Sounds like the guy shooting the drone did something illegal (despite reasonable motivations), but the drone owner also did something I would consider criminal (illegal trespass, illegal surveillance).
How come both did not get arrested?
Don't go bringing reason to a discussion involving shooting stuff. You're trespassing. And now you'll send the thread onto a tangent about the appropriate ammunition and weapons to deal with it.
And they'll be morally right to do so - as clearly you are defending paedophiles. You bastard! Destroyer of justice.
Kentucky is a "Castle Doctrine" state. Under Kentucky law, to invoke the Castle Doctrine, an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car; the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home; and/or the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. There are other, more specific conditions and constraints. The law (in Kentucky) also includes a "duty to retreat". So, no, you can't simply shoot trespassers, even in Kentucky.
And yes, you have a right to privacy, but you don't enforce that by taking the law into your own hands.
So if you're a neighbour and you hear a shotgun blast, get hit by some pellets, and look in the direction of the sound - and see the arseclown next door holding a shotgun and grinning at you - you can legally put three warning shots through his eyebrow?
Interesting. Maybe the right to bear arms isn't so bad... unless you're an armless bear of course.
How is this worthy of a Black Hat anything? If you take a device, turn on WiFi, then you use the default password, then you can change things over the WiFi connection? Go home, "hackers", you're drunk.
Next up, nuclear weapons can be accessed when you tell the army guarding them to go home, and leave the doors when they leave.
Comprehension fail. Walking through a door isn't a hack. Neither is turning on a light switch (your mum was just trying to find something good to say about you). Demonstrating an unorthodox way of opening the lock without breaking it might be. Apart from rampant envy you demonstrate delusion of grandeur.
But don't let that stop you from ordering that GENNIUS badge.
I don't follow. It appears that when you use the word consequences and I use the word consequences we are talking about different things.
You are correct on both points. Snowden is facing the consequences of his actions, he will be for the rest of his life - he made it clear that he knew that from the start. You see only the legal consequences, and I doubt you see them clearly (whether out of optimism or naivety I don't know).
It's possible Snowden could have just leaked the documents and kept his name out of it. He has discussed the reasons why he did not (it would be the act of a coward, it would have less effect, he'd be unable to influence the carefully vetted and staggered release of the documents). The idea that it was an option seems credible - if you trust some of the what the government reaction has been (we don't know what he took). It's almost certain that there are other, anonymous NSA leakers. So he may have even gotten away with an anonymous dump.
I should have put large <humour>... </humour> tags around my comment.
I found quite ironic that a project that could have been _formally _ assigned so many fail points has not failed in any meaningful sense of fail. If were to look at my posting history my reply was notably gentle.
I figured it twelve to a dozen on whether you were taking the piss (that's Oz-speak for good clean fun). Most of the fail points you gave had already been made in the comments on the old version of the list - including some truly brainless one's you missed (no documentation, no website, no bug tracker).
Humour tags would have just spoiled the fun. Gotta think of the larger audience. [smile]
For a good laugh at mega-TV-series FAILS - one of our consultants sent me a link to this. (I knew there was a reason we pay him the big bucks) We need a bigger FAIL index
He also leaked tons of information about the unquestionably legal foreign intelligence activities of the US. There's no argument about that. It's a slam-dunk case and any lawyer would advise him to plea bargain for all he can, because he has no chance of winning in court.
Any "lawyer"? No hedging or dodging now. You're the one taking the moral high ground we're all looking to you to set the standards
This is the internet. Did it not occur to you that readers might use other parts of the internet to read opinion of lawyers that don't agree with that? Professor Jonanthan Turley (or is a leading expert in Military and Constitutional law good not enough?), Ben Wizner, Anatoly Kucherena, Robert Tibbo, Albert Ho, Jonathan Man, Baltasar Garzon. Which ones are not lawyers?,No chance of a fair trial, and not a good idea to face one.
tl;dr You are wrong. You are so full of wrong if you're doing this for free you're a wrong-headed fool.
The difference between Snowden and those people? They didn't hide from their actions.
How can you hide from the people Snowden took on? How the fuck is he hidden? (Hint: he's in Russia - do you really think the US gov doesn't know exactly where). Go on, lug those goalposts - how about - he's outside their jurisdiction? Um, demonstrably that doesn't matter. What about - he's outside there reach. Again demonstrably not true. Keep trying.
Hint: you're barking up the wrong tree with "but it's different" - a result of trying too hard.
How did the previous poster not acknowledge what Ms. Monaco said? Does one have to believe that the other person wasn't being disingenuous to acknowledge what they said?
No, it's a moot issue, and obvious to everyone but you.,
Fair is when the rabbit that sits down to talk with a fox is holding a shotgun.
Rosa Parks technically illegal
Susan B Anthony? technically illegal
Martin Luther King, Jr? technically illegal
And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions. Now I don't know if you missed this, or are intentionally ignoring this, but the point that Ms Monaco was making is that Edward Snowden did not.
Apples and apples - they were brave, and principled, no doubt about it. But not facing the same length of sentence (ask Manning about that), and neither of them risk execution. It's easy to say Snowden won't face execution, but if I was in his shoes I wouldn't get much comfort from your words.
It also overlooks the implications of having to spend a lifetime hiding in Russian. In Snowden's place I'd consider quietly offing myself rather than face a lifetime in prison, my reputation and my family dragged through the mud, or living in Russia. I highly doubt that Snowden knew where he was going to go for certain - but there's no doubting his conviction in his fate when you watch the video and follow his subsequent communications.
If Parks, Anthony, or King were here right now do you really think they'd be taking your side? Washington? Franklin?
Who then gets to decide what "the consequences of his actions" is. What makes running away from people who have it in for him not a consequence of his actions?
Please post your full name and current address if you want any credibility when grandstanding about "consequences of actions".
Snowden did risk a lot, but it seems like you're denigrating what those other people did. I mean martin luther king jr actually did die for his beliefs.
I don't read any disrespect in the earlier posts. I do in this. You're also a bit premature on the assessment of the total costs Snowden paid - the meter is still running.
Great, you've connected Snowden to MLK in a comparison that says they both risked their lives for what they believed in, and a greater good. Of course, the fact remains that one risked being killed by his own government, and the other was killed by a psycho racist citizen.
Agreed on James Earl Ray (though I'm not 100% certain). Did Martin Luther King risk being killed by the government? That's definitely less than 100% certain. Is it a fair comparison? Yes - they're not apples and apples - but it's hard to find a suitable comparison (Nelson Mandela?) Especially seeing as MLK was a bit of a dodgy bastard - which doesn't reduce by any means the value of his legacy. MLK never knowingly faced a lifetime in hiding.
The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.
Bullshit. The video of his first contact with the press is freely available - he damn well does know exactly what the consequences are. Shift ground much?
What Snowden did was technically illegal, but he was exposing previous illegal acts by the government, so he should be pardoned on that basis. Snowden has not been charged (yet) under the espionage act because the possibility of the death penalty would block his extradition from most European countries where he might seek asylum.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." That's just ridiculous. He would never see a public courtroom but would be tried in a secret "patriot act " court. I think the authoritarian regime is right here.
This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.
He also claims he tried to bring the illegalities to the attention of his superiors - so the best qualified legal opinions I've read probably hold true. He is a whistleblower. Whether a court of judges appointed by government uphold that is debatable.
We're all guessing about possible outcomes: much of what he took has yet to be released so we can't determine, or even reliably guess on the long-term impact (no doubt those that call the shots are wary of what would happen if he was killed - martyr status is not the least of their possible concerns a document dump probably is, very likely they don't know what he took); we can't reliably determine what the "government" will do - though I have no doubt some parts of the government would like him dead.
Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.
I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.
Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....
So much wrong and stupid in one post. Not that I'm surprised, it's/. What are you 12? Educated by Fox? Clearly not even a reader - or you'd have read what I wrote (perhaps your lips got sore). Certainly not a fact checker - have you heard of the internet?
It doesn't matter. What are you going to say, some random stranger on an internet forum explained things to you the right way, and suddenly you changed how you think about nuclear power? That's never, ever gonna happen. It's a deeply-seated belief, and you'll never give it up, because to do that you'd have to re-examine your entire self. Anti-nuclearism is a religion, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how many citations from Wikipedia I throw in, you'll never, ever change your mind. Hell, if you actually did, you'd be socially ostracized by friends you've had for decades. You might even get fired if you work at an NGO or somesuch.
Speaks volumes of you says nothing of me. I used to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I doubt I'm a corner case.
Your logic is demonstrably false - otherwise everyone who was brainwashed into religion as a child would never change their views. They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).
I'm 19, and I have to say this is incredibly moronic. Granted, I've posted tons of embarrassing stuff when I was younger, but that's part of growing up. I learned not do that again and moved on. Just because you said something stupid once doesn't mean people get to remove archived internet events for you. I'm so sick of my worthless pussy generation, always being "triggered" or having their feelings hurt because they're not the center of attention. I mean holy fuck, most of us are in our late teens and early 20s. Grow the fuck up..
Agreed. Just goes to show wisdom isn't soley the result of age (it sure isn't an automatic result)
I'm a lot older. I did and thought a lot of things things in the past that I'm not proud of. Wiping out the evidence doesn't change the fact they happened. Embarrassment is awareness of that. I learned from the embarrassment - that I am privately proud of
If people want to judge me by past history - that's their right (if they're over 30 they deserve the opinions they hold), it doesn't mean it's right, or it's a reliable indicator of how I act and think now. All it says is that their opinions say nothing about me and speak volumes about them. If someone thinks others can't learn from their mistakes they're people I wouldn't trust to run a bath. Not that there isn't people who've never fucked up - just that I have more respect for people that have, and have learnt from it than I have for those that have never been tested.
Where do we stop when we define "embarrassing"? If the internet had been around then should I demand pictures of me wearing "V-knee" jeans, or flares, and platform shoes be deleted? If that was the case I'd be embarrassed at the shallowness behind it. There's always going to be people who think I'm a dickhead, or "uncool". Trying to change that is like pissing in the wind and trying to stay dry.
Maybe people who judge us are right, maybe they're wrong - IMO the important question is "who's opinion do I make myself a prisoner of"?. Thanks for the offer [insert name here] but I'll pick my own peers.
When it comes to employers, or clients, or partners and friends it's not substantially different. e.g. should my employer's/client's opinion of the past contents or existence of my Fffacebook/Google+/MySpace page bother me? Yes. It allows me to determine whether my investment of time is a waste. If they want to see lots of Ffffacebook ffffriends in my profile I doubt they're likely to be in business for very long, pay me a fair share of my earnings, or recognise my potential. Friends are no different (the John West principle - the friends you get are limited by the friends you don't reject).
Partners? They'll figure you out after a while (if they can't it doesn't say much about what makes you happy), good luck sleeping well if there's a big difference between who you are and who you pretend to be. If you think it's worth bullshitting for a short term gain you may have made a poor investment decision (and wish you could edit out that history later).
Oh wait - I think I took a cynicism tablet instead of the happy pill this morning.
Bloody Abbott has been messing with the public health system again. He used to be funny until he pushed Costello out of the limelight.
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"
Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.
The limitations of your experience define the frame. Most animals like salt - but feel free to call PETA if I put a tiny dab inside a horse's lip. If that horse has colic I will be cruel in order to get that horse to drink. The crueltry is relative. If you did think that unreasonably cruel to do to a horse with colic then you'd be deserving of a horse whipping.
"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain"
(clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]" Careful you don't hurt your back lugging those goal posts around.
"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment".
The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense.
[golf clap] Such a wit(ling). ...means exactly or nearly the same". In your desperate bounds from bank to bank you pass over the obvious. WILL != do. So the "implication" - is wrong. Hint: a little rain won't hurt you (cold will). The point I tried to make earlier, which you ignored, is that common sense is not common - because it's counter intuitive. Your reaction reinforces that. It'd be simpler, and more accurate, to just say "they don't possess the intelligence to act in their own best interest" don't you think? (of course that may raise the question of why "they" feel the need to use a more obscure choice of words)
You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.
I don't think so (you'll ruin you eyes squinting like that). Context is the point. Is it context that eludes you? Or just the meaning of "a thread" and the ability to follow it's tangents?
"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).
Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question.
If you think it's about scoring points you're doing two things wrong. I don't see it as winning points. I take it personally - if I test my opinion and find I'm wrong I consider that a win. No prizes for foolish pride. In this case I've won nothing. On the other-hand, maybe you could. Just a thought - it won't kill you. And no, "I" don't get to pick the species of fly, that needs to be defined by the person trotting out the proverb like it is some valuable piece of wisdom instead of frontier gibberish passed off as a precept.
Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.
With the obvious exception of blow flies, horse flies, march flies, house flies, little house flies, cluster flies, meat flies, and most other flies found around homes and farms. I qualified my statement - fly traps. I never managed to catch any with honey (other insects, yes) if there was other traps nearby with vinegar. The second best mixture proved to be sugar and vinegar (better than just sugar).
That's not a unique finding. How hard is it to check, especially compared to a knee-jerk defence of what you've always assumed to be true but never tested?
It's demonstrably more truthful to say "you catch more flies with shit than with honey". The interesting question would be why do so many people trot out such proverbs like that which aren't self-supporting? The answer is often that the proverb is self-serving. They wish to make a proverb a precept. The devil is a gentleman whose speech is honeyed. The truth is not pretty and those that find it challenges their over-investment in a emotional belief resort to an ad-hominem argument, red herring, strawmen, or convoluted interpretations and appeals to authority in lieu of a valid argument.
It was a good post until you wrote "boxen". After that, my filter turned the rest of the words into "blah blah I'm an idiot". Please don't do that again.
The good news is your critical thinking badge is in the mail.
The bad news is you don't qualify for a consolation prize in the "not taking yourself too seriously" competition. But that's news you should be used to by now.
Ironically, given the MOD, the wisdom of Theophrastus is all greek to you, never-the-less I thankyou for your pointless contribution.
== Source Control ==
* You've written your own source control for this code [ +30 points of FAIL ]
FAIL Like quoting the largest archive choice for the source code, you choose the wrong meaning of "own". That's not the meaning implicit in Tom's list - nor does it fit his reasoning (using an obscure versioning system limits use and development). "There is no publicly available source control (e.g. cvs, svn, bzr, git)". [ -30 points of FAIL]
== Building From Source ==
* Your source is configured with a handwritten shell script [ +10 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. It's not handwritten. It could be. There's difference. [ -10 points of FAIL]
Even worse: handwritten C program: scripts/kconfig/mconf.c that is compiled and run by "make menuconfig".
FAIL, most source code is handwritten. C source is not a script
== Libraries ==
* Your code only builds static libraries [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL Demonstrably Linux supports dynamic libraries and can (often is) built without static libraries only. [ -20 points of FAIL]
* Your source does not try to use system libraries if present [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. Unless you can produce a citation that shows that Linux will try and use system libraries when the same libraries have been statically compiled (yes, even glibc). [ -20 points of FAIL]
== Code Oddities ==
* Your code depends on specific compiler feature functionality [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. If that were the case gcc would be the only possible compiler. It's demonstrably not. [ -20 points of FAIL]
== Licensing ==
* Your code does not have per-file licensing [ +10 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. Unless you've got a citation for that. I'm sure M$ would love to hear of this invalidation of the kernel license. [ -10 points of FAIL]
=== FAIL METER ===
Total: 180, highest possible:
135+ points of FAIL: So much fail, your code should have its own reality TV show.
Let me fix that for you:-
=== FAIL METER ===
20 points of FAIL
5-25 points of FAIL: You're probably doing okay, but you could be better. (um, maybe Linux is doing OK - one of two people use it)
Your score:-
=== FAIL METER ===
115 points of FAIL
95-130 points of FAIL: HONK HONK. THE FAILBOAT HAS ARRIVED!
I'd also disagree with 'Your code doesn't have a changelog' - this is a GNU requirement, but one that dates back to before CVS was widely deployed. The revision control logs now fill the same requirement, though you should have something documenting large user-visible changes.
He's referring to another criteria of success - user adoption. Revision control logs don't fill the same requirement if a user wants to know what's new. That plays some part in determining whether users will upgrade. If they don't, then additional development is rather pointless.
Note that he only gives not having GNU Make a FAIL score of 10. Which seems about right - it has a small effect on the entrance level for developers and wide spread adoption of the project. It's a critical factor only if your project has accumulated a bunch of other fails.
What's wrong with open sourcing previously closed source projects?
I'd have thought that obvious. Licensing difficulties. The more difficulties a project has the greater the chances it won't succeed in the long term. (if only I could think of a simple analogy you could comprehend)
I guess linux fails since Linus wrote his own source control for it.
That's the problem with guessing. Git wasn't developed just for the kernel project. Fun fact: "own" has more than one meaning. Words can be tricky like that. e.g. linux, and kernel. Even if the kernel (Linux) didn't use git - that's only 30 points of FAIL, just enough to make a baby cry.
Logic can be tricky as well. You seem to have conflated your premise with your conclusion. Some deductive logic might of been good (and a schema) - you seem to have leaped to a conclusion. A valid premise would not be "it's all wrong".
tl;dr your deductive argument is unsound. (and not deductive)
Slashdot Mirror
Dear coward
Both parties committed a crime.
Sounds like the guy shooting the drone did something illegal (despite reasonable motivations), but the drone owner also did something I would consider criminal (illegal trespass, illegal surveillance).
How come both did not get arrested?
Don't go bringing reason to a discussion involving shooting stuff. You're trespassing. And now you'll send the thread onto a tangent about the appropriate ammunition and weapons to deal with it.
And they'll be morally right to do so - as clearly you are defending paedophiles. You bastard! Destroyer of justice.
Kentucky is a "Castle Doctrine" state. Under Kentucky law, to invoke the Castle Doctrine, an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car; the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home; and/or the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. There are other, more specific conditions and constraints. The law (in Kentucky) also includes a "duty to retreat". So, no, you can't simply shoot trespassers, even in Kentucky.
And yes, you have a right to privacy, but you don't enforce that by taking the law into your own hands.
So if you're a neighbour and you hear a shotgun blast, get hit by some pellets, and look in the direction of the sound - and see the arseclown next door holding a shotgun and grinning at you - you can legally put three warning shots through his eyebrow?
Interesting. Maybe the right to bear arms isn't so bad... unless you're an armless bear of course.
Dear coward
How is this worthy of a Black Hat anything? If you take a device, turn on WiFi, then you use the default password, then you can change things over the WiFi connection? Go home, "hackers", you're drunk.
Next up, nuclear weapons can be accessed when you tell the army guarding them to go home, and leave the doors when they leave.
Comprehension fail. Walking through a door isn't a hack. Neither is turning on a light switch (your mum was just trying to find something good to say about you). Demonstrating an unorthodox way of opening the lock without breaking it might be. Apart from rampant envy you demonstrate delusion of grandeur.
But don't let that stop you from ordering that GENNIUS badge.
I don't follow. It appears that when you use the word consequences and I use the word consequences we are talking about different things.
You are correct on both points. Snowden is facing the consequences of his actions, he will be for the rest of his life - he made it clear that he knew that from the start. You see only the legal consequences, and I doubt you see them clearly (whether out of optimism or naivety I don't know).
It's possible Snowden could have just leaked the documents and kept his name out of it. He has discussed the reasons why he did not (it would be the act of a coward, it would have less effect, he'd be unable to influence the carefully vetted and staggered release of the documents). The idea that it was an option seems credible - if you trust some of the what the government reaction has been (we don't know what he took). It's almost certain that there are other, anonymous NSA leakers. So he may have even gotten away with an anonymous dump.
I should have put large <humour> ... </humour> tags around my comment.
I found quite ironic that a project that could have been _formally _ assigned so many fail points has not failed in any meaningful sense of fail. If were to look at my posting history my reply was notably gentle.
I figured it twelve to a dozen on whether you were taking the piss (that's Oz-speak for good clean fun). Most of the fail points you gave had already been made in the comments on the old version of the list - including some truly brainless one's you missed (no documentation, no website, no bug tracker).
Humour tags would have just spoiled the fun. Gotta think of the larger audience. [smile]
For a good laugh at mega-TV-series FAILS - one of our consultants sent me a link to this. (I knew there was a reason we pay him the big bucks) We need a bigger FAIL index
Dear coward
He also leaked tons of information about the unquestionably legal foreign intelligence activities of the US. There's no argument about that. It's a slam-dunk case and any lawyer would advise him to plea bargain for all he can, because he has no chance of winning in court.
Any "lawyer"? No hedging or dodging now. You're the one taking the moral high ground we're all looking to you to set the standards
This is the internet. Did it not occur to you that readers might use other parts of the internet to read opinion of lawyers that don't agree with that? Professor Jonanthan Turley (or is a leading expert in Military and Constitutional law good not enough?), Ben Wizner, Anatoly Kucherena, Robert Tibbo, Albert Ho, Jonathan Man, Baltasar Garzon. Which ones are not lawyers? ,No chance of a fair trial, and not a good idea to face one.
tl;dr You are wrong. You are so full of wrong if you're doing this for free you're a wrong-headed fool.
Bush, Cheney and Obama should man up – and turn themselves in – before Snowden.
Dear coward (do you see the irony?)
The difference between Snowden and those people? They didn't hide from their actions.
How can you hide from the people Snowden took on? How the fuck is he hidden? (Hint: he's in Russia - do you really think the US gov doesn't know exactly where). Go on, lug those goalposts - how about - he's outside their jurisdiction? Um, demonstrably that doesn't matter. What about - he's outside there reach. Again demonstrably not true. Keep trying.
Hint: you're barking up the wrong tree with "but it's different" - a result of trying too hard.
How did the previous poster not acknowledge what Ms. Monaco said? Does one have to believe that the other person wasn't being disingenuous to acknowledge what they said?
No, it's a moot issue, and obvious to everyone but you.,
Fair is when the rabbit that sits down to talk with a fox is holding a shotgun.
Rosa Parks technically illegal Susan B Anthony? technically illegal Martin Luther King, Jr? technically illegal
And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions. Now I don't know if you missed this, or are intentionally ignoring this, but the point that Ms Monaco was making is that Edward Snowden did not.
Apples and apples - they were brave, and principled, no doubt about it. But not facing the same length of sentence (ask Manning about that), and neither of them risk execution. It's easy to say Snowden won't face execution, but if I was in his shoes I wouldn't get much comfort from your words.
It also overlooks the implications of having to spend a lifetime hiding in Russian. In Snowden's place I'd consider quietly offing myself rather than face a lifetime in prison, my reputation and my family dragged through the mud, or living in Russia. I highly doubt that Snowden knew where he was going to go for certain - but there's no doubting his conviction in his fate when you watch the video and follow his subsequent communications.
If Parks, Anthony, or King were here right now do you really think they'd be taking your side? Washington? Franklin?
Who then gets to decide what "the consequences of his actions" is. What makes running away from people who have it in for him not a consequence of his actions?
Please post your full name and current address if you want any credibility when grandstanding about "consequences of actions".
Dear coward
Snowden did risk a lot, but it seems like you're denigrating what those other people did. I mean martin luther king jr actually did die for his beliefs.
I don't read any disrespect in the earlier posts. I do in this. You're also a bit premature on the assessment of the total costs Snowden paid - the meter is still running.
Great, you've connected Snowden to MLK in a comparison that says they both risked their lives for what they believed in, and a greater good. Of course, the fact remains that one risked being killed by his own government, and the other was killed by a psycho racist citizen.
Agreed on James Earl Ray (though I'm not 100% certain). Did Martin Luther King risk being killed by the government? That's definitely less than 100% certain. Is it a fair comparison? Yes - they're not apples and apples - but it's hard to find a suitable comparison (Nelson Mandela?) Especially seeing as MLK was a bit of a dodgy bastard - which doesn't reduce by any means the value of his legacy. MLK never knowingly faced a lifetime in hiding.
The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.
Bullshit. The video of his first contact with the press is freely available - he damn well does know exactly what the consequences are. Shift ground much?
What Snowden did was technically illegal, but he was exposing previous illegal acts by the government, so he should be pardoned on that basis. Snowden has not been charged (yet) under the espionage act because the possibility of the death penalty would block his extradition from most European countries where he might seek asylum.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." That's just ridiculous. He would never see a public courtroom but would be tried in a secret "patriot act " court. I think the authoritarian regime is right here.
This is not the America I grew up in. This is disgraceful.
He also claims he tried to bring the illegalities to the attention of his superiors - so the best qualified legal opinions I've read probably hold true. He is a whistleblower. Whether a court of judges appointed by government uphold that is debatable.
We're all guessing about possible outcomes: much of what he took has yet to be released so we can't determine, or even reliably guess on the long-term impact (no doubt those that call the shots are wary of what would happen if he was killed - martyr status is not the least of their possible concerns a document dump probably is, very likely they don't know what he took); we can't reliably determine what the "government" will do - though I have no doubt some parts of the government would like him dead.
Totally different circumstances, but you already know that, you are just grasping at straws. OBL's death was a military action on foreign soil that resulted in the death of a non US citizen who was a known combatant. He died in a war.
I've said before that if this administration wanted Snowden dead, he'd already be dead. I'm arguing that they don't want or need him to die for what ever reason and my evidence of that is simply that he's alive. So I seriously doubt that if he turned himself in they would skip the trial and just kill him. Too many people would be looking, it wouldn't be legal, and I contend there would be nothing to gain.
Seriously, he was just a two bit system administrator who took data off the systems he managed, he wasn't some high level operative but some dude in the basement changing out backup tapes and resetting lost passwords. He didn't do that for very long either. He doesn't really know anything beyond the documents he took....
So much wrong and stupid in one post. Not that I'm surprised, it's /. What are you 12? Educated by Fox? Clearly not even a reader - or you'd have read what I wrote (perhaps your lips got sore). Certainly not a fact checker - have you heard of the internet?
It doesn't matter. What are you going to say, some random stranger on an internet forum explained things to you the right way, and suddenly you changed how you think about nuclear power? That's never, ever gonna happen. It's a deeply-seated belief, and you'll never give it up, because to do that you'd have to re-examine your entire self. Anti-nuclearism is a religion, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how many citations from Wikipedia I throw in, you'll never, ever change your mind. Hell, if you actually did, you'd be socially ostracized by friends you've had for decades. You might even get fired if you work at an NGO or somesuch.
Speaks volumes of you says nothing of me. I used to be staunchly anti-nuclear. I doubt I'm a corner case.
Your logic is demonstrably false - otherwise everyone who was brainwashed into religion as a child would never change their views. They do - but I guess that's something else you'll ignore while you tell yourself you're a critical thinker (hint: you're just critical).
I'm 19, and I have to say this is incredibly moronic. Granted, I've posted tons of embarrassing stuff when I was younger, but that's part of growing up. I learned not do that again and moved on. Just because you said something stupid once doesn't mean people get to remove archived internet events for you. I'm so sick of my worthless pussy generation, always being "triggered" or having their feelings hurt because they're not the center of attention. I mean holy fuck, most of us are in our late teens and early 20s. Grow the fuck up. .
Agreed. Just goes to show wisdom isn't soley the result of age (it sure isn't an automatic result)
I'm a lot older. I did and thought a lot of things things in the past that I'm not proud of. Wiping out the evidence doesn't change the fact they happened. Embarrassment is awareness of that. I learned from the embarrassment - that I am privately proud of
If people want to judge me by past history - that's their right (if they're over 30 they deserve the opinions they hold), it doesn't mean it's right, or it's a reliable indicator of how I act and think now. All it says is that their opinions say nothing about me and speak volumes about them. If someone thinks others can't learn from their mistakes they're people I wouldn't trust to run a bath. Not that there isn't people who've never fucked up - just that I have more respect for people that have, and have learnt from it than I have for those that have never been tested.
Where do we stop when we define "embarrassing"? If the internet had been around then should I demand pictures of me wearing "V-knee" jeans, or flares, and platform shoes be deleted? If that was the case I'd be embarrassed at the shallowness behind it. There's always going to be people who think I'm a dickhead, or "uncool". Trying to change that is like pissing in the wind and trying to stay dry.
Maybe people who judge us are right, maybe they're wrong - IMO the important question is "who's opinion do I make myself a prisoner of"?. Thanks for the offer [insert name here] but I'll pick my own peers.
When it comes to employers, or clients, or partners and friends it's not substantially different. e.g. should my employer's/client's opinion of the past contents or existence of my Fffacebook/Google+/MySpace page bother me? Yes. It allows me to determine whether my investment of time is a waste. If they want to see lots of Ffffacebook ffffriends in my profile I doubt they're likely to be in business for very long, pay me a fair share of my earnings, or recognise my potential. Friends are no different (the John West principle - the friends you get are limited by the friends you don't reject).
Partners? They'll figure you out after a while (if they can't it doesn't say much about what makes you happy), good luck sleeping well if there's a big difference between who you are and who you pretend to be. If you think it's worth bullshitting for a short term gain you may have made a poor investment decision (and wish you could edit out that history later).
It's all about the kids, right?
Oh wait - I think I took a cynicism tablet instead of the happy pill this morning. Bloody Abbott has been messing with the public health system again. He used to be funny until he pushed Costello out of the limelight.
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"
Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.
The limitations of your experience define the frame. Most animals like salt - but feel free to call PETA if I put a tiny dab inside a horse's lip.
If that horse has colic I will be cruel in order to get that horse to drink. The crueltry is relative. If you did think that unreasonably cruel to do to a horse with colic then you'd be deserving of a horse whipping.
"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain" (clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"
Careful you don't hurt your back lugging those goal posts around.
"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment".
The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense.
[golf clap] Such a wit(ling).
...means exactly or nearly the same". In your desperate bounds from bank to bank you pass over the obvious. WILL != do. So the "implication" - is wrong. Hint: a little rain won't hurt you (cold will).
The point I tried to make earlier, which you ignored, is that common sense is not common - because it's counter intuitive. Your reaction reinforces that.
It'd be simpler, and more accurate, to just say "they don't possess the intelligence to act in their own best interest" don't you think? (of course that may raise the question of why "they" feel the need to use a more obscure choice of words)
You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.
I don't think so (you'll ruin you eyes squinting like that). Context is the point. Is it context that eludes you? Or just the meaning of "a thread" and the ability to follow it's tangents?
"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).
Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question.
If you think it's about scoring points you're doing two things wrong. I don't see it as winning points. I take it personally - if I test my opinion and find I'm wrong I consider that a win. No prizes for foolish pride. In this case I've won nothing. On the other-hand, maybe you could. Just a thought - it won't kill you.
And no, "I" don't get to pick the species of fly, that needs to be defined by the person trotting out the proverb like it is some valuable piece of wisdom instead of frontier gibberish passed off as a precept.
Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.
With the obvious exception of blow flies, horse flies, march flies, house flies, little house flies, cluster flies, meat flies, and most other flies found around homes and farms. I qualified my statement - fly traps. I never managed to catch any with honey (other insects, yes) if there was other traps nearby with vinegar. The second best mixture proved to be sugar and vinegar (better than just sugar).
That's not a unique finding. How hard is it to check, especially compared to a knee-jerk defence of what you've always assumed to be true but never tested?
It's demonstrably more truthful to say "you catch more flies with shit than with honey". The interesting question would be why do so many people trot out such proverbs like that which aren't self-supporting? The answer is often that the proverb is self-serving. They wish to make a proverb a precept. The devil is a gentleman whose speech is honeyed. The truth is not pretty and those that find it challenges their over-investment in a emotional belief resort to an ad-hominem argument, red herring, strawmen, or convoluted interpretations and appeals to authority in lieu of a valid argument.
It was a good post until you wrote "boxen". After that, my filter turned the rest of the words into "blah blah I'm an idiot". Please don't do that again.
The good news is your critical thinking badge is in the mail.
The bad news is you don't qualify for a consolation prize in the "not taking yourself too seriously" competition. But that's news you should be used to by now.
Ironically, given the MOD, the wisdom of Theophrastus is all greek to you, never-the-less I thankyou for your pointless contribution.
APK
Fuck off APK. Once was enough of your damaged posts, beyond that it's just shilling for shit.
Why don't you go home and spend some quality time with Sex Conker, be the cow in his life.
If we wanted a brain dead multi-megabyte host file we'd make it ourselves - certainly wouldn't download one of yours everyday.
Now if only I had a filter for APK without having to browse at above 0 and miss some of the good posts....
That list is well out of date. The most recent version is here.
== Size == * If the source code also exceeds 100 MB when it is compressed [ +5 points of FAIL ] 125372299 Jul 22 00:36 linux-4.1.3.tar.gz
FAIL. linux-4.1.3.tar.xz 22-Jul-2015 00:36 79M [ -5 points of FAIL]
== Source Control == * You've written your own source control for this code [ +30 points of FAIL ]
FAIL Like quoting the largest archive choice for the source code, you choose the wrong meaning of "own". That's not the meaning implicit in Tom's list - nor does it fit his reasoning (using an obscure versioning system limits use and development).
"There is no publicly available source control (e.g. cvs, svn, bzr, git)" . [ -30 points of FAIL]
== Building From Source == * Your source is configured with a handwritten shell script [ +10 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. It's not handwritten. It could be. There's difference. [ -10 points of FAIL]
Even worse: handwritten C program: scripts/kconfig/mconf.c that is compiled and run by "make menuconfig".
FAIL, most source code is handwritten. C source is not a script
== Libraries == * Your code only builds static libraries [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL Demonstrably Linux supports dynamic libraries and can (often is) built without static libraries only. [ -20 points of FAIL]
* Your source does not try to use system libraries if present [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. Unless you can produce a citation that shows that Linux will try and use system libraries when the same libraries have been statically compiled (yes, even glibc). [ -20 points of FAIL]
== Code Oddities == * Your code depends on specific compiler feature functionality [ +20 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. If that were the case gcc would be the only possible compiler. It's demonstrably not. [ -20 points of FAIL]
== Licensing == * Your code does not have per-file licensing [ +10 points of FAIL ]
FAIL. Unless you've got a citation for that. I'm sure M$ would love to hear of this invalidation of the kernel license. [ -10 points of FAIL]
=== FAIL METER === Total: 180, highest possible: 135+ points of FAIL: So much fail, your code should have its own reality TV show.
Let me fix that for you:-
=== FAIL METER ===
20 points of FAIL
5-25 points of FAIL: You're probably doing okay, but you could be better. (um, maybe Linux is doing OK - one of two people use it)
Your score:-
=== FAIL METER ===
115 points of FAIL
95-130 points of FAIL: HONK HONK. THE FAILBOAT HAS ARRIVED!
[...] (It's hard to fault them for a 100+MB source code download though, unless there's a lot of redundancy in the code).
That extracts to over 3GB, so yes, there's a hell of a lot of redundancy.
I'd also disagree with 'Your code doesn't have a changelog' - this is a GNU requirement, but one that dates back to before CVS was widely deployed. The revision control logs now fill the same requirement, though you should have something documenting large user-visible changes.
He's referring to another criteria of success - user adoption. Revision control logs don't fill the same requirement if a user wants to know what's new. That plays some part in determining whether users will upgrade. If they don't, then additional development is rather pointless.
Note that he only gives not having GNU Make a FAIL score of 10. Which seems about right - it has a small effect on the entrance level for developers and wide spread adoption of the project. It's a critical factor only if your project has accumulated a bunch of other fails.
Dear coward
What's wrong with open sourcing previously closed source projects?
I'd have thought that obvious. Licensing difficulties. The more difficulties a project has the greater the chances it won't succeed in the long term. (if only I could think of a simple analogy you could comprehend)
I guess linux fails since Linus wrote his own source control for it.
That's the problem with guessing. Git wasn't developed just for the kernel project. Fun fact: "own" has more than one meaning. Words can be tricky like that. e.g. linux, and kernel.
Even if the kernel (Linux) didn't use git - that's only 30 points of FAIL, just enough to make a baby cry.
Logic can be tricky as well. You seem to have conflated your premise with your conclusion. Some deductive logic might of been good (and a schema) - you seem to have leaped to a conclusion. A valid premise would not be "it's all wrong".
tl;dr your deductive argument is unsound. (and not deductive)