Had they been inundated with phone calls seeking service in a related field to their own field of expertise, then yeah, I can see attempting to expand into that related field.
Making cider and related apple products has squat to do with computer support. The store may or may not have had any personnel who were qualified to work in that unrelated field, but they are certainly not set up to work in that field.
If I ran an auto detail business, and a local aviation mechanic had a similar name to my own business - should I attempt to take some of his business when I get his phone calls? I'll just send the old man who cleans auto engines over to repair the flaps on a Leer Jet? The kid who does such a great job of cleaning inside the door frames can probably take care of the seeming imbalance in the jet turbines. Yeah - that will work!
Zuckerberg has successfully social-engineered about half the people in the US. Social engineering is a hacker skill, isn't it? People fall all over themselves to provide Zuck with their personal details.
There seems to be an assumption that the innocent twin has CONVINCING evidence of his brother's guilt, and/or his own innocence. I might have a butt-ton load of evidence that I'm happy to share, but none of it is convincing. What then?
I'd say that.6 miles is quite a bit, in a parking lot. Try it yourself. Go to your local mall, and drive around among the parked cars and pedestrians..6 mile can be more nerve wracking than 600 highway miles.
Monopoly? Perhaps the term you're looking for is "monoculture". No one has, or is ever likely to gain, a monopoly on Webkit. But, as Webkit grows more popular and pervasive, we could find ourselves with an unhealthy monoculture.
Of course, even that possibility is rather weak, because so many different people, for several different organizations, work on Webkit.
The man handed you a gift. You gonna use it? A simple suicide is pointless. Martyrdom is a whole new ballgame. Look at what the Moslems and the Christian Churches have done with martyrs, down through the centuries.
No - he's NOT the only one to think that way. I think the same way, and my youngest son does. I haven't run a survey or a poll on the subject, but surely there are more than three of us.
Yeah - whatever. I'm no bleeding heart, and I'm not crying myself to sleep at night because Swartz committed suicide.
At the same time, there WERE a bunch of cunts in DOJ who were using him to promote their own careers. He WAS being railroaded. There was nothing right about DOJ's handling of the case.
Whatever else you might say or think about Swartz, on his way out, he handed the hacker community a golden opportunity, and a weapon, to use against the DOJ. Why not use it?
I already mentioned cunts? Maybe you've noticed that cunts in Washington use other people's pain, suffering, and death routinely to further their own ends. Those kids murdered in Connecticut a few weeks ago are being used like rented mules to further the gun control agenda. Turn it around on Washington, for once. Use Swartz to force them to see what despicable cunts they really are!
Lifting detailed engineering prints for our latest thermonuclear weapons, then selling them to Iran or Korea is probably just a little bit worse than a single murder.
Hacking into a "celebrity" email merits something like a peeping tom charge, which is obviously a lot less serious than murder.
Oh, my! "Get the hackers together". Good luck with that. We gots white hats, we gots black hats, we gots grays in various shades - I'll bet if I were to go looking, I could find some fruitcake rainbow hats hiding in their closets. We have so many different motivations for "hacking". We have so many categories of ethics involved. Hackers getting together? Hell, man, even WHITE HAT hackers flirt with existing law, and need to keep their identities secret.
So, who you gonna call? Hack Busters? Hmmmm - I think I have Hack Busters site here somewhere - - - https://www.eff.org/
No need to reinvent the wheel. Let's just maybe redesign it, fund it, and put it on the road. What we need are sane internet laws, and the EFF is in pursuit of that goal already. They may not represent "hackers" specifically, but they are in a position to attract various sorts of hackers.
It would be great if only ten or fifteen percent of "hackers" were to join the EFF, and send small donations. At the same time, they need to make their voices heard, and explain why they are joining. "I'm a part time hacker, and some of the laws scare the shit out of me!" It matters little if the hacker just reverse engineers games for his own use, or he's pen-testing networks without authorization. They are still hackers, and they need protection from draconian nonsense laws.
"Why cherry pick what other people meant just to fit your pet peeve, and to further promote the self fulfilling prophecy of slashdot racing to the bottom?"
Well - someone's got to lead the way, or we might get lost falling downhill to the bottom!
There is never a good reason to vote Democrat - OR Republican.
My vote, this time and last, happened to be for the Democrat. But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
Give us some mainstream, centrist choices, who aren't bought and paid for by corporate interests, then I might vote for that choice. Until then, there is no difference between the parties. The single most important issue in America today, is that idiot "War on Terra". Has Obama attempted to have the Patriot Act repealed? Nope. Has he attempted to reign in Homeland Security? Nope. Has he renounced any of the special powers that the Bush administration pushed for? Nope. Has he fought for internet freedom? Well - sorta. Internet freedom was a great thing when the Arab Spring was blooming, but it's no longer a good political tool, so Obama follows Bush's lead now, pushing for more and more control.
The same corporations own both parties, so there is no reason to vote "for" either one.
Imagine if we had said that a few years ago, when IE6 ruled the market. Without the competition from Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror, among others, do you think Microsoft would have ever improved their browser?
Competition is good. I happen to like Webkit, but I'm not looking forward to a world in which EVERYONE uses webkit. Someone needs to be odd man out, doing things differently, and looking for "the next big thing" in web browsers.
Personally, I don't want an all-in-one. But, some people don't want to switch between applications. They just want to move from one tab to another. That's cool, I guess. I'm far more comfortable with separate applications, almost always spread between several virtual desktops. The wife, on the other hand, has never used virtual desktops, and seldom switches between applications. She's a better multi-tasker than I am, in real life, but on the computer, hang it up. One window, one desktop, one app. She'll create an insane number of tabs in Firefox, but it's all in Firefox.
1. I don't do the "once upon a time" thing. You're dismissing the possibility of making any convincing arguments for or against any position, by dismissing historical data.
2. So, you see no difference between personal weapons and so-called "weapons of mass destruction"? You're going to use the possible possession of tanks to present an argument against rifles, pistols, knives, rocks, etc? Preposterous. I subscribe to the portion of the second amendment which refers to a "well regulated militia". That doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means. See, every single male between the ages of 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA! Gun ownership proponents argue with me, when I insist that we should be WELL REGULATED. We, the militia, have failed to regulate ourselves. For that reason, I approve of background checks, I approve of restrictions on the sale of weapons, I approve of sensible laws requiring weapons to be secured. I DO NOT approve of depriving members of the militia of lawful ownership of weapons.
3. You admit that you're not qualified to judge competence with weapons - yet you have opinions on the subject? That's democracy for you . . .
4. Training is not a legal requirement? Huh? WTF? To get a driver's license, you must demonstrate competence to drive a vehicle. You're not interested in making competence a requirement to own a weapon? See above - a well regulated militia isn't going to hand over weapons to personnel who are unqualified to handle them. Such as, a grenade launcher. (note that the competence level required to get a driver's license is absolute minimum already - most drivers on the road are incompetent by any reasonable standards)
5. Burden of proof? Police departments use weapons that civilians have no need for? You're missing the point. The second amendment was meant to guarantee that the government DID NOT OUTCLASS THE PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS!! That police department should not have grenades, flashbombs, etc, unless the population is also permitted to own those weapons. Don't want those potential weapons of mass destruction in use in your neighborhood? Then take them from the government, as well.
Finally, I ask a question. Where do the most violent deaths occur, in the United States? Where are the most people shot to death?
I will answer that question for you. Those deaths occur mostly in cities which have imposed the most stringent gun control laws. New York and Chicago lead the list. Passing ever more restrictive gun control laws do not solve the problems that you are attempting to solve. Statistics prove that.
How do you define insanity? A very famous, very intelligent person defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results. We have proven that gun control ultimately promotes lawlessness. It's proven. The history is available for those who are willing to look at the numbers, and analyze them unemotionally.
When a city or region passes strict gun control laws, crime statistics immediately go higher. When a city or region relaxes gun control laws, crime statistics DROP!
I'll repeat an oft repeated phrase: an armed society is a polite society.
Can you tell us exactly when the government started training programs and academies for truck drivers? And, can you tell us how men and women learned to drive big trucks before that date? HINT: My own first three driver's licenses had zero restrictions on them. None. Such restrictions did not exist, there were no Class A, Class D, or Class M drivers licenses. Obviously, then, that date is within living memory.
(There WAS a "chauffer's license" available then, which was required for persons who drove "professionally" - taxi drivers, couriers, truck drivers, all lumped together.)
If you can answer my above questions, can you tell me WHY the government decided to do all these training programs for truck drivers? Give us the politics behind it, not the publicized rationalizations, please.
Okay, now, if you've wrapped your mind around all of that, let's take a look at firearms. Let's forget about grenade launchers and shoulder launched rockets and missiles. Let's not include any explosive weapons, but restrict ourselves to ballistic weapons, that are cartridge fed, and not crew served.
How much "training" do you think it takes to be competent to handle them? (as opposed to below) How much do you think it takes to reach a novice level on them? How much do you think it takes to become competent to use them? How much "training" is required to become proficient to use any of these weapons?
My own training exceeds that of most police officers on any class of such personal weapons and sidearms. There are literally millions of American citizens who can say the same.
I'm sorry, but you have failed to make any valid justification for your local policeman to have weapons that I cannot have legal access to.
No, what's obvious is, the police wish to differentiate themselves from regular citizens. And, citizens permit this to happen. I have never talked to a policeman, or permitted a policeman to talk to me, as anything but an equal. Do you permit a cop to talk down to you?
So - you're in favor of allowing psychotics, manic depressives, and violent convicts to have weapons? Really? Such people shouldn't even be permitted to drive cars.
Connecting these gadgets to the internet is the short sighted "solution", which has caused more problems than it solved.
When building infrastructure, isn't it more intelligent to build the INFRASTRUCTURE? Run a wire out to the gadget, directly from the control station!! Not wireless, but a wire!
Did you read TFA? There was not one sentence in the proposed law that could be construed to protect children from predators. The only reference to predators was in the title of the bill.
I can title a bill as "A bill to provide for Anonymous Coward in his old age"
Then, I can fill the bill with demands to have total access to all the information on Anonymous Coward, including his IP address, posting record, referral data, every single bit of data that slashdot or any other site maintains. All of the verbiage in the bill is designed to identify you, then prosecute you for posts that I don't like. But, I TITLED it as something GOOD for AC, so you would be a douchebag to oppose the bill, right?
You're claiming that it takes more mechanical, communication, medical, electronics, and other support personnel to keep an unmanned craft in the air, than it takes to keep a piloted helicopter in the air?
I call bullshit. If the drones cost MORE, overall, then we wouldn't be seeing them used routinely. People would just hire a helicopter pilot!
Let ME point out, that LAPD are civilians. I get so tired of hearing cops refer to citizens as "civilians". And, when citizens go along with the designation, that only makes it worse.
Veterans and active duty of the armed forces commonly refer to "civilians". Police departments aren't veterans, and they employ relatively few veterans. Dorner is a veteran, so he can refer to you as civilians.
To your point - if a civilian cop can have a weapon, then any civilian who is of sound mind, and not a convict, should have access to the same weapons. You are ALL civilians!
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful? Not really, guys.
Had they been inundated with phone calls seeking service in a related field to their own field of expertise, then yeah, I can see attempting to expand into that related field.
Making cider and related apple products has squat to do with computer support. The store may or may not have had any personnel who were qualified to work in that unrelated field, but they are certainly not set up to work in that field.
If I ran an auto detail business, and a local aviation mechanic had a similar name to my own business - should I attempt to take some of his business when I get his phone calls? I'll just send the old man who cleans auto engines over to repair the flaps on a Leer Jet? The kid who does such a great job of cleaning inside the door frames can probably take care of the seeming imbalance in the jet turbines. Yeah - that will work!
Zuckerberg has successfully social-engineered about half the people in the US. Social engineering is a hacker skill, isn't it? People fall all over themselves to provide Zuck with their personal details.
There seems to be an assumption that the innocent twin has CONVINCING evidence of his brother's guilt, and/or his own innocence. I might have a butt-ton load of evidence that I'm happy to share, but none of it is convincing. What then?
I'd say that .6 miles is quite a bit, in a parking lot. Try it yourself. Go to your local mall, and drive around among the parked cars and pedestrians. .6 mile can be more nerve wracking than 600 highway miles.
Monopoly? Perhaps the term you're looking for is "monoculture". No one has, or is ever likely to gain, a monopoly on Webkit. But, as Webkit grows more popular and pervasive, we could find ourselves with an unhealthy monoculture.
Of course, even that possibility is rather weak, because so many different people, for several different organizations, work on Webkit.
The man handed you a gift. You gonna use it? A simple suicide is pointless. Martyrdom is a whole new ballgame. Look at what the Moslems and the Christian Churches have done with martyrs, down through the centuries.
No - he's NOT the only one to think that way. I think the same way, and my youngest son does. I haven't run a survey or a poll on the subject, but surely there are more than three of us.
"And Brazil IS still a "Banana Republic". Do you really think that rich people will ever be arrested for driving drunk?"
If that's your standard, then yes, the United States is still a banana republic.
I don't know if bananas grow in the ME, or not. But, we ain't over there to steal bananas.
Yeah - whatever. I'm no bleeding heart, and I'm not crying myself to sleep at night because Swartz committed suicide.
At the same time, there WERE a bunch of cunts in DOJ who were using him to promote their own careers. He WAS being railroaded. There was nothing right about DOJ's handling of the case.
Whatever else you might say or think about Swartz, on his way out, he handed the hacker community a golden opportunity, and a weapon, to use against the DOJ. Why not use it?
I already mentioned cunts? Maybe you've noticed that cunts in Washington use other people's pain, suffering, and death routinely to further their own ends. Those kids murdered in Connecticut a few weeks ago are being used like rented mules to further the gun control agenda. Turn it around on Washington, for once. Use Swartz to force them to see what despicable cunts they really are!
Depends on the articles.
Lifting detailed engineering prints for our latest thermonuclear weapons, then selling them to Iran or Korea is probably just a little bit worse than a single murder.
Hacking into a "celebrity" email merits something like a peeping tom charge, which is obviously a lot less serious than murder.
Oh, my! "Get the hackers together". Good luck with that. We gots white hats, we gots black hats, we gots grays in various shades - I'll bet if I were to go looking, I could find some fruitcake rainbow hats hiding in their closets. We have so many different motivations for "hacking". We have so many categories of ethics involved. Hackers getting together? Hell, man, even WHITE HAT hackers flirt with existing law, and need to keep their identities secret.
So, who you gonna call? Hack Busters? Hmmmm - I think I have Hack Busters site here somewhere - - - https://www.eff.org/
No need to reinvent the wheel. Let's just maybe redesign it, fund it, and put it on the road. What we need are sane internet laws, and the EFF is in pursuit of that goal already. They may not represent "hackers" specifically, but they are in a position to attract various sorts of hackers.
It would be great if only ten or fifteen percent of "hackers" were to join the EFF, and send small donations. At the same time, they need to make their voices heard, and explain why they are joining. "I'm a part time hacker, and some of the laws scare the shit out of me!" It matters little if the hacker just reverse engineers games for his own use, or he's pen-testing networks without authorization. They are still hackers, and they need protection from draconian nonsense laws.
"Why cherry pick what other people meant just to fit your pet peeve, and to further promote the self fulfilling prophecy of slashdot racing to the bottom?"
Well - someone's got to lead the way, or we might get lost falling downhill to the bottom!
There is never a good reason to vote Democrat - OR Republican.
My vote, this time and last, happened to be for the Democrat. But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
Give us some mainstream, centrist choices, who aren't bought and paid for by corporate interests, then I might vote for that choice. Until then, there is no difference between the parties. The single most important issue in America today, is that idiot "War on Terra". Has Obama attempted to have the Patriot Act repealed? Nope. Has he attempted to reign in Homeland Security? Nope. Has he renounced any of the special powers that the Bush administration pushed for? Nope. Has he fought for internet freedom? Well - sorta. Internet freedom was a great thing when the Arab Spring was blooming, but it's no longer a good political tool, so Obama follows Bush's lead now, pushing for more and more control.
The same corporations own both parties, so there is no reason to vote "for" either one.
Imagine if we had said that a few years ago, when IE6 ruled the market. Without the competition from Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror, among others, do you think Microsoft would have ever improved their browser?
Competition is good. I happen to like Webkit, but I'm not looking forward to a world in which EVERYONE uses webkit. Someone needs to be odd man out, doing things differently, and looking for "the next big thing" in web browsers.
Why an all-in-one?
Personally, I don't want an all-in-one. But, some people don't want to switch between applications. They just want to move from one tab to another. That's cool, I guess. I'm far more comfortable with separate applications, almost always spread between several virtual desktops. The wife, on the other hand, has never used virtual desktops, and seldom switches between applications. She's a better multi-tasker than I am, in real life, but on the computer, hang it up. One window, one desktop, one app. She'll create an insane number of tabs in Firefox, but it's all in Firefox.
1. I don't do the "once upon a time" thing. You're dismissing the possibility of making any convincing arguments for or against any position, by dismissing historical data.
2. So, you see no difference between personal weapons and so-called "weapons of mass destruction"? You're going to use the possible possession of tanks to present an argument against rifles, pistols, knives, rocks, etc? Preposterous. I subscribe to the portion of the second amendment which refers to a "well regulated militia". That doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means. See, every single male between the ages of 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA! Gun ownership proponents argue with me, when I insist that we should be WELL REGULATED. We, the militia, have failed to regulate ourselves. For that reason, I approve of background checks, I approve of restrictions on the sale of weapons, I approve of sensible laws requiring weapons to be secured. I DO NOT approve of depriving members of the militia of lawful ownership of weapons.
3. You admit that you're not qualified to judge competence with weapons - yet you have opinions on the subject? That's democracy for you . . .
4. Training is not a legal requirement? Huh? WTF? To get a driver's license, you must demonstrate competence to drive a vehicle. You're not interested in making competence a requirement to own a weapon? See above - a well regulated militia isn't going to hand over weapons to personnel who are unqualified to handle them. Such as, a grenade launcher. (note that the competence level required to get a driver's license is absolute minimum already - most drivers on the road are incompetent by any reasonable standards)
5. Burden of proof? Police departments use weapons that civilians have no need for? You're missing the point. The second amendment was meant to guarantee that the government DID NOT OUTCLASS THE PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS!! That police department should not have grenades, flashbombs, etc, unless the population is also permitted to own those weapons. Don't want those potential weapons of mass destruction in use in your neighborhood? Then take them from the government, as well.
Finally, I ask a question. Where do the most violent deaths occur, in the United States? Where are the most people shot to death?
I will answer that question for you. Those deaths occur mostly in cities which have imposed the most stringent gun control laws. New York and Chicago lead the list. Passing ever more restrictive gun control laws do not solve the problems that you are attempting to solve. Statistics prove that.
How do you define insanity? A very famous, very intelligent person defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results. We have proven that gun control ultimately promotes lawlessness. It's proven. The history is available for those who are willing to look at the numbers, and analyze them unemotionally.
When a city or region passes strict gun control laws, crime statistics immediately go higher. When a city or region relaxes gun control laws, crime statistics DROP!
I'll repeat an oft repeated phrase: an armed society is a polite society.
Can you tell us exactly when the government started training programs and academies for truck drivers? And, can you tell us how men and women learned to drive big trucks before that date? HINT: My own first three driver's licenses had zero restrictions on them. None. Such restrictions did not exist, there were no Class A, Class D, or Class M drivers licenses. Obviously, then, that date is within living memory.
(There WAS a "chauffer's license" available then, which was required for persons who drove "professionally" - taxi drivers, couriers, truck drivers, all lumped together.)
If you can answer my above questions, can you tell me WHY the government decided to do all these training programs for truck drivers? Give us the politics behind it, not the publicized rationalizations, please.
Okay, now, if you've wrapped your mind around all of that, let's take a look at firearms. Let's forget about grenade launchers and shoulder launched rockets and missiles. Let's not include any explosive weapons, but restrict ourselves to ballistic weapons, that are cartridge fed, and not crew served.
How much "training" do you think it takes to be competent to handle them? (as opposed to below)
How much do you think it takes to reach a novice level on them?
How much do you think it takes to become competent to use them?
How much "training" is required to become proficient to use any of these weapons?
My own training exceeds that of most police officers on any class of such personal weapons and sidearms. There are literally millions of American citizens who can say the same.
I'm sorry, but you have failed to make any valid justification for your local policeman to have weapons that I cannot have legal access to.
No, what's obvious is, the police wish to differentiate themselves from regular citizens. And, citizens permit this to happen. I have never talked to a policeman, or permitted a policeman to talk to me, as anything but an equal. Do you permit a cop to talk down to you?
So - you're in favor of allowing psychotics, manic depressives, and violent convicts to have weapons? Really? Such people shouldn't even be permitted to drive cars.
No, the obverse is true.
Connecting these gadgets to the internet is the short sighted "solution", which has caused more problems than it solved.
When building infrastructure, isn't it more intelligent to build the INFRASTRUCTURE? Run a wire out to the gadget, directly from the control station!! Not wireless, but a wire!
Did you read TFA? There was not one sentence in the proposed law that could be construed to protect children from predators. The only reference to predators was in the title of the bill.
I can title a bill as "A bill to provide for Anonymous Coward in his old age"
Then, I can fill the bill with demands to have total access to all the information on Anonymous Coward, including his IP address, posting record, referral data, every single bit of data that slashdot or any other site maintains. All of the verbiage in the bill is designed to identify you, then prosecute you for posts that I don't like. But, I TITLED it as something GOOD for AC, so you would be a douchebag to oppose the bill, right?
Huh? WTF?
You're claiming that it takes more mechanical, communication, medical, electronics, and other support personnel to keep an unmanned craft in the air, than it takes to keep a piloted helicopter in the air?
I call bullshit. If the drones cost MORE, overall, then we wouldn't be seeing them used routinely. People would just hire a helicopter pilot!
Let ME point out, that LAPD are civilians. I get so tired of hearing cops refer to citizens as "civilians". And, when citizens go along with the designation, that only makes it worse.
Veterans and active duty of the armed forces commonly refer to "civilians". Police departments aren't veterans, and they employ relatively few veterans. Dorner is a veteran, so he can refer to you as civilians.
To your point - if a civilian cop can have a weapon, then any civilian who is of sound mind, and not a convict, should have access to the same weapons. You are ALL civilians!
So - how's this thing working on Chris Dorner?