"What Would You Do: you see a guy drugged girl's drink"

From abcnews
"
A Man 'Drugs' His Date's Drink: What Do You Do?
Would You Speak Up If You Saw Someone's Drink Get Drugged?
"



I'm really disgusted at the people for generally being idiots.

The thing you *should* do: call the police on your cell while walking towards restroom (enough distance so that guy doesn't hear you), tell the girl authoritatively that guy drugged her drink and police is already on the way and that she needs to remain here until police arrives, but shouldn't go to the guy for a bit (so that she won't alert him somehow by her behaviour). If police takes a while to arrive one might ask her to keep guy busy (if she really wants to help the police - or one could tell bartender and bouncer and put guy under civil arrest, or a zillion actions really that can keep him from leaving before police arrives). You might think its harsh on the guy. Well it is not up to a single person to decide how harsh is enough for a person you know nothing about; it's a job for a well informed jury. For all you can know, the guy may be a serial killer.

Why you should do the right thing in such situation:

1: if you are among those whom care (people whom stop in Milgram's experiment): you should do this simply because this is decent thing to do. Imagine if next day in newspaper you see that the girl was found dead or disappeared, and her parents are devastated and police says it may be work of serial killer. You'll feel like total shit for a long long while, won't you? Or for a short while if you are prone to suicide. I'm pretty sure I don't want to find out whenever I can take this kind of shit on my conscience or not.

If you are among those who don't care, well "heroic" actions are generally well rewarded, personal risk is low to non existent, seems like a selfish person would still do it.

The things people actually did fell between:
1: Acting as if nothing happened.
2: Confronting the guy, but not preventing the girl from sipping the drink, not informing the girl.

The first course of action, well it is cowardice. But what the hell is second? I don't get it. It's a lot safer to talk to the police than to confront a likely criminal yourself, so it's not self preservation. And the end goal is to prevent crime so you got to inform the would be victim. I figure it's some kind of weird misogynistic thing about keeping it between men, and not really thinking about what you're doing.

People probably need to be plain taught in school that they should call the police, stay out of trouble and protect the victim, this is not mutually exclusive. Drop the bullshit, recognize the fact that some people are selfish and some are selfless, some have conscience and some do not, and most are in between, and provide a rational explanation why this is a right thing to do, that's good for entire spectrum. Explain that it is at once moral, rather safe, and the society rewards for it. So that even the mildly evil people with no goodness and no conscience would do the right, good thing when they see situations such as that going on, even if for a selfish reason. Stupidity is an enabling factor in a lot of evil. There is an old Russian saying: stupid friend is worse than smart enemy. You can, to some extent, mitigate stupidity by education.

Recipe for cheap smug satisfaction (for linux).

1: read this article about a bug. Holy cow.
"At the international date line, whoops, all systems dumped and when I say all systems, I mean all systems, their navigation, part of their communications, their fuel systems. They were—they could have been in real trouble. They were with their tankers. The tankers – they tried to reset their systems, couldn’t get them reset. The tankers brought them back to Hawaii. This could have been real serious. It certainly could have been real serious if the weather had been bad."

"It was a computer glitch in the millions of lines of code, somebody made an error in a couple lines of the code and everything goes."
Its a wonder our world too isn't gone in nuclear war over a leap second or something, given such practices.

2: If you use 32 bit Linux, set time to 2038-01-19 03:14:00 UTC and wait 7 seconds (overflow). Alternatively, set whatever date windows overflows on. Guaranteed to glitch your pc a lot. Media player will skip, browser might lose cache, something might crash. I tried that back when I used 32-bit system, there was no major failure.
3: Enjoy your smug satisfaction that your pc doesn't fully phail when few lines out of million have a glitch, due to the clever ancient engineering practice known as memory protection.

Just what the hell.

I normally do not post any political commentary here, but I'm going to make an exception. I was looking at various new anti-net neutrality legislations in Germany, said to be made "to help fight child pornography".
What the hell. You'd almost think they were lobbied into this by some 'child porn producers association', whom complained that online CP is hurting their profits. "Our determination to fight child pornography" my ass. What happened to determination to fight child abuse? It happens in real life, you need rather difficult investigation to identify the pedophile bastards, and you need to send in some police for arrest, as opposed to asking ISP to shut down something and afterwards pretending it didn't happen.
Censoring the Internet is just silly. It is like combating evidence for the crime(photos) rather than crime itself(child abuse). It is a distraction from real issue. It does not free any children from any basements.

Link to another dude's rant on same topic