On the other hand, these 22,000 computer were already breaking the law by participating in a criminal enterprise and the BBC made them aware of it.
Analogously, if you leave you gun laying around for anyone to use, is that okay? The sheep says,"Baaaa. Sure I left my loaded shotgun on the front lawn but it isn't my fault a criminal picked it up and shot someone. Baaaa."
This sort of negligence is unbelievably widespread in the world of personal computing and the reporter was simply bringing this problem to the public's consciousness. The reporter entered a gray area but if you are going to prosecute the news people you would also need to prosecute the owners of the 22,000 computers.
This is not like someone someone walking into a home through an open window. This is like someone renting the 22,000 negligently available weapons and making a 22,000 gun salute to bring awareness of other's criminal negligence, I believe the reporter is "more okay" in their actions than are 22,000 people allowing criminals to use their PCs for crime, whether they are aware of the their participation or not.
As someone that had a police officer tell a bald face lie to get me on a traffic conviction (while looking me in the eye in the courtroom no less) I need to fix that for you.
Nope. Don't make Linux easier for the common computer user. Linux should remain a niche product. The dumbing down of media for the masses simply speeds the masses decent into ignorance. It is destructive to society to kow-tow to this force.
Let windows remain the predominant product and the lazy can use it.
Those that are willing to work harder can get a better experience for less money.
Hard work gets rewarded. There would be multiple tiers of quality to reflect multiple tiers of effort.
mu login:
Password:
CMU Common Lisp 19e (19E), running on mu
With core:/lib64/cmucl/lib/lisp.core
Dumped on: Thu, 2008-05-01 11:56:07-05:00 on usrtc3142
See for support information.
Loaded subsystems:
Python 1.1, target Intel x86
CLOS based on Gerd's PCL 2004/04/14 03:32:47
I would like to propose an analogy to demonstrate your logical errors. Your response is filled with emotion but not with reason. In this analogy the USA will be played by the Theodore Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) and the part of Iran will be played by Jeffery Dahmer.
Begin analogy:
Now, you say that Iran has been worse than the US and therefore is good.
Quote: "The USA has a greater degree of economic and political freedom, and Iran does not."
Let's explore this (grammatical errors ignored). By analogy, Ted kills 3 (and wounds many more) while Jeff kill 17, therefore Ted is good and Jeff is bad.
Hopefully, the fallacy of "moral relativism" is clear here and everyone can agree Ted and Jeff are both bad.
Being less bad than Iran does not clear the USA of its crimes.
Quote: "The USA has cured numerous diseases, opens it doors to educate the world at its universities, tolerates political dissent that would draw death sentences and crackdowns in Iran."
Again, using the analogy we see the error in logic. Jeff does lots of volunteer work, helps little old ladies cross the street and saved a baby from a burning building. Therefore, when he kills 17 people, he is not bad.
Clearly, this is also not reasonable. The good you do doesn't equate to a free pass when you do bad. So, the USA doing good things doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to atrocities.
End analogy.
As a final note, I did go down to D.C. like you suggested but I never made it to Iran. You see, nothing happened and I went home.
However, that night there was some trouble. I was arrested without knowing my charges. I was then taken to an secret prison where I was tortured for information. Ultimately, they realized I was not a source of (useful) information. Then they kept me in isolation for another year and finally released me without explanation. I was never given a day in court, I have never seen the charges against me, I never had legal representation and I was tortured. And this was the USA.
Again, just because it is WORSE in Iran (a statement with which I whole heartedly agree), it does make my treatment OK. Unless you are a "moral relativist". I think we are back to square one, namely the pot calling the kettle black. I believe, you sir, are the moral relativist, not I.
I am an idealist, be that the mindset of the silly or not.
Would you like to address the US involvement in the killing of civilian in Nicaragua and the years of aid given to Osama Bin Laden now or would your prefer to ignore my questions a second time around? Did you follow the links? Would you support Iran with the same unquestioning nationalism if you were born there instead of in the US?
Doesn't that make the U.S.A. a state sponsor of terrorism? What happens to state sponsors of terrorism? When that sponsor is the U.S.A. itself . . . nothing.
If your question is not rhetorical I believe the answer (based on the time stamp of the article and your post) is 1 hour and 4 minutes (give or take a minute).
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't agree with Ayn you are a criminal. However, don't worry. Instead of jail time, you just have to pay a fine.
I believe I have stated countless times that I have patented the alphabet, addition and subtraction.
I believe everyone posting here today has failed to pay me my legally due royalties.
If last line doesn't deserve mod funny, nothing does.
On the other hand, these 22,000 computer were already breaking the law by participating in a criminal enterprise and the BBC made them aware of it.
Analogously, if you leave you gun laying around for anyone to use, is that okay? The sheep says,"Baaaa. Sure I left my loaded shotgun on the front lawn but it isn't my fault a criminal picked it up and shot someone. Baaaa."
This sort of negligence is unbelievably widespread in the world of personal computing and the reporter was simply bringing this problem to the public's consciousness. The reporter entered a gray area but if you are going to prosecute the news people you would also need to prosecute the owners of the 22,000 computers.
This is not like someone someone walking into a home through an open window. This is like someone renting the 22,000 negligently available weapons and making a 22,000 gun salute to bring awareness of other's criminal negligence, I believe the reporter is "more okay" in their actions than are 22,000 people allowing criminals to use their PCs for crime, whether they are aware of the their participation or not.
As someone that had a police officer tell a bald face lie to get me on a traffic conviction (while looking me in the eye in the courtroom no less) I need to fix that for you.
Justice system: 2 Justice: 0.
Isn't it cookie based? I thought we nerds all had our web browsers sent to reject 3rd and 1st party cookies by default. Don't we?
Then that makes two of us. Except .1% accuracy cannot be guaranteed on my part. Sorry to promote stereotypes of grandmas, but I drive like one.
Well, then it would not be the Turning test, would it?
And I, personally, do find her to be a beautiful woman.
This is the 21st Century isn't it?
We don't judge PhD holders by there appearance these days. Do we, AC?
I want one! Hell, I want three!
Nope. Don't make Linux easier for the common computer user. Linux should remain a niche product. The dumbing down of media for the masses simply speeds the masses decent into ignorance. It is destructive to society to kow-tow to this force.
Let windows remain the predominant product and the lazy can use it.
Those that are willing to work harder can get a better experience for less money.
Hard work gets rewarded. There would be multiple tiers of quality to reflect multiple tiers of effort.
And when I drive 30 in a 30 MPH zone you promise you will remain a safe 3 seconds behind me right?
You won't be one of the countless jerks that rides my bumper until I go 5 over will you?
Before you answer, ask yourself, "I am telling the truth? Would I break the law by riding the bumper of the lawful citizen?"
DMT will get you there faster. Much faster.
I need to go. The aliens need me on the bridge.
To be clear, "Mu" is an English representation for the Chinese character which means "nothing".
So, unless you are non-existent, I have no power over you.
I use CMU Lisp as my shell.
/etc/passwd | grep overlordofmu
/lib64/cmucl/lib/lisp.core
cat
overlordofmu:x:1000:1000::/home/overlordofmu/:/bin/lsip
Example ---
mu login:
Password:
CMU Common Lisp 19e (19E), running on mu
With core:
Dumped on: Thu, 2008-05-01 11:56:07-05:00 on usrtc3142
See for support information.
Loaded subsystems:
Python 1.1, target Intel x86
CLOS based on Gerd's PCL 2004/04/14 03:32:47
*
Aren't I amusing!?!?
Thank you for saying this for me!
Someone with mod points, please give this some funny street cred! Funny!
Reverse engineering is fun. It can also be consider illegal but so is kneeling on a skywalk in Spokane, WA. (see law below)
Reverse engineering should be commended, not prohibited but U.S. laws are often moronic. Here is the example I promised above:
Listing 10.10.060 Skywalks -- Prohibited Acts.
A. No person may commit any of the following acts within the pedestrian skywalk system or within any pedestrian mall:
1. sit, kneel, lounge, lie, or otherwise recline upon floors or stairs;
(Ord. C-28629)
Effective Date: 4/1/1987. Passed On: 2/23/1987
If you need to tie your shoe, you better have good balancing skills or be very flexible.
So, stop being a moral relativist.
I would like to propose an analogy to demonstrate your logical errors. Your response is filled with emotion but not with reason. In this analogy the USA will be played by the Theodore Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) and the part of Iran will be played by Jeffery Dahmer.
Begin analogy:
Now, you say that Iran has been worse than the US and therefore is good.
Quote: "The USA has a greater degree of economic and political freedom, and Iran does not." Let's explore this (grammatical errors ignored). By analogy, Ted kills 3 (and wounds many more) while Jeff kill 17, therefore Ted is good and Jeff is bad.
Hopefully, the fallacy of "moral relativism" is clear here and everyone can agree Ted and Jeff are both bad.
Being less bad than Iran does not clear the USA of its crimes.
Quote: "The USA has cured numerous diseases, opens it doors to educate the world at its universities, tolerates political dissent that would draw death sentences and crackdowns in Iran."
Again, using the analogy we see the error in logic. Jeff does lots of volunteer work, helps little old ladies cross the street and saved a baby from a burning building. Therefore, when he kills 17 people, he is not bad.
Clearly, this is also not reasonable. The good you do doesn't equate to a free pass when you do bad. So, the USA doing good things doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to atrocities.
End analogy.
As a final note, I did go down to D.C. like you suggested but I never made it to Iran. You see, nothing happened and I went home.
However, that night there was some trouble. I was arrested without knowing my charges. I was then taken to an secret prison where I was tortured for information. Ultimately, they realized I was not a source of (useful) information. Then they kept me in isolation for another year and finally released me without explanation. I was never given a day in court, I have never seen the charges against me, I never had legal representation and I was tortured. And this was the USA.
Again, just because it is WORSE in Iran (a statement with which I whole heartedly agree), it does make my treatment OK. Unless you are a "moral relativist". I think we are back to square one, namely the pot calling the kettle black. I believe, you sir, are the moral relativist, not I.
I am an idealist, be that the mindset of the silly or not.
Would you like to address the US involvement in the killing of civilian in Nicaragua and the years of aid given to Osama Bin Laden now or would your prefer to ignore my questions a second time around? Did you follow the links? Would you support Iran with the same unquestioning nationalism if you were born there instead of in the US?
Because share-holder controlled media is less biased and has less of a conflict of interests?
Please . . .
Thank you! That was worth it. Very funny. +5 funny indeed!
Ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
Check out the part on "Human rights controversies".
Yeah, Iran is bad and U.S.A is good. Looks more like the pot calling the kettle black . .
And the CIA was nice enough to aid Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199
Doesn't that make the U.S.A. a state sponsor of terrorism? What happens to state sponsors of terrorism? When that sponsor is the U.S.A. itself . . . nothing.
Really? I thought "1984" was social commentary about what he already saw in his world? It was not a prediction, it was an indictment.
You will always be able to tell prisons and schools apart.
The food is much better in prison.
That post makes me smile. How intelligent? Thanks for that wonderful analogy.
If your question is not rhetorical I believe the answer (based on the time stamp of the article and your post) is 1 hour and 4 minutes (give or take a minute).