as with any law, we have to evaluate this on the basis of how it benefits each citizen and how it hurts each citizen. any good law will do none of the latter. while this may be convenient, it does not protect the rights or insure the freedom of anyone, which is the sole function of the government.
it's a question of whether we choose convenience over our rights to monitor or own email, whether we really want the government regulating yet another form of communications. given the extremely poor record of the FCC in making decisions which benefit citizens, i'd answer a big fat no.
a medium has a tendancy to be interesting and useful in direct proportion to how little it is regulated by the federal government.
Anyone who is shocked and apalled by this is clearly ignorant of the laws of our country.
Convicted criminals are not allowed to make money from their crimes, which exactly what Mitnick is doing. Whether or not you think he was wrongly convicted is not important. You don't get to personally second-guess every court decision you disagree with, thankfully.
While this law may remove some of Mitnicks free speech, one gives up certain rights the momment he commits a crime.
Mitnick is not free from punishment just because he is on probation. He is still serving a sentence for a crime and is subject to the conditions of that sentence, which include some restriction of his free speech.
The alternative is that any criminal can profit from his crime, which I don't expect many would support. You can't go around applying the law arbitrarily however you feel like it.
It may seem at first rather harsh to restrict Mitnick in this way, but it is only analogous to restricting an axe murderer from using axes. The easiest way to prevent a specific crime is to remove the tools necessary to carry it out.
It may be hard for many here to believe, but it is not so difficult to get a job with decent pay that has nothing to do with computers.
If you must make a martyr out of Mitnick, at least be honest about it. Otherwise, you just make him look like an idiot.
I was so excited when i got outlook express 5 from microsoft, which allowed me to both download my email directly from Hotmail just like POP mail and also to do spam filtering. I was a little worried at first that the spam filtering would go too far, so I just set it to highlight spam and let me do the deleting. The first piece of spam i received was from Hotmail itself! Even Microsoft's own email client can recognize spam when it sees it...even when it's from Microsoft. I assume Hotmail is exempt from its own spam policies, which given the large user base of Hotmail, might make this more of a problem than a solution. suddenly Hotmail is the most attractive service for spammers, as they filter mail from everyone else, but not themselves...
while i can appreciate that motorola actually admits when it has a problem, i don't think it's too much to ask that a company use conventional words in describing the problem...this is not an "outstanding performance issue", nor is it an "errata" (who dug that word out of its grave?) it's a bug, or at least an error. slowing a processor down is not a "workaround"...it's a defective product...just admit it and move on.
admitting i don't completely understand the source of the problem, couldn't intel just solder some sort of feedback chip into the third ram slot, so that all data sent is simply sent right back, or on to the processor, or wherever it's supposed to be going, but not currently? it seems like there should be some one to fix a problem of having one too many ram slots cheaper than remaking the whole board.
i don't mean to resort to name-calling, but this seems like a rather elitist position to take. what you're saying is basically that linux should be difficult to use so people who aren't up to par won't be able to use it. i like to consider myself rather intelligent, but if i could figure out how to even install linux on my computer and properly boot it, i would consider myself near genius. it's easy to say that it's not that difficult once you know how to use it, but try looking at it from another perspective. it took me about 3 months to figure out what a tarball was. i was even a computer science major at the time! who are you making an operating system for, if not the general public? if you want a bunch of ISPs to use linux, then you can quit working on it right now. as long as you refuse to admit that linux is too difficult, you absolve yourself from any responsibilty of making it easier. making it more intuitive does not require "dumbing it down." there is no reason you can't make an easy to use operating system with powerful capability for more experienced users. a learning curve is okay, but the objective is always to make it as smooth as possible, not to make it unclimbable for anyone left at the bottom.
As an ex-CS major, I agree with a lot of this. I am still very much interested in CS, but not in taking any more classes on it in college. The classes teach a very specific way of solving problems, and allow for little or no flexibility or creative thinking. I knew I needed to change my major when I was penelized for writing my own library instead of using a frefab one which didn't work as well.
When I complained about this, I was told that because CS isn't taught in a lot of high schools, students are too dumb to think of their own ways of writing a given program. I think the problem is the assumption that a CS major has no ability to think creatively.
Anyway, I don't know about generalization as described. I wouldn't want to go back to CS any more if they starting teaching more languages or more platforms, unless I was allowed to use any language or platform I wanted to write any program. Otherwise, the same cookie cutter programs aren't going to be any more interesting in a different language.
I was until now under the impression that the term flame referred to thoughtless namecalling and the like in response to a post; however, you used in this case to refer to simply a lot of posts. None of these posts said things like "you're dumb." or "you suck." They were all rational discussions of the topic. Is this really flaming? I'm just curious to know which of these definitions best describes the common use of the term "flame."
Slashdot Mirror
as with any law, we have to evaluate this on the basis of how it benefits each citizen and how it hurts each citizen. any good law will do none of the latter. while this may be convenient, it does not protect the rights or insure the freedom of anyone, which is the sole function of the government.
it's a question of whether we choose convenience over our rights to monitor or own email, whether we really want the government regulating yet another form of communications. given the extremely poor record of the FCC in making decisions which benefit citizens, i'd answer a big fat no.
a medium has a tendancy to be interesting and useful in direct proportion to how little it is regulated by the federal government.
Anyone who is shocked and apalled by this is clearly ignorant of the laws of our country.
Convicted criminals are not allowed to make money from their crimes, which exactly what Mitnick is doing. Whether or not you think he was wrongly convicted is not important. You don't get to personally second-guess every court decision you disagree with, thankfully.
While this law may remove some of Mitnicks free speech, one gives up certain rights the momment he commits a crime.
Mitnick is not free from punishment just because he is on probation. He is still serving a sentence for a crime and is subject to the conditions of that sentence, which include some restriction of his free speech.
The alternative is that any criminal can profit from his crime, which I don't expect many would support. You can't go around applying the law arbitrarily however you feel like it.
It may seem at first rather harsh to restrict Mitnick in this way, but it is only analogous to restricting an axe murderer from using axes. The easiest way to prevent a specific crime is to remove the tools necessary to carry it out.
It may be hard for many here to believe, but it is not so difficult to get a job with decent pay that has nothing to do with computers.
If you must make a martyr out of Mitnick, at least be honest about it. Otherwise, you just make him look like an idiot.
I was so excited when i got outlook express 5 from microsoft, which allowed me to both download my email directly from Hotmail just like POP mail and also to do spam filtering. I was a little worried at first that the spam filtering would go too far, so I just set it to highlight spam and let me do the deleting. The first piece of spam i received was from Hotmail itself! Even Microsoft's own email client can recognize spam when it sees it...even when it's from Microsoft. I assume Hotmail is exempt from its own spam policies, which given the large user base of Hotmail, might make this more of a problem than a solution. suddenly Hotmail is the most attractive service for spammers, as they filter mail from everyone else, but not themselves...
while i can appreciate that motorola actually admits when it has a problem, i don't think it's too much to ask that a company use conventional words in describing the problem...this is not an "outstanding performance issue", nor is it an "errata" (who dug that word out of its grave?) it's a bug, or at least an error. slowing a processor down is not a "workaround"...it's a defective product...just admit it and move on.
admitting i don't completely understand the source of the problem, couldn't intel just solder some sort of feedback chip into the third ram slot, so that all data sent is simply sent right back, or on to the processor, or wherever it's supposed to be going, but not currently? it seems like there should be some one to fix a problem of having one too many ram slots cheaper than remaking the whole board.
i don't mean to resort to name-calling, but this seems like a rather elitist position to take. what you're saying is basically that linux should be difficult to use so people who aren't up to par won't be able to use it. i like to consider myself rather intelligent, but if i could figure out how to even install linux on my computer and properly boot it, i would consider myself near genius. it's easy to say that it's not that difficult once you know how to use it, but try looking at it from another perspective. it took me about 3 months to figure out what a tarball was. i was even a computer science major at the time! who are you making an operating system for, if not the general public? if you want a bunch of ISPs to use linux, then you can quit working on it right now. as long as you refuse to admit that linux is too difficult, you absolve yourself from any responsibilty of making it easier. making it more intuitive does not require "dumbing it down." there is no reason you can't make an easy to use operating system with powerful capability for more experienced users. a learning curve is okay, but the objective is always to make it as smooth as possible, not to make it unclimbable for anyone left at the bottom.
As an ex-CS major, I agree with a lot of this. I am still very much interested in CS, but not in taking any more classes on it in college. The classes teach a very specific way of solving problems, and allow for little or no flexibility or creative thinking. I knew I needed to change my major when I was penelized for writing my own library instead of using a frefab one which didn't work as well.
When I complained about this, I was told that because CS isn't taught in a lot of high schools, students are too dumb to think of their own ways of writing a given program. I think the problem is the assumption that a CS major has no ability to think creatively.
Anyway, I don't know about generalization as described. I wouldn't want to go back to CS any more if they starting teaching more languages or more platforms, unless I was allowed to use any language or platform I wanted to write any program. Otherwise, the same cookie cutter programs aren't going to be any more interesting in a different language.
This action does not divide the company. It's still Microsoft, regardless of what they want to call the different departments.
I was until now under the impression that the term flame referred to thoughtless namecalling and the like in response to a post; however, you used in this case to refer to simply a lot of posts. None of these posts said things like "you're dumb." or "you suck." They were all rational discussions of the topic. Is this really flaming? I'm just curious to know which of these definitions best describes the common use of the term "flame."