I'm not following you (especially about the troll comment; how did I sound like a troll?). First of all, the federal government is elected just like the state governments. If, say, people really really wanted states to decide drug policy, then (theoretically) they would vote for that, which (in reality) they don't. Sure, like I said I support legalization, and if wresting drug policy away from the feds would help that, then I'd vote for that. Buuuuut... I'd be in the minority (as I so often am), so I'd lose the vote.
Plus, if the feds eliminated all of their drug laws and left it up to the states, then we'd still have marijuana prohibition in every single state, at least at first. A very few states would allow medical marijuana, which is a sham half-measure. So that still wouldn't get us very far, except we'd all be bitching about our state legislators instead of our congressmen.
How is saying I support democracy connected to a support or nonsupport of federalism? I do happen to support federalism, especially in the USA, but I don't think that is too much connected to my support for democracy. The USSR had federalism, too, and I don't support communism.
The American people overwhelmingly (not just a majority, but up to 80%) support marijuana criminalization. This only applies to your point if your point is something along the lines of "putting people in jail for marijuana is bad". Well, it may or may not be bad, but it is very popular and democratic.
Full disclosure: I'm an American voter and a pot smoker. I support legalization (full legalization, not just decriminalization). But more than legalization, I support democracy.
You are talking about Dennis Kucinich? I dunno, the last vegetarian I know of who got elected was Hitler.
The Constitution is cute. I like parts of it, but I'd prefer a Constitution that would allow things like the federal bank to exist. I'm glad that we've ignored parts of the Constitution since it was first written. Other parts, I wish we wouldn't ignore. Other parts, I'm glad we don't ignore.
I thought we were meant to be the good guys that don't do this kind of thing.
That was true while it was only once-elected politicians doing the evil work. Americans on the whole took on the responsibility of Bush's actions when they re-elected him.
So, you didn't phrase it in the form of a question, but "we" were the good guys until 2004. Well, that's if you disregard all the bad shit we did before that, but then we usually did it in secret, whereas now Bush is like "torture? well I don't like to call it torture per se, but... yeah, sure, sounds okay to me."
This kind of "law enforcement" actually makes us LESS safe than simply doing nothing at all. Is the FBI *really* staffed by living, thinking humans? How could they possibly do this kind of thing and not be incredibly ashamed of themselves!?
Humans will go to astounding lengths to avoid cognitive dissonance. Cf. religion.
The client wasn't an asshole, he did what he was supposed to, which was to proffer a contract he was satisfied with. He may have bargained in bad faith, though.
Yeah. When I was in college all the CS majors received an email from the secretary in the administration's office saying to do something with an enclosed Word doc, then email it back to her. She said it was "urgent". I responded and said sorry, I didn't have Word, and would she please send it to me as an RTF, then I could do whatever was necessary. I never heard from her. I guess it wasn't very urgent.
Since then I have acquired a.doc reader (OS X's TextEdit does a mediocre job with simple ones). But seriously, I started working with computers around 1994, and I can count the number of times I've had problems with Word docs on one hand. It's figuratively never ever a problem.
Yeah. Agreed. I've used Vis Stu and Eclipse and NetBeans. You need Vis Stu if you are doing Microsoft dev for a Microsoft platform. But if you're running Linux and writing code, why would you need that? Vis Stu certainly isn't an objectively superior IDE. My fav is Eclipse (the newest version is really slick). NetBeans isn't as good. Vis Stu was medium, with some maddeningly obvious bugs, but not terrible.
Emacs, though, is a laughable example of an "awesome developer environment". Emacs was permissibly usable in the 80s, but the rest of us have gone on.
That would be a trajedy, and a very difficult situation; but it wouldn't be resisting arrest, it would be assault with a deadly weapon or something, which is not a strict liability crime (meaning, if you have a good enough excuse, you might get away with it). Resisting arrest is when an officer grabs your wrists and says you are under arrest, and you squirm or fight. Cf. the Don't Taze Me Bro guy. That was resisting arrest.
(By the way, in US english, commas and periods should ALWAYS go inside the quotes.)
Yes, but for a strange reason. American newspapermen couldn't be bothered with the nuances of the English language, even though some of the nuances were linguistically valuable. In this case, placement of punctuation inside or outside quotation marks relays information about the quote. I'm American so, you know, screw the redcoats and all that, but I think our stateside grammarians dropped the ball on this one.
resisting arrest is a strict liability crime. there is no excuse for resisting arrest. if you are innocent, you still don't get to resist arrest, you have to tell a judge you're innocent, and he'll let you go. if the police didn't have a good reason to arrest you, you can sue them for it. but you still, never, ever, in any situation, have the right to resist arrest. resisting arrest is a great way to get tazed or shot. if you are really aggrieved about it, then don't resist arrest, but don't help them either -- do that limp-body thing that protesters often do.
I think four or five years is appropriate -- per count of attempted murder, which in this case is one for each member of the family, all of which could have been killed. So that's ten years (round up). Add serious computer fraud, so let's say another four years (first conviction). I guess they layered on a "false imprisonment" charge, which I guess is accurate, so let's say another year.
See ya in fifteen years, kid. Good luck in PMITA prison.
Surely it's possible to run an internal network (ethernet or whatever) in such a way as to make it completely inaccessible from the outside world...
Sure. It's easy. Disconnect your secure network from the internet. Then zero attacks are possible coming from the internet. But if you want.....an email and web gateway?
If you plug into the internet, your security is as tight as the software you run. That's obvious, but it's tightly bound to the fact that the world doesn't have any perfectly secure software. We have some rare software, though, which is pretty close.
Totally agreed. The last time a spam got thru to my inbox was sometime last year; the one before that was the year before. Maybe a dozen or so per day end up in my Junk folder. Some other number get deleted without ever routing to the Junk folder. Spam is a zero-level problem for me.
But it's true, I'm just a bloke, I don't have a business.
Agreed. An online shopping cart is the internet equivalent of going around a supermarket with a cart and putting stuff in it, then checking out at some point. Obvious. A one-click purchase button is the internet equivalent of going into a convenience store, pointing to a pack of Marlboros behind the counter, and saying "one pack, please". Also obvious.
yeah, well i'm not so worried about Zep as i am about all the other bands who weren't famous, and whose music didn't survive because the copyright holders didn't continuously market and release the music thruout the copyright term. if a bit of culture isn't available for purchase the day before copyright expires, then it isn't available to historians the day it enters the public domain.
Also, though, adjusted for "inflation", which would mean dividing by the total number of albums sold at that time period.
After we had that number, we could argue about whether it was relevant, like baseball fans do with various statistics. "Oh, yeah, but man that was back before interleague play..."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not following you (especially about the troll comment; how did I sound like a troll?). First of all, the federal government is elected just like the state governments. If, say, people really really wanted states to decide drug policy, then (theoretically) they would vote for that, which (in reality) they don't. Sure, like I said I support legalization, and if wresting drug policy away from the feds would help that, then I'd vote for that. Buuuuut... I'd be in the minority (as I so often am), so I'd lose the vote.
Plus, if the feds eliminated all of their drug laws and left it up to the states, then we'd still have marijuana prohibition in every single state, at least at first. A very few states would allow medical marijuana, which is a sham half-measure. So that still wouldn't get us very far, except we'd all be bitching about our state legislators instead of our congressmen.
How is saying I support democracy connected to a support or nonsupport of federalism? I do happen to support federalism, especially in the USA, but I don't think that is too much connected to my support for democracy. The USSR had federalism, too, and I don't support communism.
The American people overwhelmingly (not just a majority, but up to 80%) support marijuana criminalization. This only applies to your point if your point is something along the lines of "putting people in jail for marijuana is bad". Well, it may or may not be bad, but it is very popular and democratic.
Full disclosure: I'm an American voter and a pot smoker. I support legalization (full legalization, not just decriminalization). But more than legalization, I support democracy.
Guys, guys, I know you are jumping on Amazon here, but this patent is totally valid, at least so far as the summary says:
a user wishing to search for 'San Francisco Hotels' may do by simply accessing the URL www.domain_name/San Francisco Hotels
Note that Amazon has apparently found a way to access a website which has no top-level-domain! That's a great trick indeed, and truly patentable.
I just got 99 hits on GN.
Agreed. Democracy functioned as designed. People got what they voted for. Too bad voters make so many boneheaded decisions.
You are talking about Dennis Kucinich? I dunno, the last vegetarian I know of who got elected was Hitler.
The Constitution is cute. I like parts of it, but I'd prefer a Constitution that would allow things like the federal bank to exist. I'm glad that we've ignored parts of the Constitution since it was first written. Other parts, I wish we wouldn't ignore. Other parts, I'm glad we don't ignore.
I thought we were meant to be the good guys that don't do this kind of thing.
That was true while it was only once-elected politicians doing the evil work. Americans on the whole took on the responsibility of Bush's actions when they re-elected him.
So, you didn't phrase it in the form of a question, but "we" were the good guys until 2004. Well, that's if you disregard all the bad shit we did before that, but then we usually did it in secret, whereas now Bush is like "torture? well I don't like to call it torture per se, but... yeah, sure, sounds okay to me."
This kind of "law enforcement" actually makes us LESS safe than simply doing nothing at all. Is the FBI *really* staffed by living, thinking humans? How could they possibly do this kind of thing and not be incredibly ashamed of themselves!?
Humans will go to astounding lengths to avoid cognitive dissonance. Cf. religion.
It wasn't? Then why was it news?
I think it was news.
The client wasn't an asshole, he did what he was supposed to, which was to proffer a contract he was satisfied with. He may have bargained in bad faith, though.
Yeah. When I was in college all the CS majors received an email from the secretary in the administration's office saying to do something with an enclosed Word doc, then email it back to her. She said it was "urgent". I responded and said sorry, I didn't have Word, and would she please send it to me as an RTF, then I could do whatever was necessary. I never heard from her. I guess it wasn't very urgent.
.doc reader (OS X's TextEdit does a mediocre job with simple ones). But seriously, I started working with computers around 1994, and I can count the number of times I've had problems with Word docs on one hand. It's figuratively never ever a problem.
Since then I have acquired a
If you care to have it both ways, you can use RTF, which is a Microsoft standard, so it's 100% supported in MS Office.
Yeah. Agreed. I've used Vis Stu and Eclipse and NetBeans. You need Vis Stu if you are doing Microsoft dev for a Microsoft platform. But if you're running Linux and writing code, why would you need that? Vis Stu certainly isn't an objectively superior IDE. My fav is Eclipse (the newest version is really slick). NetBeans isn't as good. Vis Stu was medium, with some maddeningly obvious bugs, but not terrible.
Emacs, though, is a laughable example of an "awesome developer environment". Emacs was permissibly usable in the 80s, but the rest of us have gone on.
That would be a trajedy, and a very difficult situation; but it wouldn't be resisting arrest, it would be assault with a deadly weapon or something, which is not a strict liability crime (meaning, if you have a good enough excuse, you might get away with it). Resisting arrest is when an officer grabs your wrists and says you are under arrest, and you squirm or fight. Cf. the Don't Taze Me Bro guy. That was resisting arrest.
(By the way, in US english, commas and periods should ALWAYS go inside the quotes.)
Yes, but for a strange reason. American newspapermen couldn't be bothered with the nuances of the English language, even though some of the nuances were linguistically valuable. In this case, placement of punctuation inside or outside quotation marks relays information about the quote. I'm American so, you know, screw the redcoats and all that, but I think our stateside grammarians dropped the ball on this one.
Thank you. We take that distinction very seriously.
resisting arrest is a strict liability crime. there is no excuse for resisting arrest. if you are innocent, you still don't get to resist arrest, you have to tell a judge you're innocent, and he'll let you go. if the police didn't have a good reason to arrest you, you can sue them for it. but you still, never, ever, in any situation, have the right to resist arrest. resisting arrest is a great way to get tazed or shot. if you are really aggrieved about it, then don't resist arrest, but don't help them either -- do that limp-body thing that protesters often do.
I think four or five years is appropriate -- per count of attempted murder, which in this case is one for each member of the family, all of which could have been killed. So that's ten years (round up). Add serious computer fraud, so let's say another four years (first conviction). I guess they layered on a "false imprisonment" charge, which I guess is accurate, so let's say another year.
See ya in fifteen years, kid. Good luck in PMITA prison.
Surely it's possible to run an internal network (ethernet or whatever) in such a way as to make it completely inaccessible from the outside world...
..an email and web gateway?
Sure. It's easy. Disconnect your secure network from the internet. Then zero attacks are possible coming from the internet. But if you want...
If you plug into the internet, your security is as tight as the software you run. That's obvious, but it's tightly bound to the fact that the world doesn't have any perfectly secure software. We have some rare software, though, which is pretty close.
Totally agreed. The last time a spam got thru to my inbox was sometime last year; the one before that was the year before. Maybe a dozen or so per day end up in my Junk folder. Some other number get deleted without ever routing to the Junk folder. Spam is a zero-level problem for me.
But it's true, I'm just a bloke, I don't have a business.
Agreed. An online shopping cart is the internet equivalent of going around a supermarket with a cart and putting stuff in it, then checking out at some point. Obvious. A one-click purchase button is the internet equivalent of going into a convenience store, pointing to a pack of Marlboros behind the counter, and saying "one pack, please". Also obvious.
yeah, well i'm not so worried about Zep as i am about all the other bands who weren't famous, and whose music didn't survive because the copyright holders didn't continuously market and release the music thruout the copyright term. if a bit of culture isn't available for purchase the day before copyright expires, then it isn't available to historians the day it enters the public domain.
Yes. Correct. I summed up all you said with the words "sliding scale".
Interesting point. I wonder why the millions of owners didn't suggest such a selloff.
Also, though, adjusted for "inflation", which would mean dividing by the total number of albums sold at that time period.
After we had that number, we could argue about whether it was relevant, like baseball fans do with various statistics. "Oh, yeah, but man that was back before interleague play..."