Note that some of us think design patterns are a silly fad. OO is general has repeatedly proven shitty at business modeling.
Hear, hear!
Good programming does not mean that everything must be an object. There's a hell of a lot out there where objects aren't even useful. When they are useful, they can be very useful, but you have to be able to determine when they help and when they're wasted effort, not just use them blindly in all cases. You can also use the basic principles of OO even when there's not an object in sight.
Good design does not mean that everything must be checked against the Gang of Four. Personally, I am appalled by their cult - I have worked with programmers who would refuse to even consider a simple, elegant design with no discernable flaws unless it could be described in terms blessed by the Gang of Four. Design patterns are just a vocabulary for describing common types of solutions. They are not themselves the solutions, nor do they encompass all good solutions.
Copying and distributing copies is NOT legal in Canada. It says "... musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy..."
I don't see anything there to indicate that the person making the copy must own the original. On the contrary, your parent post includes the following:
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
(emphasis mine) Assuming that quote is accurate, it seems to me that it is a very clear statement you can legally make copies of someone else's CDs.
I mean sure you only have one hand to drive with, but it only limits your ability to make turns greater than 45 degrees.
Really? You have trouble with that? I drive one-handed (and not on the phone - it obstructs too much of my field of vision for my taste) constantly and have no problems steering or parking. Just let up the death grip on the wheel and you can turn it from full left to full right with only one hand. Pretty trivial, really. Provided you have power steering, anyhow. I've never driven a car with manual steering, so I don't know how much extra force they need.
If one-handed driving is the problem with cellphones, then why don't we hear a similar level of complaints about people who drive with their left arm out the window?
We're not talking about convenience here, we're talking about a situation where invoking your ethics in such a way is utterly self-destructive.
So, then, going up to Merk's question of So when do you draw the line? What if your company was making dangerous chemicals and not disposing of them properly? What if they were making chemical weapons? What if they were selling chemical weapons to terrorists?, am I correct to interpret your response as meaning that you would gladly continue working for a company that you knew to be producing chemical weapons, selling them to terrorists, and not disposing of the byproducts properly, provided that you knew that none of these chemicals would be used to harm you or your family? After all, quitting in this job market would be "self-destructive"...
Move closer to work or bring your work closer to you.
Not always an option. Like, for instance, if you work for a company in the city (where most companies are), but don't want to live in the city and are doing work that isn't amenable to telecommuting. Some of use prefer trees and grass over skyscrapers and pavement, after all.
I think the point wasn't that webcams would prevent accidents, but rather that the accidents would be reported quicker. Not that there's really a problem with how quickly they get reported anyhow, thanks to cellphones...
civilengineer is right. Many times I have turned on to a freeway on-ramp to be greeted by a heavily congested road. If I had known its condition in advance, I could have opted for an alternate route. (Hell, never mind the webcams, just build the ramps so that you can see what the freeway looks like before you commit to getting on it.)
This doesn't really apply with power grids, of course, because you only have one available. Checking its utilization and drawing your power from elsewhere is not an option.
For your other example of movie premieres, civilengineer is right again: If there are three theaters in my area, odds are good that one will be less crowded than the others. Unlike the freeway situation, there's a time lag here while I drive to the theater, but real-time information on ticket sales for previous and in-progress showings could still be useful for predicting which is likely to be least congested.
Your argument holds in cases (like the power grid) where there is a single resource which everyone must use to fulfill their "need", but falls flat when there are multiple resources (alternate routes, different theaters) which could satisfy it.
is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because you go wormed?
How the mp3s got there isn't terribly relevant... I have 2,614 mp3s taking up 30% of my hard drive and they all got there because I ripped them from CDs I legally purchased (and which are now sitting in my living room). This makes it no more or less likely that this hypothetical worm, if it existed, would infect my system, install Kazaa, and start sharing that directory than if I had only 3 mp3s on my drive.
The copyright law carries both civil and criminal penalties.
Does it? For basic copyright infringement? ISTR a lot of people saying that DMCA was the first time that criminal penalties appeared in copyright law; unless something else has been added since then, this would mean that basic copyright infringement is a purely civil offense, only becoming criminal when a technological protection is circumvented to do it.
If you haven't spent a lot of time with music like this, try it. If you hate it after 5 minutes, listen for 10. If you hate it after 10, listen for 20. Try to appreciate it.
Uh, why? I checked eigenradio out a week or two back and, in addition to being boring as hell, it was physically painful to listen to. But I made myself stick with it for a bit, in an attempt to see what was so wonderful about it. I failed miserably.
So, would you care to go beyond your admonition to "try to appreciate it" and tell us just what you think is there to appreciate? Is it just your "beautiful mindset" of believing the world to be overarchingly ordered or is there some other reason you're telling us to continue listening to something we hate?
Um... Those aren't "tricks". They're part of the law governing the registry. From the FAQ on donotcall.gov:
Even if you put your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, a company with which you have an established business relationship may call you for up to 18 months after your last purchase or delivery from it, or your last payment to it, unless you ask the company not to call again. (In that case, the company must honor your request not to call. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.) Also, if you make an inquiry to a company or submit an application to it, for three months afterwards the company can call you. If you make a specific request to that company not to call you, however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an established business relationship with that company.
Your conclusion is correct, but doesn't quite go far enough - don't give any personal information to a company you don't want calling you. Fine print has nothing to do with it and they can probably get your phone number if they have any of your other information.
And how much training does it take for him to be able to monitor six cameras (the size of the system referenced in the article) simultaneously and compare every on-camera face to every known or suspected criminal in the area?
You have no expectation of privacy when you're walking down a public street.
See my reply to BobBoring on expectation of privacy in public places. Privacy comes in multiple levels - an expectation of being seen by passers-by is not equivalent to expectation of being remotely monitored and recorded.
And they appear to work -- if you're doing something you don't want the police observing, you go elsewhere.
Which is a big part of the problem. There are a lot of perfectly legal things which people do, but don't want the police observing. An earlier post used the example of the porn business - legal, but considered socially unacceptable in many areas. It's not a crime to walk into that sex shop and buy some kinky toys, but a lot of people would prefer that their neighbors don't know about it.
Then there are those of us who simply believe that, by and large, it's simply none of the cops' damn business what we do.
You have no right to privacy on a public street or in a public place.
While you are technically correct, I (and several others in this place) make a distinction between casual observation and active surveilance. I accept that I have no right to privacy in a public place to the degree that it is inevitable that people will see me. However, that does not mean that it is acceptable for someone to follow me around and closely watch my actions. Remote surveilance is even worse, as it denies me both the opportunity to know that I am being watched and to confront the watcher.
(I suspect that this distinction is recognized in law as well. If you catch a glimpse of your 19-year-old neighbor standing nude in front of an open window, I would expect that you have committed no crime, but if you set up a video camera in hopes of getting her on tape if she does it again, they'll haul you away.)
[The police] only have a duty to enforce the laws by issuance of citations or arrest of criminals.
No, they aren't even required to do that. It's called "selective enforcement" and the courts have consistently gone along with it. That's why the cops sit there watching everyone go by at 10-15 mph over the speed limit, waiting until they see someone they feel like pulling over before carrying out their "duty to enforce the laws".
that's about all that has to be said about the project, though we'll get plenty of people complaining about the privacy concerns.
As well we should, for two reasons:
The cameras are still in place (and, I believe, in operation). I prefer not to be on camera without my consent, even if there isn't a computer trying to match my face against a criminal database.
If the only reason they retired it was because it doesn't work, then they're likely to try it again once the technology has gotten a bit better. It's not dead for good.
Oh, I'll gladly grant you that, throughout history, more people have been killed by non-Christian governments than by Christian governments - the simple number of people who have lived under each makes that inevitable. Your earlier statement, though, specifically referenced the condition of non-Christians living under Christian governments and vice-versa. The question then becomes how many non-Christians have been killed or mistreated by Christian governments for not being Christian vs. how many Christians have been killed or mistreated by non-Christian governments for being Christian, preferably weighted by total population under each type of government.
And, no, I don't know the numbers, but I strongly suspect that the non-Christian governments come out looking better in that comparison, given that monotheistic religions tend to consider themselves to be the sole keepers of The One True Way, while polytheistic and pantheistic religions do not.
Modern anti-religious governments (I assume this is what you mean by "atheistic" governments) are something of an anomaly and do indeed tend to be harsher than any other option on those who don't subscribe to the official dogmas. But their behaviour is not a good indicator of how a government with no interest whatsoever in religion would act - if they have no interest in religion, they why would they use it as a basis for persecution?
Oh, BTW, regarding 'those "Christians" who killed others'... The example I used earler was that of Saint Olaf. You may not consider him to have been a Christian, but there are quite a few who see him as not just a Christian, but a super-Christian.
History proves that non-Christians fare better under Christian governments than vice versa.
Ever encounter the phrase "swordpoint conversion"?
The Christianization of various areas was known at times to include heavy economic pressure ("I'm sorry, but the Church does not allow us to trade with non-Christians."), kidnapping, and outright threats of violence, torture, or death to 'encourage' non-Christians to convert.
Take for example the Saga of Saint Olaf, which says of this Saint:
If any there were who would not renounce heathen ways, he took the matter so zealously that he drove some out of the country, mutilated others of hands or feet, or stung their eyes out; hung up some, cut down some with the sword; but let none go unpunished who would not serve God. He went thus through the whole district, sparing neither great nor small.
I would not describe that as a case of non-Christians faring at all well under a Christian government. (And here I bet you were expecting the Spanish Inquisition...)
Funny, on my systems, I allow only anon ftp. You are aware that non-anon ftp is just as bad as telnet, security-wise, aren't you? (Referring here strictly to ftp proper, not sftp or any other ftp-over-an-encrypted-channel variants.)
a good chunk of the Linux Jihad is getting their bread buttered through Linux
Not necessarily relevant... Some (I suspect most) of us are getting our bread buttered through Linux because we're a part of the jihad, not the other way around. I got hooked on Linux first, then went out specifically looking for a Linux job; I did not start pushing Linux because it paid my bills.
Most non-geeks DO NOT WANT TO BECOME geeks, which is what they will have to do to appreciate Debian.
Funny, most of the non-geeks that I've set Debian up for appreciate it because it doesn't make them become geeks to use it. Once Debian is installed, ongoing maintenance is dead easy, allowing non-geeks to focus on using the system instead of trying to understand its guts.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that some of us think design patterns are a silly fad. OO is general has repeatedly proven shitty at business modeling.
Hear, hear!
Good programming does not mean that everything must be an object. There's a hell of a lot out there where objects aren't even useful. When they are useful, they can be very useful, but you have to be able to determine when they help and when they're wasted effort, not just use them blindly in all cases. You can also use the basic principles of OO even when there's not an object in sight.
Good design does not mean that everything must be checked against the Gang of Four. Personally, I am appalled by their cult - I have worked with programmers who would refuse to even consider a simple, elegant design with no discernable flaws unless it could be described in terms blessed by the Gang of Four. Design patterns are just a vocabulary for describing common types of solutions. They are not themselves the solutions, nor do they encompass all good solutions.
I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it
Shorter version which preserves the meaning:
I can picture a world without war, without hate, without expectation of our impending attack.
How's that?
I don't see anything there to indicate that the person making the copy must own the original. On the contrary, your parent post includes the following:
(emphasis mine) Assuming that quote is accurate, it seems to me that it is a very clear statement you can legally make copies of someone else's CDs.
I mean sure you only have one hand to drive with, but it only limits your ability to make turns greater than 45 degrees.
Really? You have trouble with that? I drive one-handed (and not on the phone - it obstructs too much of my field of vision for my taste) constantly and have no problems steering or parking. Just let up the death grip on the wheel and you can turn it from full left to full right with only one hand. Pretty trivial, really. Provided you have power steering, anyhow. I've never driven a car with manual steering, so I don't know how much extra force they need.
If one-handed driving is the problem with cellphones, then why don't we hear a similar level of complaints about people who drive with their left arm out the window?
We're not talking about convenience here, we're talking about a situation where invoking your ethics in such a way is utterly self-destructive.
So, then, going up to Merk's question of So when do you draw the line? What if your company was making dangerous chemicals and not disposing of them properly? What if they were making chemical weapons? What if they were selling chemical weapons to terrorists?, am I correct to interpret your response as meaning that you would gladly continue working for a company that you knew to be producing chemical weapons, selling them to terrorists, and not disposing of the byproducts properly, provided that you knew that none of these chemicals would be used to harm you or your family? After all, quitting in this job market would be "self-destructive"...
Move closer to work or bring your work closer to you.
Not always an option. Like, for instance, if you work for a company in the city (where most companies are), but don't want to live in the city and are doing work that isn't amenable to telecommuting. Some of use prefer trees and grass over skyscrapers and pavement, after all.
I think the point wasn't that webcams would prevent accidents, but rather that the accidents would be reported quicker. Not that there's really a problem with how quickly they get reported anyhow, thanks to cellphones...
civilengineer is right. Many times I have turned on to a freeway on-ramp to be greeted by a heavily congested road. If I had known its condition in advance, I could have opted for an alternate route. (Hell, never mind the webcams, just build the ramps so that you can see what the freeway looks like before you commit to getting on it.)
This doesn't really apply with power grids, of course, because you only have one available. Checking its utilization and drawing your power from elsewhere is not an option.
For your other example of movie premieres, civilengineer is right again: If there are three theaters in my area, odds are good that one will be less crowded than the others. Unlike the freeway situation, there's a time lag here while I drive to the theater, but real-time information on ticket sales for previous and in-progress showings could still be useful for predicting which is likely to be least congested.
Your argument holds in cases (like the power grid) where there is a single resource which everyone must use to fulfill their "need", but falls flat when there are multiple resources (alternate routes, different theaters) which could satisfy it.
is it more likely that the 10,000 mp3 taking up 75% of your hard drive and shared over Kazaa got there because you put them there, or because you go wormed?
How the mp3s got there isn't terribly relevant... I have 2,614 mp3s taking up 30% of my hard drive and they all got there because I ripped them from CDs I legally purchased (and which are now sitting in my living room). This makes it no more or less likely that this hypothetical worm, if it existed, would infect my system, install Kazaa, and start sharing that directory than if I had only 3 mp3s on my drive.
The copyright law carries both civil and criminal penalties.
Does it? For basic copyright infringement? ISTR a lot of people saying that DMCA was the first time that criminal penalties appeared in copyright law; unless something else has been added since then, this would mean that basic copyright infringement is a purely civil offense, only becoming criminal when a technological protection is circumvented to do it.
If you haven't spent a lot of time with music like this, try it. If you hate it after 5 minutes, listen for 10. If you hate it after 10, listen for 20. Try to appreciate it.
Uh, why? I checked eigenradio out a week or two back and, in addition to being boring as hell, it was physically painful to listen to. But I made myself stick with it for a bit, in an attempt to see what was so wonderful about it. I failed miserably.
So, would you care to go beyond your admonition to "try to appreciate it" and tell us just what you think is there to appreciate? Is it just your "beautiful mindset" of believing the world to be overarchingly ordered or is there some other reason you're telling us to continue listening to something we hate?
Your conclusion is correct, but doesn't quite go far enough - don't give any personal information to a company you don't want calling you. Fine print has nothing to do with it and they can probably get your phone number if they have any of your other information.
And how much training does it take for him to be able to monitor six cameras (the size of the system referenced in the article) simultaneously and compare every on-camera face to every known or suspected criminal in the area?
You have no expectation of privacy when you're walking down a public street.
See my reply to BobBoring on expectation of privacy in public places. Privacy comes in multiple levels - an expectation of being seen by passers-by is not equivalent to expectation of being remotely monitored and recorded.
And they appear to work -- if you're doing something you don't want the police observing, you go elsewhere.
Which is a big part of the problem. There are a lot of perfectly legal things which people do, but don't want the police observing. An earlier post used the example of the porn business - legal, but considered socially unacceptable in many areas. It's not a crime to walk into that sex shop and buy some kinky toys, but a lot of people would prefer that their neighbors don't know about it.
Then there are those of us who simply believe that, by and large, it's simply none of the cops' damn business what we do.
You have no right to privacy on a public street or in a public place.
While you are technically correct, I (and several others in this place) make a distinction between casual observation and active surveilance. I accept that I have no right to privacy in a public place to the degree that it is inevitable that people will see me. However, that does not mean that it is acceptable for someone to follow me around and closely watch my actions. Remote surveilance is even worse, as it denies me both the opportunity to know that I am being watched and to confront the watcher.
(I suspect that this distinction is recognized in law as well. If you catch a glimpse of your 19-year-old neighbor standing nude in front of an open window, I would expect that you have committed no crime, but if you set up a video camera in hopes of getting her on tape if she does it again, they'll haul you away.)
[The police] only have a duty to enforce the laws by issuance of citations or arrest of criminals.
No, they aren't even required to do that. It's called "selective enforcement" and the courts have consistently gone along with it. That's why the cops sit there watching everyone go by at 10-15 mph over the speed limit, waiting until they see someone they feel like pulling over before carrying out their "duty to enforce the laws".
As well we should, for two reasons:
Oh, I'll gladly grant you that, throughout history, more people have been killed by non-Christian governments than by Christian governments - the simple number of people who have lived under each makes that inevitable. Your earlier statement, though, specifically referenced the condition of non-Christians living under Christian governments and vice-versa. The question then becomes how many non-Christians have been killed or mistreated by Christian governments for not being Christian vs. how many Christians have been killed or mistreated by non-Christian governments for being Christian, preferably weighted by total population under each type of government.
And, no, I don't know the numbers, but I strongly suspect that the non-Christian governments come out looking better in that comparison, given that monotheistic religions tend to consider themselves to be the sole keepers of The One True Way, while polytheistic and pantheistic religions do not.
Modern anti-religious governments (I assume this is what you mean by "atheistic" governments) are something of an anomaly and do indeed tend to be harsher than any other option on those who don't subscribe to the official dogmas. But their behaviour is not a good indicator of how a government with no interest whatsoever in religion would act - if they have no interest in religion, they why would they use it as a basis for persecution?
Oh, BTW, regarding 'those "Christians" who killed others'... The example I used earler was that of Saint Olaf. You may not consider him to have been a Christian, but there are quite a few who see him as not just a Christian, but a super-Christian.
Beer and other alchoholic beverages are also difficult to make
I take it you've never tried homebrewing, then?
Ever encounter the phrase "swordpoint conversion"?
The Christianization of various areas was known at times to include heavy economic pressure ("I'm sorry, but the Church does not allow us to trade with non-Christians."), kidnapping, and outright threats of violence, torture, or death to 'encourage' non-Christians to convert.
Take for example the Saga of Saint Olaf, which says of this Saint:
I would not describe that as a case of non-Christians faring at all well under a Christian government. (And here I bet you were expecting the Spanish Inquisition...)
dont use telnet or allow anon FTP
Funny, on my systems, I allow only anon ftp. You are aware that non-anon ftp is just as bad as telnet, security-wise, aren't you? (Referring here strictly to ftp proper, not sftp or any other ftp-over-an-encrypted-channel variants.)
Oh, sure... We've gone straight from abortion rights to "men are parasites". When will the hate end? (Damn feminazis...)
Not necessarily relevant... Some (I suspect most) of us are getting our bread buttered through Linux because we're a part of the jihad, not the other way around. I got hooked on Linux first, then went out specifically looking for a Linux job; I did not start pushing Linux because it paid my bills.
Funny, most of the non-geeks that I've set Debian up for appreciate it because it doesn't make them become geeks to use it. Once Debian is installed, ongoing maintenance is dead easy, allowing non-geeks to focus on using the system instead of trying to understand its guts.
Already been done. Fink is what made my OSX box usable.
Well, if it's all about the porn, then I'd say Debian has a bit of a head start with porn-get.