Yes. And that lawyer could've instructed him on the difference between a telling-off and a summons, told him he needs to cut down on the martyr complex, and then gone about her day.
You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions."
What you say is, by and large, good and true and sensible. However, if you think you can audit the finances of the Catholic Church, you are deeply mistaken. The Vatican City is literally a state-unto-itself, and they are not at all open about the state of their finances.
The open teachings thing though -- yeah, thats a good definition of the difference.
It's not even a ticket. It's a warning about the possibility of getting a ticket.
A ticket would be a written "Notice of Intended Prosecution", which would have to be followed up with a summons. And although the kid says he's got a summons, he clearly hasn't as he doesn't know his court date. A summons tells you when and where you must appear appear to answer a charge -- hence the name.
I know this is a lot to ask, but please get the facts right.
He hasn't received a summons. He's not being taken to court. He was warned, by a somewhat overzealous police officer, that he might have been in breach of the law, and he had his sign confiscated.
The Crown Prosecution Service, who are the people who decide whether a prosecution will take place, have been told that these events happened. And will decide whether to proceed. If anyone wants to bet $10 to say they will, I'll gladly take your money here and now.
I'm posting this on a Tecra 8000 366MHz PII/128MB, running Vector Linux. It's happily running Opera 9 and mplayer is playing the cricket commentary while I'm doing the washing up. YouTube sorta works, although it can be a bit choppy.
How about "You have data on your laptop which is worth 100x the value of the laptop itself and may be worth that much to a third party"?
But I don't. And, be honest, neither do you. Our lives are just not sufficiently interesting that we have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of trade secrets knocking about on out laptops.
Seriously, these are customs guys -- if they wanted to take things of value they have keys to a lock up containing about kilos and kilos of recently-confiscated cocaine.
It's like talking to the police. The only things you should ever say (IANAL)to a cop is "Am I under arrest?" and "I need my attorney.
Really, I was talking to a policeman yesterday (as it happens, I live next door to our local police station). We talked about the weather, and the forthcoming European Cup Final, and whether I felt the carbon fibre forks on my bike made a difference.
I don't think it put me at any risk, but then I'm not paranoid to the point of retardedness.
The only thing that Schneier says is how . I still don't get WHY? What do I have on my laptop that Customs would be interested in, or would cause them to confiscate it? Emails from my fiance? Jesus, who cares? I'm never going to see that customs guy again, where's the actual harm?
Believe me, noone at US Customs cares that you like gonzo porn. They've seen it a zillion times already. Being insanely private about the uninteresting minutaie of your life is like covering yourself in tinfoil as you walk down the street, so no-one can see what colour shirt I'm wearing. You're just not that interesting.
So what exactly am I supposed to be hiding from the Customs?
And the ridiculous thing is, in that thread you quote, at least one person is telling the maintainer that they've done a seriously wrong thing, but the Debian OpenSSL maintainer would rather mindlessly eliminate the valgrind warnings than actually think about the reasons for those warnings.
No, we're supposed to be conditioned so that every case of copyright enforcement is outrageous, unless its in defence of a GPL violation, in which case its the copyright infringers who are unalloyed evil.
Well, we've had CCTV for at least a decade. Can you give me one single, solitary case in which a well meaning, law abiding person suffered harm of any kind because of them.
Well said sir. And, as the article explains -- far more even handedly than slashdot's biased summary -- the reason that CCTV footage doesn't help solve crimes is because no-one ever looks at it.
Yes folks, slashdot's latest evidence that the UK is a surveillance society is a report that states that no-one ever looks at the CCTV footage. But our summarisers have never let the facts get in the way of a good knee jerk.
that maybe control of ReiserFS will now be in the hands of someone who is not a total cock... sorry, a wife-murdering total cock. Hans Reiser's ability ot play nice with others made you long for Theo de Raadt's sunny demeanor. Given that the code is Free, having it under the control of someone who is not a complete sociopath can't help but the increase uptake of the novel parts of the ReiserFS structure.
Cartoons don't count: Section 62 of the act says: "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" before any image falls under the Bill.
So if any of you UK residents have any Clint Eastwood movies your best bet is to get rid of them NOW before your thought police come for you.
Wow. That's spectacularly clueless. Let's look at Section 63 of the Bill shall we...
63: Exclusion of classified films etc. (1) Section 62 does not apply to excluded images.
An "excluded image" is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
So, anything that's been passed for general release is exempt. Oh, and you're an idiot. Incidentally - here's the UK definition of pornography "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" Incidentally, here's the definition of "extreme" - it has to be both "grossly offensive, disgusting or obscene" and involve sexual violence, or sexual acts with a dead body.
So Sudden Impact is not "extreme" and not "pornography" under this Act, which wouldn't apply to it anyway, as its explicitly exempt. You're really informed on this subject aren't you?
But hey, why bother reading the legislation when a knee jerk response is so much easier. Incidentally, if you think banning pornography that are both grossly offensive and involve necrophilia is "a police state", I wish upon you the same thing I wish on every one who throws that term around.
I hope, one day, you have to live in a real police state, like Zimbabwe, North Korea or China.
I'm shocked to discover that Knuth is taking an opportunity to push literate programming, given that he's been pushing literate programming at every opportunity for at least 25 years.
You're full of shit. A proponent of semi-literate programming, I see.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think any practice that leads to better documented code is a good thing but... well, I think car safety is important too, but it doesn't mean I don't roll my eyes whenever Ralph Nader gets to speak in public.
I've still found nothing better looking for mathematics, kerning, ligatures, or smarter for indexing and footnotes. But almost everything is easier to work with.
Maybe LyX and its like is the answer, but I haven't tried it for years.
Amen about TeX (and even LaTeX). I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about many computing languages, but every time I've hit a non-trivial problem with making TeX do what I want, I've had to consult with a TeXpert (i.e. the utterly invaluable comp.text.tex). And, sadly, in almost every case the solution has been either insanely baroque, or there's been no real solution at all. LaTeX makes brilliant looking documents, but Jesus wept, it's hard to make your documents look like YOU want, as opposed to how it thinks they should look.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And that lawyer could've instructed him on the difference between a telling-off and a summons, told him he needs to cut down on the martyr complex, and then gone about her day.
The open teachings thing though -- yeah, thats a good definition of the difference.
It's not even a ticket.
It's a warning about the possibility of getting a ticket.
A ticket would be a written "Notice of Intended Prosecution", which would have to be followed up with a summons. And although the kid says he's got a summons, he clearly hasn't as he doesn't know his court date. A summons tells you when and where you must appear appear to answer a charge -- hence the name.
I know this is a lot to ask, but please get the facts right.
He hasn't received a summons.
He's not being taken to court.
He was warned, by a somewhat overzealous police officer, that he might have been in breach of the law, and he had his sign confiscated.
The Crown Prosecution Service, who are the people who decide whether a prosecution will take place, have been told that these events happened. And will decide whether to proceed. If anyone wants to bet $10 to say they will, I'll gladly take your money here and now.
That's it.
Indeed. In fact, if a body function is controlled by the brain, its not really autonomous is it?
I'm posting this on a Tecra 8000 366MHz PII/128MB, running Vector Linux. It's happily running Opera 9 and mplayer is playing the cricket commentary while I'm doing the washing up. YouTube sorta works, although it can be a bit choppy.
Really? You think that customs guys are stealing code to order for your competitors? Sure they are. That's stuffs much easier to shift than coke.
Seriously, these are customs guys -- if they wanted to take things of value they have keys to a lock up containing about kilos and kilos of recently-confiscated cocaine.
I don't think it put me at any risk, but then I'm not paranoid to the point of retardedness.
The only thing that Schneier says is how . I still don't get WHY? What do I have on my laptop that Customs would be interested in, or would cause them to confiscate it? Emails from my fiance? Jesus, who cares? I'm never going to see that customs guy again, where's the actual harm?
Believe me, noone at US Customs cares that you like gonzo porn. They've seen it a zillion times already. Being insanely private about the uninteresting minutaie of your life is like covering yourself in tinfoil as you walk down the street, so no-one can see what colour shirt I'm wearing. You're just not that interesting.
So what exactly am I supposed to be hiding from the Customs?
And the ridiculous thing is, in that thread you quote, at least one person is telling the maintainer that they've done a seriously wrong thing, but the Debian OpenSSL maintainer would rather mindlessly eliminate the valgrind warnings than actually think about the reasons for those warnings.
(Oh, and you meant "UNinitialized" memory.)
If this goes ahead, I guarantee the next US spammer in court will claim that possession of a botnet is covered by his 2nd Amendment rights.
Incidentally, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to tactical thermonuclear weapons?
No, we're supposed to be conditioned so that every case of copyright enforcement is outrageous, unless its in defence of a GPL violation, in which case its the copyright infringers who are unalloyed evil.
Rule Of Thumb: Geeks good, non-Geeks EVIL!
Well, we've had CCTV for at least a decade. Can you give me one single, solitary case in which a well meaning, law abiding person suffered harm of any kind because of them.
Well said sir. And, as the article explains -- far more even handedly than slashdot's biased summary -- the reason that CCTV footage doesn't help solve crimes is because no-one ever looks at it.
Yes folks, slashdot's latest evidence that the UK is a surveillance society is a report that states that no-one ever looks at the CCTV footage. But our summarisers have never let the facts get in the way of a good knee jerk.
that maybe control of ReiserFS will now be in the hands of someone who is not a total cock... sorry, a wife-murdering total cock. Hans Reiser's ability ot play nice with others made you long for Theo de Raadt's sunny demeanor. Given that the code is Free, having it under the control of someone who is not a complete sociopath can't help but the increase uptake of the novel parts of the ReiserFS structure.
Cartoons don't count: Section 62 of the act says: "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" before any image falls under the Bill.
Incidentally - here's the UK definition of pornography "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"
Incidentally, here's the definition of "extreme" - it has to be both "grossly offensive, disgusting or obscene" and involve sexual violence, or sexual acts with a dead body.
So Sudden Impact is not "extreme" and not "pornography" under this Act, which wouldn't apply to it anyway, as its explicitly exempt. You're really informed on this subject aren't you?
But hey, why bother reading the legislation when a knee jerk response is so much easier. Incidentally, if you think banning pornography that are both grossly offensive and involve necrophilia is "a police state", I wish upon you the same thing I wish on every one who throws that term around.
I hope, one day, you have to live in a real police state, like Zimbabwe, North Korea or China.
Sure, if you think programming methodologies are the same as moral absolutes. That's exactly what its like. Don't you have a car analogy?
Well, yes. But I don't think that "I want multi-page tables" falls under graphic design. And yet its a total PITA to do in basic LaTeX.
You're full of shit. A proponent of semi-literate programming, I see.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think any practice that leads to better documented code is a good thing but ... well, I think car safety is important too, but it doesn't mean I don't roll my eyes whenever Ralph Nader gets to speak in public.
I've still found nothing better looking for mathematics, kerning, ligatures, or smarter for indexing and footnotes. But almost everything is easier to work with.
Maybe LyX and its like is the answer, but I haven't tried it for years.
Amen about TeX (and even LaTeX). I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about many computing languages, but every time I've hit a non-trivial problem with making TeX do what I want, I've had to consult with a TeXpert (i.e. the utterly invaluable comp.text.tex). And, sadly, in almost every case the solution has been either insanely baroque, or there's been no real solution at all. LaTeX makes brilliant looking documents, but Jesus wept, it's hard to make your documents look like YOU want, as opposed to how it thinks they should look.