what you are proposing dooms the shark to die a slow miserable death due to the load of nasty diseases you carry in your mouth as a member of diseased lecherous species, homo sapiens.
So.... I should bite the shark back? Sounds like plenty good revenge. You know, considering that the shark has just "masticated and shredded" me.
I agree with adri, I'd like a citation on this. Because I've created many dynamic websites, and the bandwidth usage was certainly not lower. Maybe in the case of very very simple websites it was almost the same, but lower? Not a chance.
When I did my compliance training for my job (just a few weeks ago) they made it quite clear that anything that is considered offensive to any of the "protected categories" (ie race, age, gender, ect) is forbidden. For example if you're making sexist jokes that offends someone. That's a violation. So I doubt it's just misuse of the term. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the law.
"For instance, an employee who overhears two people laughing at a dirty joke may be offended. Therefore, something that a third party overhears may be considered sexual harassment."
"The definition of sexual harassment has also changed, providing that a reasonable person need only anticipate the possibility of the harassed person being offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct in question. Previously, the definition required a reasonable person to anticipate the harassed person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct."
Note the use of the word "offended" in there. True it's sexual harassment (though I'd assume this applies to all harassment as well), but I think that was what the article in question was talking about too, wasn't it?
Bear in mind that the legal definition of something is not always the same as the dictionary definition. And in this case it's the legal definition that matters.
It sounds like you're assuming that people would only want to kill other people with a gun. Most people I know who own guns use them for hunting deer. I'm interested in how your argument would look if you took that into account.
Well I'd assume if it was a country where sexual harassment was not outlawed, then the person who asked the question wouldn't really be worried about it, and hence wouldn't have bothered to ask the question in the first place.
YOU DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, IF WE LET THIS GO ON WE ARE OPENING TO DOOR TO MORE NONSENSE.
Yes you do. It's an actual defined legal right. In a workplace no one is allowed to say something that is discriminatory based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, or even health conditions. Personally I think it's a fairly good rule too. Work is where you work. And it's not sexist-the rule applies to comments women make as well as men (and yes women make these comments too).
Well the problem happens when the researchers that find the vulnerability are working for people who would rather exploit a vulnerability then patch it. Of course you're right in saying that no system is without it's flaws (at least I think that's what you're saying).
There's nothing wrong with that mentality. People, generally, can be very intelligent about a great number of issues. However "The Public", as in the mass collection of people, is generally very stupid.
So you're saying that because OP's solution only fixes half the problem, it shouldn't be implemented? Half a solution is still better then nothing at all.
I think the difference is that this is an iPhone (or iPad, whatever). Apple has made it quite clear that they consider the device still belonging to them (regardless if this is legal or not).
That's the point OP is trying to make. Even if this did happen, after digging up the first nuclear waste site they'd realize that the sign of a human skull means "this is bad, stay away"
There's a bunch of news chatter but I wasn't able to find anything tangible in a quick google search. From what I read it will come with a monthly subscription though, so it's not really $99...
Re-read what I said. Nowhere did I state it was impossible, just that it shouldn't be done. Don't knee-jerk your responses, it degrades the quality of the site just a little bit more.
I totally agree. My point was that C promotes good habits. It's absolutely not a language made for large projects. I suspect that a lot of this is because large projects of that type really didn't exist back when C was being developed.
Personally the thing I like most about C is that it's not "safe". It doesn't take care of a lot of memory management for you and you can easily eat up all the memory or introduce a buffer overload vulnerability if you're not paying attention. It forces programmers to actually look at what they're doing and consider what it will do in the long run, and causes good coding habits to form. I think the majority of people who dismiss C as "too hard" are coming from Java programming. C gives you a lot of power, but, as the well-cliched saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility".
Slashdot Mirror
what you are proposing dooms the shark to die a slow miserable death due to the load of nasty diseases you carry in your mouth as a member of diseased lecherous species, homo sapiens.
So.... I should bite the shark back? Sounds like plenty good revenge. You know, considering that the shark has just "masticated and shredded" me.
Doesn't the NSA have their own teams to do stuff like that? I doubt they rely on SWAT..
I agree with adri, I'd like a citation on this. Because I've created many dynamic websites, and the bandwidth usage was certainly not lower. Maybe in the case of very very simple websites it was almost the same, but lower? Not a chance.
When I did my compliance training for my job (just a few weeks ago) they made it quite clear that anything that is considered offensive to any of the "protected categories" (ie race, age, gender, ect) is forbidden. For example if you're making sexist jokes that offends someone. That's a violation. So I doubt it's just misuse of the term. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the law.
Hmm just realized that link is for Australia. Here's one for the U.S.:
http://www.netplaces.com/human-resource-management/developing-company-policies/sexual-harassment-awareness.htm
"For instance, an employee who overhears two people laughing at a dirty joke may be offended. Therefore, something that a third party overhears may be considered sexual harassment."
http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/hr-and-staff/what-you-need-to-know-about-discrimination-and-equal-opportunity-laws-21052012.html
"The definition of sexual harassment has also changed, providing that a reasonable person need only anticipate the possibility of the harassed person being offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct in question. Previously, the definition required a reasonable person to anticipate the harassed person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct."
Note the use of the word "offended" in there. True it's sexual harassment (though I'd assume this applies to all harassment as well), but I think that was what the article in question was talking about too, wasn't it?
Bear in mind that the legal definition of something is not always the same as the dictionary definition. And in this case it's the legal definition that matters.
I wasn't aware there was a difference... harassment is something that offends someone, is it not?
It sounds like you're assuming that people would only want to kill other people with a gun. Most people I know who own guns use them for hunting deer. I'm interested in how your argument would look if you took that into account.
Well I'd assume if it was a country where sexual harassment was not outlawed, then the person who asked the question wouldn't really be worried about it, and hence wouldn't have bothered to ask the question in the first place.
YOU DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, IF WE LET THIS GO ON WE ARE OPENING TO DOOR TO MORE NONSENSE.
Yes you do. It's an actual defined legal right. In a workplace no one is allowed to say something that is discriminatory based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, or even health conditions. Personally I think it's a fairly good rule too. Work is where you work. And it's not sexist-the rule applies to comments women make as well as men (and yes women make these comments too).
Well the problem happens when the researchers that find the vulnerability are working for people who would rather exploit a vulnerability then patch it. Of course you're right in saying that no system is without it's flaws (at least I think that's what you're saying).
You have a good point.
we're not talking about some sort of National Convention here, we're talking about individuals.
That wasn't my understanding of what GP meant by "The Public". That wasn't what I meant by it either.
There's nothing wrong with that mentality. People, generally, can be very intelligent about a great number of issues. However "The Public", as in the mass collection of people, is generally very stupid.
So you're saying that because OP's solution only fixes half the problem, it shouldn't be implemented? Half a solution is still better then nothing at all.
It's not on Netflix Instant in the US either (at least it wasn't a few months ago when I had a Netflix account-doubt that has changed).
I think the difference is that this is an iPhone (or iPad, whatever). Apple has made it quite clear that they consider the device still belonging to them (regardless if this is legal or not).
Given the choice between privacy vs convenience most people will choose convenience every time.
That's the point OP is trying to make. Even if this did happen, after digging up the first nuclear waste site they'd realize that the sign of a human skull means "this is bad, stay away"
You're actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture then in a terrorist plane hijacking.
If you brushed against a police officer you may need to be taken in for questioning for "resisting arrest"
There's a bunch of news chatter but I wasn't able to find anything tangible in a quick google search. From what I read it will come with a monthly subscription though, so it's not really $99...
Re-read what I said. Nowhere did I state it was impossible, just that it shouldn't be done. Don't knee-jerk your responses, it degrades the quality of the site just a little bit more.
I totally agree. My point was that C promotes good habits. It's absolutely not a language made for large projects. I suspect that a lot of this is because large projects of that type really didn't exist back when C was being developed.
Personally the thing I like most about C is that it's not "safe". It doesn't take care of a lot of memory management for you and you can easily eat up all the memory or introduce a buffer overload vulnerability if you're not paying attention. It forces programmers to actually look at what they're doing and consider what it will do in the long run, and causes good coding habits to form. I think the majority of people who dismiss C as "too hard" are coming from Java programming. C gives you a lot of power, but, as the well-cliched saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility".