> I mean its another way to judge character right?
Except of course that the entire motivation for removing it is that it isn't, at least, not anymore. The vast majority of people in the US with criminal records have them for minor drug offenses - and there is a clear and massive racial bias in that (African Americans are convicted of minor drug offenses at a much higher rate despite proof that proof that Caucasians commit them no less frequently). So if whether you have a criminal record or not is most often merely indicative of whether your were fortunate enough to be born white or black (or if you want to be charitable: middle class or working class) then it's no indication of character at all.
The other consideration is that a released criminal has been punished for his crime, he has paid his debt to society and ideally we WANT him to earn an honest living now - making that harder, or near impossible, is harmful to everybody (including the potential employer). On the other hand - the names revealed as KKK members have not in any way made up for it. If one of them were to forswear his allegiance to them in the future, and publicly and repeatedly apologize and undertake restitutionary actions of some sort or other (maybe provide police information voluntarily on the more criminal elements gleaned while an insider or something) then that would show up in the google as well - and likely help rather than hinder an application for a job. Hell the world basically forgave Albert Speer and he was at one point one of the most powerful NAZI leaders in the German government - but he appologized and seemed to show real remorse for the rest of his days. True or not ? I guess we'll never know - but people are suckers for a redemption story.
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
Ive met him a few times and Im from a third world country with no PHD at all. Yet he listened to my ideas with interest and gave constructive and useful suggestions. He listened to my talks the way I listened to his lectures. You are slandering a man in ignorance. Elitist ? Exactly the opposite. He is a man who spends his life in search of new ideas and cares not where he finds them
Step one: learn your own history. Jefferson forsaw the rise of an American aristocracy and created a perfect tool to prevent and undo it: the estate tax. Since the early 20th century rightwingers have been progressively dismantling that tool and now, surprize surprize, America is ruled by a de facto aristocracy. Restore the estate tax to 95% and the problem (in all its many forms) is fixed in one generation.
It's not a lawsuit, it's criminal charges brought by the district attorney after journalists uncovered the evidence.
By publicly denying that fossil fuels cause global warming they have been making false claims about their primary product - fossil fuels. You are generally required to disclose to customers any potential (and definitely any guaranteed) risks or negative side effects that your product has so they can make an informed decision.
Here is a sampling of the news reports that followed the work of two different groups of journalists who both independently found proof of the cover-up, one from the left-end and one from the far-right end of the spectrum: http://www.theguardian.com/env... http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/...
And here is a report on congress asking the DA to investigate the events and charge them if it's found to be criminal: http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
Actually, it's defined as all freedoms are: by that which does not intrude on the rights and freedoms of others. These laws merely exist to protect those freedoms.
It's the same principle that dates back to long before America even existed (but which informed it's founding fathers). You're right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom of speech ends where my freedoms begin.
If we continue to pursue economic growth as a goal they will all increase. Economic growth is only possible if there is inflation as Adam Smith proved 300 years ago.
The GP claimed only idiots believed the science. Pointing out that scientiffic experts in every remotely related field deems tge evidence overwhelming is basically the exact opposite of an appeal to authority, especially in this context.
That doesnt preclude the prediction though. If only the already very rich profit from it tge average will still go down hugely as the non rich outnumber them so much that the average wont be altered much. If anything, assuming your hypotheses is correct it means poor and middle class incomes will go down by more than 23% to get the same change in the average.
ExonMobil believes it. In fact they have believed it since the 1980s. We have proof. Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements. In fact they not only believe it, they are counting on it. When they first started planning arctic drillimg they counted on global warming to reduce the arctic ice and make the arctic oil cheaper to reach first.
To be fair, having his name attached to it is what really killed it. Nobody wants the stigma of being a known associate of a wife-killer, so working on the project which bears his name is immediately discouraged by this fact.
Simply put, devs don't want something on their resume that will make a potential job interviewer ask them if they are insensitive to domestic violence and wife-killing.
I wouldn't say Jack didn't succeed, it just didn't become the default. It remains in the repos for almost every distro and it's still the tool of choice for audio professionals or even guys just making a recording for their own after-school band on linux. It's just that it is a more niche tool, the vast majority of people have no use for it's advanced features (nor the hardware to take advantage of them).
Pulse becoming the desktop default was atrocious though, there have been numerous sound servers over the years that all provided the same core functionality but none of them broke for thousands of people in wildly disparate ways while offering no sensible concept of what exactly broke and how the way pulse did.
Before pulse there was ESD and ARTS, I can understand abandoning ESD, it was getting very long in the tooth and the code was not well written (though it was simple enough to be stable anyway) but writing Pulse was the wrong answer - the better answer would have been to make arts the default. The gnome crowd are allergic to ever adopting something developed by KDE - no matter how decoupled from the desktop and generic it may be.
>And for people who want to read through log files without having to become regex experts.
There is no reason to use regex at all to read and parse log files. If you do, you gain a bunch of abilities that can save a lot of time - but nothing you do with regex's could not be done without them. More-over, if you do NOT use regex's with journalctl then you can't get those features EITHER -the people who do want those features learn regex anyway.
>And for people who don't want to switch to 100 different tools to run their computer If you don't believe that 100 different tasks require 100 different tools - you should not be using a unix like system in the first place. Go run windows, it's DESIGNED specifically for the purpose you just stated. Trying to hack that design onto Linux is in and off itself terrible because it's completely incompatible with how the entire system was designed, evolved and developed. It's a major pain to all the people who did that evolving, designing and developing and could very well lead to a major exodus of them away from what they see as a terrible design - and that loss would kill the linux ecosystem.
Do one thing and do it well became a principle for very, very good reasons - it's a superior design both in terms of technical merrit AND user-friendliness. Since the very beginning there have been those who have been convinced they knew better, and each and every one of them has failed dismally. While Unix has been going strong thanks to the flexibility, scalability, portability and reliability of that design since 1969. It's the single most long-lived design in the history of software - because it works for anything and everything you can throw at it.
False analogy. When your database fails to start up, you rely on the text based logs to figure out why.
No sane database keeps its logs inside it's binary database files.
Binary data is, in and off itself, a violation of the unix principles. Now violating them in the specific niche that is "a database" is okay, there are sensible reasons to do so in that scenario. More-over a database is not a core component of the OS - the core components of hte OS are the stuff you need to have working EVEN WHEN the database fails, the things you'll use to recover it.
Those things should be as simple and as close to unbreakable as possible and the formats of their data should be readable by any program written after 1969.
It's true that busybox violates the unix principles - but it's forgiveable, unlike systemd. The reason is that the unix principles are generic rules of thumb and breaking them is sometimes okay - provided you can justify the breakage, and do it in a very narrow niche where you actually have to. BusyBox lives in such a niche. SystemD on the other hand breaks them flagrantly and does so in the space of a generic general-use solution that is pushed universally across all distro's.
That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Breaking the unix philosophy in a narrow, strictly defined niche where following it is precluded by genuine practical problems is simply not comparable to breaking it in the core tools of general purpose distributions.
You're right that anywhere within the solar system doesn't help much with the radiation risks, but that's why I said the solar system is just a stepping stone to the rest of the galaxy.
Spreading out to survive localised disasters has been a key to our survival since our ancestors first diverged from the chimps. It makes no sense to stop now.
I never said life wouldn't survive, it has survived all of those many times. Life is extremely resilient. Species are not. Life would survive. We won't.
In fact they have done so. The nv driver released by nvidia is open source and inferior to either the nvidia closed driver or nouveau as it has no 3d support at all.
The fact that it happened on an international level does rather mitigate that factor. There is however rather more to it than that. Firstly - the death penalty was by no means assured and several of the Nazi's charged got away with lesser punishments notably Rudolph Hess. Albert Speer only got 20 years (you can get that for robbing a bank) because of the remorse he showed (and probably a bit of a kickback because his testimony helped secure the cases against most of the other accused). He got to live quite a long life after prison, wrote some bestsellers and basically lived a celebrity life as "the Nazi who said sorry" until he died in 1981.
The biggest thing worth noting though is that not a single one of the 21 accused at Nuremberg raised your complaint in their defenses. There were the occasional grumbling about jurisdiction, but nobody tried to say they couldn't be tried for what they did as these things were legal at the time they were done (and definitely legal in the country they were done in).
Instead virtually all of them based their defense on trying to deny it ever happened. Goehring repeatedly claimed that every one of the orders, memos and laws cited as evidence that the holocaust was planned under orders from the upper echelons were plans for "emigration not extermination".
I would agree that trying somebody for something which wasn't a crime when done, is not something a free government gets to do. Trying somebody for something he did in a country where it is legal to do it is also not something that a free government should be allowed to do. But trying members of a government, for their actions while in a position of authority - by a coalition of other governments is a different matter and a lot of the presumptions you raise are less applicable there. You must remember that free nations hugely hamstring their prosecutors in trials, all to balance the scales between a powerful state and a weak individual to ensure a fair outcome. When the government however is the defendant, that imbalance no longer exists to the same degree and so a fair trial doesn't require the same level of hamstringing.
Also note that the jurisdictional issue would apply to the Hague in the same way if it was taken to apply here. The free world decided, as a direct consequence of the holocaust, that governments and the leaders within them are held to a higher standard than their citizens and can be tried for crimes where citizens could not.I don't think that is unfair. When you accept a position of power, you accept the risks that come with it. Which is one reason I am so strongly in favor of ending slap-on-the-wrist fines for corporate crimes. Punish the CEO as if he had personally done the deed. If the company dumped toxins in some town's water - charge the CEO with 5000 counts of murder and attempted murder and have him serve 5000 concurrent life sentences. "I didn't know" should not be a defense either. He accepted the massive remuneration and perks of CEO - he must accept responsibility for the legality of the actions of the entire company. It's his JOB to have known. If he goes to prison regardless, then suddenly he is incentivized to make damn sure he knows what's happening and stop evil things before they happen.
>What makes you think he'd not get a fair trial in the US?
The fact that there is no public-interest defense for federal whistle blowers (despite the fact that the need for one is a blatantly obvious self-evident truth) is enough to make it absolutely impossible to *give* him a fair trial no matter how good the intentions of the government or even the judge may be.
Slashdot Mirror
> I mean its another way to judge character right?
Except of course that the entire motivation for removing it is that it isn't, at least, not anymore.
The vast majority of people in the US with criminal records have them for minor drug offenses - and there is a clear and massive racial bias in that (African Americans are convicted of minor drug offenses at a much higher rate despite proof that proof that Caucasians commit them no less frequently).
So if whether you have a criminal record or not is most often merely indicative of whether your were fortunate enough to be born white or black (or if you want to be charitable: middle class or working class) then it's no indication of character at all.
The other consideration is that a released criminal has been punished for his crime, he has paid his debt to society and ideally we WANT him to earn an honest living now - making that harder, or near impossible, is harmful to everybody (including the potential employer). On the other hand - the names revealed as KKK members have not in any way made up for it.
If one of them were to forswear his allegiance to them in the future, and publicly and repeatedly apologize and undertake restitutionary actions of some sort or other (maybe provide police information voluntarily on the more criminal elements gleaned while an insider or something) then that would show up in the google as well - and likely help rather than hinder an application for a job.
Hell the world basically forgave Albert Speer and he was at one point one of the most powerful NAZI leaders in the German government - but he appologized and seemed to show real remorse for the rest of his days.
True or not ? I guess we'll never know - but people are suckers for a redemption story.
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
Ive met him a few times and Im from a third world country with no PHD at all. Yet he listened to my ideas with interest and gave constructive and useful suggestions. He listened to my talks the way I listened to his lectures.
You are slandering a man in ignorance. Elitist ? Exactly the opposite. He is a man who spends his life in search of new ideas and cares not where he finds them
Step one: learn your own history. Jefferson forsaw the rise of an American aristocracy and created a perfect tool to prevent and undo it: the estate tax. Since the early 20th century rightwingers have been progressively dismantling that tool and now, surprize surprize, America is ruled by a de facto aristocracy.
Restore the estate tax to 95% and the problem (in all its many forms) is fixed in one generation.
Lincoln and FDR. To a lesser extent LBJ. The rest were basically figureheads.
It's not a lawsuit, it's criminal charges brought by the district attorney after journalists uncovered the evidence.
By publicly denying that fossil fuels cause global warming they have been making false claims about their primary product - fossil fuels. You are generally required to disclose to customers any potential (and definitely any guaranteed) risks or negative side effects that your product has so they can make an informed decision.
Here is a sampling of the news reports that followed the work of two different groups of journalists who both independently found proof of the cover-up, one from the left-end and one from the far-right end of the spectrum:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/...
And here is a report on congress asking the DA to investigate the events and charge them if it's found to be criminal:
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
Actually, it's defined as all freedoms are: by that which does not intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.
These laws merely exist to protect those freedoms.
It's the same principle that dates back to long before America even existed (but which informed it's founding fathers). You're right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom of speech ends where my freedoms begin.
If we continue to pursue economic growth as a goal they will all increase. Economic growth is only possible if there is inflation as Adam Smith proved 300 years ago.
The GP claimed only idiots believed the science. Pointing out that scientiffic experts in every remotely related field deems tge evidence overwhelming is basically the exact opposite of an appeal to authority, especially in this context.
Ever heard of "fraud" and "false advertising" ? Free speech does not apply to profit by deception.
ExonMobil's internal memos specifically cite global warming caused by burning fossil fuels as the key to making arctic drilling profitable.
That doesnt preclude the prediction though. If only the already very rich profit from it tge average will still go down hugely as the non rich outnumber them so much that the average wont be altered much.
If anything, assuming your hypotheses is correct it means poor and middle class incomes will go down by more than 23% to get the same change in the average.
ExonMobil believes it. In fact they have believed it since the 1980s. We have proof. Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements. In fact they not only believe it, they are counting on it. When they first started planning arctic drillimg they counted on global warming to reduce the arctic ice and make the arctic oil cheaper to reach first.
To be fair, having his name attached to it is what really killed it.
Nobody wants the stigma of being a known associate of a wife-killer, so working on the project which bears his name is immediately discouraged by this fact.
Simply put, devs don't want something on their resume that will make a potential job interviewer ask them if they are insensitive to domestic violence and wife-killing.
I wouldn't say Jack didn't succeed, it just didn't become the default. It remains in the repos for almost every distro and it's still the tool of choice for audio professionals or even guys just making a recording for their own after-school band on linux.
It's just that it is a more niche tool, the vast majority of people have no use for it's advanced features (nor the hardware to take advantage of them).
Pulse becoming the desktop default was atrocious though, there have been numerous sound servers over the years that all provided the same core functionality but none of them broke for thousands of people in wildly disparate ways while offering no sensible concept of what exactly broke and how the way pulse did.
Before pulse there was ESD and ARTS, I can understand abandoning ESD, it was getting very long in the tooth and the code was not well written (though it was simple enough to be stable anyway) but writing Pulse was the wrong answer - the better answer would have been to make arts the default.
The gnome crowd are allergic to ever adopting something developed by KDE - no matter how decoupled from the desktop and generic it may be.
>And for people who want to read through log files without having to become regex experts.
There is no reason to use regex at all to read and parse log files. If you do, you gain a bunch of abilities that can save a lot of time - but nothing you do with regex's could not be done without them.
More-over, if you do NOT use regex's with journalctl then you can't get those features EITHER -the people who do want those features learn regex anyway.
>And for people who don't want to switch to 100 different tools to run their computer
If you don't believe that 100 different tasks require 100 different tools - you should not be using a unix like system in the first place. Go run windows, it's DESIGNED specifically for the purpose you just stated.
Trying to hack that design onto Linux is in and off itself terrible because it's completely incompatible with how the entire system was designed, evolved and developed. It's a major pain to all the people who did that evolving, designing and developing and could very well lead to a major exodus of them away from what they see as a terrible design - and that loss would kill the linux ecosystem.
Do one thing and do it well became a principle for very, very good reasons - it's a superior design both in terms of technical merrit AND user-friendliness. Since the very beginning there have been those who have been convinced they knew better, and each and every one of them has failed dismally.
While Unix has been going strong thanks to the flexibility, scalability, portability and reliability of that design since 1969. It's the single most long-lived design in the history of software - because it works for anything and everything you can throw at it.
False analogy.
When your database fails to start up, you rely on the text based logs to figure out why.
No sane database keeps its logs inside it's binary database files.
Binary data is, in and off itself, a violation of the unix principles. Now violating them in the specific niche that is "a database" is okay, there are sensible reasons to do so in that scenario. More-over a database is not a core component of the OS - the core components of hte OS are the stuff you need to have working EVEN WHEN the database fails, the things you'll use to recover it.
Those things should be as simple and as close to unbreakable as possible and the formats of their data should be readable by any program written after 1969.
It's true that busybox violates the unix principles - but it's forgiveable, unlike systemd. The reason is that the unix principles are generic rules of thumb and breaking them is sometimes okay - provided you can justify the breakage, and do it in a very narrow niche where you actually have to.
BusyBox lives in such a niche.
SystemD on the other hand breaks them flagrantly and does so in the space of a generic general-use solution that is pushed universally across all distro's.
That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Breaking the unix philosophy in a narrow, strictly defined niche where following it is precluded by genuine practical problems is simply not comparable to breaking it in the core tools of general purpose distributions.
Mocking me won't change reality.
Our planetary history is one of repeated mass extinctions. We have zero chance of surviving one.
But we may gain a chance... if we aren't confined to one planet.
You're right that anywhere within the solar system doesn't help much with the radiation risks, but that's why I said the solar system is just a stepping stone to the rest of the galaxy.
Spreading out to survive localised disasters has been a key to our survival since our ancestors first diverged from the chimps. It makes no sense to stop now.
I never said life wouldn't survive, it has survived all of those many times.
Life is extremely resilient. Species are not.
Life would survive. We won't.
In fact they have done so. The nv driver released by nvidia is open source and inferior to either the nvidia closed driver or nouveau as it has no 3d support at all.
Why are you assuming he isnt playing only free software games ?
The fact that it happened on an international level does rather mitigate that factor.
There is however rather more to it than that. Firstly - the death penalty was by no means assured and several of the Nazi's charged got away with lesser punishments notably Rudolph Hess.
Albert Speer only got 20 years (you can get that for robbing a bank) because of the remorse he showed (and probably a bit of a kickback because his testimony helped secure the cases against most of the other accused). He got to live quite a long life after prison, wrote some bestsellers and basically lived a celebrity life as "the Nazi who said sorry" until he died in 1981.
The biggest thing worth noting though is that not a single one of the 21 accused at Nuremberg raised your complaint in their defenses. There were the occasional grumbling about jurisdiction, but nobody tried to say they couldn't be tried for what they did as these things were legal at the time they were done (and definitely legal in the country they were done in).
Instead virtually all of them based their defense on trying to deny it ever happened. Goehring repeatedly claimed that every one of the orders, memos and laws cited as evidence that the holocaust was planned under orders from the upper echelons were plans for "emigration not extermination".
I would agree that trying somebody for something which wasn't a crime when done, is not something a free government gets to do. Trying somebody for something he did in a country where it is legal to do it is also not something that a free government should be allowed to do.
But trying members of a government, for their actions while in a position of authority - by a coalition of other governments is a different matter and a lot of the presumptions you raise are less applicable there.
You must remember that free nations hugely hamstring their prosecutors in trials, all to balance the scales between a powerful state and a weak individual to ensure a fair outcome.
When the government however is the defendant, that imbalance no longer exists to the same degree and so a fair trial doesn't require the same level of hamstringing.
Also note that the jurisdictional issue would apply to the Hague in the same way if it was taken to apply here.
The free world decided, as a direct consequence of the holocaust, that governments and the leaders within them are held to a higher standard than their citizens and can be tried for crimes where citizens could not.I don't think that is unfair.
When you accept a position of power, you accept the risks that come with it. Which is one reason I am so strongly in favor of ending slap-on-the-wrist fines for corporate crimes. Punish the CEO as if he had personally done the deed. If the company dumped toxins in some town's water - charge the CEO with 5000 counts of murder and attempted murder and have him serve 5000 concurrent life sentences. "I didn't know" should not be a defense either.
He accepted the massive remuneration and perks of CEO - he must accept responsibility for the legality of the actions of the entire company. It's his JOB to have known. If he goes to prison regardless, then suddenly he is incentivized to make damn sure he knows what's happening and stop evil things before they happen.
>What makes you think he'd not get a fair trial in the US?
The fact that there is no public-interest defense for federal whistle blowers (despite the fact that the need for one is a blatantly obvious self-evident truth) is enough to make it absolutely impossible to *give* him a fair trial no matter how good the intentions of the government or even the judge may be.