| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Comments:
<0> but a week in advance is not so much "about to kill somebody else"
<1> So a week is too long. What about an hour?
<2> that would be an act of defending someone from hostility
<0> the judgeemnt depends on if they can be stopped p***ively too. And the time.. So, in an hour, there isn't much time to guarantee good protection. Then what is this risk that this person will succeed in killing you without you killing him first
<1> Well, here's my point... Murder hasn't happened until its happened.
<0> jblack: right, but you have to make that risk judgement
<1> Here's an example from real life. Last week there was a large party across the street.
<0> given the information avaialble
<2> jblack: are you suggesting that we could only kill the bad guy after the had done his killing ?
<3> generally for something to qualify as legitimate self-defense, you have to make an effort to escape, and only when that fails can you use lethal force
<1> I broke that party up. A guy was pissed off enough about it to go to his car and get a gun, for which to shoot me.
<1> So we have an imminent situation. We have motive. We have means.
<3> well yeah if somebody comes at you with a gun i don't exactly feel too sorry for anything bad that happens to him
<0> right caus
<1> Would I be free of your label of evil if I killed him before he reached his car and got his gun?
<0> no, do you think he is going to kill you?
<0> and why
<3> even the authorities could not gun you down until after they saw the weapon and after they saw you reach for it
<0> jblack: if he says "i'm going to shoot you, im' gonna get my gun from my car and shoot you" Then you have reason to believe he will!
<1> Like I said. He had motive, he had means, and he had opportunity.
<1> As a matter of fact, he did say that.
<0> that's not enough.. He has to say he will or be doing it..
<0> many people have motive means and opportinuty
<0> i piss somebody off and they own a gun
<0> doesn't givem e the right to kill him. I have to calculate whether I think he will kill me
<4> this is stupid.
<1> What I'm illuminating here is that until a murder has happened, its not murder.
<0> given the information available
<3> again to qualify as self-defense in most states, you have to try to escape first
<3> although notably, Florida has relaxed that restriction
<0> jblack: that isn't practical
<0> jblack: it wouldn't work in real life
<3> and as a result violent crime has decreased
<2> so preemtive measure is wrong ..
<1> In this case, despite his intent to kill me (a threat which I believed), 30 of his closest friends took him to ground.
<0> jblack: it's like saying you don't know somebody is a murderer if he has a knife to your neck.. The poitn is that the risk is great enough, you can kill them
<1> Oh surely he's committed some offense. Yet you can't call him a murderer until he's murdered. Circumstances may prevent it
<3> that may qualify as attempted murder, which is still a very serious crime
<1> Sure.
<0> jblack: it's a judgement you have to make.. did you see the 30 friends coming to stop him
<0> well, i'm not calling him a murderer. Just hat he's coming to kill you and failed!
<1> Nope.
<1> It was dark and he was already 1/2 way to his car.
<0> and you thought he was going to kill you?
<2> a failed murderer
<0> well, I think it'd have been fine for you to have killed him. Given the ifnormation you had available
<0> and that's all you have
<1> So, this is where your standard of morality gets you. I could have killed someone actively trying to kill me.
<0> yeah of course
<1> According to your argument I'm free of guilt because I was trying to stop someone from killing me _right now_.
<0> that is moral
<3> this is where legality and morality have no relation
<2> wouldnt you ?
<0> jblack: right
<5> "qualify as self defense"? isnt this what a jury is for?
<3> i like the ancient Celtic idea of what an "outlaw" is. it is someone who is no longer under the protection of the law, meaning you could kill them or whatever with no penalty
<1> Yet I've still killed someone that didn't kill me. Maybe my ***essment was wrong. Maybe he could have wimped out and was just threatening.
<3> jblack: this is why you don't go around threatening to kill someone
<1> Maybe he forgot to bring bullets for the gun in his car.
<3> and again it should be ***umed that you don't threaten someone's life without ***uming the risk that they may take you seriously
<1> Now I've killed someone that couldn't have killed me, even if he wanted.
<0> jblack: yes.. You wouldn've made the right judgement
<0> jblack: ther's always a maybe
<2> jblack: that is called pre emptive measures
<0> but if you think that it's highly probably that he'll kill you, then you can kill him
<1> And though a person dead from my hands lays on the street, I'm justified in expecting a full night of sleep?
<1> I don't buy it.
<0> and i'd say that is moraly right. and absurd not to kill him!
<0> jblack: absolutely
<3> like someone mentioned the burglars who fell off a roof or something trying to rob a house, sued, and won. if it were up to me, the moment you break into someone's house, you lose all rights to personal safety
<3> if you want for people to not do that kind of ****, that's one way to arrange it
<1> The punishment for an act must come after the act, not before.
<5> who shoots somoene walking to their car to get a gun?
<0> jblack: you're not "punishing" him
<2> does "make my day " law still valid ?
<3> jblack: a better solution for that kind of thing is to go back to making dueling legal
<1> Tell the dead guy that he doesn't feel punished.
<5> thats a stupid person to turn around and walk to their car, unless they didnt know you were pointing a gun at them
<3> then instead of running after you with a gun, he could just challenge you to a duel
<0> jblack: the dead guy should be dead
<3> plus if dueling were legal it would eliminate a lot of the stupid people
<3> and it would work as long as it's still murder if you do not want to duel
<0> and deserving of it. It was undertsandable and reasonable for you to have killed him. If he was erasonable he wouldnt' have done what he did, and he would understand what you did
<0> and agree with you
<0> real repentent people often say they didn't deserve a second chance
<6> question with 'sudo'... i'm trying to run a command as root all in one line..something like 'echo "p***word"|sudo yum -y update openssh' ...can anyone correct me on the syntax. I keep getting p***word incorrect
<3> not to mention, think of how polite everyone would be if dueling were legal
<1> Right by might, eh?
<5> you cant p*** the p***word into sudo like that
<1> The person that can aim better must have been right
<6> steve-oh: how would i correctly p*** it in?
<0> jblack: no.. If you had tried to kill him and failed and he killed you. You are still right
<5> why dont you just type sudo yum -y and just put the p***word in?
<3> point is, a fair fight would be better than having some ***hole walk up to an unarmed man and gun him down
<2> SmoothTape: you need to setup a script for that
<3> and people would tend to pick their battles and not fight over stupid **** like a broken up party if that were the case
<5> or give whatever account youre trying to have run this able to sudo yum without a p***word
<6> routerman: how would i get sudo -
<6> S to work
<6> en
<0> jblack: i.e. if he tried to kill you, and you tried to kill him, and he won. He had the might, but was wrong. You were right.
<0> morally you were right
<5> SmoothTape: you really should ever put the p***word in a command, it can be seen on the process table
<2> you need "send"
<0> you just weren't prepared so well practically, you weren't such a marksman, weren't strong enough, e.t.c. But that's not a moral weakness.
<6> how would i write a bash script to read in a p***word for 'sudo -S'?
<5> oh, whats the term called, an interactive script
<1> cancel: About what I said earlier, I was just trying to be cute. :)
<5> SmoothTape: theres probably a better way to do what youre trying to do, what exactly are you trying to do?
<5> SmoothTape: its called an "expect script"
<7> I am on Ubuntu Dapper, I am installing Oracle XE edition.. just wanted to know if anyone is aware whether Oracle XE contains Enterprise Management console ?
<6> locked out of ssh..have a cgi telnet shell with limited capabilites...want to run a command to reinstall ssh, but can't answer prompt
<5> SmoothTape: google is your friend, but i highly suggest you try another way to do this
<6> i've googled my brains out mr.
<5> SmoothTape: i just told you its called an expect script
<1> smoothtape: Personally I'd suggest logging into the machine locally
<6> jblack: remote box
<5> SmoothTape: google "expect script"
<1> smoothtape: Get the onwer of the machine to install ssh for you
<8> jblack: ok
<5> SmoothTape: man expect ?
<9> hey all
<2> i dont think dafualt installed system have "expect" loaded
<6> jblack: it's unmanaged dedicated server and i'm trying to avoid onsite fees
<5> SmoothTape: should i stop or are you going to make someone else do all the work for you?
<6> i'm looking up expect
<1> smoothtape: Get a different one then, that provides basic functionality.
<6> ...don't worry
<1> We can't tell whether or not you're supposed to be on the machine.
<6> well, i have the root pw....and i have a "cgitelnet", but ssh broke and i'm trying to reinstall openssh
<6> there's nothing fishy here
<2> i would personally make a crond upload a script to the remote server ... and at the remote server .. a crond will chmod the script to be executable and run the script for you
<10> .msg linuxdaemon i am twice the effect without the meaning.
<10> oops
<5> SmoothTape: cgitelnet seems pretty bad if it can sudo cant interact with you
<6> it's not java
<5> SmoothTape: if cant let sudo be interactive with you
<2> <2> i would personally make a crond upload a script to the remote server ... and at the remote server .. a crond will chmod the script to be executable and run the script for you <-- pushed update technology .. *gigiles*
<11> hello FC4 and FC5 are the same command with smbmount //machine/sharename /sample/sample/share -o username=sample
<11> mount: unknown filesystem type 'smbfs' - what the meaning of that
<5> SmoothTape: if you dont have expect, maybe the second example would work http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part3/section-9.html
<12> Hello all, i'm chatting to you from my newly installed Debian on my newly rescued laptop :)
<2> Cognition: congrats Cognition ^_^
<11> anyone help me
<11> hello FC4 and FC5 are the same command with smbmount //machine/sharename /sample/sample/share -o username=sample
<6> i appreciate the help, thanks.
<12> Routermen: :) thank you
<5> SmoothTape: if you cant do expect or the other thing, maybe use sed to modify the configuration files for cgitelnet so you can login as root, just change the p***word as soon as you log in
<2> Cognition: np. did you scratch the system 1st and then reinstalled it all over again ?
<12> Routermen: nah, it's just an old laptop that i found in the basement when i was visiting Kuwait, so i went to ebay, found a harddrive for it, and boom, brought back to life.
<12> but man i installed Debian (testing) and it kicks ***
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#chat-world
#linux
#linux
#india
#worldchat
pakstani dishes
#india
#chat-world
#chat-world
Snop Dog
|
|