OK, I'm confused - you're saying that fighting in court is too expensive (like crashing your new Honda into the wall) so you should instead asplode your house?
Personally, I think what WikiLeaks etc. should do is just host their websites in a country with less punitive censorship laws.
Freenet's a nice idea, but I'm not participating until I can control what's on my node. And I know that this is fundamentally against the design and principles of Freenet.
Exactly. And, in fact, you're not really, philosophically, against censorship. You're just against censorship of stuff you think shouldn't be censored. Don't feel bad about it, that's what people usually really mean when they're talking about being against censorship.
Personally, I think that attacking child porn is treating the symptom, not the disease, and gets ridiculous when you start prosecuting people for cartoons or computer renders that resemble CP. What needs to be stopped is child abuse, and the suffering that it causes. People often seem to lose sight of this amongst all the moral posturing.
Cheers bro. I had the right to vote for one of two politicians, neither of whom said anything about this shit and both of whom wanted to do it, so I know it's my fault.
The problem here is that the story is about censorship. The intent is to prove the very serious allegation that the Australian Government is either incompetent or lying about what actions they're taking. That's quite a charge and it takes more than a "trust me." Which is what has gotten the Government in trouble to begin with.
I'm really starting to doubt that either incompetence or lying are considered serious allegations these days, when levelled against Australian politicians. The rules of politics as observed by me are:
1) Tell them what they want to hear (even if it isn't true) so they'll like you.
2) Do whatever the hell you want.
3) Say you didn't.
4) If the shit hits the fan, lie about it. Say there is no shit and no fan.
5) When photos of politician posing with both shit and fan are published, claim they're faked.
6) Charge the publisher with "distributing personal photos of a public figure" while still claiming that no neither photos , shit nor fan exist.
7) Hide for the next 15 minutes until the next footy game starts and the stupid fucking populous forgets 1-6 ever happened.
This happens every. single. time. Where's the screaming big red button to press to say "EXCUSE ME, MEMBER FOR BLOGGS, YOU'RE LYING YOUR ASS OFF AGAIN"? Why is there no accountability for anything anyone says once they're elected? Is it just that humanity as a whole are a bunch of lying bastards, so honesty and accountability would be unrepresentative?
Or, perhaps, the editors of wikileaks are in the business of posting the full contents of leaks, rather than just the bits they like? I mean, isn't that the entire point of wikileaks?
As a consultant over the years for companies and individuals, I have definitely made the most money supporting windows systems. What does that say?
It says that 90% of the market uses Windows. If you're making more than 10% of your dough from Mac-using companies then either you're self selecting them or macs require more support.:P
(Of course it works the other way too, I've never made a cent from Mac users because I've never worked at a company that used them.)
I can't help feeling that this is the best argument yet for something like SQLite. You start off with an ultralightweight DBMS, and then when you need a 'real' database your app is already written around using a SQL DB, so it's less painful to convert.
The meta-rule in computer science is "Once And Only Once".
That's funny, I thought the rule was "Less Than Three". If you do something once, you just do it. If you do it twice, then you probably make a utility function to do it. If you do it three times (no longer Less Than Three) then you build a generic module/library/object/package to solve the problem, because you'll be seeing it again.
I'm not a database specialist (I only work with them, and tend to have a programmerly point of view on them) but it seems to me that you should have two 'layers' of database for very large, performance-sensitive, usually-read-only data. You have the raw data, which is what you write to. This one's all nicely normalised and so forth. Then you have regular updates that write to a second database which is denormalised but lets data be recalled easily in useful arrangements.
An old job of mine involved working with an Oracle database that was a wonder of normalisation. No data was ever stored twice, barring the 80% of the data that were (often multi-part) foreign keys. Any useful query had to join at least half a dozen tables, and most of the larger queries joined 20 or more different tables by long chains of foreign-key values. To get a manufacturer's name and stocked store names for an item ID, for instance, you'd have to do:
Select Manufacturer.Name, Stores.Name from
Items, ItemTemplates, Manufacturers, ManufStores, Stores, StoreTemplates
Where
Items.TemplateID = ItemTemplates.ID AND
ItemTemplates.ManufID = Manufacturers.ID AND
ManufStores.StoreID = Stores.ID AND
ManufStores.ManufID = Manufacturer.ID AND
Stores.TemplateID = StoreTemplates.ID AND
Items.ID = %itemID%
Almost all queries used the 'distinct' keyword to prevent duplicate returns, because so many of the relationships between tables were 1:Many that large joins invariably turned into Many:Many. It had been like this for years and a certain person who was now the division manager was once upon a time the DBA who designed the database, so refactoring was verboten.
Most pages on the web front end took at least 10 seconds to load over a LAN. It was a valuable lesson for me, and taught me that simply normalising your data representation isn't enough to make a database schema non-god-awful.
Even with ibuprofen. I have a bottle of OTC on my desk. Here are the warnings:
Allergy alert: ibuprofen may cause a severe allergic reaction which may include:
hives
facial swelling
asthma
shock
Stomach bleeding warning: taking more than recommended dosage may cause stomach bleeding.
DO NOT USE if you have ever had an allergic reaction to any other pain reliever/fever reducer.
If pregnant or breast feeding:...
Keep out of reach of children
Children under 12: ask a doctor
People can die, rapidly, from eating a f**king peanut. Do we strip-search anyone who's pointed out by a 12-year-old girl (most likely to get herself out of trouble) as having given them a peanut (or product which may contain traces of nuts)?
Oh, very true. I counterquote Buffy (after Faith stabs the guy with her stake, then says "...but he's not a vampire"): "It's surprising how many things (a stake through the heart) will kill."
Hell, I find it confusing that countries have such tough laws on the sale of "hunting" knives, but you can buy a box of steak knives from the supermarket and carry it home under your arm.
In fact there's strong indication that the victim in this case not only didn't have any drugs on her, but never had.
The say-so of a 12-year-old girl who's just been busted for having something she shouldn't is NOT reasonable cause for a strip search, and even if it were, teachers are not police. She had every right to refuse until a parent or police officer was in attendance.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school? Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too? When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
Are you completely insane? This girl was dealing drugs in school now, simply because *another* student was caught with them and pointed the finger at her (which, news flash here, little kids do all the time).
Let's try an experiment. You work at a company with a strict "no drugs" policy. I call your boss and tell him you gave me a couple of Neurofen tablets. He and his secretary drag you into the stationary closet and force you to strip. Would you (a) file sexual harassment charges, or (b) think "oh well, fair cop"?
Pretty sure the slavemasters had spears, swords and whips whereas the slaves had none of these. The gun is merely the appropriate "currently effective personal weapon" to sub in. Likewise in 500 years' time, a gun will be useless against personal armour but whatever funky maser-based beam weapon is in use by armed forces then will be the symbol of personal firepower.
Maybe person B's project contributes to the company in ways that are not measured in cash.
And this is why person B, who works in tech support or who maintains the 'intranet' web-app, gets paid beans and ends up all bitter, whereas the sales guy whose only assets are his perfect teeth and his ability to lie to the customer gets paid the big bucks and thinks he's a hotshot.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'm confused - you're saying that fighting in court is too expensive (like crashing your new Honda into the wall) so you should instead asplode your house?
Personally, I think what WikiLeaks etc. should do is just host their websites in a country with less punitive censorship laws.
Freenet's a nice idea, but I'm not participating until I can control what's on my node. And I know that this is fundamentally against the design and principles of Freenet.
Exactly. And, in fact, you're not really, philosophically, against censorship. You're just against censorship of stuff you think shouldn't be censored. Don't feel bad about it, that's what people usually really mean when they're talking about being against censorship.
Personally, I think that attacking child porn is treating the symptom, not the disease, and gets ridiculous when you start prosecuting people for cartoons or computer renders that resemble CP. What needs to be stopped is child abuse, and the suffering that it causes. People often seem to lose sight of this amongst all the moral posturing.
Cheers bro. I had the right to vote for one of two politicians, neither of whom said anything about this shit and both of whom wanted to do it, so I know it's my fault.
The problem here is that the story is about censorship. The intent is to prove the very serious allegation that the Australian Government is either incompetent or lying about what actions they're taking. That's quite a charge and it takes more than a "trust me." Which is what has gotten the Government in trouble to begin with.
I'm really starting to doubt that either incompetence or lying are considered serious allegations these days, when levelled against Australian politicians. The rules of politics as observed by me are:
1) Tell them what they want to hear (even if it isn't true) so they'll like you.
2) Do whatever the hell you want.
3) Say you didn't.
4) If the shit hits the fan, lie about it. Say there is no shit and no fan.
5) When photos of politician posing with both shit and fan are published, claim they're faked.
6) Charge the publisher with "distributing personal photos of a public figure" while still claiming that no neither photos , shit nor fan exist.
7) Hide for the next 15 minutes until the next footy game starts and the stupid fucking populous forgets 1-6 ever happened.
This happens every. single. time. Where's the screaming big red button to press to say "EXCUSE ME, MEMBER FOR BLOGGS, YOU'RE LYING YOUR ASS OFF AGAIN"? Why is there no accountability for anything anyone says once they're elected? Is it just that humanity as a whole are a bunch of lying bastards, so honesty and accountability would be unrepresentative?
Or, perhaps, the editors of wikileaks are in the business of posting the full contents of leaks, rather than just the bits they like? I mean, isn't that the entire point of wikileaks?
I'd consider someone going through my trash to be pretty bloody hungry. Not that there are that many food scraps in there, but still.
See? OSS wastes so much space, damn inefficient open source!
As a consultant over the years for companies and individuals, I have definitely made the most money supporting windows systems. What does that say?
It says that 90% of the market uses Windows. If you're making more than 10% of your dough from Mac-using companies then either you're self selecting them or macs require more support. :P
(Of course it works the other way too, I've never made a cent from Mac users because I've never worked at a company that used them.)
Wine Is Not... eugh, never mind.
I can't help feeling that this is the best argument yet for something like SQLite. You start off with an ultralightweight DBMS, and then when you need a 'real' database your app is already written around using a SQL DB, so it's less painful to convert.
To say SQLite is "fast" is meaningless unless you define the criteria by which you come to this conclusion.
And yet it is somehow meaningful to say that "A full RDBMS will have HUGE speed advantages over MySQL and SQLite most every case."?
The meta-rule in computer science is "Once And Only Once".
That's funny, I thought the rule was "Less Than Three". If you do something once, you just do it. If you do it twice, then you probably make a utility function to do it. If you do it three times (no longer Less Than Three) then you build a generic module/library/object/package to solve the problem, because you'll be seeing it again.
I'm not a database specialist (I only work with them, and tend to have a programmerly point of view on them) but it seems to me that you should have two 'layers' of database for very large, performance-sensitive, usually-read-only data. You have the raw data, which is what you write to. This one's all nicely normalised and so forth. Then you have regular updates that write to a second database which is denormalised but lets data be recalled easily in useful arrangements.
An old job of mine involved working with an Oracle database that was a wonder of normalisation. No data was ever stored twice, barring the 80% of the data that were (often multi-part) foreign keys. Any useful query had to join at least half a dozen tables, and most of the larger queries joined 20 or more different tables by long chains of foreign-key values. To get a manufacturer's name and stocked store names for an item ID, for instance, you'd have to do:
Select Manufacturer.Name, Stores.Name from
Items, ItemTemplates, Manufacturers, ManufStores, Stores, StoreTemplates
Where
Items.TemplateID = ItemTemplates.ID AND
ItemTemplates.ManufID = Manufacturers.ID AND
ManufStores.StoreID = Stores.ID AND
ManufStores.ManufID = Manufacturer.ID AND
Stores.TemplateID = StoreTemplates.ID AND
Items.ID = %itemID%
Almost all queries used the 'distinct' keyword to prevent duplicate returns, because so many of the relationships between tables were 1:Many that large joins invariably turned into Many:Many. It had been like this for years and a certain person who was now the division manager was once upon a time the DBA who designed the database, so refactoring was verboten.
Most pages on the web front end took at least 10 seconds to load over a LAN. It was a valuable lesson for me, and taught me that simply normalising your data representation isn't enough to make a database schema non-god-awful.
He was shuffled from one project to another till he was lost in a basement office and quit.
Did he then burn the place down?
Sounds perfectly fair to me. Those who live by the unfounded assumption and all that...
Even with ibuprofen. I have a bottle of OTC on my desk. Here are the warnings:
People can die, rapidly, from eating a f**king peanut. Do we strip-search anyone who's pointed out by a 12-year-old girl (most likely to get herself out of trouble) as having given them a peanut (or product which may contain traces of nuts)?
Oh, very true. I counterquote Buffy (after Faith stabs the guy with her stake, then says "...but he's not a vampire"): "It's surprising how many things (a stake through the heart) will kill."
Hell, I find it confusing that countries have such tough laws on the sale of "hunting" knives, but you can buy a box of steak knives from the supermarket and carry it home under your arm.
It was the (female) nurse and (female) secretary performing the search...
...on a (female) student. Assuming (rule 30) that GP was male, the analogy was valid.
In fact there's strong indication that the victim in this case not only didn't have any drugs on her, but never had.
The say-so of a 12-year-old girl who's just been busted for having something she shouldn't is NOT reasonable cause for a strip search, and even if it were, teachers are not police. She had every right to refuse until a parent or police officer was in attendance.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school? Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too? When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
Are you completely insane? This girl was dealing drugs in school now, simply because *another* student was caught with them and pointed the finger at her (which, news flash here, little kids do all the time).
Let's try an experiment. You work at a company with a strict "no drugs" policy. I call your boss and tell him you gave me a couple of Neurofen tablets. He and his secretary drag you into the stationary closet and force you to strip. Would you (a) file sexual harassment charges, or (b) think "oh well, fair cop"?
You are found guilty of using logic, and are henceforth banished from Slashdot for 100 solar cycles.
+1, DO IT NOW.
Pretty sure the slavemasters had spears, swords and whips whereas the slaves had none of these. The gun is merely the appropriate "currently effective personal weapon" to sub in. Likewise in 500 years' time, a gun will be useless against personal armour but whatever funky maser-based beam weapon is in use by armed forces then will be the symbol of personal firepower.
Maybe person B's project contributes to the company in ways that are not measured in cash.
And this is why person B, who works in tech support or who maintains the 'intranet' web-app, gets paid beans and ends up all bitter, whereas the sales guy whose only assets are his perfect teeth and his ability to lie to the customer gets paid the big bucks and thinks he's a hotshot.
If Ayn Rand was right, engineers would make more money than CEOs.
Having never read the book, I always wondered why bitter engineers loved it so much. Now I get it. :P
Oh, and Paul Allen did most of the work on Altair BASIC from what I could gather. He was the smart one, Gates was the wannabe entrepreneur.