I wasn't expecting that either. Obama voted for it and McCain didn't. Weird.
He didn't vote so now he can play both sides, depending on which way the wind blows. This was an important vote, and anyone I would consider for President should've been voting.
What McCain did is slimy. Moreso than Obama, who actually had the guts to register his vote when he didn't have to (being enough votes to pass without his). The fact that Obama did vote means I'll still consider him, although this one was a big issue for me.
Can somebody explain the constitutional argument here? I can understand the illegal nature of warrentless wiretapping, but not the retroactively granting amnesty part. That seems like something that'd be within congress' power to grant, should it so choose.
The way I see it, Congress can't grant immunity for something that is unconstitutional in the first place (unreasonable search and seizure). They all are sworn in to obey and protect the constitution. By voting for the law, they're essentially invalidating their own right to be in Congress. At least, that's the way I see it.
Agreed. He's essentially saying "I held my nose and voted yes." Congress is lead by the Democrats currently. You're telling me they couldn't have negotiated for most of what Democrats wanted, or waited 'till Obama was sworn in as President? Gimme a break.
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor?
What is the standard for flamebait here anyway? I am confused.
The point is, the constitution assures us that the telecoms CANNOT be made immune from legal sanction. If they violate a fundamental freedom (as seen by the Supreme Court), they can be sued for it by the people wronged. Maybe not criminally, but at least in civil court. By passing this law, Congress approves a constitutional violation. Not only can't Congress do that from a legal standpoint (and have it not overturned), the fact that they passed it shows they are not acting to protect the fundamental freedoms of the citizens.
It's not just that. This particular bill also expands presidential wiretap abilities along the lines of what the Patriot Act did. No real oversight, no real protection of our civil liberties. That, too, will/would likely be thrown out, but since anyone wiretapped doesn't have to be ever told, there are no "victims" to take it to court.
I haven't heard anyone in Congress explaining why they voted for this law. At least not in a way that the benefits would ever conceivably outweigh the costs of passing this bill. So the question is, why did they pass it? Why is a Democraticly lead Congress passing a bill giving the President more power, when most Americans have made it pretty clear they think he's a utter failure?
I don't think anyone in Congress is a traitor for passing it, but I think if they can't defend this decision (among others), it makes me look seriously at the other candidates for their jobs; Republican, Democrat, or third party.
I began reading back issues of Astounding Science Fiction, Analog, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine (IASFM!), and discovered other authors.
Just a reminder that some of these periodicals are still around, and still well worth reading. The shorter stories in a monthly means that a youngster can discover for themselves which authors or styles of SF they like.
He is the same guy that wrote Tarzan. There are several on http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a48
They are a little light on the Science part on occasion, but they were written in 1914.
Seconded. For sheer enjoyment, most of Burroughs stuff is great, and the Barzoom saga is at the top. It's purely fluff, but all of the books were glued to my hands until I could finish them.
In real life, there exist spaces that are clearly public. In the Internet, there aren't any obvious ones. Even if you try to set up your own site, the various providers may censor you if they choose to do so.
What's interesting is that the public places supporting and protecting free speech in real life are owned by the government. Can you imagine your government setting up a truly anonymous free speech zone on the 'Net? It's enough to make your head spin.:-)
Sure, and while they're at it, let's give all the mechanics just one size of wrench and screwdriver.
I am so sick of this analogy, as it's completely inaccurate. Programming languages, at least full featured languages, are a whole set of tools, not a single tool. Comparing Java to C is more like comparing Craftsman to Snap-on, different brands of tools but they can both be used to do the same thing. If you can give you mechanics a single tool that can be used in all their tasks, like a sonic screwdriver, then do it. If the language isn't full featured, or cover all your needs, then don't use it.
The problem with your analogy is that different languages excel at different goals. One may be more ideal than the rest. They are not interchangeable.
And conversely, each project team should be free to evaluate the best tools to get each job done.
This is exactly what you need to do if you want to guarantee that you have to continue with the team you have or hiring nothing but experienced senior developers. Keep the number of tools simple and you can have a small number of leads and many interns to do the same amount of work with a much higher over all quality and considerably less cost.
I'm not sure where quality comes into this. The language doesn't affect quality of programming, at least for good programmers. It's not hard at all to learn a new programming language, but it can be very hard to shoehorn a solution into an inappropriate language. A developer shouldn't get to decide the language, but the project manager should with feedback from the devs.
Slashdot needs to change it's slogan from "News for nerds" to "Editorials for nerds."
This type of legal action is nothing new and has been happening for decades and there's nothing wrong with it. If you commit a heinous crime, they will charge you with every single criminal act they can find no matter how small.
Slashdot would love for you to believe that this is something new that's never been done before that will have incredibly powerful effects in the future when the opposite is true. It's been happening for a very long time.
I should keep count of how many "articles" here aren't actually news but heavily biased editorials designed to feed the paranoid.
Keep in mind laws are supposed to be written so that they are easily read, easily obeyed, and enforced every time a violation is found. This one fails on all accounts.
In this particular instance, the act she (supposedly) committed was heinous. The crime she committed was not. Christ, if I flame a troll on Usenet, I qualify for the crime.
As far as editorializing, everyone puts bias into every story they tell. Would you be mentioning the bias if the author wrote the summary to agree with your opinion? You probably wouldn't even recognize the bias.
It's nice to be a part of a place where we all know there is bias, and nobody tries to pretend it's not there. Factual errors and intentional misinterpretation are unacceptable, but telling a story from a point of view is expected. That's why the posts always tell you who submitted them.
Do the people that make laws have absolutely ANY idea how the internet works and is used?
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
I know the way you stated this was neutral, but anyone who thinks laws like this are a good idea need to think about what could happen. It's really, really easy to silence dissenting speech when all you have to do is prove someone violated the TOS of some crappy website by posting under a pseudonym. Whistleblowers and activists end up going to jail.
Selective enforcement is a bad idea for almost all laws. It should absolutely never be used for felonies. The person deciding (or not) to prosecute has all the power. Any felony written with selective enforcement in mind is a terrible law.
I've have a grandmother who would still be using her 1969 Philco black and white TV if it hadn't broken at some point. Some people just get to a point in their life where they get used to doing things the way they've been used to doing them for a long time. And those people resist change with a surprising tenacity.
I think for many people, the benefits simply aren't worth the cost. And that applies both to high speed Internet and people used to things a certain way. Your grandma probably had no problem changing the channels on the B&W, but has some trouble with all the small buttons on the remote or tv control panel of the color tv. It is more difficult to learn new things as you get older. The hassle of learning how to use a new product, and pay for it, isn't worth the upgraded features for everyone.
He didn't say he didn't know how to program, only that he wasn't that good at it. There are plenty of bad programmers out there who are content to churn out bad code. It would be nice if more of them acknowledged their shortcomings and looked for something they were better suited for.
I couldn't agree more. It seems most CS departments teach "get the program to do this" rather than "write the code like this." My school, widely respected for CS, didn't ever teach programming design. Almost anyone can with a brain and a book can write a program. It takes real intelligence to get and use proper programming design methods.
Ok, I'm Canadian so I could be very wrong, but it certainly seems that Citibank is regularly the target of hackers/phishers/scammers. I often get emails from Citibank asking me to update my account information (obviously, I don't have an account...) but other banks seem to be subject to similar attacks far less often. Were I American, methinks I'd be picking just about any bank other than Citibank... It's just because they're huge, they get targeted more often. It's the same problem with Chase Bank.
But yes, using a smaller bank would help, even if it is possibly less convenient.
House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last weeks FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.CBS News.
Why am I not surprised? Why would the telecoms give money to support people voting against the telecoms' best interests? Would you?
I give money to the people that support my views, and withhold money from those who don't. It's the same for companies. The article isn't suggesting anybody sold out, just that the telecoms are supporting politicians with compatible views.
Honestly, I don't care whether or not a politician sells out. I care whether they use their influence for viewpoints I support.
CEOs don't get paid a fortune because that's what's needed to convince them to do an arduous job. They get paid a fortune because they're in a position to directly control how much they get paid, and they like being paid a lot. Think "pirate", not "drudge". Awww... that's not fair. You get paid more with more responsibility, not just more work. CEOs have massive influence over a company. For all the craptastic CEOs in the news and such, there are dozens of solid CEOs managing their companies to larger and larger profits.
If giving CEOs a bigger cut of the profits produces incentive for the CEO to increase earnings, it's just good business to give them a bigger cut.
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
When has Obama smeared McCain? And why are you trying to smear Obama by saying that? So far, it's one of the cleanest campaigns I've ever seen. Neither McCain or Obama have personally attacked the other, or been personally connected to groups that have. Both candidates in this race have reined in the usual suspects to prevent hatchet jobs and personal attacks. Both sides deserve respect for that, especially considering what a charged election this is going to be.
The blogger is just one idiot trying to get other idiots to game the system. Connecting it to Obama is a cheap shot, and disingenuous.
Except that that's not even close to what's happening here. Under this proposal, your merchant bank sends you and the IRS a total amount, not every transaction. Hmmm... it seems you're right here. I misread the first portion of the linked article. It could be clearer. The second half makes more sense when you read it closely.
It's exactly like a W2, but for transactions rather than earnings.
As far as their right to do it, the government doesn't have a right to search me because I MAY be doing something illegal. That applies to my finances, too.
But they're not searching you. They're putting restrictions on entities engaged in interstate commerce, in support of their system of taxation.
This is about as invasive as a W2 or a 1099 form. It doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy, and if I was going to wave my magic wand and create a tax system I'd do away with taxes on earned income; but there's not much here worth getting stressed about.
I have to disagree. It's like if they kept track of every phone call you made, and who you made it to, just to make sure you're paying the proper amount of phone taxes.
Technically, they're not searching you in that case, either. They're requiring the phone company to provide those records.
In general, I think I'm above average when it comes to tin-foil hattery, so I realize my views may be slightly outside the norm.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Generally, the government also uses the data to find money laundering.
As far as their right to do it, the government doesn't have a right to search me because I MAY be doing something illegal. That applies to my finances, too.
Besides that, the US government has a history of data mining it's own citizens where it can. This would increase their capabilities to do so.
I don't believe a government has to right to scrutinize it's citizens for wrongdoing without first having evidence a crime is being committed.
And yet the enviro-nutjobs keep screaming for ethanol production and refuse to consider how wasteful it is. Hmmm... I haven't heard of any real environmentally focused organizations supporting corn-based or sugar-based ethanol. Who has been saying that?
Switchgrass and bio-diesel are a different story; they can be more efficient without decreasing food production.
"Pushing nuclear energy has relatively very little do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil. Please lets not confuse the two."
Well, in the northern US, it would/could make a big difference. For some reason up there...they use heating OIL to heat their homes during the long, hard winters.
It's my understanding heating oil comes from a different part of the crude than gasoline. Isn't heating oil essentially a refined byproduct of gasoline production?
But if so, why are the heating oil prices going up? I think I'm missing something here.
So the net effect of crippling DRM methods like this is to drive more people towards cracked soft. Because once you know where to get it, it's easy to get more. That's a pretty important point.
Someone may not know about or may not be interested in cracks and illegal software torrents, but is pointed to it a friend or a forum posting to fix a DRM problem they are having. Once they get the torrent software, the virtual drive, and a link to a torrent search engine, it becomes easy to do it a second time. And even easier the third.
EA and the rest should really think about that aspect.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't expecting that either. Obama voted for it and McCain didn't. Weird.
He didn't vote so now he can play both sides, depending on which way the wind blows. This was an important vote, and anyone I would consider for President should've been voting.
What McCain did is slimy. Moreso than Obama, who actually had the guts to register his vote when he didn't have to (being enough votes to pass without his). The fact that Obama did vote means I'll still consider him, although this one was a big issue for me.
Can somebody explain the constitutional argument here? I can understand the illegal nature of warrentless wiretapping, but not the retroactively granting amnesty part. That seems like something that'd be within congress' power to grant, should it so choose.
The way I see it, Congress can't grant immunity for something that is unconstitutional in the first place (unreasonable search and seizure). They all are sworn in to obey and protect the constitution. By voting for the law, they're essentially invalidating their own right to be in Congress. At least, that's the way I see it.
His explanation is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html b Still BS though.
Agreed. He's essentially saying "I held my nose and voted yes." Congress is lead by the Democrats currently. You're telling me they couldn't have negotiated for most of what Democrats wanted, or waited 'till Obama was sworn in as President? Gimme a break.
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction. I feel reasonable minds can disagree on matters of public policy. But to you I am a traitor? What is the standard for flamebait here anyway? I am confused.
The point is, the constitution assures us that the telecoms CANNOT be made immune from legal sanction. If they violate a fundamental freedom (as seen by the Supreme Court), they can be sued for it by the people wronged. Maybe not criminally, but at least in civil court. By passing this law, Congress approves a constitutional violation. Not only can't Congress do that from a legal standpoint (and have it not overturned), the fact that they passed it shows they are not acting to protect the fundamental freedoms of the citizens.
It's not just that. This particular bill also expands presidential wiretap abilities along the lines of what the Patriot Act did. No real oversight, no real protection of our civil liberties. That, too, will/would likely be thrown out, but since anyone wiretapped doesn't have to be ever told, there are no "victims" to take it to court.
I haven't heard anyone in Congress explaining why they voted for this law. At least not in a way that the benefits would ever conceivably outweigh the costs of passing this bill. So the question is, why did they pass it? Why is a Democraticly lead Congress passing a bill giving the President more power, when most Americans have made it pretty clear they think he's a utter failure?
I don't think anyone in Congress is a traitor for passing it, but I think if they can't defend this decision (among others), it makes me look seriously at the other candidates for their jobs; Republican, Democrat, or third party.
I began reading back issues of Astounding Science Fiction, Analog, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine (IASFM!), and discovered other authors.
Just a reminder that some of these periodicals are still around, and still well worth reading. The shorter stories in a monthly means that a youngster can discover for themselves which authors or styles of SF they like.
He is the same guy that wrote Tarzan. There are several on http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a48 They are a little light on the Science part on occasion, but they were written in 1914.
Seconded. For sheer enjoyment, most of Burroughs stuff is great, and the Barzoom saga is at the top. It's purely fluff, but all of the books were glued to my hands until I could finish them.
In real life, there exist spaces that are clearly public. In the Internet, there aren't any obvious ones. Even if you try to set up your own site, the various providers may censor you if they choose to do so.
What's interesting is that the public places supporting and protecting free speech in real life are owned by the government. Can you imagine your government setting up a truly anonymous free speech zone on the 'Net? It's enough to make your head spin. :-)
Sure, and while they're at it, let's give all the mechanics just one size of wrench and screwdriver.
I am so sick of this analogy, as it's completely inaccurate. Programming languages, at least full featured languages, are a whole set of tools, not a single tool. Comparing Java to C is more like comparing Craftsman to Snap-on, different brands of tools but they can both be used to do the same thing. If you can give you mechanics a single tool that can be used in all their tasks, like a sonic screwdriver, then do it. If the language isn't full featured, or cover all your needs, then don't use it.
The problem with your analogy is that different languages excel at different goals. One may be more ideal than the rest. They are not interchangeable.
And conversely, each project team should be free to evaluate the best tools to get each job done.
This is exactly what you need to do if you want to guarantee that you have to continue with the team you have or hiring nothing but experienced senior developers. Keep the number of tools simple and you can have a small number of leads and many interns to do the same amount of work with a much higher over all quality and considerably less cost.
I'm not sure where quality comes into this. The language doesn't affect quality of programming, at least for good programmers. It's not hard at all to learn a new programming language, but it can be very hard to shoehorn a solution into an inappropriate language. A developer shouldn't get to decide the language, but the project manager should with feedback from the devs.
Slashdot needs to change it's slogan from "News for nerds" to "Editorials for nerds."
This type of legal action is nothing new and has been happening for decades and there's nothing wrong with it. If you commit a heinous crime, they will charge you with every single criminal act they can find no matter how small. Slashdot would love for you to believe that this is something new that's never been done before that will have incredibly powerful effects in the future when the opposite is true. It's been happening for a very long time.
I should keep count of how many "articles" here aren't actually news but heavily biased editorials designed to feed the paranoid.
Keep in mind laws are supposed to be written so that they are easily read, easily obeyed, and enforced every time a violation is found. This one fails on all accounts.
In this particular instance, the act she (supposedly) committed was heinous. The crime she committed was not. Christ, if I flame a troll on Usenet, I qualify for the crime.
As far as editorializing, everyone puts bias into every story they tell. Would you be mentioning the bias if the author wrote the summary to agree with your opinion? You probably wouldn't even recognize the bias.
It's nice to be a part of a place where we all know there is bias, and nobody tries to pretend it's not there. Factual errors and intentional misinterpretation are unacceptable, but telling a story from a point of view is expected. That's why the posts always tell you who submitted them.
It is not a bad law. It is a unique and inventive use of a law intended to punish people who crack into systems.
And, they have a point as the terms of service for MySpace state that, in order to use the service, one must provide correct information.
... Or go to jail? Since when is it the job of my government to enforce the Terms and Conditions of a website with criminal prosecution?
It doesn't matter whether this woman "deserves" the punishment or not, the crime she has been charged with is a ridiculous one, and easily abused.
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
I know the way you stated this was neutral, but anyone who thinks laws like this are a good idea need to think about what could happen. It's really, really easy to silence dissenting speech when all you have to do is prove someone violated the TOS of some crappy website by posting under a pseudonym. Whistleblowers and activists end up going to jail.
Selective enforcement is a bad idea for almost all laws. It should absolutely never be used for felonies. The person deciding (or not) to prosecute has all the power. Any felony written with selective enforcement in mind is a terrible law.
I used to be able to tell the connection speed from the squawk during the handshake - way too much time doing tech support.
You're not the only one to have that ability. I used to actually sing along with it.
*Bong! Dee-doo deeeee-dooooo*
It really flustered me when it didn't connect at 56k, not because it was slower, but because we couldn't harmonize.
God, I'm such a loser.
I've have a grandmother who would still be using her 1969 Philco black and white TV if it hadn't broken at some point. Some people just get to a point in their life where they get used to doing things the way they've been used to doing them for a long time. And those people resist change with a surprising tenacity.
I think for many people, the benefits simply aren't worth the cost. And that applies both to high speed Internet and people used to things a certain way. Your grandma probably had no problem changing the channels on the B&W, but has some trouble with all the small buttons on the remote or tv control panel of the color tv. It is more difficult to learn new things as you get older. The hassle of learning how to use a new product, and pay for it, isn't worth the upgraded features for everyone.
He didn't say he didn't know how to program, only that he wasn't that good at it. There are plenty of bad programmers out there who are content to churn out bad code. It would be nice if more of them acknowledged their shortcomings and looked for something they were better suited for.
I couldn't agree more. It seems most CS departments teach "get the program to do this" rather than "write the code like this." My school, widely respected for CS, didn't ever teach programming design. Almost anyone can with a brain and a book can write a program. It takes real intelligence to get and use proper programming design methods.
But yes, using a smaller bank would help, even if it is possibly less convenient.
I give money to the people that support my views, and withhold money from those who don't. It's the same for companies. The article isn't suggesting anybody sold out, just that the telecoms are supporting politicians with compatible views.
Honestly, I don't care whether or not a politician sells out. I care whether they use their influence for viewpoints I support.
Practicality before morality.
If giving CEOs a bigger cut of the profits produces incentive for the CEO to increase earnings, it's just good business to give them a bigger cut.
Seriously... if Obama were as amazing as we were supposed to believe he is, it would be more than enough to promote his virtues rather than trying to smear the opponent. Guess Obama isn't all that great stuff.
When has Obama smeared McCain? And why are you trying to smear Obama by saying that? So far, it's one of the cleanest campaigns I've ever seen. Neither McCain or Obama have personally attacked the other, or been personally connected to groups that have. Both candidates in this race have reined in the usual suspects to prevent hatchet jobs and personal attacks. Both sides deserve respect for that, especially considering what a charged election this is going to be.The blogger is just one idiot trying to get other idiots to game the system. Connecting it to Obama is a cheap shot, and disingenuous.
It's exactly like a W2, but for transactions rather than earnings.
My apologies.
But they're not searching you. They're putting restrictions on entities engaged in interstate commerce, in support of their system of taxation.
This is about as invasive as a W2 or a 1099 form. It doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy, and if I was going to wave my magic wand and create a tax system I'd do away with taxes on earned income; but there's not much here worth getting stressed about.
I have to disagree. It's like if they kept track of every phone call you made, and who you made it to, just to make sure you're paying the proper amount of phone taxes.Technically, they're not searching you in that case, either. They're requiring the phone company to provide those records.
In general, I think I'm above average when it comes to tin-foil hattery, so I realize my views may be slightly outside the norm. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
presumably to avoid tax fraud.
How is this not fair?
Generally, the government also uses the data to find money laundering.As far as their right to do it, the government doesn't have a right to search me because I MAY be doing something illegal. That applies to my finances, too.
Besides that, the US government has a history of data mining it's own citizens where it can. This would increase their capabilities to do so.
I don't believe a government has to right to scrutinize it's citizens for wrongdoing without first having evidence a crime is being committed.
Hey! He still has a few months left. There is a possibility -- however slim -- that TWO good things could come from this administration!
The 1st good thing being he's leaving?Switchgrass and bio-diesel are a different story; they can be more efficient without decreasing food production.
Well, in the northern US, it would/could make a big difference. For some reason up there...they use heating OIL to heat their homes during the long, hard winters.
It's my understanding heating oil comes from a different part of the crude than gasoline. Isn't heating oil essentially a refined byproduct of gasoline production?But if so, why are the heating oil prices going up? I think I'm missing something here.
Someone may not know about or may not be interested in cracks and illegal software torrents, but is pointed to it a friend or a forum posting to fix a DRM problem they are having. Once they get the torrent software, the virtual drive, and a link to a torrent search engine, it becomes easy to do it a second time. And even easier the third.
EA and the rest should really think about that aspect.