... though I feel obligated to point out that if the government didn't get involved at all it would save even more money in taxes.
Except that it would lose even more taxes again
due to decline in taxable income to Australian industry because of the reduction in R&D, especially
in the mining and farming sectors. Not to mention
the consequent loss of jobs, etcetera.
IIRC, a ship in international waters would
also be covered by the laws of the country
that "flags" the ship... unless the ship has
a "flag of convenience".
I think people are definitly more image concious of themselves on the internet which is unfortunate, people seem to think they are so interesting people will harass them without motivation.
I think this misses the point. People often have lots of "motivation" to make use
of personal details posted on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter). For example,
paedophiles target kids based
on information found on the net,
thieves target houses based on
internet listings of houses for sale,
stalkers track down their victims via
various internet sources.
All of these people are well motivated...
The real issue is that the most likely purpose
of publishing someone's personal details in a
blog is to make it easier for other people
to harrass them. And, the act of publishing is also a form of harrassment,
since it is clearly worrying to have someone
do this to you. The fact that bloggers are
allowed to do this is worrying.
... but it isn't being shown for at least another month...
A lot longer than that I'd say. The ABC are
currently doing
a rerun of old "Dr Who" episodes starting from the
beginning. They are currently doing Tom Baker episodes and just finished season #15. By my reckoning there are 11 seasons still to replay
before we get to the new ones.
My Tardis is broken, so I can't check what
episodes the ABC have shown for the next few months.
They certainly didn't do anything to shut him down. What they DID do was use a service with known overboard reactions.
But they did. The sysadmins decided to block
emails this way in (presumably) the full
knowledge of MAPS policy on adding / removing
RBL entries. Certainly, they would have been
fully aware that innocent third-parties could be hurt by accident by their use of RBLs.
Saying MAPS is to blame for this is like saying
that handgun manufacturers are to blame for
people being shot.
The truth is, it isn't a fact of life, it's a result of over-zealous spam haters, and just as spammers ought not to be able to ruin the 'net experience' for anyone, neither should they.
You don't understand. This is a "fact of life"
because the spam haters are are using
RBLs and there is (probably) nothing
that you would be able and prepared to do that
would have any effect on this. Your point
that you think span haters are doing the wrong thing is irrelevant.
Spammers didn't shut down this guy's email communications, MAPS did.
Wrong. Nobody shut him down. And to the extent that his email was degraded, it was the intended recipients of his email(or their sysadmins) who did this. All MAPS or any other RBL does is offer some "advice" about where spam is likely to come from. What people doe with this advice is their business.
How cooperative do you think the fellow in this article is going to be with anti-spam forces, considering how they've treated him so far?
In the big picture, it doesn't matter. The world will continue as normal, whether or not he cooperates.
From his point of view, he just has
to learn to live with it. This kind of thing is
just another cost of doing business on the net.
And you could say that it is a consequence of
his choosing to use a **ahem** "dodgy" ISP.
(BTW: equating RBLs with "regulating" the net is
misleading. It is more like a "fact of life". Consider, if you try to walk across a freeway
you may be breaking some law / regulation or other. But the fact that you are likely to be
run down is not a rule / regulation. It is a
fact of life.)
If someone says something and is in the pay of a corporation or union, this has no bearing on their right to express their political view.
And the proposed regulation does not
take this right away from you!! What it tries
to do is to force you to reveal whether or not
you are in the pay of someone else. The public
has a right to know this. In the same way that
the public has a right to know when an supposedly
independent research report on smoking has been
secretly funded by the tobacco industry.
You can take away my human right to make outrageous claims when you pry my keyboard from my cold, dead, hands.
Actually... I was planning to stun you with a brilliant riposte, then reach through your screen to wrench your keyboard from your twitching fingers and beat you to death with it:-).
In this context, a blogger's right to privacy
is trumped by the public's right to know if
a political statement made in the context of
an election is genuine. Without this, it is
just too easy for some scumbag to subvert the
democratic process by making outrageous claims
in a blog a few days before the polls.
What is the problem with registering? What
is the problem with disclosing that a someone
is funded to be someone else's mouthpiece?
Surely, if a blogger can register (on pain of
penalty) that he is NOT funded by some scumbag,
then that only increases the credibility of
his viewpoint.
The best way to deal with "trojan bloggers" or "trojan talking heads on tv" is to simply investigate them secretly and expose them, and assasinate them publically based on the facts of their doings. If someone has taken money, then expose them the old fashioned way.
In practice, it is likely to take weeks, months
or years to track the affilitions of a "trojan"
(as you put it). By the time you have untangled
the web of obfuscation, the election will be
well and truly over. And the "trojan" typically
won't care that his/her reputation is blown.
By requiring the connections to be disclosed
upfront (on pain of legal penalties), you
reduce the "trojan"s influence on the
election outcome. For me, the real question is
whether the disclosure of just financial links
would be enough to make a difference.
One thing that other posters don't seem to have
mentioned is that your new employer may have
something to say about on-call work for someone
else. Even out of hours work may be unacceptable.
(And for good reason. If you are worn out with
out-of-hours work for your old boss, you will not
be able to work effectively for your new boss.)
Clear everything with your new employer before
you make any commitments to your old boss.
And make it clear to your new boss that you
are doing this out of a sense of obligation
to your old boss... not as way to boost
your income! Otherwise you may find that
your new job is a short one.
Java is largely under the control of Sun, with very very few clean-room implementations. Kaffe is one of the few I know of, and it is far from feature-complete.
There are actually quite a few clean-room Java
implementations. The GNU Classpath homepage lists
14 Java VMs that use the
Classpath
clean-room implementation of the Java class libraries.
For the record, Classpath is 99.79% function
complete relative to JDK 1.1 according to the
comparison linked from the home page. The
numbers drop off with JDK 1.2. Some
bits of Swing are missing and most of the
org.omg.corba hierarchy is excluded for reasons
to do with the OMG's copyright notice.
The problem is that many people don't distinguish between socialism, communism and "Stalinism" or "Maoism". They are all "manifestations of the
Evil Empire".
The document you linked to is 10 years old, and the
text you cited is older still. I searched the online version of the current Northern Territory "Crimes Act", and attempted suicide is NOT a crime any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it would lose even more taxes again due to decline in taxable income to Australian industry because of the reduction in R&D, especially in the mining and farming sectors. Not to mention the consequent loss of jobs, etcetera.
IIRC, a ship in international waters would also be covered by the laws of the country that "flags" the ship ... unless the ship has
a "flag of convenience".
I think this misses the point. People often have lots of "motivation" to make use of personal details posted on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter). For example,
- paedophiles target kids based
on information found on the net,
- thieves target houses based on
internet listings of houses for sale,
- stalkers track down their victims via
various internet sources.
All of these people are well motivatedThe real issue is that the most likely purpose of publishing someone's personal details in a blog is to make it easier for other people to harrass them. And, the act of publishing is also a form of harrassment, since it is clearly worrying to have someone do this to you. The fact that bloggers are allowed to do this is worrying.
A lot longer than that I'd say. The ABC are currently doing a rerun of old "Dr Who" episodes starting from the beginning. They are currently doing Tom Baker episodes and just finished season #15. By my reckoning there are 11 seasons still to replay before we get to the new ones.
My Tardis is broken, so I can't check what episodes the ABC have shown for the next few months.
If you read what I said in context, you'd realise that I was saying this:
But they did. The sysadmins decided to block emails this way in (presumably) the full knowledge of MAPS policy on adding / removing RBL entries. Certainly, they would have been fully aware that innocent third-parties could be hurt by accident by their use of RBLs.
Saying MAPS is to blame for this is like saying that handgun manufacturers are to blame for people being shot.
You don't understand. This is a "fact of life" because the spam haters are are using RBLs and there is (probably) nothing that you would be able and prepared to do that would have any effect on this. Your point that you think span haters are doing the wrong thing is irrelevant.
Wrong. Nobody shut him down. And to the extent that his email was degraded, it was the intended recipients of his email(or their sysadmins) who did this. All MAPS or any other RBL does is offer some "advice" about where spam is likely to come from. What people doe with this advice is their business.
How cooperative do you think the fellow in this article is going to be with anti-spam forces, considering how they've treated him so far?
In the big picture, it doesn't matter. The world will continue as normal, whether or not he cooperates.
From his point of view, he just has to learn to live with it. This kind of thing is just another cost of doing business on the net. And you could say that it is a consequence of his choosing to use a **ahem** "dodgy" ISP.
(BTW: equating RBLs with "regulating" the net is misleading. It is more like a "fact of life". Consider, if you try to walk across a freeway you may be breaking some law / regulation or other. But the fact that you are likely to be run down is not a rule / regulation. It is a fact of life.)
And why should you pay taxes for police who only stop you driving at 100mph on the freeway?
And the proposed regulation does not take this right away from you!! What it tries to do is to force you to reveal whether or not you are in the pay of someone else. The public has a right to know this. In the same way that the public has a right to know when an supposedly independent research report on smoking has been secretly funded by the tobacco industry.
Actually ... I was planning to stun you with a brilliant riposte, then reach through your screen to wrench your keyboard from your twitching fingers and beat you to death with it :-).
In this context, a blogger's right to privacy is trumped by the public's right to know if a political statement made in the context of an election is genuine. Without this, it is just too easy for some scumbag to subvert the democratic process by making outrageous claims in a blog a few days before the polls.
Your knee is jerking badly, IMO.
What is the problem with registering? What is the problem with disclosing that a someone is funded to be someone else's mouthpiece? Surely, if a blogger can register (on pain of penalty) that he is NOT funded by some scumbag, then that only increases the credibility of his viewpoint.
In practice, it is likely to take weeks, months or years to track the affilitions of a "trojan" (as you put it). By the time you have untangled the web of obfuscation, the election will be well and truly over. And the "trojan" typically won't care that his/her reputation is blown.
By requiring the connections to be disclosed upfront (on pain of legal penalties), you reduce the "trojan"s influence on the election outcome. For me, the real question is whether the disclosure of just financial links would be enough to make a difference.
They did too! The priest and the rabbi bruised their shins, and the horse had to be put down.
Clear everything with your new employer before you make any commitments to your old boss. And make it clear to your new boss that you are doing this out of a sense of obligation to your old boss ... not as way to boost
your income! Otherwise you may find that
your new job is a short one.
Actually, if I were you, I would just say "NO".
Nah ... they'll probably think it is line noise.
The real problem is people who 1) think that they know what God wants, and 2) think that they have a right to impose their views on other people.
There are actually quite a few clean-room Java implementations. The GNU Classpath homepage lists 14 Java VMs that use the Classpath clean-room implementation of the Java class libraries.
For the record, Classpath is 99.79% function complete relative to JDK 1.1 according to the comparison linked from the home page. The numbers drop off with JDK 1.2. Some bits of Swing are missing and most of the org.omg.corba hierarchy is excluded for reasons to do with the OMG's copyright notice.
You forgot to mention Celine Dion
You've forgotten Celine Dion.
Thankyou for illustrating my point.
The problem is that many people don't distinguish between socialism, communism and "Stalinism" or "Maoism". They are all "manifestations of the Evil Empire".
The document you linked to is 10 years old, and the text you cited is older still. I searched the online version of the current Northern Territory "Crimes Act", and attempted suicide is NOT a crime any more.
In some states yes, in other states no.