Are you a moron? Of course nobody is going to carefully pour the liquid from bottle labeled 'explosives' while cackling evilly. Somebody dropping bottle of booze because somebody bumped into him at airport entrance will not raise any suspicion.
I wonder how much of your user base blames you instead. After all other ISPs used by their friends never notice them about infections, so obviously your security sucks if you allow this many viruses through.
why would we need an operator for zapping someone with a GPS tag? if they're out of the house past curfew, then it could be set to auto zap briefly every 5 minutes till they get their ass home. simple.
New cool entartainment: chain tagged guy to a fence, wait until curfew and watch him perform breakdance to the rhythm of electric shocks.
I know that. However harsh punishment for especially vile crimes is necessary to satisfy sense of justice.
Selling people a sense of justice is no substitute for providing actual justice.
Substitute? No, you need both.
There are many types of criminals - those who have psychological problems and still can be helped. Others who could have been helped, if their problems were noticed at earlier stage. And those who commit crimes because they just don't care about anybody else and lack anything resembling conscience. How exactly would you help them?
I would begin by avoiding the creation of a false dichotomy that permits discarding anyone out of hand.
Who says anything about discarding out of hand? It is obvious that every case should be considered separately.
I don't propose that the dangerous be permitted to roam the streets, but I reject the notion that we can write people off and put them in a box and forget about them and simultaneously call ourselves civilized.
So what do you propose in case of those who cannot be mentally 'fixed' ? Not death penalty I hope.
Perhaps I'm trying to make that word mean things that it doesn't. It has been said that civilization means the art of living in cities. Perhaps the word I want is civil.
Don't misunderstand me - I am all for helping whoever can still be helped and reintegrating them into society. However until you are declared mentally incompetent, you have still have personal responsibility for your actions, so element of punishment proportional to crime is also necessary.
That is true because we have said it is true, or perhaps permitted those who speak for us to say it is true.
You don't feel responsible for your actions?
Who is served when we knowingly create hardened criminals?
Who is served by system when you can do whatever you damn please and then blame 'the system' for everything?
Either I misunderstand your words or you are arguing extreme idea that every crime is proof of some fixable mental problem.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.
I know that. However harsh punishment for especially vile crimes is necessary to satisfy sense of justice. If people stop believing in justice system, it is back to lynch mobs and personal revenge.
The act of punishment, which in the modern world means incarceration in most cases, leads to further crime.
Perhaps we should be trying to help people instead of locking them in a box,
There are many types of criminals - those who have psychological problems and still can be helped. Others who could have been helped, if their problems were noticed at earlier stage. And those who commit crimes because they just don't care about anybody else and lack anything resembling conscience. How exactly would you help them?
Don't misunderstand me - I am all for helping whoever can still be helped and reintegrating them into society. However until you are declared mentally incompetent, you have still have personal responsibility for your actions, so element of punishment proportional to crime is also necessary.
or in countries like the USA, a rape factory.
Well, USA is rather extreme case among developed countries.
The US Government plays dirty when you expose their secrets
Insightful? There ought to be a "stupidly obvious" moderation. ALL governments play dirty. It's what they do: people in power like to stay in power, and that's hard to do when your dirty laundry is hanging out.
My question to you is: why pick on the U.S.? If there's some shenanigans going on over there, it's obviously with the collusion of the Swedish Government.
Why obviously?
Why aren't you pointing that out as well? Or are you just America-bashing to buy a few cheap mod points?
Well, there was no saber-rattling in Assange's general direction from any other government recently.
Grow up. Julian Assange has been playing a very dangerous game for a very long time, and has thoroughly pissed off a lot of powerful people over the years. In fact, odds are the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and someone else is using this opportunity to take him down and allow stupid people to assume the United States did it.
Or, he really did rape someone. I don't know enough about the man to know if that's even possible.
That's the problem with 'us vs them' thinking. He is a good guy so obviously he would never do anything like that. Kinda like Reiser case as others already noticed.
But your bland assumption that the United States Federal Government was involved doesn't hold water. Put it this way: if it does come out that someone in our government was responsible (and it would have to have been a fairly highly-placed someone to have the authority to influence a foreign power's law enforcement) the political fallout would be huge. Hard to justify after the fact, given that the damage has already been done.
Huge? Really? After revelations about US government torturing POWs (excuse me, "illegal enemy combatants") first appeared, I expected political earthquake - impeachment, war crimes charges, etc. And what actually happened? Almost nothing. What is framing one guy in comparision?
Besides, if he were that big a threat we'd have just had him killed and been done with it. A couple of phone calls to Langley and we'd be discussing his obituary.
American agents murdering people in Sweden could actually cause some fallout.
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
And when someone is forced out by rumour and accusation, why do you think their successor will fare any better?
I don't. But it was obvious from the start that Wikileaks is against enemy willing to fight dirty. How to defend? Maybe by not appointing Assange's successor - instead going for completely decentralized structure without any visible point man to attack.
All you've achieved is (a) shown that using such tactics is a great way to get rid of people who cause you problems and
I think that real target is Wikileaks itself, so as long as its credibility is not destroyed, attack was a failure. Forcing Assange out does not really solve anything.
(b) fucked up someone's life when they're the person that admitted guilt by leaving their job because of rape accusations.
With good smear campaign it really does not matter if he admits anything or not. But let's not forget another possibility - that he is actually a rapist and there is no character assassination going on. Wikileaks publishes stuff quite frequently, so any timing for rape accusation would be suspicious.
Say the US secret services wanted to get the WikiLeaks founder locked. Why not do something much simpler like planting child pornography on one of his computers?
Because this is what everybody expected. Quite a lot of people are aware how easy is to plant something.
These rape and harassment charges are trickier to fabricate. Remember, this is not the 19th century, there is plenty of forensic muscle in existence that can prove or disprove rape. And in the northern countries, criminal prosecutors are rather level-headed, and if no crime was committed, it will be known. And if crime was committed, it will be known, too.
It is much harder, but it also makes much better character assassination. People start wondering if he was framed? Release interview with a victim and watch mob forget all about Wikileaks angle. Also journalists will avoid questioning truth of that woman statements without very solid proof - unless they want to be on top of every victim's rights group shit list.
if he's acquitted on the other hand, well... let's just say it might not be wise to have a man suspected of rape and harassment to be handling leaks.
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
Or you will lose your camera along with several teeth. Then get charged with assaulting police officer and resisting arrest. I agree, overall positive.
Here comes the linux defenders, who will defend linux even when it doesnt need defending.
Submitter of this story wants to change some stuff, which is his right under GPL but cannot because the company ignores it. Clearly it needs defending in this case.
You know, just grow up. 'OMG! Real company is using my stuff! Someone noticed me!' is good stance basement-dwelling nerds and BSD developers. In real world contracts and licenses matter.
The point is that its bad 'press'.. that may, or may not, be a 'problem'... it is, however, true.
Its bad press because
if such a lawsuit lost, then vendors have a clear path to using Linux while also not allowing modification.
If there are doubts about GPL being enforceable, then it is time to move to different license ASAP.
if such a lawsuit won, then vendors would never be able to use custom-but-for-hire solutions again which translates into never using linux again.
And this is a problem because... ? GPL comes with set of rules. If company does not like them, then tough, find something else with more company-friendly license or spend the money to write your own software. There is no God-given right to profit on someone else work.
WTF? Making a company comply with a license gives "bad press" ? I think that current way (asking, nagging, offering help, refusing to take any serious step) is worse - it promotes idea that GPL and other free licenses don't really matter - you can ignore them all you want and in worst case they can string along the community by releasing small bits and "discussing the situation" until the product becomes obsolete anyway.
OTOH an offer to cooperate with freeing up the firmware? Sign an NDA on a tool-set for the company, then release a free version.
Sure. Why not become unpaid employee. It is the company's responsibility. If they are incapable of understanding license of software they distribute, then maybe it is time to fire (and sue for damages) their lawyers.
Simply reverse-engineer it with manufacturer's cooperation, access to docs and tools, then "hack" it in a blessed way that doesn't violate the company's licenses and complies with GPL. I'm sure they would be glad if someone helped them comply with GPL instead of forcing them to do it themselves.
Well, they did not comply with the license, so it has been automatically revoked, isn't that right?
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting, but it is easy to come up with dozen theories how current practices of TSA might not work and yet they use them.
Are you a moron? Of course nobody is going to carefully pour the liquid from bottle labeled 'explosives' while cackling evilly. Somebody dropping bottle of booze because somebody bumped into him at airport entrance will not raise any suspicion.
Or about performance?
It just have to be shiny and with apple logo. The rest does not matter.
And police cannot obtain calls record from cell company?
I wonder how much of your user base blames you instead. After all other ISPs used by their friends never notice them about infections, so obviously your security sucks if you allow this many viruses through.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Sure. Judge actually using OpenOffice would be newsworthy here.
Instinct I guess. Humanity would have gone extinct long time ago if parents routinely became sadistic and cruel to their own spawn.
why would we need an operator for zapping someone with a GPS tag? if they're out of the house past curfew, then it could be set to auto zap briefly every 5 minutes till they get their ass home. simple.
New cool entartainment: chain tagged guy to a fence, wait until curfew and watch him perform breakdance to the rhythm of electric shocks.
I know that. However harsh punishment for especially vile crimes is necessary to satisfy sense of justice.
Selling people a sense of justice is no substitute for providing actual justice.
Substitute? No, you need both.
There are many types of criminals - those who have psychological problems and still can be helped. Others who could have been helped, if their problems were noticed at earlier stage. And those who commit crimes because they just don't care about anybody else and lack anything resembling conscience. How exactly would you help them?
I would begin by avoiding the creation of a false dichotomy that permits discarding anyone out of hand.
Who says anything about discarding out of hand? It is obvious that every case should be considered separately.
I don't propose that the dangerous be permitted to roam the streets, but I reject the notion that we can write people off and put them in a box and forget about them and simultaneously call ourselves civilized.
So what do you propose in case of those who cannot be mentally 'fixed' ? Not death penalty I hope.
Perhaps I'm trying to make that word mean things that it doesn't. It has been said that civilization means the art of living in cities. Perhaps the word I want is civil.
Don't misunderstand me - I am all for helping whoever can still be helped and reintegrating them into society. However until you are declared mentally incompetent, you have still have personal responsibility for your actions, so element of punishment proportional to crime is also necessary.
That is true because we have said it is true, or perhaps permitted those who speak for us to say it is true.
You don't feel responsible for your actions?
Who is served when we knowingly create hardened criminals?
Who is served by system when you can do whatever you damn please and then blame 'the system' for everything?
Either I misunderstand your words or you are arguing extreme idea that every crime is proof of some fixable mental problem.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
The threat of punishment does not deter most criminals, who believe they will not be caught, or who are committing a crime of passion.
I know that. However harsh punishment for especially vile crimes is necessary to satisfy sense of justice. If people stop believing in justice system, it is back to lynch mobs and personal revenge.
The act of punishment, which in the modern world means incarceration in most cases, leads to further crime.
Perhaps we should be trying to help people instead of locking them in a box,
There are many types of criminals - those who have psychological problems and still can be helped. Others who could have been helped, if their problems were noticed at earlier stage. And those who commit crimes because they just don't care about anybody else and lack anything resembling conscience. How exactly would you help them?
Don't misunderstand me - I am all for helping whoever can still be helped and reintegrating them into society. However until you are declared mentally incompetent, you have still have personal responsibility for your actions, so element of punishment proportional to crime is also necessary.
or in countries like the USA, a rape factory.
Well, USA is rather extreme case among developed countries.
The US Government plays dirty when you expose their secrets
Insightful? There ought to be a "stupidly obvious" moderation. ALL governments play dirty. It's what they do: people in power like to stay in power, and that's hard to do when your dirty laundry is hanging out. My question to you is: why pick on the U.S.? If there's some shenanigans going on over there, it's obviously with the collusion of the Swedish Government.
Why obviously?
Why aren't you pointing that out as well? Or are you just America-bashing to buy a few cheap mod points?
Well, there was no saber-rattling in Assange's general direction from any other government recently.
Grow up. Julian Assange has been playing a very dangerous game for a very long time, and has thoroughly pissed off a lot of powerful people over the years. In fact, odds are the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and someone else is using this opportunity to take him down and allow stupid people to assume the United States did it. Or, he really did rape someone. I don't know enough about the man to know if that's even possible.
That's the problem with 'us vs them' thinking. He is a good guy so obviously he would never do anything like that. Kinda like Reiser case as others already noticed.
But your bland assumption that the United States Federal Government was involved doesn't hold water. Put it this way: if it does come out that someone in our government was responsible (and it would have to have been a fairly highly-placed someone to have the authority to influence a foreign power's law enforcement) the political fallout would be huge. Hard to justify after the fact, given that the damage has already been done.
Huge? Really? After revelations about US government torturing POWs (excuse me, "illegal enemy combatants") first appeared, I expected political earthquake - impeachment, war crimes charges, etc. And what actually happened? Almost nothing. What is framing one guy in comparision?
Besides, if he were that big a threat we'd have just had him killed and been done with it. A couple of phone calls to Langley and we'd be discussing his obituary.
American agents murdering people in Sweden could actually cause some fallout.
How exactly rape committed in Sweden by Australian citizen would get him shipped to USA?
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
And when someone is forced out by rumour and accusation, why do you think their successor will fare any better?
I don't. But it was obvious from the start that Wikileaks is against enemy willing to fight dirty. How to defend? Maybe by not appointing Assange's successor - instead going for completely decentralized structure without any visible point man to attack.
All you've achieved is (a) shown that using such tactics is a great way to get rid of people who cause you problems and
I think that real target is Wikileaks itself, so as long as its credibility is not destroyed, attack was a failure. Forcing Assange out does not really solve anything.
(b) fucked up someone's life when they're the person that admitted guilt by leaving their job because of rape accusations.
With good smear campaign it really does not matter if he admits anything or not. But let's not forget another possibility - that he is actually a rapist and there is no character assassination going on. Wikileaks publishes stuff quite frequently, so any timing for rape accusation would be suspicious.
Say the US secret services wanted to get the WikiLeaks founder locked. Why not do something much simpler like planting child pornography on one of his computers?
Because this is what everybody expected. Quite a lot of people are aware how easy is to plant something.
These rape and harassment charges are trickier to fabricate. Remember, this is not the 19th century, there is plenty of forensic muscle in existence that can prove or disprove rape. And in the northern countries, criminal prosecutors are rather level-headed, and if no crime was committed, it will be known. And if crime was committed, it will be known, too.
It is much harder, but it also makes much better character assassination. People start wondering if he was framed? Release interview with a victim and watch mob forget all about Wikileaks angle. Also journalists will avoid questioning truth of that woman statements without very solid proof - unless they want to be on top of every victim's rights group shit list.
So basically you're willing to punish him whether he's guilty or not.
This sucks, but in ideal world WikiLeaks would not be even needed. This world is far from ideal and it needs Assange's work more than Assange himself. I am sure that if this becomes actual problem for WikiLeaks, he will step down without being forced to. This is mark of true idealist - being able to swallow injustice and put your cause before your interests.
This kind of shit is why I no longer take any accusation of rape or harassment seriously. It's far too easy to use baseless accusations as weapons, and there are far too many people willing to do just that. And it's people like you who are at fault for that.
Let's not jump between two extremes. Despite it being easy to accuse someone, actual rapes do happen and should be punished harshly.
By the way, I heard that laparel, Slashdot user #930257, is a rapist. No wait, I didn't, but everyone ignore that and mark him as a Foe. After all, he was once "suspected" so it wouldn't be wise to listen to him.
OMG! Phoning home! Spying on users! Probably hidden backdoor! Microsoft, you just proved to be Satan's incarnate. Oh, wait ...
Or Verizon would just redirect www.google.com to www.bing.com
And I sure as hell won't allow them to install any of that stuff here.
What are they going to do if I refuse? Throw me in jail? Fine me? "
No, just disable your internet connection until you do. What's the problem?
[...] whose occupants are exhibiting a pattern of behaviour consistent with drug users.
IANAL
Like being black.
Or you will lose your camera along with several teeth. Then get charged with assaulting police officer and resisting arrest. I agree, overall positive.
And this is a problem because ... ?
Here comes the linux defenders, who will defend linux even when it doesnt need defending.
Submitter of this story wants to change some stuff, which is his right under GPL but cannot because the company ignores it. Clearly it needs defending in this case.
You know, just grow up. 'OMG! Real company is using my stuff! Someone noticed me!' is good stance basement-dwelling nerds and BSD developers. In real world contracts and licenses matter.
The point is that its bad 'press' .. that may, or may not, be a 'problem' ... it is, however, true.
Usually offending party gets bad press.
Its bad press because if such a lawsuit lost, then vendors have a clear path to using Linux while also not allowing modification.
If there are doubts about GPL being enforceable, then it is time to move to different license ASAP.
if such a lawsuit won, then vendors would never be able to use custom-but-for-hire solutions again which translates into never using linux again.
And this is a problem because ... ? GPL comes with set of rules. If company does not like them, then tough, find something else with more company-friendly license or spend the money to write your own software. There is no God-given right to profit on someone else work.
This only adds bad press to Linux.
WTF? Making a company comply with a license gives "bad press" ? I think that current way (asking, nagging, offering help, refusing to take any serious step) is worse - it promotes idea that GPL and other free licenses don't really matter - you can ignore them all you want and in worst case they can string along the community by releasing small bits and "discussing the situation" until the product becomes obsolete anyway.
OTOH an offer to cooperate with freeing up the firmware? Sign an NDA on a tool-set for the company, then release a free version.
Sure. Why not become unpaid employee. It is the company's responsibility. If they are incapable of understanding license of software they distribute, then maybe it is time to fire (and sue for damages) their lawyers.
Simply reverse-engineer it with manufacturer's cooperation, access to docs and tools, then "hack" it in a blessed way that doesn't violate the company's licenses and complies with GPL. I'm sure they would be glad if someone helped them comply with GPL instead of forcing them to do it themselves.
Well, they did not comply with the license, so it has been automatically revoked, isn't that right?
And can you somehow influence it by changing your diet before? If not, then this testing is still useless.