The Hindu/Buddhism symbol you saw has nothing to do with the crossed fasces symbol of Fascism. They just happen to be similar looking. There are also stars, that aren't symbolizing the Soviet Union.
Anyway - swastika still in evidence around the world.
The symbol itself is innocent. But the 'glory' of the Fascism is not used to market the products of Germany. Unfortunately, Russians have no qualms using the 'glory' of the no less evil Communism promoting Russian products. That's my point.
You know it, I know it. You just wanted to let the world know, you visited Vietnam and brought back 2 cents to share. Should've used your blog for that...
And in the case of employment, the employer is the customer. So make them happy...
"Legal options"? I'm loving it! Imagine having to respond to a supermarket lawsuit against you, charging, that you did not buy their orange juice because you did not like the packaging...
Crank the warnings up as high as the OS' include files can bear and try recompiling.
Then -- patiently fix them all. You know, you planned to do that for years. Do it before trying to build a 64-bit version.
Then -- try the 64-bit version and fix all the warnings you missed before. void * to int conversions are my personal favorites...
Resist the temptation to invent your own types, though (Mozilla's source tree is awful in this regard). Use the standard int32_t or uint64_t, where the number of bits matters -- a simple hardware-dependent int is usually more efficient.
Make sure your next machine runs a 64-bit OS and gain practice by porting/fixing various free software to run on it:-)
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Who cares about the sense of touch in your feet?
Based on this theory of mine, whatever part of human skin is particularly ticklish, is (or was) an important sensory organ.
Feet sure qualify. I explain this by the need to react automatically to stepping on a snake or a scorpion.
A decent idea, but you're more likely to force them out of business in China than anything.
Well, this is very similar to the arguments against the original FCPA law. It made American companies less competetive...
That sounds good. But we already have sanctions against countries violating human rights.
These are not automaticly triggered -- Executive or even Legislative branches have to debate them. What I'm talking about is an automatic -- upon a judge's say-so -- tariff increase on Chinese imports. It need not be large even, just to cover the company's troubles.
Plus, allow the victims (or their survivors) of these persecutions to sue the American companies for damages for choosing to collaborate with the tyrants instead of using the defenses afforded by this law.
And what if China had geometrically progressing fines for doing "the wrong thing"?
And what if a civil servant in Chad will not issue and oil-drilling permit without a bribe?
You also fail to realize that the way we view the Chinese government is very similar to how many foreigners currently view the US government.
That's beside the point -- we are discussing an American law.
Again, your perception of good and bad is not universally agreed-upon. So forcing your views on someone is no better than someone else forcing their views on you.
Sorry, we'll have to remain in disagreement here. My forcing the view, that nobody should go to jail for criticizing their governmentis better, than forcing a view that people trying to blow me up (and their helpers) should not be jailed.
BTW, I think, there is an even wider agreement on my view, than on the evilness of bribery, actually.
But this too is beside the point. You are playing a "devil's advocate" in an argument, where the devil's opinion is irrelevant. We are discussing an American law, not an international treaty.
We are not engaging in the actual law-making. This is what Senators are for:-) But let's try anyway.
1. Who gets to determine if a suspect is having his human rights violated? What happens while they are deciding?
The company in question gets, say, 30 days to evaluate the request.
2. It would put a company in jeopardy of having to decide which of 2 laws to violate -- the Chinese law or the US law. What makes us think they're more likely to violate the Chinese law, when they're operating in China? I think they're more likely to just pay the US fine, so they can continue operating in China.
If the law provided for:
automatic sanctions against the country (China in your example) for harassing the company;
geometrically progressing fines for the company;
it would push the balance in favor of the Right Thing.
3. [...] Then why would we consider it to be acceptable for us to do it to them? It's the freaking Golden Rule, people!
This argument has a fatal flaw. It assumes, the countries -- USA and China -- are equal. They are not (mildly speaking). There is no symmetry, much as various tyrants would love to claim "equal footing" with US and other free countries.
That said, many countries have refugee programs and most will not extradite an accused criminal, unless the alleged act is also considered criminal in the host country and there is reason to expect a fair trial, etc. Britain, for example, has recently forced Pennsylvania to drop death penalty as a condition for extraditing someone.
4. [...] The decision is not whether to rat out the person or not. It is whether to follow the law of the land, or to face the consequences, or to not do business in that country.
Correct. What I'm suggesting is exporting some of the good laws of our land abroad to counter some of the foreign bad ones. It is the right thing to do, and is not unprecedented. Belgium's "universal jurisdiction" is far more ambitious and controversial...
I think the reason that the original FCPA works is that bribery is already illegal where it is practiced.
Well, that's why it was relatively easy to pass (although the corporations hated it, because it gave "unfair" advantage to foreign companies).
In this case, you'd be pitting 2 laws against each other.
And two economies -- allowing American companies to respect human rights more than Chinese government does will be the price, that Chinese government will have to pay for letting Chinese companies access American markets.
I said this last time, China vs. Yahoo! (and Google) came up, I'll say it again.
Just as the FCPA currently prohibits US companies from certain behavior abroad (primarily -- bribing foreign officials) -- FCPA-2.0 should also prohibit the anti-human rights disclosures, like the ones Yahoo! was forced to make.
It is not going to be easy to make this law, but something is needed to give these companies a backbone and help them weather a foreign government's hostile action. Something like a threat of sanctions against the country demanding an American company's cooperation in an unjust (in USA's view) prosecution. Such sanctions ought to be automatic only requiring a US federal judge's approval.
I'll be very glad to see such a law condemned as "imperialist" and US accused of "twisting" the tyrants' arms with it.
Revolutionaries are in general murerous and bloody people though
No, actually. The really grotesque murders begin (when they do) after revolutions.
And on this front the more removed the victorious side is from common sense, the more murderous it has to be to survive.
The amount of death and destruction during the Russian Civil War amounts to a rounding error compared to the murders (and occasional genocide) afterwards.
They lost the war -- the Cold War. And then there was enough on them to hang many of the bonzas like they did in Nurenberg, but "the times have changed" by 1990-ies.
Instead, the surviving individuals continue to receive posh pensions from Russia and the Communist Party as a whole is the second (where not the first) strongest in parliaments of ex-Soviet states.
Heck, Russia is ruled by Putin. His KGB job was not particularly murderous (industrial espionage), but he was the chief of his local Communist Party group in Germany -- and proud of it!.. Imagine a proud ex-Nazi officer becoming Germany's chancellor 15 years after the war, or even now...
I'm getting carried away even further into off-topic. Gotta stop.
I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example.
I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but what if they just wear it ironically?
They'll need my written permission then...
Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage:-(
Imagine a new line of German schnaps being promoted with those crossed symbolic fasces. It would -- understandibly -- cause an outrage. But new Russian vodkas continue to proudly display the murderous Red Star, and the above mentioned tools.
I would HATE to read this if I was a linux programmer. Is it possible to include notes in software licenses forbiding military uses?
Such limitations would make your software less free. This is fine, of course -- I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example -- but it will not be part of Linux.
Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space.
If such a mirror is possible at all, is not also possible (and even much easier) to cover the missile with the same reflective material, whatever it is?
A bigger question, though, is: why bother mounting this on a plane, when using a satellite mirror anyway?
Which means, of course, no mirrors -- the plane will be patrolling "half a world away" and shooting missiles straight.
What I meant was, having a state law patently contradicting a federal one for over 30 years, while possible, is a lot less likely, than a Slashdot user misreading one or both of the laws.
For all the talk about whether the CO2 is manmade or not, or whether it causes global warming, some facts are most certainly known. First, the CO2 level has doubled in a 100 years, and when a planet wide change happens that fast, you really do have to have cause for concern.
Cuch things could also have happened in the pre-human or pre-industrialization past.
We do know, that climate was changing dramatically in the past. Romans had vineyards in Britania, for example. Antarctica has dinosaur remains... Bodies of mammoths are sometimes dug out from what-we-now-call permafrost.
Editing out the SSNs and DOBs is not only not required by law, it, likely, is against the law.
This info was Public Records since, well, always:-)
Anybody could go to town hall and browse the registry of deeds and other repositories. It just became more convenient to do it, but it was always possible.
In a way, we always relied on "security through obscurity" keeping this information (kinda) private, and are now all upset at the obscurity withering out.
it is still not really "intercepted" until a pair of human eyes takes a look at it or listens to the recording
In short -- yes.
Because only humans are able to exploit the information in the message to any detriment of me.
"Interception" by computers and other machinery is no different from my message being "intercepted" by the copper wires en-route to the other side's phone.
surveillance structure which creates a chilling effect on legitimate political discussions. If you think it only effects terrorists, you are incredibly mistaken. It effects anyone who takes an interest in Middle-Eastern politics, anyone who wants to have religious discussions online with Muslims, and anyone who is afraid he/she might have had a runin with people who might be watched by even rogue members of the NSA.
If the political discussion is legitimate, why is the effect "chilling"?
You needn't quote neither Zamyatin nor Orwell to me -- I read them in samizdat. Just answer the question...
If you did not have a problem with NSA being able to read, what they want in the first place, you should not sweat too much over them using that ability.
If the government really gets corrupted at some point in the future, they will be using it to sinister ends, and you'll never know...
I work with plenty of middle-easterners and Muslims, I shop in their stores. Some of them are buying their houses here and raising their children. If they are not scared, why do you monger the fear on me?
This is exactly the danger that the 1st and 4th ammendments were designed to prevent.
And both remain comfortably in place. Thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
You know it, I know it. You just wanted to let the world know, you visited Vietnam and brought back 2 cents to share. Should've used your blog for that...
"Legal options"? I'm loving it! Imagine having to respond to a supermarket lawsuit against you, charging, that you did not buy their orange juice because you did not like the packaging...
Then -- patiently fix them all. You know, you planned to do that for years. Do it before trying to build a 64-bit version.
Then -- try the 64-bit version and fix all the warnings you missed before. void * to int conversions are my personal favorites...
Resist the temptation to invent your own types, though (Mozilla's source tree is awful in this regard). Use the standard int32_t or uint64_t, where the number of bits matters -- a simple hardware-dependent int is usually more efficient.
Make sure your next machine runs a 64-bit OS and gain practice by porting/fixing various free software to run on it :-)
Based on this theory of mine, whatever part of human skin is particularly ticklish, is (or was) an important sensory organ.
Feet sure qualify. I explain this by the need to react automatically to stepping on a snake or a scorpion.
Plus, allow the victims (or their survivors) of these persecutions to sue the American companies for damages for choosing to collaborate with the tyrants instead of using the defenses afforded by this law.
And what if a civil servant in Chad will not issue and oil-drilling permit without a bribe? That's beside the point -- we are discussing an American law. Sorry, we'll have to remain in disagreement here. My forcing the view, that nobody should go to jail for criticizing their government is better, than forcing a view that people trying to blow me up (and their helpers) should not be jailed.BTW, I think, there is an even wider agreement on my view, than on the evilness of bribery, actually.
But this too is beside the point. You are playing a "devil's advocate" in an argument, where the devil's opinion is irrelevant. We are discussing an American law, not an international treaty.
- automatic sanctions against the country (China in your example) for harassing the company;
- geometrically progressing fines for the company;
it would push the balance in favor of the Right Thing. 3. [...] Then why would we consider it to be acceptable for us to do it to them? It's the freaking Golden Rule, people! This argument has a fatal flaw. It assumes, the countries -- USA and China -- are equal. They are not (mildly speaking). There is no symmetry, much as various tyrants would love to claim "equal footing" with US and other free countries.That said, many countries have refugee programs and most will not extradite an accused criminal, unless the alleged act is also considered criminal in the host country and there is reason to expect a fair trial, etc. Britain, for example, has recently forced Pennsylvania to drop death penalty as a condition for extraditing someone.
4. [...] The decision is not whether to rat out the person or not. It is whether to follow the law of the land, or to face the consequences, or to not do business in that country. Correct. What I'm suggesting is exporting some of the good laws of our land abroad to counter some of the foreign bad ones. It is the right thing to do, and is not unprecedented. Belgium's "universal jurisdiction" is far more ambitious and controversial... Well, that's why it was relatively easy to pass (although the corporations hated it, because it gave "unfair" advantage to foreign companies). And two economies -- allowing American companies to respect human rights more than Chinese government does will be the price, that Chinese government will have to pay for letting Chinese companies access American markets.Just as the FCPA currently prohibits US companies from certain behavior abroad (primarily -- bribing foreign officials) -- FCPA-2.0 should also prohibit the anti-human rights disclosures, like the ones Yahoo! was forced to make.
It is not going to be easy to make this law, but something is needed to give these companies a backbone and help them weather a foreign government's hostile action. Something like a threat of sanctions against the country demanding an American company's cooperation in an unjust (in USA's view) prosecution. Such sanctions ought to be automatic only requiring a US federal judge's approval.
I'll be very glad to see such a law condemned as "imperialist" and US accused of "twisting" the tyrants' arms with it.
Very good then. You and your friends are not subject to the Che Guevarra exception on my software's license.
And on this front the more removed the victorious side is from common sense, the more murderous it has to be to survive.
The amount of death and destruction during the Russian Civil War amounts to a rounding error compared to the murders (and occasional genocide) afterwards.
Instead, the surviving individuals continue to receive posh pensions from Russia and the Communist Party as a whole is the second (where not the first) strongest in parliaments of ex-Soviet states.
Heck, Russia is ruled by Putin. His KGB job was not particularly murderous (industrial espionage), but he was the chief of his local Communist Party group in Germany -- and proud of it!.. Imagine a proud ex-Nazi officer becoming Germany's chancellor 15 years after the war, or even now...
I'm getting carried away even further into off-topic. Gotta stop.
Seriously, I know, you are joking, but nobody seems to jokingly wear, say, Swastika on their clothing, yet the Hammer-and-Sickle remain all the rage :-(
Imagine a new line of German schnaps being promoted with those crossed symbolic fasces. It would -- understandibly -- cause an outrage. But new Russian vodkas continue to proudly display the murderous Red Star, and the above mentioned tools.
A bigger question, though, is: why bother mounting this on a plane, when using a satellite mirror anyway?
Which means, of course, no mirrors -- the plane will be patrolling "half a world away" and shooting missiles straight.
What I meant was, having a state law patently contradicting a federal one for over 30 years, while possible, is a lot less likely, than a Slashdot user misreading one or both of the laws.
It is only fitting, that we explore Mars, while the Europeans try for Venus.
We do know, that climate was changing dramatically in the past. Romans had vineyards in Britania, for example. Antarctica has dinosaur remains... Bodies of mammoths are sometimes dug out from what-we-now-call permafrost.
It just became more harmful, because of the Internet, but the nature of it did not change.
So, people, don't let your 2000-election wounds open up again :-)
This info was Public Records since, well, always :-)
Anybody could go to town hall and browse the registry of deeds and other repositories. It just became more convenient to do it, but it was always possible.
In a way, we always relied on "security through obscurity" keeping this information (kinda) private, and are now all upset at the obscurity withering out.
"Interception" by computers and other machinery is no different from my message being "intercepted" by the copper wires en-route to the other side's phone.
You needn't quote neither Zamyatin nor Orwell to me -- I read them in samizdat. Just answer the question...
If you did not have a problem with NSA being able to read, what they want in the first place, you should not sweat too much over them using that ability.
If the government really gets corrupted at some point in the future, they will be using it to sinister ends, and you'll never know...
I work with plenty of middle-easterners and Muslims, I shop in their stores. Some of them are buying their houses here and raising their children. If they are not scared, why do you monger the fear on me?
And both remain comfortably in place. Thank you very much.I don't think so. If "they" only look at certain messages, then all others have not been intercepted...
Ponies drool.