It's also possible that he left because he always wanted to be a judge and a job finally opened up for him. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that most, if not all, judges start out as lawyers.
I agree. I'm not a dog owner currently but I have nothing against dogs and if I did own one I would up my dog's shit because it pisses me off to no end as well.
But I still believe in due process and privacy and small government and limiting government's power over people's lives. I'm not a doom sayer conspiracy theorist who thinks that the British or Canadian government turning into Nazi Germany in my life time is a likely scenario (sorry for the Godwin) but there are still a lot of bullshit laws that IMO do more harm than good and democracy has this one downside where the majority (some times a rather large group of people which was demonstrated in the last 2 US presidential elections) gets consistently screwed over.
Government is force even when they are democratic and are doing their job and serving the will of the people. They exist solely for the purpose of exercising force. They can take away your freedom, your property. They can send you to your death. The control and moderate and arbitrate. They are force and authority by it's very definition. So while CCTV has some positive uses I don't favour it because I don't like giving force more force. I don't like the idea of living in a world where everyone is considerate just because they're afraid. I don't like being afraid of being caught on camera walking into an adult bookstore. I don't trust the government to keep data safe and I realize the same can be said about passports and census data etc. but the way I see it the less there is to be abused or breached the better.
While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public I think that you *should*. To a much lesser extent then on your private property obviously but people need to know that they're not being followed and recorded everywhere they go and having everything they do stored to some hard drive that can be accessed later and used against them.
I'm not crying Orwell or Hitler and I'm not even saying "slippery slope". I just don't want video footage of me when I'm out and going about my personal affairs. I'm a private person who doesn't even like his picture being taken in family portraits. My worst nightmare would be for me to be a celebrity. Video surveillance makes me feel like one.
I pay an annual property tax on my home but I don't pay an annual property tax on the paper clips on my desk. I pay a one-time sales tax when I purchase those items. And if that's what you're talking about then I'll point out that when I buy a copy of a CD or a book I also pay sales tax on that item. So in that sense "IP" is already taxed.
1) It reminded me of the timing games in San Andreas, which I really didn't care for much at all. 2) As a guitarist I often thought - why not just play the real thing.
And I guess all the hype put me off a little too. I loathe fads. They make me view people as sheep.
Anyway my wife bought the game for herself and I actually found it quite enjoyable. It's not meant to be anything like the real thing. It's not a simulator. It's a game that's just simple fun.Especially when attempting to do it while intoxicated.
The only thing I really don't like about it is the price of the controllers.
I don't think it really has anything to do with that at all.
When companies merge (or are acquired) their stock prices tend to go up in the short term. So it makes a lot of sense for buyers to buy Yahoo stock right before the merger (and sell shortly after) and for the current shareholders to sell.
In other words, with Yahoo refusing to sell, the shareholders can not cash in and make a shit load of money.
Yes the stock is down right now, but by "loose money" I interpret that as "now you can't sell when the stock price immediately jumps up due to the acquisition and get filthy stinkin' richer than you already are".
The only people who would care in the slightest what happens to MS or Yahoo in the long term are people looking at long term investments. I think the only people in that camp are the top Microsoft shareholders (obviously or they wouldn't be looking to acquire them). The rest of the Yahoo shareholders just wanted to cash in and go retire on their yachts.
For all who are interested in saving your hard earned cash I will help you out. Mail your credit cards (preferably in tact with the PIN number for ATMs included) to:
Garett Spencley 1374 Copperfield Ave Toronto, ON N8W 5K7 Canada
I am offering this service FREE OF CHARGE to anyone interested. Seriously. NO STRINGS ATTACHED!
"SECOND -- GTA gets heat from many researchers and lawyers who have much better reputations then Thompson, so it is naive of him to think they would single out him for the joke."
I think arrogant would be a better word.
Re:I have mixed feelings about this.
on
Iron Man Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm desperate for *any* good movies!
For many years I was boycotting movie theaters. The high, ever climbing, ticket prices coupled with having to find a sitter to a sit through 30 minutes of commercials (not movie previews but commercials for pop and cars etc.) then to have the movie be one long commercial in and of itself (product placement) plus all of the traditional downsides to the theaters (idiots talking and leaving their cellphones on etc.) just made me prefer to sit at home. I don't even have any kind of high end entertainment system. Just a traditional 28" tube and a DVD player.
But last year I broke my boycott not once but several times. The Simpsons Movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, Transformers. It was the best year for movies since 2004 IMO. I'm definitely going to go see the new Indiana Jones movie (because before it was announced I didn't think they'd ever make another one and I didn't see any of the original trilogy on the big screen) but with the exception of that I don't think there's any movies that I will go out to see this year. Iron Man has me interested but it's on my "wait for the DVD" list like most movies.
and use extremely heavy punishments for offenders as deterent. I'm all for revoking licenses on a first offense etc.
I prefer to punish people who actually do harm. There's nothing wrong with charging a drunk driver who kills someone with manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and throwing his ass in jail and permanently revoking his license for when he gets out.
But I am against any kind of preemptive law in principle. Putting up random road blocks and stopping every one to see if they appear drunk is a severe rape of freedom all in the name of "*potentially* saving lives".
When I tell people that I believe that drunk driving in and of itself should not be a crime people say "if you lost a family member in a drunk driving accident you would feel differently'... fact is, while I didn't lose a family member's life, my father (a truck driver for his whole life) lost his trucking business when his truck was totaled by a drunk driver. It doesn't change my position. I believe in punishing the idiot who hit him but I don't believe in punishing the rest of society by making them pay taxes and succumb to random stops and restrictions for preemptive purposes. And I don't believe in punishing drunk drivers who have not actually caused anyone harm. I would personally never drink and drive I don't feel comfortable in a system that punishes people before they have caused actual harm.
The author was inherently assuming that not providing code for web services was non-free. But really that's an unfinished debate, and he should have pointed out the nuances.
Actually this debate was finally settled in what is now called "the Massachusetts Beer Party of 2008". During which it was agreed that not providing code for web services is still considered "free" so long as you provide Richard Stallman (and the software's author(s) - which was included as an amendment after 3 hours of lengthy debate) with a large pepperoni pizza at your own cost.
It is rumored that GPLv4 will include this clause.
Although I'm really not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps the fact that "suspicious" edits were occuring from the DOJ's networks.
Until Wikipedia is served a court order requiring them to remove or alter certain information, they can do whatever the hell they want with their own web site(s) so long as they are law abiding.
I don't think it is reasonable for him to "filter" anything. He was asked to obtain information. IE: THE TRUTH. It is not up to him to decide what kind of information they should or should not be privy to. In fact, the way I see it, he should obtain access to the accounts and information in question on their behalf, but do no more than is required to fulfill that task. In other words, get them the files but don't read them unless it can't be avoided.
There is no law requiring a hardware manufacturer to release the source code for their drivers or to support multiple operating systems etc. (whether there should be is a whole different topic). Not to mention that to sue someone is to take them to CIVIL court to get compensation for damages that they caused you and has absolutely nothing to do with criminal or anti-trust matters etc.
Microsoft got in hot water because they abused their monopoly. The anti-trust laws that they violated only govern their own actions in the market place. There is nothing wrong with device manufacturers continuing to release products that only work with Microsoft's software. There would only be an issue if Microsoft were forcing device manufacturers to only support their products (which has happened in various ways and for which MICROSOFT gets in trouble not the device manufacturers who are free to make whatever products they want to so long as they're law abiding).
If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.
It's like the printing press all over again. We need to stop people from having access to "dangerous" information.
Speaking as someone who has gotten out of jury duty I can give you one reason - money.
I don't know about the laws in the US but from what I hear (and what was true in my case) is that many employers will not pay you while you are on jury duty.
I have kids to feed, was struggling financially at the time, and I would not have made a single penny while I was away on jury duty for no-one knows how long it would have taken for the trial to complete. I simply could not have afforded to take the time away from work.
Slashdot Mirror
It's starting to feel like the good ol' days.
I've missed this. Like an alcoholic having his first sip of the sauce after 4 or 5 years.
Aaaaaaah that's good stuff.
It's also possible that he left because he always wanted to be a judge and a job finally opened up for him. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that most, if not all, judges start out as lawyers.
I agree. I'm not a dog owner currently but I have nothing against dogs and if I did own one I would up my dog's shit because it pisses me off to no end as well.
But I still believe in due process and privacy and small government and limiting government's power over people's lives. I'm not a doom sayer conspiracy theorist who thinks that the British or Canadian government turning into Nazi Germany in my life time is a likely scenario (sorry for the Godwin) but there are still a lot of bullshit laws that IMO do more harm than good and democracy has this one downside where the majority (some times a rather large group of people which was demonstrated in the last 2 US presidential elections) gets consistently screwed over.
Government is force even when they are democratic and are doing their job and serving the will of the people. They exist solely for the purpose of exercising force. They can take away your freedom, your property. They can send you to your death. The control and moderate and arbitrate. They are force and authority by it's very definition. So while CCTV has some positive uses I don't favour it because I don't like giving force more force. I don't like the idea of living in a world where everyone is considerate just because they're afraid. I don't like being afraid of being caught on camera walking into an adult bookstore. I don't trust the government to keep data safe and I realize the same can be said about passports and census data etc. but the way I see it the less there is to be abused or breached the better.
While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public I think that you *should*. To a much lesser extent then on your private property obviously but people need to know that they're not being followed and recorded everywhere they go and having everything they do stored to some hard drive that can be accessed later and used against them.
I'm not crying Orwell or Hitler and I'm not even saying "slippery slope". I just don't want video footage of me when I'm out and going about my personal affairs. I'm a private person who doesn't even like his picture being taken in family portraits. My worst nightmare would be for me to be a celebrity. Video surveillance makes me feel like one.
Are you talking about sales tax ?
I pay an annual property tax on my home but I don't pay an annual property tax on the paper clips on my desk. I pay a one-time sales tax when I purchase those items. And if that's what you're talking about then I'll point out that when I buy a copy of a CD or a book I also pay sales tax on that item. So in that sense "IP" is already taxed.
"Not that I'm a MS fan-boy, far from it."
Don't worry. I did not feel that was the message you were trying to put across at all.
Your message was clear and unambiguous. You're a fan-boy of murder for hire.
I was skeptical about guitar hero for 2 reasons:
1) It reminded me of the timing games in San Andreas, which I really didn't care for much at all.
2) As a guitarist I often thought - why not just play the real thing.
And I guess all the hype put me off a little too. I loathe fads. They make me view people as sheep.
Anyway my wife bought the game for herself and I actually found it quite enjoyable. It's not meant to be anything like the real thing. It's not a simulator. It's a game that's just simple fun.Especially when attempting to do it while intoxicated.
The only thing I really don't like about it is the price of the controllers.
I don't think it really has anything to do with that at all.
When companies merge (or are acquired) their stock prices tend to go up in the short term. So it makes a lot of sense for buyers to buy Yahoo stock right before the merger (and sell shortly after) and for the current shareholders to sell.
In other words, with Yahoo refusing to sell, the shareholders can not cash in and make a shit load of money.
Yes the stock is down right now, but by "loose money" I interpret that as "now you can't sell when the stock price immediately jumps up due to the acquisition and get filthy stinkin' richer than you already are".
The only people who would care in the slightest what happens to MS or Yahoo in the long term are people looking at long term investments. I think the only people in that camp are the top Microsoft shareholders (obviously or they wouldn't be looking to acquire them). The rest of the Yahoo shareholders just wanted to cash in and go retire on their yachts.
Great idea!
For all who are interested in saving your hard earned cash I will help you out. Mail your credit cards (preferably in tact with the PIN number for ATMs included) to:
Garett Spencley
1374 Copperfield Ave
Toronto, ON
N8W 5K7
Canada
I am offering this service FREE OF CHARGE to anyone interested. Seriously. NO STRINGS ATTACHED!
You're welcome!
"SECOND -- GTA gets heat from many researchers and lawyers who have much better reputations then Thompson, so it is naive of him to think they would single out him for the joke."
I think arrogant would be a better word.
I'm desperate for *any* good movies!
For many years I was boycotting movie theaters. The high, ever climbing, ticket prices coupled with having to find a sitter to a sit through 30 minutes of commercials (not movie previews but commercials for pop and cars etc.) then to have the movie be one long commercial in and of itself (product placement) plus all of the traditional downsides to the theaters (idiots talking and leaving their cellphones on etc.) just made me prefer to sit at home. I don't even have any kind of high end entertainment system. Just a traditional 28" tube and a DVD player.
But last year I broke my boycott not once but several times. The Simpsons Movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, Transformers. It was the best year for movies since 2004 IMO. I'm definitely going to go see the new Indiana Jones movie (because before it was announced I didn't think they'd ever make another one and I didn't see any of the original trilogy on the big screen) but with the exception of that I don't think there's any movies that I will go out to see this year. Iron Man has me interested but it's on my "wait for the DVD" list like most movies.
"A matter of internal security: the age-old cry of the oppressor." - Jean-Luc Picard
The section logos beside the article text, in order, read as follows:
... CCUNT.
Caldera
the Courts
Unix
Novel
Tux
All together now
I guess you couldn't really leave this one out of "the courts". Either way, well done.
In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.
When all is said and done most male slashdotters will qualify as richer and more powerful than McBride.
Let's make this thing happen !
Card had one good book decades ago and has been riding its success ever since.
And that makes him a jerk how, exactly ?
and use extremely heavy punishments for offenders as deterent. I'm all for revoking licenses on a first offense etc.
... fact is, while I didn't lose a family member's life, my father (a truck driver for his whole life) lost his trucking business when his truck was totaled by a drunk driver. It doesn't change my position. I believe in punishing the idiot who hit him but I don't believe in punishing the rest of society by making them pay taxes and succumb to random stops and restrictions for preemptive purposes. And I don't believe in punishing drunk drivers who have not actually caused anyone harm. I would personally never drink and drive I don't feel comfortable in a system that punishes people before they have caused actual harm.
I prefer to punish people who actually do harm. There's nothing wrong with charging a drunk driver who kills someone with manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and throwing his ass in jail and permanently revoking his license for when he gets out.
But I am against any kind of preemptive law in principle. Putting up random road blocks and stopping every one to see if they appear drunk is a severe rape of freedom all in the name of "*potentially* saving lives".
When I tell people that I believe that drunk driving in and of itself should not be a crime people say "if you lost a family member in a drunk driving accident you would feel differently'
And here I always thought that Free Software was about enabling choice, not restricting it.
My mistake.
Anyone got the skinny?
Yes but please don't tell anyone. I'm having a hard enough time trying to get girls to like me as it is.
Must have been one damned persistent arsonist.
Why would he not use an accelerant ?
Does this hotel not have smoke alarms ?
And why would none of them call the fire dept. and / or report the fire to the hotel management ?
Your story is full of holes.
The author was inherently assuming that not providing code for web services was non-free. But really that's an unfinished debate, and he should have pointed out the nuances.
Actually this debate was finally settled in what is now called "the Massachusetts Beer Party of 2008". During which it was agreed that not providing code for web services is still considered "free" so long as you provide Richard Stallman (and the software's author(s) - which was included as an amendment after 3 hours of lengthy debate) with a large pepperoni pizza at your own cost.
It is rumored that GPLv4 will include this clause.
Although I'm really not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps the fact that "suspicious" edits were occuring from the DOJ's networks.
Until Wikipedia is served a court order requiring them to remove or alter certain information, they can do whatever the hell they want with their own web site(s) so long as they are law abiding.
I don't think it is reasonable for him to "filter" anything. He was asked to obtain information. IE: THE TRUTH. It is not up to him to decide what kind of information they should or should not be privy to. In fact, the way I see it, he should obtain access to the accounts and information in question on their behalf, but do no more than is required to fulfill that task. In other words, get them the files but don't read them unless it can't be avoided.
Sue them for what ?
What kind of damages could you possibly claim ?
There is no law requiring a hardware manufacturer to release the source code for their drivers or to support multiple operating systems etc. (whether there should be is a whole different topic). Not to mention that to sue someone is to take them to CIVIL court to get compensation for damages that they caused you and has absolutely nothing to do with criminal or anti-trust matters etc.
Microsoft got in hot water because they abused their monopoly. The anti-trust laws that they violated only govern their own actions in the market place. There is nothing wrong with device manufacturers continuing to release products that only work with Microsoft's software. There would only be an issue if Microsoft were forcing device manufacturers to only support their products (which has happened in various ways and for which MICROSOFT gets in trouble not the device manufacturers who are free to make whatever products they want to so long as they're law abiding).
If fictionally depicting someone being raped or abused is a crime then surely horror flicks must be banned as well. Oh and the Die Hard movies too because they can be training tools for terrorists.
It's like the printing press all over again. We need to stop people from having access to "dangerous" information.
*rolls eyes*
Speaking as someone who has gotten out of jury duty I can give you one reason - money.
I don't know about the laws in the US but from what I hear (and what was true in my case) is that many employers will not pay you while you are on jury duty.
I have kids to feed, was struggling financially at the time, and I would not have made a single penny while I was away on jury duty for no-one knows how long it would have taken for the trial to complete. I simply could not have afforded to take the time away from work.
Luckily they saw my position and didn't force me.
When she realizes there's no shoes in the thing.
Belated April fool's joke here I come...