A libertarian you are not. Explain to me how the company is guilty of criminal negligence (in your mind) if they don't add the maximum amount of bubble wrap, etc, even if all users are fully informed of the risks and opt to engage in the activity regardless.
Probably for the same reason that automotive companies resisted including airbags, seat belts, etc. until the government forced them into compliance; Because corporations will never make something safe unless they're forced to. Harken back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when workers routinely fell into spinning equipment and were mangled. There was no OSHA then, there was no social security, there was no unemployment insurance... you got eaten by the machine and lost your arm? Too. Fucking. Bad.
Your way of thinking leads to a nanny state where freedom is curtailed.
The freedom to go crashing through your windshield? The freedom to take unneccessarily unsafe and dangerous jobs for a pittance? The freedom to fly in an airplane that hasn't been properly maintained and explodes mid-flight?
Let people engage in risky behavior if they are cognizant of the risks and alternatives.
Drunk driving should be legal, says internet pundit, film at 11.
Freedom to fail is one of the most fundamental of freedoms.
So when all those banks failed and imploded the economy, it was their right? They were just excercising their freedom and liberty from the responsibility to others?
Furthermore, your "mandatory ultimate safety" advocacy is a slippery slope. I liked this country better before people like you led campaigns to ban high dives at pools, kids playing dodgeball during PE, Jarts, Buckyball magnets, etc, etc, etc.
If you can have a parachute, why not include a parachute? I'd consider retroboosters as the backup system, not the primary, for safety. By the time you're close enough to the ground to fire them, the parachute is no longer an option, so if they fail, you get about 3 seconds to contemplate your own stupidity before cratering.
A company that can provide two layers of life-saving security and yet only manufactures one should be charged with manslaughter, but instead we're allowing it because it caters to thrillseekers? Where was this kind of logic during the anti-smoking campaigns of yesteryear? "Smoking is okay; it's a thrill-seeking behavior!" Yeah.... okay, sure.
Because you own the device, you have certain rights to what is on the device and what you can do with the device. This is the crux of every issue that comes with BYOD programs.'"
Okay, let me make this simple; You're in IT security. Let's say you just threw open the doors and let anyone bring their own laptop in to work. Well, you know, and I know, that people are stupid. They're going to be infected with malware, viruses, APTs, and god only knows what. And that's the point: You don't know what's being brought in. You have no control now. And let's say as a result of someone doing this, they pass on a piece of malware, not to your super-secure corporate systems, but to another employee who's also brought in their own device.
Who's legally at fault here: The employee who accidentally (or neglegently!) brought in an infected laptop, the other employee who connected their own laptop and accidentally (or neglegently!) got it infected... or the company whose network policy facilitated this? And here's a better question: Who do you think both employees are going to sue, thus costing your company millions in unrecoverable legal fees (even if you win, you ain't going to see that money again).
Ownership here is indeed the issue; Just not device ownership. Specifically, the cost of ownership; which if you allow this stuff on your network, the cost of owning that network is going to rise due to incidental costs. How much, nobody knows for sure -- this is still a relatively new thing (in the business world anything less than 10 years old is 'new').
See, this is why I don't debate with tin foil conservatives: They just keep dragging in more and more irrelevant information in the hopes of finding some "weakness" in their opponents argument. The only weakness though is usually that they simply don't have as much stamina to reply to entire essays of semi-coherent logic mixed with half-truths. Of course, not replying results in confirmation bias -- they believe their opponents lack of response, or a desire not to reply to every little nuanced statement, somehow validates their broken argument. Well, it's a slow night at work, and I guess I can summon at least the meager amount of critical thinking needed to prove this...
Fast and Furious ring a bell? How about the lying to Congress that resulted from that. Executive Privilege to protect the President from having to divulge communications, that he said never existed just a week before? [...] Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics. [...]You speak of credibility and then tell a lie. It has been proven that the IRS scandal goes well be...
There are WMDs in Iraq. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to "enemy combatants". "Mission Accomplished." There is a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. A "50 to 60 billion" estimate for Iraq ahead of the invasion; Currently at 600 billion, and still rising. Tax cuts for the wealthy amid the longest-running recession in US history. Afghanistan, all of it. Alberto Gonzales' appointment (Hello, Texas!) and the subsequent mass-expansion of warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot act, and the dismissal of dozens of state attorney generals who were then replaced with 'yes' men, Halliburton. Finance industry de-regulation leading to the mortgage crisis, which resulted in dozens of banks folding. Waterboarding, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib. Transporting US citizens and foreign nationals alike to secret facilities around the world to circumvent international treaty. Enron. Valerie Plame. Walter Reed Army Hospital which became the poster-child for an underfunded VA -- and the resulting systematic neglect of our veterans. Suspending of Habeas Corpus and other basic civil rights, secret courts, secret trials or no trials at all. New Orleans/Katrina. SWIFT, which allowed the government to view anyone's financial records, as long as one party was not a US-citizen; No search warrant required. Secret terror watch lists. The Department of Homeland Security <i>in its entirety</i> as a bondongle. Dusty Foggo, (I had to look his name up) -- a veritable laundry list of criminal charges and mass acts of misconduct... plead guilty to a single count of illegal wiretapping and was let off on the remaining 28 charges. But he wasn't the only one who was corrupt; Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley ('only' guilty of sex with minors), Doug Feith Skyrocketing of the national debt. Medicare -- no substantive changes despite dwindling funds and a clear emerging crisis. Same with social security. Blocking of the 9/11 Commission, which most people have now forgotten about. A massive loss of international opinion and confidence in the United States. Gutting of the EPA, FDA, and other agencies -- later leading to several high-profile public health and safety crisis, recalls, etc. But topping all of those things: <i>Both of his elections were the subject of international scrutiny</i>, with evidence that the elections were "stolen" or voting data manipulated. The UN has, in every election since Bush' initial election, demanded independent observers due to substantial concerns that the voting system has been compromised.
But you go ahead and point out that whole IRS thing and then make vague handwave gestures that there could be more we don't know about (ominous look upwards)... like it somehow equals all of that.
That article is about executions not murders. You are either confused or making a deliberate misrepresentation.
Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. Which part of strapping someone to a chair and then murdering them do you not understand? That it's legal has nothing to do with whether it is moral or ethical. You call it an execution, but the only difference between your 'execution' definition and the 'murder' definition is "We made it legal." In other words, absent a law making it okay for the state to murder people, it is the exact same thing.
But this is all academic; Regardless of what definition you want to use, Texas is murdering, or executing, people more than the rest of the country combined. This means that either Texas is "trigger happy", or that something is seriously psychologically wrong with the average Texan to the point that this amount of capital punishment is necessary. Well, actually, both problems are psychological, but you get where I'm going with this: What makes Texas different?
Texas murder it's own citizens? Weren't you just complaining about tin foil hat nonsense a few post up?
Yes, they do. And yes, (The War on Christmas, The 'Birthers', New World Order Conspiracy, Fema Concentration Camps, Clinton's Body Count Conspiracy, The Jewish were Behind 9/11, Global Warming is a Fraud), I regularly do.
I swear I'm notâ"this is entirely about how to spell Stirstrap at this point. really, denmark, what were you thinking
This being Denmark, they probably named him as such so nobody could find him on the internet, thus fulfilling the secret dream of every Danish person: To not be noticed.:D
Ted Cruz is a "joke to most of the state"? Tell me, genius, how did he win his Senatorial election by such a wide margin? He may be a joke in YOUR circles, but everyone I speak to thinks the man is brilliant...
His teachers were communists plotting to overthrow the government. Well, at least that's what he says, unhindered by the facts though this and many other of his wild accusations may be. Like that secretary of defense nominee he accused of accepting bribe money from North Korea, as another example. And outside of Texas, yes, he is a joke. Even other Republicans have told him to cool his jets with the wild accusations, while democrats have accused him of trying to bring back McCarthyism. He is, to borrow a phrase, coo-coo for cocopuffs. Intelligent people do not think boogiemen lurk around every corner and think the whole of creation is one big illuminatus-styled conspiracy against them. Mentally ill people think that; It's called paranoid delusions.
with the exception of the most rabid liberals who think that it is OK for the IRS to target conservatives for no other reason than they are conservatives.
You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.
Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.
So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset. But I'm not going to lose sight over the many thousands of pages of fuckups from the last time you assclowns were in power -- Obama and Co. still have a loooooooooooooong way to go before they'll equal the level of incepid governance that his predecessors engaged in.
And if Ted Cruz is the best the Republicans can come up with, I look forward to an easy 2016 democratic majority.
Lots of folks like to mis-characterize Texas and Texans, but as a foreigner they seem to be doing plenty of things right.
This legislation would only affect organizations and individuals within the state of Texas, whose customers are also within the State of Texas, when dealing with local and state authorities. And even with that very significant limitation, the fact that internet traffic is, by definition, interstate, means that this piece of legislation has next to zero chance of surviving in Federal court. Federal law and jurisdiction trumps state law; And all a court needs to say to put an end to this is say "Interstate commerce! Congress only! Denied."
Their state economy is not borked like California,
Off topic, but I'll bite. Texas is ranked 9 and California 14 in terms of federal tax dollars contributed versus taken as of 2007. Both are net positive, and within 1 standard deviation. Neither state economy is "borked".
they have low tax,
Continuing to go off topic... There's at least a million different taxes. Can you be more specific on which one?
they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance,
The most important right, the right to life, is apparently eschewed -- Texas murders its own citizens at a rate higher than the rest of the country combined and has won numerous dubious awards for its human rights abuses, especially in prison. Whatever their values, their actions speak to a marked lack of respect for human life, a fact often highlighted in international press.
and they have good political leadership.
I'm not even sure how to approach this; It's fractally flamebait-worthy, if only because the popular opinion is that "good" should never appear in the same sentence as "political leadership", which itself is popularly held to be an oxymoron.
Ted Cruz for Prez 2016 would not be a bad choice it seems - he's very smart and would stop the current rot in DC.
Oooh, so epically off-topic now... le sigh. Okay then. Yes, another graduate of Harvard Law and Princeton will surely clean up the 'rot' of all the other politicians in Congress, most of whom also hold Ivy-league degrees. And I'm the Queen of England. And I don't want to vote for a man who thinks communists teachers at his alma matter are plotting to overthrow the government and often resorts to wild accusations of impropriety towards his opponents -- like suggesting a nominee to the secretary of defense position was accepting bribe money from North Korea. The dude's got a screw loose -- if you want to show how Texas is full of competent and rational people, make a better choice.
What a terribly shallow view to have. Day of scheduled suicide: February 8th 2013, my birthday
Yes, let's just throw in some emotions to obfusciate the real question: Is filing a criminal complaint against Facebook the right reaction? The parents claim it is because they failed to prevent "cyberbullying". Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence to support a link between suicide and bullying. As it so happens, suicide is the result of mental illness, and the DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words". Because it's a mental illness that's the cause here, specifically untreated depression, I'm going to have to turn that finger right back around at the parents. Well, what did you do when you noticed your daughter was depressed?
Awwww, a completely unrelated but tragic tale to distract us from objectively thinking about this and instead give in to irrational emotional impulses. I'll stick with the scientific method, kthxbai.
I realize you're still a girl in training, but sooner or later you're going to have to learn that the world isn't so nearly as black and white as you've made it out to be.
An ad hominem attack. Stay classy, 'Tubesteak'. (-_-) With a nickname like that, you're hardly one to diss someone else's choice.
Or maybe you'll write a letter to Noah and explain to him that his depression and isolation is all his parents' fault.
To a significant degree... it is. It has a strong genetic correlation; it runs in families. But let's ignore the science for a minute, that seems to be more in character with the NuSlash(tm) residents like yourself that have been filling this place up since it sold out to Dice...
Dear Noah,
I'm sorry your brain is trying to kill you. I went through a 15 year long depression. As an LGBT youth, I understand better than most that it feels like this is your fault, but it isn't. People will tell you that you have to try harder, or just "will" yourself to be happy. You and I both know that's stupid; No matter how hard you try, your brain is still going to keep right on trying to kill you. It took me a long time to accept this; Cold facts and science telling me that depression is due to a chemical imbalance is little comfort. All my thoughts circle around in endless circles telling me I'm worthless, it's hopeless, I'm a burden, etc. I get it, I really do. I've been there. What I can tell you is that your condition is treatable. And it is a condition. It's a real medical condition, just like injuring your foot, or getting pneumonia is -- it's not your fault. It's an accident. These things happen. But with medication and therapy, you can free yourself of these thoughts. It's not easy. Nothing in life ever is. But it's worth it... and you have something I didn't -- a mother that cares. Lean on her until you can stand up straight again. And don't let anyone, especially not some internet pundit of questionable morality, tell you that you're a poster child for depression because you aren't. You're a survivor. You can do this.
Way to fight the chauvanistic stereotype of girl geeks as dilettantes.
I fail to see how making an educated assessment of the value of a new programming language meets the definition of a dilettante. I know of many geek girls (yes, girl comes second, we are geeks first and foremost -- pay attention Anonymous Coward, there will be a test) who know nothing of programming yet nobody would question their overall geekiness. Perhaps you're unaware that there's more than one kind of geek? I have one friend who's an art geek. She spends her days painting, sketching, and is a consumate book worm. I enjoy her company and her passion quite a bit. She has about as much computer sense though as a door mat and I have to fix or reimage her system on a seasonal basis. I don't begrudge her not knowing computers though; Not everyone can be a computer geek.
This language (Dao) has never been mentioned on Slashdot before, but it might be interesting to many people here.
A pretentious name? (ears perk up) Go on...
Dao is an optionally-typed programming language
ARRRRGH! Comeon guys, type casting is so important even answers.com has a bloody writeup on it. Strousoup is right now spinning in his grave so furiously I'm sure it's causing a small earthquake right now on some pacific island...
that supports many advanced features with a small runtime.
Runtime? So it's like Java then... it's interpreted. Ooookay, well, I suppose runtime languages have their place amongst the honored...
The feature list is probably as long as that of Python
And already we have our first example of why type casting is important: The programmer/submitter here isn't sure what the feature list of the language is, because everything is represented as an abstract object./snark
Built-in support for concurrent programming for multicore computers,
I'm not entirely sure what that even means. Does it support threading? Is it stackless? Are you talking about the ability to set processor affinity for a given thread or process? "concurrent programming" to me could even mean using two keyboards.
very friendly C programming interfaces for embedding and extending, a LLVM-based JIT compiler, a Clang-based module for embedding C/C++ codes in Dao, and a Clang-based tool for automatic binding generation from C/C++ header files.
So basically, your language is incomplete so you're giving people the ability to link in stuff to makeup for it. Okay, that's cool... I guess.
Well kid, I'm sorry your parents named you Dao. Like all parents, I'm sure they expect great things from you. Unfortunately, it seems you're suffering from a rare birth defect where half your brain is missing and you're a midget. You're also cojoined to your twin, who they named 'C'. Now they're going to try surgery soon to separate you from your twin bro, but I'm gonna be honest here: You're probably not going to make it. Sorry kid, tough break.
But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
You're attacking the messenger, not the message. Whether or not I'm a parent has absolutely dick to do with whether or not my statements are correct. You may think it matters. Many people think it matters. But it doesn't; The truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. And that, sir, is why the ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and why I didn't see a need to dignify yours with a direct response so you could sound your trumpet and say "See! See! This one isn't a parent yet, so we can safely ignore everything she said!"
You haven't attacked a single point I've made, nor even disagreed with it. All you're doing is hand waves and personal attacks... and the fact that even one person modded you up suggests that critical thinking skills here on Slashdot continue to fall precipitously and are being rapidly supplanted by feel-good but empty irrational discourse.
Speaking of critical thinking skills; here's some extra support for what I've been saying (and you haven't);
Zero tolerance policies are ineffective, most bullying isn't online but in real life, and bullying online often follows from the same, that the primary risk factor for bullying is being socially marginalized, and the correlation between bullying and suicide is tenuous at best. Source
Zero tolerance policies were demanded by parents who wanted to address the symptom (bullying), not the problem (their child). Bullying can be greatly managed by teach the child to defend his/herself, something that teachers, administrators, and legislators are loathe to admit, but every psychologist will tell you is important. Confronting your attacker is therapudic, even after the fact -- it's where the phrase "getting your day in court" comes from. Anti-bullying strategies must be taught by the parents; For both political and social reasons, it cannot be done by the government. As far as being socially marginalized; While a parent cannot entirely prevent this, they can lend emotional support. As any member of the LGBT community will tell you, parental support makes dealing with coming out and social marginalization, isolation, etc., a great deal easier. Every advocacy group, every psychologist, every support group will tell you this. Parental involvement is the salve to the wound of bullying, not government intervention. It's supported in study after study that parental involvement and influence has an enormous bearing on a child's emotional and mental state. And speaking of that, the lack of correlation between suicide and bullying? That points to these teens already having significant mental illness. Well, where were the parents? It's not like depression isn't treatable.
So maybe the government of Italy should be policing the other idiots in Italy who actually posted the videos and made the mean comments.
If we're going to go down that road, I'd start by cutting all their internet cables to the outside world, because mean comments and videos are pretty much the Internet's chief export.
"VentureBeat reports that the next-gen MMO Blizzard Entertainment has been hinting at since 2007, codenamed 'Titan,' is getting restarted with a drastically reduced development team.
This wouldn't happen to be because World of Warcraft started hemmoraging cash and players recently, would it?
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
If by "self-righteous" parenting you mean, parenting, then no. Not by the parent, anyway. Nothing in life is a guarantee, but if you're playing the odds, teaching a child to be self-reliant is going to result in a lot less bullying, and incidentally, may keep your 14 year old daughter from getting drunk at a party because you'll have raised her to be less suseptible to peer pressure as well; She'll trust her own judgements, not that of the "cool kids".
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
To answer that question, I'd suggest thinking about the statements you've quoted, rather than just frobbing the keyboard with a snarky comment and thinking it actually does something for you other than broadcast "I'm a giant asshole."
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
A fair bit more than a troll on some internet forum, yes.
Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
Obviously. A true hero of the internets would duel with facts, logic, and experience, not ad hominem, circular logic, and hand waves. Alas, you are unarmed.
This is only idiots trust their money to a corporation that doesn't follow the laws.
Every company you've purchased something from recently has broken the law. Every. Last. One. And you want to know how I know? Because even our own government can't keep track of the number of laws on the books. Our legal system is hopelessly complex; People break the law just making dinner these days (no really; google for 'short salmon').
It will attract criminals, and eventually they'll end up without their money.
Yes, and in the same way, if a couple terrorists hole up in a hospital, we should just blow up the entire hospital, killing everyone inside... because otherwise it will attract criminals, right? Collateral damage apparently isn't a problem for you.
The Italian legal system is a total joke. Facebook can just sit on this, nothing will happen for years.
I won't disagree with your assessment. I will disagree with your attitude, however. Italy's government can and should be watching out for their citizens' wellbeing; It is the main role of any government. You're disrespecting the only recourse many Italian citizens have to injustice, and I do not feel that is appropriate or productive here. I understand what the parents are doing and even agree with the sentiments, but they're engaging the government in the wrong way.
There are better ways to handle this than filing a criminal complaint for the online conduct of a third party because you believe the company has the impossibly high burden of proving every one's identity on the internet to protect your precious little snowflake. The world is a dangerous place, and the best way to protect children is not with government, but with good parenting. Including curriculum in public schools about online etiquette, safety, etc., is a proper response to this issue; To assist in the parenting role, but not to take it over.
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully. Such self-reliance would include self-defense classes; No girl should fear that a boy will assault her. Secondly, I'd track down the parents of the child bullying and explain the situation to them verbally and in person. If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
But the one thing I wouldn't do is go off whining to the government or some parenting group about how my child was being bullied and, so enmeshed in my own ineptitude as a parent, allow the situation to worsen to the point my child committed suicide. I mean, really, as a parent how can you not see your child is struggling? You do whatever it takes to protect your family; You, not the government, you. It's called taking responsibility for the situation, and I would parent my child by example by showing that same self-reliant quality in my own involvement in the situation.
But I would not engage in 'revenge'. That is the refuge of a coward; If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed. And then they're going to lose.
The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide.... 'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts...'
The biggest lie on the internet is the answer to the question "Are you 18 or older?"
Big deal. Almost every country is the same way. Only a parent's group would be as naive is to attempt this. And only a parent's group would try to shirk responsibility for parenting -- which is what this is really about. Look, if you can't educate your crotch fruit on how to safely use a computer, don't let them use one. Stop asking the damn government to do your job -- in the 50s, we could buy little Jimmy a chemistry kit that included Arsenic in it, or a glass blowing kit that was identical in every way to the tools used by adults, except they were made for children's hands.
In most societies that haven't yet gone full retard thanks to people propping children up as a shield for their own political gain, children start doing adult work as soon as they are physically and mentally capable. Run around in Africa and you'll see 7 year olds tending crops and making dinner. Meanwhile, in the United States, god help you if you forget to include the fork with your teenager's meal... they'll just stare blankly at it, or even complain.
I guess what I'm saying is: It's your parenting that's at fault, not the internet. No, really, it is, and I don't care what bullshit legal argument you care to make. If you have a crappy kid, it's very like to be a sign that you're a crappy parent. Deal with it, and stop ruining everyone else's lives with goverment regulation because you decided to breed but lacked the mental capacity to do any of the work that comes after your 15 seconds of joy.
Slashdot Mirror
A libertarian you are not. Explain to me how the company is guilty of criminal negligence (in your mind) if they don't add the maximum amount of bubble wrap, etc, even if all users are fully informed of the risks and opt to engage in the activity regardless.
Probably for the same reason that automotive companies resisted including airbags, seat belts, etc. until the government forced them into compliance; Because corporations will never make something safe unless they're forced to. Harken back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when workers routinely fell into spinning equipment and were mangled. There was no OSHA then, there was no social security, there was no unemployment insurance... you got eaten by the machine and lost your arm? Too. Fucking. Bad.
Your way of thinking leads to a nanny state where freedom is curtailed.
The freedom to go crashing through your windshield? The freedom to take unneccessarily unsafe and dangerous jobs for a pittance? The freedom to fly in an airplane that hasn't been properly maintained and explodes mid-flight?
Let people engage in risky behavior if they are cognizant of the risks and alternatives.
Drunk driving should be legal, says internet pundit, film at 11.
Freedom to fail is one of the most fundamental of freedoms.
So when all those banks failed and imploded the economy, it was their right? They were just excercising their freedom and liberty from the responsibility to others?
Furthermore, your "mandatory ultimate safety" advocacy is a slippery slope. I liked this country better before people like you led campaigns to ban high dives at pools, kids playing dodgeball during PE, Jarts, Buckyball magnets, etc, etc, etc.
Take THAT straw man.
If you can have a parachute, why not include a parachute? I'd consider retroboosters as the backup system, not the primary, for safety. By the time you're close enough to the ground to fire them, the parachute is no longer an option, so if they fail, you get about 3 seconds to contemplate your own stupidity before cratering.
A company that can provide two layers of life-saving security and yet only manufactures one should be charged with manslaughter, but instead we're allowing it because it caters to thrillseekers? Where was this kind of logic during the anti-smoking campaigns of yesteryear? "Smoking is okay; it's a thrill-seeking behavior!" Yeah.... okay, sure.
I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!
O RLY? :)
Because you own the device, you have certain rights to what is on the device and what you can do with the device. This is the crux of every issue that comes with BYOD programs.'"
Okay, let me make this simple; You're in IT security. Let's say you just threw open the doors and let anyone bring their own laptop in to work. Well, you know, and I know, that people are stupid. They're going to be infected with malware, viruses, APTs, and god only knows what. And that's the point: You don't know what's being brought in. You have no control now. And let's say as a result of someone doing this, they pass on a piece of malware, not to your super-secure corporate systems, but to another employee who's also brought in their own device.
Who's legally at fault here: The employee who accidentally (or neglegently!) brought in an infected laptop, the other employee who connected their own laptop and accidentally (or neglegently!) got it infected... or the company whose network policy facilitated this? And here's a better question: Who do you think both employees are going to sue, thus costing your company millions in unrecoverable legal fees (even if you win, you ain't going to see that money again).
Ownership here is indeed the issue; Just not device ownership. Specifically, the cost of ownership; which if you allow this stuff on your network, the cost of owning that network is going to rise due to incidental costs. How much, nobody knows for sure -- this is still a relatively new thing (in the business world anything less than 10 years old is 'new').
See, this is why I don't debate with tin foil conservatives: They just keep dragging in more and more irrelevant information in the hopes of finding some "weakness" in their opponents argument. The only weakness though is usually that they simply don't have as much stamina to reply to entire essays of semi-coherent logic mixed with half-truths. Of course, not replying results in confirmation bias -- they believe their opponents lack of response, or a desire not to reply to every little nuanced statement, somehow validates their broken argument. Well, it's a slow night at work, and I guess I can summon at least the meager amount of critical thinking needed to prove this...
Fast and Furious ring a bell? How about the lying to Congress that resulted from that. Executive Privilege to protect the President from having to divulge communications, that he said never existed just a week before? [...] Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics. [...]You speak of credibility and then tell a lie. It has been proven that the IRS scandal goes well be...
But you go ahead and point out that whole IRS thing and then make vague handwave gestures that there could be more we don't know about (ominous look upwards)... like it somehow equals all of that.
I could go on,
That article is about executions not murders. You are either confused or making a deliberate misrepresentation.
Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being. Which part of strapping someone to a chair and then murdering them do you not understand? That it's legal has nothing to do with whether it is moral or ethical. You call it an execution, but the only difference between your 'execution' definition and the 'murder' definition is "We made it legal." In other words, absent a law making it okay for the state to murder people, it is the exact same thing.
But this is all academic; Regardless of what definition you want to use, Texas is murdering, or executing, people more than the rest of the country combined. This means that either Texas is "trigger happy", or that something is seriously psychologically wrong with the average Texan to the point that this amount of capital punishment is necessary. Well, actually, both problems are psychological, but you get where I'm going with this: What makes Texas different?
After all, it worked so well for Lars Ulrich.
Unfortunately, even being Danish isn't enough to conceal such a concentrated amount of asshattery.
Texas murder it's own citizens? Weren't you just complaining about tin foil hat nonsense a few post up?
Yes, they do. And yes, (The War on Christmas, The 'Birthers', New World Order Conspiracy, Fema Concentration Camps, Clinton's Body Count Conspiracy, The Jewish were Behind 9/11, Global Warming is a Fraud), I regularly do.
I swear I'm notâ"this is entirely about how to spell Stirstrap at this point. really, denmark, what were you thinking
This being Denmark, they probably named him as such so nobody could find him on the internet, thus fulfilling the secret dream of every Danish person: To not be noticed. :D
Ted Cruz is a "joke to most of the state"? Tell me, genius, how did he win his Senatorial election by such a wide margin? He may be a joke in YOUR circles, but everyone I speak to thinks the man is brilliant...
His teachers were communists plotting to overthrow the government. Well, at least that's what he says, unhindered by the facts though this and many other of his wild accusations may be. Like that secretary of defense nominee he accused of accepting bribe money from North Korea, as another example. And outside of Texas, yes, he is a joke. Even other Republicans have told him to cool his jets with the wild accusations, while democrats have accused him of trying to bring back McCarthyism. He is, to borrow a phrase, coo-coo for cocopuffs. Intelligent people do not think boogiemen lurk around every corner and think the whole of creation is one big illuminatus-styled conspiracy against them. Mentally ill people think that; It's called paranoid delusions.
with the exception of the most rabid liberals who think that it is OK for the IRS to target conservatives for no other reason than they are conservatives.
You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.
Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.
So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset. But I'm not going to lose sight over the many thousands of pages of fuckups from the last time you assclowns were in power -- Obama and Co. still have a loooooooooooooong way to go before they'll equal the level of incepid governance that his predecessors engaged in.
And if Ted Cruz is the best the Republicans can come up with, I look forward to an easy 2016 democratic majority.
Mistaken identity. Can we please stop jumping on my slightly embarassing mistake? :)
Lots of folks like to mis-characterize Texas and Texans, but as a foreigner they seem to be doing plenty of things right.
This legislation would only affect organizations and individuals within the state of Texas, whose customers are also within the State of Texas, when dealing with local and state authorities. And even with that very significant limitation, the fact that internet traffic is, by definition, interstate, means that this piece of legislation has next to zero chance of surviving in Federal court. Federal law and jurisdiction trumps state law; And all a court needs to say to put an end to this is say "Interstate commerce! Congress only! Denied."
Their state economy is not borked like California,
Off topic, but I'll bite. Texas is ranked 9 and California 14 in terms of federal tax dollars contributed versus taken as of 2007. Both are net positive, and within 1 standard deviation. Neither state economy is "borked".
they have low tax,
Continuing to go off topic... There's at least a million different taxes. Can you be more specific on which one?
they value individual rights more than overbearing 'nanny' governance,
The most important right, the right to life, is apparently eschewed -- Texas murders its own citizens at a rate higher than the rest of the country combined and has won numerous dubious awards for its human rights abuses, especially in prison. Whatever their values, their actions speak to a marked lack of respect for human life, a fact often highlighted in international press.
and they have good political leadership.
I'm not even sure how to approach this; It's fractally flamebait-worthy, if only because the popular opinion is that "good" should never appear in the same sentence as "political leadership", which itself is popularly held to be an oxymoron.
Ted Cruz for Prez 2016 would not be a bad choice it seems - he's very smart and would stop the current rot in DC.
Oooh, so epically off-topic now... le sigh. Okay then. Yes, another graduate of Harvard Law and Princeton will surely clean up the 'rot' of all the other politicians in Congress, most of whom also hold Ivy-league degrees. And I'm the Queen of England. And I don't want to vote for a man who thinks communists teachers at his alma matter are plotting to overthrow the government and often resorts to wild accusations of impropriety towards his opponents -- like suggesting a nominee to the secretary of defense position was accepting bribe money from North Korea. The dude's got a screw loose -- if you want to show how Texas is full of competent and rational people, make a better choice.
What a terribly shallow view to have.
Day of scheduled suicide: February 8th 2013, my birthday
Yes, let's just throw in some emotions to obfusciate the real question: Is filing a criminal complaint against Facebook the right reaction? The parents claim it is because they failed to prevent "cyberbullying". Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence to support a link between suicide and bullying. As it so happens, suicide is the result of mental illness, and the DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words". Because it's a mental illness that's the cause here, specifically untreated depression, I'm going to have to turn that finger right back around at the parents. Well, what did you do when you noticed your daughter was depressed?
While her son was in the hospital on a psych hold,
she had this website created for him: http://lettersfornoah.com/about-noah.html
Awwww, a completely unrelated but tragic tale to distract us from objectively thinking about this and instead give in to irrational emotional impulses. I'll stick with the scientific method, kthxbai.
I realize you're still a girl in training, but sooner or later you're going to have to learn that the world isn't so nearly as black and white as you've made it out to be.
An ad hominem attack. Stay classy, 'Tubesteak'. (-_-) With a nickname like that, you're hardly one to diss someone else's choice.
Or maybe you'll write a letter to Noah and explain to him that his depression and isolation is all his parents' fault.
To a significant degree... it is. It has a strong genetic correlation; it runs in families. But let's ignore the science for a minute, that seems to be more in character with the NuSlash(tm) residents like yourself that have been filling this place up since it sold out to Dice...
Way to fight the chauvanistic stereotype of girl geeks as dilettantes.
I fail to see how making an educated assessment of the value of a new programming language meets the definition of a dilettante. I know of many geek girls (yes, girl comes second, we are geeks first and foremost -- pay attention Anonymous Coward, there will be a test) who know nothing of programming yet nobody would question their overall geekiness. Perhaps you're unaware that there's more than one kind of geek? I have one friend who's an art geek. She spends her days painting, sketching, and is a consumate book worm. I enjoy her company and her passion quite a bit. She has about as much computer sense though as a door mat and I have to fix or reimage her system on a seasonal basis. I don't begrudge her not knowing computers though; Not everyone can be a computer geek.
Someone better go dig Strousoup out because he ain't dead, yet.
Ack, I meant Dennis Ritchie, the inventor of the C programming language, not Stroustrup, who invented C++. My bad...
This language (Dao) has never been mentioned on Slashdot before, but it might be interesting to many people here.
A pretentious name? (ears perk up) Go on...
Dao is an optionally-typed programming language
ARRRRGH! Comeon guys, type casting is so important even answers.com has a bloody writeup on it. Strousoup is right now spinning in his grave so furiously I'm sure it's causing a small earthquake right now on some pacific island...
that supports many advanced features with a small runtime.
Runtime? So it's like Java then... it's interpreted. Ooookay, well, I suppose runtime languages have their place amongst the honored...
The feature list is probably as long as that of Python
And already we have our first example of why type casting is important: The programmer/submitter here isn't sure what the feature list of the language is, because everything is represented as an abstract object. /snark
Built-in support for concurrent programming for multicore computers,
I'm not entirely sure what that even means. Does it support threading? Is it stackless? Are you talking about the ability to set processor affinity for a given thread or process? "concurrent programming" to me could even mean using two keyboards.
very friendly C programming interfaces for embedding and extending, a LLVM-based JIT compiler, a Clang-based module for embedding C/C++ codes in Dao, and a Clang-based tool for automatic binding generation from C/C++ header files.
So basically, your language is incomplete so you're giving people the ability to link in stuff to makeup for it. Okay, that's cool... I guess.
Well kid, I'm sorry your parents named you Dao. Like all parents, I'm sure they expect great things from you. Unfortunately, it seems you're suffering from a rare birth defect where half your brain is missing and you're a midget. You're also cojoined to your twin, who they named 'C'. Now they're going to try surgery soon to separate you from your twin bro, but I'm gonna be honest here: You're probably not going to make it. Sorry kid, tough break.
But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
You're attacking the messenger, not the message. Whether or not I'm a parent has absolutely dick to do with whether or not my statements are correct. You may think it matters. Many people think it matters. But it doesn't; The truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. And that, sir, is why the ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and why I didn't see a need to dignify yours with a direct response so you could sound your trumpet and say "See! See! This one isn't a parent yet, so we can safely ignore everything she said!"
You haven't attacked a single point I've made, nor even disagreed with it. All you're doing is hand waves and personal attacks... and the fact that even one person modded you up suggests that critical thinking skills here on Slashdot continue to fall precipitously and are being rapidly supplanted by feel-good but empty irrational discourse.
Speaking of critical thinking skills; here's some extra support for what I've been saying (and you haven't);
Zero tolerance policies are ineffective, most bullying isn't online but in real life, and bullying online often follows from the same, that the primary risk factor for bullying is being socially marginalized, and the correlation between bullying and suicide is tenuous at best. Source
Zero tolerance policies were demanded by parents who wanted to address the symptom (bullying), not the problem (their child). Bullying can be greatly managed by teach the child to defend his/herself, something that teachers, administrators, and legislators are loathe to admit, but every psychologist will tell you is important. Confronting your attacker is therapudic, even after the fact -- it's where the phrase "getting your day in court" comes from. Anti-bullying strategies must be taught by the parents; For both political and social reasons, it cannot be done by the government. As far as being socially marginalized; While a parent cannot entirely prevent this, they can lend emotional support. As any member of the LGBT community will tell you, parental support makes dealing with coming out and social marginalization, isolation, etc., a great deal easier. Every advocacy group, every psychologist, every support group will tell you this. Parental involvement is the salve to the wound of bullying, not government intervention. It's supported in study after study that parental involvement and influence has an enormous bearing on a child's emotional and mental state. And speaking of that, the lack of correlation between suicide and bullying? That points to these teens already having significant mental illness. Well, where were the parents? It's not like depression isn't treatable.
So maybe the government of Italy should be policing the other idiots in Italy who actually posted the videos and made the mean comments.
If we're going to go down that road, I'd start by cutting all their internet cables to the outside world, because mean comments and videos are pretty much the Internet's chief export.
"VentureBeat reports that the next-gen MMO Blizzard Entertainment has been hinting at since 2007, codenamed 'Titan,' is getting restarted with a drastically reduced development team.
This wouldn't happen to be because World of Warcraft started hemmoraging cash and players recently, would it?
The cash cow is sick -- quick, buy more cows!
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
If by "self-righteous" parenting you mean, parenting, then no. Not by the parent, anyway. Nothing in life is a guarantee, but if you're playing the odds, teaching a child to be self-reliant is going to result in a lot less bullying, and incidentally, may keep your 14 year old daughter from getting drunk at a party because you'll have raised her to be less suseptible to peer pressure as well; She'll trust her own judgements, not that of the "cool kids".
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
To answer that question, I'd suggest thinking about the statements you've quoted, rather than just frobbing the keyboard with a snarky comment and thinking it actually does something for you other than broadcast "I'm a giant asshole."
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
A fair bit more than a troll on some internet forum, yes.
Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
Obviously. A true hero of the internets would duel with facts, logic, and experience, not ad hominem, circular logic, and hand waves. Alas, you are unarmed.
This is only idiots trust their money to a corporation that doesn't follow the laws.
Every company you've purchased something from recently has broken the law. Every. Last. One. And you want to know how I know? Because even our own government can't keep track of the number of laws on the books. Our legal system is hopelessly complex; People break the law just making dinner these days (no really; google for 'short salmon').
It will attract criminals, and eventually they'll end up without their money.
Yes, and in the same way, if a couple terrorists hole up in a hospital, we should just blow up the entire hospital, killing everyone inside... because otherwise it will attract criminals, right? Collateral damage apparently isn't a problem for you.
I want to give this response a hug and take it to dinner, it's so beautiful.
And what, I'm mud?
The Italian legal system is a total joke. Facebook can just sit on this, nothing will happen for years.
I won't disagree with your assessment. I will disagree with your attitude, however. Italy's government can and should be watching out for their citizens' wellbeing; It is the main role of any government. You're disrespecting the only recourse many Italian citizens have to injustice, and I do not feel that is appropriate or productive here. I understand what the parents are doing and even agree with the sentiments, but they're engaging the government in the wrong way.
There are better ways to handle this than filing a criminal complaint for the online conduct of a third party because you believe the company has the impossibly high burden of proving every one's identity on the internet to protect your precious little snowflake. The world is a dangerous place, and the best way to protect children is not with government, but with good parenting. Including curriculum in public schools about online etiquette, safety, etc., is a proper response to this issue; To assist in the parenting role, but not to take it over.
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully. Such self-reliance would include self-defense classes; No girl should fear that a boy will assault her. Secondly, I'd track down the parents of the child bullying and explain the situation to them verbally and in person. If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
But the one thing I wouldn't do is go off whining to the government or some parenting group about how my child was being bullied and, so enmeshed in my own ineptitude as a parent, allow the situation to worsen to the point my child committed suicide. I mean, really, as a parent how can you not see your child is struggling? You do whatever it takes to protect your family; You, not the government, you. It's called taking responsibility for the situation, and I would parent my child by example by showing that same self-reliant quality in my own involvement in the situation.
But I would not engage in 'revenge'. That is the refuge of a coward; If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed. And then they're going to lose.
The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide. ... 'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts...'
The biggest lie on the internet is the answer to the question "Are you 18 or older?"
Big deal. Almost every country is the same way. Only a parent's group would be as naive is to attempt this. And only a parent's group would try to shirk responsibility for parenting -- which is what this is really about. Look, if you can't educate your crotch fruit on how to safely use a computer, don't let them use one. Stop asking the damn government to do your job -- in the 50s, we could buy little Jimmy a chemistry kit that included Arsenic in it, or a glass blowing kit that was identical in every way to the tools used by adults, except they were made for children's hands.
In most societies that haven't yet gone full retard thanks to people propping children up as a shield for their own political gain, children start doing adult work as soon as they are physically and mentally capable. Run around in Africa and you'll see 7 year olds tending crops and making dinner. Meanwhile, in the United States, god help you if you forget to include the fork with your teenager's meal... they'll just stare blankly at it, or even complain.
I guess what I'm saying is: It's your parenting that's at fault, not the internet. No, really, it is, and I don't care what bullshit legal argument you care to make. If you have a crappy kid, it's very like to be a sign that you're a crappy parent. Deal with it, and stop ruining everyone else's lives with goverment regulation because you decided to breed but lacked the mental capacity to do any of the work that comes after your 15 seconds of joy.