I noticed that last sentence of yours works just as well for "human" as it does for "horse".
Just because it's difficult to communicate with X, does not mandate that X is incapable of feeling betrayed.
And a thought exercise: if one were to consider it acceptable to butcher any work animal that is "incapable of feeling betrayed", would a human psychopath (since they are not capable of forming emotional attachments) qualify?
Who? Perhaps non-profit publicly-funded research organisations, who wouldn't have to worry about manufacturers making cheap copies because that'd be the whole damn point?
And I'm sorry, but _neckbeards_? The _neckbeards_ want the return of the guilds? Are you sure you know what that term means? And letters patent?! The old guilds often _relied_ on letters patent to maintain their monopolies (that and the occasional kneecapping / horse's head). The original letters patent were NOT about publicly describing inventions so that anyone could license it, but about publicly declaring that the local ruler had granted someone (e.g. a guild) exclusive control over the manufacture and trade of a particular item or items, and anybody who argued risked ending up on the wrong end of a sword.
FFS. You should be ashamed of yourself. Unless you were trolling, in which case, damn, you're too subtle for your own good.
Of course, I'm just an idealistic foreigner, in a foreign land, who believes in all that "truth, justice and liberty" stuff from experiencing American cowboy and superhero literature/cinema as a child, so... well... um... dammit.
Odd, the NDAA's National Prosecution Standards says it is for the prosecutor to determine (4-2.4, Factors to Consider). That a court may subsequently agree or disagree does not absolve prosecutors of their responsibilities. Or do federal prosecutors use a completely different set of standards? http://ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf
Hypocrisy, what comes around goes around, or social inertia? Some of all three, I think. Harshly condemning society for harshly condemning a member of society who used the power invested in them by that society to harshly condemn another member of society? I would say she should be investigated fairly and justly, but by your own words, isn't whether she was actually guilty and whether there were extenuating circumstances up to a court to determine, not her prosecutors?
I think there is a groundswell of opposition to all of those things. But society is an animal with some of its nerve endings a long way from some of its muscles, if that makes sense.
Is that consequence acceptable to you? Do you find it "just"?
I don't find the outrage over Swartz hypocritical. We're not all those same people you refer to. And for anyone still outraged, who still objects to prosecutorial overreach etcetera, you can't say they want a special exception for Aaron now. He's dead. He didn't get an exception. What happened to him just helped make it a little more obvious to us sheep, that the exception he (and many others) didn't get should in fact be the rule.
The prosecutor had the choice not to use the CFAA, and you didn't answer my question. If you don't want to, that's fine. Me, I'd take a year and no record over six months and a record. But Swartz didn't have that option, since as you say, it was prosecuted under CFAA and that's automatically a felony record. So no matter how short or long he was in a physical prison for, he'd be stuck with that felony record for the rest of his life, yes?
Very well. Let's say you'd been charged by a prosecutor with a proper sense of proportion, under a statute that didn't carry a prison term longer than one year. Would you rather serve six months with a felony record or one year without?
The prosecutor's deal included Swartz gaining a felony record. In the US (and many other nations) a felony record carries its own punishment that lasts long after any actual prison sentence itself is served.
Serious question: would you rather spend three years in prison without a felony record or six months in prison with a felony record, and would your answer change depending on which US state you lived in?
So a record of multiple felony convictions would have no effect whatsoever on the rest of his life? Last I checked, it didn't work that way in the US. Not even close.
I can't see any argument either, for a *universal* reduction in how many hours a *person* should be allowed to work. I do however see arguments on historical, sociological and physiological grounds for *professional* limits on how many hours *people* should be allowed to work.
No amount of liability insurance can resurrect the dead. Perhaps someday that may change, but not today.
However, the GP's metric of "prosperity" is not solely dependent on increasing wages and reducing unemployment, and the popularity of limits on working hours isn't necessarily because of a belief it will promote the latter two metrics. Other factors apply, particularly health, safety, quality of service and quality of living. There are numerous professions where sleep deprivation due to long work hours is an immediate hazard to life and limb of themselves and/or others, and other assorted professions where long work hours can have long-term health consequences.
Or to nutshell it: the popularity of making sure your neurosurgeon is properly rested has nothing to do with their wages.:)
"In the Mummy it takes the clever and heroic Westerners to save the bacon of the ignorant middle easterners."
Er, did you see the same movie I did? The Mummy had a bunch of ignorant and/or greedy Westerners digging up and waking the ancient evil, and the apocalypse was averted only because the non-greedy ones, who managed to overcome their ignorance to fix what they screwed up, were saved by a group of courageous Easterners. And the most selfish people, Eastern and Western alike, died the most horribly.
So they don't own those asteroids? Who does, a bunch of ethically-bankrupt politicians claiming to "represent" the people of Earth? Great job they're not doing so far. I say if somebody has the guts to get out there and bring back the wealth of the void instead of open-cut mining our biosphere like the rest of the leeches, go for it.
The ability to mine asteroids also means the ability to avert that same risk. Be a shame if there's already an an asteroid out there on a collision trajectory with Earth and we go extinct because a bunch of whingers made sure we didn't have any spacecraft out there with the ability to do something about it.
Also, why is it a violation of international treaties to mine asteroids (if it is at all)? What morons would make a treaty that says 'nobody can mine asteroids'?
In case you're not trolling: an extinction event refers to something that suddenly causes a number of species to become extinct. To use your analogy, it's the difference between one person going to a restaurant's toilet (because it was just that time to go), and a hundred people all trying to go at once (because the buffet drinks were spiked).
And the software company is lucky he was well-intentioned, no matter how misguided, rather than an actual enemy. Then they'd be facing all their records swinging in the digital breeze - instead they have the opportunity to fix the problem.
Of course, these days more and more it seems to be the offense to report a problem in the first place. I suspect for every coder who signs up with a company there will be many times more who are going to check "has this company ever screwed someone for being a good samaritan" before they consider working there.
Of course if it turns out he wasn't even a petty shoplifter, just a well-intentioned but misguided "good samaritan" type, then instinctively going for the nuclear option is the worst possible reaction.
If someone who isn't your enemy - in fact, is one of your customers - rattles your shop's door and says, "hey, I told your landlord this lock was broken and he still hasn't fixed it", do you (a) thank him, (b) tell him to get lost, (c) ruin his career so that he and everyone else knows to never tell you *anything*?
Laughed at the AC who replied to your post with "... you are why we have to lock our doors." He's wrong on so many levels, and he doesn't even know why. Oh, the irony.
I'm curious. Does anyone know what considerations were given by the prosecutors towards diversion (e.g. drug offenders may be diverted to drug rehabilitation clinics, etc)?
Slashdot Mirror
"Christs use of -" ... use of what?
I noticed that last sentence of yours works just as well for "human" as it does for "horse".
Just because it's difficult to communicate with X, does not mandate that X is incapable of feeling betrayed.
And a thought exercise: if one were to consider it acceptable to butcher any work animal that is "incapable of feeling betrayed", would a human psychopath (since they are not capable of forming emotional attachments) qualify?
Who? Perhaps non-profit publicly-funded research organisations, who wouldn't have to worry about manufacturers making cheap copies because that'd be the whole damn point?
And I'm sorry, but _neckbeards_? The _neckbeards_ want the return of the guilds? Are you sure you know what that term means? And letters patent?! The old guilds often _relied_ on letters patent to maintain their monopolies (that and the occasional kneecapping / horse's head). The original letters patent were NOT about publicly describing inventions so that anyone could license it, but about publicly declaring that the local ruler had granted someone (e.g. a guild) exclusive control over the manufacture and trade of a particular item or items, and anybody who argued risked ending up on the wrong end of a sword.
FFS. You should be ashamed of yourself. Unless you were trolling, in which case, damn, you're too subtle for your own good.
Government is the only true monopoly.
Heh, and just like the board game, parts of it are for sale and when you acquire enough of it, your competitors are screwed.
You know the courts are failing in their duty when these sorts of comments get Insightful mods.
You'll know they've failed when the mod becomes +5, Informative.
Maliciously overcharging someone to further a political career is legal? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law/color-of-law
Of course, I'm just an idealistic foreigner, in a foreign land, who believes in all that "truth, justice and liberty" stuff from experiencing American cowboy and superhero literature/cinema as a child, so... well... um... dammit.
Thankyou for the dialogue.
Odd, the NDAA's National Prosecution Standards says it is for the prosecutor to determine (4-2.4, Factors to Consider). That a court may subsequently agree or disagree does not absolve prosecutors of their responsibilities. Or do federal prosecutors use a completely different set of standards? http://ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf
Hypocrisy, what comes around goes around, or social inertia? Some of all three, I think. Harshly condemning society for harshly condemning a member of society who used the power invested in them by that society to harshly condemn another member of society? I would say she should be investigated fairly and justly, but by your own words, isn't whether she was actually guilty and whether there were extenuating circumstances up to a court to determine, not her prosecutors?
I think there is a groundswell of opposition to all of those things. But society is an animal with some of its nerve endings a long way from some of its muscles, if that makes sense.
Why should she? Justice, perhaps?
Is that consequence acceptable to you? Do you find it "just"?
I don't find the outrage over Swartz hypocritical. We're not all those same people you refer to. And for anyone still outraged, who still objects to prosecutorial overreach etcetera, you can't say they want a special exception for Aaron now. He's dead. He didn't get an exception. What happened to him just helped make it a little more obvious to us sheep, that the exception he (and many others) didn't get should in fact be the rule.
The prosecutor had the choice not to use the CFAA, and you didn't answer my question. If you don't want to, that's fine. Me, I'd take a year and no record over six months and a record. But Swartz didn't have that option, since as you say, it was prosecuted under CFAA and that's automatically a felony record. So no matter how short or long he was in a physical prison for, he'd be stuck with that felony record for the rest of his life, yes?
Very well. Let's say you'd been charged by a prosecutor with a proper sense of proportion, under a statute that didn't carry a prison term longer than one year. Would you rather serve six months with a felony record or one year without?
The prosecutor's deal included Swartz gaining a felony record. In the US (and many other nations) a felony record carries its own punishment that lasts long after any actual prison sentence itself is served.
Serious question: would you rather spend three years in prison without a felony record or six months in prison with a felony record, and would your answer change depending on which US state you lived in?
So a record of multiple felony convictions would have no effect whatsoever on the rest of his life? Last I checked, it didn't work that way in the US. Not even close.
I can't see any argument either, for a *universal* reduction in how many hours a *person* should be allowed to work. I do however see arguments on historical, sociological and physiological grounds for *professional* limits on how many hours *people* should be allowed to work.
No amount of liability insurance can resurrect the dead. Perhaps someday that may change, but not today.
However, the GP's metric of "prosperity" is not solely dependent on increasing wages and reducing unemployment, and the popularity of limits on working hours isn't necessarily because of a belief it will promote the latter two metrics. Other factors apply, particularly health, safety, quality of service and quality of living. There are numerous professions where sleep deprivation due to long work hours is an immediate hazard to life and limb of themselves and/or others, and other assorted professions where long work hours can have long-term health consequences.
Or to nutshell it: the popularity of making sure your neurosurgeon is properly rested has nothing to do with their wages. :)
Er, did you see the same movie I did? The Mummy had a bunch of ignorant and/or greedy Westerners digging up and waking the ancient evil, and the apocalypse was averted only because the non-greedy ones, who managed to overcome their ignorance to fix what they screwed up, were saved by a group of courageous Easterners. And the most selfish people, Eastern and Western alike, died the most horribly.
Dark humour can act as a coping mechanism. We can't, or don't want to, deal with the true awfulness of something, so we make fun of it.
So they don't own those asteroids? Who does, a bunch of ethically-bankrupt politicians claiming to "represent" the people of Earth? Great job they're not doing so far. I say if somebody has the guts to get out there and bring back the wealth of the void instead of open-cut mining our biosphere like the rest of the leeches, go for it.
The ability to mine asteroids also means the ability to avert that same risk. Be a shame if there's already an an asteroid out there on a collision trajectory with Earth and we go extinct because a bunch of whingers made sure we didn't have any spacecraft out there with the ability to do something about it.
Also, why is it a violation of international treaties to mine asteroids (if it is at all)? What morons would make a treaty that says 'nobody can mine asteroids'?
In case you're not trolling: an extinction event refers to something that suddenly causes a number of species to become extinct. To use your analogy, it's the difference between one person going to a restaurant's toilet (because it was just that time to go), and a hundred people all trying to go at once (because the buffet drinks were spiked).
And the software company is lucky he was well-intentioned, no matter how misguided, rather than an actual enemy. Then they'd be facing all their records swinging in the digital breeze - instead they have the opportunity to fix the problem.
Of course, these days more and more it seems to be the offense to report a problem in the first place. I suspect for every coder who signs up with a company there will be many times more who are going to check "has this company ever screwed someone for being a good samaritan" before they consider working there.
Of course if it turns out he wasn't even a petty shoplifter, just a well-intentioned but misguided "good samaritan" type, then instinctively going for the nuclear option is the worst possible reaction.
If someone who isn't your enemy - in fact, is one of your customers - rattles your shop's door and says, "hey, I told your landlord this lock was broken and he still hasn't fixed it", do you (a) thank him, (b) tell him to get lost, (c) ruin his career so that he and everyone else knows to never tell you *anything*?
So there's no difference between testing vulnerabilities and exploiting them?
No, that's not why the locks are there.
Laughed at the AC who replied to your post with "... you are why we have to lock our doors." He's wrong on so many levels, and he doesn't even know why. Oh, the irony.
I'm curious. Does anyone know what considerations were given by the prosecutors towards diversion (e.g. drug offenders may be diverted to drug rehabilitation clinics, etc)?