Could you "where's the money" people please, please, please stop? If you actually care about the budget that much, you should already be aware that the amount needed for a good space program is minuscule compaed to the problem you're trying to fix by not spending it. You should also be aware that no matter what we use all the fake money for, our government is hell-bent on "solving" that problem by kicking it down the road until it becomes a hyperinflation spiral in about 2030, and they decided they were going to do that decades ago. It will happen regardless of whether or not we have a space program. The budget is a huge problem, and we all wish on our uncaring little stars it could ever be fixed, but for the love of god, Montressor, let this country go out with a bang! We need to go to space before it all turns to shit!
I am hella certain this will actually change something and is not just something he said so he could keep being "the cool president." He most def won't take actions in the future that are directly counter to this goal. Also, we should have cold fusion in about a month.
Actually, anything that screws Monsanto will greatly benefit the communities eating their products taking any view longer than about a week and a half. If there is any corp that can be rightly described as pure evil far beyond what is necessary to just make a profit, it's that one.
Given the existence of the Jedi religion, the White House's statement that the Force is powerful is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. *folds arms*
You need to complete this thought, guy. An independent artist with a quite limited travel budget is trying to figure out where to perform next. If she has data on where there are large numbers of her fans, she can have more successful shows, allowing her to put on more shows and continue creating, thus benefiting her fanbase. Successful artistry is not a parasitic relationship unless you're some kind of objectivist robot.
This post, and the entire thread it's spawned, seems like a perfect example of what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of ownership of information. Something as very basic as "who wants this stuff" is information that would help every business and consumer in the entire chain if it were released publicly, but that doesn't happen, because every single business and consumer in the chain wrongly, stupidly, and greedily claims that it is theirs and nobody can use it if they don't get a cut. Nearly everyone involved in this industry works as hard as they can to screw themselves over, all because they want to be paid for something that literally everybody has a reasonable claim to.
Your ability to not-read what I wrote and still read a whole bunch of extra words into it is a truly astonishing talent. I can tell that you didn't really read it due to one simple error: when I talked about self-defense, you failed to notice that I said nothing else has a "he started it" defense. With the exception of "fighting words," which is a very weak defense where it exists, and defense of property, which is explicitly not a defense in more backward locales, everything you mentioned in your tirade was a sub-set of self-defense. So, my statement stands. There is nothing criminal, except for violence, which becomes legal when somebody else does it to you. The fact that I addressed some entirely morally defensible uses of force which would, in some areas, be illegal, should've tipped you off that I'm on your side of that debate, which remains largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Perhaps people who are actually pacifist idiots would listen to you more often if you weren't such a zealot that it impaired your reading comprehension.
Of course it isn't. The only time something that's normally a crime isn't is when violence is self-defense. Absolutely nothing else in our system of law has a "he started it" defense. Leaving aside that no judge is going to accept that hacking is violence without legislative action that will never happen, the normal standards of self-defense could still never apply. Given that you can't know you've been hacked until after it's done, it would instead be retaliatory, which is naughty.
Some people above are debating whether stealing stolen stuff is a crime. The answer is: it's not stealing. That is still your stuff. If somebody grabs your shit right off your person, that's also assault, so you're free to tackle them to get it back. If they steal it off a table or something, you might have more of a problem; you're still not stealing, but depending on where you live and whether the prosecutor's got a bug up his ass, using force to retrieve your stuff might get you in trouble. Same for carjacking your stolen car, and if you don't somehow do it the same time it happens to you, I imagine using a gun like that would at least get you arrested anywhere, in court anywhere but Texas, and convicted anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line.
The larger point here: hacking is not exactly the same as assault, theft, or trespass, and applying the same logic to it is something almost any good judge would refuse to do for fear of unintended consequences. For instance: since you don't know who's hacking you until you've checked them out, if you counter-hack them, you might wind up hacking the police. That's kind of a good thing from a civil rights standpoint, as it means they are on the same level as us, bound by the same natural consequences of their actions, but hacking the police would only be legal in a goddamn utopia. Furthermore, counter-hacking might theoretically lead you to the wrong person if you're not as skilled as your attacker. While this is not the reason trespass is illegal, one can easily imagine trying to steal your stuff back and getting the wrong house, and that's when you're looking for a physical location which you know is associated with a specific person. With counter-hacking, you're looking for a computer somewhere which may or may not belong to your attacker which may or may not have PID stored that is legitimately associated with said bastard.
So, the whole argument boils down to this: hacking is hacking. It is not other activities, and cannot be usefully treated as similar to other crimes. The closest other thing is wiretapping, and nobody asks if it's okay to do that in a retaliatory fashion. Because of historical computer culture stuff, it might be argued that hacking shouldn't always be illegal, but currently it is, so that is the very obvious answer to the original question of this article. They should've been asking "should counter-hacking be legal," and because of the potential for harm to uninvolved third parties, I am kind of surprised to find myself saying that it should definitely not be. Counter-hacking should never happen without a warrant, and evidence gathered by it needs to be scrutinized very closely to make sure the right guy is caught.
I present People's Exhibit A showing why everyone thinks open-source zealots are completely nanners.
The only time I've ever felt oppressed by things MS does is when they do their idiotic "version-specific upgrade" thing, and when they do that, I can always just wait for the next iteration of Windows that doesn't suck. Office in particular is probably MS's best product, and definitely the best of its kind. Anytime I've ever tried to use something that is not Word or Excel, which is frequently because I am poor, I have felt nearly imprisoned by the poor interface, missing functionality, and lack of anyone else to ask when I can't figure something out.
It's good that FOSS exists, because competition is important, libre projects lower the barrier-to-entry for aspiring devs, and computers are important enough that gratis options should be available. However, demanding that others use an objectively inferior product on the ideological basis of opposing the industry standard's producer for the cardinal sin of being and acting like a business is much more like what I'd call "oppression." People don't use OpenOffice because it sucks. Leave them alone.
Did the communication minister of Gabon seriously put quotation marks around the official stated intent of his actions? Have we truly reached the era of unapologetically naked horseshit?
God forbid this be treated as anything other than a zero sum game, or that we focus more on the detrimental effects than some weird standards of biological fairness.
Whenever you talk about religion, you are blatantly dismissive and intellectually dishonest. You support your position that rationality and subjectivity are mutually exclusive by disallowing anyone who could competently refute your arguments from being in the same public discussion as you. In this way, your opinions on spiritual belief are about as valuable as those of the average snake handler.
Why would anyone who is not already on your side want to hear what you have to say about religion?
In a game that is the diametric opposite of class, a fan lost to cancer was memorialized in a way that is actually pretty touching. Working on the premise that this should be somebody the player is happy to see, unlike the majority of the cast, whenever he's around, he chats with you and gives you a really excellent gift.
The thing you're making probably doesn't have that kind of scope, but the basic idea is this: if you want to pay your respects in code, don't bury it or put it at the end of a credits list. Pick something about your program that aids ease of use or enjoyment, and put her there somehow. Make people happy your grandma is around.
This is exactly the kind of response I'm calling bullshit on. There's a vast array of approaches between "copy all this garbage down" and "stop drowning." I've done programming before. There is not some divine inspiration that you have to find for yourself through meditation.
Programmers: you're not goddamn wizards. People think you are mostly because you're intentionally poor teachers. Quit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you "where's the money" people please, please, please stop? If you actually care about the budget that much, you should already be aware that the amount needed for a good space program is minuscule compaed to the problem you're trying to fix by not spending it. You should also be aware that no matter what we use all the fake money for, our government is hell-bent on "solving" that problem by kicking it down the road until it becomes a hyperinflation spiral in about 2030, and they decided they were going to do that decades ago. It will happen regardless of whether or not we have a space program. The budget is a huge problem, and we all wish on our uncaring little stars it could ever be fixed, but for the love of god, Montressor, let this country go out with a bang! We need to go to space before it all turns to shit!
I am hella certain this will actually change something and is not just something he said so he could keep being "the cool president." He most def won't take actions in the future that are directly counter to this goal. Also, we should have cold fusion in about a month.
It was thrown down a well years ago. This kind of class just makes the fact more publicly visible.
Google isn't helping me: what is the significance of "Clayton's medal?" Can you show me something to read about this?
Somebody in the real (i.e., appointed) government has said something that large corporations will not like.
I give it three days before they're fired.
Are you telling me Google can't afford tau million dollars?
I mean, he'd probably just say "excellent, give 'em all fuckin' lollipops."
Actually, anything that screws Monsanto will greatly benefit the communities eating their products taking any view longer than about a week and a half. If there is any corp that can be rightly described as pure evil far beyond what is necessary to just make a profit, it's that one.
Is this worse than the race of strippers with head-tails, or pretty much the same?
Let's raise $10k to get 100 people to send Zuckerberg GNAA spam.
Given the existence of the Jedi religion, the White House's statement that the Force is powerful is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. *folds arms*
He should legally change his name to Carmen Sandiego.
"Only a hundred thousand? Come on, you can do better than that."
You need to complete this thought, guy. An independent artist with a quite limited travel budget is trying to figure out where to perform next. If she has data on where there are large numbers of her fans, she can have more successful shows, allowing her to put on more shows and continue creating, thus benefiting her fanbase. Successful artistry is not a parasitic relationship unless you're some kind of objectivist robot.
This post, and the entire thread it's spawned, seems like a perfect example of what is fundamentally wrong with the idea of ownership of information. Something as very basic as "who wants this stuff" is information that would help every business and consumer in the entire chain if it were released publicly, but that doesn't happen, because every single business and consumer in the chain wrongly, stupidly, and greedily claims that it is theirs and nobody can use it if they don't get a cut. Nearly everyone involved in this industry works as hard as they can to screw themselves over, all because they want to be paid for something that literally everybody has a reasonable claim to.
Your ability to not-read what I wrote and still read a whole bunch of extra words into it is a truly astonishing talent. I can tell that you didn't really read it due to one simple error: when I talked about self-defense, you failed to notice that I said nothing else has a "he started it" defense. With the exception of "fighting words," which is a very weak defense where it exists, and defense of property, which is explicitly not a defense in more backward locales, everything you mentioned in your tirade was a sub-set of self-defense. So, my statement stands. There is nothing criminal, except for violence, which becomes legal when somebody else does it to you. The fact that I addressed some entirely morally defensible uses of force which would, in some areas, be illegal, should've tipped you off that I'm on your side of that debate, which remains largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Perhaps people who are actually pacifist idiots would listen to you more often if you weren't such a zealot that it impaired your reading comprehension.
Of course it isn't. The only time something that's normally a crime isn't is when violence is self-defense. Absolutely nothing else in our system of law has a "he started it" defense. Leaving aside that no judge is going to accept that hacking is violence without legislative action that will never happen, the normal standards of self-defense could still never apply. Given that you can't know you've been hacked until after it's done, it would instead be retaliatory, which is naughty.
Some people above are debating whether stealing stolen stuff is a crime. The answer is: it's not stealing. That is still your stuff. If somebody grabs your shit right off your person, that's also assault, so you're free to tackle them to get it back. If they steal it off a table or something, you might have more of a problem; you're still not stealing, but depending on where you live and whether the prosecutor's got a bug up his ass, using force to retrieve your stuff might get you in trouble. Same for carjacking your stolen car, and if you don't somehow do it the same time it happens to you, I imagine using a gun like that would at least get you arrested anywhere, in court anywhere but Texas, and convicted anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line.
The larger point here: hacking is not exactly the same as assault, theft, or trespass, and applying the same logic to it is something almost any good judge would refuse to do for fear of unintended consequences. For instance: since you don't know who's hacking you until you've checked them out, if you counter-hack them, you might wind up hacking the police. That's kind of a good thing from a civil rights standpoint, as it means they are on the same level as us, bound by the same natural consequences of their actions, but hacking the police would only be legal in a goddamn utopia. Furthermore, counter-hacking might theoretically lead you to the wrong person if you're not as skilled as your attacker. While this is not the reason trespass is illegal, one can easily imagine trying to steal your stuff back and getting the wrong house, and that's when you're looking for a physical location which you know is associated with a specific person. With counter-hacking, you're looking for a computer somewhere which may or may not belong to your attacker which may or may not have PID stored that is legitimately associated with said bastard.
So, the whole argument boils down to this: hacking is hacking. It is not other activities, and cannot be usefully treated as similar to other crimes. The closest other thing is wiretapping, and nobody asks if it's okay to do that in a retaliatory fashion. Because of historical computer culture stuff, it might be argued that hacking shouldn't always be illegal, but currently it is, so that is the very obvious answer to the original question of this article. They should've been asking "should counter-hacking be legal," and because of the potential for harm to uninvolved third parties, I am kind of surprised to find myself saying that it should definitely not be. Counter-hacking should never happen without a warrant, and evidence gathered by it needs to be scrutinized very closely to make sure the right guy is caught.
"the yoke of MS oppression"
I present People's Exhibit A showing why everyone thinks open-source zealots are completely nanners.
The only time I've ever felt oppressed by things MS does is when they do their idiotic "version-specific upgrade" thing, and when they do that, I can always just wait for the next iteration of Windows that doesn't suck. Office in particular is probably MS's best product, and definitely the best of its kind. Anytime I've ever tried to use something that is not Word or Excel, which is frequently because I am poor, I have felt nearly imprisoned by the poor interface, missing functionality, and lack of anyone else to ask when I can't figure something out.
It's good that FOSS exists, because competition is important, libre projects lower the barrier-to-entry for aspiring devs, and computers are important enough that gratis options should be available. However, demanding that others use an objectively inferior product on the ideological basis of opposing the industry standard's producer for the cardinal sin of being and acting like a business is much more like what I'd call "oppression." People don't use OpenOffice because it sucks. Leave them alone.
Ready the Downfall parodies.
:|
Did the communication minister of Gabon seriously put quotation marks around the official stated intent of his actions? Have we truly reached the era of unapologetically naked horseshit?
I'm on bluesnews, right? This is an announcement for another Resident Evil game?
God forbid this be treated as anything other than a zero sum game, or that we focus more on the detrimental effects than some weird standards of biological fairness.
Whenever you talk about religion, you are blatantly dismissive and intellectually dishonest. You support your position that rationality and subjectivity are mutually exclusive by disallowing anyone who could competently refute your arguments from being in the same public discussion as you. In this way, your opinions on spiritual belief are about as valuable as those of the average snake handler.
Why would anyone who is not already on your side want to hear what you have to say about religion?
Michael Mamaril
In a game that is the diametric opposite of class, a fan lost to cancer was memorialized in a way that is actually pretty touching. Working on the premise that this should be somebody the player is happy to see, unlike the majority of the cast, whenever he's around, he chats with you and gives you a really excellent gift.
The thing you're making probably doesn't have that kind of scope, but the basic idea is this: if you want to pay your respects in code, don't bury it or put it at the end of a credits list. Pick something about your program that aids ease of use or enjoyment, and put her there somehow. Make people happy your grandma is around.
This is exactly the kind of response I'm calling bullshit on. There's a vast array of approaches between "copy all this garbage down" and "stop drowning." I've done programming before. There is not some divine inspiration that you have to find for yourself through meditation.
Programmers: you're not goddamn wizards. People think you are mostly because you're intentionally poor teachers. Quit it.