|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384588 is a reply to message #384578] |
Tue, 25 June 2019 08:34   |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>
> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
> including 5 children?
The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
seem like the only alternative.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384600 is a reply to message #384588] |
Tue, 25 June 2019 21:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>
>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>> including 5 children?
>
> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>
> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
> seem like the only alternative.
Intolerable to you, perhaps.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384601 is a reply to message #384600] |
Tue, 25 June 2019 22:01 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>> seem like the only alternative.
> Intolerable to you, perhaps.
Well, it seems to also be intolerable to the people who are running the
government. Of course, they wouldn't have even _noticed_ unless the police *did*
attempt to enter, due to illegal activities attracting notice.
As we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist sort of world, I don't worry about the
rules there, but the ones we all have to endure in the real world.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384602 is a reply to message #384601] |
Tue, 25 June 2019 22:32 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>>> seem like the only alternative.
>
>> Intolerable to you, perhaps.
>
> Well, it seems to also be intolerable to the people who are running the
> government. Of course, they wouldn't have even _noticed_ unless the police *did*
> attempt to enter, due to illegal activities attracting notice.
>
> As we don't live in an anarcho-capitalist sort of world, I don't worry about the
> rules there, but the ones we all have to endure in the real world.
In this case the courts did not side with the police.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384604 is a reply to message #384600] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 15:18 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>
>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>> including 5 children?
>>
>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>
>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>> seem like the only alternative.
>
> Intolerable to you, perhaps.
And everyone in the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384605 is a reply to message #384588] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 15:19 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:34:31 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>
>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>> including 5 children?
>
> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>
> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
> seem like the only alternative.
To amplify....
1) MOVE had a record of violence, including the killing of
one police officer and injuring other police and firemen.
2) MOVE had illegally fortified their rowhouse and endangered
their neighbors. The police were serving a valid order to
cease dangerous activities. MOVE responded with automatic
weapons.
3) The police attempted to use an explosive to break through
the fortification. Unfortunately, the explosive started a
fire. As mentioned, it couldn't be put out less the firemen
get shot at.
4) MOVE and MOVE alone was totally responsible for the tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384607 is a reply to message #384578] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 15:25 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 1:39:46 AM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 6/25/2019 7:34 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>
>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>> including 5 children?
>>
>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>
>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>> seem like the only alternative.
>
> I wouldn't particularly like to have MOVE as one of my neighbors.
Actually, you would have HATED having MOVE as your neighbor.
They made the lives of their neighbors a living hell.
> That
> being said, anybody who throws an explosive device at/into a house
> should be held responsible for the results, even if they didn't
> particularly intend to burn 63 houses down. I don't see being a cop as
> an excuse. If I tossed a firecracker into a police station and the
> result was the station burning down and killing 5 cops, the charges
> would be far more serious than malicious mischief and possession of
> firecrackers.
The responsibility belongs to MOVE for creating an extremely
dangerous situation in the first place. They had no right to
fire automatic weapons and cops and firemen. They had no
right to illegally fortify their house. They had no right
to disregard lawful directives to cease their illegal dangerous
activities (not to mention ignoring numerous efforts by
mediators to resolve the situation).
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384608 is a reply to message #384579] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 15:28 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Al Kossow wrote:
> On 6/24/19 2:43 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> article describes proposal
>>
>> https://www.inquirer.com/business/eniac-computer-pennsylvani a-university-silicon-valley-museum-20190619.html
>>
>
> So Philly should really be known as “Vacuum Tube Valley,” Scherrer adds: “We want to trademark that.”
>
> They should be worrying more about endowments than trademarks.
While I think it would be nice to have a computer museum
in Philadelphia, it is kind of specialty thing and there
already is the big museum in California. I don't think
the Boston museum survived.
IMHO, I don't think a collection of ancient boxes would be of
very much interest. It would be better if they had a working
device. However, I understand the effort to restore a 1401
to operating condition took an enormous amount of volunteer
manpower and money to and was quite a challenge.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384611 is a reply to message #384579] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 15:39 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Al Kossow wrote:
> On 6/24/19 2:43 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> article describes proposal
>>
>> https://www.inquirer.com/business/eniac-computer-pennsylvani a-university-silicon-valley-museum-20190619.html
>>
>
> So Philly should really be known as “Vacuum Tube Valley,” Scherrer adds: “We want to trademark that.”
>
> They should be worrying more about endowments than trademarks.
While I think it would be nice to have a computer museum
in Philadelphia, it is kind of specialty thing and there
already is the big museum in California. I don't think
the Boston museum survived.
IMHO, I don't think a collection of ancient boxes would be of
very much interest. It would be better if they had a working
device. However, I understand the effort to restore a 1401
to operating condition took an enormous amount of volunteer
manpower and money to and was quite a challenge.
Although Philadelphia did have some radio companies (like
Philco and RCA), I'm not sure it could be properly called
"Vacuum tube Valley". There was a big radio company,
Atwater Kent, but they went out of business in 1936.
Philadelphia is, of course, home to the ENIAC and then Univac.
Unisys is still HQ'd here.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384613 is a reply to message #384604] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 20:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:18:08 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 9:30:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>>
>>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>>> including 5 children?
>>>
>>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>>
>>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>>> seem like the only alternative.
>>
>> Intolerable to you, perhaps.
>
> And everyone in the neighborhood.
I suspect that having their houses burned down was considerably less
tolerable than having a building whose occupants were killing the
people who burned down the houses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384615 is a reply to message #384607] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 20:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:25:46 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 1:39:46 AM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 6/25/2019 7:34 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>>
>>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>>> including 5 children?
>>>
>>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>>
>>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>>> seem like the only alternative.
>>
>> I wouldn't particularly like to have MOVE as one of my neighbors.
>
> Actually, you would have HATED having MOVE as your neighbor.
> They made the lives of their neighbors a living hell.
>
>
>> That
>> being said, anybody who throws an explosive device at/into a house
>> should be held responsible for the results, even if they didn't
>> particularly intend to burn 63 houses down. I don't see being a cop as
>> an excuse. If I tossed a firecracker into a police station and the
>> result was the station burning down and killing 5 cops, the charges
>> would be far more serious than malicious mischief and possession of
>> firecrackers.
>
> The responsibility belongs to MOVE for creating an extremely
> dangerous situation in the first place. They had no right to
> fire automatic weapons and cops and firemen. They had no
> right to illegally fortify their house. They had no right
> to disregard lawful directives to cease their illegal dangerous
> activities (not to mention ignoring numerous efforts by
> mediators to resolve the situation).
And the cops had no right to launch air raids.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384616 is a reply to message #384605] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 20:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:34:31 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>
>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>> including 5 children?
>>
>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>
>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>> seem like the only alternative.
>
> To amplify....
>
> 1) MOVE had a record of violence, including the killing of
> one police officer and injuring other police and firemen.
>
> 2) MOVE had illegally fortified their rowhouse and endangered
> their neighbors. The police were serving a valid order to
> cease dangerous activities. MOVE responded with automatic
> weapons.
>
> 3) The police attempted to use an explosive to break through
> the fortification. Unfortunately, the explosive started a
> fire. As mentioned, it couldn't be put out less the firemen
> get shot at.
>
> 4) MOVE and MOVE alone was totally responsible for the tragedy.
So what kept the cops from borrowing a tank and driving it through the
place? That would have been considerably less risky for everyone.
Would have served the cops right to have gotten Blackhawk Downed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384617 is a reply to message #384613] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 21:39 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> I suspect that having their houses burned down was considerably less
> tolerable than having a building whose occupants were killing the
> people who
were trying to prevent the fire from spreading. That's why all those houses burned
- MOVE members were shooting at the firefighters.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384619 is a reply to message #384617] |
Wed, 26 June 2019 22:09 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> I suspect that having their houses burned down was considerably less
>> tolerable than having a building whose occupants were killing the
>> people who
>
> were trying to prevent the fire from spreading. That's why all those houses burned
> - MOVE members were shooting at the firefighters.
And they wouldn't have been if the cops hadn't decided that arson was
an effective police tactic.
Saying that "MOVE did it" when the cops fucked up by the numbers
doesn't cut it. The cops did it. The cops could have done something
else but they were more caught up in waging a war than in being
effective police.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384624 is a reply to message #384578] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 00:10 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
> nor
> what "illegally fortifying" your house means. Are you suggesting that
> it's against the law to burglar-proof your house? Defend your house
> against an illegal break-in?
In Edmonton, after some police raids on "shooting galleries" failed, because the
time it took the police to get in gave the miscreants enough time to destroy
evidence, we adopted a law banning making a private residence too fortified.
So, yes, such laws exist.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384631 is a reply to message #384624] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 04:42 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>> nor
>> what "illegally fortifying" your house means. Are you suggesting that
>> it's against the law to burglar-proof your house? Defend your house
>> against an illegal break-in?
>
> In Edmonton, after some police raids on "shooting galleries" failed,
> because the time it took the police to get in gave the miscreants enough
> time to destroy evidence, we adopted a law banning making a private
> residence too fortified.
>
> So, yes, such laws exist.
It would be interesting to see that tried in the UK, I rather
wonder how much "an Englishman's home is his castle" has been eroded.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384632 is a reply to message #384624] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 05:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jmreno
On 6/26/2019 9:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>> nor
>> what "illegally fortifying" your house means. Are you suggesting that
>> it's against the law to burglar-proof your house? Defend your house
>> against an illegal break-in?
>
> In Edmonton, after some police raids on "shooting galleries" failed, because the
> time it took the police to get in gave the miscreants enough time to destroy
> evidence, we adopted a law banning making a private residence too fortified.
>
> So, yes, such laws exist.
>
> John Savard
>
Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
house to have onhand?
Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
access whenever they want?
There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
access to their doorbell cameras.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/06/polic e-offer-amazon-ring-free-exchange-access/592243/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384633 is a reply to message #384624] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 06:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>> nor
>> what "illegally fortifying" your house means. Are you suggesting that
>> it's against the law to burglar-proof your house? Defend your house
>> against an illegal break-in?
>
> In Edmonton, after some police raids on "shooting galleries" failed, because the
> time it took the police to get in gave the miscreants enough time to destroy
> evidence, we adopted a law banning making a private residence too fortified.
>
> So, yes, such laws exist.
Another reason not to move to Canada.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384635 is a reply to message #384632] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 07:03 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:15:15 -0700
jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
> Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
> house to have onhand?
Unworkable, the majority of the keys held would never be used and
the bad guys would simply change the locks after handing over the keys. The
first time the police find out is when they raid and that's too late.
> Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
> access whenever they want?
Make me put a webcam in my house with external access and it will
get aluminium tape over the lens, or something hung off it or otherwise
obscured and/or it will suffer permanent network outages and power failures.
I believe I have and should continue to have a right to privacy in
my home.
> There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
> access to their doorbell cameras.
You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell camera
when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384639 is a reply to message #384619] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 09:24 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that having their houses burned down was considerably less
>>> tolerable than having a building whose occupants were killing the
>>> people who
>>
>> were trying to prevent the fire from spreading. That's why all those houses burned
>> - MOVE members were shooting at the firefighters.
>
> And they wouldn't have been if the cops hadn't decided that arson was
> an effective police tactic.
>
> Saying that "MOVE did it" when the cops fucked up by the numbers
> doesn't cut it. The cops did it. The cops could have done something
> else but they were more caught up in waging a war than in being
> effective police.
>
Plenty of blame to go around.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384640 is a reply to message #384635] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 09:24 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:15:15 -0700
> jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
>> house to have onhand?
>
> Unworkable, the majority of the keys held would never be used and
> the bad guys would simply change the locks after handing over the keys. The
> first time the police find out is when they raid and that's too late.
>
>> Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
>> access whenever they want?
>
> Make me put a webcam in my house with external access and it will
> get aluminium tape over the lens, or something hung off it or otherwise
> obscured and/or it will suffer permanent network outages and power failures.
>
> I believe I have and should continue to have a right to privacy in
> my home.
>
>> There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
>> access to their doorbell cameras.
>
> You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell camera
> when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
>
Look thru the glass, guy on other side shoots you. I’ve been warned about
peepholes for the same reason.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384641 is a reply to message #384631] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 09:47 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 27/06/2019 09:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> It would be interesting to see that tried in the UK, I rather
> wonder how much "an Englishman's home is his castle" has been eroded.
>
Booby tracks are banned in the UK. Guns have to be kept locked up.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384642 is a reply to message #384640] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 09:46 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 06:24:36 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell
>> camera when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
>>
>
> Look thru the glass, guy on other side shoots you. I’ve been warned about
> peepholes for the same reason.
That really is not a problem here, and in the extremely unlikely
event someone comes to my door armed and with intent to shoot then it will
be the dogs they see first which should give me some warning of their
intent and slow them down a lot more than a camera.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384643 is a reply to message #384640] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 10:29 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:15:15 -0700
>> jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
>>> house to have onhand?
>>
>> Unworkable, the majority of the keys held would never be used and
>> the bad guys would simply change the locks after handing over the keys. The
>> first time the police find out is when they raid and that's too late.
>>
>>> Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
>>> access whenever they want?
>>
>> Make me put a webcam in my house with external access and it will
>> get aluminium tape over the lens, or something hung off it or otherwise
>> obscured and/or it will suffer permanent network outages and power failures.
>>
>> I believe I have and should continue to have a right to privacy in
>> my home.
>>
>>> There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
>>> access to their doorbell cameras.
>>
>> You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell camera
>> when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
>>
>
> Look thru the glass, guy on other side shoots you. I’ve been warned about
> peepholes for the same reason.
>
Good. Grief.
Just look through the glass. The chances that someone on the other side will
shoot you are 100 billion to one.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384644 is a reply to message #384578] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 10:30 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
> On 6/26/2019 11:10 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:10:01 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>> nor
>>> what "illegally fortifying" your house means. Are you suggesting that
>>> it's against the law to burglar-proof your house? Defend your house
>>> against an illegal break-in?
>>
>> In Edmonton, after some police raids on "shooting galleries" failed, because the
>> time it took the police to get in gave the miscreants enough time to destroy
>> evidence, we adopted a law banning making a private residence too fortified.
>>
>> So, yes, such laws exist.
>>
>
> Interesting. I'm curious how they measure the degree of fortification.
Be careful assuming that Quadi is accurately depicting the laws in question.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384651 is a reply to message #384578] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 13:24 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:21:00 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
> Interesting. I'm curious how they measure the degree of fortification.
> Ban specific features (e.g. high-security locks, steel door frames,
> concrete walls, using polycarbonate in windows)? Or perhaps a
> performance measure (if it takes 2 cops or burglars more than 30 sec
> to break in, it's prima facie too fortified)?
I haven't read the bylaw in question. Standard measures to
prevent burglary, like bars on the ground-floor or basement
windows, aren't prohibited. But if your front door can't be
knocked down by a battering ram, you're in violation.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384652 is a reply to message #384651] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 13:33 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:21:00 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I'm curious how they measure the degree of fortification.
>> Ban specific features (e.g. high-security locks, steel door frames,
>> concrete walls, using polycarbonate in windows)? Or perhaps a
>> performance measure (if it takes 2 cops or burglars more than 30 sec
>> to break in, it's prima facie too fortified)?
>
> I haven't read the bylaw in question.
Then how can you correctly convey the sense of the "bylaw" to Usenet Readers?
Why mention it at all if you're not familiar with the details?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384655 is a reply to message #384635] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 15:06 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-06-27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:15:15 -0700
> jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
>> house to have onhand?
>
> Unworkable, the majority of the keys held would never be used and
> the bad guys would simply change the locks after handing over the keys. The
> first time the police find out is when they raid and that's too late.
>
>> Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
>> access whenever they want?
>
> Make me put a webcam in my house with external access and it will
> get aluminium tape over the lens, or something hung off it or otherwise
> obscured and/or it will suffer permanent network outages and power failures.
>
> I believe I have and should continue to have a right to privacy in
> my home.
>
>> There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
>> access to their doorbell cameras.
>
> You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell camera
> when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
"Alexa, tell me about home security."
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384656 is a reply to message #384651] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 16:48 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:21:00 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I'm curious how they measure the degree of fortification.
>> Ban specific features (e.g. high-security locks, steel door frames,
>> concrete walls, using polycarbonate in windows)? Or perhaps a
>> performance measure (if it takes 2 cops or burglars more than 30 sec
>> to break in, it's prima facie too fortified)?
>
> I haven't read the bylaw in question. Standard measures to
> prevent burglary, like bars on the ground-floor or basement
> windows, aren't prohibited. But if your front door can't be
> knocked down by a battering ram, you're in violation.
2 Googles:
Illegal in NJ and Illinois.
Both states, it's only illegal to fortify your house
if it is done to deter the police, AND you are growing
or making drugs.
Commonly an added charge after a drug bust.
Here's NJ
Any person who fortifies or maintains in a fortified condition a
structure for the manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession
or control with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense,
controlled dangerous substances … is guilty of a crime of the third
degree. A structure has been fortified if steel doors, wooden
planking, cross bars, alarm systems, dogs, lookouts or any other means
are employed to prevent, impede, delay or provide warning of the entry
into a structure or any part of a structure by law enforcement
officers.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384658 is a reply to message #384608] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 17:13 |
Rich Alderson
Messages: 489
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Al Kossow wrote:
>> On 6/24/19 2:43 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> article describes proposal
>>> =20
>>> https://www.inquirer.com/business/eniac-computer-pennsylvani a-universit=
> y-silicon-valley-museum-20190619.html
>>> =20
>> =20
>> So Philly should really be known as =E2=80=9CVacuum Tube Valley,=E2=80=9D=
> Scherrer adds: =E2=80=9CWe want to trademark that.=E2=80=9D
>> =20
>> They should be worrying more about endowments than trademarks.
>
> While I think it would be nice to have a computer museum
> in Philadelphia, it is kind of specialty thing and there
> already is the big museum in California. I don't think
> the Boston museum survived.
Then there's the big museum in Seattle, with running systems: DEC-2065,
DECsystem-1070, PDP-10, VAX 7640, VAX-11/780-5, Xerox Sigma 9, and most
impressive, a running CDC 6500.
http://www.livingcomputers.org
> IMHO, I don't think a collection of ancient boxes would be of
> very much interest. It would be better if they had a working
> device. However, I understand the effort to restore a 1401
> to operating condition took an enormous amount of volunteer
> manpower and money to and was quite a challenge.
The more places things are saved, the better.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384659 is a reply to message #384643] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 18:54 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 02:15:15 -0700
>>> jmreno <none@znet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not just require that homeowners give the police a key to their
>>>> house to have onhand?
>>>
>>> Unworkable, the majority of the keys held would never be used and
>>> the bad guys would simply change the locks after handing over the keys. The
>>> first time the police find out is when they raid and that's too late.
>>>
>>>> Or require that there be a webcam in every house that the police can
>>>> access whenever they want?
>>>
>>> Make me put a webcam in my house with external access and it will
>>> get aluminium tape over the lens, or something hung off it or otherwise
>>> obscured and/or it will suffer permanent network outages and power failures.
>>>
>>> I believe I have and should continue to have a right to privacy in
>>> my home.
>>>
>>>> There actually is something like that where homeowners give the police
>>>> access to their doorbell cameras.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't catch me allowing that - or having a doorbell camera
>>> when there's a perfectly good piece of glass in the door.
>>>
>>
>> Look thru the glass, guy on other side shoots you. I’ve been warned about
>> peepholes for the same reason.
>>
>
> Good. Grief.
>
> Just look through the glass. The chances that someone on the other side will
> shoot you are 100 billion to one.
>
I didn’t say I paid a lot of attention, just that people have said this to
me.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Computer museum proposed for Philadelphia [message #384660 is a reply to message #384616] |
Thu, 27 June 2019 19:28 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 8:30:21 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:34:31 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:26:49 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2019 8:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > As long as MOVE doesn't take control of a building near the museum...
>>>>
>>>> You mean, the incident where the police torched a building where the
>>>> resulting fire ended up destroying 63 houses, killing 11 people
>>>> including 5 children?
>>>
>>> The 5 children were murdered by MOVE, being infants deliberately placed in the
>>> building. And the resulting fire only ended up destroying 63 buildings because
>>> people in MOVE shot at the firefighters.
>>>
>>> That doesn't exonerate the city of Philadelphia from all blame, but it is indeed
>>> intolerable for any building to exist that the police are unable to enter - so
>>> if a wrecking ball would be shot at, something one can do from the air would
>>> seem like the only alternative.
>>
>> To amplify....
>>
>> 1) MOVE had a record of violence, including the killing of
>> one police officer and injuring other police and firemen.
>>
>> 2) MOVE had illegally fortified their rowhouse and endangered
>> their neighbors. The police were serving a valid order to
>> cease dangerous activities. MOVE responded with automatic
>> weapons.
>>
>> 3) The police attempted to use an explosive to break through
>> the fortification. Unfortunately, the explosive started a
>> fire. As mentioned, it couldn't be put out less the firemen
>> get shot at.
>>
>> 4) MOVE and MOVE alone was totally responsible for the tragedy.
>
> So what kept the cops from borrowing a tank and driving it through the
> place? That would have been considerably less risky for everyone.
> Would have served the cops right to have gotten Blackhawk Downed.
A tank would've been extremely destructive and dangerous
to the occupants of the house. It could've crushed them
under the treads or collapsed the house on them.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
