"Internet Explorer does not currently support IDNs, but we are investigating the integration of IDN support in Internet Explorer and in other Microsoft products."
At least they looked into it, right? But you know... we can't give them credit, this is Slashdot after all.
One of the things that the/. community needs to understand is that some people are incapable, unwilling or just don't have the time to worry about their computer.
If you are incapable, unwilling, or don't have time to do the proper preventative maintenance, your computer shouldn't be on the Internet. Sure, they don't have to do it themselves, but they better take it to someone at least every year to have it looked at.
If you don't have time to get your car inspected and maintained, eventually the car will break down. Sometimes it will only affect you -- sometimes a tire will give out, or the brakes will fail, or something similar, sending the car out of control and possibly damaging other people's cars (or bodies.)
I don't understand why we don't issue computer-use licenses the same way we issue licenses to operate motor vehicles. Spam, viruses, DDoS's all cost our economy money, there's no excuse to let anyone and everyone hop on the net with no clue on how to properly maintain a PC.
Simply put, we need to stop complaining about the unaware computer users and implement systems, designs and policies to make it easier on the user to have a secure system, while protecting the computer and the internet at large.
"More security" only goes so far. User education is by far the best way to protect the computer and the Internet.
No. Teach mom how to harden her computer, and how to maintain it. If she can't do that, she has no business using the Internet.
People that don't maintain their computers are like people that drive uninspected, unmaintained cars on public roads -- they're a danger to everyone around them.
The US is claiming that somehow these people were "combatants" but not "soldiers", and using this form of words to avoid the treatment that is mandated by international law for captured enemies.
This is absolutely true, and I agree with the US interpretation, because the Geneva Convention (and international law) applies only to recognized sovereign nations, not to an "organization" that goes around decapitating people and flying planes into buildings.
The Lancet's approach is somewhat inaccurate, granted, but it's a valid statistical method so you can't dismiss it out of hand as "unscientific".
It's *very* inaccurate, and it's not a valid statistical method at all. The sample size is ridiculously small, the divisions are ridiculously arbitrary, etc. etc. I dismiss it out of hand as unscientific because it is unscientific.
And it's pretty damn clear that nothing would have happened if the pictures hadn't hit the papers. The FBI knew about this *way* before, but nothing happened until the press found out about it.
The FBI tried to keep it quiet because it would (and did) make the army look bad. Had you been paying attention to the news, and I will dig up articles later (I'm at work, I apologize) the government did know about it, as you said, and was figuring out what to do about it. Preparing a case does not equate with being an accessory. You are busy talking about law, the military has their own laws they need to follow, why don't you drop the double-standards.
Of course the insurgents gave no fair trials to the people they murdered. The reason we're different to them is that we believe it's wrong to do that. Or *I* believe it's wrong. You can keep defending it on the "it's OK if we do it" reasoning if you like.
That isn't what I said, at all. I am pointing out that what the terrorists do is a million times worse, and we are trying pretty damn hard to be fair and humane for the most part (which, honestly, is amazing considering these people are trying to kill us) yet you harp on what we do wrong and barely point out the evil we are facing.
I won't mention who brought Saddam to power in the first place... *cough* US *cough
There is nothing wrong with trying to correct our mistake.
But I don't believe it should have been done through false pretences
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. THEY WERE ASSHOLES FOR LYING ABOUT THAT. Was taking out Saddam good? Yes. Was the lying about it and the shenanigans good? Absolutely not.
The reason things are so bad now is that the invasion smashed every organisation in Iraq and the US and UK armies weren't able or willing to put anything in place to help people while it was all put back together.
Honestly, I think that is because liberalism is counter to actually making progress, and there are so many liberals putting pressure on the US Gov't to be "humane" and "just" (and I am using those terms loosely because what liberals want is ridiculously crippling to any sort of strategy that would inject stability.)
I am proud to call myself a liberal. That means I believe in things that are worth defending. Little things like human rights, the rule of law and the US Constitution. The founders of the USA were liberals too - they believed in the value of these concepts. Piss on them if you like.
Liberals like the Constitution? Really? Tell me, why did liberalism invent the FCC? Why are liberals constantly trying to outlaw firearms? Liberals piss on the constitution every day!!
I believe in human rights, the rule of law, etc. But it's not black and white. Some people (terrorists, for example) forfeit their rights when they strip other people of theirs (most notably, the right to exist!) The rule of law only applies when laws are just (otherwise, the Founding Fathers would have filed lawsuits for independence, not started a revolution...)
Umm... why should they provide him with placement? You have to do homework to graduate, does that mean they should provide you with the answers before you hand it in??
Come on... doing the legwork to find an internship is the student's reponsibility, not the school's, it's always been like that. I don't know any school that magically places you in an internship. They have partnerships with some companies and such, but they are doing you a favor, they're not responsible.
And let's be honest here, the kid knew he needed an internship when he signed up for the program, it's not like some bombshell surprise.
Not true. Most schools have a career center where they will try to help you find something, but ultimately it is the student's responsiblity to find a job.
"The US is the stingiest foreign aid donor of all the rich-world countries, managing only 0.1% GDP. The EU contributes 3 times as much."
How about you link to an article substantiating your claims, bucko.
"The biggest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel to the tune of about $9 billion per year. Net result: 350 million pissed-off muslims all around the world. I'm not going to take a position on the Israel/Palestine thing here, but if you want win hearts and minds this probably isn't the way to do it."
Last time I checked, pissed-off muslims do not get to dictate where or how the US gov't spends money, the US gov't does.
First of all, there are plenty of people that don't regard BBC as "objective" (I'm one of them.)
Regarding Guantanamo Bay, if you are in a war and capture enemy combatants, they are outside of criminal law, you don't have to conduct trials with lawyers, etc. If you want to argue that everyone should have trials be my guest, but international law doesn't afford prisoners of war those rights.
Regarding torture... torture for the sake of torture is wrong. Torture for the sake of information, to save lives, achieve military objectives, etc... it's not a black and white issue, you have to weigh positives and negatives. Torture does not always sum up to a negative value -- sometimes it's necessary. A lot of people feel that way, I know I'm not the only one. If you knew someone planted a bomb that was going to kill people, and he refused to give the information to it's whereabouts, wouldn't torture be acceptable to retrive the information after all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted? Well, if you're an intelligent person that thinks rationally, then you'd answer yes.
Regarding civilian casualties in Iraq, the 14,000 number comes from Iraq Body Count... the freaking banner says "From Ali Babas-filled Bushdad With Endless War of Words", gee, do you think that's impartial? Denied.
The British Gov't estimate that you claim is in that article, isn't. "Yet neither the US nor the UK governments have collected information."
"The Lancet" did a guesstimate study -- "The Lancet study is based on interviews with 988 Iraqi households in 33 randomly selected areas. Each area is meant to represent 3% of Iraq."
Did you even read the article? None of this is scientific in the least.
Regarding Abu Ghraib, I think you fail to realize that the incident at Abu Ghraib was not sponsored by our government. That was a few grunts that went overboard and are now being brought to justice.
Of course, being the liberal that you are, you will disregard the fact that these people are being punished and question how the US government could even allow that to happen in the first place, right?
But when the US government trys to prevent Saddam's dictatorship from killing more people, when the US government tries to prevent terrorists from killing more people, all of a sudden, we shouldn't be doing that. That's not cool. We're horrible because a few grunts crossed the line and tortured some prisoners and are going to prison for it, but it's OK for Muslim extremists to kill everybody, right?
Hey, did the insurgents give fair trials to the people they captured and decapitated?
Um, we invaded Afghanistan because that's where Osama Bin Laden was hiding there and because the government there was aiding him. What the hell are you talking about?
Oh, Iraq? Wait, wasn't Saddam's regime torturing people there? Didn't he let loose poison gas on his own people? Oh wait, the response to mass murder has to be "proportionate"...
Excuse me? The economy matters to everyone, whether you like it or not. If you think it doesn't, try living out in the woods for a year, then come back and tell me how it went.
If you are affecting someone's ability to earn a living and keep their money, you are a direct danger and should be imprisoned. If you think credit fraud and identity theft aren't "real" crimes, and that people shouldn't go to jail for it, then not only are you a naive asshole, but you should also give me your credit card numbers and not call the cops when I drain your accounts (because then you'd be a hypocrite.)
So we should let someone go that got caught doing something that was obviously very, very illegal?? I don't think so.
If you have a problem with the Enron or WorldCom cases, I understand that -- however, non-punishment of identity theft and credit fraud is absolutely stupid. That's like some five-year-old saying "Well how come HE'S not in trouble, mommy??" Do something about it instead of complaining (posting on Slashdot isn't doing anything about it.)
How is this not robbery? Identity THEFT, my friend. If the guy got away with it, there's the potential for thousands to millions of dollars' worth of fraud, not to mention all the time/money it takes to correct all of the damage that was done, losses for stolen merchandise and services... this affects people's livelihood. The psychological damage is (arguably) not as great as a rape or strongarm robbery, but the economic damage more than equals the psychological damage. Guess what -- our economy is important.
Waste of money to keep the guy in jail? Not nearly as big a waste of money as all the credit fraud that would have gone on had the guy gotten away with it. Have you even thought about this, or was yours a kneejerk reaction?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any evidence they didn't implement IDN because it is an incredibly stupid feature?
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=842848
"Internet Explorer does not currently support IDNs, but we are investigating the integration of IDN support in Internet Explorer and in other Microsoft products."
At least they looked into it, right? But you know... we can't give them credit, this is Slashdot after all.
Yeah, cause that's the best way to determine the quality of a show.
When they're the ones paying for it -- ABSOLUTELY!
The problem is that "high quality" and "profitable" are concepts that don't often play well together.
Seinfeld... Simpsons... CSI... NYPD Blue... Alias... the list goes on...
Really, if you're going to make an insane statement like that, you should at least try to back it up.
Because they're the ones that know how to sell commercials, and know which demographics are more likely to buy things.
They didn't implement something that fucks everyone else over, and yet you still manage to find a way to spin it to try to make Microsoft look bad.
Just admit it -- Microsoft got it right. You don't have to cry about it, it'll be ok.
You are gay.
TRUTH.
For the love of God, mod parent up, someone on Slashdot actually gets it!
When is the last time you used AOL?
One of the things that the /. community needs to understand is that some people are incapable, unwilling or just don't have the time to worry about their computer.
If you are incapable, unwilling, or don't have time to do the proper preventative maintenance, your computer shouldn't be on the Internet. Sure, they don't have to do it themselves, but they better take it to someone at least every year to have it looked at.
If you don't have time to get your car inspected and maintained, eventually the car will break down. Sometimes it will only affect you -- sometimes a tire will give out, or the brakes will fail, or something similar, sending the car out of control and possibly damaging other people's cars (or bodies.)
I don't understand why we don't issue computer-use licenses the same way we issue licenses to operate motor vehicles. Spam, viruses, DDoS's all cost our economy money, there's no excuse to let anyone and everyone hop on the net with no clue on how to properly maintain a PC.
Simply put, we need to stop complaining about the unaware computer users and implement systems, designs and policies to make it easier on the user to have a secure system, while protecting the computer and the internet at large.
"More security" only goes so far. User education is by far the best way to protect the computer and the Internet.
Right, cuz Halo 1 and Halo 2 aren't super-popular and haven't made millions of dollars. Yup, they sure ruined Bungie alright.
No. Teach mom how to harden her computer, and how to maintain it. If she can't do that, she has no business using the Internet.
People that don't maintain their computers are like people that drive uninspected, unmaintained cars on public roads -- they're a danger to everyone around them.
Yeah, cuz, God forbid Bungie should try to make money. Ass.
The US is claiming that somehow these people were "combatants" but not "soldiers", and using this form of words to avoid the treatment that is mandated by international law for captured enemies.
... *cough* US *cough
This is absolutely true, and I agree with the US interpretation, because the Geneva Convention (and international law) applies only to recognized sovereign nations, not to an "organization" that goes around decapitating people and flying planes into buildings.
The Lancet's approach is somewhat inaccurate, granted, but it's a valid statistical method so you can't dismiss it out of hand as "unscientific".
It's *very* inaccurate, and it's not a valid statistical method at all. The sample size is ridiculously small, the divisions are ridiculously arbitrary, etc. etc. I dismiss it out of hand as unscientific because it is unscientific.
And it's pretty damn clear that nothing would have happened if the pictures hadn't hit the papers. The FBI knew about this *way* before, but nothing happened until the press found out about it.
The FBI tried to keep it quiet because it would (and did) make the army look bad. Had you been paying attention to the news, and I will dig up articles later (I'm at work, I apologize) the government did know about it, as you said, and was figuring out what to do about it. Preparing a case does not equate with being an accessory. You are busy talking about law, the military has their own laws they need to follow, why don't you drop the double-standards.
Of course the insurgents gave no fair trials to the people they murdered. The reason we're different to them is that we believe it's wrong to do that. Or *I* believe it's wrong. You can keep defending it on the "it's OK if we do it" reasoning if you like.
That isn't what I said, at all. I am pointing out that what the terrorists do is a million times worse, and we are trying pretty damn hard to be fair and humane for the most part (which, honestly, is amazing considering these people are trying to kill us) yet you harp on what we do wrong and barely point out the evil we are facing.
I won't mention who brought Saddam to power in the first place
There is nothing wrong with trying to correct our mistake.
But I don't believe it should have been done through false pretences
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. THEY WERE ASSHOLES FOR LYING ABOUT THAT. Was taking out Saddam good? Yes. Was the lying about it and the shenanigans good? Absolutely not.
The reason things are so bad now is that the invasion smashed every organisation in Iraq and the US and UK armies weren't able or willing to put anything in place to help people while it was all put back together.
Honestly, I think that is because liberalism is counter to actually making progress, and there are so many liberals putting pressure on the US Gov't to be "humane" and "just" (and I am using those terms loosely because what liberals want is ridiculously crippling to any sort of strategy that would inject stability.)
I am proud to call myself a liberal. That means I believe in things that are worth defending. Little things like human rights, the rule of law and the US Constitution. The founders of the USA were liberals too - they believed in the value of these concepts. Piss on them if you like.
Liberals like the Constitution? Really? Tell me, why did liberalism invent the FCC? Why are liberals constantly trying to outlaw firearms? Liberals piss on the constitution every day!!
I believe in human rights, the rule of law, etc. But it's not black and white. Some people (terrorists, for example) forfeit their rights when they strip other people of theirs (most notably, the right to exist!) The rule of law only applies when laws are just (otherwise, the Founding Fathers would have filed lawsuits for independence, not started a revolution...)
Student wastes three years of his life going into debt and then the school says "get an internship or fail to graduate".
I am pretty sure the internship requirement for the major was known about before he even started classes, so I can't feel sorry for him.
And anyone can get a degree if they take out the loans and do the work required, so there is nothing to moan about.
Umm... why should they provide him with placement? You have to do homework to graduate, does that mean they should provide you with the answers before you hand it in??
Come on... doing the legwork to find an internship is the student's reponsibility, not the school's, it's always been like that. I don't know any school that magically places you in an internship. They have partnerships with some companies and such, but they are doing you a favor, they're not responsible.
And let's be honest here, the kid knew he needed an internship when he signed up for the program, it's not like some bombshell surprise.
Not true. Most schools have a career center where they will try to help you find something, but ultimately it is the student's responsiblity to find a job.
The problem is, someone would have to have sex with me against my will, and everyone who knows me knows this: I'll fuck anything.
(No, no one hacked my account, I'm being honest!)
"The US is the stingiest foreign aid donor of all the rich-world countries, managing only 0.1% GDP. The EU contributes 3 times as much."
How about you link to an article substantiating your claims, bucko.
"The biggest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel to the tune of about $9 billion per year. Net result: 350 million pissed-off muslims all around the world. I'm not going to take a position on the Israel/Palestine thing here, but if you want win hearts and minds this probably isn't the way to do it."
Last time I checked, pissed-off muslims do not get to dictate where or how the US gov't spends money, the US gov't does.
First of all, there are plenty of people that don't regard BBC as "objective" (I'm one of them.)
Regarding Guantanamo Bay, if you are in a war and capture enemy combatants, they are outside of criminal law, you don't have to conduct trials with lawyers, etc. If you want to argue that everyone should have trials be my guest, but international law doesn't afford prisoners of war those rights.
Regarding torture... torture for the sake of torture is wrong. Torture for the sake of information, to save lives, achieve military objectives, etc... it's not a black and white issue, you have to weigh positives and negatives. Torture does not always sum up to a negative value -- sometimes it's necessary. A lot of people feel that way, I know I'm not the only one. If you knew someone planted a bomb that was going to kill people, and he refused to give the information to it's whereabouts, wouldn't torture be acceptable to retrive the information after all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted? Well, if you're an intelligent person that thinks rationally, then you'd answer yes.
Regarding civilian casualties in Iraq, the 14,000 number comes from Iraq Body Count... the freaking banner says "From Ali Babas-filled Bushdad With Endless War of Words", gee, do you think that's impartial? Denied.
The British Gov't estimate that you claim is in that article, isn't. "Yet neither the US nor the UK governments have collected information."
"The Lancet" did a guesstimate study -- "The Lancet study is based on interviews with 988 Iraqi households in 33 randomly selected areas. Each area is meant to represent 3% of Iraq."
Did you even read the article? None of this is scientific in the least.
Regarding Abu Ghraib, I think you fail to realize that the incident at Abu Ghraib was not sponsored by our government. That was a few grunts that went overboard and are now being brought to justice.
Of course, being the liberal that you are, you will disregard the fact that these people are being punished and question how the US government could even allow that to happen in the first place, right?
But when the US government trys to prevent Saddam's dictatorship from killing more people, when the US government tries to prevent terrorists from killing more people, all of a sudden, we shouldn't be doing that. That's not cool. We're horrible because a few grunts crossed the line and tortured some prisoners and are going to prison for it, but it's OK for Muslim extremists to kill everybody, right?
Hey, did the insurgents give fair trials to the people they captured and decapitated?
Um, we invaded Afghanistan because that's where Osama Bin Laden was hiding there and because the government there was aiding him. What the hell are you talking about?
Oh, Iraq? Wait, wasn't Saddam's regime torturing people there? Didn't he let loose poison gas on his own people? Oh wait, the response to mass murder has to be "proportionate"...
"hundreds of people imprisoned without trial and tortured over a period of years"
"when you invade another country and kill tens of thousands of civilians and torture a whole bunch of them"
OK, why don't you back that statement up with some facts.
Ahh, liberal brainwashing at its finest.
Excuse me? The economy matters to everyone, whether you like it or not. If you think it doesn't, try living out in the woods for a year, then come back and tell me how it went.
If you are affecting someone's ability to earn a living and keep their money, you are a direct danger and should be imprisoned. If you think credit fraud and identity theft aren't "real" crimes, and that people shouldn't go to jail for it, then not only are you a naive asshole, but you should also give me your credit card numbers and not call the cops when I drain your accounts (because then you'd be a hypocrite.)
So we should let someone go that got caught doing something that was obviously very, very illegal?? I don't think so.
If you have a problem with the Enron or WorldCom cases, I understand that -- however, non-punishment of identity theft and credit fraud is absolutely stupid. That's like some five-year-old saying "Well how come HE'S not in trouble, mommy??" Do something about it instead of complaining (posting on Slashdot isn't doing anything about it.)
Yeah, what he did was bad, but really, worse than rape?
Economically, much, much worse.
So 9/11 didn't really happen? Those bombings in Madrid didn't really happen? Aum Shinrikyo didn't release poison gas in a subway in Japan?
Terrorism kills people. I don't see how fighting mass murder is bullshit. Please, enlighten us.
How is this not robbery? Identity THEFT, my friend. If the guy got away with it, there's the potential for thousands to millions of dollars' worth of fraud, not to mention all the time/money it takes to correct all of the damage that was done, losses for stolen merchandise and services... this affects people's livelihood. The psychological damage is (arguably) not as great as a rape or strongarm robbery, but the economic damage more than equals the psychological damage. Guess what -- our economy is important.
Waste of money to keep the guy in jail? Not nearly as big a waste of money as all the credit fraud that would have gone on had the guy gotten away with it. Have you even thought about this, or was yours a kneejerk reaction?