How to catch a sniper
-
If we have to read anything into whatever small indices there may be, then I would think that the letter found by one of the victims that read something about "I am God" would transfer the blame from any Muslim fanatic to any (other than religious) psychopath or George Bush. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: If we have to read anything into whatever small indices there may be, then I would think that the letter found by one of the victims that read something about "I am God" would transfer the blame from any Muslim fanatic to any (other than religious) psychopath You're correct, that doesn't seem to lend support to my theory. But, it could have been a ploy by the police to lure the sniper(s) to respond, or a ploy by the sniper(s) to through off the investigation. If it is Islamic terrorists, it would be to their advantage to make it appear to be a right wing nut or a psychopath. They know how eager our society is to suspect threats from that quarter. Let's face it, most American's in the D.C. area fear their own countrymen more than they fear bin Ladin. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Black Cat wrote: For such plan to work, you should not tell the sniper that you have a plan at all. I think the police should actually issue fake news What makes you so sure this is real news? Sometimes they do issue false information because they know that the media have no moral sense whatsoever and will gladly broadcast anything that will attract attention. Disinformation is anathema to a free society, but the liberal press has made it necessary... Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo...Roger Wright wrote: What makes you so sure this is real news? If I wasn't sure then, I am sure now. As I drove to work this morning, the local tv was reporting how the police invoked the emergency response plan six times during the weekend, searching areas X, Y, Z, it all turned out to be false alarms, etc. The local law enforcement is almost as dum as the federal agencies. Wait a minute, I remembered that FBI and other feds are involved in the investigation, no wonder.
-
Roger Wright wrote: What makes you so sure this is real news? If I wasn't sure then, I am sure now. As I drove to work this morning, the local tv was reporting how the police invoked the emergency response plan six times during the weekend, searching areas X, Y, Z, it all turned out to be false alarms, etc. The local law enforcement is almost as dum as the federal agencies. Wait a minute, I remembered that FBI and other feds are involved in the investigation, no wonder.
Black Cat wrote: Wait a minute, I remembered that FBI and other feds are involved in the investigation, no wonder. Yup. That would explain it. I find it interesting that everyone seems to have a theory about it, even though they know little about the case. One fellow I ran into this weekend claims to have mapped the first seven shootings in his atlas, and is sure that the eighth shooting will complete an eight-sided star (which he says is the symbol displayed in the ritual killings of the Manson family and other killers since). His theory is that once the star is finished the perp will set off a large bomb directly in the center. I didn't have the heart to tell him that there had already been 10 shootings by then. If we could gather all the bar-stool experts in the country together in one place, just think of all the world's problems we could solve!:laugh: It would be a lot cheaper than the Rand corporation, too. All we'd need is a cable tv link to CNN and a bunch of beer and pretzels... Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo... -
I thought that I came up with a plan to catch the sniper that has been the biggest nightmare of the local community (ok, now you all know where I live). Basically, we need to do the following: 1. Divide the region into small blocks (1-5 square miles each?). 2. Make up plans to control all roads on each block and may be neighboring blocks as well. 3. Divide the local police force into small teams, each of them is responsible for controlling a specific block, and it has to be done within a short time (1 minute?). 4. When the sniper hit again, immediately issue orders to all teams to stop and check all traffic on the suspected blocks. 5. All these can be simulated on a computer to see if there is any hole that the sniper can get through. Just when I was about to tell others my great idea, the local news channel reported that "the police said that they have come up with a emergency response plan that will cast the net on the sniper if he strikes again, they are not giving out specific details of the plan at this moment ...". What a bunch of morons! For such plan to work, you should not tell the sniper that you have a plan at all. I think the police should actually issue fake news to fool the sniper into believing that they are on the wrong track ...
Just out of curiosity, hoow many police officers would that require ? And don't forget in your simulation to allow for hornery drives who are in a hurry ! Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Christian Graus wrote: True communism is based on equality for all people, which is hardly evil. ...but when you add "whether they like it or not", then it becomes evil. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: but when you add "whether they like it or not", then it becomes evil. How does this differ from pseudo democracy, if we like it or not ? Repeat: the Stalinist government was NOT communist. I don't support the idea of communism, because human nature makes it impossible. I just think we're fooling ourselves if we think our system of government is fair, representative of the people or just. It sure isn't perfect. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: Actually, Stalin's government was not communist. Only what Communism inevitably becomes. Christian Graus wrote: True communism is based on equality for all people, which is hardly evil. Enforced equality is the very definition of evil. Christian Graus wrote: See, I think you belong to a culture who, like the Russians, know that the best way to enslave a people is to tell them that they are free Sadly true for many modern "Americans" - setting around waiting for the government to make them all equal... Christian Graus wrote: So the fact that OTHER innocent Americans were oppressed does not register on your 'instictive' radar ? You may not need any lectures from Aussies, but we take better care of our mates than that. Not so much as a blip. Our constitution was never intended to be an absolute, unequivocal guarantee of any individual right to do anything. Mr. Trumbo should have understood that - and bought himself a gun. You define freedom for you and your mates as you see fit, I will do the same, and we will both live free and happy. Christian Graus wrote: This is the most astounding American fantasy of all. A fantasy I will forever cherish. For me, true freedom is to possess the will and the ability to take responsibility for my own welfare in my own way. "Responsible" and "free" are synonyms. Any extent to which I must look to a government source for my welfare represents a decrease in freedom. My concerns center around that principle, and yes I do feel threatened. :rose: I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: Only what Communism inevitably becomes. I don't think it inevitable that it be as bad as Stalinism - it sure isn't that bad in Cuba, for example. Reverend Stan wrote: Enforced equality is the very definition of evil. For those on the upper levels of a system where some have and some do not, I suppose it is. Reverend Stan wrote: Our constitution was never intended to be an absolute, unequivocal guarantee of any individual right to do anything. That's not the point - the point is that your government trampling on it's citizens constitutional rights is fine by you if it does not affect you personally, and if it is in pursuit of some 'greater evil'. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
phykell wrote: but when you add "whether they like it or not", then it becomes evil. How does this differ from pseudo democracy, if we like it or not ? Repeat: the Stalinist government was NOT communist. I don't support the idea of communism, because human nature makes it impossible. I just think we're fooling ourselves if we think our system of government is fair, representative of the people or just. It sure isn't perfect. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: How does this differ from pseudo democracy, if we like it or not ? In our "pseudo" democracy, we can leave the country anytime we want. Christian Graus wrote: Repeat: the Stalinist government was NOT communist. I hope you're not repeating that to me, because I don't need it repeating. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
Reverend Stan wrote: Only what Communism inevitably becomes. I don't think it inevitable that it be as bad as Stalinism - it sure isn't that bad in Cuba, for example. Reverend Stan wrote: Enforced equality is the very definition of evil. For those on the upper levels of a system where some have and some do not, I suppose it is. Reverend Stan wrote: Our constitution was never intended to be an absolute, unequivocal guarantee of any individual right to do anything. That's not the point - the point is that your government trampling on it's citizens constitutional rights is fine by you if it does not affect you personally, and if it is in pursuit of some 'greater evil'. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: I don't think it inevitable that it be as bad as Stalinism - it sure isn't that bad in Cuba, for example. OK, you have me there. Castro is not *as* bad as Stalin. How would you rate Mao? Christian Graus wrote: For those on the upper levels of a system where some have and some do not, I suppose it is. How about those at the lower level who have the desire and the ability to get to the top by their own effort? Forcing them to "stay in their place" despite their desire and ability seems pretty danged evil to me. You give every indication of being a more skilled programmer than I am, should the government force equality upon us where none actually exists? How about if I put in a lot of extra effort and come up with something really great? Are we still equal? Isn't my extra effort worth the additional reward I would gain within a capitalistic system, or does my extra effort buy me nothing more than more equality? If so, why bother? Christian Graus wrote: That's not the point - the point is that your government trampling on it's citizens constitutional rights is fine by you if it does not affect you personally, and if it is in pursuit of some 'greater evil'. It is just a difference of opinion concerning what constitutes a right. Through out most of U.S. history, includeing the 1950's, the principles of Jeffersonian Democracy ruled that each state and community had the authority, via the 1st Amendment, to determine the precise definition of what consitutes "free speech", etc. I had that right, Trumbo had that right - no one was taking that away from him. It was not an absolute right, it was relative to the political opinions of those you shared your community with. If we thought flag burning (or "communist speech", or whatever ) did not represent free speech than we could outlaw it at the local level and the first amendement assured us that the Federal government would have no power to interfer with our local decision. Trumbo could have at any time gone to his home town and done the same thing with his fellow citizens. Did McCarthy go beyond his constitutional authority? Of course he did. He was obviously a sick man and should have been replaced long before he was. However, nothing he did represented a threat to the Jeffersonian principle of a right to free speech as it would have been understood by most Americans at the time. That threat exists now, as the supreme c
-
Christian Graus wrote: I don't think it inevitable that it be as bad as Stalinism - it sure isn't that bad in Cuba, for example. OK, you have me there. Castro is not *as* bad as Stalin. How would you rate Mao? Christian Graus wrote: For those on the upper levels of a system where some have and some do not, I suppose it is. How about those at the lower level who have the desire and the ability to get to the top by their own effort? Forcing them to "stay in their place" despite their desire and ability seems pretty danged evil to me. You give every indication of being a more skilled programmer than I am, should the government force equality upon us where none actually exists? How about if I put in a lot of extra effort and come up with something really great? Are we still equal? Isn't my extra effort worth the additional reward I would gain within a capitalistic system, or does my extra effort buy me nothing more than more equality? If so, why bother? Christian Graus wrote: That's not the point - the point is that your government trampling on it's citizens constitutional rights is fine by you if it does not affect you personally, and if it is in pursuit of some 'greater evil'. It is just a difference of opinion concerning what constitutes a right. Through out most of U.S. history, includeing the 1950's, the principles of Jeffersonian Democracy ruled that each state and community had the authority, via the 1st Amendment, to determine the precise definition of what consitutes "free speech", etc. I had that right, Trumbo had that right - no one was taking that away from him. It was not an absolute right, it was relative to the political opinions of those you shared your community with. If we thought flag burning (or "communist speech", or whatever ) did not represent free speech than we could outlaw it at the local level and the first amendement assured us that the Federal government would have no power to interfer with our local decision. Trumbo could have at any time gone to his home town and done the same thing with his fellow citizens. Did McCarthy go beyond his constitutional authority? Of course he did. He was obviously a sick man and should have been replaced long before he was. However, nothing he did represented a threat to the Jeffersonian principle of a right to free speech as it would have been understood by most Americans at the time. That threat exists now, as the supreme c
Stan Shannon wrote: OK, you have me there. Castro is not *as* bad as Stalin. How would you rate Mao? I don't think it matters, I think we've agreed that Communism does not automatically lead to Stalinism. Mao essentially sat at Stalins feet, and then tried to out-Stalin him. Stan Shannon wrote: How about those at the lower level who have the desire and the ability to get to the top by their own effort? What about them ? I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, and moving well beyond my personal opinion in doing so, but assuming we all got paid roughly the same, does that mean that we would not try to do well ? I try to be the best I can be because I find it satisfying, not because I expect to get paid more. Stan Shannon wrote: How about if I put in a lot of extra effort and come up with something really great? Are we still equal? Isn't my extra effort worth the additional reward I would gain within a capitalistic system, or does my extra effort buy me nothing more than more equality? If so, why bother? I agree in part, but would you try to do well or improve yourself just because of money ? No other reason ? Stan Shannon wrote: However, nothing he did represented a threat to the Jeffersonian principle of a right to free speech as it would have been understood by most Americans at the time. I don't see how the Jeffersonian principle is supposed to be comfort to peopel wrongly ostracised, or how it means that in effect you have no freedom of speech at all, because when Trumbo rightly pointed out that some ammendment or other was being violated, he suffered for it. Stan Shannon wrote: That threat exists now, as the supreme court decides for us what constitutes free speech. What you probably fail to see is that these sort of things are cyclical. In the 50's your government went too far in one direction, political correctness has it moving too far in the other. It will swing back, and at every point along the curve, you will remain free to do whatevere your government decides to allow you to do. I'm not suggesting I am any better off in this regard, although I think that Australians are a lot less religious about their country, although still patriotic, and that the net result is a little more level-headedness. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9
-
Stan Shannon wrote: OK, you have me there. Castro is not *as* bad as Stalin. How would you rate Mao? I don't think it matters, I think we've agreed that Communism does not automatically lead to Stalinism. Mao essentially sat at Stalins feet, and then tried to out-Stalin him. Stan Shannon wrote: How about those at the lower level who have the desire and the ability to get to the top by their own effort? What about them ? I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, and moving well beyond my personal opinion in doing so, but assuming we all got paid roughly the same, does that mean that we would not try to do well ? I try to be the best I can be because I find it satisfying, not because I expect to get paid more. Stan Shannon wrote: How about if I put in a lot of extra effort and come up with something really great? Are we still equal? Isn't my extra effort worth the additional reward I would gain within a capitalistic system, or does my extra effort buy me nothing more than more equality? If so, why bother? I agree in part, but would you try to do well or improve yourself just because of money ? No other reason ? Stan Shannon wrote: However, nothing he did represented a threat to the Jeffersonian principle of a right to free speech as it would have been understood by most Americans at the time. I don't see how the Jeffersonian principle is supposed to be comfort to peopel wrongly ostracised, or how it means that in effect you have no freedom of speech at all, because when Trumbo rightly pointed out that some ammendment or other was being violated, he suffered for it. Stan Shannon wrote: That threat exists now, as the supreme court decides for us what constitutes free speech. What you probably fail to see is that these sort of things are cyclical. In the 50's your government went too far in one direction, political correctness has it moving too far in the other. It will swing back, and at every point along the curve, you will remain free to do whatevere your government decides to allow you to do. I'm not suggesting I am any better off in this regard, although I think that Australians are a lot less religious about their country, although still patriotic, and that the net result is a little more level-headedness. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9
I guess my closing comments for this thread would be: Christian Graus wrote: I don't think it matters, I think we've agreed that Communism does not automatically lead to Stalinism. Mao essentially sat at Stalins feet, and then tried to out-Stalin him. I think communism works best the smaller the commune. As the commune grows larger ever greater exertions of power must be applied to accomplish social goals. Christian Graus wrote: I agree in part, but would you try to do well or improve yourself just because of money ? No other reason ? Maybe. But it only takes a few people who are willing to set back while you and I do all the work to gum up the entire machine. Hunger is a great motivator - that is why capitalism works. Even the laziest bum will do something productive if he knows he will starve otherwise. Christian Graus wrote: I don't see how the Jeffersonian principle is supposed to be comfort to peopel wrongly ostracised, or how it means that in effect you have no freedom of speech at all, because when Trumbo rightly pointed out that some ammendment or other was being violated, he suffered for it. Trumbo got a raw deal, our system is not perfect, McCarthy prooved that, but the extremes of McCarthyism did not represent a threat to any freedoms that I consider important. And further that we had a legitimate right to be concerned about the forces of communism. McCarthy never represented the threat that communism (Stalinism if you prefer) did. Sorry Dalton got burned in the hysteria, but its a cruel world, shit happens. Christian Graus wrote: What you probably fail to see is that these sort of things are cyclical. In the 50's your government went too far in one direction, political correctness has it moving too far in the other. It will swing back, and at every point along the curve, you will remain free to do whatevere your government decides to allow you to do. I'm not suggesting I am any better off in this regard, although I think that Australians are a lot less religious about their country, although still patriotic, and that the net result is a little more level-headedness. Obviously it is cyclical, but perhaps only because non-level headed contrarians like me begin providing the friction necessary to force it back. But don't worry, I'll be there to catch it on the other side when the time comes. "Any clod can have the facts, but having
-
I thought that I came up with a plan to catch the sniper that has been the biggest nightmare of the local community (ok, now you all know where I live). Basically, we need to do the following: 1. Divide the region into small blocks (1-5 square miles each?). 2. Make up plans to control all roads on each block and may be neighboring blocks as well. 3. Divide the local police force into small teams, each of them is responsible for controlling a specific block, and it has to be done within a short time (1 minute?). 4. When the sniper hit again, immediately issue orders to all teams to stop and check all traffic on the suspected blocks. 5. All these can be simulated on a computer to see if there is any hole that the sniper can get through. Just when I was about to tell others my great idea, the local news channel reported that "the police said that they have come up with a emergency response plan that will cast the net on the sniper if he strikes again, they are not giving out specific details of the plan at this moment ...". What a bunch of morons! For such plan to work, you should not tell the sniper that you have a plan at all. I think the police should actually issue fake news to fool the sniper into believing that they are on the wrong track ...
I cannot understand why police will pay for any information about killer!? Does it mean that most of US people will not share important information with police, if they are not paid for it? Does it mean that people do not care who is killed and who is killer, if they are not paid to take attention on it? Finally, maybe, it is tactic to confuse killer - To give some information about himself and take the money(than police will arrest him)? Any idea?
-
I guess my closing comments for this thread would be: Christian Graus wrote: I don't think it matters, I think we've agreed that Communism does not automatically lead to Stalinism. Mao essentially sat at Stalins feet, and then tried to out-Stalin him. I think communism works best the smaller the commune. As the commune grows larger ever greater exertions of power must be applied to accomplish social goals. Christian Graus wrote: I agree in part, but would you try to do well or improve yourself just because of money ? No other reason ? Maybe. But it only takes a few people who are willing to set back while you and I do all the work to gum up the entire machine. Hunger is a great motivator - that is why capitalism works. Even the laziest bum will do something productive if he knows he will starve otherwise. Christian Graus wrote: I don't see how the Jeffersonian principle is supposed to be comfort to peopel wrongly ostracised, or how it means that in effect you have no freedom of speech at all, because when Trumbo rightly pointed out that some ammendment or other was being violated, he suffered for it. Trumbo got a raw deal, our system is not perfect, McCarthy prooved that, but the extremes of McCarthyism did not represent a threat to any freedoms that I consider important. And further that we had a legitimate right to be concerned about the forces of communism. McCarthy never represented the threat that communism (Stalinism if you prefer) did. Sorry Dalton got burned in the hysteria, but its a cruel world, shit happens. Christian Graus wrote: What you probably fail to see is that these sort of things are cyclical. In the 50's your government went too far in one direction, political correctness has it moving too far in the other. It will swing back, and at every point along the curve, you will remain free to do whatevere your government decides to allow you to do. I'm not suggesting I am any better off in this regard, although I think that Australians are a lot less religious about their country, although still patriotic, and that the net result is a little more level-headedness. Obviously it is cyclical, but perhaps only because non-level headed contrarians like me begin providing the friction necessary to force it back. But don't worry, I'll be there to catch it on the other side when the time comes. "Any clod can have the facts, but having
Stan Shannon wrote: Even the laziest bum will do something productive if he knows he will starve otherwise. This time what I'm going to say is entirely my opinion. I don't think you're right. Australia has a multitude of lazy bums who would rather line up for a dole payment, drink and smoke half of it, then take their health care card to their public housing with cable TV and three computers, then sit on their dirty old couch and complain about how other people have it better than them, and it's 'just not fair'. Society as a whole has decided that blame is bad - schools can't even fail a student, the lowest mark is 'does not YET meet expectations'. I'm sorry, but I'd rather they tell my kid flat out if they are stupid, or if they do not try. Instead, everyone is being raised to believe that nothing is their fault, and when it's all gone to hell in a handbasket, it won't be anyones fault, I guess.... Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002