I stated somewhere near the top of my post that I wasn't commenting on the specifics of the article's court case, but rather on the general idea of deferring publication of details until the case goes to court.
Stop making things up; that was the be beginning of your post.
Funny, but the same applies to countries too, specially those heavy on nationalism like the USA.
No, it is not analogous to the Catholic church: the Catholic church is actively seeking recruits to join the organization, the US is actively trying to keep people out.
Furthermore, whether and how people are "nationalist" in the US is entirely up to themselves. Free marketeers on Wall Street, atheists transsexuals in San Francisco, libertarian techno-geeks in Silicon Valley, or religious fundamentalists in the deep south all may be "nationalist" in that they like living in the US and will defend the US, but other than that, they have almost nothing in common.
How can you take pride in the fact that half your country can't be bothered to turn up and vote? It's thanks to that attitude that not just you, but the whole damn world, has had to put up with GWB.
The majority of Americans wanted GWB and they got him. The 40% or so that didn't vote just didn't care. It's not the outcome I like, I think the people who voted for him were stupid, but it certainly is democratic.
I also really don't see why Australians would be complaining about GWB. Bush has been a disaster for the US: he has ruined the US economy, he has bankrupted the US government, and he has dragged the name of the US through the mud.
But what problems exactly have Australians suffered under GWB? If anything, Bush's ineptness at foreign policy and at handling the economy has given Europe, Australia, and Asia a lot more power in the long run.
if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.
How is this any different from identical twins? Identical twins start out as a single organism that gets split into two through some developmental accident.
In fact, if the church really holds the belief that there is a soul and that it begins at conception, then, obviously, for each pair of identical twins, one must be soul-less.
Of course, the reason for those "contradictions" is that church doctrine is a bunch of bullshit. Until the brain develops sufficiently, there is no "person" or "soul" there at all, only a mindless, soul-less mass of cells.
I wasn't saying I'm against live reporting from court cases.
Well, yes, you were, because you said "I think you guys are wrong in suggesting that this [sic] limits Freedom of Speech in some unfair manner.", and "this" refers to what the police chief is suggesting.
If the state does anything wrong it will come out once the case goes to court
I wish I had your naive confidence. Maybe it will come out sometimes, when the court and prosecutor are actually doing their job well, but often it won't.
Whether the media discloses that the state did something wrong in advance of a court case or right when it begins doesn't make much of a difference as far as democracy is concerned (as far as I can tell).
It makes a big difference, because once the guy has been convicted, it's very hard to overturn that conviction, even if there is new evidence.
There is no possible justification for the government to stop newspapers reporting on public affairs like lawsuits. The only justification that is even remotely plausible is that reporting taints the good name of the person who has been accused but not found guilty yet, but that's still pretty weak compared with the importance of having the public be able to see what their government and judicial system are doing.
It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.
Actually, the analogy is quite apt: initially, adults resist assimilation, while kids are just born into the collective. But once assimulated, the community of the collective, the closeness of other minds, is something they value greatly. And then the drones go out and assimilate more pepole into the collective.
The Borg is an excellent metaphor for organizations like the Catholic church. And that's not an accident: after all, the Star Trek writers are not stupid, and they are using Star Trek to show us things about our own society.
That's less than a year of military spending in Iraq, probably less than 6 months if you account for all the follow-on costs.
It's no wonder Europeans can get government supported everything with small budget deficits, while the US is running a huge deficit: the Republicans have been wasting money like there's no tomorrow. Bush did it. Reagan did it. And McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are falling all over themselves to promise that they will waste money even more rapidly, just like Reagan did.
Republican promises of fiscal conservatism are a big, fat lie.
Have a look at a plot of budget deficits vs. presidents:
And "blame Congress" doesn't work: in addition to significant budgetary powers the president has, a lot of this is due to military overspending, bogus tax policy, and other executive branch lunacy.
Send a message to the money wasters and vote for Ron Paul or one of the democratic candidates.
Spending on infrastructure, like networking, really helps our nation to maintain competitiveness. Blowing up bombs in Iraq only makes people hate us and hurts our national security.
Yes, the US system where 50% of the population is effectively disenfranchised is so much more democratic
First of all, "the population" has nothing to do with it, what matters is eligible voters.
People who don't vote in the US generally do so by choice. And, yes, a 50% voter turnout is both democratic and rational.
There is a significant percentage of eligible voters that are actually disenfranchised in the US (i.e., can't vote even though they want to), but I see no reason to believe that that percentage is higher than in Australia.
And I don't think anyone has been thrown in jail for not voting. It's a small fine, $20 or so. I think that getting 95% of the population to participate in democratic elections is well worth the imposition.
Well, political scientists are divided on that.
Generally, if you don't care which candidate wins, there's no point in voting. That's the usual case in US elections, and it is both rational and democratic.
In addition, if you aren't informed enough to make a decision, you shouldn't vote. To me, 95% voter turnout means that many people who are probably quite uninformed still participate in the elections, and that's actually a bad thing.
Read my other post in this discussion for a more thorough analysis.
Maybe you should read my post first. I'm arguing that all voting should be done by paper ballot with hand-counting. That also addresses the ACLU's concern.
I think you guys are wrong in suggesting that this limits Freedom of Speech in some unfair manner. How is this any different from preventing live media reports in the middle of a war-zone? Does it really make sense to broadcast live reports of the exact positions and plans of your armed forces?
Well, gee, let's see...
If you disclose positions and strengths of military forces, the enemy can attack and kill your forces.
If you do live reporting from court cases,... I give up. What bad consequence is going to happen?
All the media does is apply pressure on politicians or citizens which indirectly affects what laws get passed.
Yes, it's called "democracy". You should try it sometime, instead of pushing for fascist "the state can do no wrong and will protect you" ideas.
First of all, the US does not have a clearly constitutionally defined right to privacy. But those rights have been steadily created by US courts, and later written into law. And the US pioneered a lot of privacy legislation and rights that later became the basis of similar legislation by other nations.
Furthermore, although Americans like to complain a lot and air a lot of political dirty laundry in public, it's wrong to conclude from that that the US is necessarily worse than Australia in areas of privacy or individual rights. I think you really need to do a deeper analysis than just go by what people talk about in the media.
Finally, although after 9/11, under Bush, the US lost some ground in terms of individual rights and privacy rights, it's too soon to tell what the long-term outcome will be. McCarthy and Nixon, for example, both were serious political crises, and both led to a strengthening of privacy rights and free speech in the US.
They've recently found that judges in Australia, unlike the US, won't let them claim someone is a terrorist without actually showing what their evidence is.
US judges won't either; the problem is that the executive refuses to bring those cases before judges.
That's great, but maybe you could appreciate what you have gotten for free and give maybe 10% of what you were paying before back to those open source projects?
The French and EU government support some open source projects through research grants. Of course, more would be better.
Also, maybe they are buying support contracts, or buying machines from companies that support open source software.
I think it's good for institutions to donate, but open source wouldn't succeed if it had to depend on it
[The French] only surrendered to the Germans for one real reason: their artwork and architecture. I really cant fault them for that, considering the pictures I've seen in the aftermath of England.
French military leaders surrendered to Germany because France lost to Germany in 1940. In addition, a lot of French supported the Nazis, eugenics, and anti-semitism. And the French were responsible for numerous crimes against humanity during the Vichy government.
AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty believes organised crime gangs will utilise cloned part-robot humans in the future
Although there is method to the madness:
Mr Keelty said the police force would have to use experts from the private sector to fight tech-savvy organised criminals, because it lacked the necessary skills.
Apparently, he wants to use such nutty pretexts to funnel money to private companies.
I think voting should be on paper ballots that are hand counted. There is no more reason to mechanize voting than there is to mechanize kissing.
Obviously, if you want to vote anonymously, you can't get feedback about whether you filled it in correctly. But, then, you aren't in elementary school anymore.
Is all this new stuff going to slow it down, that's the thing that interests me. If the team have too many things to maintain, just how good a job can they do?
These are all done by separate developers, and they shouldn't impact core development.
Why, for example include vnc? It's not like seperate client/servers for this task aren't available, and most are pretty good.
I use VNC frequently, and the existing clients suck. Keyring support is worth having a Gnome version, and working full screen support would also be nice.
The main reason I like gnome is that its a fast window manager
Gnome is not a window manager, it's a desktop environment.
This is a waste of money. The association responsible for redistributing the money will first take a big cut for itself and then proceed to distribute the money to exactly those kinds of artists that don't need Internet distribution to begin with.
Photosynth takes multiple shots, this apparently takes a single shot. And although Photosynth is some nice engineering, (1) it wasn't all developed at Microsoft, and (2) it relies on decades of research work done elsewhere.
Microsoft does invest a lot of money in research. But what they are spending pales in comparison to all the work by other people that they are building on.
Of course there is. A "Linux native" toolkit is one whose development is driven by the needs of the Linux platform (including X11 and Gnome). Although Gtk also runs on Windows and MacOS, neither of those platforms is going to drive Gtk architectural decisions or development.
In contrast, Qt's development is driven by multiple platforms; whether a feature works well on Windows has to be a major consideration in the development of Qt.
Slashdot Mirror
I stated somewhere near the top of my post that I wasn't commenting on the specifics of the article's court case, but rather on the general idea of deferring publication of details until the case goes to court.
Stop making things up; that was the be beginning of your post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=436328&cid=22243660
I don't understand...
Evidently not.
Funny, but the same applies to countries too, specially those heavy on nationalism like the USA.
No, it is not analogous to the Catholic church: the Catholic church is actively seeking recruits to join the organization, the US is actively trying to keep people out.
Furthermore, whether and how people are "nationalist" in the US is entirely up to themselves. Free marketeers on Wall Street, atheists transsexuals in San Francisco, libertarian techno-geeks in Silicon Valley, or religious fundamentalists in the deep south all may be "nationalist" in that they like living in the US and will defend the US, but other than that, they have almost nothing in common.
How can you take pride in the fact that half your country can't be bothered to turn up and vote? It's thanks to that attitude that not just you, but the whole damn world, has had to put up with GWB.
The majority of Americans wanted GWB and they got him. The 40% or so that didn't vote just didn't care. It's not the outcome I like, I think the people who voted for him were stupid, but it certainly is democratic.
I also really don't see why Australians would be complaining about GWB. Bush has been a disaster for the US: he has ruined the US economy, he has bankrupted the US government, and he has dragged the name of the US through the mud.
But what problems exactly have Australians suffered under GWB? If anything, Bush's ineptness at foreign policy and at handling the economy has given Europe, Australia, and Asia a lot more power in the long run.
if a cloned person has a cloned soul; whether you receive some of the soul of the fetus that gave the stem cells when, for whatever reason, you use said stem cells--all a bunch of nasty theological problems.
How is this any different from identical twins? Identical twins start out as a single organism that gets split into two through some developmental accident.
In fact, if the church really holds the belief that there is a soul and that it begins at conception, then, obviously, for each pair of identical twins, one must be soul-less.
Of course, the reason for those "contradictions" is that church doctrine is a bunch of bullshit. Until the brain develops sufficiently, there is no "person" or "soul" there at all, only a mindless, soul-less mass of cells.
I wasn't saying I'm against live reporting from court cases.
Well, yes, you were, because you said "I think you guys are wrong in suggesting that this [sic] limits Freedom of Speech in some unfair manner.", and "this" refers to what the police chief is suggesting.
If the state does anything wrong it will come out once the case goes to court
I wish I had your naive confidence. Maybe it will come out sometimes, when the court and prosecutor are actually doing their job well, but often it won't.
Whether the media discloses that the state did something wrong in advance of a court case or right when it begins doesn't make much of a difference as far as democracy is concerned (as far as I can tell).
It makes a big difference, because once the guy has been convicted, it's very hard to overturn that conviction, even if there is new evidence.
There is no possible justification for the government to stop newspapers reporting on public affairs like lawsuits. The only justification that is even remotely plausible is that reporting taints the good name of the person who has been accused but not found guilty yet, but that's still pretty weak compared with the importance of having the public be able to see what their government and judicial system are doing.
It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.
Actually, the analogy is quite apt: initially, adults resist assimilation, while kids are just born into the collective. But once assimulated, the community of the collective, the closeness of other minds, is something they value greatly. And then the drones go out and assimilate more pepole into the collective.
The Borg is an excellent metaphor for organizations like the Catholic church. And that's not an accident: after all, the Star Trek writers are not stupid, and they are using Star Trek to show us things about our own society.
The Pope himself is an affront to human dignity, so he should feel right at home with biotech then.
That's less than a year of military spending in Iraq, probably less than 6 months if you account for all the follow-on costs.
It's no wonder Europeans can get government supported everything with small budget deficits, while the US is running a huge deficit: the Republicans have been wasting money like there's no tomorrow. Bush did it. Reagan did it. And McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are falling all over themselves to promise that they will waste money even more rapidly, just like Reagan did.
Republican promises of fiscal conservatism are a big, fat lie.
Have a look at a plot of budget deficits vs. presidents:
http://www.mcadcafe.com/images/commentary/us_federal_budget_deficit_20040510.jpg
And "blame Congress" doesn't work: in addition to significant budgetary powers the president has, a lot of this is due to military overspending, bogus tax policy, and other executive branch lunacy.
Send a message to the money wasters and vote for Ron Paul or one of the democratic candidates.
Spending on infrastructure, like networking, really helps our nation to maintain competitiveness. Blowing up bombs in Iraq only makes people hate us and hurts our national security.
Yes, the US system where 50% of the population is effectively disenfranchised is so much more democratic
First of all, "the population" has nothing to do with it, what matters is eligible voters.
People who don't vote in the US generally do so by choice. And, yes, a 50% voter turnout is both democratic and rational.
There is a significant percentage of eligible voters that are actually disenfranchised in the US (i.e., can't vote even though they want to), but I see no reason to believe that that percentage is higher than in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
Fortunately most Australians care about their country enough to turn up once every three years.
Yeah, Australia and East Germany.
And I don't think anyone has been thrown in jail for not voting. It's a small fine, $20 or so. I think that getting 95% of the population to participate in democratic elections is well worth the imposition.
Well, political scientists are divided on that.
Generally, if you don't care which candidate wins, there's no point in voting. That's the usual case in US elections, and it is both rational and democratic.
In addition, if you aren't informed enough to make a decision, you shouldn't vote. To me, 95% voter turnout means that many people who are probably quite uninformed still participate in the elections, and that's actually a bad thing.
Read my other post in this discussion for a more thorough analysis.
Maybe you should read my post first. I'm arguing that all voting should be done by paper ballot with hand-counting. That also addresses the ACLU's concern.
I think you guys are wrong in suggesting that this limits Freedom of Speech in some unfair manner. How is this any different from preventing live media reports in the middle of a war-zone? Does it really make sense to broadcast live reports of the exact positions and plans of your armed forces?
... I give up. What bad consequence is going to happen?
Well, gee, let's see...
If you disclose positions and strengths of military forces, the enemy can attack and kill your forces.
If you do live reporting from court cases,
All the media does is apply pressure on politicians or citizens which indirectly affects what laws get passed.
Yes, it's called "democracy". You should try it sometime, instead of pushing for fascist "the state can do no wrong and will protect you" ideas.
First of all, the US does not have a clearly constitutionally defined right to privacy. But those rights have been steadily created by US courts, and later written into law. And the US pioneered a lot of privacy legislation and rights that later became the basis of similar legislation by other nations.
Furthermore, although Americans like to complain a lot and air a lot of political dirty laundry in public, it's wrong to conclude from that that the US is necessarily worse than Australia in areas of privacy or individual rights. I think you really need to do a deeper analysis than just go by what people talk about in the media.
Finally, although after 9/11, under Bush, the US lost some ground in terms of individual rights and privacy rights, it's too soon to tell what the long-term outcome will be. McCarthy and Nixon, for example, both were serious political crises, and both led to a strengthening of privacy rights and free speech in the US.
They've recently found that judges in Australia, unlike the US, won't let them claim someone is a terrorist without actually showing what their evidence is.
US judges won't either; the problem is that the executive refuses to bring those cases before judges.
That's great, but maybe you could appreciate what you have gotten for free and give maybe 10% of what you were paying before back to those open source projects?
The French and EU government support some open source projects through research grants. Of course, more would be better.
Also, maybe they are buying support contracts, or buying machines from companies that support open source software.
I think it's good for institutions to donate, but open source wouldn't succeed if it had to depend on it
[The French] only surrendered to the Germans for one real reason: their artwork and architecture. I really cant fault them for that, considering the pictures I've seen in the aftermath of England.
French military leaders surrendered to Germany because France lost to Germany in 1940. In addition, a lot of French supported the Nazis, eugenics, and anti-semitism. And the French were responsible for numerous crimes against humanity during the Vichy government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/keelty-warns-against-robot-criminals/2007/07/05/1183351363490.html
Although there is method to the madness:
Apparently, he wants to use such nutty pretexts to funnel money to private companies.
Computers don't understand grammar very well anyway, and spelling errors are trivial to correct or account for.
because their music isn't downloaded as much as other people's music, so they want to spoil the party for everyone :-)
I think voting should be on paper ballots that are hand counted. There is no more reason to mechanize voting than there is to mechanize kissing.
Obviously, if you want to vote anonymously, you can't get feedback about whether you filled it in correctly. But, then, you aren't in elementary school anymore.
Is all this new stuff going to slow it down, that's the thing that interests me. If the team have too many things to maintain, just how good a job can they do?
These are all done by separate developers, and they shouldn't impact core development.
Why, for example include vnc? It's not like seperate client/servers for this task aren't available, and most are pretty good.
I use VNC frequently, and the existing clients suck. Keyring support is worth having a Gnome version, and working full screen support would also be nice.
The main reason I like gnome is that its a fast window manager
Gnome is not a window manager, it's a desktop environment.
This is a waste of money. The association responsible for redistributing the money will first take a big cut for itself and then proceed to distribute the money to exactly those kinds of artists that don't need Internet distribution to begin with.
Thanks! I hadn't heard of this blog before, but now that the $10k bounty has been offered, I know about it. Great publicity!
Photosynth takes multiple shots, this apparently takes a single shot. And although Photosynth is some nice engineering, (1) it wasn't all developed at Microsoft, and (2) it relies on decades of research work done elsewhere.
Microsoft does invest a lot of money in research. But what they are spending pales in comparison to all the work by other people that they are building on.
There's no such thing as a Linux-native toolkit.
Of course there is. A "Linux native" toolkit is one whose development is driven by the needs of the Linux platform (including X11 and Gnome). Although Gtk also runs on Windows and MacOS, neither of those platforms is going to drive Gtk architectural decisions or development.
In contrast, Qt's development is driven by multiple platforms; whether a feature works well on Windows has to be a major consideration in the development of Qt.
Gtk is Linux-native, Qt is not.