*chuckle* Exactly! Well, not quite. In order for me to feel truly spiffy, the ads have to not appear on a widely broadcast TV station, cable channel or on the radio. Simply not appearing on an obviously partisan website isn't enough for me.
You are correct. I very much want to be on the side where random corporations refuse to run paid ads produced by those who's opinions differ from mine. When that happens, my self-satisfied smugness will know no bounds!
About item b, you certainly are keeping great company with your support. I hope you have many more encounters such as the one you had. You deserve them as your support helps create the attitude that leads to that behavior.
Except, these are the positions I actually notice being taken by a lot of people. The poster doesn't say that you, personally think that way, but that the aggregate opinion is. I think the poster is right.
I still think human rights abuses in China are wrong though. And I think they're wrong in Cuba. I think a pattern of constructive engagement might be helpful in both cases. But that would involve getting US corporations to only obey the laws on the books instead of suggestions and requests by government officials, and to consider slyly not following laws that are anti-freedom until they're caught.
This is the best response illustrating the difference in behavior. Microsoft is actively helping the Chinese government enforce their laws, sometimes not even on their soil. Free Software just is, and if they use it for stupid purposes, that doesn't imply active complicity by the software author.
Now if a Free Software developer were to decide to include or not include features based on what the Chinese government wanted when they weren't under the jurisdiction of that government, that would be another matter. But, it would be a negative thing about that particular developer, not about Free Software as a whole or China's participation in it.
Re:That's all well and good. . .
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
That was funny, you didn't deserve the flamebait rating.:-)
I've been very, very slowly working on a protocol to create a pseudononymous Internet that complete divorces identities from IP. Psuedonyms are almost as good as being anonymous since you can create them whenever you like. And, unlike being anonymous, a psuedonym can gather a reputation.
My system is called CAKE. I need to spend a whole bunch of time working on it, but I have a job and stuff now, and have really had the time. I also need some new ideas for how to put it together, though I think I may have thought of those now.
I disagree. You're layed off. You sit at home and stew about having your job outsourced. You're angry and upset. You test to see if your secure ID card still works. You discover one of your co-workers is still working there. Why wasn't h(is/er) job outsourced? You sit there and stew some more. One day, you just log in and do it, and later you end up thinking to yourself... Gee, that was really stupid and wrong. Why did on earth did I do something like that?
Mistake. People make them. People let anger get the better of them and throw a punch when they shouldn't. People sit at home and stew about getting fired and do something stupid. It's easy to let your emotions get the better of you. Especially if you don't talk about them with anybody.
So, I'm willing to believe that perhaps his action was a mistake. He should be punished for it. I think the sentence appropriate, though a felony conviction (if that's what happened, the article wasn't clear) and consequent loss of voting rights might be a bit much. But, I'm willing to believe it might be a one-time occurence and he will behave better next time a similar situation comes up.
Of course, I'd have to meet the guy to have a really firm opinion on that. Hear him talk about what happened. Maybe he doesn't regret doing it, and just regrets getting caught. Can't really ever know that for sure, but you can get a good idea sometimes by listening to someone.
Mistake != accident. Mistakes can be even serious errors in judgement. What matters is that you recognize that you did something wrong, and would choose differently were the choice open to you again. And while it can be hard to tell whether or not the change in worldview has really occured until the person has the same opportunity, I'm open to giving people the benefit of a doubt.
Hmmm... After RTFAing, I still don't think the claim of damages was reasonable. But I do think the sentence was reasonable. But I do disagree with "This guy deserves what he gets.".
First, people can make mistakes. I'd be hesitant to hire the guy again, but I might consider it.
Secondly, levels of offense, sentences and sentencing guidelines exist for a reason.
Though, maybe we should take your tack and say all crimes are punishable by death! After all, it doesn't matter how bad the offense was, the punishment should be very high no matter what. So, lets give the highest punishment possible for every crime!
Yes, that's my thought too. The amount of damage claimed doesn't seem reasonable at all, unless you want to count court costs. Kind of like the kid who's going to be up for some sort of ridiculous felony for telling everybody to hit 'refresh' on his school's web-page when it was more of a 'disturbing the peace' sort of offense.
Re:I'm a C++ coder and I hate it too
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
I think templates are a beautiful feature that was accidentally far more powerful than the creator ever intended. OTOH, I think many of the details of how they work are horribly ugly, and that their interactions with other parts of C++ leave something to be desired.
I would like to see a language that made the concept of templates its center. The meta-language (the template language) would be a pure functional language. The language would be an imperative OO language without mandatory garbage collection that allowed the creation of objects who's storage could reside on the stack, the heap, or inside other objects.
I mean really, why? If I get a patch to, say, gaim, I know that my motherboard and soundcard just aren't going to matter. That's what the job of the OS is, to abstract away those details from the application.
Why does Microsoft have to test patches to things like browsers against all possible configurations? Why does it matter which CPU or motherboard or soundcard you have for a stupid browser issue?
This all comes down to the stupidly broken architecture of having a largely monolithic system that has a spaghetti-like mass of depencies within whatever modules it might have internally. So, despite the fact that the argument that Microsoft has to test patches so extensively, I still think that's Microsoft's own fault, and they should be held accountable for the increasing amount of time it takes to test patches.
I would rather see editorial changes made to make gaming the submission system harder.
As a possibility... perhaps a single editor should not be allowed to accept more than one story per week from any particular submitter. That would also cut out a lot of the stupid 'This person and that editor must be in cahoots' conspiracy theory garbage.
I don't know. Possibly you're right. But I would rather that option be looked at as the last resort rather than the first.
I disagree pretty strongly about using 'nofollow'. People should be rewarded for submitting useful and interesting things.
OTOH, the problem user issue is a pain. I personally do not like Beatles Beatles at all. And the stories (s)he posts often seem like ads for something. I doubt that the stories themselves are ads that personally benefit h(im/er), but I do not doubt that (s)he gets some sort of commercial gain from what h(is/er) nick is linked to. I wouldn't have a big problem with that if I had a higher opinion of the quality of h(is/er) submissions.
Saddam isn't our leader. If he wouldn't respond to the desires of his own people, it's their responsibility to oust him, not ours. So your response is a complete non-sequitor as Saddam's response to public outrage has nothing whatsoever to do with Americans and our government.
You misunderstand me. I mean that I can't think of a reason the falsely reported events couldn't have happened in actuality. I can't think of a reason some government agency couldn't now decide to secretly mass trawl records at libraries looking for people who've read a certain book and investigating them.
Legislating against hoaxes is pointless unless you can prove some attempt to defraud or something.
So, can you give me a reason the scenario couldn't happen? Like, would it be possible for the student to sue, or do anything about it if it did? I think it's blatantly unconstitutional, but it seems to me that the Patriot Act specifically allows this kind of thing. Power that can be abused will be. If not by Bush, by some later president that you don't agree with.
One thing about "The Littel Red Hoax" is that there is no legal reason it couldn't be true. I think it was very irresponsible of the student to report something false, but it's interesting that I can't think of a legal reason that couldn't happen.
It's unlikely that I will have time to devote to it. I sent a link to a friend of mine who may have time to devote to it, but I'm not sure. I also don't have any really good ways of running Windows at home.
All of my Open Source time right now is being taken up by my own projects or by Mercurial.
If you are truly sincere about getting it ported someday, look into using SDL (Simple Direct media Layer) rather than DirectX for graphics and sound. That will greatly assist anybody who wants to try to port things in the future.
How about volume hardware discounts? The only kind of volume pricing isn't licensing, and I do not believe the original poster was so stupid as to be referring to licensing.
And your proposed solution to labor costs is going to go over really well with grandma, let me tell you. And yes, grandma can use Linux. Mine does. I bought her (at a more expensive price than a even a Dell box with Windows) a no-OS machine built by one of these mom-and-pop places.
<sarcasm>BTW, way to go with your wonderful windows-only project.</sarcasm>
Dictionary editors do not record the precise definition of a piece of legal jargon in the dictionary. They record common usage. The fact that the piece of legal jargon and common usage are closely related to eachother isn't relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
*chuckle* Exactly! Well, not quite. In order for me to feel truly spiffy, the ads have to not appear on a widely broadcast TV station, cable channel or on the radio. Simply not appearing on an obviously partisan website isn't enough for me.
You are correct. I very much want to be on the side where random corporations refuse to run paid ads produced by those who's opinions differ from mine. When that happens, my self-satisfied smugness will know no bounds!
About item b, you certainly are keeping great company with your support. I hope you have many more encounters such as the one you had. You deserve them as your support helps create the attitude that leads to that behavior.
Except, these are the positions I actually notice being taken by a lot of people. The poster doesn't say that you, personally think that way, but that the aggregate opinion is. I think the poster is right.
I still think human rights abuses in China are wrong though. And I think they're wrong in Cuba. I think a pattern of constructive engagement might be helpful in both cases. But that would involve getting US corporations to only obey the laws on the books instead of suggestions and requests by government officials, and to consider slyly not following laws that are anti-freedom until they're caught.
This is the best response illustrating the difference in behavior. Microsoft is actively helping the Chinese government enforce their laws, sometimes not even on their soil. Free Software just is, and if they use it for stupid purposes, that doesn't imply active complicity by the software author.
Now if a Free Software developer were to decide to include or not include features based on what the Chinese government wanted when they weren't under the jurisdiction of that government, that would be another matter. But, it would be a negative thing about that particular developer, not about Free Software as a whole or China's participation in it.
That was funny, you didn't deserve the flamebait rating. :-)
I've been very, very slowly working on a protocol to create a pseudononymous Internet that complete divorces identities from IP. Psuedonyms are almost as good as being anonymous since you can create them whenever you like. And, unlike being anonymous, a psuedonym can gather a reputation.
My system is called CAKE. I need to spend a whole bunch of time working on it, but I have a job and stuff now, and have really had the time. I also need some new ideas for how to put it together, though I think I may have thought of those now.
Of course, (s)he also isn't posting anonymously.
I disagree. You're layed off. You sit at home and stew about having your job outsourced. You're angry and upset. You test to see if your secure ID card still works. You discover one of your co-workers is still working there. Why wasn't h(is/er) job outsourced? You sit there and stew some more. One day, you just log in and do it, and later you end up thinking to yourself... Gee, that was really stupid and wrong. Why did on earth did I do something like that?
Mistake. People make them. People let anger get the better of them and throw a punch when they shouldn't. People sit at home and stew about getting fired and do something stupid. It's easy to let your emotions get the better of you. Especially if you don't talk about them with anybody.
So, I'm willing to believe that perhaps his action was a mistake. He should be punished for it. I think the sentence appropriate, though a felony conviction (if that's what happened, the article wasn't clear) and consequent loss of voting rights might be a bit much. But, I'm willing to believe it might be a one-time occurence and he will behave better next time a similar situation comes up.
Of course, I'd have to meet the guy to have a really firm opinion on that. Hear him talk about what happened. Maybe he doesn't regret doing it, and just regrets getting caught. Can't really ever know that for sure, but you can get a good idea sometimes by listening to someone.
Mistake != accident. Mistakes can be even serious errors in judgement. What matters is that you recognize that you did something wrong, and would choose differently were the choice open to you again. And while it can be hard to tell whether or not the change in worldview has really occured until the person has the same opportunity, I'm open to giving people the benefit of a doubt.
Hmmm... After RTFAing, I still don't think the claim of damages was reasonable. But I do think the sentence was reasonable. But I do disagree with "This guy deserves what he gets.".
First, people can make mistakes. I'd be hesitant to hire the guy again, but I might consider it.
Secondly, levels of offense, sentences and sentencing guidelines exist for a reason.
Though, maybe we should take your tack and say all crimes are punishable by death! After all, it doesn't matter how bad the offense was, the punishment should be very high no matter what. So, lets give the highest punishment possible for every crime!
Yes, that's my thought too. The amount of damage claimed doesn't seem reasonable at all, unless you want to count court costs. Kind of like the kid who's going to be up for some sort of ridiculous felony for telling everybody to hit 'refresh' on his school's web-page when it was more of a 'disturbing the peace' sort of offense.
I think templates are a beautiful feature that was accidentally far more powerful than the creator ever intended. OTOH, I think many of the details of how they work are horribly ugly, and that their interactions with other parts of C++ leave something to be desired.
I would like to see a language that made the concept of templates its center. The meta-language (the template language) would be a pure functional language. The language would be an imperative OO language without mandatory garbage collection that allowed the creation of objects who's storage could reside on the stack, the heap, or inside other objects.
I mean really, why? If I get a patch to, say, gaim, I know that my motherboard and soundcard just aren't going to matter. That's what the job of the OS is, to abstract away those details from the application.
Why does Microsoft have to test patches to things like browsers against all possible configurations? Why does it matter which CPU or motherboard or soundcard you have for a stupid browser issue?
This all comes down to the stupidly broken architecture of having a largely monolithic system that has a spaghetti-like mass of depencies within whatever modules it might have internally. So, despite the fact that the argument that Microsoft has to test patches so extensively, I still think that's Microsoft's own fault, and they should be held accountable for the increasing amount of time it takes to test patches.
I would rather see editorial changes made to make gaming the submission system harder.
As a possibility... perhaps a single editor should not be allowed to accept more than one story per week from any particular submitter. That would also cut out a lot of the stupid 'This person and that editor must be in cahoots' conspiracy theory garbage.
I don't know. Possibly you're right. But I would rather that option be looked at as the last resort rather than the first.
I disagree pretty strongly about using 'nofollow'. People should be rewarded for submitting useful and interesting things.
OTOH, the problem user issue is a pain. I personally do not like Beatles Beatles at all. And the stories (s)he posts often seem like ads for something. I doubt that the stories themselves are ads that personally benefit h(im/er), but I do not doubt that (s)he gets some sort of commercial gain from what h(is/er) nick is linked to. I wouldn't have a big problem with that if I had a higher opinion of the quality of h(is/er) submissions.
Saddam isn't our leader. If he wouldn't respond to the desires of his own people, it's their responsibility to oust him, not ours. So your response is a complete non-sequitor as Saddam's response to public outrage has nothing whatsoever to do with Americans and our government.
If public outrage were a sufficient deterrent for anything, we would likely have never gone to war in Iraq.
You misunderstand me. I mean that I can't think of a reason the falsely reported events couldn't have happened in actuality. I can't think of a reason some government agency couldn't now decide to secretly mass trawl records at libraries looking for people who've read a certain book and investigating them.
Legislating against hoaxes is pointless unless you can prove some attempt to defraud or something.
So, can you give me a reason the scenario couldn't happen? Like, would it be possible for the student to sue, or do anything about it if it did? I think it's blatantly unconstitutional, but it seems to me that the Patriot Act specifically allows this kind of thing. Power that can be abused will be. If not by Bush, by some later president that you don't agree with.
One thing about "The Littel Red Hoax" is that there is no legal reason it couldn't be true. I think it was very irresponsible of the student to report something false, but it's interesting that I can't think of a legal reason that couldn't happen.
It's unlikely that I will have time to devote to it. I sent a link to a friend of mine who may have time to devote to it, but I'm not sure. I also don't have any really good ways of running Windows at home.
All of my Open Source time right now is being taken up by my own projects or by Mercurial.
If you are truly sincere about getting it ported someday, look into using SDL (Simple Direct media Layer) rather than DirectX for graphics and sound. That will greatly assist anybody who wants to try to port things in the future.
How about volume hardware discounts? The only kind of volume pricing isn't licensing, and I do not believe the original poster was so stupid as to be referring to licensing.
And your proposed solution to labor costs is going to go over really well with grandma, let me tell you. And yes, grandma can use Linux. Mine does. I bought her (at a more expensive price than a even a Dell box with Windows) a no-OS machine built by one of these mom-and-pop places.
<sarcasm>BTW, way to go with your wonderful windows-only project.</sarcasm>
Dictionary editors do not record the precise definition of a piece of legal jargon in the dictionary. They record common usage. The fact that the piece of legal jargon and common usage are closely related to eachother isn't relevant.