What is at issue is that, yes, it is illegal to promote the killing of the president, but saying 'shoot the president', is not necessarily a call to shoot the president.
I recall a rather silly animated reality show called "Drawn Together" which AFAIK never received a visit from the SS after their death threat, circa 2002:
Blue ball, giving an interview: "You know, normally Princess takes advice from us, but this time she listened to Foxy Love. Oh well, its okay, because if she asked me for advice, I would have told her to KILL THE PRESIDENT!" *screen tints red and music plays menacingly*
Supposing you actually do enforce the speechcrime laws consistently enough to affect behavior, all you'll do is make the assholes find new expressions ("code words", if you will) that skirt the legal boundaries while leaving no doubt where they stand.
Frack, you've figured us out!:) (And, back in 1978, this didn't work; we still got in trouble in school for copying Dirk Benedict's made-up swear word. But my fucking aunt never got in trouble by anyone for saying shit like "jeesum crow" and "gosh darn it", both made-up swears...)
the law against threatening to kill the president are a different ballgame. we have so many assassinated presidents that we have to take it seriously. and there is no legitimate criticism of a relatively democratically elected government, that requires someone to threaten the life of the president (or anyone really).
a) Perhaps the reason we have so many assassinated presidents is because they are using their military tool inappropriately? b) If the elections are stolen, and then laws oppressing the people and stealing their homes from them are passed, do you still think force is an inappropriate response?
MCA only came about as a method to obtain more revenue, when everybody and their brother were selling ISA motherboards and cards. It was IBM's cash grab that failed. This article is correct: if the playing field then was like it is now, they would not have needed MCA, ISA would have been protected.
Open bidding isn't anything like an open bid. They take the resumes and profiles of companies they want to use and create a bid so only such company can win, the bid. You will see odd things in the bids like 10 years FORTRAN experience required or 4 Years networking experiences for doing a VB6 to.NET conversion job.
So, can't we petition (some other branch of) the Government to make use of their pervasive surveillance powers, so that they can root out this wrongdoing? Surely that's one of the reasons that they created this monstrosity in the first place, to secure the State and its resources, right?
Child porn is a scourge on society, and I strongly support any reasonable means of stomping on the bastards behind it [...]
I would disagree. "Child abuse is a scourge on society", yes. Video evidence? That's merely evidence. Evidence should never be illegal, it should be allowed to be presented to the court or other authorities with no fear of being used against one, so that one can help bring the actual criminals to justice (the people that injure the children). I'm somewhat surprised that I need to state that video evidence of a homicide is not illegal to possess...
Exactly; then, there's the Chevy Nova, which means "no go" in Spanish countries. Or Coca-cola, which I learned as a child meant "bite a wax tadpole" in Chinese (it was rather amusing to us as kids). I guess numbering your products is the best bet!
The best compromise is when both parties are not happy with the result.
OTOH, I learned recently that all you need is a fender from a car owned by a celebrity, and you can then "rebuild the car around the fender" and sell a car "that was owned by the celebrity". (The "rebuild" part is actually "attach the fender to another car", generally.)
On learning this, I then asked what is the smallest resolution of item required? In other words, can I buy that fender and split it into 20 parts, and then sell "20 cars owned by $celebrity"? That seems absurd on the face of it; imagine if I knew that celebrity A only ever owned a single Delorean, and then I heard someone was selling 5 Deloreans that celebrity A owned -- that would be obviously wrong, so I am surprised that it is the way it is. But since it is that way, knowing the minimum resolution is important, in terms of maximizing profit. I heard these fenders can go for a couple hundred grand. (... but of course.)
Swerving back on topic, perhaps there is a percentage of moon composition that is acceptable. From this example, it was found after a fire and needed to be cleaned. What if not all the "dirt" was cleaned off? It would then be heavier than actual. And if you chose the right dirt, it would not be distinguishable (because after all, here is where the moon came from). So perhaps there is a business model in "cutting" moon rock?
Besides, this all happened in the early 70's. Everyone then thought trips to the moon colony in atomic powered rockets was going to be a typical family vacation by 2000 so what value is a moon rock except for sentiment over those old Apollo missions that started it all?
Exactly: the fact that it's perhaps more valuable now simply means we lost that capability.
To use a math analogy, going straight to assembly is like doing calculus first, then algebra, at least on a "level of difficulty" scheme.
Best to start off with an easier language then gradually ramp up the difficulty while on a parallel track make sure they can do math and Boolean algebra, then at some point not too far in the future get into the low-level stuff. Compilers and interpreted languages abstract that stuff away anyhow.
I like the way you're thinking, and I can't help but wonder if there might be a better path towards understanding. What I mean is, most often it's best to teach someone something new, using a paradigm of something old (i.e., something the listener already knew, so they can fit the new knowledge better into the old knowledge). So for someone who has only ever used a web browser for Facebook and email, perhaps a good start would be to begin taking a look behind the scenes of their email platform, or social media platform. And, for this, one would want to know HTML and JavaScript, so it does seem to make sense that Stanford is moving in this direction.
Should they go on to graduate school, they'll be writing in languages their advisor has developed that many 3 other people on the planet have any familiarity with.
LOL I wonder how many schools have professors who profess to have invented Scheme; I went to one such.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, with you up until the "put to death for speaking your beliefs", you must be an American.
I'm more amused by the four-star-general on-screen yelling it to muster his troops -- and then the actor being sued for the resulting hilarity.
What is at issue is that, yes, it is illegal to promote the killing of the president, but saying 'shoot the president', is not necessarily a call to shoot the president.
I recall a rather silly animated reality show called "Drawn Together" which AFAIK never received a visit from the SS after their death threat, circa 2002:
Blue ball, giving an interview: "You know, normally Princess takes advice from us, but this time she listened to Foxy Love. Oh well, its okay, because if she asked me for advice, I would have told her to KILL THE PRESIDENT!" *screen tints red and music plays menacingly*
Supposing you actually do enforce the speechcrime laws consistently enough to affect behavior, all you'll do is make the assholes find new expressions ("code words", if you will) that skirt the legal boundaries while leaving no doubt where they stand.
Frack, you've figured us out! :) (And, back in 1978, this didn't work; we still got in trouble in school for copying Dirk Benedict's made-up swear word. But my fucking aunt never got in trouble by anyone for saying shit like "jeesum crow" and "gosh darn it", both made-up swears...)
the law against threatening to kill the president are a different ballgame. we have so many assassinated presidents that we have to take it seriously. and there is no legitimate criticism of a relatively democratically elected government, that requires someone to threaten the life of the president (or anyone really).
a) Perhaps the reason we have so many assassinated presidents is because they are using their military tool inappropriately? b) If the elections are stolen, and then laws oppressing the people and stealing their homes from them are passed, do you still think force is an inappropriate response?
Well, in Iran they're killing scientists, so just be glad you're not over there! :(
MCA only came about as a method to obtain more revenue, when everybody and their brother were selling ISA motherboards and cards. It was IBM's cash grab that failed. This article is correct: if the playing field then was like it is now, they would not have needed MCA, ISA would have been protected.
Next step for copyright cartel to fill their coffers: start suing Netflix DVD rental users for their backups.
Hey, the TSA is way ahead of you. Many of us no longer fly, so we're pretty much prisoners within these borders...
Well, and a corpse, and an upside-down mortgage I suppose...
you)fail)lisp
Open bidding isn't anything like an open bid. They take the resumes and profiles of companies they want to use and create a bid so only such company can win, the bid. You will see odd things in the bids like 10 years FORTRAN experience required or 4 Years networking experiences for doing a VB6 to .NET conversion job.
So, can't we petition (some other branch of) the Government to make use of their pervasive surveillance powers, so that they can root out this wrongdoing? Surely that's one of the reasons that they created this monstrosity in the first place, to secure the State and its resources, right?
Hmm. Looks like a wormhole...
What, Morgan Freeman's?
I'm with you, man: the TSA is saving me a ton of money. Oh, except for the sailing part; I just stay home now.
Just build me the bionic penis. We can make it stronger... Faster... And now, detachable.
Sam Kinison FTW!
Pretty easy to distinguish between the costs of retaining bits vs. costs of retaining matter.
Your b) applies to data retention. Data has to be stored on matter; that matter needs to be retained.
Child porn is a scourge on society, and I strongly support any reasonable means of stomping on the bastards behind it [...]
I would disagree. "Child abuse is a scourge on society", yes. Video evidence? That's merely evidence. Evidence should never be illegal, it should be allowed to be presented to the court or other authorities with no fear of being used against one, so that one can help bring the actual criminals to justice (the people that injure the children). I'm somewhat surprised that I need to state that video evidence of a homicide is not illegal to possess...
Hmm, or, "sell weapons; don't use them" perhaps?
It's like driving on the other side of the road.
Exactly; then, there's the Chevy Nova, which means "no go" in Spanish countries. Or Coca-cola, which I learned as a child meant "bite a wax tadpole" in Chinese (it was rather amusing to us as kids). I guess numbering your products is the best bet!
The best compromise is when both parties are not happy with the result.
OTOH, I learned recently that all you need is a fender from a car owned by a celebrity, and you can then "rebuild the car around the fender" and sell a car "that was owned by the celebrity". (The "rebuild" part is actually "attach the fender to another car", generally.)
On learning this, I then asked what is the smallest resolution of item required? In other words, can I buy that fender and split it into 20 parts, and then sell "20 cars owned by $celebrity"? That seems absurd on the face of it; imagine if I knew that celebrity A only ever owned a single Delorean, and then I heard someone was selling 5 Deloreans that celebrity A owned -- that would be obviously wrong, so I am surprised that it is the way it is. But since it is that way, knowing the minimum resolution is important, in terms of maximizing profit. I heard these fenders can go for a couple hundred grand. (... but of course.)
Swerving back on topic, perhaps there is a percentage of moon composition that is acceptable. From this example, it was found after a fire and needed to be cleaned. What if not all the "dirt" was cleaned off? It would then be heavier than actual. And if you chose the right dirt, it would not be distinguishable (because after all, here is where the moon came from). So perhaps there is a business model in "cutting" moon rock?
Besides, this all happened in the early 70's. Everyone then thought trips to the moon colony in atomic powered rockets was going to be a typical family vacation by 2000 so what value is a moon rock except for sentiment over those old Apollo missions that started it all?
Exactly: the fact that it's perhaps more valuable now simply means we lost that capability.
To use a math analogy, going straight to assembly is like doing calculus first, then algebra, at least on a "level of difficulty" scheme.
Best to start off with an easier language then gradually ramp up the difficulty while on a parallel track make sure they can do math and Boolean algebra, then at some point not too far in the future get into the low-level stuff. Compilers and interpreted languages abstract that stuff away anyhow.
I like the way you're thinking, and I can't help but wonder if there might be a better path towards understanding. What I mean is, most often it's best to teach someone something new, using a paradigm of something old (i.e., something the listener already knew, so they can fit the new knowledge better into the old knowledge). So for someone who has only ever used a web browser for Facebook and email, perhaps a good start would be to begin taking a look behind the scenes of their email platform, or social media platform. And, for this, one would want to know HTML and JavaScript, so it does seem to make sense that Stanford is moving in this direction.
Should they go on to graduate school, they'll be writing in languages their advisor has developed that many 3 other people on the planet have any familiarity with.
LOL I wonder how many schools have professors who profess to have invented Scheme; I went to one such.
You do know that everything Google and Apple have built their success on is stolen from others?
Or to broaden it a little: Google, Apple, the US military, me, and you. Yes, yes I do know that.