I, for one, am sick to death of this 'step in the right direction' shit. I hereby call for a community concensus. Everyone who uses this hackneyed phrase is from now on deemed 'das clichemeister' and as punishment must spend 21 days on Fark* and Fark alone.
No excuses, off you go.
* This is not some commercial ploy. I just can't think of anything worse than having Fark as your only outlet.
(guaranteed downmod, I'm sure, but who gives a monkey's?**)
That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.
Well, there's a major problem with that POV at the moment in that the U.S. seems to be run as a corporate oligarchy* - if you don't have big cash, you're going nowhere, and the main group with the big cash is the corporate sector.
Campaign finance reform is the thing you need in the U.S. to restore balance, but Catch 22 - the guys who can pass the finance reform laws are themselves heavily financed by the corporate sector
* correct me if I have the wrong archy. it's approaching 1.30am here
I think it's fucking scary when you fucking Brits think that gun ownership is pathological.
OK, explain why you think that. I think having guns around is scary because I don't want small lumps of hot metal to rip through my organs at barely subsonic speeds. Your reason is?
Plus, I'm not really right wing as such I am probably a racist
From your commentary so far, it's clear that you are right wing. Racist I don't know about. However it's very good that you can face up to your political background and any racist tendencies you may have. It's also clear you're living in a pretty bad spot though.
If you grow up in an area which is either outwardly racist, or if you're simply naive and have no contact with different ethnic groups, you're probably going to have some issues when you move into a "more integrated" society. Hell, I had some uncomfortable moments moving from a small town in Wales to London in 1999 but i adjusted out my unnconscious behaviour pretty quick, and everyone realised I was just a bit naive, luckily.
You want more or less what everyone wants, by the look of it - a nice quiet life and a family, good home, y'know, the lot. This is good. But I'll still hold out against you on the gun issue. My only contact with guns has been clay pigeon shooting and one guy we ran into in a club somewhere who had an active 9mm with no ammo he picked up in London. They're still scary.
In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs
Now, I would love to see a study of that - let's look at comparative crime rates in, oh, I dunno, say, The U.S. vs the UK?
That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.
Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls.
No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense.
Possibly. I didn't take it that way at all. The original context was more societal than personal.
I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.
Under the laws of your country, you're entitled, and if you are actually responsible, I have respect for you if you are a responsible gun owner. I myself live in a country where I don't feel the need to buy a gun. And I'm very happy about it.
Evidently a right-winger (I like the way you say "B.J. Clinton"). Evidently unaware of linebreaks, and evidently lacking political context. Please, step back for a minute.
Being an Expatriate Brit living in Australia, I'm no US constitutional scholar, but I seem to recall the fact that it's meant to be a "living document", so citing Lincoln is not necessarily an appropriate interpretation of the facts here. After all, Lincoln, if I remember rightly, was the man who suspended Habeas Corpus at a time when it was (debatably) unnecessary.
I have no wish to start a political flamewar here, but talk of militias in the world today is at the least troubling. Yes, the US has problems with democracy (the fact is you can't run without a shitload of cash behind you, no matter what your policies), but by talking about subverting the established process with a gun is just an invitation to a really ugly situation.
A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all
I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.
We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force. You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands" - which I would think of as democracy, but gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.
What this sounds like to me, and the article I must say is thin on details, is that patches scheduled for the once-monthly patch distribution will be made available before they're placed on Windows Update.
"He announced that Microsoft will move to monthly patch releases, which will reduce the burden on IT administrators by adding a level of increased predictability and manageability".
Hence the 'up to' wording. Originally MS moved to this to make it easier for admins to manage their patching. Seems to me that the US Govt has just opted out of that monthly schedule
Scuttlebutt has it that Honda were actually pretty uneasy about the concept, since W+K in essence took the only two prototype cars and took one to pieces to make the piece, leaving Honda with just the one. Not sure how accurate that rumour is exactly, since the entire ad industry is a murky pool of rumours and hearsay anyway...
I have read an interview with a number of female survivors from the Auschwitz death camp. I was totally shocked: the topics they elaborated on was the looks of the prisoners, the clothes they got (from the non-utilitarian point of view), how devastating the haircuts were...
You're taking the piss, and not even in a funny way. If you can cite the interview*, I'll take it back. Until then, I'm assuming you're trolling and forgot to hit the anonymous button.
* The interview must be non-satire. The Onion not acceptable.
I think it's pretty much the same here in Australia, as we've just signed a similar FTA with the US. There's been a lot of uproar about it, but the Howard government has shoehorned it through anyway.
I'm right in the middle of a book about it, so not fully versed yet, but there are apparently some DMCA-like provisions in there which may do serious damage, quite aside from the economic concerns many sectors hold.
well, that would obviously depend on what you're doing. if you're confident of getting away with it, let the bastards in, and watch them like a hawk for any breech of proprietary information, including subscriber information, confidential business stuff etc.. If you're not confident at all, go the contempt of court and get rid of the evidence.
Not correct. There is plenty of accountability. Australia is not an autocratic state lacking checks and balances by any means. If a government oversteps its mark, there are numerous avenues by which they can be constrained.
Fair enough, but I still don't see what the hell a gun buyback has to do with an ISP being raided under a civil warrant in order to gather evidence for an intended civil suit.
I'm no friend of Johnny H myself, but you're just way OT with this one.
It's worrying to me that such laws exist in civil cases, but it hardly surprises me that ARIA would employ whatever tactics are available in their ongoing war on file sharing.
The details of the case suggest that the raid was carried out because the domain names of some torrent hubs were registered to swiftel (rather than a user of swiftel) - or at least that's my interpretation - and if this is true then I'd see that as a pretty dumb move on the part of the ISP.
Who gave them the rights to conduct random raids as they please?
A little-used civil search law, apparently.
The raids were conducted with rarely used search warrants known as Anton Piller orders which are used exclusively in civil proceedings. No police were involved, and the record industry sent its own investigators to carry out the search and seize evidence. From the Sydney Morning Herald.
here, which makes some mention of the law this was carried out under.
"The raids were conducted with rarely used search warrants known as Anton Piller orders which are used exclusively in civil proceedings. No police were involved, and the record industry sent its own investigators to carry out the search and seize evidence."
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst this is a step in the right direction
I call CLICHE
That is, if no-one else has done so already.
I, for one, am sick to death of this 'step in the right direction' shit. I hereby call for a community concensus. Everyone who uses this hackneyed phrase is from now on deemed 'das clichemeister' and as punishment must spend 21 days on Fark* and Fark alone.
No excuses, off you go.
* This is not some commercial ploy. I just can't think of anything worse than having Fark as your only outlet.
(guaranteed downmod, I'm sure, but who gives a monkey's?**)
**note punctuation. bastards.
That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.
Well, there's a major problem with that POV at the moment in that the U.S. seems to be run as a corporate oligarchy* - if you don't have big cash, you're going nowhere, and the main group with the big cash is the corporate sector.
Campaign finance reform is the thing you need in the U.S. to restore balance, but Catch 22 - the guys who can pass the finance reform laws are themselves heavily financed by the corporate sector
* correct me if I have the wrong archy. it's approaching 1.30am here
I think it's fucking scary when you fucking Brits think that gun ownership is pathological.
OK, explain why you think that. I think having guns around is scary because I don't want small lumps of hot metal to rip through my organs at barely subsonic speeds. Your reason is?
Tell you what, let's agree to disagree.
If you want protection from other American citizens with less than honorable motives, you've got to do it yourself.
Vigilante Society? Hmmm...
Plus, I'm not really right wing
as such I am probably a racist
From your commentary so far, it's clear that you are right wing. Racist I don't know about. However it's very good that you can face up to your political background and any racist tendencies you may have. It's also clear you're living in a pretty bad spot though.
If you grow up in an area which is either outwardly racist, or if you're simply naive and have no contact with different ethnic groups, you're probably going to have some issues when you move into a "more integrated" society. Hell, I had some uncomfortable moments moving from a small town in Wales to London in 1999 but i adjusted out my unnconscious behaviour pretty quick, and everyone realised I was just a bit naive, luckily.
You want more or less what everyone wants, by the look of it - a nice quiet life and a family, good home, y'know, the lot. This is good. But I'll still hold out against you on the gun issue. My only contact with guns has been clay pigeon shooting and one guy we ran into in a club somewhere who had an active 9mm with no ammo he picked up in London. They're still scary.
In reality, when normal, honest people have the guns, the criminals are more afraid to use theirs
Now, I would love to see a study of that - let's look at comparative crime rates in, oh, I dunno, say, The U.S. vs the UK?
That's right, and the police can't be everywhere at once.
Obviously. In a stable society they wouldn't need to be. An efficient police force is a deterrent in itself - though of course it must be adequately funded and must have adequate controls.
No, it sounds to me like he was talking about self defense.
Possibly. I didn't take it that way at all. The original context was more societal than personal.
I own a gun and have taken courses to learn how to safely store, carry, and use it if that terrible day comes when it is a choice between my life or theirs.
Under the laws of your country, you're entitled, and if you are actually responsible, I have respect for you if you are a responsible gun owner. I myself live in a country where I don't feel the need to buy a gun. And I'm very happy about it.
You are now officially scary.
Evidently a right-winger (I like the way you say "B.J. Clinton"). Evidently unaware of linebreaks, and evidently lacking political context. Please, step back for a minute.
Being an Expatriate Brit living in Australia, I'm no US constitutional scholar, but I seem to recall the fact that it's meant to be a "living document", so citing Lincoln is not necessarily an appropriate interpretation of the facts here. After all, Lincoln, if I remember rightly, was the man who suspended Habeas Corpus at a time when it was (debatably) unnecessary.
I have no wish to start a political flamewar here, but talk of militias in the world today is at the least troubling. Yes, the US has problems with democracy (the fact is you can't run without a shitload of cash behind you, no matter what your policies), but by talking about subverting the established process with a gun is just an invitation to a really ugly situation.
A well armed citizenry means liberty and justice for all
I can't tell you how fucking scary I find that comment. Really, I'm out of words here.
We pay taxes to maintain an army and police force. You're just talking about "taking the law into your own hands" - which I would think of as democracy, but gun types seem to think of as armed revolution. Words fail me.
don't know if you mis-typed running or ruining there...
bloody american future.
Well that's the trick isn't it? striking the balance between meaningless pie-in-the-sky bullshit and plausible ideas that appeal to futuregeeks
I guess if you can crack that system you can write your own cheques all the way up until the predictions fail to come to fruition...
... it's in the other Fairfax paper too
Identical article, but shows that the coverage is even bigger than you might initially expect if you weren't familiar with Fairfax.
No, actually it's how successive generations of genetic combination and mutation filtered by natural selection made you
What this sounds like to me, and the article I must say is thin on details, is that patches scheduled for the once-monthly patch distribution will be made available before they're placed on Windows Update.
article:
"He announced that Microsoft will move to monthly patch releases, which will reduce the burden on IT administrators by adding a level of increased predictability and manageability".
Hence the 'up to' wording. Originally MS moved to this to make it easier for admins to manage their patching. Seems to me that the US Govt has just opted out of that monthly schedule
HOnda didn't "invent" the commercial, just to be pedantic. It was put together by Weiden + Kennedy's London Studio.
Scuttlebutt has it that Honda were actually pretty uneasy about the concept, since W+K in essence took the only two prototype cars and took one to pieces to make the piece, leaving Honda with just the one. Not sure how accurate that rumour is exactly, since the entire ad industry is a murky pool of rumours and hearsay anyway...
As far as I'm aware, that's pretty much spot on.
I have read an interview with a number of female survivors from the Auschwitz death camp. I was totally shocked: the topics they elaborated on was the looks of the prisoners, the clothes they got (from the non-utilitarian point of view), how devastating the haircuts were...
You're taking the piss, and not even in a funny way. If you can cite the interview*, I'll take it back. Until then, I'm assuming you're trolling and forgot to hit the anonymous button.
* The interview must be non-satire. The Onion not acceptable.
I think it's pretty much the same here in Australia, as we've just signed a similar FTA with the US. There's been a lot of uproar about it, but the Howard government has shoehorned it through anyway.
I'm right in the middle of a book about it, so not fully versed yet, but there are apparently some DMCA-like provisions in there which may do serious damage, quite aside from the economic concerns many sectors hold.
well, that would obviously depend on what you're doing. if you're confident of getting away with it, let the bastards in, and watch them like a hawk for any breech of proprietary information, including subscriber information, confidential business stuff etc.. If you're not confident at all, go the contempt of court and get rid of the evidence.
Not that *I* think like this of course...
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights.
Correct
The government can do as it pleases.
Not correct. There is plenty of accountability. Australia is not an autocratic state lacking checks and balances by any means. If a government oversteps its mark, there are numerous avenues by which they can be constrained.
Fair enough, but I still don't see what the hell a gun buyback has to do with an ISP being raided under a civil warrant in order to gather evidence for an intended civil suit.
I'm no friend of Johnny H myself, but you're just way OT with this one.
Thanks for the expansion.
It's worrying to me that such laws exist in civil cases, but it hardly surprises me that ARIA would employ whatever tactics are available in their ongoing war on file sharing.
The details of the case suggest that the raid was carried out because the domain names of some torrent hubs were registered to swiftel (rather than a user of swiftel) - or at least that's my interpretation - and if this is true then I'd see that as a pretty dumb move on the part of the ISP.
Who gave them the rights to conduct random raids as they please?
A little-used civil search law, apparently.
The raids were conducted with rarely used search warrants known as Anton Piller orders which are used exclusively in civil proceedings. No police were involved, and the record industry sent its own investigators to carry out the search and seize evidence. From the Sydney Morning Herald.
here, which makes some mention of the law this was carried out under.
"The raids were conducted with rarely used search warrants known as Anton Piller orders which are used exclusively in civil proceedings. No police were involved, and the record industry sent its own investigators to carry out the search and seize evidence."