This is true. Most drive-by attacks these days seem to come from dodgy banner ads, or poorly sanitised user comments with embedded scripting on otherwise perfectly legitimate web sites.
However, if they walk in a door you opened, they haven't "broken in".
Actually... they have. "Breaking and entering" apparently doesn't require any actual breaking. Of course, if you explicitly opened the door and held it for them, that's implied permission to enter. But if they just left their door open and you wandered in, they can be charged with breaking and entering.
The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers.
Wow, self-centered much? So piracy of Nintendo games is the greatest threat to date to the IP rights of video game developers as a whole?
The simple truth is that many applications don't need that much performance or strange features and if a language like this enables more people to make their own custom apps, then I applaud it.
The even simpler truth is that no matter what language you type it in, the actual logic of your program is going to be the same. The difference between English and C++ isn't just curly braces and semicolons instead of nice verbose words. The difference is that English is ambiguous, non-rigorous, and carries a rich tapestry of overtones which would require a human, possibly even a native speaker, to really fully comprehend.
I bet 90% (or whatever the ratio of nonprogrammers to programmers is in the greater community) of people will try this, get some examples working, try to make their first true project, and then realise they haven't the faintest idea what the fuck they're doing, because they never learned to think in a logical, methodical, imperative manner. This is something I figured out when I was 13, really bad at programming, and had just installed The Games Factory. Turns out that game logic is no easier to program in to an event grid than it is to program in to a BASIC game. All you're doing is changing the syntax a bit.
That student really could not hold 110lbs of rice?
REALLY?
I'm calling shenanigans
Dude looks like he weighs about 50 kilos. They don't have quite the same emphasis on body building in high school / university as you seem to in America. I always wondered about that ('why is it that in TV shows, American high school guys look like they're all 25-year-old weightlifters') until I realised that you actually do weight training as part of your curriculum.
Of course, no amount of bench pressing to make your pecs look bigger will ever make you stronger than a mecha suit.:P
I choose to fight pedantry with LUDICROUS PEDANTRY!:)
According to the concise Oxford English Dictionary, 'manned' is defined as "having a human crew." I would argue that Mr. Jet Wing Man is, in fact, part of the structure of his aircraft. As such, the aircraft has a human component but not strictly speaking a crew (which is defined as "a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train.") He is not being worked on or operated. He may in fact qualify as the world's first sentient plane.
Even if it is only the smallest manned powered aircraft ever flown, I'd say that's a significant distinction.
Mr. Jet Wing Man intentionally hobbled his design by limiting the wing span.
That's like saying that he 'intentionally hobbled his design' by not buying a Cessna. The point is that he's strapped a wing only marginally longer than he is, plus four jet engines, to his butt. I wouldn't be surprised if, combined with the wing, he's the smallest powered aircraft ever flown.
That jet glider thing is pretty darn cool too though.
See, this is where it gets REALLY interesting. Ultimately, as we learn more about the brain's structure and function, I believe that we will find it harder and harder to escape the fact that free will is an illusion, a product of complex electrochemical interactions rather than something mystical.
I've always found it annoying that it's socially verboten to harass someone for being stupid, instead you have to pussyfoot around it, but it's perfectly OK to harass people for other similar flaws (for instance, what if you're very smart, but too lazy to do much with it? There must be many, many people here who fit that description). Why should a defect in the "abstract reasoning" part of your brain be mollycoddled and covered up while a defect in the motivation part just gets you derision?
To serve as an example, to deter others from perpetrating the same offense
I thought that covered it somewhat.;)
I agree with the endpoints of what you're saying, but you really need a sliding scale. So if someone has impaired emotional regulation and as such finds it significantly harder to control impulse actions when they're angry, in a perfect system they would be held less accountable, but also prevented from getting into situations where they could cause damage.
I suspect you have a case of whoosh here. Sure, it's the natural way for bacteria to multiply. And just as naturally, it's my way to take some antibiotics.
Thinking bigger, unless one chooses to subscribe to some Gaia-type theory, the Earth is not in any way conscious and has no goals or desires of its own. It's a giant rock covered in a very, very thin layer of pond scum. It's certainly not going to take antibiotics to kill us.
It's like punishing the unwilling back-seat passenger of a car for speeding. Even if the speeding causes an accident in which busloads of children are killed.
Not quite. It's more like punishing the driver of a car who deliberately sped and then crashed into a busload of school children... even though you know he'll never do it again.
"Public safety" is only an issue if the offender has some likelihood of re-offending, unless you count the (questionable) effect of deterring other offenders by 'making an example'. I will grant, though, that "for the offender's protection" is another reason for incarceration (although not necessarily strictly a punishment).
I agree with you. I also think that revenge has gotten a bad rap from the politically correct pussification brigade, to the point where we shy away from admitting that it's actually what we're doing. If someone I loved was murdered, I would hunt the killer down and take them apart at the seams. That's revenge, but in my book it's also totally justified.
Interesting point about responsibility for crimes. That's something I've always wondered about - at what point do we stop saying "you chose to do X and will take the consequences" and start saying "you have a disorder which caused you to do X and cannot be held accountable". I think they key is identifying exactly how much choice the person had in the matter - I suspect in the future we're going to need statistical models to assign some kind of 'free will index' to each person based on their psych profile and maybe genetic factors (insert ob. Gattaca reference), which would determine their level of responsibility and freedom, as well as the consequences they suffer for misbehaviour.
Actually, no, you haven't proven anything. The point I was making was that whether or not God, the Holy Milk Jug, the FSM, or anything else have any supernatural effect on our world is by definition unprovable. I hold that they are therefore irrelevant. That doesn't stop me from using the "If God had intended..." structure in a figurative sense.
Is it, though? Now we're getting into the philosophy of punishment. There are three basic motivations that I can see for punishing someone for a crime (as distinct from forcing them to make reparations):
To reduce the likelihood of re-offending (especially applies to incarceration).
To serve as an example, to deter others from perpetrating the same offense
Revenge
Imagine a kiddy fiddler of the worst order. He's molested scores of children, caused untold harm to them, etc. Now imagine that, on the day that he's caught, they can for whatever reason clinically prove that he's 'cured' and would be constitutionally unable to re-offend. Should he go free? I imagine the response would be a universal and emphatic "no, of course not!" The only motive for incarcerating or executing him at this point would be revenge.
If God had meant us to live naked in a cave with no fire while hunter-gathering, he wouldn't have given us these big brains that can figure out how to make clothes and shoes and houses and fire and fridges and supermarkets and big screen TVs.
Why can't people accept that the way humans live right now IS 'the natural way'. A gorilla's natural way is to eat nuts and berries and the odd chimpanzee. A human's natural way is to build tools and machines and try to understand their surroundings in order to control them. You don't complain that a beaver damming a river is 'interfering with the natural order'.
Which is a pity because with a law like that, they could repeal 90% of other laws. Most laws, when they come down to it, fall into the category of "Don't be a douche in "
You are completely out of your mind. The ONLY time I am required by law to do what an officer tells me is when he is detaining me on suspicion or arresting me for probable cause. (Other than ordering me to stop breaking the law, of course. That part is a given.)
In fact, in a sense, even then. He can politely ask you to discontinue your lawbreaking, which you'd be well served to do because his other option is to arrest you.
At least, that's how I understand the law. Any lawyers care to confirm/deny?
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. Most drive-by attacks these days seem to come from dodgy banner ads, or poorly sanitised user comments with embedded scripting on otherwise perfectly legitimate web sites.
However, if they walk in a door you opened, they haven't "broken in".
Actually... they have. "Breaking and entering" apparently doesn't require any actual breaking. Of course, if you explicitly opened the door and held it for them, that's implied permission to enter. But if they just left their door open and you wandered in, they can be charged with breaking and entering.
The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers.
Wow, self-centered much? So piracy of Nintendo games is the greatest threat to date to the IP rights of video game developers as a whole?
The simple truth is that many applications don't need that much performance or strange features and if a language like this enables more people to make their own custom apps, then I applaud it.
The even simpler truth is that no matter what language you type it in, the actual logic of your program is going to be the same. The difference between English and C++ isn't just curly braces and semicolons instead of nice verbose words. The difference is that English is ambiguous, non-rigorous, and carries a rich tapestry of overtones which would require a human, possibly even a native speaker, to really fully comprehend.
I bet 90% (or whatever the ratio of nonprogrammers to programmers is in the greater community) of people will try this, get some examples working, try to make their first true project, and then realise they haven't the faintest idea what the fuck they're doing, because they never learned to think in a logical, methodical, imperative manner. This is something I figured out when I was 13, really bad at programming, and had just installed The Games Factory. Turns out that game logic is no easier to program in to an event grid than it is to program in to a BASIC game. All you're doing is changing the syntax a bit.
That student really could not hold 110lbs of rice?
REALLY?
I'm calling shenanigans
Dude looks like he weighs about 50 kilos. They don't have quite the same emphasis on body building in high school / university as you seem to in America. I always wondered about that ('why is it that in TV shows, American high school guys look like they're all 25-year-old weightlifters') until I realised that you actually do weight training as part of your curriculum.
:P
Of course, no amount of bench pressing to make your pecs look bigger will ever make you stronger than a mecha suit.
I choose to fight pedantry with LUDICROUS PEDANTRY! :)
According to the concise Oxford English Dictionary, 'manned' is defined as "having a human crew." I would argue that Mr. Jet Wing Man is, in fact, part of the structure of his aircraft. As such, the aircraft has a human component but not strictly speaking a crew (which is defined as "a group of people who work on and operate a ship, boat, aircraft, or train.") He is not being worked on or operated. He may in fact qualify as the world's first sentient plane.
Even if it is only the smallest manned powered aircraft ever flown, I'd say that's a significant distinction.
Mr. Jet Wing Man intentionally hobbled his design by limiting the wing span.
That's like saying that he 'intentionally hobbled his design' by not buying a Cessna. The point is that he's strapped a wing only marginally longer than he is, plus four jet engines, to his butt. I wouldn't be surprised if, combined with the wing, he's the smallest powered aircraft ever flown.
That jet glider thing is pretty darn cool too though.
So you're saying he threw himself at the ground and... didn't miss?
I dunno, I'd kinda guessed that like most 'hobby'-scale jet engines, these ran on propane. Which comes in, y'know, cylinders.
See, this is where it gets REALLY interesting. Ultimately, as we learn more about the brain's structure and function, I believe that we will find it harder and harder to escape the fact that free will is an illusion, a product of complex electrochemical interactions rather than something mystical.
I've always found it annoying that it's socially verboten to harass someone for being stupid, instead you have to pussyfoot around it, but it's perfectly OK to harass people for other similar flaws (for instance, what if you're very smart, but too lazy to do much with it? There must be many, many people here who fit that description). Why should a defect in the "abstract reasoning" part of your brain be mollycoddled and covered up while a defect in the motivation part just gets you derision?
You miss the most important one: deterrence.
I thought that covered it somewhat. ;)
I agree with the endpoints of what you're saying, but you really need a sliding scale. So if someone has impaired emotional regulation and as such finds it significantly harder to control impulse actions when they're angry, in a perfect system they would be held less accountable, but also prevented from getting into situations where they could cause damage.
I suspect you have a case of whoosh here. Sure, it's the natural way for bacteria to multiply. And just as naturally, it's my way to take some antibiotics.
Thinking bigger, unless one chooses to subscribe to some Gaia-type theory, the Earth is not in any way conscious and has no goals or desires of its own. It's a giant rock covered in a very, very thin layer of pond scum. It's certainly not going to take antibiotics to kill us.
...wait, what? No, he's a Wookie. On Endor!
It's like punishing the unwilling back-seat passenger of a car for speeding. Even if the speeding causes an accident in which busloads of children are killed.
Not quite. It's more like punishing the driver of a car who deliberately sped and then crashed into a busload of school children... even though you know he'll never do it again.
"Public safety" is only an issue if the offender has some likelihood of re-offending, unless you count the (questionable) effect of deterring other offenders by 'making an example'. I will grant, though, that "for the offender's protection" is another reason for incarceration (although not necessarily strictly a punishment).
I agree with you. I also think that revenge has gotten a bad rap from the politically correct pussification brigade, to the point where we shy away from admitting that it's actually what we're doing. If someone I loved was murdered, I would hunt the killer down and take them apart at the seams. That's revenge, but in my book it's also totally justified.
Interesting point about responsibility for crimes. That's something I've always wondered about - at what point do we stop saying "you chose to do X and will take the consequences" and start saying "you have a disorder which caused you to do X and cannot be held accountable". I think they key is identifying exactly how much choice the person had in the matter - I suspect in the future we're going to need statistical models to assign some kind of 'free will index' to each person based on their psych profile and maybe genetic factors (insert ob. Gattaca reference), which would determine their level of responsibility and freedom, as well as the consequences they suffer for misbehaviour.
Actually, no, you haven't proven anything. The point I was making was that whether or not God, the Holy Milk Jug, the FSM, or anything else have any supernatural effect on our world is by definition unprovable. I hold that they are therefore irrelevant. That doesn't stop me from using the "If God had intended..." structure in a figurative sense.
Imagine a kiddy fiddler of the worst order. He's molested scores of children, caused untold harm to them, etc. Now imagine that, on the day that he's caught, they can for whatever reason clinically prove that he's 'cured' and would be constitutionally unable to re-offend. Should he go free? I imagine the response would be a universal and emphatic "no, of course not!" The only motive for incarcerating or executing him at this point would be revenge.
No, I'm fairly sure it does not make sense, because Chewbacca is a Wookie on Endor.
Prove it.
If God had meant us to live naked in a cave with no fire while hunter-gathering, he wouldn't have given us these big brains that can figure out how to make clothes and shoes and houses and fire and fridges and supermarkets and big screen TVs.
Why can't people accept that the way humans live right now IS 'the natural way'. A gorilla's natural way is to eat nuts and berries and the odd chimpanzee. A human's natural way is to build tools and machines and try to understand their surroundings in order to control them. You don't complain that a beaver damming a river is 'interfering with the natural order'.
Which is a pity because with a law like that, they could repeal 90% of other laws. Most laws, when they come down to it, fall into the category of "Don't be a douche in "
You are completely out of your mind. The ONLY time I am required by law to do what an officer tells me is when he is detaining me on suspicion or arresting me for probable cause. (Other than ordering me to stop breaking the law, of course. That part is a given.)
In fact, in a sense, even then. He can politely ask you to discontinue your lawbreaking, which you'd be well served to do because his other option is to arrest you.
At least, that's how I understand the law. Any lawyers care to confirm/deny?
I come from a country where police have powers to keep the peace.
Which country, precisely, would that be?
LEO is low earth orbit. That, or Loss of Electrons is Oxidation. (Gain of Electrons is Reduction. LEO goes GER, see? It's clever, like 'grr', see?)