Che Guevara wasn't really a revolutionary. He was just an opportunistic psychopath who found a way to legally indulge in his homicidal activities by joining a revolution.
Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost.
Yeah, because companies don't back up their data.
Real damage would be, say, blowing up the primary data center for a company and even that assumes the company doesn't have a decent disaster recovery plan. If they do have a good DR plan, one would have to take out the data center, and the DR location.
Look at the people who die before child-bearing age: http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html You are making an assumption that is false. While your sited source says 45% of deaths are caused by those things, it only considers children ages 5 - 9. When the data set is expanded to include 0 - 19, the percentage of children who die is extremely small,.065% ( Based on 2006 numbers for 0 - 19 years of 64.7 deaths per 100,000 ). And, death from natural causes out strips the causes you listed.
Simply put, being able to survive such events does not appreciably increase the species ability to survive because the events themselves are so rare.
And, that "crumpled and yellowing" guarantee document probably isn't valid because it is non-transferable. That means that the guarantee only applies to the original purchaser because neither the company that originally made and/or sold the machine nor the purchaser can say whether the original purchaser made any changes or used the machine as designed.
Almost every guarantee provided by a manufacturer is limited to the original purchaser and requires proof of purchase.
I think if you research the story behind that picture, you will find that those scales were claiming to meet the "accepted definition of weight"* and were not. One is perfectly free to develop a new system of measures, but it must not use unit names that are already legally defined. One cannot make a system of measure where 14 ounces equal 1 pound. That is considered fraud. However, one can make a system of measure where 14 ounces, as defined by law, equals 10 blarts which equals 1 grobnik,
* That phrase doesn't mean what you appear to be trying to say. The "accepted definition of weight" doesn't change regardless of the units used. What changes is the system of units and measures.
self-effacing (s lf -f s ng). adj. Not drawing attention to oneself; modest.
Yes, be self-effacing because women don't like successful, rich, powerful, well-known, flashy guys. That is why rock stars, movie stars, professional athletes, etc. find it so hard to meet women and get laid.
/sarcasm
Hey, OKCupid, why don't you do a study about the physical characteristics of those who get the most messages and most replies? Say, height, weight, body type, fitness level, rated appearance, and apparent income level. And, you could include a "rate yourself" and use it in the study. I am sure it would be an eye-opener.
Spills, both accidental and deliberate, and belching class clowns. The teacher doesn't like to watch others drinking or hearing slurping. And, bringing the beverage in when one knows it is against the rules is, in and of itself, a disruptive act.
More importantly, it does not matter if you think the rule is arbitrary because it is the rule. If you ever manage to get a job in the real world, you will find that there are plenty of arbitrary rules one must follow if one wants to continue in a job. I have worked at places where plants were not allowed, where one couldn't have an uncovered beverage at one's desk, where one could not have papers on one's desk at the end of the day, etc., etc., etc. You don't have to like the rule, and you can work to change the rule, but you don't have the right to break the rule just because you don't like the rule. Doing that must makes you an asshole.
Sure you did. I seriously doubt you did anything you say. You act like you had power in high school and, individually, students have no power. Asshole students should be failed, but in this day and age, no one is failed. That is why we get people like you; people who think they know everything when really, they are ignorant of how the real world works.
It is a shame your teachers never taught you what they were supposed to teach you. See, they weren't supposed to teach you to question authority. They were supposed to teach discipline, how to think, and a particular subject. Instead of creating an adult, they created an overgrown teen-ager.
Oh, and to be successful in university, all one has to do is parrot back the professor's words and not express one's own opinions if they run counter to the professor's. It will be funny when you go out into the real world and question authority with "solidly thought out rational arguments" and kill your career. Nothing like being passed over for promotions, raises, and bonuses, then fired for insubordination to make one a desirable employee~ Oh, and no, that is not what happened to me. That is what happened to one of the new hires who acted like he was still in college and couldn't adapt. He is now living with his parents and can't get a job in the industry all because he told a VP that the VP was wrong and he was right.
Ah, so you don't think people should obey the rules? What other rules should we not obey?
Oh, and you shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of. Don't forget, in Soviet Russia, not following the rules often got one sent to the gulag, if not outright killed, and they were communists, right?
He admitted guilt. Please state an instance where his actions would be justified and explain why in detail. Please don't try, as someone has done, pulling a hollywood scenario such as "the company was going to release a deadly pathogen" claim.
The OP's argument is not what you have stated. His argument is that the results of his actions could have been hideous, so "let's throw the book at him", which means to punish him to the fullest extent of the law for what he has done. Someone decides to fire off an automatic rifle in the general direction of your family reunion. Do you want the book thrown at him for what he did or should he be given the benefit of the doubt?
They conducted secret illegal experiments on him and his coworkers.
Well, no, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And, assuming that occurred, the company would keep the information from the experiments, so why didn't he retrieved the information and make it public rather than simply attacking the company? You say the information was on the VMs he deleted? So, you are saying he destroyed the evidence of his abuse and thus making any claim he makes unsupportable? Great move on his part.
Please explain in detail when his actions would be acceptable and why.
Slashdot Mirror
Che Guevara wasn't really a revolutionary. He was just an opportunistic psychopath who found a way to legally indulge in his homicidal activities by joining a revolution.
Anonymous has always struck me as like the Orks in the Warhammer 40K universe. If they don't have anyone else to attack, they will attack each other.
Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost.
Yeah, because companies don't back up their data.
Real damage would be, say, blowing up the primary data center for a company and even that assumes the company doesn't have a decent disaster recovery plan. If they do have a good DR plan, one would have to take out the data center, and the DR location.
Please see the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to understand why you are wrong.
Ah, so it is OK for Wikileaks to publish the secrets of others, but not OK for others to publish the secrets of Wikileaks? Sounds like hypocrisy.
Passwords are nothing more than secrets and, as we have seen, Wikileaks is all about leaking secrets, most especially damaging secrets.
No. The point of leaks is to damage the target of the leak by use of cherry-picking.
Look at the people who die before child-bearing age: http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html .065% ( Based on 2006 numbers for 0 - 19 years of 64.7 deaths per 100,000 ). And, death from natural causes out strips the causes you listed.
You are making an assumption that is false. While your sited source says 45% of deaths are caused by those things, it only considers children ages 5 - 9. When the data set is expanded to include 0 - 19, the percentage of children who die is extremely small,
Simply put, being able to survive such events does not appreciably increase the species ability to survive because the events themselves are so rare.
All of a sudden that "free" software isn't looking so free.
And, that "crumpled and yellowing" guarantee document probably isn't valid because it is non-transferable. That means that the guarantee only applies to the original purchaser because neither the company that originally made and/or sold the machine nor the purchaser can say whether the original purchaser made any changes or used the machine as designed.
Almost every guarantee provided by a manufacturer is limited to the original purchaser and requires proof of purchase.
I think if you research the story behind that picture, you will find that those scales were claiming to meet the "accepted definition of weight"* and were not. One is perfectly free to develop a new system of measures, but it must not use unit names that are already legally defined. One cannot make a system of measure where 14 ounces equal 1 pound. That is considered fraud. However, one can make a system of measure where 14 ounces, as defined by law, equals 10 blarts which equals 1 grobnik,
* That phrase doesn't mean what you appear to be trying to say. The "accepted definition of weight" doesn't change regardless of the units used. What changes is the system of units and measures.
Please read "How to lie with statistics".
self-effacing (s lf -f s ng). adj. Not drawing attention to oneself; modest.
Yes, be self-effacing because women don't like successful, rich, powerful, well-known, flashy guys. That is why rock stars, movie stars, professional athletes, etc. find it so hard to meet women and get laid.
/sarcasm
Hey, OKCupid, why don't you do a study about the physical characteristics of those who get the most messages and most replies? Say, height, weight, body type, fitness level, rated appearance, and apparent income level. And, you could include a "rate yourself" and use it in the study. I am sure it would be an eye-opener.
Spills, both accidental and deliberate, and belching class clowns. The teacher doesn't like to watch others drinking or hearing slurping. And, bringing the beverage in when one knows it is against the rules is, in and of itself, a disruptive act.
More importantly, it does not matter if you think the rule is arbitrary because it is the rule. If you ever manage to get a job in the real world, you will find that there are plenty of arbitrary rules one must follow if one wants to continue in a job. I have worked at places where plants were not allowed, where one couldn't have an uncovered beverage at one's desk, where one could not have papers on one's desk at the end of the day, etc., etc., etc. You don't have to like the rule, and you can work to change the rule, but you don't have the right to break the rule just because you don't like the rule. Doing that must makes you an asshole.
Sure you did. I seriously doubt you did anything you say. You act like you had power in high school and, individually, students have no power. Asshole students should be failed, but in this day and age, no one is failed. That is why we get people like you; people who think they know everything when really, they are ignorant of how the real world works.
It is a shame your teachers never taught you what they were supposed to teach you. See, they weren't supposed to teach you to question authority. They were supposed to teach discipline, how to think, and a particular subject. Instead of creating an adult, they created an overgrown teen-ager.
Oh, and to be successful in university, all one has to do is parrot back the professor's words and not express one's own opinions if they run counter to the professor's. It will be funny when you go out into the real world and question authority with "solidly thought out rational arguments" and kill your career. Nothing like being passed over for promotions, raises, and bonuses, then fired for insubordination to make one a desirable employee~ Oh, and no, that is not what happened to me. That is what happened to one of the new hires who acted like he was still in college and couldn't adapt. He is now living with his parents and can't get a job in the industry all because he told a VP that the VP was wrong and he was right.
Ah, so you don't think people should obey the rules? What other rules should we not obey?
Oh, and you shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of. Don't forget, in Soviet Russia, not following the rules often got one sent to the gulag, if not outright killed, and they were communists, right?
It is the person bringing in the soda, because it is against the rules.
If the student is not supposed to have a can of coke in class and refuses to relinquish the can causing a scene, then yes it is disruptive.
That has got to be one of the stupidest questions I have seen on slashdot.
1&2) Try reading slashdot.
3) A valid question which you have answered by making a fool out of yourself yet again.
Really, if you are going to be on website, you should really pay attention to what appears on said website.
It is supposed to be "FBI surveillance van #42"
He admitted guilt. Please state an instance where his actions would be justified and explain why in detail. Please don't try, as someone has done, pulling a hollywood scenario such as "the company was going to release a deadly pathogen" claim.
The OP's argument is not what you have stated. His argument is that the results of his actions could have been hideous, so "let's throw the book at him", which means to punish him to the fullest extent of the law for what he has done. Someone decides to fire off an automatic rifle in the general direction of your family reunion. Do you want the book thrown at him for what he did or should he be given the benefit of the doubt?
Or, get in a wreck.
Or, get a speeding ticket
Or, get called for jury duty
Or, get drunk.
Or, go on vacation
Or, have a meeting first thing in the morning
Or, are dealing with a critical incident
Or, have a death in the family
Or, your house burns down
Or, you get mugged and end up in the hospital
I could keep going, but I am sure everyone gets the idea.
Funny, but everyone making excuses for him are using similar bullshit arguments.
They conducted secret illegal experiments on him and his coworkers.
Well, no, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And, assuming that occurred, the company would keep the information from the experiments, so why didn't he retrieved the information and make it public rather than simply attacking the company? You say the information was on the VMs he deleted? So, you are saying he destroyed the evidence of his abuse and thus making any claim he makes unsupportable? Great move on his part.
Please explain in detail when his actions would be acceptable and why.
No. "What" is the most important part. "Why" can be a mitigating factor, but that is all. Your example is a false dichotomy.
Now, please explain in detail a situation where his actions are justified.