It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.
That seems rather irrelevant since only the title of the talk, and not the abstract were known when the Ada Initiative sought to have the talk canceled. They didn't even know what the talk was about, and they didn't make an effort to talk to the speaker to figure out what it was about. In short, they didn't know if the talk was on-topic or not, and they just sort of assumed that a talk about sex was going to include "rape triggers".
There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.
No technical reason, perhaps (although I don't know), but I also would not want to support software that is 10+ years old, and several versions behind, with the latest technology. Sort of the same reason why I, as a web developer, don't want to spend any time debugging IE6 and IE7 issues. It's just not worth it. We no longer even have an IE6 testing platform in-house. How much testing do you think Microsoft really wants to do for their newest technology running on XP? Instead of "hating MS", just get Windows 7, man. XP has nothing on 7, and I was a huge fan of XP and used it for many years.
Or MacOS versus Windows. Apple has been down this road before and already lost, and they're committed to doing it again and again. It's no surprise they do this, I just think it's weird that people buy phones that start out "in jail" and then try to break it out instead of buying a phone that's not in jail in the first place.
And why exactly are you unable to get a phone that supports your native language out of the box? You haven't given me a reason to jailbreak an iPhone, you've given me a reason not to buy one in the first place.
Android is slowly getting there, but the really big problem is that a lot of devices are still suck on 2.3 gingerbread.
Why does that matter? Since we're talking about jailbreaking or rooting the phone anyway, just install Cyanogenmod and install whatever version of Android you want.
If you want a decent phone with a screen that's not humongous and actually usable single-handedly, your options are REALLY limited.
Not really. I've had my Evo 4G for several years and it's been just fine. You can look up the specs on it if you want to compare.
Or put another why - why do people choose Windows over Linux? Why do they install Windows 7 over WIndows 8, when they can install Linux? Hell, I develop Linux code using Windows - my Linux box sits headless beside me and I use Samba and gVim/Win32 and SSH windows because I find X clunky, slow, ugly and really poor font rendering.
That's fine, but you're not voiding a single warranty, taking advantage of a single exploit, or breaking a single contract by doing that. It's not exactly a great comparison.
Because it's a very well engineered, designed, and optimized phone
It's not the only one. Maybe you'd like a phone that doesn't start out in "jail" in the first place, and is also well-engineered, designed, and "optimized".
What should someone do if they like the iPhone, but can't get AT&T?
Use a different carrier, buy a different phone, or move. If having a precious phone is less important than having a nice place to live, then pick a phone that works where you live. Your wife doesn't have a right to have an iPhone, that's a privilege. It's a privilege she may have to give up if she wants to live in a certain area. These types of trade-offs are not unique to phones, there's no reason you absolutely need an iPhone. Apple works very hard to make sure you can only use their phone like they want, so if you're going to buy one then you're also going to fund that mindset.
Perhaps Apple's view is to let those who can, do....and those who can't don't?
The continued patches by Apple to fix exploits that make jailbreaking work would suggest that your assumption is not correct. Try calling Apple support and starting off by telling them you jailbroke your phone.
That being said, if I did decide to buy my own iOS device I should be able to do whatever I want with it and its software. That is why jailbreaking exists.
That's my question though. You should be able to do whatever you want, so if you're one of those people who wants to do whatever they want with their phone, why would you choose a phone manufactured by a company that expends a non-trivial effort to explicitly keep you from doing what you want? It doesn't make sense to me. I think it's telling that the term is "jailbreaking". You buy a phone, and it's in jail, and if you want to use it you need to get it out of jail. How about just buying a phone that isn't in jail in the first place?
I've always wondered why jailbreaking exists. If people wanted to do whatever they wanted to their phones, why would they get an iPhone? The reason I've never even considered an iPhone is because of Apple's attitude towards it.
Since that statement is easily disprovable with a single example, here's the word from Sophos from 2006, for OS X specifically. There's even a nice section labeled "Is Leap-A a virus or a Trojan?" to counter your next rebuttal. If you disagree with their assessment, argue with them, not me.
If you look at the Mac virus timeline on that page, you can see the first one in 1982, which predates the first IBM PC virus by 4 years. There have been several viruses written to target various Mac operating systems, and you can even credit Microsoft with a working cross-platform macro virus.
Only malware I've heard of is Trojan Horses
Then you aren't really in a position to make any definitive claims regarding the history of viruses on Macs, are you?
Again, this has zero to do with OS X security. This is all about end user installed software, provided and supported by Oracle.
Just so we're all on the same page, when computers get infected with malware it is not the fault of the OS, it is the fault of the third-party software, right? It seems like I heard a different tune when people were talking about Windows machines getting infected through third-party software.
Which is obviously BS, because that's what just happened to Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple. Macs got infected via Java. The payload was targeted for OSX.
You've completely missed the point, that your own personal experiences in your immediate area are simply not indicative of the state of world affairs. You're still sticking to your claim that most terrorists in the world are Christians, right? You're coming into a discussion about Islamist violence in Bangladesh to say that most terrorists are Christians. About the only thing I can conclude about you is that you don't live in Bangladesh. Your opinions don't mean anything to this discussion.
My point is more that there have never been any terrorist attacks by Muslims here
And... therefore most terrorists are Christian? And Muslim terrorists are either extremely rare or non-existent? What exactly is your point other than stating things which may or may not be true about your immediate geographical area (which you have conveniently left out of the discussion, so there's no point in fact-checking)? I've only had my property burglarized by people who came from Mexico. But if I go around claiming that most criminals in the entire world are Mexican because of things that have happened to me personally, then that doesn't make me enlightened, it makes me a racist idiot. I'm not sure how racist you are, but you seem to fit the other label.
Islam knows no borders and Muslims have a very strong sense of belonging to the point where an Afgan and Iranian would see each other as brothers and not men from different countries.
Really? What about Iraqis and Iranians, do they also see each other as "brothers"? How about Sunnis and Shiites, they're both Muslim so they must get along perfectly right?
These few loud attention seekers do not represent Islam any more than Westboro' Baptist represents Christianity.
How many people has WBC killed? When WBC holds a rally, how many hundreds and thousands of people come out to demonstrate in support of them and shout slogans against their enemies? On the other hand, when WBC demonstrates, how many people show up to actively block out their hate? There's a world of difference between radical Muslims and the WBC, and especially how their respective societies react to them. The WBC are just simple trolls compared to the numbers and organization of the world's radical Muslims.
The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.
You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct". Pull up the article and search for "price", it appears 3 times. The actual number of the price was the number that he paid in Canadian dollars, but it was reported as USD. Since the exchange rate is not 1 to 1, then the numeric amount as reported was not correct for USD. It was correct for CDN, but the form didn't say CDN, it said USD. The article says exactly that:
The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
What he didn't explicitly say, and what you are assuming happened but actually did not, is that they did not convert the price. The copied the number and changed the currency.
So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT.
No, you're just flat-out wrong. The price as given in USD was not the price he paid for the boat. If it was, then why the fuck would he refuse to sign the form on the basis that the price was not correct? He makes that quite clear:
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
Option 1, change the units from USD to CDN. Option 2, convert the CDN price to the USD amount.
They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD
No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.
I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.
The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Emphasis mine.
Here's what the article says, since it sounds like you haven't bothered to read it before arguing about it:
The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.
The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.
According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.
Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:
The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.
She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.
Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.
They didn't change the form. The summary does not even say they changed the form. I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post, just read The Fucking Article if you want to try and split hairs about it.
Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.
That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct. They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD. The form had the correct amount with the wrong currency. Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?
Everyone's been telling me (not here, just everyone else on the web) that Microsoft is better now - that they aren't quite the assholes they were in the 90's/early 2000's.
In all fairness to Microsoft's formerly-evil self, the new Microsoft certainly is "better", and they aren't "quite" the assholes they used to be, even considering this. It's like they've gone from chaotic evil to neutral evil.
You're saying people should be put to death for proposing an unconstitutional law? That's pretty ultra-nationalist, don't you think? How about they get banned from serving public office for a period of years, with increasing lengths of the ban for repeat offenders? That sounds a little more pragmatic, wouldn't you say? That way we wouldn't have the deaths of stupid, knee-jerk politicians on our collective conscience.
False: definition of slavery: "One who does not have sole autonomy over how he spends his time" - as per Plato.
You can really use any definition of slavery you want to support your argument, if an ancient Greek definition supports your narrative then go ahead. But this is the modern definition of a slave:
1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
Neither of those describe the relationship of an employee to their employer. An employee is not completely subservient to their employer.
But, if you want to talk about Plato, then I think the definition still does not hold. An employee working for an employer is choosing to spent his time that way, he has autonomy to say that he is choosing to go to work and do what they want him to do. He can also choose not to go to work and face the consequences of that, if he so desires. There is no one dictating how he must spend all of his time, if he doesn't want to spend his time that way then he can leave. If I choose to stay at home the police aren't going to show up and drag me to work against my will, because I'm not a slave.
Slashdot Mirror
It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.
That seems rather irrelevant since only the title of the talk, and not the abstract were known when the Ada Initiative sought to have the talk canceled. They didn't even know what the talk was about, and they didn't make an effort to talk to the speaker to figure out what it was about. In short, they didn't know if the talk was on-topic or not, and they just sort of assumed that a talk about sex was going to include "rape triggers".
There is no reason why this and newer DirectX could not be back ported to XP.
No technical reason, perhaps (although I don't know), but I also would not want to support software that is 10+ years old, and several versions behind, with the latest technology. Sort of the same reason why I, as a web developer, don't want to spend any time debugging IE6 and IE7 issues. It's just not worth it. We no longer even have an IE6 testing platform in-house. How much testing do you think Microsoft really wants to do for their newest technology running on XP? Instead of "hating MS", just get Windows 7, man. XP has nothing on 7, and I was a huge fan of XP and used it for many years.
Android is like VHS and iOS is like BetaMAX.
Or MacOS versus Windows. Apple has been down this road before and already lost, and they're committed to doing it again and again. It's no surprise they do this, I just think it's weird that people buy phones that start out "in jail" and then try to break it out instead of buying a phone that's not in jail in the first place.
And why exactly are you unable to get a phone that supports your native language out of the box? You haven't given me a reason to jailbreak an iPhone, you've given me a reason not to buy one in the first place.
Android is slowly getting there, but the really big problem is that a lot of devices are still suck on 2.3 gingerbread.
Why does that matter? Since we're talking about jailbreaking or rooting the phone anyway, just install Cyanogenmod and install whatever version of Android you want.
If you want a decent phone with a screen that's not humongous and actually usable single-handedly, your options are REALLY limited.
Not really. I've had my Evo 4G for several years and it's been just fine. You can look up the specs on it if you want to compare.
Or put another why - why do people choose Windows over Linux? Why do they install Windows 7 over WIndows 8, when they can install Linux? Hell, I develop Linux code using Windows - my Linux box sits headless beside me and I use Samba and gVim/Win32 and SSH windows because I find X clunky, slow, ugly and really poor font rendering.
That's fine, but you're not voiding a single warranty, taking advantage of a single exploit, or breaking a single contract by doing that. It's not exactly a great comparison.
Because it's a very well engineered, designed, and optimized phone
It's not the only one. Maybe you'd like a phone that doesn't start out in "jail" in the first place, and is also well-engineered, designed, and "optimized".
What should someone do if they like the iPhone, but can't get AT&T?
Use a different carrier, buy a different phone, or move. If having a precious phone is less important than having a nice place to live, then pick a phone that works where you live. Your wife doesn't have a right to have an iPhone, that's a privilege. It's a privilege she may have to give up if she wants to live in a certain area. These types of trade-offs are not unique to phones, there's no reason you absolutely need an iPhone. Apple works very hard to make sure you can only use their phone like they want, so if you're going to buy one then you're also going to fund that mindset.
Perhaps Apple's view is to let those who can, do....and those who can't don't?
The continued patches by Apple to fix exploits that make jailbreaking work would suggest that your assumption is not correct. Try calling Apple support and starting off by telling them you jailbroke your phone.
That being said, if I did decide to buy my own iOS device I should be able to do whatever I want with it and its software. That is why jailbreaking exists.
That's my question though. You should be able to do whatever you want, so if you're one of those people who wants to do whatever they want with their phone, why would you choose a phone manufactured by a company that expends a non-trivial effort to explicitly keep you from doing what you want? It doesn't make sense to me. I think it's telling that the term is "jailbreaking". You buy a phone, and it's in jail, and if you want to use it you need to get it out of jail. How about just buying a phone that isn't in jail in the first place?
I've always wondered why jailbreaking exists. If people wanted to do whatever they wanted to their phones, why would they get an iPhone? The reason I've never even considered an iPhone is because of Apple's attitude towards it.
There are no known virus on Macs.
Since that statement is easily disprovable with a single example, here's the word from Sophos from 2006, for OS X specifically. There's even a nice section labeled "Is Leap-A a virus or a Trojan?" to counter your next rebuttal. If you disagree with their assessment, argue with them, not me.
If you look at the Mac virus timeline on that page, you can see the first one in 1982, which predates the first IBM PC virus by 4 years. There have been several viruses written to target various Mac operating systems, and you can even credit Microsoft with a working cross-platform macro virus.
Only malware I've heard of is Trojan Horses
Then you aren't really in a position to make any definitive claims regarding the history of viruses on Macs, are you?
Again, this has zero to do with OS X security. This is all about end user installed software, provided and supported by Oracle.
Just so we're all on the same page, when computers get infected with malware it is not the fault of the OS, it is the fault of the third-party software, right? It seems like I heard a different tune when people were talking about Windows machines getting infected through third-party software.
The claim is that Macs don't get virus'
Which is obviously BS, because that's what just happened to Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Apple. Macs got infected via Java. The payload was targeted for OSX.
You've completely missed the point, that your own personal experiences in your immediate area are simply not indicative of the state of world affairs. You're still sticking to your claim that most terrorists in the world are Christians, right? You're coming into a discussion about Islamist violence in Bangladesh to say that most terrorists are Christians. About the only thing I can conclude about you is that you don't live in Bangladesh. Your opinions don't mean anything to this discussion.
My point is more that there have never been any terrorist attacks by Muslims here
And... therefore most terrorists are Christian? And Muslim terrorists are either extremely rare or non-existent? What exactly is your point other than stating things which may or may not be true about your immediate geographical area (which you have conveniently left out of the discussion, so there's no point in fact-checking)? I've only had my property burglarized by people who came from Mexico. But if I go around claiming that most criminals in the entire world are Mexican because of things that have happened to me personally, then that doesn't make me enlightened, it makes me a racist idiot. I'm not sure how racist you are, but you seem to fit the other label.
Islam knows no borders and Muslims have a very strong sense of belonging to the point where an Afgan and Iranian would see each other as brothers and not men from different countries.
Really? What about Iraqis and Iranians, do they also see each other as "brothers"? How about Sunnis and Shiites, they're both Muslim so they must get along perfectly right?
These few loud attention seekers do not represent Islam any more than Westboro' Baptist represents Christianity.
How many people has WBC killed? When WBC holds a rally, how many hundreds and thousands of people come out to demonstrate in support of them and shout slogans against their enemies? On the other hand, when WBC demonstrates, how many people show up to actively block out their hate? There's a world of difference between radical Muslims and the WBC, and especially how their respective societies react to them. The WBC are just simple trolls compared to the numbers and organization of the world's radical Muslims.
The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.
You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct". Pull up the article and search for "price", it appears 3 times. The actual number of the price was the number that he paid in Canadian dollars, but it was reported as USD. Since the exchange rate is not 1 to 1, then the numeric amount as reported was not correct for USD. It was correct for CDN, but the form didn't say CDN, it said USD. The article says exactly that:
The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
What he didn't explicitly say, and what you are assuming happened but actually did not, is that they did not convert the price. The copied the number and changed the currency.
So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT.
No, you're just flat-out wrong. The price as given in USD was not the price he paid for the boat. If it was, then why the fuck would he refuse to sign the form on the basis that the price was not correct? He makes that quite clear:
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
Option 1, change the units from USD to CDN. Option 2, convert the CDN price to the USD amount.
They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD
No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.
I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.
The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Emphasis mine.
Here's what the article says, since it sounds like you haven't bothered to read it before arguing about it:
The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.
The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.
According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.
Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:
The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.
She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.
Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.
They didn't change the form. The summary does not even say they changed the form. I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post, just read The Fucking Article if you want to try and split hairs about it.
Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.
That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct. They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD. The form had the correct amount with the wrong currency. Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?
He didn't sign the form to get the boat out of customs impound so they couldn't release it to him.
They didn't present him with an accurate form to sign.
Everyone's been telling me (not here, just everyone else on the web) that Microsoft is better now - that they aren't quite the assholes they were in the 90's/early 2000's.
In all fairness to Microsoft's formerly-evil self, the new Microsoft certainly is "better", and they aren't "quite" the assholes they used to be, even considering this. It's like they've gone from chaotic evil to neutral evil.
You're saying people should be put to death for proposing an unconstitutional law? That's pretty ultra-nationalist, don't you think? How about they get banned from serving public office for a period of years, with increasing lengths of the ban for repeat offenders? That sounds a little more pragmatic, wouldn't you say? That way we wouldn't have the deaths of stupid, knee-jerk politicians on our collective conscience.
False: definition of slavery: "One who does not have sole autonomy over how he spends his time" - as per Plato.
You can really use any definition of slavery you want to support your argument, if an ancient Greek definition supports your narrative then go ahead. But this is the modern definition of a slave:
1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
Neither of those describe the relationship of an employee to their employer. An employee is not completely subservient to their employer.
But, if you want to talk about Plato, then I think the definition still does not hold. An employee working for an employer is choosing to spent his time that way, he has autonomy to say that he is choosing to go to work and do what they want him to do. He can also choose not to go to work and face the consequences of that, if he so desires. There is no one dictating how he must spend all of his time, if he doesn't want to spend his time that way then he can leave. If I choose to stay at home the police aren't going to show up and drag me to work against my will, because I'm not a slave.