Depends on if they can see anything that anyone else couldn't see. Specifically, if they're allowed any extra access by the site owners, or if they use depict to get data, including making popular aps without revealing that they're intended to mine data for DHS, then yes, it is a 4th amendment violation big time.
Now, there are a lot of crazies out in the world these days. Us Americans should know - we created them in a lot of cases. And it may be that we need this level of security to prevent some of those "nightmare scenarios" - the dirty backpack bomb, the virus o' doom, etc.
But if we are going to go down that security route, we ought to at least have one completely open debate before we end our experiment in representative democracy, and that is about said ending. Otherwise, the decision will be made for us, and once it's made, there is no going back.
I mean, it was only what, last month, that MS was reassuring folks that nothing in Windows 8 would preclude other OS's from being installed, period (assuming the OEM's didn't force the issue).
Now - not so much.
Wonder how long we have till MS makes it even harder on regular x86...
That's where the power is; that's where the string pullers, the bribers exist. And government isn't their only tool; their own corporate fiefdoms have a significant amount of power in their own rights.
PS: This article is from 2000. Interesting that in 12 years, this "war room" style programming never caught on. And while agile has (an approach of which I am a supporter), the paired/extreme programming approach for all tasks has not in general caught on so much.
Some things are done well by group - major design decisions and such, were input from multiple sources is critical (though, it is necessary that folks do their homework before their groups). Others, like figuring out convoluted logic - not so much.
Well.... maybe because putting this on your resume doesn't look so good:
- Capable of refraining from telling co-workers that they're fucking inbred morons who would benefit from a course in remedial keyboarding, and that if they ever check in shit like that again that they'll discover that it is, in fact, possible to insert a 23 inch monitor into an arbitrary orifices.
There has to be a balance between one's teamwork and individual creativity.
On the one hand, you can have prima donnas running the whole show, doing really great things that have absolutely nothing to do with actually getting a product out the door.
On the other hand, you can take extreme programming to the extreme, piss of your rock stars, and wind up with them quitting, and get trainwreck product.
Bottom line is that any team management approach needs to be able to milk everyone for the best they've got without stiffing creativity, or putting the wrong people at the helm for the sake alone of giving them a chance to drive.
Just some random thoughts as I sit alone blasting out my Saturday code...
Problem is - they're never, ever going to accept a solution that limits corporate power as opposed to limiting the rights of the natural individual.
So, while I certainly see your point, I fear that any proposals would just be used as cover for the standard corporate friendly crap that his administration is so good at producing under the guise of actually being, you know, Democrats.
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here?
I really don't understand why further regulation is needed here to protect the rights of the content owners. Are there not copyright laws in effect? Don't they already have the ability to take down sites (with a certain amount of due process), sue for damages, etc?
I often see the use and positive impact of regulation (not dumping raw sewage in the river, etc) - but I still don't follow what exactly the need really is to provide more control to the corporations over the net (I absolutely understand their desire for it, but not any valid reason why there should be any further corporate control allowed).
The timbre of this administration remains the same. It gave away health care by inches to the corporations until they were able to declare "we win!" while trying to look like they were actually fighting. And now they're doing the same with the 'net, as far as I can tell: putting on a dog and pony show, but preparing to hand the show over to those paying the lobbyists.
Compare that to a total cost of over a trillion dollars (including interest on military incurred debt) for the military. That's 7000 times the budget on the arts.
They held together a stable life for six to seven years. True, they didn't own - but they did hold together a home. Maybe not to your standards of ownership - but obviously they were doing something right to get that far. And obviously, if they held on to a house for six to seven years, something changed in the pattern behavour.
Not sure what you mean about curb stomping puppies. But to be clear about what I meant - it seems that you are arguing that the parents cannot change, that they have in the past proven themselves worthless, and as such, can never have worth. That no matter what they do, they are without merit or value.
Which I find extremely ironic, as you seem to be a proponent of social Darwinism.
Perhaps in the past. But again, if you'd actually read the quoted citations (let alone the article), it was an auto accident and resulting loss of work / medical bills that made them homeless this time around.
Is it that important to you to assign blame to the victims that you'll completely and willfully ignore the facts of the matter?
So much for "There but for the grace of God go I" (or whatever method of expressing empathy you care for).
Nope - these days, it's all about lazy, entitlement seeking, dirty, smelly, socialist, thieving, parasitic trash sucking the life out of the economy.
At least - right up to the point at which BigCorp your work for outsources your job and you can't even pay the mortgage on your rather modest home or feed the kids... suddenly, maybe, it occurs then that perhaps some of these folks just maybe weren't just lazy scum.
There were 300 semifinalists. This means that all other things considered equal, there should be 7 homeless semifinalists.
Of course, given the situations that homeless kids are in, I wouldn't at all expect that other things should be considered equal, and that it would be extremely surprising to find the same distribution for such achievers between homeless and non-homeless kids.
With that said, though, one semifinalist is not at all surprising.
Especially with what's being done to the middle and working classes in this nation.
Before the eviction, the Garveys had rented a home for six or seven years, Leo Garvey said. Before that, the family had also lived in homeless shelters from time to time; Leo Garvey described himself as a recovering alcoholic.
So - like most homeless, in and out of rental properties. And most of her life, sound like.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on if they can see anything that anyone else couldn't see. Specifically, if they're allowed any extra access by the site owners, or if they use depict to get data, including making popular aps without revealing that they're intended to mine data for DHS, then yes, it is a 4th amendment violation big time.
Now, there are a lot of crazies out in the world these days. Us Americans should know - we created them in a lot of cases. And it may be that we need this level of security to prevent some of those "nightmare scenarios" - the dirty backpack bomb, the virus o' doom, etc.
But if we are going to go down that security route, we ought to at least have one completely open debate before we end our experiment in representative democracy, and that is about said ending. Otherwise, the decision will be made for us, and once it's made, there is no going back.
I mean, it was only what, last month, that MS was reassuring folks that nothing in Windows 8 would preclude other OS's from being installed, period (assuming the OEM's didn't force the issue).
Now - not so much.
Wonder how long we have till MS makes it even harder on regular x86...
And I bet you whack off to Ayn Rand and think that you're some sort of John Galt for doing it, too.
Not just government.
But the mega-corps as well.
That's where the power is; that's where the string pullers, the bribers exist. And government isn't their only tool; their own corporate fiefdoms have a significant amount of power in their own rights.
... who honestly could not have seen this coming?
PS: This article is from 2000. Interesting that in 12 years, this "war room" style programming never caught on. And while agile has (an approach of which I am a supporter), the paired/extreme programming approach for all tasks has not in general caught on so much.
Some things are done well by group - major design decisions and such, were input from multiple sources is critical (though, it is necessary that folks do their homework before their groups). Others, like figuring out convoluted logic - not so much.
I might see that working for certain types of teams.
But in general, I see imposing that on high end devs as a sure fire way to get them to walk right out the door.
And that's why there isn't a cookie cutter approach, and why good managers are needed - and often hard to find.
Well.... maybe because putting this on your resume doesn't look so good:
- Capable of refraining from telling co-workers that they're fucking inbred morons who would benefit from a course in remedial keyboarding, and that if they ever check in shit like that again that they'll discover that it is, in fact, possible to insert a 23 inch monitor into an arbitrary orifices.
There has to be a balance between one's teamwork and individual creativity.
On the one hand, you can have prima donnas running the whole show, doing really great things that have absolutely nothing to do with actually getting a product out the door.
On the other hand, you can take extreme programming to the extreme, piss of your rock stars, and wind up with them quitting, and get trainwreck product.
Bottom line is that any team management approach needs to be able to milk everyone for the best they've got without stiffing creativity, or putting the wrong people at the helm for the sake alone of giving them a chance to drive.
Just some random thoughts as I sit alone blasting out my Saturday code...
Welcome to the Ownership Society, where it's all about owning, and not so much about ongoing creation.
Problem is - they're never, ever going to accept a solution that limits corporate power as opposed to limiting the rights of the natural individual.
So, while I certainly see your point, I fear that any proposals would just be used as cover for the standard corporate friendly crap that his administration is so good at producing under the guise of actually being, you know, Democrats.
I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or not, what with your sig....
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here?
I really don't understand why further regulation is needed here to protect the rights of the content owners. Are there not copyright laws in effect? Don't they already have the ability to take down sites (with a certain amount of due process), sue for damages, etc?
I often see the use and positive impact of regulation (not dumping raw sewage in the river, etc) - but I still don't follow what exactly the need really is to provide more control to the corporations over the net (I absolutely understand their desire for it, but not any valid reason why there should be any further corporate control allowed).
The timbre of this administration remains the same. It gave away health care by inches to the corporations until they were able to declare "we win!" while trying to look like they were actually fighting. And now they're doing the same with the 'net, as far as I can tell: putting on a dog and pony show, but preparing to hand the show over to those paying the lobbyists.
Compare that to a total cost of over a trillion dollars (including interest on military incurred debt) for the military. That's 7000 times the budget on the arts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
They held together a stable life for six to seven years. True, they didn't own - but they did hold together a home. Maybe not to your standards of ownership - but obviously they were doing something right to get that far. And obviously, if they held on to a house for six to seven years, something changed in the pattern behavour.
Not sure what you mean about curb stomping puppies. But to be clear about what I meant - it seems that you are arguing that the parents cannot change, that they have in the past proven themselves worthless, and as such, can never have worth. That no matter what they do, they are without merit or value.
Which I find extremely ironic, as you seem to be a proponent of social Darwinism.
So - the six to seven years that they held on to the house was meaningless? Remember, they lost it due to a traffic accident.
Or, to put it another way - you don't think that people can change, can grow, can adapt and overcome their weaknesses?
That there is no redemption possible; that all is predestined?
Let's turn your question around.
What meritous work do the 1% do to deserve the rapidly increasing and disproportionate chunk of the wealth that they get?
Perhaps in the past. But again, if you'd actually read the quoted citations (let alone the article), it was an auto accident and resulting loss of work / medical bills that made them homeless this time around.
Is it that important to you to assign blame to the victims that you'll completely and willfully ignore the facts of the matter?
So much for "There but for the grace of God go I" (or whatever method of expressing empathy you care for).
Nope - these days, it's all about lazy, entitlement seeking, dirty, smelly, socialist, thieving, parasitic trash sucking the life out of the economy.
At least - right up to the point at which BigCorp your work for outsources your job and you can't even pay the mortgage on your rather modest home or feed the kids... suddenly, maybe, it occurs then that perhaps some of these folks just maybe weren't just lazy scum.
Really?
The homeless rate amoungst school kids is about 2.2%:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1213/Homeless-children-at-record-high-in-US.-Can-the-trend-be-reversed
There were 300 semifinalists. This means that all other things considered equal, there should be 7 homeless semifinalists.
Of course, given the situations that homeless kids are in, I wouldn't at all expect that other things should be considered equal, and that it would be extremely surprising to find the same distribution for such achievers between homeless and non-homeless kids.
With that said, though, one semifinalist is not at all surprising.
Especially with what's being done to the middle and working classes in this nation.
Squabbling over the arts when we outspend the rest of the world combined on the military really is somewhat ridiculous, at best.
Here's the best description of the American Dream I've ever heard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
Of course, one also has to deal with the violence, theft, abuse, disease, and filth that often goes along with them.
When there's space available.
From your own citation:
Before the eviction, the Garveys had rented a home for six or seven years, Leo Garvey said. Before that, the family had also lived in homeless shelters from time to time; Leo Garvey described himself as a recovering alcoholic.
So - like most homeless, in and out of rental properties. And most of her life, sound like.