And the suit, if there is one, will hopefully go nowhere. The police did exactly the right thing. But that doesn't matter: fear of a lawsuit is a powerful motivator.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Since filing a false report is itself illegal, free speech does not apply, but to assume that it was applied here: What Charlie Hebdo did would be considered protected speech in the US.
The standard in the US is exactly "speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action".
It means you must:
* Incite someone to commit a specific crime (e.g. kill someone)
* At some specific time (imminent) (e.g. tomorrow)
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that has happened, and since it was a real emergency, the police department is now being sued.
"An investigations by NBC reveal that the police department was alerted anonymously, with the caller informing them that the suspect possessed several types of firearms and had expressed their frustration with the victim numerous times. When asked about this apparent warning, the commissioner declined to comment. An officer working the case who spoke with NBC on the condition of anonymity revealed that they did not take the warning seriously, citing many cases in which police were sent to a location based on such warnings only to find that the warning was a hoax, leaving bills in property damage and unknown damages in lost time and personnel availability. A spokesperson for the family of the victim has stated the family's intent to sue the police department for gross negligence in this matter, and NBC has learned that the caller - later identified as the suspect's brother - is also seeking legal recourse."
I haven't, but I didn't doubt the effectiveness of placebos. I merely said that they cost a lot less. If they work just as well, but cost a lot less, give me the placebo.
Placebos generally cost a lot less
Exactly. Present the UI all the users are familiar with, then add another UI that can do other things, like turn the lights on remotely, or on a timer, or something.
I remember when car stereos went to all buttons, no dials, and it was distracting because it was (a) new, and (b) suboptimal. Distraction + driving = dead.
Less chance of dying here, but still...
In "Girl Genius" parlance, he has "the Spark"!
Pretend I wrote this in all-caps, so I don't understate it:
Don't advertise how much illegal activity you are doing!
And you've found today's... Daily Double!
It's Sports Nerds asking Science Nerds. Doesn't make any of them less nerdy.
We're going in circles now, and you keep putting words in my mouth.
Funny enough, there are reasons people steal. Doesn't make stealing right. People don't become mass murderers without some extremely fucked-up shit happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up. But this analogy is terrible, because the woman violated no law by sending nude pictures to someone.
What you're saying is akin to saying that a murder _victim_ should be blamed, just a little bit, for being in the place where a murder was happening, and that's bullshit. Or that a mugging victim should be blamed, just a little, for handing over their wallet when faced with a gun, or a knife, which is equally bullshit. Or that someone in a subordinate position, like a student, should be blamed for doing what someone in a position of authority, like a professor, told them they had to do (and since sharing pictures is legal, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Godwin's Law doesn't apply here).
So when someone (I'll use "she" in this example) is told to take nude pictures or she'll fail the class, or she'll get fired from her job, or she'll go to jail, or she'll be killed, it's her fault if she capitulates, but not her fault if she fails her class, or gets fired from her job, or goes to jail, or dies?
Anticipating the next go-round this circle: "Well, failing the class isn't as bad as dying, so you're blowing things out of proportion." Do we know her academic situation? Was this a required class? Was she on a scholarship or financial aid (they've got pretty strict performance requirements)? Is there really no reason she might think that the consequences of not doing what the professor said would be worse than doing what the professor said? Can you not imagine any scenario?
No, X11 was designed without screen locking in mind.
I thought I exactly explained why someone might do something considered irrational. You said you're raising your daughter to be assertive, and that's great! Not everyone has someone who raised them to be assertive! So this "Oh, just refuse to be a victim!" is complete bullshit.
So you are blaming the victim. Congratulations, you're a terrible person.
And don't give Bernie Madoff to try to refute me. He was a sacrifice to ensure that we think the regular Joe Rich Person could go to jail. They can't.