There is a difference here - this law bans having photographs or video of consenting adults. 16/17 year olds are not (legally) adults.
The real insanity, if you ask me, is that it's perfectly legal for a man and his wife (for example) to engage in the acts, but if they video themselves, they're breaking the law. That is just plain wrong.
Never mind Hibernate (which is great, but like all tools & frameworks only good as far as it goes and hardly faultless), just use PreparedStatemtents and the setXXX() methods and never worry about SQL injection again. This has been available since JDK1.2 ferchrisakes.
Seriously, the fact that in 2008 any site created by a "professional" web developer is vulnerable to SQL injection is little short of sickening.
Re:I can't understand Firefox3 beta5
on
Ubuntu 8.04 Released
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
So instead they would rather support a beta release?
Cause you know, everyone is entitled to protection of privacy unless suspected (quite possibly innocent, but suspected) of crime-du-jour, whether today's hatred is towards child abuse, terrorism or being member of a communist party.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but surely investigation of a person suspected of criminal behaviour requires an invasion of their privacy? How else do you gather the information necessary to ascertain their guilt or innocence?
Now TFA makes no reference to subpoenas being served, which is what I find troublesome; it appears that google caved to the threat of legal pressure, rather than due process - *but* I don't know what due process in Brazil is.
they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and mere suspicion should never be enough to remove rights that you and I enjoy
It's not as cut and dried as that unfortunately. Sometimes certain rights - like the right to liberty - need to be denied suspects until their innocence is proven, due to the risk of their committing further offences, or of fleeing justice.
And it almost certainly wouldn't need to be, as Oracle offers a range of different licencing options depending on the intended use of the product. No, it won't be as cheap as free, but I guarantee that in the vast majority of cases it'll be a lot less than simply $numberSites * $internetFacingCost.
I do actually agree with your general point, but I'm too much of a pedant to let an incorrect example slide. Never mind that you could almost certainly cut a deal with Oracle anyway if you speak to them.
I have used both Eclipse and a couple of releases of VisualStudio.NET, and while neither of them are anything like perfect, Eclipse wins hands down in terms of features. Don't get me wrong, it still sucks in a hundred different ways, but it sucks less.
To go along with this, show me how and where "evolution" has been proven. It cannot be either. The important thing to remember here it that evolution is just a theory.
You've completely missed the point. Evolution doesn't have to be proven, it has to be testable - and it is. ID doesn't have to be proven, it has to be testable - and it isn't. That is the difference, a scientific theory must produce testable predictions, it's part of the definition. Just because it doesn't doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong - but it does mean that it's not a scientific theory and has no place being taught in science class. By all means teach it in a religious education class though.
However, discussion with others (ie: science professors) on this matter was dismissive. Now, it's becoming common discussion.
The thing there is that there's only so much time (and money) that can be spent. Once a theory starts looking pretty solid of course you'll find fewer and fewer people willing to spend the time and effort discussing its validity. Eventually you *have* to accept things in order to progress.
I'd say a lot of it is not observable or disprovable, perhaps insightful. Theories such as infinitely expanding and collapsing universe, universes. And various other ideas often taught have serious lacks on disprovability. But there is no issue in teaching or discussing these in class.
The theories make predictions. That these predictions may currently be beyond our abilities to test is neither here nor there, further advances may enable us to perform those tests. The difference is that creationism doesn't make testable predictions - all you can do is prove whether or not there is an intelligent designer. In other words, prove or disprove the existence of God.
Many things that fall in this category are taught in the science classrooms of public school....with no qualms.
I'm sorry, but can you name some? Your earlier example, of the nature of the universe (ever expanding, expanding/collapsing, etc) *is* testable, at least theoretically. Just because we can't go sit outside it and watch doesn't mean that we can't make observations that will (one day) provide an answer one way or another.
No offence, but there are plenty of reasons why Firefox uses more resources than IE without having to resort to conspiracy theories.
Before you flame me, I've been using Mozilla-based browsers since Netscape 3, and have *never* used IE as my primary browser (and likely never will, although Firefox is in danger of becoming as buggy, bloated and unstable in comparison to IE7 as Navigator 4 was compared to IE4)
for software, there has to be some sort of a functional equivalency protection that Copyright doesn't protect
But why does there? What exactly is the problem? If it's trivial, then you can't have put a lot of effort into developing it yourself so what investment are you trying to protect? If it's complex, then without access to the source (or similar clues) your competitors will likely have just as hard a time developing their version as you had developing yours, in which case what's the problem? You have the lead time to (try to) recoup your investment plus profit, become the recognised (and thus hopefully entrenched) provider of the software, etc.
Software really isn't like mechanical/physical inventions. For them, the item *is* the source, you can't sell one without the other, and hence patents are (arguably) required.
Maybe laws written for the sake of the governed should be written in a language they understand.
You could make the same argument for software and users, or science and "the public" and hit the same problem - "plain English" isn't really suited to the required degree of exactness. Often what looks to be straightforward really isn't, and provides too much wiggle room for a skilled arguer. That's worse than having laws that normal people don't understand - it potentially leaves you with laws that simply aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
But fercryinoutloud, this one's still on the front page!
I know you guys don't do any fact checking, but is it too much to ask that you skim the front page of your own site to make sure the article's not already been posted?
The point isn't that it's self-replicating - that just means that you only need buy one, and then have it make the parts for more (or to repair it should it be damaged).
The point of any fabricator like this is that you can use it to cheaply and quickly (relatively speaking) produce custom plastic parts that would otherwise have been very expensive.
There's a difference between "hot", "unusually hot" and "dangerously hot in order to be able to be kept on the coffee maker longer thus reducing wastage and increasing profits".
Apart from that I agree with your comment about the quality of McDonald's food, although it's irrelevant.
I've only used the free version, so maybe the pay-for version is better, but I've found it to be buggy, with an ugly interface and somewhat obscure configuration dialogues. The only reason I sometimes use it rather than Live Messenger is the ability to add multiple accounts; if Messenger gained that I'd have no reason at all to use Trillian. YMMV, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference here - this law bans having photographs or video of consenting adults. 16/17 year olds are not (legally) adults.
The real insanity, if you ask me, is that it's perfectly legal for a man and his wife (for example) to engage in the acts, but if they video themselves, they're breaking the law. That is just plain wrong.
It would be illegal in many (if not all) countries. Specifically here in the UK it would almost certainly fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act.
I wouldn't have a problem with the machine running Windows; I'd have a problem with it being on the network at all.
Never mind Hibernate (which is great, but like all tools & frameworks only good as far as it goes and hardly faultless), just use PreparedStatemtents and the setXXX() methods and never worry about SQL injection again. This has been available since JDK1.2 ferchrisakes.
Seriously, the fact that in 2008 any site created by a "professional" web developer is vulnerable to SQL injection is little short of sickening.
So instead they would rather support a beta release?
Cause you know, everyone is entitled to protection of privacy unless suspected (quite possibly innocent, but suspected) of crime-du-jour, whether today's hatred is towards child abuse, terrorism or being member of a communist party.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but surely investigation of a person suspected of criminal behaviour requires an invasion of their privacy? How else do you gather the information necessary to ascertain their guilt or innocence?
Now TFA makes no reference to subpoenas being served, which is what I find troublesome; it appears that google caved to the threat of legal pressure, rather than due process - *but* I don't know what due process in Brazil is.
they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and mere suspicion should never be enough to remove rights that you and I enjoy
It's not as cut and dried as that unfortunately. Sometimes certain rights - like the right to liberty - need to be denied suspects until their innocence is proven, due to the risk of their committing further offences, or of fleeing justice.
Oh now I'm as rabidly pro-privacy as the next person, but questioning authority and planning to commit a crime are entirely different matters.
I'm not supporting Google's actions, just pointing out that your counter-example is wrong.
But $20,000 * 100 sites isn't in the budget,
And it almost certainly wouldn't need to be, as Oracle offers a range of different licencing options depending on the intended use of the product. No, it won't be as cheap as free, but I guarantee that in the vast majority of cases it'll be a lot less than simply $numberSites * $internetFacingCost.
I do actually agree with your general point, but I'm too much of a pedant to let an incorrect example slide. Never mind that you could almost certainly cut a deal with Oracle anyway if you speak to them.
Java's tools (while not as good IDE-wise as VB)
I have used both Eclipse and a couple of releases of VisualStudio.NET, and while neither of them are anything like perfect, Eclipse wins hands down in terms of features. Don't get me wrong, it still sucks in a hundred different ways, but it sucks less.
To go along with this, show me how and where "evolution" has been proven. It cannot be either. The important thing to remember here it that evolution is just a theory.
You've completely missed the point. Evolution doesn't have to be proven, it has to be testable - and it is. ID doesn't have to be proven, it has to be testable - and it isn't. That is the difference, a scientific theory must produce testable predictions, it's part of the definition. Just because it doesn't doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong - but it does mean that it's not a scientific theory and has no place being taught in science class. By all means teach it in a religious education class though.
However, discussion with others (ie: science professors) on this matter was dismissive. Now, it's becoming common discussion.
The thing there is that there's only so much time (and money) that can be spent. Once a theory starts looking pretty solid of course you'll find fewer and fewer people willing to spend the time and effort discussing its validity. Eventually you *have* to accept things in order to progress.
I'd say a lot of it is not observable or disprovable, perhaps insightful. Theories such as infinitely expanding and collapsing universe, universes. And various other ideas often taught have serious lacks on disprovability. But there is no issue in teaching or discussing these in class.
The theories make predictions. That these predictions may currently be beyond our abilities to test is neither here nor there, further advances may enable us to perform those tests. The difference is that creationism doesn't make testable predictions - all you can do is prove whether or not there is an intelligent designer. In other words, prove or disprove the existence of God.
Many things that fall in this category are taught in the science classrooms of public school....with no qualms.
I'm sorry, but can you name some? Your earlier example, of the nature of the universe (ever expanding, expanding/collapsing, etc) *is* testable, at least theoretically. Just because we can't go sit outside it and watch doesn't mean that we can't make observations that will (one day) provide an answer one way or another.
What's being British got to do with it? The word is "lose" whatever version of English you're speaking.
No offence, but there are plenty of reasons why Firefox uses more resources than IE without having to resort to conspiracy theories.
Before you flame me, I've been using Mozilla-based browsers since Netscape 3, and have *never* used IE as my primary browser (and likely never will, although Firefox is in danger of becoming as buggy, bloated and unstable in comparison to IE7 as Navigator 4 was compared to IE4)
for software, there has to be some sort of a functional equivalency protection that Copyright doesn't protect
But why does there? What exactly is the problem? If it's trivial, then you can't have put a lot of effort into developing it yourself so what investment are you trying to protect? If it's complex, then without access to the source (or similar clues) your competitors will likely have just as hard a time developing their version as you had developing yours, in which case what's the problem? You have the lead time to (try to) recoup your investment plus profit, become the recognised (and thus hopefully entrenched) provider of the software, etc.
Software really isn't like mechanical/physical inventions. For them, the item *is* the source, you can't sell one without the other, and hence patents are (arguably) required.
But you can give it away, you're just not allowed to keep a copy of it.
Maybe laws written for the sake of the governed should be written in a language they understand.
You could make the same argument for software and users, or science and "the public" and hit the same problem - "plain English" isn't really suited to the required degree of exactness. Often what looks to be straightforward really isn't, and provides too much wiggle room for a skilled arguer. That's worse than having laws that normal people don't understand - it potentially leaves you with laws that simply aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
But fercryinoutloud, this one's still on the front page!
I know you guys don't do any fact checking, but is it too much to ask that you skim the front page of your own site to make sure the article's not already been posted?
The point isn't that it's self-replicating - that just means that you only need buy one, and then have it make the parts for more (or to repair it should it be damaged).
The point of any fabricator like this is that you can use it to cheaply and quickly (relatively speaking) produce custom plastic parts that would otherwise have been very expensive.
Proper OO design favors designing more types with smaller number of features rather than God-objects that do many things.
Ah, lots of small classes that do one thing and do it well... seems to me I've heard something similar to that about an operating system or something.
You can have increasing profits and still be losing potential sales (and thus even higher increases in profit) to piracy, you know.
Not saying that that's the case, just that as usual things are nowhere near as black and white as some people try to paint them.
There's a difference between "hot", "unusually hot" and "dangerously hot in order to be able to be kept on the coffee maker longer thus reducing wastage and increasing profits".
Apart from that I agree with your comment about the quality of McDonald's food, although it's irrelevant.
I'd agree, if it wasn't for the fact that in my experience almost everyone who uses "M$" uses it rather than "MS" because of the allusion to money.