A private individual cannot make an illegal search - "illegal search" is really only possible if you have the authority to search in the first place. They may illegally break and enter. If they find something and turn it over to the cops, they may or may not be prosecuted (DA's choice); the person who they have the goods on may or may not be prosecuted, as well.
The evidence obtained by the police from an illegal activity that they neither committed nor encouraged is itself generally admissible at trial of the second individual. It is not counted as an illegal search by the cops since they weren't the ones who did anything illegal.
Also if in the investigation of one crime the cops discover evidence of another crime by the victim of the first crime, all such discovery is generally legal and that victim can be prosecuted as well.
An example. If the cops catch someone with a couple of kilos of coke that they stole and the guy tells them where he stole it from, the cops can obtain a warrant for that location. The evidence used to obtain that warrant is not thrown out because a third party obtained it through illegal means. At trial, the conviction won't be thrown out due to that fact either.
A closer example. If someone brags about doing something illegal online, such as breaking into a $random email account, the cops may investigate. They may also then find evidence of other illegal activities, such the use of that email account for governmental business in opposition to Alaska's sunshine laws. They could then prosecute the person who broke those laws, as well.
IANAL, so corrections to my interpretation are always welcome.
Now the media is going to have a feeding frenzy because they FINALLY have something to try to stick on Governor Palin. If this had been Joe Biden doing this we would have never heard about it. In fact, reporters would be calling for the head of this 4channer on a pike while simultaneously scrambling to demonstrate that the e-mails were harmless/irrelevant/nonexistent.
This quote shows your Republican bias. Now at least you have a heaping of cognitive dissonance to stare at if you wish.
The facts are that it has been known that Gov. Palin has been using non-official email channels to conduct official business. An activist in Alaska was already suing to obtain more information about this. Oh, this happened well before the social engineering.
So, where was your media frenzy then? Where were all those media people "out to get" the Republican party when the story actually broke? Why didn't they take this and shoot it to national attention then?
I believe the answer to this question is that a FOIA or similar action simply isn't as sexy as a HAXXOR and that's why this got attention. Icing on the cake that it's a VP nominee instead of some other governor.
The reason it's gaining traction rather than dying out, OTH, is because she's the VP nominee and illegal activity appears to have taken place. Is it any wonder the media is more enthused? Should there not be a frenzy when the vp nominee of one of the parties almost certainly been engaging in illegal activities? I guess that's supposed to be in section c page 7.
Furthermore, in the modern world the contents of a bank's hard drives are much more valuable than what's in their steel-lined vaults.
Yes, but valuable to who? Do the banks lose any money if the info is hacked? If there is no financial cost to these break ins at the institutions where they happen why in the world would such a profit oriented institution spend any money beyond the bare minimum to ensure they aren't jailed for malfeasance (although I would argue that doing so in itself is malfeasance)?
I don't think they've fully come to grips with that, or they'd have spent more money on information security.
They will only spend more money on information security when it becomes DIRECTLY more costly or DIRECTLY more risky (e.g. probability of COST) to hold off. This news does nothing to counter my viewpoint - no actual loss occurred (no fines, no assets moved, no nothing) to the Bank itself. All actual loss occurred to the groups that had their data stolen. As long as institutions can say "Whoops!" and everything goes along it's merry way nothing will change.
Re:Thanks for the hard work....but...my wifi....
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 1
Because copy-pasting six pieces of text is so hard.:)
No, but finding the right six pieces of text can be very hard. First you have to be able to correctly diagnose the issue. How many help desk people out there are confident in their users to do that? Then you have to know how to frame your query. Then you have to sort through the myriad of possible solutions to see which ones actually address the issue. Then you start trying those, if you are able to understand the answer you got. Then it is possible that the first solution doesn't actually work for you and you have to try another...
Next you're going to tell me it's easier to do the equivalent on Windows - which is usually not a option, ever.
In reality, for most people, having Linux or MS or OSX is actually equivalent in this situation. With MS and OSX they are SOL because the vendor won't fix the problem; With Linux because they cannot fix it themselves.
How about that, equivalently crappy in some small respect. The only small difference is that it may be possible that someone has the desire to reverse engineer the driver or come up with some other work around solution for the problem, and this is much more likely to happen in Linux and the like rather than MS or OSX. Which is all well and good but only useful to the majority if it's automagically installed when needed.
I think that is why they created a file system driver for the chips - so you wouldn't have to do any of that. The programmer can just look it as a file write call. In fact, I don't know how else it would work with multiple programs utilizing the FS.
I totally want my computer to be an appliance - when I am using it as such. And I'm a geek.
Most tasks most people have to on are ON the computer not ABOUT the computer. If I have a task to do, the less I have to dig into the guts of the machine - hardware/firmware/OS/drivers/software/configuration - the better off I am in terms of productivity. Especially if the digging is not to complete my task but to fix some other issue that is effectively a blocker to my task.
So there are plenty of times that this geek wants his computer to act like an appliance, at least.
Well, sorry to say that your quotes don't back you up very much, unless your only point is that the CRA had "some negative effect". The gp was on about how the CRA's effect was negligible, not that it had *no* negative effect.
I would agree that CRA loans are likely to have some negative consequences in that some of the borrowers were more risky, but it doesn't seem to follow that this is the trigger or even the main player in this crisis. At most, it appears that due to the stupidly greedy practices of banks (which i will get in to in a second) it was a contributory factor.
So what if Ron Paul charged that the CRA forced banks to lend to some people who normally would be rejected? The implication is that the CRA is the cause of our current crisis. The question is - is that true? This is a statement by a politician with vested interests and intellectual capital in smaller federal government. Of course he's going to say such things.
Your other quotes also just state that CRA pressured banks into loans for low income borrowers and low income regions, not that the CRA loans are a major factor in the meltdown.
The parent post, OTO... less that 1 in 4 sub prime mortgages from CRA lenders... CRA loans statistically less risky loans... CRA loans less likely to be sold...
So, unless you have some additional information I'm going to have to call this one BUSTED.
It's not really the foreclosures that sunk us, it's the fact that the effect of those foreclosures was incredibly magnified by bad risk management practices in leveraging these mortgages for more profit.
The banks and investment firms are squarely at fault. In the every increasing drive for profits, they both bought and sold essentially worthless commodities (that they didn't even understand!!!) at greatly inflated prices. I'm not talking about the mortgages themselves - I'm talking about all the paper that is layered on top of those. That's where the Billions in losses come from. They took risks (or some would say willfully ignored the precipice they were stepping off) and now expect (and have got!) taxpayers to pay for the risks they took.
The housing market was due for a correction. Almost all that commercial paper was predicated on a straight line projection of housing prices (and I don't mean down). When it went down, all those homes lost a bit of value. The problem is that bit of value is leveraged, possibly as high as 10,000 in some cases, due to all the commercial paper that was written on top of them.
You might be able to argue that the banks didn't know what what was going on was bad - but they in fact did know. Everyone in the game knew, after a while. But since you could just package up those bad debts and sell them to someone else you made money. Even the people buying knew, or should have but as long as the gravy train was rolling no one really cared that much. It's only when the music stopped and banks and investment firms could no longer pass the buck that the house of cards collapsed.
It's only when they actually looked at what they had been buying and selling that the reality hit them - that they have been trafficking in tulip bulbs. So I should cry for them or find some scapegoat, when they are the ones that raked in enormous profits during the boom, but when the risks those profits were tied to turned out to be a certainty of failure I should forgive their stupidity? Nope, don't think so.
This is why banks won't lend to one another. They all know that the other bank could have been even more stupid or greedy than they were. They don't know how much of the other bank is now tulip bulbs and don't want to find out that after having lent them $500M.
And now, the government is going to come in and buy up all those tulip bulbs. The bill should have just stopped at buying the underlying mortgage and killing all the derivatives off and forced the banks to fully declare actual assets. I fear what's going to happen is that instead all we the taxpayer will get are virtual tulip bulbs for our $1T+.
As far as the AF, it really depends on if they want you and if they need people to fill the role you wish to occupy.
It's not like they don't do that - you just have to have something they want enough. And yes, a generic recruiter is not likely to know all about these types of opportunities but persistence and being willing to take a few tests (no strings attached) paid off for me.
My contract specifically called out in the first paragraphs or there about, the AF's contractual obligations to give me the job I contracted for or I could walk. It was a benefit to both of us. They got someone for a hard to fill role and I got to do what I wanted while getting my Masters.
The dock itself has a state change for running applications. There is a small triangle over apps that are running. I imagine that you could replace this with something bolder if you'd like but it works for me.
You can also use Expose - a quick key or mouse combination to have a sense of all open windows.
Why put each of these in a separate area if you don't have to? Aren't people always talking about screen real estate?
Well, if they have gone to this much trouble to keep themselves off the net, why do you think they would suddenly decide to alter their behaviour? I imagine that they see this as an unfortunate side effect, not a reason to start sharing their identity.
It also never ceases to amaze me why slashdot comment scores go up in the presence of this sort of comment. I can tell by your nickname "veganboyjosh" that you're probably pretty angry about your perception of giant, "evil" entities pushing around the "little guy", telling him or her what he or she wants, thinks, believes, et cetera.
In no case is it that clear cut. You and your lot who appear to enjoy thinking in terms of "perpetrator" and "victim" fail to take into account the fact that these giant and wild entities like Google are made up of individual people who, at every level, are more or less just like everybody else.
Sorry, you do not get to dismiss legitimate concerns by name calling. Even if you are using the latest right wing reverse pop-psychology twist by painting your opponent as a "victim thinker" in no case is it that clear cut. It's pretty sad. You can't seem to accept the fact that there are people who see victims of large corps out there because there are actually victims of large corps out there.
The central plank of these paragraphs also seems rather tenuous. You seem to say that corporations can't be held responsible because corporations are made up of people. What? You can't dismiss the harm that corporations have caused by misdirection, nor can you just wish away that harm by shouting that being able to discriminate between the victim and the perpetrator is a bad thing! How does it help that the VP's and up of Enron, for example, were more or less just like everyone else?
They too buy things and are susceptible to marketing, and they too are largely driven by their desire to spread their seed (literal and figurative) as far and wide as possible, and convert as many people around them to their way of thinking.
So what? The fact that they also have to wallow in the filth they created is no way an endorsement of the practice. In reality they generally don't actually have to deal with the any externalities they create - if they did, the corp policies would quickly change. Make 5M+ a year and the very air around you tends to change.
It of course has stood to the reason of much greater men than me that the state of an adult's perception and desire is ultimately the responsibility of the adult in question. If someone rolls over when told what to buy, even in the most subtle marketing terms, it's entirely their own fault.
So, not only will you not think about it for yourself but you are proud of that fact? Oh boy, way to go. You also seem to be reading the wrong people. Try perhaps looking into the links forming between advertising and psychology. The whole premise behind advertising is to get you to buy something that you wouldn't have (if you would already have bought it they wouldn't need to advertise).
I think that you'll find that "entirely" is entirely the wrong word to use. Unfortunately, we seem to have a bunch of hardwired "buttons" activated by visual, auditory and other types of stimulus. The facts seem to be that external influences can indeed alter your perception and desires. Who would have thought?
Of course, your rant is actually all about responsibility or accountability, which is really funny because while you seem fully gung-ho about this on an individual level you seem to just as gunh-ho about giving corporations a free pass.
Right, sorry. Should be 2012, not 2112, the mayan cycle ends in 2012. Would have been cool if Rush had picked 2012 but I suspect that was too near term to be of value for their storyline. What is very strange is that I thought I had corrected that error before posting. Just goes to show that even if you do error detection & correction errors can get through.
The article is actually a rant against the 2112 Millenialism of a particular strain of people that have imprinted the mayan great cycle myth at a precognitive level through the influence of McKenna (whether they know it or not). At best, the article says that it's not very probable that a reversal will happen in our lifetime and if it does, "satellites may malfunction and migrating birds may become confused" but that's about it. Without a shred of proof given to that. It could presumably be much worse, so we should probably at least look at it.
though I do concur that the world probably won't end dec 21 2012.
However it also makes reference to a type of potentially catastrophic type event, a 'polar shift', which is really rare. Of course, all that means is that it is eventually inevitable. So there's another ticking clock. Has anyone come up with a clock incorporating all the known doomsday events that are actually going to happen sooner or later? e.g. catastrophic asteroid, polar shift, super solar event, whatnot? Would be interesting.
As I understand it, the earth's magnetic envelope, but even a weaker magnetic field means more radiation hits people, doesn't it? Of course, the next question is how much weaker? Increase cancer risk 1% on average or 25% increase in severe sunburn deaths? It could still be an issue.
I'm sure they can also demand the developers write the source on 24K gold tablets but that also won't happen. What large system do you suppose has the money to comply with fully commented and documented. If it's not there now, it won't happen for the Chinese. It wouldn't happen for the US Government, if we had such a requirement. Many businesses don't have the capital to complete such a money loosing proposition.
I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse.
For things like Microsoft's products you may be correct but not many other companies have the bandwidth to have a team of chinese engineers audit their code...
At a startup I used to work for, we "inherited" ~3mil lines of code, solaris/x windows/motif/oracle only backend and an NT only, hm these days you'd probably call them an "agent" of some type. If we had been forced to comment and document that before we shipped 1.0 we would have most certainly never shipped. The project I work on today would tank if we needed "fully commented" code before selling it to the government, much less if we had the government do a source audit and "explain anything that may be obtuse." I can just think of trying to explain simulated annealing, linear programming, markov chains and the like to a GS-9 assigned to review our codebsae while we're trying to ship a release (we are always trying to ship a release).
So, I imagine they'll get what the companies have, or some minimal set above what they currently have, and as little as can be gotten away with.
And your is equivalent of that of a one-year-old... Duh...
Really? Hmm.
First of all, you were the one with the stupid argument. I mean, really. "Since it is a right to drive, it must be a right to drive DUI." Stupid. Can you argue that you really had all pistons firing on that one?
Now is the first time I've seen a coherent reply. Thanks!
I'm not so sure I like your definition, though. I'm not entirely comfortable about having what may or may not be a right circumscribed by risk.
At what point do you decide that the risk is low enough for something to be a 'right', or conversely, how high does the risk have to be before we classify something as a privilege? Having people out on the street instead of safely sedated certainly is a serious risk to others. Just saying.
This in no way invalidates the thought that driving is a right not a privilege, which is what people were objecting to.
You challenged the parent to tell you which parts of the road he has paid for. He came back and said - considering the amount of various taxes i pay, all of them.
You responded with the post I'm replying to, which neatly sidesteps the original issue.
Society pays for the infrastructure for the good of the society, not for the good of the individual.
No, "society" doesn't pay for anything. As an individual I pay towards the infrastructure. I wish "Society" would pick up the bill, but it doesn't ever seem to have the money. The quid pro quo of the social contract is that I expect something in return for that.
You are using it, even if you don't set foot/car on the pavement. The roads are used to transport goods vital for everyone in a society.
Consider this... Without a central authority, the roads would not be built.
What does this have to do with it being a right to drive? I don't quite follow your logic.
Your viewpoint of rights is equivalent that of to a three year old. things are much more complex than you want them to appear.
In your view of rights we could never incarcerate anyone, because they have a right to be free.
Let's use a car analogy this time. Fitting.
You have the right to drive on the road. This does not give you the right to run over pedestrians. Or the "right" to ignore stoplights. Why do you think driving while intoxicated should be different?
As I said in another post- please explain why you do not consider driving a right.
Arguments of the form: "If i have a right to drive, I have a right to do X while driving" are fallacious. Please let me know if you have trouble seeing this. Perhaps I could be more clear.
So if I'm barely capable of standing up due to drinking myself shit-faced, have a right to use the roads as I see fit?
I've seen you bring this up in a number of posts. Quit being an idiot, or obstinate.
Just because someone considers it a right to drive does not mean that in all and every conceivable situation they still consider an individual to have that right.
People who go off and make up absurd strawmen to knock down aren't doing anybody favors.
So, do you have a coherent argument why driving should not be considered a right, because all I've seen from you on this topic is frothing at the mouth about driving drunk.
If I have lost my drivers licence?
This is a little better question but trivial. You know how, sometimes, we take people's rights away from them? Like that little right called freedom when we put people in jail? Well, amazingly enough, one can view the drivers license in the same way!
Alternately, we can try your approach to rights (templated on your objections), where we should let everyone out of prison since freedom is a right...
I was unjustly arrested on a gun charge in Los Angeles fifteen years ago, and I would be just fine with having that information on the web for anyone to Google. Why? Because if it ever comes up as an issue in the future, I can use the same technology to instantly prove my innocence.
Except what will happen (and probably even has) is that people will not confront you with this information. You will have no way to prove your innocence. They will have already read the charge and moved on. This is especially true of employers.
How do you think you are going to prove you innocence when no one bothers to talk to you about it?
And, even if you have the chance to "prove your innocence" the fact that you've been arrested is enough to tip some people's minds against you, some consciously many more subconsciously. Sucks, but people are indeed like that.
The reason such information is public is so that both sides have equal access to the truth. If knowledge that someone has been arrested and charged with a crime becomes secret information, then that will lead to secret prosecutions. That's exactly the sort of thing our founders wanted to avoid.
I don't see how your doomsday scenario follows from the premises. At all. Keeping arrest records off the net leads directly to secret prosecutions? Hmm. Well, maybe. Perhaps. There is likely to be a difference between "secret arrests" and non-public arrest records, though. Perhaps one would have to go down to City Hall to see arrest records, perhaps details are published only after a conviction - I don't know exactly what would work.
But I do know that media publicity has lead to real harm to real people, documented cases where false arrests have ruined lives - even after charges were dropped or the person acquitted. This is a real cost, borne by the innocent. The judge is trying to find a way to mitigate this possibility.
I think that the consequences you are postulating are far out of line with reality and that your casual dismissal of the consequences is in error.
Because, sorry pal, there's tons of other people who can do the exact same thing.
Oh, right! On the other hand, there's very few people who have the talent to be an artist.
Hmm, I think that perhaps those positions are just a bit reversed, don't you? That is, there are probably more artists than people with the ability to design industrial plants.
There's a few reasons why you don't get a stipend.
1) Your creation is not unique (anyone could have made it)
"Anyone"? The GP was talking about designing industrial plants. So, how about *you* design an aluminum smelting facility, hey? Should be really easy. Oh, alternately we could make a wager out of it. Get 100 random people from an industrialized nation (just to bias the sample in your favour). I will bet you that over half could not design an industrial plant. Hell, even give them their pick of plants to design - auto, furniture, tires, wonder bread, etc. I'll bet you that over half the plants wouldn't even make it past a cursory review of the GP.
2) Your creation is *not* art or a useful science, at least not in the strictest sense of the word 'art'.
Ah yes, the obvious. Use the very definition that's being argued incorrect as the basis for truth. The GP is basically posing the question Why isn't "X" creative act covered!!?!. The given answer comes down to - "It doesn't fit into the definition of copyright." Classic, but wrong. Because the crux of the question is asking about the correctness of the definition itself a coherent reply cannot fall back on the definition as an a priori source information to determine correctness.
3) You're a whiny bitch, and no one likes whiny bitches. Additionally, if getting a stipend is that important, negotiate it in your contract.
Well said! Now that really proves your point, don't you think? Can't think of a reasonable argument so go for - "and your momma dresses you funny!" Kudos.
I was unjustly arrested on a gun charge in Los Angeles fifteen years ago, and I would be just fine with having that information on the web for anyone to Google. Why? Because if it ever comes up as an issue in the future, I can use the same technology to instantly prove my innocence.
Except what will happen (and probably even has) is that people will not confront you with this information. You will have no way to prove your innocence. They will have already read the charge and moved on. This is especially true of employers.
How do you think you are going to prove you innocence when no one bothers to talk to you about it?
And, even if you have the chance to "prove your innocence" the fact that you've been arrested is enough to tip some people's minds against you, some consciously many more subconsciously. Sucks, but people are indeed like that.
The reason such information is public is so that both sides have equal access to the truth. If knowledge that someone has been arrested and charged with a crime becomes secret information, then that will lead to secret prosecutions. That's exactly the sort of thing our founders wanted to avoid.
I don't see how your doomsday scenario follows from the premises. At all. Keeping arrest records off the net leads directly to secret prosecutions? Hmm. Well, maybe. Perhaps. There is likely to be a difference between "secret arrests" and non-public arrest records, though. Perhaps one would have to go down to City Hall to see arrest records, perhaps details are published only after a conviction - I don't know exactly what would work.
But I do know that media publicity has lead to real harm to real people, documented cases where false arrests have ruined lives - even after charges were dropped or the person acquitted. This is a real cost, borne by the innocent. The judge is trying to find a way to mitigate this possibility.
I think that the consequences you are postulating are far out of line with reality and that your casual dismissal of the consequences is in error.
Slashdot Mirror
A private individual cannot make an illegal search - "illegal search" is really only possible if you have the authority to search in the first place. They may illegally break and enter. If they find something and turn it over to the cops, they may or may not be prosecuted (DA's choice); the person who they have the goods on may or may not be prosecuted, as well.
The evidence obtained by the police from an illegal activity that they neither committed nor encouraged is itself generally admissible at trial of the second individual. It is not counted as an illegal search by the cops since they weren't the ones who did anything illegal.
Also if in the investigation of one crime the cops discover evidence of another crime by the victim of the first crime, all such discovery is generally legal and that victim can be prosecuted as well.
An example. If the cops catch someone with a couple of kilos of coke that they stole and the guy tells them where he stole it from, the cops can obtain a warrant for that location. The evidence used to obtain that warrant is not thrown out because a third party obtained it through illegal means. At trial, the conviction won't be thrown out due to that fact either.
A closer example. If someone brags about doing something illegal online, such as breaking into a $random email account, the cops may investigate. They may also then find evidence of other illegal activities, such the use of that email account for governmental business in opposition to Alaska's sunshine laws. They could then prosecute the person who broke those laws, as well.
IANAL, so corrections to my interpretation are always welcome.
Now the media is going to have a feeding frenzy because they FINALLY have something to try to stick on Governor Palin. If this had been Joe Biden doing this we would have never heard about it. In fact, reporters would be calling for the head of this 4channer on a pike while simultaneously scrambling to demonstrate that the e-mails were harmless/irrelevant/nonexistent.
This quote shows your Republican bias. Now at least you have a heaping of cognitive dissonance to stare at if you wish.
The facts are that it has been known that Gov. Palin has been using non-official email channels to conduct official business. An activist in Alaska was already suing to obtain more information about this. Oh, this happened well before the social engineering.
So, where was your media frenzy then? Where were all those media people "out to get" the Republican party when the story actually broke? Why didn't they take this and shoot it to national attention then?
I believe the answer to this question is that a FOIA or similar action simply isn't as sexy as a HAXXOR and that's why this got attention. Icing on the cake that it's a VP nominee instead of some other governor.
The reason it's gaining traction rather than dying out, OTH, is because she's the VP nominee and illegal activity appears to have taken place. Is it any wonder the media is more enthused? Should there not be a frenzy when the vp nominee of one of the parties almost certainly been engaging in illegal activities? I guess that's supposed to be in section c page 7.
Furthermore, in the modern world the contents of a bank's hard drives are much more valuable than what's in their steel-lined vaults.
Yes, but valuable to who? Do the banks lose any money if the info is hacked? If there is no financial cost to these break ins at the institutions where they happen why in the world would such a profit oriented institution spend any money beyond the bare minimum to ensure they aren't jailed for malfeasance (although I would argue that doing so in itself is malfeasance)?
I don't think they've fully come to grips with that, or they'd have spent more money on information security.
They will only spend more money on information security when it becomes DIRECTLY more costly or DIRECTLY more risky (e.g. probability of COST) to hold off. This news does nothing to counter my viewpoint - no actual loss occurred (no fines, no assets moved, no nothing) to the Bank itself. All actual loss occurred to the groups that had their data stolen. As long as institutions can say "Whoops!" and everything goes along it's merry way nothing will change.
Because copy-pasting six pieces of text is so hard. :)
No, but finding the right six pieces of text can be very hard. First you have to be able to correctly diagnose the issue. How many help desk people out there are confident in their users to do that? Then you have to know how to frame your query. Then you have to sort through the myriad of possible solutions to see which ones actually address the issue. Then you start trying those, if you are able to understand the answer you got. Then it is possible that the first solution doesn't actually work for you and you have to try another...
Next you're going to tell me it's easier to do the equivalent on Windows - which is usually not a option, ever.
In reality, for most people, having Linux or MS or OSX is actually equivalent in this situation. With MS and OSX they are SOL because the vendor won't fix the problem; With Linux because they cannot fix it themselves.
How about that, equivalently crappy in some small respect. The only small difference is that it may be possible that someone has the desire to reverse engineer the driver or come up with some other work around solution for the problem, and this is much more likely to happen in Linux and the like rather than MS or OSX. Which is all well and good but only useful to the majority if it's automagically installed when needed.
I think that is why they created a file system driver for the chips - so you wouldn't have to do any of that. The programmer can just look it as a file write call. In fact, I don't know how else it would work with multiple programs utilizing the FS.
I totally want my computer to be an appliance - when I am using it as such. And I'm a geek.
Most tasks most people have to on are ON the computer not ABOUT the computer. If I have a task to do, the less I have to dig into the guts of the machine - hardware/firmware/OS/drivers/software/configuration - the better off I am in terms of productivity. Especially if the digging is not to complete my task but to fix some other issue that is effectively a blocker to my task.
So there are plenty of times that this geek wants his computer to act like an appliance, at least.
Well, sorry to say that your quotes don't back you up very much, unless your only point is that the CRA had "some negative effect". The gp was on about how the CRA's effect was negligible, not that it had *no* negative effect.
I would agree that CRA loans are likely to have some negative consequences in that some of the borrowers were more risky, but it doesn't seem to follow that this is the trigger or even the main player in this crisis. At most, it appears that due to the stupidly greedy practices of banks (which i will get in to in a second) it was a contributory factor.
So what if Ron Paul charged that the CRA forced banks to lend to some people who normally would be rejected? The implication is that the CRA is the cause of our current crisis. The question is - is that true? This is a statement by a politician with vested interests and intellectual capital in smaller federal government. Of course he's going to say such things.
Your other quotes also just state that CRA pressured banks into loans for low income borrowers and low income regions, not that the CRA loans are a major factor in the meltdown.
The parent post, OTO... less that 1 in 4 sub prime mortgages from CRA lenders... CRA loans statistically less risky loans... CRA loans less likely to be sold...
So, unless you have some additional information I'm going to have to call this one BUSTED.
It's not really the foreclosures that sunk us, it's the fact that the effect of those foreclosures was incredibly magnified by bad risk management practices in leveraging these mortgages for more profit.
The banks and investment firms are squarely at fault. In the every increasing drive for profits, they both bought and sold essentially worthless commodities ( that they didn't even understand!!! ) at greatly inflated prices. I'm not talking about the mortgages themselves - I'm talking about all the paper that is layered on top of those. That's where the Billions in losses come from. They took risks (or some would say willfully ignored the precipice they were stepping off) and now expect (and have got!) taxpayers to pay for the risks they took.
The housing market was due for a correction. Almost all that commercial paper was predicated on a straight line projection of housing prices (and I don't mean down). When it went down, all those homes lost a bit of value. The problem is that bit of value is leveraged, possibly as high as 10,000 in some cases, due to all the commercial paper that was written on top of them.
You might be able to argue that the banks didn't know what what was going on was bad - but they in fact did know. Everyone in the game knew, after a while. But since you could just package up those bad debts and sell them to someone else you made money. Even the people buying knew, or should have but as long as the gravy train was rolling no one really cared that much. It's only when the music stopped and banks and investment firms could no longer pass the buck that the house of cards collapsed.
It's only when they actually looked at what they had been buying and selling that the reality hit them - that they have been trafficking in tulip bulbs. So I should cry for them or find some scapegoat, when they are the ones that raked in enormous profits during the boom, but when the risks those profits were tied to turned out to be a certainty of failure I should forgive their stupidity? Nope, don't think so.
This is why banks won't lend to one another. They all know that the other bank could have been even more stupid or greedy than they were. They don't know how much of the other bank is now tulip bulbs and don't want to find out that after having lent them $500M.
And now, the government is going to come in and buy up all those tulip bulbs. The bill should have just stopped at buying the underlying mortgage and killing all the derivatives off and forced the banks to fully declare actual assets. I fear what's going to happen is that instead all we the taxpayer will get are virtual tulip bulbs for our $1T+.
So then, I guess "Android" would then indicate a trans-human or post-singularity slant? Well, that should certainly appeal to many geeks.
As far as the AF, it really depends on if they want you and if they need people to fill the role you wish to occupy.
It's not like they don't do that - you just have to have something they want enough. And yes, a generic recruiter is not likely to know all about these types of opportunities but persistence and being willing to take a few tests (no strings attached) paid off for me.
My contract specifically called out in the first paragraphs or there about, the AF's contractual obligations to give me the job I contracted for or I could walk. It was a benefit to both of us. They got someone for a hard to fill role and I got to do what I wanted while getting my Masters.
You have a couple of ways to tell what's running.
The dock itself has a state change for running applications. There is a small triangle over apps that are running. I imagine that you could replace this with something bolder if you'd like but it works for me.
You can also use Expose - a quick key or mouse combination to have a sense of all open windows.
Why put each of these in a separate area if you don't have to? Aren't people always talking about screen real estate?
Well, if they have gone to this much trouble to keep themselves off the net, why do you think they would suddenly decide to alter their behaviour? I imagine that they see this as an unfortunate side effect, not a reason to start sharing their identity.
It also never ceases to amaze me why slashdot comment scores go up in the presence of this sort of comment. I can tell by your nickname "veganboyjosh" that you're probably pretty angry about your perception of giant, "evil" entities pushing around the "little guy", telling him or her what he or she wants, thinks, believes, et cetera.
In no case is it that clear cut. You and your lot who appear to enjoy thinking in terms of "perpetrator" and "victim" fail to take into account the fact that these giant and wild entities like Google are made up of individual people who, at every level, are more or less just like everybody else.
Sorry, you do not get to dismiss legitimate concerns by name calling. Even if you are using the latest right wing reverse pop-psychology twist by painting your opponent as a "victim thinker" in no case is it that clear cut. It's pretty sad. You can't seem to accept the fact that there are people who see victims of large corps out there because there are actually victims of large corps out there.
The central plank of these paragraphs also seems rather tenuous. You seem to say that corporations can't be held responsible because corporations are made up of people. What? You can't dismiss the harm that corporations have caused by misdirection, nor can you just wish away that harm by shouting that being able to discriminate between the victim and the perpetrator is a bad thing! How does it help that the VP's and up of Enron, for example, were more or less just like everyone else?
They too buy things and are susceptible to marketing, and they too are largely driven by their desire to spread their seed (literal and figurative) as far and wide as possible, and convert as many people around them to their way of thinking.
So what? The fact that they also have to wallow in the filth they created is no way an endorsement of the practice. In reality they generally don't actually have to deal with the any externalities they create - if they did, the corp policies would quickly change. Make 5M+ a year and the very air around you tends to change.
It of course has stood to the reason of much greater men than me that the state of an adult's perception and desire is ultimately the responsibility of the adult in question. If someone rolls over when told what to buy, even in the most subtle marketing terms, it's entirely their own fault.
So, not only will you not think about it for yourself but you are proud of that fact? Oh boy, way to go. You also seem to be reading the wrong people. Try perhaps looking into the links forming between advertising and psychology. The whole premise behind advertising is to get you to buy something that you wouldn't have (if you would already have bought it they wouldn't need to advertise).
I think that you'll find that "entirely" is entirely the wrong word to use. Unfortunately, we seem to have a bunch of hardwired "buttons" activated by visual, auditory and other types of stimulus. The facts seem to be that external influences can indeed alter your perception and desires. Who would have thought?
Of course, your rant is actually all about responsibility or accountability, which is really funny because while you seem fully gung-ho about this on an individual level you seem to just as gunh-ho about giving corporations a free pass.
Right, sorry. Should be 2012, not 2112, the mayan cycle ends in 2012. Would have been cool if Rush had picked 2012 but I suspect that was too near term to be of value for their storyline. What is very strange is that I thought I had corrected that error before posting. Just goes to show that even if you do error detection & correction errors can get through.
The article is actually a rant against the 2112 Millenialism of a particular strain of people that have imprinted the mayan great cycle myth at a precognitive level through the influence of McKenna (whether they know it or not). At best, the article says that it's not very probable that a reversal will happen in our lifetime and if it does, "satellites may malfunction and migrating birds may become confused" but that's about it. Without a shred of proof given to that. It could presumably be much worse, so we should probably at least look at it.
though I do concur that the world probably won't end dec 21 2012.
However it also makes reference to a type of potentially catastrophic type event, a 'polar shift', which is really rare. Of course, all that means is that it is eventually inevitable. So there's another ticking clock. Has anyone come up with a clock incorporating all the known doomsday events that are actually going to happen sooner or later? e.g. catastrophic asteroid, polar shift, super solar event, whatnot? Would be interesting.
As I understand it, the earth's magnetic envelope, but even a weaker magnetic field means more radiation hits people, doesn't it? Of course, the next question is how much weaker? Increase cancer risk 1% on average or 25% increase in severe sunburn deaths? It could still be an issue.
How do you forbid someone from using BSD licensed code?
Relicence it.
How does that forbid them from using the BSD licensed code, again?
I'm sure they can also demand the developers write the source on 24K gold tablets but that also won't happen. What large system do you suppose has the money to comply with fully commented and documented. If it's not there now, it won't happen for the Chinese. It wouldn't happen for the US Government, if we had such a requirement. Many businesses don't have the capital to complete such a money loosing proposition.
I'm sure they would also insist on having the engineers explain anything that may be obtuse.
For things like Microsoft's products you may be correct but not many other companies have the bandwidth to have a team of chinese engineers audit their code...
At a startup I used to work for, we "inherited" ~3mil lines of code, solaris/x windows/motif/oracle only backend and an NT only, hm these days you'd probably call them an "agent" of some type. If we had been forced to comment and document that before we shipped 1.0 we would have most certainly never shipped. The project I work on today would tank if we needed "fully commented" code before selling it to the government, much less if we had the government do a source audit and "explain anything that may be obtuse." I can just think of trying to explain simulated annealing, linear programming, markov chains and the like to a GS-9 assigned to review our codebsae while we're trying to ship a release (we are always trying to ship a release).
So, I imagine they'll get what the companies have, or some minimal set above what they currently have, and as little as can be gotten away with.
And your is equivalent of that of a one-year-old... Duh...
Really? Hmm.
First of all, you were the one with the stupid argument. I mean, really. "Since it is a right to drive, it must be a right to drive DUI." Stupid. Can you argue that you really had all pistons firing on that one?
Now is the first time I've seen a coherent reply. Thanks!
I'm not so sure I like your definition, though. I'm not entirely comfortable about having what may or may not be a right circumscribed by risk.
At what point do you decide that the risk is low enough for something to be a 'right', or conversely, how high does the risk have to be before we classify something as a privilege? Having people out on the street instead of safely sedated certainly is a serious risk to others. Just saying.
And yet we incarcerate people all the time.
That alone should tell you that using an argument of the form:
*If Driving is a right then I can drive drunk!
Is not going to cut it as a counter argument against driving being a right.
In several posts you have used this exact argument and you seem no where near to even acknowledging that this is not a valid tack.
This in no way invalidates the thought that driving is a right not a privilege, which is what people were objecting to.
You challenged the parent to tell you which parts of the road he has paid for. He came back and said - considering the amount of various taxes i pay, all of them.
You responded with the post I'm replying to, which neatly sidesteps the original issue.
Society pays for the infrastructure for the good of the society, not for the good of the individual.
No, "society" doesn't pay for anything. As an individual I pay towards the infrastructure. I wish "Society" would pick up the bill, but it doesn't ever seem to have the money. The quid pro quo of the social contract is that I expect something in return for that.
You are using it, even if you don't set foot/car on the pavement. The roads are used to transport goods vital for everyone in a society.
Consider this... Without a central authority, the roads would not be built.
What does this have to do with it being a right to drive? I don't quite follow your logic.
Hey, perhaps I'll just follow this along.
Your viewpoint of rights is equivalent that of to a three year old. things are much more complex than you want them to appear.
In your view of rights we could never incarcerate anyone, because they have a right to be free.
Let's use a car analogy this time. Fitting.
You have the right to drive on the road. This does not give you the right to run over pedestrians. Or the "right" to ignore stoplights. Why do you think driving while intoxicated should be different?
As I said in another post- please explain why you do not consider driving a right.
Arguments of the form: "If i have a right to drive, I have a right to do X while driving" are fallacious. Please let me know if you have trouble seeing this. Perhaps I could be more clear.
So if I'm barely capable of standing up due to drinking myself shit-faced, have a right to use the roads as I see fit?
I've seen you bring this up in a number of posts. Quit being an idiot, or obstinate.
Just because someone considers it a right to drive does not mean that in all and every conceivable situation they still consider an individual to have that right.
People who go off and make up absurd strawmen to knock down aren't doing anybody favors.
So, do you have a coherent argument why driving should not be considered a right, because all I've seen from you on this topic is frothing at the mouth about driving drunk.
If I have lost my drivers licence?
This is a little better question but trivial. You know how, sometimes, we take people's rights away from them? Like that little right called freedom when we put people in jail? Well, amazingly enough, one can view the drivers license in the same way!
Alternately, we can try your approach to rights (templated on your objections), where we should let everyone out of prison since freedom is a right...
So much for preview. Sigh. Formatted:
I was unjustly arrested on a gun charge in Los Angeles fifteen years ago, and I would be just fine with having that information on the web for anyone to Google. Why? Because if it ever comes up as an issue in the future, I can use the same technology to instantly prove my innocence.
Except what will happen (and probably even has) is that people will not confront you with this information. You will have no way to prove your innocence. They will have already read the charge and moved on. This is especially true of employers.
How do you think you are going to prove you innocence when no one bothers to talk to you about it?
And, even if you have the chance to "prove your innocence" the fact that you've been arrested is enough to tip some people's minds against you, some consciously many more subconsciously. Sucks, but people are indeed like that.
The reason such information is public is so that both sides have equal access to the truth. If knowledge that someone has been arrested and charged with a crime becomes secret information, then that will lead to secret prosecutions. That's exactly the sort of thing our founders wanted to avoid.
I don't see how your doomsday scenario follows from the premises. At all. Keeping arrest records off the net leads directly to secret prosecutions? Hmm. Well, maybe. Perhaps. There is likely to be a difference between "secret arrests" and non-public arrest records, though. Perhaps one would have to go down to City Hall to see arrest records, perhaps details are published only after a conviction - I don't know exactly what would work.
But I do know that media publicity has lead to real harm to real people, documented cases where false arrests have ruined lives - even after charges were dropped or the person acquitted. This is a real cost, borne by the innocent. The judge is trying to find a way to mitigate this possibility.
I think that the consequences you are postulating are far out of line with reality and that your casual dismissal of the consequences is in error.
Because, sorry pal, there's tons of other people who can do the exact same thing.
Oh, right! On the other hand, there's very few people who have the talent to be an artist.
Hmm, I think that perhaps those positions are just a bit reversed, don't you? That is, there are probably more artists than people with the ability to design industrial plants.
There's a few reasons why you don't get a stipend.
1) Your creation is not unique (anyone could have made it)
"Anyone"? The GP was talking about designing industrial plants. So, how about *you* design an aluminum smelting facility, hey? Should be really easy. Oh, alternately we could make a wager out of it. Get 100 random people from an industrialized nation (just to bias the sample in your favour). I will bet you that over half could not design an industrial plant. Hell, even give them their pick of plants to design - auto, furniture, tires, wonder bread, etc. I'll bet you that over half the plants wouldn't even make it past a cursory review of the GP.
2) Your creation is *not* art or a useful science, at least not in the strictest sense of the word 'art'.
Ah yes, the obvious. Use the very definition that's being argued incorrect as the basis for truth. The GP is basically posing the question Why isn't "X" creative act covered!!?!. The given answer comes down to - "It doesn't fit into the definition of copyright." Classic, but wrong. Because the crux of the question is asking about the correctness of the definition itself a coherent reply cannot fall back on the definition as an a priori source information to determine correctness.
3) You're a whiny bitch, and no one likes whiny bitches. Additionally, if getting a stipend is that important, negotiate it in your contract.
Well said! Now that really proves your point, don't you think? Can't think of a reasonable argument so go for - "and your momma dresses you funny!" Kudos.
I was unjustly arrested on a gun charge in Los Angeles fifteen years ago, and I would be just fine with having that information on the web for anyone to Google. Why? Because if it ever comes up as an issue in the future, I can use the same technology to instantly prove my innocence.
Except what will happen (and probably even has) is that people will not confront you with this information. You will have no way to prove your innocence. They will have already read the charge and moved on. This is especially true of employers.
How do you think you are going to prove you innocence when no one bothers to talk to you about it?
And, even if you have the chance to "prove your innocence" the fact that you've been arrested is enough to tip some people's minds against you, some consciously many more subconsciously. Sucks, but people are indeed like that.
The reason such information is public is so that both sides have equal access to the truth. If knowledge that someone has been arrested and charged with a crime becomes secret information, then that will lead to secret prosecutions. That's exactly the sort of thing our founders wanted to avoid.
I don't see how your doomsday scenario follows from the premises. At all. Keeping arrest records off the net leads directly to secret prosecutions? Hmm. Well, maybe. Perhaps. There is likely to be a difference between "secret arrests" and non-public arrest records, though. Perhaps one would have to go down to City Hall to see arrest records, perhaps details are published only after a conviction - I don't know exactly what would work.
But I do know that media publicity has lead to real harm to real people, documented cases where false arrests have ruined lives - even after charges were dropped or the person acquitted. This is a real cost, borne by the innocent. The judge is trying to find a way to mitigate this possibility.
I think that the consequences you are postulating are far out of line with reality and that your casual dismissal of the consequences is in error.