Italy's highest court of appeal, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, has ruled that stealing small amounts of food is not a crime if it is to satisfy a vital need for food:
Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket. Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background, had taken the food "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment", the court of cassation decided. Therefore it was not a crime, it said.
[...] The "historic" ruling is "right and pertinent", said Italiaglobale.it - and derives from a concept that "informed the Western world for centuries - it is called humanity". However, his case was sent to appeal on the grounds that the conviction should be reduced to attempted theft and the sentence cut, as Mr Ostriakov had not left the shop premises when he was caught. Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation, which reviews only the application of the law and not the facts of the case, on Monday made a final and definitive ruling overturning the conviction entirely. Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.
Compare to some of the sentences handed out due to three strikes laws.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:34PM
Hey Takyon, that link is older than most of my kids.
Try this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:36PM
I had the Wikipedia article there before I submitted the article, but decided to switch it out. I found the Guardian article to be more direct and to the point than the Wikipedia article, where the cookie and pizza cases were listed on different sections of the page. I'm not sure that the article being ~15 years old makes any difference.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:01PM
It makes a difference because new laws mean he's out. Although I'm having a hard time finding a citation for that now.
Going to jail for stealing cookies is a symptom of a justice system that is fundamentally broken and primarily concerning itself retribution rather than justice, but it's unfair to say CA is still punishing like that now days when they've tried to fix the law, Which is why IMHO the Wikipedia article is better and the 15 year old link is giving an outdated view.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:07PM
They made the mistake, they get to own it forever!!!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:33PM
How many cookies?
There actually is a law in some states De Minimis [duhaime.org] that says trivial suits or arrests are just kicked out of court.
Of course this just means police over charge.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:47PM
The cookies were evidence of a larger crime if I read it correctly. The actual crime was breaking and entering, it was upgraded to robbery because he had managed to steal cookies when he was caught. So it's not like he just shoplifted the cookies. Nevertheless it's harsh.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:46PM
It was a big HN flamewar a couple days ago. To save time
1) The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" types made fools of themselves as usual.
2) Lots of people complained about juries being idiots until an Italian pointed out the Italian judicial system doesn't use juries and relies on judges to interpret the law (like how we do technical regulation, usually a Class A/B FCC certification does not involve a jury...). Then they started making fun of italian judges, didn't miss a beat.
3) The law was initially provided for, like earthquake relief, if you slap a band aid on a a victim after an earthquake you're not a thief. Or if you eat one peanut to decide if you're going to buy a couple pounds in the produce aisle you're not "really" a thief because its culturally seen as a free sample. And people pointed out this dude was going way beyond that.
4) The catholic church has some sway over italy to this day and they don't see "absolute minimum required for life" as a sinful theft, categorically, and yes people did point out the dudes pockets were full and he didn't eat in the store either and it was fancy junk food not minimum necessary for life.
5) No one wants to hear analogies with cop punishment of protestors. So its not illegal to protest, but we'll let the cops arrest protestors and hold overnight before releasing without charge as a non-judicial punishment for protesting, which isn't allowed but isn't illegal. Likewise when a dude steals a $1 pack of crackers his non-judical punishment was sitting a cell for a couple days and being non-judicial its no surprise he wasn't charged. And there are places that treat weed use/possession like that.
6) No one wants to hear social contract stuff. If your culture sucks ass so much that some citizens have to steal to eat, maybe your culture sucks ass so much that police shouldn't defend shop owners from the dreaded cracker packet thief.
7) Also no one wants to hear about business methods. Try comparing a liquor store in da' hood in the USA to a rich suburb. They don't really run the same. And if Italy is turning into a poverty stricken hood and nobody cares about that, but they are butthurt that an out of touch store owner hasn't noticed, thats the store owner's problem.
If the dude stole a bottled water and a piece of day old bread he would have had a much easier defense.
(Score: 3, Informative) by julian on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:53PM
An out of touch response from the "bootstraps" crew at HN? Amazing, I never would have predicted a bunch of capitalism-obsessed privileged technocrats would have regressive social views regarding the poor. [theguardian.com] Since you describe it as a flame war I assume there were at least a few people arguing for some compassion which is nice
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:02PM
Unless you started out as a homeless orphan in the downtown Detroit and never broke the law nor received help from anyone, you didn't "pull yourself up by your bootstraps".
(I shall name this the No True Bootstrap argument.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:54PM
/thread
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:29PM
Agree. With articles like this I often can tell exactly how the posts will go even without another example. You don't even need to be specific - it can be handily generalised.
With an article like this:
- The low empathy mouth-breather crowd will argue from a position of greed as in "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
- The compassionate crowd will argue for their version of moral and ethical behaviour as in "oooh look at me I am so kind". (regardless of what they are like in real life - most will be apathetic in terms of their actual behaviour)
- The drooling middlers will mostly be apathetic and attempt to sound sensible, mainstream and middle of the road with all the moral sophistication of a 5 yr old because their tiny brains cannot handle anything else. (and most wont bother posting)
And you can interchange "low empathy" with "right wing" or "republican" or "neo con" or "libertarian" etc for the most part. Likewise, compassionate with democrat, progressive, left-wing etc. Not always, but most of the time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:57PM
This systematic conflation of libertarianism with right wing politics is getting really tiresome and harmful.
I don't think there's any evidence that most libertarians have "low empathy". They want freedom for the individual from persecution, manipulation and unfair restriction by the state (and typically also by large organizations). That large nanny state seems to be a goal of both the left and the right alike at the moment.
Small state doesn't mean the poor need suffer. That's more a matter of economic policy. Theoretically if the state is shrunk, it releases money that can benefit rich and poor individuals alike.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by jdavidb on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:12PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:57PM
Because how they'll feel about it is probably that they'll form a militia and pre-emptively defend their stores by eradicating the homeless problem in their area. Free market solutions an' all that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:19PM
Yeah yeah. And communists believe that all workers should have equal rights and the country should be run for them. I hear this bleating over and over again and I know there are some libertarians might actually believe this and think its real.
But the truth is that the reality of this ideology is just the "survival of the richest" mentality dressed up with lipstick to look like "freedom" and YES I LOOKED.
Look, I know the US government is a corrupt, disgustingly pork filled and toxic environment. But the answer lies in a better government that works for (ALL) the people's best interests based on data driven and democratic decisions.
What most libertarians offer in reality (I am sure you are different) is laissez-faire capitalism with few safeguards for anyone falling through the cracks. And that assumes a successful and uncorrupted implementation - something that is impossible in human society.
OH AND BY THE WAY YOU ARE WRONG:
"I don't think there's any evidence that most libertarians have "low empathy"."
In fact there was a study and yes they found that.
"While narrowly valuing individual liberty above all other types of morals, libertarians often identify as rational and unemotional and react to certain issues with less moral concern.[351] A 2012 study of libertarian morality found that they were less empathic than both liberals and conservatives.[352] For example, violence and suffering concerns liberals and conservatives more than it does libertarians.[353] Libertarians also report less of a moral identification with their communities than other members."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Criticism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:14PM
That wouldn't really be a good strategy to achieve the goals of libertarianism, because laissez-faire capitalism will give rise to huge corporations that harm the individual in much the same way as a huge authoritarian government can.
Yes but that applies equally to the implementation of any political ideology.
Why thank you ;)
Could that be perhaps because the heavy handed techniques often used to try to reduce violence and suffering often have negative side effects and the increased state power when corrupted can itself cause further suffering?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:55AM
" because laissez-faire capitalism will give rise to huge corporations that harm the individual in much the same way as a huge authoritarian government can."
Small government allowing maximum "freedom" would also. Corporates also have all the power so any change is going to involve them heavily. And I also fail to see how reducing government size won't also enable private authoritarian power structures such as have existed forever?
I think a lot of the libertarian initiatives around this sound good on paper, but in reality it would be like the implementation of communism. If you do not directly and forecefully deal with the fundamental human problem of extreme greed, power hungry and sociopathic behaviour that is rife in any human society, you will fail hard.
"Yes but that applies equally to the implementation of any political ideology."
And therefore has to be taken into account and dealt with specifically...
"Why thank you ;)"
You're welcome. :)
"Could that be perhaps because the heavy handed techniques often used to try to reduce violence and suffering often have negative side effects and the increased state power when corrupted can itself cause further suffering?"
In the US, exactly. But arguing against oppression and violence is not exactly a defining feature. EVERYONE claims to want freedom and liberty, few bother to work hard to deliver it unless things have gone to shit. Personally I prefer research and democratically driven policy in all areas, but again, many would argue that's what they do even though they don't.
Libertarianism has no modern world implementation and thus you can be as romantic or cynical as you like because it is all conjecture at this point. But I just don't see where it is not just a romanticised notion that will go the way of so many other systems. Not to mention that even before it is implemented you have wealthy interests backing it and trying to pervert it to make their lives easier at the expense of everyone else.
And that could only get worse...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:58AM
Personally, I think it's important to remember libertarianism as its own direction on the political spectrum, distinct from (and usually illustrated at 90 degrees to) the left and right. Any political ideology is a compromise in that there will always be some who benefit more than others and arguably when any orientation is taken to extremes that inequality is magnified.
I just feel that the current left and right are speeding too far towards authoritarianism and we need people championing libertarian ideals to provide some opposition to that attraction. It's absolutely fine to pick libertarianism apart and say you strongly oppose it; but repeated, likely orchestrated, attempts to dilute the meaning of the term, by conflating it with other ideologies, are underhanded, dangerous and undemocratic.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:23PM
"I just feel that the current left and right are speeding too far towards authoritarianism "
I think your view might be clouded by US thinking and while this is perfectly understandable it is somewhat myopic from a global perspective. (if you have not worked it out I am not american :) )
I should have mentioned that in the US there are NO true "left" parties in the mainstream and I also dislike the left/right distinction because it is misleading and almost meaningless. The democrats are a "centrist" party at best with "right wing" fiscal policy. For example our current govt., in New Zealand, is a "right wing" government and their policies are more "left" (they dance on a pin to appease the mainstream) than ANYTHING the democrats are putting forward.
For example I have heard people use the word "conservative" in contexts where this equates to "right" and if you look at the behaviours of said "conservatives" they are anything but. Basically conservative/right wing has come to mean anti-progressive in many countries which in the US is pretty much spot on. Not to mention one can be socially conservative by fiscally liberal (i.e. Regan and Thatcher being neo-liberal) etc. As far as I can see there are no fiscally conservative parties or candidates in the US at all and have not been for some time. (hence all the national debt)
Also Bernie is NOT a socialist...
Truly progressive countries free of corruption have the most freedoms in the world anywhere and that is based on research not conjecture. Their populations are happier, their economies work for them and a host of other things. They are not perfect because nothing involving groups of humans is, but they are as close to working their shit out finally as anyone I have ever seen has come.
"Personally, I think it's important to remember libertarianism as its own direction on the political spectrum, distinct from (and usually illustrated at 90 degrees to) the left and right."
To be brutally honest I think libertarianism is irrelevant at the current time. But they have more in common IN PRACTICE with the current right wing movement than anyone else despite what their rhetoric says. Small government, laissez faire capitalism, removal of safety nets. Basically a paradise for the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor - albeit dressed up in a freedom based rhetoric.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday May 06 2016, @09:12AM
Not really, Australia and the UK aren't far behind on the authoritarian stakes. Not sure about NZ.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:12AM
Any form of capitalism goes against the goals and ideals of libertarianism, because the entire concept of libertarianism is to decentralize power and the entire concept of capitalism the centralization of economic power - economic dictatorships, really. A libertarian must be anti-capitalist by definition.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:30PM
The libs want to align crime and punishment assuming the entire population has an IQ of 130 and was well educated, which works if true, which it never is. That makes them hard to take seriously. Yeah yeah everything else is really cool now when are you putting (real) smart drugs in the water supply because that's the only way this is gonna work.
The neos want law enforcement only as a weapon against the poor or minorities and please eliminate all prosecution of all white collar crime please and thank you and here's your re-election fund bribe to keep it that way. They're the "Let them eat cake" group. Nothing wrong with a holy "job create-uh" having the right of capital punishment on his property.
The "right wing" includes people like nationalists who are not happy that all the social spending money comes from certain groups and flows to certain other groups, usually along racial lines. Also they get out of whack about the censorship of discussion of the correlation of violent crime rates with certain groups. Everything is thru a lens of group membership, up to the point of parody. Obviously the chip thief was ethnically Italian or I'd have heard about it from the usual sources, or I'm just not listening widely enough.
Its hard to stereotype the old republicans pre neo. They had a very mixed message from above. Most prefer fair play and don't like corruption and wouldn't mind hanging the potatoe chip thief from the gallows, especially if he's a scary minority, as long as the crooked bankers and corporate crooks in general who are worse criminals get to swing first.
I see myself as a pre-neo era republican, kicked out by the neo-con swine, so I might be seeing too much of my view into classical Repub values... Sure hang that dude or shoot him at sunrise, just make sure crooked bankers and crooked politicians (neos and D) get a proportionately more severe punishment. So if a white collar crook gets a slap on the hand I find it hard to get too pissed that the thief got away with it. We do let the cops randomly shoot people, its not like its a risk free way of life, and he sat in jail for a couple days and was hauled in front of a judge so its not like he was completely unpunished.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:13PM
That's confusing macroeconomics with microeconomics -- much like confusing climate with weather.
At the scale of national economies, taxation doesn't take money out of supply. It can't even theoretically, since the same entity that collects taxes creates the money in the first place.
Rather, taxation is a way of directing allocation of resources, and is especially useful for endeavors even the wealthiest individuals couldn't or wouldn't undertake themselves but that all agree are worth doing. For example, nobody on your block could possibly afford the millions of dollars it took to build the street that runs in front of the houses just on your block. However, everybody in society benefits when that street exists and is well-maintained -- including the wealthy businessman on the other side of the country who owns the ball bearing plant that made the bearings in the fan in your refrigerator, because, without the infrastructure, how would it have been delivered?
That's the thing that the "cut taxes" crowd, especially the staunch Libertarian faction, simply can't fathom.
Our taxes buy us civilization -- and at such a bargain!
Even if I paid not a dime in taxes, there's no way I could afford to haul away my own garbage, lay plumbing for potable water from the nearest clean source, amass a collection of books like what I can find at the library, or protect myself from roving bands of "independent" thugs. But for the truly paltry sums I pay in taxes, I get all that and more....
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:49PM
Interesting, though the state only creates fiat currency. Precious metals or bitcoins could be mined by an individual and, theoretically or actually, used to buy goods.
A shrinking state would free up land and equipment so it's not purely about increasing available money. Arguably a lot of organizations within the state don't directly benefit the individual, unlike the examples you gave.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:22AM
While there are certainly examples of waste and fraud in any system, and while those need to be actively avoided and fixed...you again perfectly demonstrate the "I've got mine so fuck you" mentality that shows how Libertarians really, truly, don't get it.
Retirees of your ilk are notorious for not wanting to fund public education. They don't have any kids in school, so why should they have to pay taxes to support schools?
The answer goes right back to the same example I gave that you completely ignored.
It is of direct benefit to everybody that the pavement in front of my house and your house and everybody else's house be in good serviceable condition. When we all have paved roads, we can all fully participate in the economy. We can drive to and from work and shopping, we can receive deliveries and accept visitors, and the fire department can more easily prevent fire from spreading from one house to another.
When you understand why I directly benefit from the taxes I pay to ensure that your own street is reasonably well paid, then you'll understand why this nonsense of "direct benefit" is so profoundly antisocial and selfish.
And, really? Free up what land and equipment? Are you going to privatize national parks so you can mine them for your personal benefit at the cost to everybody else? Do you have some use in mind for road-building equipment that you'd use it better than the government?
Maybe you yourself really are naïvely sincere in your Libertarianism. However, it's painfully obvious that Libertarianism in actual practice is nothing more than naked strongman plutocratic kleptocracy at its worst.
b&
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:24AM
Not intending to contradict your main point, but roads aren't that expensive.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @03:48AM
maybe not, but in my town, they are UN-paving roads the Town can't afford to maintain...
(Score: 2) by fleg on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:42AM
i see that others have clued you in better than i could, but i'll just add one more thing wrt this...
>This systematic conflation of libertarianism with right wing politics
i've met and spoken online to quite a few libertarians and so far when it comes to politics the conversation goes thusly...
fleg: so who ya voting for?
libertarian: well there is no libertarian candidate, so i'm going to vote for [local rightwing party] as they're closest.
just my experience of course, but its why i at least conflate the two.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:12PM
Yes in that case perhaps they should have spoiled their ballots or abstained.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:35PM
Going completely off-topic, I saw something about Lyin' Ted supporters eyeballing the Libertarian party. As a card-carrying Libertarian (well, ok, the card's expired, had to choose between that or ramen), it sounds suspiciously like how the Tea Party got co-opted by those little shitheads in 2008.
I really hope the Libertarian party doesn't succumb to Lyin' Ted and his army of Apache attack copters. :( I'm a Libertarian because of the Apache attack copters (well, we just called them curmudgeons back in the day, but I think Apache attack copter is very descriptive) and everything Lyin' Ted stands for (well, not just Lyin' Ted and it's certainly nothing new).
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:21PM
Yes, we all know that.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:28PM
You might, many don't. It also sounds obvious to me too.
But to people like "acid andy", a libertarian, it was certainly not. And the thrust of the post was the generality with which you can address these topics not this line you have plucked from context.
I like to examine the generalities in human nature. I know they are not hard and fast rules but there are distinct patterns in the chaos that is human nature and I find these interesting. (its why I did added psych major to my degree)
When viewed through that lens, a lot of the comments on internet forums are rather amusing at times.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:04AM
I never actually claimed to be a libertarian. I do however feel western governments would benefit from steering a little away from their current path which seems to be incessantly towards greater authoritarian control, greater power, greater numbers of laws, for better or, more often than not, worse. I find myself identifying better with those who seek to reduce these practises rather than maintain or increase them. I actually think most other soylentils feel as I do, but they just don't identify that as libertarian. The problem is people muddying the waters by changing the meaning of the word. Reduction in authoritarianism needs to be taken seriously as a strategy, especially when the political mainstream are doing everything they can to sideline it.
Damn, I hate how this site is dominated by political flamewars. I feel almost guilty for participating in it, but I feel these things need to be said. I'll have to try and post some more techie stuff to compensate. Maybe we need a second karma metric that rates comments and stories on tech vs politics / nerd vs mainstream / science vs social etc!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:28PM
"Damn, I hate how this site is dominated by political flamewars. I feel almost guilty for participating in it, but I feel these things need to be said. "
Because it matters and affects your daily lives.
" I do however feel western governments would benefit from steering a little away from their current path which seems to be incessantly towards greater authoritarian control, greater power, greater numbers of laws, for better or, more often than not, worse. I find myself identifying better with those who seek to reduce these practises rather than maintain or increase them. "
I get how your US-centric view can cause this myopic vision of a solution. You see government as a corrupt and unsavable entity and thus the only solution is less of it. I get it.
But in other, less corrupt, less ridiculous political spheres, government is actually a solution. Imagine that, a government working for the people?!
If the extent of your political viewpoint has been reduced to "less vs more government" then you need to do more reading on politics outside the US for how it can be done properly because this is a somewhat juvenile stance. At least try to upgrade your viewpoint to "more good government and less bad government" for christ's sake!?
The US is one of the worst examples of democracy in action there is. No wonder americans struggle to understand the basic concepts of politics!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:21AM
>>The low empathy mouth-breather crowd will argue from a position of greed as in "I've got mine, fuck everyone else".
OR Option B, we evil capitalists get up and go to work all day, 5 days a week in order to support ourselves and our families, instead of demanding that other people feed, clothe and shelter me. 60 years of this War on Poverty bullshit, why do we have way more poverty than we did before?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:11AM
Open up a dictionary some time and see what capitalist means. Hint: they certainly don't "go to work"...
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday May 06 2016, @07:38PM
Let me start by thanking you immensely for providing such an excellent succinct example of the sentence you quoted. You really have gone above and beyond on this one.
The "war on poverty" in the US, just like all your other "wars on things", was a farce created by PR whose real goals were nefarious as always. In fact the "war on poverty" when assessed based on the ACTIONS of those involved is better characterised as the "war on the poor".
It has not, nor never intended to address the underlying causes of poverty.
- Its why your public schools are shit instead of being part of the solution
- Its why your prisons are full instead of rehabilitating people.
- Its why your medical system is "rich only".
- Its why only wealthy people can afford real college and your community college system is a joke.
- etc
The list goes on and on and on. These things done well are part of a solution but instead each and EVERY ONE of them has gone backwards. And then mouth breathing idiots like you whine about how there are more poor, more criminals, more expenses, etc etc etc. And then cheer and vote for people who scream about making all of these things WORSE?!
Jesus christ how STUPID do you have to be?!
And the reason this has never happened is because there are too many complete and utter assholes like you out there...
(Score: 2) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:47PM
HN? Next heard of it, what is that?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:50PM
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:03PM
And I can't find the link but there's a classic 4chan thread where the anons are absolutely savaging them with a parody something along the lines of "I stole someone else's project and wrapped it in bootstrap.io now wheres the billion bucks I'm entitled to?"
You know they're bad when the 4chan anons look down on them.
The HN kids are intelligent, but not very... well socialized or educated, so its fun to troll them. They have mental horsepower, most of them anyway, but they're so cringe ignorant of the ways of the world that they are often hilarious. You know how when you're playing poker and the guy who can't figure out who the table's fool is, is actually the table's fool? That's like the whole HN site. Hilarious. I was young and dumb once but I grew out of it, its not like you can hate them just for being dumb kids, but you can laugh at them and kinda egg them on sometimes. I'm about 2 to 3 times the average age of a HN kid so its not really fair, like dropping a large piranha in a goldfish tank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:40PM
If you try to visit jwz's site (the XScreenSaver guy, also of Netscape fame) from HN, you get a redirect.
$ wget --referer https://news.ycombinator.com/ [ycombinator.com] https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/ [jwz.org]
ends in http://i.imgur.com/32R3qLv.png [imgur.com] which is a short definition of HN
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:07PM
I could be wrong, but the only site I can think of with those initials is Hacker News. Never been there, but hear of it every now and then.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:59PM
Wasn't there a law just passed somewhere in the EU that food about to be discarded near the end of shelf life had to be donated instead to any charities that would take it? Maybe it was a ruling for all of the EU, I can't remember.
There are quiet arrangements for food bank donations in my area as well. The biggest (in terms of tonnage) supporters of the food banks are the super market chains,
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:08PM
Yup. They were kicking that around this time last year.
Some reports said it was enacted then.
It's Now Illegal in France for Grocery Stores to Throw Away Edible Food [eater.com]
...so it's a nascent movement.
Other reports say the law wasn't passed until this year.
French supermarkets banned from throwing away and spoiling unsold food [independent.co.uk]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:02PM
getting shot in the face will cure a thief's hunger fairly quickly, i imagine. At the same time if i'm hungry enough i'll take your shit. It will still be illegal and still be stealing. Bleeding hearts are gonna bleed.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:33PM
Back in pre-Victorian times, in the UK, we used to hang starving people who stole a loaf of bread or even a (wild) rabbit to eat. Then, in later Victorian times when the Establishment got a little more lenient, they stopped hanging these people and instead transported them to Australia to be put to work in penal colonies.
I'm not sure about English law, but in Scots law (which is a completely separate system) there are some things permitted for ordinary people to do in order that they are less likely to starve, for example, you are allowed to fish in a river for brown trout without a license.
They way things are going these days, it seems that if there is even the slightest possibility of supply and demand entering into something, and if there may be any sort of profit to be made, that takes precedence over any social or moral obligations (don't get me started on TTIP, that pirate running the NHS into the ground or the vampire who has gutted the welfare state).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:16PM
They way things are going these days, it seems that if there is even the slightest possibility of supply and demand entering into something, and if there may be any sort of profit to be made, that takes precedence over any social or moral obligations
Why of course, have you never heard of the term "unrealized profit"? It is used to preemptively claim something that isn't yours if you're a company.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:25PM
What is that runs NHS and the welfare state into the ground, you think?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:39AM
Jeremy Hunt and formerly Iain Duncan Smith. Hunt has made such a pig's ear of it that the doctors keep going on strike.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:19AM
Is there a lack of tax money to pay for NHS? ie too many new citizens but few tax payers.
(Score: 1) by Dogeball on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:13PM
No.
The strikes are about forcing doctors to work weekends as normal days (i.e. not just emergency care). Same budget, same staff, 20% increase in shifts, removal of automatic penalties on hospitals and trusts which overwork doctors.
Birth rate is flat. Immigration is overwhelmingly working age, i.e. taxpayers. Emigration is a mix of working age and pensioners. Extra burden on healthcare comes mainly from aging population, which is partially offset by immigration. The main effect of immigration is on housing, but that's a different issue.
The government cannot complain about tax shortfall as long as they are cutting tax for high earners and increasing spending on unnecessary projects [independent.co.uk].
If there really is no money to hire extra doctors, then why spend money on organisational restructuring, and why try to extend elective appointments to the weekend?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:42PM
Forcing doctors to work weekends as normal days translates into less costs for NHS. The subfunctionality of NHS and the state is in essence externalized to doctors living standard and health. Which in turn will affect patients. And organisational restructuring is likely done to lower costs in the long run. Probably not in a good way.
Are you sure about the immigration in working age also translates into actual paying jobs with a salary that works out in the big picture? minus for any increased crime rate etc. Media has been found manipulating the information on this in some countries.
I would say the overall signal is that NHS is being squeezed for money. As to the exact reasons why this is done, the government budget is likely the answer. And while taxing the rich may sound good. In many cases even a 100% tax would not making any significant difference. But strategic decisions on time and things that does or doesn't happen usually have more impact. Things that didn't happen are one of those things that are hard to figure out, it's like looking for black holes. They are there, but can only be found by what's missing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by devlux on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:45PM
So are you advocating a lead backed currency then?
Problem is that you've never actually faced hunger or seen what it will do to people.
I can tell because it's easy to say those things up until the point where you really have to go through with it.
Getting to that point tears chunks of your soul away and leaves you emotionally barren.
However, if you're faced with starvation or worse, your kids starving, you will do anything to get what you need.
Then there will be others who will do whatever they can to try and stop you.
There are many things that can be done to a person that make death, even a slow and painful one seem like a blessing.
Bread and circuses is a solution that prevents society from degrading into Anarchy, which if you've never seen it first hand you really have no clue at all.
The situation with african warlords and even here in mexico with the zapatistas is a perfect example of what anarchy naturally devolves to.
Instead of a golden rule you have a lead rule, as in he who has the most bullets makes the law.
If you're not worried about that, should your situation devolve to that point then it's only because you've never seen it except perhaps a show on TV.
I've seen this first hand, a small town come out and hunt it's police force for corruption that resulted in the town not having enough to eat.
Sounds like a good thing, except it started a small scale civil war between people who used to be neighbors, friends even family.
It required military intervention to put down and a lot more innocent people died than should have, mostly children and the elderly.
It was at that point I realized fully that we are just animals who put on clothes and pretend to be something we're not.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fliptop on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:03PM
You mean, like, get a job? Because if I were starving, that's the 1st thing I'd do to improve my situation.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:10PM
Yeah, you're assuming there are jobs to be had. There aren't always and there are none in an Anarchy which is what the person I was replying to was proffering.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:45PM
When the penalty for petty theft is the same as that for murder, where is the disincentive to bringing your own weapon and leaving no witnesses?
One can only hope that you youngsters with 1-dimensional thinking will eventually grow up.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Dunbal on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:06PM
Coming up next - bank robbery not a crime for the poor.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:38PM
'What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?'
(Score: 2, Touché) by r1348 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:25PM
You don't rob banks "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:42PM
No, it would be in the face of the immediate and essential need for money. I didn't say you could rob banks if you were hungry. I said you could rob banks if you were POOR.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:56PM
You don't rob banks "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment".
Really? Because I've been reading that desperation for food and shelter is indeed the motivation for a great deal of the bank robberies we have these days. Especially when the getaway vehicle is a bicycle. The take is seldom more than $10K, and usually less than 4K.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:25PM
...or public transit.
I heard about an incident the other week and just tried to Google it up.
Heh. That one was buried in all the results. [google.com]
.
I'm also remembering the guy who said to the teller that he was robbing the joint (no weapon in evidence) and demanded $1.
He then sat down and waited for the cops.
He couldn't afford healthcare and figured prison was the place to get that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:11PM
Hot damn, this is great news! And I'm hungry right now, too. Well, gonna go out to eat, not taking my wallet. Because that way I'll have immediate hunger and no money to pay!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by r1348 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:43PM
Yes, because I'm sure your situation is obviously comparable to that of a homeless person near starvation who steals 4€ worth of food.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:00PM
I haven't eaten in days since I've been in a marathon coding session for my startup's flagship app. It's gonna be huge. Now feed me because I'm an entitled member of the social economy.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:29AM
Liar! Start-ups pay their staff in pizza.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:14PM
Homer Simpson just applied for a visa to Italy. Poor and hungry are pretty much his best qualities.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:14PM
Do the various regions in Italy have food banks [feedingamerica.org] or the like?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:02PM
Food banks? Do you get food loans there, which you then have to pay back with interest?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:12PM
Food banks? Do you get food loans there, which you then have to pay back with interest?
What's interest on food? Soylent Green?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 05 2016, @12:38AM
If so, I don't think I want it back that way [schlockmercenary.com].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by marcello_dl on Wednesday May 04 2016, @08:56PM
We have food collection programs, Catholic organization Caritas which gives out food twice a day, other organizations and probably the city administrations...
Plus, had the guy asked, would probably had somebody give him a can of tuna or something.
This seems a law screaming for abuse, we will see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:28PM
If you are in urgent need of:
a) Food
b) A shit
c) Booze
d) Sleep
e) ???
f) Profit
You can do all of those things in a supermarket. I don't really like this becoming precedent. There's a right way to do things in order that we discourage the wrong ways. The problem with precedents and rules is that shitbags will max out the goodwill as a matter of course - and I'm including corporate and billionaire shitbags here too. The dude taking a bag of hotdogs is stretching the rules just like a rich dude stretching legal definitions to keep his money untaxed.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 06 2016, @05:21PM
> law screaming for abuse
May 6, 2016: a guy, likely a SN reader with an ear for screams, puts approximately 1000 eur worth of food in his cart, and escapes from the entrance.
Must have been *very* hungry.
http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/udine/cronaca/2016/05/06/news/riempie-il-carrello-della-spesa-per-mille-euro-poi-scappa-senza-pagare-1.13422944 [gelocal.it]
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Thanar on Wednesday May 04 2016, @07:50PM
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday May 04 2016, @09:23PM
Italian Court Rules Theft of Food Not a Crime for the Hungry and poor
...shouldn't it be?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:06PM
If we really have to take food from someone to give it to hungry people, we should call it a tax and take money from the whole population, then use it to buy the hungry people food. We should not take the entire amount from the grocery store and no amount from anyone else just because the grocery store happens to be physically carrying the food; that's the equivalent of having a special tax just on grocery stores to be used to feed the hungry.
(Likewise, whatever you think of socialized medicine, socialized medicine paid for by taxes can't be as bad as making doctors give away their services for free to the poor, thus putting the entire burden on doctors and no burden on anyone else.)
Of course, if you do use taxes for this purpose, people can notice when you've gotten too generous with other people's money. If you make the grocery stores share the entire burden, nobody who doesn't own a grocery store will care how badly you're screwing over the grocery stores.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:53AM
Careful now, that's pinko-commie-socialist-fascist-athiest talk!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:26PM
A simple way of dealing with this would be to not prosecute in the first place -- just drop the charges.
I suppose you can't count on people being reasonable though, so maybe this ruling was necessary.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:21PM
except bart though that was good logic. Stealing is never right.