Some of the revelations are pretty shocking. Secretary Clinton and President Obama were asleep at the wheel even more than President Bush was regarding the 9/11 intelligence. I guess the attention not paid to that was better spent on the election campaign, with a complicit media keeping it off the front page. Unless, of course, these champions of free speech were maligning and blaming some anti-Islamic -- but free speech -- trailer on YouTube. (Yet no one blames anti-Christian anything as prompting Westboro Baptist Fucking Nuts Church from doing something uncivil.)
but nobody cared.
"But the future refused to change."
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
If I committed crimes and acted in bad faith while people died through my actions and inactions, my arrest records, mug shots, and all my secrets would be revealed in court. Rightly so, I would also argue.
So the question is, has Wikileaks published the contents of people's lives who have not done any wrong? If they start doing that, then we can start the criticism.
The lack of consequences to the behavior of governments is because the people don't demand them, because they have swallowed the pill that Wikileaks puts troops in harms way, that trumped up and manufactured rape charges are true, and that those who leak information to them are traitors. Plus they wouldn't even do anything anyway if doors were getting kicked in and people getting rounded up into boxcars.
Exposing secrets of powerful institutions that can manipulate the fate of humanity isn't in the same league as the secrets that organization may hold. Isn't even the same galaxy.
You can't take revenge and prosecute the powers that be. If you could, they wouldn't be powers and they wouldn't require whistleblowing. Wikileaks, on the otherhand, is very destructible.