I was about to ask for more info about this "Plasma Universe" model, but then, luckily, I scrolled down before I opened a Reply windows and erased all doubt.
"Great thinkers have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
The problem with "underdevelop" as the crux of one's view of international relations is that overly rapid development is also harmful, basically because it compresses even more of the deleterious side-effects of development into even shorter periods than they were/are/have been given in the West to mix & re-stabilize.
I see a simple solution to this: Tell the students they can't use pre-packaged solutions for the assignment. Problem solved. I agree. Do you care to comment on the quality of instructor who would blame Java for their own inability to come up with the same solution?
The verified historical facts are that Christianity was made the official religion of a military empire, by one of its most notoriously cruel rulers. Yeah, after they realised what a superior system it was. I'm curious now, how many of the Roman Emprire's standards of what is "superior" do you likewise accept without modification?
Damn those conformist military empires. I'm sorry, what exactly was your point again? You could have just read my first reply to you, Flamebait. Since you can't recall your own argument I accept your concession.
And then you ask them why, having no experience and having not used the OS, they think Vista sucks, and they always site some relative or random thirdhand source like their brothers friend who told them it sucked. From what I have seen, I believe that most of the anti-Vista sentiment today is actually being generated by ignorant users posting 3rd hand rumors on sites and passing stories around from person to person. Whether or not Vista is terrible is an argument for another day, but I think low sales and persistent complaining have more to do with ignorant rumor mongering in the masses than actual product flaws. I'm just curious whether the irony of claiming "always $foo, random thirdhand source" while you cite no source[s] yourself, was intentional. If so, excellent work, that is some great irony. If not, well, this is just meant as friendly notification that your cyber-zipper is down.
The school that you work for doesn't care that you're on it for pissing on a bush because you are now unemployable for simply being on the list. Your crazy-ass overprotective neighbors don't care that you're on the list for pissing on a bush because they think you're out to ass-rape their children. See where I'm going here? You're going someplace very sensible. Good job. That argument about "crazy-ass overprotective neighbors" is one I tried to use, below, in support of the idea that ass-rapers of children should simply never be let out of prison. Convicted ass-rapers of children, if cleared [usu. by DNA evidence, it seems], should be released when cleared, but unless cleared, they should never be set free. Murder should likewise be a one-strike-and-you're-out crime. This gets rid of the concern over being on such lists for "minor offenses." The fact that it gets rid of the need for the lists themselves should also satisfy those who want them, unless they have some ulterior motive they don't dare state. But that would be so Orwellian, it's ridiculous.
This wouldn't bother me quite so much if it wasn't for the fact that the people who expect me to do their jobs for them regard reading books as a "waste of time".The problem with the "precise targeting", "gotta have it now, no time to research because we have to hurry up and wait" attitude is that somebody has to write the answers to those "precise target" searches. They can only get away with that attitude until we stop doing their jobs for them.
And how do you suppose they figured out how to do that? Any time you have to ask that, your speech is the equivalent of casting pearls before swine.
Why is it somehow better to have to go down to a local library and search through books for an answer, than a quick google search? Who said it's better? The article said there are drawbacks to online research. It didn't say there is no advantage to using Google. If you stop being so impatient, you too can develop "the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web."
Credit reporting agencies have a large financial interest in being right. Getting justice out of the justice system, for those wrongly accused, is not as easy as getting a bunch of publicity on 20/20 for identity theft. That crime hasn't gone away, but it got a lot of attention in a hurry, because of the large amount of money at stake to the creditors. Nobody in the government has anywhere near that much money to gain in promotions for any level of excellence, and even if they royally screw up, they'll get their pensions.
OK, so in my third paragraph, replace the vague "those" with "those murderers and/or child molesters," then see if you have any point of disagreement. My guess is that you just took that to be a more general statement than the rest of my message. It was not intended to be.
I would tend to share your view that it makes more sense to keep them behind bars.
The other is in the attitude you express here: Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestation, but all crime across the board. How do you get "innocent prosecution" from what I said? That quote was specifically about child molesters and murderers. To generalize accurately, I only suggested people -- adults, not children in the juvenile justice system, whom I don't intend to discuss -- are fully responsible for considering the likely consequences of our actions.
A kid acting out his parents bad behavior of gluttony, is no different in nature than a kid acting out his parents bad behavior of violence or molestation or drug use or whatever. Gluttony makes oneself fat, and is within a person's right, whatever your opinion of the wisdom of such habit. I respect your right to eat as much as you possibly can. I might choose not to spend much time with you if you choose to exercise that right.
People who are acting these things out due to the upbringing and environment, Personal responsibility must be part of the equation, if you're worth another reply from me. Please, factor it in now, or I'm just going to ignore you.
...need to be treated differently and need to be given an opportunity to change things, than those who willingly deviate into these types of things. In both the cases you picked, the person you portray learning unhealthy behavior by example is, by the time of adulthood, responsible to identify what it likes and dislikes, and not to inflict on others what it did not enjoy experiencing (any & all types of abuse) and to choose sweets less frequently if it doesn't enjoy obesity (gluttony). It's a simple matter of will power, not rocket science, and it isn't unfair to punish people -- adults -- for their own actions. A troubled past can be factored into sentencing in many scenarios. All I said is that murder and child molestation should not be subject to any such consideration of "extenuating circumstances." The reason I believe that, which I might not have said clearly enough, is that the very reasons for compassion that you have correctly cited simply do not apply, in those cases. There is no reason that "background" should be allowed to excuse those crimes, to any extent.
Otherwise the system is simply those lucky enough to be raised in a nice environment throwing the unlucky ones into jail with some empty claim that they should have magically known better. I just don't see where I implied that at all. I was talking about just two types of crimes: murder and child molestation. You seem to agree, in at least the latter case, that life imprisonment is appropriate. I didn't say life imprisonment for all convicts of any crime, and I didn't mean that. I think you're disputing something I didn't say, starting by projecting what I did say beyond its intended scope. I'll go re-read my own post to see if I was unclear, but I certainly will not argue that all crimes should result in life sentences,
From the judge's ruling, on a site protesting it vehemently http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351
9. The evidence presented at trial produced no treatises or authoritative sources to suggest that any other intended purpose exists for a zone transfer. The academic and technical resources put in evidence at trial uniformly indicate that zone transfers have no intended purposes beyond those mentioned above. Suddenly, this looks like a run-of-the-mill case of crappy lawyers, not a corrupt, stupid, ignorant or lazy judge. Nothing [unusual] to see here. These are not the headlines you're looking for. Move along, move along.
10. The literature available on the subject all refers to access attempts such as the host -l command issued by Ritz under the circumstances of this case as "unauthorized." Microsoft itself, as well as various other, authorities [there are authorities, 'other' than Microsoft?] all refer to zone transfers conducted by an individual other than the network administrator or an authoritative name server as "unauthorized." OK, like everybody else here I note the irony. But irony alone is not a Case, cyberpunks.
That's a little bit obnoxious.
It is clear from Judge Rothe-Seeger's bio that she has little or no experience of life beyond North Dakota. It is also clear from her ruling that she has little or no understanding of the Internet. Based on her age, it is time for the judge to retire, as she clearly fails to understand the world in which she now lives. Other than that, though, I agree. It seems like the defendant is punished at least as much for his knowledge as for any damage done. And, as an amateur, I can say with "authority" that DNS servers are not for amateurs! I'm also getting the impression though, as I Alt+Tab between interesting comments on/. and more background on this case, that this is part of an extended SPAM war, and I might have already said a couple things I disagree with. Anyways, nice activism, citizen. Keep it up, whether I agree with you or not.
OK, I'll look at that, but I can't promise you the ideal "open mind." I have clean copies of Liu's Cookbook and Liu & Albitz's DNS & BIND 5th Edition -- no pages of either dogeared yet, but you don't even have to be a newbie to know that functioning DNS servers and suitcases full of money don't just fall out of the sky.
rant:
Well, "thank you," but I still would rather bill the judge for the time it took me to update my firewall, because somebody in North Dakota is too stupid or lazy to configure their own publicly-available services the way they want, or just doesn't understand that the phrase "my Internet" is an error, whoever says it.
The analogy to theft of an unlocked car has appeared a couple times, but is far less appropriate than an unpublished, special set of rules that applies at only one rental car office or to public transit in just one city. The ruling is garbage. /rant
Thanks for the info. Did you read the article or what?
I'm kind of torn, having been a victim of molestation myself, because on the one hand, I hate child molesters with a passion and sincerely believe that most of them are not salvageable. OTOH, what about those innocent ones who get wrongly convicted and what about those who are salvageable, who do have the potential to change? My perspective differs slightly, in that I don't believe in the existence of a salvageable child molester. Only those whose conviction is eventually overturned should ever be let out of prison. That is an unforgivable crime and the only reason not to apply the death penalty is the occasional wrongful conviction. Better to lock 10 guilty men away for life than to execute one innocent man.
Making child molestation a life sentence every time, without possibility of parole, is the best possible means of clearing the "air of suspicion" from the unjustly accused. As long as justly accused & properly convicted molesters are walking the streets, responsible parents will be more worried about their kids than about the rights of their law-abiding, falsely-convicted or falsely-accused neighbors, and I have a hard time really faulting parents for that. I'm concerned about privacy, but there is no reason I should expect parents to share my concerns to the extent that I have them, while they know that convicted molesters are on the streets without a "Scarlet Letter" on them. That, of course, would also be unfair in the case of wrongful convictions, so the guilty should simply never be released, for the sake of everybody who's innocent, not child victims, but innocent defendants as well.
For sake of discussion, those "who do have the potential to change" but were convicted of something they actually did, can possibly be described as less malicious, but they are nonetheless guilty. Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
I mean concise summaries of spending measures, not the full text of the bill, which I know I am already allowed read from stem to stern on the assumption that I have that much spare time. What I want is a report from a reviewer whose only job is to excerpt & summarize all new budget allocation language from every new bill, as soon after its text becomes public record as humanly possible. Do you have one of those, or do I need to build that and hire the reviewers?
The fact that windows and doors are left unprotected doesn't suddenly make entering the premises legal. Bad analogy! I disagree. DNS servers do not become functional by accident, and choosing to provide a public service implies a responsibility of the admin to offer that service on the admin's terms, not a responsibility of all users of the Internet, to know that although server 073.081.000.000 will do zone transfers if requested, we are not "allowed" to request that. The judge is apparently litigating as if these are all client-model workstations, to which unauthorized access has been gained by intrusion. He probably believes "hacker" means "criminal," too. That's excusable from what I've read of newspapers, whose "journalists" also don't know the difference between "hacker" and "cracker", but in his professional capacity, he should be more careful.
My question now is, what agency's funds does the judge plan to use to reimburse me for the expense of re-configuring my servers to avoid DNS servers located in North Dakota?
[That IP address was chosen for the ASCII values of the first two octets, not as any reference to the user of that IP address, if any.]
Slashdot Mirror
So, let them write a script to set the variable "in_use = 1". Duh.
Ask your sysadmin before assuming the PC will keep working overnight.
Off Topic, and Funny; Insightful, and Troll; etc.
I was about to ask for more info about this "Plasma Universe" model, but then, luckily, I scrolled down before I opened a Reply windows and erased all doubt.
"Great thinkers have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
The problem with "underdevelop" as the crux of one's view of international relations is that overly rapid development is also harmful, basically because it compresses even more of the deleterious side-effects of development into even shorter periods than they were/are/have been given in the West to mix & re-stabilize.
State of California Auto Dismantlers' Association? I don't see the connection to this story...
www.scada1.com
Credit reporting agencies have a large financial interest in being right. Getting justice out of the justice system, for those wrongly accused, is not as easy as getting a bunch of publicity on 20/20 for identity theft. That crime hasn't gone away, but it got a lot of attention in a hurry, because of the large amount of money at stake to the creditors. Nobody in the government has anywhere near that much money to gain in promotions for any level of excellence, and even if they royally screw up, they'll get their pensions.
OK, I have to admit that was dang funny and fun to type. You have an over-developed sense of "humor."
That's a pretty ambitious database reporting tool you just volunteered to program. Thanks!
OK, so in my third paragraph, replace the vague "those" with "those murderers and/or child molesters," then see if you have any point of disagreement. My guess is that you just took that to be a more general statement than the rest of my message. It was not intended to be.
The other is in the attitude you express here:
Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
This attitude guarantees an unjust system with a high rate of innocent prosecution as well as eliminating any hope at all, of salvaging the salvageable. Not just with regards to child molestation, but all crime across the board. How do you get "innocent prosecution" from what I said? That quote was specifically about child molesters and murderers. To generalize accurately, I only suggested people -- adults, not children in the juvenile justice system, whom I don't intend to discuss -- are fully responsible for considering the likely consequences of our actions. A kid acting out his parents bad behavior of gluttony, is no different in nature than a kid acting out his parents bad behavior of violence or molestation or drug use or whatever. Gluttony makes oneself fat, and is within a person's right, whatever your opinion of the wisdom of such habit. I respect your right to eat as much as you possibly can. I might choose not to spend much time with you if you choose to exercise that right. People who are acting these things out due to the upbringing and environment, Personal responsibility must be part of the equation, if you're worth another reply from me. Please, factor it in now, or I'm just going to ignore you.
...need to be treated differently and need to be given an opportunity to change things, than those who willingly deviate into these types of things. In both the cases you picked, the person you portray learning unhealthy behavior by example is, by the time of adulthood, responsible to identify what it likes and dislikes, and not to inflict on others what it did not enjoy experiencing (any & all types of abuse) and to choose sweets less frequently if it doesn't enjoy obesity (gluttony). It's a simple matter of will power, not rocket science, and it isn't unfair to punish people -- adults -- for their own actions. A troubled past can be factored into sentencing in many scenarios. All I said is that murder and child molestation should not be subject to any such consideration of "extenuating circumstances." The reason I believe that, which I might not have said clearly enough, is that the very reasons for compassion that you have correctly cited simply do not apply, in those cases. There is no reason that "background" should be allowed to excuse those crimes, to any extent. Otherwise the system is simply those lucky enough to be raised in a nice environment throwing the unlucky ones into jail with some empty claim that they should have magically known better. I just don't see where I implied that at all. I was talking about just two types of crimes: murder and child molestation. You seem to agree, in at least the latter case, that life imprisonment is appropriate. I didn't say life imprisonment for all convicts of any crime, and I didn't mean that. I think you're disputing something I didn't say, starting by projecting what I did say beyond its intended scope. I'll go re-read my own post to see if I was unclear, but I certainly will not argue that all crimes should result in life sentences,http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351 9. The evidence presented at trial produced no treatises or authoritative sources to suggest that any other intended purpose exists for a zone transfer. The academic and technical resources put in evidence at trial uniformly indicate that zone transfers have no intended purposes beyond those mentioned above. Suddenly, this looks like a run-of-the-mill case of crappy lawyers, not a corrupt, stupid, ignorant or lazy judge. Nothing [unusual] to see here. These are not the headlines you're looking for. Move along, move along. 10. The literature available on the subject all refers to access attempts such as the host -l command issued by Ritz under the circumstances of this case as "unauthorized." Microsoft itself, as well as various other, authorities [there are authorities, 'other' than Microsoft?] all refer to zone transfers conducted by an individual other than the network administrator or an authoritative name server as "unauthorized." OK, like everybody else here I note the irony. But irony alone is not a Case, cyberpunks.
OK, I'll look at that, but I can't promise you the ideal "open mind." I have clean copies of Liu's Cookbook and Liu & Albitz's DNS & BIND 5th Edition -- no pages of either dogeared yet, but you don't even have to be a newbie to know that functioning DNS servers and suitcases full of money don't just fall out of the sky.
rant: Well, "thank you," but I still would rather bill the judge for the time it took me to update my firewall, because somebody in North Dakota is too stupid or lazy to configure their own publicly-available services the way they want, or just doesn't understand that the phrase "my Internet" is an error, whoever says it.
/rant
The analogy to theft of an unlocked car has appeared a couple times, but is far less appropriate than an unpublished, special set of rules that applies at only one rental car office or to public transit in just one city. The ruling is garbage.
Thanks for the info. Did you read the article or what?
Making child molestation a life sentence every time, without possibility of parole, is the best possible means of clearing the "air of suspicion" from the unjustly accused. As long as justly accused & properly convicted molesters are walking the streets, responsible parents will be more worried about their kids than about the rights of their law-abiding, falsely-convicted or falsely-accused neighbors, and I have a hard time really faulting parents for that. I'm concerned about privacy, but there is no reason I should expect parents to share my concerns to the extent that I have them, while they know that convicted molesters are on the streets without a "Scarlet Letter" on them. That, of course, would also be unfair in the case of wrongful convictions, so the guilty should simply never be released, for the sake of everybody who's innocent, not child victims, but innocent defendants as well.
For sake of discussion, those "who do have the potential to change" but were convicted of something they actually did, can possibly be described as less malicious, but they are nonetheless guilty. Whatever leads to their change of heart, they should have thought of that sooner and not done the crime.
I want one that tells me about earmarks in bills.
I mean concise summaries of spending measures, not the full text of the bill, which I know I am already allowed read from stem to stern on the assumption that I have that much spare time. What I want is a report from a reviewer whose only job is to excerpt & summarize all new budget allocation language from every new bill, as soon after its text becomes public record as humanly possible. Do you have one of those, or do I need to build that and hire the reviewers?
My question now is, what agency's funds does the judge plan to use to reimburse me for the expense of re-configuring my servers to avoid DNS servers located in North Dakota?
[That IP address was chosen for the ASCII values of the first two octets, not as any reference to the user of that IP address, if any.]