I guess that's pretty much what is happening with the financial crisis going on:
1. You tax the people.
2. You give the tax to the (almost bankrupt) banks.
3. The banks use the money to pay each other huge bonuses, whilst still refusing to make any loans.
Webb apps will always have the browser in the way, with the inevitable conflicts over keystrokes. I have yet to see a web UI that even comes vaguely close to the convenience of all but the very worst standalone UI. If I'm going to willingly use a web app, there's got to be a real advantage to me as a user to using it. That's why I still use traditional word processors, not Google Docs. They're a lot easier to use, and I suspect always will be. That's not the same as net apps, though, where a dedicated standalone interface accesses data on the internet.
Yup, this fine is just a speed bump. The fact that the Do Not Call registry made the law abiding companies change their business tactics or drop out of the race gives these companies that would rather take the hit less compitition.
Which is useful information in itself. I'm on the UK DNC list, and if I get a call it means that the company calling me is either incompetent or is employing shady, if not crooked, business practices. I always ask them which it is, and they tend to find it hard to return to script.
Here's something else to think about. Provided these are American owned companies, employing Americans, would it be better to just look the other way unless we're out of financial dire straights? As shady as telemarketing is, it's supporting and employing thousands of Americans every year.
Hey, so does organised crime, maybe you want to cut that some slack, too? Anyway, most marketing calls I get here in the UK seem to originate outside the UK (judging by the accents, which I realise isn't 100% reliable) because that avoids the UK law so there is no redress. Don't be surprised if the calls you get are from outside the USA, for just the same reason.
How does this compare to/.? If I use a public terminal to post malicious content as AC to/., does/. have sufficient information to identify me? Would it be a reasonable response by law enforcement to impound./ hardware?
In what way were they not helping? By not handing over information that they didn't have? Gosh, that means that we're all not helping!
There's a lot of knee-jerk going on because of the odiousness of SHAK, but Indymedia seem to have done everything right and seem to have done everything they could to help, but they still got stomped on, which does suggest that there's another agenda.
And without in any way condoning the actions of SHAK, free speech isn't an issue when it's speech that I or the powers that be agree with, it's only an issue when it's speech that I or the powers that be wish were not spoken.
In other words, "fuck anyone who gets caught in the crossfire"? Congratulations, you're actually endorsing SHAK's methods whilst superficially condemning them.
Unfortunately it's not SHAC who are getting shafted, it's indymedia, who as far as I can tell have no association with SHAC except SHAC were posting there as ACs.
In what way did indymedia mess up? They deleted an inappropriate post on an open message board. What's wrong with that? Do you mean they shouldn't have had an open messahe board in the first place? You might have a problem persuading slashdotters...
Read the article again. Somebody put the private details in a public message, Indymedia spotted it and took the message down again. Then the police got heavy. If I posted the judge's details in this message, and if/. authorities (whoever they are) immediately deleted the message do you (and those who modded you insightful) really think an appropriate response by law enforcement would be to try to shut down/.?
Also from the details available, they seem to have quite correctly pulled that information as soon as they spotted it, before the police asked them to, and the problem was that the police demanded information that they didn't have. So what were they supposed to do?
The perils of/. you see. post something that I think is pretty clearly meant to be a joke (I mean, look at the first part!) but some mischievous moderator goes and makes it insightful instead of funny and I end up with a feeling that I should be defending something that I was never actually all that much behind in the first. Hey ho, the cost of karma...
How is this funny? It's more informative. It's highlighting the doublestandard that exists on this site for Bush v. Obama, or more generally Republicans v. Democrats.
Look at the article -- the Republicans use Yahoo!, the Democrats use Google. Of course/. comes out in favour of the Democrats when there's such a clear and significant issue dividing them!
By the way, isn't a majority endorsing the Democrat position an accurate reflection of opinion in the USA as a whole? Maybe they should put it to a vote or something to find out.
It's not that we are any levels of stupidity away from understanding it. Consider it a form of encryption (DRM, even) and we don't have the key. It's not stupidity that means people with the key can access the information more readily than those without it (although with sufficient time and intelligence it should be possible to crack the key -- expect that to be made illegal sometime soon. Ha ha, only serious.)
I Never said that the only security fear is external to the US.
You said that the need for security stems from fear of foreign powers.
I was travelling on business at the time of the Oklahoma bombing, and only had access to American news channels. All the commentators that got airtime were unanimous that this was an external terrorist attack. When Timothy McVeigh was arrested and the commentators discovered that the bomber was home grown, the commentators were unanimous that he had done it because of foreigners being in the country and the way to stop such attacks was to seal the borders.
My point is that there are voices -- very loud voices with very good access to the media -- that are absolutely insistent that everything has to be seen as "us v. them", that the threat is always external. That's a foolish and dangerous view, but it plays well to certain political sensibilities.
I never suggested that Limbaugh was not a patriot. I said that he wanted Obama to fail, which he is on record as saying. Politically, the reasons he wants Obama to fail are very important. To the hothead with a gun they are not important at all. The hothead will simply agree that Obama has to be stopped and will decide to try to do it by taking him out. Heck, it's already happened but was fortunately nipped in the bud. You say that the only security fear is external to the USA, which is contrary to the evidence, and nobody bats an eye. I say that there's an internal threat too, which is provable, everybody actually knows but the USA seems to be in denial about, and I'm moderated as a troll? Boy, Obama has a long way to go to recover respect for the USA on the world stage...
I think there is a need for security from some of those who voted against him or chose not to vote, though -- just look at some of the trolls around here. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail; I bet some of his listeners would be willing to use force to make that happen. There is an internal risk as well as an external risk, and his security team will realise that.
Bands who want to be known give their songs to a station which broadcasts it. Band becomes famous, and people pay for the concert. But then again, I also believe in Utopia:D
Slashdot Mirror
fueled entirely by whiskey by-products
They can get power from urine now?
I guess that's pretty much what is happening with the financial crisis going on:
1. You tax the people.
2. You give the tax to the (almost bankrupt) banks.
3. The banks use the money to pay each other huge bonuses, whilst still refusing to make any loans.
Fixed that for ya.
Webb apps will always have the browser in the way, with the inevitable conflicts over keystrokes. I have yet to see a web UI that even comes vaguely close to the convenience of all but the very worst standalone UI. If I'm going to willingly use a web app, there's got to be a real advantage to me as a user to using it. That's why I still use traditional word processors, not Google Docs. They're a lot easier to use, and I suspect always will be. That's not the same as net apps, though, where a dedicated standalone interface accesses data on the internet.
Yup, this fine is just a speed bump. The fact that the Do Not Call registry made the law abiding companies change their business tactics or drop out of the race gives these companies that would rather take the hit less compitition.
Which is useful information in itself. I'm on the UK DNC list, and if I get a call it means that the company calling me is either incompetent or is employing shady, if not crooked, business practices. I always ask them which it is, and they tend to find it hard to return to script.
Here's something else to think about. Provided these are American owned companies, employing Americans, would it be better to just look the other way unless we're out of financial dire straights? As shady as telemarketing is, it's supporting and employing thousands of Americans every year.
Hey, so does organised crime, maybe you want to cut that some slack, too? Anyway, most marketing calls I get here in the UK seem to originate outside the UK (judging by the accents, which I realise isn't 100% reliable) because that avoids the UK law so there is no redress. Don't be surprised if the calls you get are from outside the USA, for just the same reason.
Or do these NEOs have some kind of exotic resource that I am unaware of?
Might be worth checking for naturally occurring 2(5)6 dilithium 2(:)l diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide.
How does this compare to /.? If I use a public terminal to post malicious content as AC to /., does /. have sufficient information to identify me? Would it be a reasonable response by law enforcement to impound ./ hardware?
In what way were they not helping? By not handing over information that they didn't have? Gosh, that means that we're all not helping!
There's a lot of knee-jerk going on because of the odiousness of SHAK, but Indymedia seem to have done everything right and seem to have done everything they could to help, but they still got stomped on, which does suggest that there's another agenda.
And without in any way condoning the actions of SHAK, free speech isn't an issue when it's speech that I or the powers that be agree with, it's only an issue when it's speech that I or the powers that be wish were not spoken.
In other words, "fuck anyone who gets caught in the crossfire"? Congratulations, you're actually endorsing SHAK's methods whilst superficially condemning them.
Unfortunately it's not SHAC who are getting shafted, it's indymedia, who as far as I can tell have no association with SHAC except SHAC were posting there as ACs.
In what way did indymedia mess up? They deleted an inappropriate post on an open message board. What's wrong with that? Do you mean they shouldn't have had an open messahe board in the first place? You might have a problem persuading slashdotters...
Read the article again. Somebody put the private details in a public message, Indymedia spotted it and took the message down again. Then the police got heavy. If I posted the judge's details in this message, and if /. authorities (whoever they are) immediately deleted the message do you (and those who modded you insightful) really think an appropriate response by law enforcement would be to try to shut down /.?
Also from the details available, they seem to have quite correctly pulled that information as soon as they spotted it, before the police asked them to, and the problem was that the police demanded information that they didn't have. So what were they supposed to do?
Same here. It used to appear regularly on the newsstands here in the UK, and I used to read it avidly, but I've not seen it for over 20 years.
By analogy with "missionary's position"? No, that doesn't work...
Why not? What's happened to Hans-Gert PÃttering?
The perils of /. you see. post something that I think is pretty clearly meant to be a joke (I mean, look at the first part!) but some mischievous moderator goes and makes it insightful instead of funny and I end up with a feeling that I should be defending something that I was never actually all that much behind in the first. Hey ho, the cost of karma...
How is this funny? It's more informative. It's highlighting the doublestandard that exists on this site for Bush v. Obama, or more generally Republicans v. Democrats.
Look at the article -- the Republicans use Yahoo!, the Democrats use Google. Of course /. comes out in favour of the Democrats when there's such a clear and significant issue dividing them!
By the way, isn't a majority endorsing the Democrat position an accurate reflection of opinion in the USA as a whole? Maybe they should put it to a vote or something to find out.
Dubya had a no torture policy too. It's just that there was an -- er, interesting -- view of what counted as torture.
It's not that we are any levels of stupidity away from understanding it. Consider it a form of encryption (DRM, even) and we don't have the key. It's not stupidity that means people with the key can access the information more readily than those without it (although with sufficient time and intelligence it should be possible to crack the key -- expect that to be made illegal sometime soon. Ha ha, only serious.)
If it saves one lawyer! Er, hold on...
I Never said that the only security fear is external to the US.
You said that the need for security stems from fear of foreign powers.
I was travelling on business at the time of the Oklahoma bombing, and only had access to American news channels. All the commentators that got airtime were unanimous that this was an external terrorist attack. When Timothy McVeigh was arrested and the commentators discovered that the bomber was home grown, the commentators were unanimous that he had done it because of foreigners being in the country and the way to stop such attacks was to seal the borders.
My point is that there are voices -- very loud voices with very good access to the media -- that are absolutely insistent that everything has to be seen as "us v. them", that the threat is always external. That's a foolish and dangerous view, but it plays well to certain political sensibilities.
I never suggested that Limbaugh was not a patriot. I said that he wanted Obama to fail, which he is on record as saying. Politically, the reasons he wants Obama to fail are very important. To the hothead with a gun they are not important at all. The hothead will simply agree that Obama has to be stopped and will decide to try to do it by taking him out. Heck, it's already happened but was fortunately nipped in the bud. You say that the only security fear is external to the USA, which is contrary to the evidence, and nobody bats an eye. I say that there's an internal threat too, which is provable, everybody actually knows but the USA seems to be in denial about, and I'm moderated as a troll? Boy, Obama has a long way to go to recover respect for the USA on the world stage...
I think there is a need for security from some of those who voted against him or chose not to vote, though -- just look at some of the trolls around here. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail; I bet some of his listeners would be willing to use force to make that happen. There is an internal risk as well as an external risk, and his security team will realise that.
Since Obama is commander in chief of the military, shouldn't he get to say what he's going to use?
Bands who want to be known give their songs to a station which broadcasts it. Band becomes famous, and people pay for the concert. But then again, I also believe in Utopia :D
That model does actually exist out there on the net -- the billboard at http://www.themusicwellhome.co.uk/ for instance.