If you take the programming out of CompSci you have someone who knows the theories, but cannot do anything with that knowledge.
A theory-heavy CS-major will pick up any programming language in a few weeks. Producing a good database design, or a problem-specific sorting algorithm, or even simply picking the right programming language for a particular job, on the other hand, will remain impossible for someone without good exposure to the theory.
This debate is very old and has been settled long ago: theoretical knowledge (and the ability to learn new things, developed while obtaining that knowledge) is more important — in almost any field, not just CS — than the practical experience.
Ability to play audio and video is optional — as is the ability to make phone calls. If they figure out, how to make reasonably fast IP-over-cellular, I'll buy it — and for a good price (not that of a phone/player, but for that of a laptop)...
You CAN own fake child porn (i.e. hand drawn or CGI with no real people). The Supreme Court even recently struck down a law trying to make CGI child porn illegal.
I've read (including on Slashdot) about local laws banning films, where adult actors are simulating children. I haven't heard about those getting repealed. If they were — having a (Free Speech-protecting) Constitution has helped us...
But the British Empire never gave its subjects one...
Then, again, even the Free Speech-protecting Constitution is no guarantee of Free Speech, as the presence of rather draconian laws against possessing child pornography in America demonstrates...
We may all be revolted by the child pornography, but we have to remember, that the defense of pornography in general (Larry Flint et al.) was based on the Free Speech argument — not on the usefulness of the art or anything like it.
Are you going to tell me that the murder of OJ's wife was not a crime now?
There was a hearing, which determined, that a crime has been committed (and that OJ is a reasonable suspect) — there always is... Educate yourself on these matters...
Don't be stupid. These "monsters" are kept in power by their own people.
No. Not in the sence of "deriving their just power from the will of the governed". In any case, this is not relevant to our invasion's legality, so let's not dwell on it here.
Firing a few shots doesn't justify a full invasion; it justifies blowing up all their AA equipment and radars.
Legally there is no distinction between blowing up equipment and full invasion. It is a war one way or the other. Diplomatically there is a difference, of course, but we are talking legalities here...
Your own attempts to interpret the law are fine and dandy — for your own consumption. For official determination of guilt (or even of the fact, a crime was committed at all), there needs to be a court's decision...
Castro's a "monster"? How, exactly? I haven't heard about any genocide occurring on that small island, or anything else of that magnitude. Perhaps some abridged civil liberties, but that's no different from China, and we're not embargoing them.
Castro is a monster, and embargo has nothing to do with that — nor does genocide, which is not required to make one a monster. I'm happy to have baited you into defending Castro and to go on record claiming "some abridged civil liberties" are Ok with you (as long as the side doing the abridging is Socialist/Communist, of course).
I'm sure a lot of people elsewhere in the world don't like Bush; is it ok for them to invade the US and "liberate" us?
Bush is a freely elected (yes, he was) leader, and there is no doubt, he'll be gone after 2008. The monsters like Hussein, Kim, Milosevic, Taylor, Mugabe, and Castro are/were self-sustaining, their grip on power limited only by biology and the outside pressure.
But, anyway, the "liberation" was only a partial (and moral) justification for our resumption of hostilities against Iraq. The hard, cold legal justification was Iraq's repeated reneging on the earlier (1991) cease-fire agreement.
Their earlier reneging has caused Clinton to order a few aerial bombardments, for example, without so much as a whimper of protest. Bush simply went further — but the legality is the same.
The idea itself was rather obvious to anyone "skilled in the field" and known (especially in America — ha-ha!) since before computers. As we know it today, it wouldn't have taken off without the Internet (duh) — although various BBS-es were early prototypes. What Tim Berners-Leewrote at CERN would never have become "the Internet's most important part" without a product usable by a non-scientist.
Nor was it a browser in today's sence of the word, but rather more like a Wiki — tied to a single database (more like CERN's own BBS). He did not "invent it", he put forward one of the first (and very limited) implementations. For earlier ones see Xanadu and NLS — both, incidentally, by Americans (the latter, even, by the dreaded American Military!).
I'm still glad CERN exists, of course, but there is no denying, that its contribution to WWW is dwarfed by those of NCSA and other American organizations.
A little less smugness and a little more recognition of the spirit of international cooperation, which is what really created the Internet, would be appropriate.
There is nothing wrong with being smug — we deserve the credit for the things I listed (and a few others too, but those would be off-topic)...
If I go out and shoot my neighbor in cold blood, that is most definitely illegal and criminal.
You'll still be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The invasion of Iraq was most certainly illegal, regardless of whether any courts ever declare it to be so.
No, it was not. The resumption of hostilities was approved by Congress (both chambers) and duly initiated by the Executive. It was certainly not against the US laws, or the President would've been impeached long ago. It was challenged in the courts, but unsuccessfully — all three branches of the American government were in agreement over the legality of the war — you can not get any more legal than that in the US.
What you may have left on your sorry side is the amorphous "international law" — but there you need a UN resolution (preferably — a few) to condemn anything as "illegal" (genocide in Darfur, for example, is still "legal", AFAIK)... And you don't have any — so stop mourning Saddam and send Castro some flowers instead. At least, that monster is still alive...
Your logic, if I interpret it correctly, was that unless a resolution is passed, no crime has been committed? I beg to differ.
Yes, you interpret it correctly. Keep begging — the principle "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" still stands.
"Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another."
Unlawful. . . Check. Intentional. . ? How much more intentional can you get than aiming a military-grade weapon and pulling its trigger?
Bzzz... A soldier shooting (whom he perceives to be) an enemy is acting lawfully.
The situation today is rife with stories of Iraqi murders at the hands of U.S. troops and military contractors.
Rife? Like a few hundred incidents, maybe — most of them not being murders?
Further, the civil chaos in Iraq today would not exist were it not for the U.S. having invaded in the first place, allowing some of the nastiest figures from Saddam's old regime to continue in positions of military and police power.
Right, it was safer under Saddam — and the trains were running on-time too, weren't they?
Are you contending that we aren't "legally" bound to the terms of the international agreement even though it went through this formal approval process?
Whether your claim we violated the international (as I initially believed) or the US (as you now clarify) law, the accused (United States) is innocent, until found guilty in a court of law.
(The actual fine details, on why our 2003 resumption of anti-Iraq hostilities was not illegal (something, a defense in the above-mentioned court would bring up), have been stated many times. I'm just arguing the general principle...)
The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It wasn't a mistake. It was a willful, criminal act.
Darling, you are quite passionate, but passion is useless, when we are talking about legalities. You can work yourself up into a frenzy arguing, it was wrong for America to resume hostilities against Iraq in 2003, but you can not prove it was illegal (or "criminal"), until you can point to a verdict by a proper court...
If the U.S. government breaks U.S. law, which it has done
The poster I responded to accused US of violating international law — she/he quoted UN charter.
That the US law is not broken is rather obvious — as the original poster in this thread pointed out, America's Congress and Senate have approved the resumption of the anti-Iraq hostilities.
In any case, calling the U.S. innocent based on the letter of the law is hardly rational.
???? What else, other than letter of the law, should a rational person be considering, when determining, whether something is illegal or not?
Iraqi deaths since the Americans invaded, numbers in the hundreds of thousands.
We killed an awful lot more Chinese and Koreans during the Korean war — not to mention the millions of enemies we managed to dispatch during WW2. Calling a war "illegal" based on the number of casualties is quite irrational...
That's a lot of murdered people who would otherwise be alive today.
Murder is a fairly well-defined term, which applies to very few incidents of Iraqis killed by US. These instances are unfortunate and the perpetrators are generally prosecuted. The vast majority of Iraqis killed in Iraq are killed by insurgent terrorists (mostly - fellow Iraqis). Our policies (or failures to execute them properly) may be contributing to the carnage, but it is not us, who is doing the killing...
"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." For the inter-nations cases such court would be the UN Security Council. Can you name the resolution, which condemns our war on Iraq as illegal? No, you can't... Oops. US is innocent.
Yes, that's because (at least, partially) US holds veto in the Council. Such, however, is the state of the "international law", and you have to accept it...
I have no idea how you could see my post as a *defense* of socialism.
Come, come, comrade... I criticized Socialists, and you countered me — that should be your "idea". As to your (off-topic) anti-pollution tirade, supposedly, targeting Socialism — sorry, does not fly. Your only example was the pollution produced by a personal car — a luxury, no Socialist country ever reached on a meaningful scale.
Almost all of their pollution was industrial (including catastrophes like Chernobyl), plus some damage by poorly (or even un-) treated sewage.
New York mother who has made a determined stand against the Big 4, may have won her battle to clear her name.
I'd like to point attention to the words I emphasized above... Clear hear name of what? Is it, after all, a shameful act to infringe on somebody else's copyrights and to treat their creation in a way, they did not want it to be treated?
This woman, apparently, has not done it, so her name is clear. But the/. continues to pretend, there would've been nothing wrong in her actions, even if she has...
Her children, very likely, have done it, yet the same author, who slipped into admitting, there is something to clear one's name of here, is describing their fate ("in the line of fire") with puzzling sympathy...
When you copy a song file without permission, you are reducing it's value to the owner a tiny bit. When you pollute, you are reducing the value of the environment a (hopefully) tiny bit. Both are not exactly stealing, but both are wrong.
There are, indeed, many other examples of "not exactly stealing", but they are all off topic. Why are you changing the subject? To defend Socialists? Questionable cause... Especially since you are doing it by saying, they aren't the only ones — as if that makes it Ok somehow:-)
And I mean the Communist utopia, not the grim reality of the attempts to build Communism forcefully.
As some old-timers may know, Marx was pointing out, that social order(s) are a product of the production capacity. As the humans' ability to produce things (food, clothing, vehicles, houses, anything...) evolved, so did the social orders. This is the part of his teachings, that no one really disagrees over.
He then argued, that Communism — which Soviet People were busily building, supposedly, while living under the less perfect Socialism — will become possible, when the means of production evolve even further, to the point where Communism's principle of distribution of goods: "From each by their ability, to each by their needs," — will come into being.
Ironically, it is the Capitalist societies, that are quickly approaching that benchmark. More and more things are given out free or for next to nothing to more and more people. Officially "poor" people have cars and TV-sets, and are entitled to substantial give-aways of food...
TFA discusses a major "harbinger" of yet another possible production increase, which promises to allow goods to be produced closer, to where they will be used (presumably, delivery of raw materials will be easier/cheaper). Hurray!
It is not just the hated RIAA, MPAA, and the software behemoths, that will be complaining of copyright infringement. Designs of material things will become targets too.
Various fashion designers are already being hurt — once they design something nice, they have to compete with (high-quality) knock-offs. The knock-offs are not produced by 3D-printing machines, but rather by hard-working laborers abroad. They can make them cheap, because they don't need to pay the genius designers — simply steal her/his designs.
Get ready for passionate Socialists arguing, that it is "not the same as stealing" — as if that's relevant, as if being "not exactly stealing" makes it acceptable somehow.
Will we see UN, other foreigners, and some Americans push for the conrol over them to become international in 30 years? Because, you know, the big and evil US will be abusing them left and right...
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Internet is common a good of a billion people worldwide
All thanks to America's benevolence, business sense, and good design. These people's usage of the Internet in no way diminishes America's right to do, what it pleases with it, though...
is our privilege, not some kind of favor we are doing.
Ha-ha!.. So, if one builds a playground for his kids, and allows other kids to come and play too (for their and his own kids' benefit), he loses the right to control that playground — while keeping "the privilege" of the upkeep?
I understand, how envy and similar emotions may make it difficult for foreigners to squeeze some gratitude towards America out of themselves. But for an American to do the same is incomprehensible. So good at seeing the other side, they lose sight of their own...
By the way, the World Wide Web, nowadays the Internet's most important part, was invented in... duh, Switzerland (CERN)
A common myth maintained by anti-American zealots uncomfortable with America's claiming credit for anything, however rightfully...
The idea itself was rather obvious to anyone "skilled in the field" and known (especially in America — ha-ha!) since before computers. As we know it today, it wouldn't have taken off without the Internet (duh) — although various BBS-es were early prototypes. What Tim Berners-Leewrote at CERN would never have become "the Internet's most important part" without a product usable by a non-scientist.
Nor was it a browser in today's sence of the word, but rather more like a Wiki — tied to a single database (more like CERN's own BBS). He did not "invent it", he put forward one of the first (and very limited) implementations. For earlier ones see Xanadu and NLS — both, incidentally, by Americans (the latter, even, by the dreaded American Military!).
I'm still glad CERN exists, of course, but there is no denying, that its contribution to WWW is dwarfed by those of NCSA and other American organizations.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
And the fact of the matter is that it simply doesn't have the right to do that.
Yada-yada... It does not have the right to usurp our liberties. But it does have the right (and the physical ability) to control Internet — and that, rather than your paranoia-spreading, is the subject here.
If this people want to move to Switzerland or simply quit their jobs at ICANN — fine. US has developed the Internet, it hosted (and continues to host) the root servers, and so it will be, if whoever is in charge has any sense left in them...
Well, if you're Amtrak, which would you rather have the people do? Complain that the trains run too slow (they won't notice or care about the shiny new tracks) or complain that the new shiny trains they're on could run so much faster if only they had to good sense and money to improve the tracks? Seems to me like the latter would cause a greater public push for more funding for track improvement.
I would rather they don't knowingly misuse (waste!) taxpayers' money, as you agree with me they did. It is a waste, because by the time they get tracks good enough for Acela's full speed, the trains will be (near-)obsolete, and need replacement...
They should've spent it on tracks, or they should've said upfront, that this does not make sense: "Either we get funds for both tracks and trains, or don't give us anything now."
It is that second part, that's impossible for most people to say, I guess... Especially for the likes of Dukakis...
Slashdot Mirror
A theory-heavy CS-major will pick up any programming language in a few weeks. Producing a good database design, or a problem-specific sorting algorithm, or even simply picking the right programming language for a particular job, on the other hand, will remain impossible for someone without good exposure to the theory.
This debate is very old and has been settled long ago: theoretical knowledge (and the ability to learn new things, developed while obtaining that knowledge) is more important — in almost any field, not just CS — than the practical experience.
Try suggesting, "sharing" copyrighted material might be unethical, on this forum...
Here is my list of features:
Ability to play audio and video is optional — as is the ability to make phone calls. If they figure out, how to make reasonably fast IP-over-cellular, I'll buy it — and for a good price (not that of a phone/player, but for that of a laptop)...
I've read (including on Slashdot) about local laws banning films, where adult actors are simulating children. I haven't heard about those getting repealed. If they were — having a (Free Speech-protecting) Constitution has helped us...
But the British Empire never gave its subjects one...
Then, again, even the Free Speech-protecting Constitution is no guarantee of Free Speech, as the presence of rather draconian laws against possessing child pornography in America demonstrates...
We may all be revolted by the child pornography, but we have to remember, that the defense of pornography in general (Larry Flint et al.) was based on the Free Speech argument — not on the usefulness of the art or anything like it.
There was a hearing, which determined, that a crime has been committed (and that OJ is a reasonable suspect) — there always is... Educate yourself on these matters...
No. Not in the sence of "deriving their just power from the will of the governed". In any case, this is not relevant to our invasion's legality, so let's not dwell on it here.
Legally there is no distinction between blowing up equipment and full invasion. It is a war one way or the other. Diplomatically there is a difference, of course, but we are talking legalities here...
Your own attempts to interpret the law are fine and dandy — for your own consumption. For official determination of guilt (or even of the fact, a crime was committed at all), there needs to be a court's decision...
Castro is a monster, and embargo has nothing to do with that — nor does genocide, which is not required to make one a monster. I'm happy to have baited you into defending Castro and to go on record claiming "some abridged civil liberties" are Ok with you (as long as the side doing the abridging is Socialist/Communist, of course).
Bush is a freely elected (yes, he was) leader, and there is no doubt, he'll be gone after 2008. The monsters like Hussein, Kim, Milosevic, Taylor, Mugabe, and Castro are/were self-sustaining, their grip on power limited only by biology and the outside pressure.
But, anyway, the "liberation" was only a partial (and moral) justification for our resumption of hostilities against Iraq. The hard, cold legal justification was Iraq's repeated reneging on the earlier (1991) cease-fire agreement.
Their earlier reneging has caused Clinton to order a few aerial bombardments, for example, without so much as a whimper of protest. Bush simply went further — but the legality is the same.
Been there, refuted that:
There is nothing wrong with being smug — we deserve the credit for the things I listed (and a few others too, but those would be off-topic)...
For creating the Internet, and for pushing the globalization to enrich the poor of the world to use it.
I'm holding the English edition of today's "The Japan Times", where it says: "Global economy best in 30 years".
We could do a lot better — various illiberals are holding us back — but we are still doing pretty well.
You'll still be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
No, it was not. The resumption of hostilities was approved by Congress (both chambers) and duly initiated by the Executive. It was certainly not against the US laws, or the President would've been impeached long ago. It was challenged in the courts, but unsuccessfully — all three branches of the American government were in agreement over the legality of the war — you can not get any more legal than that in the US.
What you may have left on your sorry side is the amorphous "international law" — but there you need a UN resolution (preferably — a few) to condemn anything as "illegal" (genocide in Darfur, for example, is still "legal", AFAIK)... And you don't have any — so stop mourning Saddam and send Castro some flowers instead. At least, that monster is still alive...
Yes, you interpret it correctly. Keep begging — the principle "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" still stands.
Bzzz... A soldier shooting (whom he perceives to be) an enemy is acting lawfully.
Rife? Like a few hundred incidents, maybe — most of them not being murders?
Right, it was safer under Saddam — and the trains were running on-time too, weren't they?
Whether your claim we violated the international (as I initially believed) or the US (as you now clarify) law, the accused (United States) is innocent, until found guilty in a court of law.
(The actual fine details, on why our 2003 resumption of anti-Iraq hostilities was not illegal (something, a defense in the above-mentioned court would bring up), have been stated many times. I'm just arguing the general principle...)
Darling, you are quite passionate, but passion is useless, when we are talking about legalities. You can work yourself up into a frenzy arguing, it was wrong for America to resume hostilities against Iraq in 2003, but you can not prove it was illegal (or "criminal"), until you can point to a verdict by a proper court...
The poster I responded to accused US of violating international law — she/he quoted UN charter.
That the US law is not broken is rather obvious — as the original poster in this thread pointed out, America's Congress and Senate have approved the resumption of the anti-Iraq hostilities.
???? What else, other than letter of the law, should a rational person be considering, when determining, whether something is illegal or not?
We killed an awful lot more Chinese and Koreans during the Korean war — not to mention the millions of enemies we managed to dispatch during WW2. Calling a war "illegal" based on the number of casualties is quite irrational...
Murder is a fairly well-defined term, which applies to very few incidents of Iraqis killed by US. These instances are unfortunate and the perpetrators are generally prosecuted. The vast majority of Iraqis killed in Iraq are killed by insurgent terrorists (mostly - fellow Iraqis). Our policies (or failures to execute them properly) may be contributing to the carnage, but it is not us, who is doing the killing...
"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." For the inter-nations cases such court would be the UN Security Council. Can you name the resolution, which condemns our war on Iraq as illegal? No, you can't... Oops. US is innocent.
Yes, that's because (at least, partially) US holds veto in the Council. Such, however, is the state of the "international law", and you have to accept it...
Come, come, comrade... I criticized Socialists, and you countered me — that should be your "idea". As to your (off-topic) anti-pollution tirade, supposedly, targeting Socialism — sorry, does not fly. Your only example was the pollution produced by a personal car — a luxury, no Socialist country ever reached on a meaningful scale.
Almost all of their pollution was industrial (including catastrophes like Chernobyl), plus some damage by poorly (or even un-) treated sewage.
I'd like to point attention to the words I emphasized above... Clear hear name of what? Is it, after all, a shameful act to infringe on somebody else's copyrights and to treat their creation in a way, they did not want it to be treated?
This woman, apparently, has not done it, so her name is clear. But the /. continues to pretend, there would've been nothing wrong in her actions, even if she has...
Her children, very likely, have done it, yet the same author, who slipped into admitting, there is something to clear one's name of here, is describing their fate ("in the line of fire") with puzzling sympathy...
There are, indeed, many other examples of "not exactly stealing", but they are all off topic. Why are you changing the subject? To defend Socialists? Questionable cause... Especially since you are doing it by saying, they aren't the only ones — as if that makes it Ok somehow :-)
And I mean the Communist utopia, not the grim reality of the attempts to build Communism forcefully.
As some old-timers may know, Marx was pointing out, that social order(s) are a product of the production capacity. As the humans' ability to produce things (food, clothing, vehicles, houses, anything...) evolved, so did the social orders. This is the part of his teachings, that no one really disagrees over.
He then argued, that Communism — which Soviet People were busily building, supposedly, while living under the less perfect Socialism — will become possible, when the means of production evolve even further, to the point where Communism's principle of distribution of goods: "From each by their ability, to each by their needs," — will come into being.
Ironically, it is the Capitalist societies, that are quickly approaching that benchmark. More and more things are given out free or for next to nothing to more and more people. Officially "poor" people have cars and TV-sets, and are entitled to substantial give-aways of food...
TFA discusses a major "harbinger" of yet another possible production increase, which promises to allow goods to be produced closer, to where they will be used (presumably, delivery of raw materials will be easier/cheaper). Hurray!
It is not just the hated RIAA, MPAA, and the software behemoths, that will be complaining of copyright infringement. Designs of material things will become targets too.
Various fashion designers are already being hurt — once they design something nice, they have to compete with (high-quality) knock-offs. The knock-offs are not produced by 3D-printing machines, but rather by hard-working laborers abroad. They can make them cheap, because they don't need to pay the genius designers — simply steal her/his designs.
Get ready for passionate Socialists arguing, that it is "not the same as stealing" — as if that's relevant, as if being "not exactly stealing" makes it acceptable somehow.
One of the responsibilities of a member of today's society (anywhere) is payment of taxes... Can Hiasl do that?
Will we see UN, other foreigners, and some Americans push for the conrol over them to become international in 30 years? Because, you know, the big and evil US will be abusing them left and right...
All thanks to America's benevolence, business sense, and good design. These people's usage of the Internet in no way diminishes America's right to do, what it pleases with it, though...
Ha-ha!.. So, if one builds a playground for his kids, and allows other kids to come and play too (for their and his own kids' benefit), he loses the right to control that playground — while keeping "the privilege" of the upkeep?
I understand, how envy and similar emotions may make it difficult for foreigners to squeeze some gratitude towards America out of themselves. But for an American to do the same is incomprehensible. So good at seeing the other side, they lose sight of their own...
A common myth maintained by anti-American zealots uncomfortable with America's claiming credit for anything, however rightfully...
The idea itself was rather obvious to anyone "skilled in the field" and known (especially in America — ha-ha!) since before computers. As we know it today, it wouldn't have taken off without the Internet (duh) — although various BBS-es were early prototypes. What Tim Berners-Lee wrote at CERN would never have become "the Internet's most important part" without a product usable by a non-scientist.
Nor was it a browser in today's sence of the word, but rather more like a Wiki — tied to a single database (more like CERN's own BBS). He did not "invent it", he put forward one of the first (and very limited) implementations. For earlier ones see Xanadu and NLS — both, incidentally, by Americans (the latter, even, by the dreaded American Military!).
I'm still glad CERN exists, of course, but there is no denying, that its contribution to WWW is dwarfed by those of NCSA and other American organizations.
Yada-yada... It does not have the right to usurp our liberties. But it does have the right (and the physical ability) to control Internet — and that, rather than your paranoia-spreading, is the subject here.
If this people want to move to Switzerland or simply quit their jobs at ICANN — fine. US has developed the Internet, it hosted (and continues to host) the root servers, and so it will be, if whoever is in charge has any sense left in them...
I would rather they don't knowingly misuse (waste!) taxpayers' money, as you agree with me they did. It is a waste, because by the time they get tracks good enough for Acela's full speed, the trains will be (near-)obsolete, and need replacement...
They should've spent it on tracks, or they should've said upfront, that this does not make sense: "Either we get funds for both tracks and trains, or don't give us anything now."
It is that second part, that's impossible for most people to say, I guess... Especially for the likes of Dukakis...