Let countries maintain their own TLDs and give jurisdiction over the international ones to a UN body.
That is a terrible idea. If you understood the simple fact that the UN does not, never has, and never will represent you or any other single, individual Human Being, you would understand the rediculousness of what you propose.
The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, most of whome are actively oppressing their own people to one degree or another. Cede control of key Internet infrastructure to that organization, and you cede control to an organization that represents the interests of REGIMES, not people. Censorship, filtering, domain seizures, etc. will follow the path of least resistence, and the lower common denominator. Governments will be pleased, and rarely will one stand up for you unless a specific political interest crosses enough borders, and gains enough attention (e.g. maybe Tibet, or Dafur, certainly not YOU, me, or anyone else on slashdot, in the EFF, the FSF, etc.).
You think American suppression of speech is bad? It is, but no where near as bad as it will be if we cede that authority "to a UN body."
This is why any kind of Hacking intent should never be combined with monetary interests.
That is true, but since the source is Fox News (Rupert Mudoch), as another poster pointed out we need to take this with a huge dose of salt.
If, however, this should turn out to be true, I find it disturbing on so many levels. Is anyone reminded of 1984 at all? The government running an underground resistence organization, to attract and arrest "revolutionaries." I'm not a fan of lulzsec at all, but this story, if at all true, is one of the more overtly Orwellian things I've seen, and living in an age of Orwellian behavior, with western democracies perched on the precipice of right-wing fascism, the middle east largely given over to their brand of sectarian fascism, and authoritarianism on the rise in Russia, China, and elsewhere, that is saying a lot.
What is even more telling, is how blase people are about the idea of a countercultural "leader" inciting criminality and then handing those he's managed to influence over to the authorities for "processing." Too many of us don't even seem to know enough to be ashamed, or appalled, by this kind of thing, so few in fact, that the GOP mouthpiece is essentially bragging about using such methods to take down a group they've found so easy to demonize. A process made easier no doubt, if the story is true, by the very behavior their mole incited and coordinated in the first place. Agent provocateur on steriods.
If this turns out to be at all true, and if we were a healthy democracy, the "leader" and his handlers would be facing serious jailtime, while those incited into this behavior would see a blackmark on their record and probation, hopefully scared straight. But those days died out sometime in the early naughties, and things have only gone downhill from there.
1. Simply ignore prior art and claim everything as your own invention.
2. Make a trivial change and then claim that and bamboozle the patent office into believing you have therefore invented the wheel.
You left out:
3. Simply pay the US Patent Office Bribe, I mean "Fee". Patent approved, no questions asked.
(And quietly, from one patent lawyer at the USPTO to another, at Corporation X, or defending defendent Y: go forth and make money!. We win, the only losers are the corporations who filed, and the innovators who "violated" the bogus patent. Extra points if you get a judge who was once a patent attorney. Any way you slice it: Profit!).
The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.
Which completely ignores the emergent properties of large groups and corporations, such as the mutliplicative effect of mob power, the internal enforcement of speech and attitude (if you say something that pisses off the group, you're out of the group), and the power of the mob to deny others their rights. It also ignores the inequalities between one person speaking their mind, and an organization pommelling back with organized propoganda at a scale only an organization can achieve. To equate the two is idiocy...unless your goal is to replace democracy with corpratism, which more and more circumstancial evidence seems to indicate that the majority of supreme court justices are looking to achieve.
Worse, and more fundamental, the Supreme Court seems to think money equals speech. Which maybe it does for people used to being bribed, but for human beings with a modicum of ethical sense and knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, the two things are clearly and fundamentally different. But not anymore, thanks to the Citizen United Abortion of Justice.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, because people really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and internalize this:
The UN doesn't represent YOU, or any other PERSON. It represents GOVERNMENTS. Governments are their constituents, not humaity.
Let me repeat that: The UN's constituents are GOVERNMENTS, not humanity. If you understand that, you will understand UN policy and why they do things that otherwise seem bizarr or incompetent.
And from the point of view of virtually every government, no matter how "benign" it may appear, the Internet is most certainly broken. Why? Because they cannot easily control it, control the content on it, or control what the people using it see and say. This impacts their ability to govern the way they would like to (and the way they used to) by feeding an official line to the media and have it echoed into every home and automobile, often without much question.
What humanity sees as a working, functioning internet that has democratized information and allowed an unprecedented level of collaboration, cooperation, and exchange of ideas, our governments one and all see as their biggest threat. What better way to reign in that threat than to turn control over to the UN, then agree by treaty how it is to be "governend". What they tried with SOPA and ACTA they'll be able to easily achieve through a simple UN governance mandate.
Sianara Internet, sianara freedom of communication. Welcome your new overlords, same as the olds ones, but with less compunction about smacking you down into place. With perfect political cover to the ostensibly liberal western democracies: to the public: "we regret the UN's decision to implement X, but are bound by treaty to abide their decision. This minor erosion of internet expression won't impact our fundamental freedoms any, and we'll learn to cope", to the Koch brothers (or Soros if you're on the other side of the aisle): "Problem solved. Can I count on your campaign contribution to my superpac next season?" Multiply across every politician, in every political system, in every government, and diversify by whatever means is appropriate to the local political climate, wether it's campaign contributions, secret tribunals, or shells raining down on opposition cities.
My credit card has issued its own currency, called "Thank You Points." The exchange rate is TYP 100 = USD 1.00, and has a volatility of zero. I exchange it for real cash whenever I hit 20,000 points or more.
On the other hand, the dollar is doing very well against my bank's currency (BAC), though volatility has been quite high the last few years.
The only people who think the Sweden extradition is some sort of grand conspiracy for the US to get its hands on Assange are... well, Assange, and a like-minded bunch of credulous simpletons
Nice ad homenim against anyone who disagrees with your view. Extra points for arrogance.
Apparently your list of "simpletons" includes your buddies at Stratfor, who claim to have specific intelligence indicating that the charges in Sweden are trumped up:
Whatâ(TM)s even more interesting is that Farnham says thereâ(TM)s nothing to the claims that Assange sexually assaulted two women in Sweden. He says that a close family friend knows one of the women involved in the case and they said that itâ(TM)s just âoeprosecutors looking to make a name for themselves.â
This may be less about extraditing Assange to the US, and more about jailing him for any offense, real or imagined, and assinating his character. Which would still be a "grand conspiracy" of sorts, just not one focused on extradition: label him a rapist and jail him for trumped up charges without us breaking any of our laws. Makes a nice example (in the Mafiosa Dom sense of the word), particularly once you throw Manning's inevitable sentence into the mix.
The sealed indictment (if real) adds another sinister bent to the whole thing. Regardless, that a very nasty game is afoot here is not in doubt, what is, is exactly what the nature of the game is.
What role a secret indictment would play is interesting to speculate about (and that's all anyone can really do). Can Assange be rendered more easily from Sweden (or points en route), or is he more vulnerable to extradition as a convicted felon and ex-con after he's served jailtime on trumped up charges and his reputation is in tatters? Or is it just an Ace the government keeps up its sleave, on the off chance Assange someday has a layover on US soil, say, on his way to a speaking engagement in Rio?
In response to the underhanded update, users take to the ratings system with a vengeance and downmod the developer into oblivion. Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.
Citation please?
Or is this just how you would like to see the free market work, because you believe in the free market, with no evidence of it actually working that way?
What "right" does a teacher have to keep their employment evauations secret? Please.
Please post your mid-year and year-end review for the last three years for us to evaluate. The slashdot community will then reach a determination on whether your opinion is worth listening to.
After all, what "right" do you have to confidentiality on your employer's opinion of how well you do your job?
So, if Congress made a treaty with China that they would violate their people's right of free speech and we'll violate ours, then that would be just peachie keen?
While most would share your assumption that fact implies truth, and indeed the first three definitions of the word support that view, the 4th and 5th definitions clearly allow for "false facts":
factâ â[fakt] noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
In legal terms, "false facts" not only exist, they are arguably quite common in legal circles. Most defense attorneys would probably admit as much, over a pint of beer.
One thing people often forget is that individual citizens are NOT constituents of the UN. The UN does not represent you, your rights, or your interests.
The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, whose interests are often at odds with, or diametrically opposed to, the interests of the people they govern. Indeed, the UN only represents people's intrests when they happen to coincide with the interests of a sufficient number of sufficiently powerful governments, which is quite rare (WHO and the Human Rights folks notwithstanding). Moving authority from a democratically elected government (however dysfunctional, however provincial) to an unelected body that represents government interests over human interests is not a change for the better.
Cable providers will simply bundle and resell subscriptions to these services (along with the live channel feeds) at a "discount" (compared to buying them individually, not compared to actual value for what you use), and link your Comcast/Charter/Cox account to your HBO GO/etc. accounts seamlessly.
It's already happening. Just one of dozens of recent, disturbing datapoints to crop up in the last few weeks, but free content on thewb (and elsewhere) is diminishing. For example, the first 10 episodes of Fringe Season one went away this weekend...probably doesn't matter to most, but since I was out of the country when the series started, and just happened to discover it a couple of weeks ago, and since they're not available on Netflix, I'm either going to have to skip episodes 3-10, or pay for them at an inflated rate / episode on the iStore or Amazon (or even worse inflated rate on Vudu), or buy the blue-ray set for season one (which ironically is cheaper than the streaming rental on a per episode basis).
Less and less content available via a general web interface... first steps toward the crappy iStore model of shit, where you download the WB or Fox app, or worse, have to download the Fringe app to watch the show. I curse Apples contribution to this... the endgame is a walled garden worse in every respect from the one that existed with CompuServer, GEnie, AOL, and other dialup services before the Internet became common.
Welcome to your lobotimized world. Not government or big brother, but big content Apple, all driven by megalomaniacal monopolists that make Bill Gates look positively benign in comparison.
I think in some ways the UK police are as bad as anything the US can bring. Note the OC mentions kettling. This is a very distinctly European (and especially London/British) police behaviour and terminology.
You know, having lived for years in both countries, and being a dual citizen, I can unequivocally say that the police in the UK are nowhere near as bad as the police in the US.
Not even in the same universe, much less the same ballpark.
Yes, UK police use kettling, yes, they shoved a newspaper man to the ground (but did not subsequently beat to within an inch of his life) whose internal injuries from the later killed him, yes, they are imperfect, and can be as myopic or provincial as anyone. Yes, the chief of police can get buy for years with flagrant corruption and keep his post long past his sell-by date by deftly playing the ethnicity card over and over again, until a victim of his own ethnicity finally outs him in court, yes to all of that.
But that pales in comparison to the harshness of the US police that is part and parcel of daily policing here. Unarmed people here are shot dead in their own home, with alarming regularity, and the police get away with it by saying they 'thought he was armed.' There was just another instance of that in the tri-state area this past week, and dozens more in the 18 months or so I've been back in the states.
The UK police can be criticized plenty, but until you've lived on this side of the pond, you really don't know how good you have it. Your police are positively humane and polite, sometimes to a fault, by comparison.
First, put together a resume of your marketable skills. Then contact recruiters in the region you would like to work in (they can often be found via LinkedIn, careerbuilder, etc.). Research potential employers. Do not go into interviews to discuss "open source" or your philosophy, go in with the intention of leveraging your skills to deliver real value to the organization.
"Open Source" covers a lot of area. Are you a C/C++/Java/Whatever language-de-jour developer, a system administrator, a web developer, a network engineer,... ?
I've been everything from a developer to a sysadmin, an engineer to an architect. While I have worked in environments heavily biased toward Linux and Open Source (management burned by too many orphaned 3rd party libraries and apps), in my experience most environments are heterogenous, and will have some combination of Windows & Linux Desktops, Linux and Solaris servers, with a smattering of Windows servers. One environment I've worked in was heavily biased toward Windows on the server side, and while they lived to regret it, they did not change direction as a result. The reality is you cannot dictate platforms, and your recommendations should be driven by value to the business, not personal bias or philosophy, however galling you may at times find that to be.
Essentially every point in history, with a significant uptick since the late 70s. Numerous studies have documented this, not that it's really needed, since all you have to do is turn on a radio or television to see the demaguagary against non-believers in general and athiests in particular. See for example this and this as but two of many, many studies on the subject.
It is an axiom that we must "respect" other religions, no matter how absurd or disrespectful they are to others. In other words, it is not considered politically correct to go after Christianity, or most other religions for that matter. No such tolerance of athiests exists however, even though the religious will, with the very next breath, try to define athiesm--the absence of a belief in one or more gods--as a religion in its own right! Classic double-think.
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
Oh, cry me a river. If you think the last 6 or 8 years have been bad for the right, try the last 30 as a liberal, socialist, or (the group most discriminated against of all) an athiest. Republicans and evangelists got a free ride for 20+ years spewing hate but receiving mostly reason and thoughtful discussion in return. Eventually they abused their position too much, and triggered a small taste back of what they've been dishing out since the early 80s, if not earlier.
Hating anyone on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, political stance, etc. is wrong, but for you to wax self-righteous over the backlash against the group most responsible for delivering such hatred (c.f. just about any talk radio, not to mention fox or the politicians themselves, e.g. Mr Frothy Mix Santorum).
In short, Republicans, conservative, and Christians like to dish it out in droves, but can't take the heat when they get even a tiny percentage of it back. As for your disingenous "respect the constitution" crap, they only respect their one narrow interpretation of the constitution, no one else's. Not unlike certain organizations who interpreted the bible one narrow way, and fought a hundred-year war to burn everyone else as heretics.
The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation in almost all legal systems that have copyright systems in place.
The pirate bay has done none of those things.
This argument that you and some others are making is stupid on its face, and frankly dishonest as well, the equivalent of a looter saying "Oh yeah? Prove that this stuff isn't mine".
Actually, your comment is what is stupid (or at least ignorant, as in, completely uninformed). The pirate bay posts links to 3rd party sites that may or may not contain downloadable content that is being made available in violation of copyright.
If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there. It's a dangerous precedent, one that threatens the entire Internet as we know it.
And I say that as one who (1) does not use the pirate bay (but has looked at the site to see what the fuss is about), (2) creates copyrighted material myself, and (3) values both the Internet and freedom of expression it facilitates over short-term tactical moves trying to reduce copyright violations. Even if they were effective the price in terms of our freedoms wouldn't be worth it. The fact that they are so ineffective as to be laughable, shows either the stupidity of those promoting such methods or, more likely, as these people are generally not stupid, the underlying agenda they are pursuing that has nothing to do with copyright violations and everything to do with suppressing speach within western democracies while maintaining plausible deniability with the wider, uninformed public. ACTA and SOPA are the logical next steps in this progression, at which point it won't be irresponsible sites like the pirate bay that are at risk, but any site, anywhere, where anyone says anything the content cartels don't like, including probably just about any criticism of copyright law, present or future (or for that matter, anything any ruling government or influencial corporate cartel doesn't like).
It's nearly game over dude. Live in denial at your own risk.
Having lived in Germany, England, and the United States, and used all three, I can say that while the NHS may not be perfect, it is lightyears ahead of even top-end private care in the United States (which I've also used). The UK would be complete fools to follow the US model (as some conservatives in government seem to want). People complain about 2-week waits in the UK for elective non-life threatening procedures, while in the US somone in my family had to wait 6-8 weeks for an angiogram after failing an EKG and having acute symptoms of heart trouble, and another waited 5 weeks for an appointment with a neurologist after having what may have been a mild embolism, complete with excruciating headache and shockingly low body temperature.
Americans who think our "free market ueber alles" system works better than Germany's strictly regulated market, or the UK's (or France's, or Canada's) are either idealogically blinded idiots, or have never taken a serious look beyond our borders. And I say that as one with a "cadallac" level of insurance in the US, which pales compared to what we had with the NHS when we lived in England (and what I received from the German system when I lived there).
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
If you fight against Sopa, you fight against Sinde. At this moment united states it's still strong (China and other countries are coming), but I hope you can imagine why is there such a strong anti-American feeling in a lot of people of Spain. I personally don't, but this ingerence in our liberties may lead to change my mind.
Hate our government as much as you like. We do. And we're as much its slaves as you or anyone else.
And yes, I still vote anyway, because as bad as things are, if the other crowd gets in, they can get a whole hell of a lot worse. And probably will, if not in this election cycle, then in the next, or the one after that. You are watching the final decline of a modern day empire, and it isn't pretty for anyone, on either side of the frontier.
I've been through similar situations a number of times. For the people who are telling you to get out of this job, I say: not necessarily. If you manage to fix these things, it can be a great learning experience and it can help you earn a name for yourself.
I couldn't agree more. I went into a thriving proprietary trading shop with similar IT issues (they had more than one IT guy, but staff was skelatal and challenges enormous. I spent two years sorting out the infrastructure, server OSes, third party orphaned library dependencies, etc. The result was a trading environment that no longer crashed every morning at market open...a vast improvement. After the migration from Solaris to Linux and a refactor, we ended up with systems that were ahead of the industry at the time in robustness, at a fraction of our competitors' costs.
Good times...the gig lasted 13 years, until I move to London (and up the corporate ladder).
Yes, you'll work long hours, but if you fix the problems, and ensure upper management knows of what you're doing, why, and what you're contributions are, you will most likely do well. And if they don't give a rat's *ss, then you know where you stand and can move on to something better, with a wealth of experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Let countries maintain their own TLDs and give jurisdiction over the international ones to a UN body.
That is a terrible idea. If you understood the simple fact that the UN does not, never has, and never will represent you or any other single, individual Human Being, you would understand the rediculousness of what you propose.
The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, most of whome are actively oppressing their own people to one degree or another. Cede control of key Internet infrastructure to that organization, and you cede control to an organization that represents the interests of REGIMES, not people. Censorship, filtering, domain seizures, etc. will follow the path of least resistence, and the lower common denominator. Governments will be pleased, and rarely will one stand up for you unless a specific political interest crosses enough borders, and gains enough attention (e.g. maybe Tibet, or Dafur, certainly not YOU, me, or anyone else on slashdot, in the EFF, the FSF, etc.).
You think American suppression of speech is bad? It is, but no where near as bad as it will be if we cede that authority "to a UN body."
This is why any kind of Hacking intent should never be combined with monetary interests.
That is true, but since the source is Fox News (Rupert Mudoch), as another poster pointed out we need to take this with a huge dose of salt.
If, however, this should turn out to be true, I find it disturbing on so many levels. Is anyone reminded of 1984 at all? The government running an underground resistence organization, to attract and arrest "revolutionaries." I'm not a fan of lulzsec at all, but this story, if at all true, is one of the more overtly Orwellian things I've seen, and living in an age of Orwellian behavior, with western democracies perched on the precipice of right-wing fascism, the middle east largely given over to their brand of sectarian fascism, and authoritarianism on the rise in Russia, China, and elsewhere, that is saying a lot.
What is even more telling, is how blase people are about the idea of a countercultural "leader" inciting criminality and then handing those he's managed to influence over to the authorities for "processing." Too many of us don't even seem to know enough to be ashamed, or appalled, by this kind of thing, so few in fact, that the GOP mouthpiece is essentially bragging about using such methods to take down a group they've found so easy to demonize. A process made easier no doubt, if the story is true, by the very behavior their mole incited and coordinated in the first place. Agent provocateur on steriods.
If this turns out to be at all true, and if we were a healthy democracy, the "leader" and his handlers would be facing serious jailtime, while those incited into this behavior would see a blackmark on their record and probation, hopefully scared straight. But those days died out sometime in the early naughties, and things have only gone downhill from there.
1. Simply ignore prior art and claim everything as your own invention.
2. Make a trivial change and then claim that and bamboozle the patent office into believing you have therefore invented the wheel.
You left out:
3. Simply pay the US Patent Office Bribe, I mean "Fee". Patent approved, no questions asked.
(And quietly, from one patent lawyer at the USPTO to another, at Corporation X, or defending defendent Y: go forth and make money!. We win, the only losers are the corporations who filed, and the innovators who "violated" the bogus patent. Extra points if you get a judge who was once a patent attorney. Any way you slice it: Profit!).
The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.
Which completely ignores the emergent properties of large groups and corporations, such as the mutliplicative effect of mob power, the internal enforcement of speech and attitude (if you say something that pisses off the group, you're out of the group), and the power of the mob to deny others their rights. It also ignores the inequalities between one person speaking their mind, and an organization pommelling back with organized propoganda at a scale only an organization can achieve. To equate the two is idiocy...unless your goal is to replace democracy with corpratism, which more and more circumstancial evidence seems to indicate that the majority of supreme court justices are looking to achieve.
Worse, and more fundamental, the Supreme Court seems to think money equals speech. Which maybe it does for people used to being bribed, but for human beings with a modicum of ethical sense and knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, the two things are clearly and fundamentally different. But not anymore, thanks to the Citizen United Abortion of Justice.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, because people really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and internalize this:
The UN doesn't represent YOU, or any other PERSON. It represents GOVERNMENTS. Governments are their constituents, not humaity.
Let me repeat that: The UN's constituents are GOVERNMENTS, not humanity. If you understand that, you will understand UN policy and why they do things that otherwise seem bizarr or incompetent.
And from the point of view of virtually every government, no matter how "benign" it may appear, the Internet is most certainly broken. Why? Because they cannot easily control it, control the content on it, or control what the people using it see and say. This impacts their ability to govern the way they would like to (and the way they used to) by feeding an official line to the media and have it echoed into every home and automobile, often without much question.
What humanity sees as a working, functioning internet that has democratized information and allowed an unprecedented level of collaboration, cooperation, and exchange of ideas, our governments one and all see as their biggest threat. What better way to reign in that threat than to turn control over to the UN, then agree by treaty how it is to be "governend". What they tried with SOPA and ACTA they'll be able to easily achieve through a simple UN governance mandate.
Sianara Internet, sianara freedom of communication. Welcome your new overlords, same as the olds ones, but with less compunction about smacking you down into place. With perfect political cover to the ostensibly liberal western democracies: to the public: "we regret the UN's decision to implement X, but are bound by treaty to abide their decision. This minor erosion of internet expression won't impact our fundamental freedoms any, and we'll learn to cope", to the Koch brothers (or Soros if you're on the other side of the aisle): "Problem solved. Can I count on your campaign contribution to my superpac next season?" Multiply across every politician, in every political system, in every government, and diversify by whatever means is appropriate to the local political climate, wether it's campaign contributions, secret tribunals, or shells raining down on opposition cities.
My credit card has issued its own currency, called "Thank You Points." The exchange rate is TYP 100 = USD 1.00, and has a volatility of zero. I exchange it for real cash whenever I hit 20,000 points or more.
On the other hand, the dollar is doing very well against my bank's currency (BAC), though volatility has been quite high the last few years.
The only people who think the Sweden extradition is some sort of grand conspiracy for the US to get its hands on Assange are... well, Assange, and a like-minded bunch of credulous simpletons
Nice ad homenim against anyone who disagrees with your view. Extra points for arrogance.
Apparently your list of "simpletons" includes your buddies at Stratfor, who claim to have specific intelligence indicating that the charges in Sweden are trumped up:
Ref: http://www.webpronews.com/stratfor-email-leaks-reveal-u-s-plans-to-indict-wikileaks-founder-2012-02
This may be less about extraditing Assange to the US, and more about jailing him for any offense, real or imagined, and assinating his character. Which would still be a "grand conspiracy" of sorts, just not one focused on extradition: label him a rapist and jail him for trumped up charges without us breaking any of our laws. Makes a nice example (in the Mafiosa Dom sense of the word), particularly once you throw Manning's inevitable sentence into the mix.
The sealed indictment (if real) adds another sinister bent to the whole thing. Regardless, that a very nasty game is afoot here is not in doubt, what is, is exactly what the nature of the game is.
What role a secret indictment would play is interesting to speculate about (and that's all anyone can really do). Can Assange be rendered more easily from Sweden (or points en route), or is he more vulnerable to extradition as a convicted felon and ex-con after he's served jailtime on trumped up charges and his reputation is in tatters? Or is it just an Ace the government keeps up its sleave, on the off chance Assange someday has a layover on US soil, say, on his way to a speaking engagement in Rio?
In response to the underhanded update, users take to the ratings system with a vengeance and downmod the developer into oblivion. Thus, the app ecosystem sees shady behavior as 'damage' and 'routes' around it.
Citation please?
Or is this just how you would like to see the free market work, because you believe in the free market, with no evidence of it actually working that way?
What "right" does a teacher have to keep their employment evauations secret? Please.
Please post your mid-year and year-end review for the last three years for us to evaluate. The slashdot community will then reach a determination on whether your opinion is worth listening to.
After all, what "right" do you have to confidentiality on your employer's opinion of how well you do your job?
So, if Congress made a treaty with China that they would violate their people's right of free speech and we'll violate ours, then that would be just peachie keen?
Yes. C.f. ACTA
While most would share your assumption that fact implies truth, and indeed the first three definitions of the word support that view, the 4th and 5th definitions clearly allow for "false facts":
In legal terms, "false facts" not only exist, they are arguably quite common in legal circles. Most defense attorneys would probably admit as much, over a pint of beer.
One thing people often forget is that individual citizens are NOT constituents of the UN. The UN does not represent you, your rights, or your interests.
The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, whose interests are often at odds with, or diametrically opposed to, the interests of the people they govern. Indeed, the UN only represents people's intrests when they happen to coincide with the interests of a sufficient number of sufficiently powerful governments, which is quite rare (WHO and the Human Rights folks notwithstanding). Moving authority from a democratically elected government (however dysfunctional, however provincial) to an unelected body that represents government interests over human interests is not a change for the better.
Cable providers will simply bundle and resell subscriptions to these services (along with the live channel feeds) at a "discount" (compared to buying them individually, not compared to actual value for what you use), and link your Comcast/Charter/Cox account to your HBO GO/etc. accounts seamlessly.
It's already happening. Just one of dozens of recent, disturbing datapoints to crop up in the last few weeks, but free content on thewb (and elsewhere) is diminishing. For example, the first 10 episodes of Fringe Season one went away this weekend...probably doesn't matter to most, but since I was out of the country when the series started, and just happened to discover it a couple of weeks ago, and since they're not available on Netflix, I'm either going to have to skip episodes 3-10, or pay for them at an inflated rate / episode on the iStore or Amazon (or even worse inflated rate on Vudu), or buy the blue-ray set for season one (which ironically is cheaper than the streaming rental on a per episode basis).
Less and less content available via a general web interface ... first steps toward the crappy iStore model of shit, where you download the WB or Fox app, or worse, have to download the Fringe app to watch the show. I curse Apples contribution to this ... the endgame is a walled garden worse in every respect from the one that existed with CompuServer, GEnie, AOL, and other dialup services before the Internet became common.
Welcome to your lobotimized world. Not government or big brother, but big content Apple, all driven by megalomaniacal monopolists that make Bill Gates look positively benign in comparison.
I think in some ways the UK police are as bad as anything the US can bring. Note the OC mentions kettling. This is a very distinctly European (and especially London/British) police behaviour and terminology.
You know, having lived for years in both countries, and being a dual citizen, I can unequivocally say that the police in the UK are nowhere near as bad as the police in the US.
Not even in the same universe, much less the same ballpark.
Yes, UK police use kettling, yes, they shoved a newspaper man to the ground (but did not subsequently beat to within an inch of his life) whose internal injuries from the later killed him, yes, they are imperfect, and can be as myopic or provincial as anyone. Yes, the chief of police can get buy for years with flagrant corruption and keep his post long past his sell-by date by deftly playing the ethnicity card over and over again, until a victim of his own ethnicity finally outs him in court, yes to all of that.
But that pales in comparison to the harshness of the US police that is part and parcel of daily policing here. Unarmed people here are shot dead in their own home, with alarming regularity, and the police get away with it by saying they 'thought he was armed.' There was just another instance of that in the tri-state area this past week, and dozens more in the 18 months or so I've been back in the states.
The UK police can be criticized plenty, but until you've lived on this side of the pond, you really don't know how good you have it. Your police are positively humane and polite, sometimes to a fault, by comparison.
First, put together a resume of your marketable skills. Then contact recruiters in the region you would like to work in (they can often be found via LinkedIn, careerbuilder, etc.). Research potential employers. Do not go into interviews to discuss "open source" or your philosophy, go in with the intention of leveraging your skills to deliver real value to the organization.
"Open Source" covers a lot of area. Are you a C/C++/Java/Whatever language-de-jour developer, a system administrator, a web developer, a network engineer, ... ?
I've been everything from a developer to a sysadmin, an engineer to an architect. While I have worked in environments heavily biased toward Linux and Open Source (management burned by too many orphaned 3rd party libraries and apps), in my experience most environments are heterogenous, and will have some combination of Windows & Linux Desktops, Linux and Solaris servers, with a smattering of Windows servers. One environment I've worked in was heavily biased toward Windows on the server side, and while they lived to regret it, they did not change direction as a result. The reality is you cannot dictate platforms, and your recommendations should be driven by value to the business, not personal bias or philosophy, however galling you may at times find that to be.
Ja, genau das glauben wir. Und morgen glauben wir es noch. Oder wir werden es glauben, falls wir noch klug genug sind, ueberhaupt was zu glauben. :-)
Essentially every point in history, with a significant uptick since the late 70s. Numerous studies have documented this, not that it's really needed, since all you have to do is turn on a radio or television to see the demaguagary against non-believers in general and athiests in particular. See for example this and this as but two of many, many studies on the subject.
It is an axiom that we must "respect" other religions, no matter how absurd or disrespectful they are to others. In other words, it is not considered politically correct to go after Christianity, or most other religions for that matter. No such tolerance of athiests exists however, even though the religious will, with the very next breath, try to define athiesm--the absence of a belief in one or more gods--as a religion in its own right! Classic double-think.
Except Republicans, conservatives, Christians, people who respect the constitution. They're all free game.
Oh, cry me a river. If you think the last 6 or 8 years have been bad for the right, try the last 30 as a liberal, socialist, or (the group most discriminated against of all) an athiest. Republicans and evangelists got a free ride for 20+ years spewing hate but receiving mostly reason and thoughtful discussion in return. Eventually they abused their position too much, and triggered a small taste back of what they've been dishing out since the early 80s, if not earlier.
Hating anyone on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, political stance, etc. is wrong, but for you to wax self-righteous over the backlash against the group most responsible for delivering such hatred (c.f. just about any talk radio, not to mention fox or the politicians themselves, e.g. Mr Frothy Mix Santorum).
In short, Republicans, conservative, and Christians like to dish it out in droves, but can't take the heat when they get even a tiny percentage of it back. As for your disingenous "respect the constitution" crap, they only respect their one narrow interpretation of the constitution, no one else's. Not unlike certain organizations who interpreted the bible one narrow way, and fought a hundred-year war to burn everyone else as heretics.
The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation in almost all legal systems that have copyright systems in place.
The pirate bay has done none of those things.
This argument that you and some others are making is stupid on its face, and frankly dishonest as well, the equivalent of a looter saying "Oh yeah? Prove that this stuff isn't mine".
Actually, your comment is what is stupid (or at least ignorant, as in, completely uninformed). The pirate bay posts links to 3rd party sites that may or may not contain downloadable content that is being made available in violation of copyright.
If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there. It's a dangerous precedent, one that threatens the entire Internet as we know it.
And I say that as one who (1) does not use the pirate bay (but has looked at the site to see what the fuss is about), (2) creates copyrighted material myself, and (3) values both the Internet and freedom of expression it facilitates over short-term tactical moves trying to reduce copyright violations. Even if they were effective the price in terms of our freedoms wouldn't be worth it. The fact that they are so ineffective as to be laughable, shows either the stupidity of those promoting such methods or, more likely, as these people are generally not stupid, the underlying agenda they are pursuing that has nothing to do with copyright violations and everything to do with suppressing speach within western democracies while maintaining plausible deniability with the wider, uninformed public. ACTA and SOPA are the logical next steps in this progression, at which point it won't be irresponsible sites like the pirate bay that are at risk, but any site, anywhere, where anyone says anything the content cartels don't like, including probably just about any criticism of copyright law, present or future (or for that matter, anything any ruling government or influencial corporate cartel doesn't like).
It's nearly game over dude. Live in denial at your own risk.
Having lived in Germany, England, and the United States, and used all three, I can say that while the NHS may not be perfect, it is lightyears ahead of even top-end private care in the United States (which I've also used). The UK would be complete fools to follow the US model (as some conservatives in government seem to want). People complain about 2-week waits in the UK for elective non-life threatening procedures, while in the US somone in my family had to wait 6-8 weeks for an angiogram after failing an EKG and having acute symptoms of heart trouble, and another waited 5 weeks for an appointment with a neurologist after having what may have been a mild embolism, complete with excruciating headache and shockingly low body temperature.
Americans who think our "free market ueber alles" system works better than Germany's strictly regulated market, or the UK's (or France's, or Canada's) are either idealogically blinded idiots, or have never taken a serious look beyond our borders. And I say that as one with a "cadallac" level of insurance in the US, which pales compared to what we had with the NHS when we lived in England (and what I received from the German system when I lived there).
So you're a teenager?
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
If you fight against Sopa, you fight against Sinde. At this moment united states it's still strong (China and other countries are coming), but I hope you can imagine why is there such a strong anti-American feeling in a lot of people of Spain. I personally don't, but this ingerence in our liberties may lead to change my mind.
Hate our government as much as you like. We do. And we're as much its slaves as you or anyone else.
And yes, I still vote anyway, because as bad as things are, if the other crowd gets in, they can get a whole hell of a lot worse. And probably will, if not in this election cycle, then in the next, or the one after that. You are watching the final decline of a modern day empire, and it isn't pretty for anyone, on either side of the frontier.
"too big to fail" financial companies was so last term. The new fashionable bailout target is "green companies".
No no no, that was yesterday's meme. We have come full circle and returned to calling them "job creators."
Is there value-free version of the phrase "bleeding-heart"?
Yes.
Chest wound.
I've been through similar situations a number of times. For the people who are telling you to get out of this job, I say: not necessarily. If you manage to fix these things, it can be a great learning experience and it can help you earn a name for yourself.
I couldn't agree more. I went into a thriving proprietary trading shop with similar IT issues (they had more than one IT guy, but staff was skelatal and challenges enormous. I spent two years sorting out the infrastructure, server OSes, third party orphaned library dependencies, etc. The result was a trading environment that no longer crashed every morning at market open...a vast improvement. After the migration from Solaris to Linux and a refactor, we ended up with systems that were ahead of the industry at the time in robustness, at a fraction of our competitors' costs.
Good times...the gig lasted 13 years, until I move to London (and up the corporate ladder).
Yes, you'll work long hours, but if you fix the problems, and ensure upper management knows of what you're doing, why, and what you're contributions are, you will most likely do well. And if they don't give a rat's *ss, then you know where you stand and can move on to something better, with a wealth of experience.