and I've refactored some code here and there to make it shorter and more simplified
Then it was done incorrectly, obviously. It's possible to both simplify it and have it work.
Using redundancy makes sure that their point is clear and won't be mistaken as something else.
It's called "redundancy" for a reason. If someone mistakes it for something else, then they're not actually following the law/EULA (since you did call it a mistake).
So, the various implementations of the Universal Commercial Code covering all manner of commercial conduct shouldn't be more than 3,000 pages long? It's kind of high hopes there...
Oh, I know. I just wasn't sure if he was saying that he thought it was child rape or if he was just stating that the law does. He clarified that he was just talking about the law, though.
I don't know. Looking at some EULAs, I've seen many, many things that could be drastically shortened and simplified. But they weren't. And I don't think any law should be 3,000 pages long.
Do you believe that your psyche would delve into chaos if every little ass-wiping thoughout your life were constantly percolating to the surface of your conscious mind?
Because the terms "sell" "convey" and "transfer" all have different meanings, and so the contract has to cover each of those possibilities.
Not quite what I meant. They're typically so ridiculously long and difficult for the average person to understand that no one reads them. I don't mean just using words with different means. I mean using rather obscure legal terms when others would suffice.
A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
Sounds like something other than outright theft happened.
I doubt most people know how to program to begin with. And if the code can be simplified, then I believe that it should. No point in making it unnecessarily complicated.
a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole.
That doesn't explain why they make the legal documents so difficult to understand for the average person. I'm sure there are many ways to do it that would make them readable for the average person.
their child will probably not like doing much else.
It's just that they haven't tried doing anything else.
However, if you introduce your child to sports and recreational activities, they will might enjoy participating in sports and stay more active than someone who never had that push.
They can try those things themselves on their own time.
but only because nobody put them on a track to do things outside
Or maybe it's because they don't like to do those things? Forcing activities on someone probably won't make them like things that they previously disliked.
It really all just depends on how you define "wrong" in the first place. To one person, one of those things might be considered "wrong," and the other considered "right." So it isn't that they think that two wrongs make a right.
The difference is that there has been a huge invasion of privacy to prevent terorist attacks that may or may not ever happen. On the other hand taxi drivers are robbed, assaulted and killed every day. It is a real danger to anyone who drives a taxi.
May or may not happen? Well, the same applies to this. It might not even happen.
Of course, the same logic can be used anywhere. Crimes happen every single day. Therefore, security cameras must be installed in everyone's homes.
CCTV in stores and taxi cabs have solved many crimes which removes the criminals from the streets for a period of time.
I don't care how many crimes they've solved just as I don't care how many terrorists the TSA has caught.
Should it be a choice for the driver or the cab owner who is to cheap to buy the equipment?
Indeed. It's their life. Although I disagree with such decisions (as I've said).
How would they get circumstantial evidence against you? That aside, what does this have to do with anonymity on the internet? Them saying that you're within driving distance of an open WiFi doesn't mean that there is no anonymity on the internet (not that I am saying that there is).
To me, it is relevant. What else do you suggest doing? Nothing? I think what I suggested is better than doing nothing. But if you have a better solution, then say so.
Slashdot Mirror
but I don't use a hidden partition because frankly I'm not doing anything that illegal
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? That's not always true. You might even use it against actual criminals.
I do agree that it is a hassle, though.
"Research is needed to develop new techniques and technology for breaking or bypassing full disk encryption."
And, if they somehow manage that, research will be needed to develop new techniques and technology for creating even stronger encryption.
and I've refactored some code here and there to make it shorter and more simplified
Then it was done incorrectly, obviously. It's possible to both simplify it and have it work.
Using redundancy makes sure that their point is clear and won't be mistaken as something else.
It's called "redundancy" for a reason. If someone mistakes it for something else, then they're not actually following the law/EULA (since you did call it a mistake).
So, the various implementations of the Universal Commercial Code covering all manner of commercial conduct shouldn't be more than 3,000 pages long? It's kind of high hopes there...
Most laws, then?
Oh, I know. I just wasn't sure if he was saying that he thought it was child rape or if he was just stating that the law does. He clarified that he was just talking about the law, though.
I just meant that it wasn't necessarily rape. Of course, the laws don't care about that. Not all things considered child pornography include rape.
That sounds awful. Did all of the people in that class instantly turn into rapists?
because it's kiddie rape
Not necessarily.
Because humans are humans. Therefore, doing anything bad to a human is bad.
By that argument any species found to be more intelligent than mankind would have the right to do whatever they wanted with us.
But... we're humans! They can't do that (and I'm not being biased at all).
most people don't want to be lab subjects even when there's not a whole lot of risk
Not sure if mice want it, either.
I don't know. Looking at some EULAs, I've seen many, many things that could be drastically shortened and simplified. But they weren't. And I don't think any law should be 3,000 pages long.
not suddenly remembering everything connected at once
Why remember everything at once rather than what you choose to remember?
rating it in relevance/importance
How does that work?
Do you believe that your psyche would delve into chaos if every little ass-wiping thoughout your life were constantly percolating to the surface of your conscious mind?
Me? No.
Because the terms "sell" "convey" and "transfer" all have different meanings, and so the contract has to cover each of those possibilities.
Not quite what I meant. They're typically so ridiculously long and difficult for the average person to understand that no one reads them. I don't mean just using words with different means. I mean using rather obscure legal terms when others would suffice.
A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
Sounds like something other than outright theft happened.
I doubt most people know how to program to begin with. And if the code can be simplified, then I believe that it should. No point in making it unnecessarily complicated.
a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole.
That doesn't explain why they make the legal documents so difficult to understand for the average person. I'm sure there are many ways to do it that would make them readable for the average person.
I wouldn't change merely because someone doesn't like what I do simply because I don't care and do not want to.
If you suck at them, you should try to improve them any way you can.
If you want to, that is. Whether someone "should" do something or not is up to the person to decide.
their child will probably not like doing much else.
It's just that they haven't tried doing anything else.
However, if you introduce your child to sports and recreational activities, they will might enjoy participating in sports and stay more active than someone who never had that push.
They can try those things themselves on their own time.
but only because nobody put them on a track to do things outside
Or maybe it's because they don't like to do those things? Forcing activities on someone probably won't make them like things that they previously disliked.
However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.
And that right there makes them socialist and communist and evil.
Of course, no one knows who 'they' actually refers to. Are they a hive mind?
It really all just depends on how you define "wrong" in the first place. To one person, one of those things might be considered "wrong," and the other considered "right." So it isn't that they think that two wrongs make a right.
Me? Yeah.
The difference is that there has been a huge invasion of privacy to prevent terorist attacks that may or may not ever happen. On the other hand taxi drivers are robbed, assaulted and killed every day. It is a real danger to anyone who drives a taxi.
May or may not happen? Well, the same applies to this. It might not even happen.
Of course, the same logic can be used anywhere. Crimes happen every single day. Therefore, security cameras must be installed in everyone's homes.
CCTV in stores and taxi cabs have solved many crimes which removes the criminals from the streets for a period of time.
I don't care how many crimes they've solved just as I don't care how many terrorists the TSA has caught.
Should it be a choice for the driver or the cab owner who is to cheap to buy the equipment?
Indeed. It's their life. Although I disagree with such decisions (as I've said).
How would they get circumstantial evidence against you? That aside, what does this have to do with anonymity on the internet? Them saying that you're within driving distance of an open WiFi doesn't mean that there is no anonymity on the internet (not that I am saying that there is).
To me, it is relevant. What else do you suggest doing? Nothing? I think what I suggested is better than doing nothing. But if you have a better solution, then say so.