Heroin is though. It seems that all illegal drugs are often called "narcotics" even though that word has a specific meaning that isnt related to whether it is legal.
Unfortunately the misuse of language extends well beyond the headline. I wouldn't blame law enforcement for bad use of language. Often the first time I see a new malapropism is in the press.
NASA should sell beer to raise money. Call it Moon Brew, plaster it in patriotic imagery and tell men it makes them smarter and promotes scientific progress at the same time.
Only 100 billion more barrels to Titan!
There's room for multiple brands, for example Martian Red Ale New World Porter Ganymead
Just because idiots who like to screw with things they haven't taken the time to understand might hurt themselves?
Unfortunately those natural substances have serious side effects.
Yeah like persecution by the state for the "crime" of altering your consciousness in unauthorized ways. As though your consciousness were theirs to regulate. I can understand why they regulate the roads with traffic laws -- they used tax money to build those roads and continue using tax money to maintain them. Makes sense and you can clearly see why they would have a claim there. But the inner sanctum of your consciousness?
Just because idiots who like to screw with things they haven't taken the time to understand might hurt themselves?
Some protection may be in order given that when you take mind altering drugs you're screwing with your own ability to judge whether the drugs affect you as you intended and sometimes with your own ability to decide when to stop self-medicating. Myself, I wouldn't be comfortable undertaking such a course except under the supervision of somebody whose professional opinion I trust and who has the ability to cut me off if I get out of control.
It would be a straw man if it were applied in reverse, if someone said "Because you support abortion you support killing children". which is not what TheRaven64 was trying to say.
That's not reversed. That is the argument that Raven64 was referring to. Raven64 seems to think it has some validity.
NASA should sell beer to raise money. Call it Moon Brew, plaster it in patriotic imagery and tell men it makes them smarter and promotes scientific progress at the same time.
... It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.
That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.
There may be reason to believe that depression can be stopped without drugs in some cases, but the drugs have the distinction of having been scientifically demonstrated to be effective whereas attempts to help those with persistent depression by cognitive methods alone do not have strong evidence nor a generally accepted treatment regime.
I think this idea must be based on half-baked pseudoscience. Is there really any science that backs up the claim that you can identify whether an employee is a security risk based on a change in how they use language in work-related emails? Really
Let's say you're a senior manager and somebody pitches software to do this to you. Do you or do you not ask for evidence that it can tell the difference between normal evolution of personal use of language and "security risks?"
The mere fact that an IT employee sends personal emails from his corporate account indicates that the employee is not sufficiently sensitive to security issues. The employee needs to be brought up to speed on Why That Is A Bad Idea.
Those are not only the people in the greatest position to hurt the company, but also those with the greatest incentive not to do so - why hurt a company that is paying you millions of dollars a year? Top management positions aren't that common that one would risk losing one.
This flies in the face of reality. In the real world, some top managers develop such an inflated sense of entitlement that they believe they are worth far more than what they legitimately earn, deserve whatever they can take and that they will never get caught when they break the law.
That's a bad analogy, as are most analogies between physical property and computer files.
The allegedly infringing files are on the same hard drives on the same servers as the completely legitimate files. The DoJ seized the servers as the easiest way to seize the MegaUpload files before MegaUpload could delete them. MegaUpload won't tell them which accounts might have infringing files in them because if they did, they would be admitting to complicity in the crime of making illegal copies of those files. They can only claim ignorance of specific claims of piracy if they never claim to know who might have illegally uploaded data. Heck, they probably don't even KNOW which users were using their service for completely legal purposes and who uploaded pirated files. Why and how would they know that? Carpathia probably doesn't even have the access information. They're caught between MegaUpload and the DoJ, along with any law-abiding MegaUpload users.
Those who have uploaded data to MegaUpload and depended on having access to it are fools. Sucks to be them, but you won't find me uploading the only copies of any data I have to MegaUpload or any other hosting service.
OK? I never said we knew. All I am doing is offering up the simple fact that they are not incompatible as-is. Everyone else, yourself included, is reading more into what I say than there is.
If everyone misunderstood you, the fault lies with you. You must not have said whatever it was you intended to express.
"The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."
DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.
Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.
"The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."
DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.
Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.
You're mistaken. The DoJ can seize anything that's named on their warrant. The warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that the persons or things seized were involved in a crime. They don't have to prove anything in the sense you're implying.
So if the warrant (which I have not seen) named Carpathia Hosting's servers then Carpathia Hosting's servers are the things to be seized. In this case, DoJ "seized" them by freezing access to them.
I'm not insensitive to the plight of those whose legitimate business may have been harmed by the seizure. I wish that DoJ had used a finer hand in their seizure and found a way to take control only of the files that they allege are infringing and left the rest alone. Maybe they will, but based on today's news it looks like the finger pointing is only escalating.
As I pointed out in this thread though, their hands could be tied by the rules of evidence in criminal court. It may be that to allow less intrusive seizures in the future, laws may have to be modified to allow the government to take and use copies of original evidence in court.
bad analogy. You can get arrested in the USA for a murder committed in a foreign jurisdiction but the US courts won't claim jurisdiction over it. You will be tried, if at all, in the country in which the crime occurred.
That's true. But the process of writing it down is often the first time that a coder thinks of what the code is supposed to do. If code comes without documentation the programmer might not have thought about what the code is supposed to do at all.
That's why some of us were taught to write the interface documentation before starting on the code.
Slashdot Mirror
So now my furniture won't just go out of style. It will literally become obsolete and have interoperability issues.
Okay so the honeybees wake up and don't know time has passed. How does knowing the same thing happens to bees help me understand what happened to me?
Heroin is though. It seems that all illegal drugs are often called "narcotics" even though that word has a specific meaning that isnt related to whether it is legal.
Unfortunately the misuse of language extends well beyond the headline. I wouldn't blame law enforcement for bad use of language. Often the first time I see a new malapropism is in the press.
Apparently in this case it sounds like it was used for money laundering but not in a way sophisticated enough to fool the feds.
NASA should sell beer to raise money. Call it Moon Brew, plaster it in patriotic imagery and tell men it makes them smarter and promotes scientific progress at the same time.
Only 100 billion more barrels to Titan!
There's room for multiple brands, for example
Martian Red Ale
New World Porter
Ganymead
Just because idiots who like to screw with things they haven't taken the time to understand might hurt themselves?
Unfortunately those natural substances have serious side effects.
Yeah like persecution by the state for the "crime" of altering your consciousness in unauthorized ways.
As though your consciousness were theirs to regulate. I can understand why they regulate the roads with traffic laws -- they used tax money to build those roads and continue using tax money to maintain them. Makes sense and you can clearly see why they would have a claim there. But the inner sanctum of your consciousness?
Just because idiots who like to screw with things they haven't taken the time to understand might hurt themselves?
Some protection may be in order given that when you take mind altering drugs you're screwing with your own ability to judge whether the drugs affect you as you intended and sometimes with your own ability to decide when to stop self-medicating. Myself, I wouldn't be comfortable undertaking such a course except under the supervision of somebody whose professional opinion I trust and who has the ability to cut me off if I get out of control.
Roads DO pay for themselves through fuel taxes levied on the fuels that people use to power the cars that run on the roads.
It would be a straw man if it were applied in reverse, if someone said "Because you support abortion you support killing children". which is not what TheRaven64 was trying to say.
That's not reversed. That is the argument that Raven64 was referring to. Raven64 seems to think it has some validity.
NASA should sell beer to raise money. Call it Moon Brew, plaster it in patriotic imagery and tell men it makes them smarter and promotes scientific progress at the same time.
Only 100 billion more barrels to Titan!
... It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.
That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.
There may be reason to believe that depression can be stopped without drugs in some cases, but the drugs have the distinction of having been scientifically demonstrated to be effective whereas attempts to help those with persistent depression by cognitive methods alone do not have strong evidence nor a generally accepted treatment regime.
I think this idea must be based on half-baked pseudoscience. Is there really any science that backs up the claim that you can identify whether an employee is a security risk based on a change in how they use language in work-related emails? Really
Let's say you're a senior manager and somebody pitches software to do this to you. Do you or do you not ask for evidence that it can tell the difference between normal evolution of personal use of language and "security risks?"
The mere fact that an IT employee sends personal emails from his corporate account indicates that the employee is not sufficiently sensitive to security issues. The employee needs to be brought up to speed on Why That Is A Bad Idea.
If your IT guys are fully competent, the external guys can't do shit without their knowing about it.
Those are not only the people in the greatest position to hurt the company, but also those with the greatest incentive not to do so - why hurt a company that is paying you millions of dollars a year? Top management positions aren't that common that one would risk losing one.
This flies in the face of reality. In the real world, some top managers develop such an inflated sense of entitlement that they believe they are worth far more than what they legitimately earn, deserve whatever they can take and that they will never get caught when they break the law.
Mostly, I agree, except with it being less of a problem than jaywalking. It's an area that should be left to civl law and civil courts.
That's a bad analogy, as are most analogies between physical property and computer files.
The allegedly infringing files are on the same hard drives on the same servers as the completely legitimate files. The DoJ seized the servers as the easiest way to seize the MegaUpload files before MegaUpload could delete them. MegaUpload won't tell them which accounts might have infringing files in them because if they did, they would be admitting to complicity in the crime of making illegal copies of those files. They can only claim ignorance of specific claims of piracy if they never claim to know who might have illegally uploaded data. Heck, they probably don't even KNOW which users were using their service for completely legal purposes and who uploaded pirated files. Why and how would they know that? Carpathia probably doesn't even have the access information. They're caught between MegaUpload and the DoJ, along with any law-abiding MegaUpload users.
Those who have uploaded data to MegaUpload and depended on having access to it are fools. Sucks to be them, but you won't find me uploading the only copies of any data I have to MegaUpload or any other hosting service.
Nothing except a secure cockpit door. What could the passengers do about that?
OK? I never said we knew. All I am doing is offering up the simple fact that they are not incompatible as-is. Everyone else, yourself included, is reading more into what I say than there is.
If everyone misunderstood you, the fault lies with you. You must not have said whatever it was you intended to express.
"The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."
DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.
Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.
"The DoJ claims that there is a large amount of infringing data on the servers and that it would be illegal to allow the account holders to download it."
DOJ bears the burden of proof. Legally, it must show the content is infringing, or release it. If you want to get technical, it should have had to show that any particular content was infringing BEFORE seizing it.
Technically, DOJ is currently breaking the law, because it has "interfered with" thousands or even millions of legitimate business contracts in order to prosecute OTHER PEOPLE who might not be legitimate. The government is specifically prohibited by the Constitution from doing that.
You're mistaken. The DoJ can seize anything that's named on their warrant. The warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that the persons or things seized were involved in a crime. They don't have to prove anything in the sense you're implying.
So if the warrant (which I have not seen) named Carpathia Hosting's servers then Carpathia Hosting's servers are the things to be seized. In this case, DoJ "seized" them by freezing access to them.
I'm not insensitive to the plight of those whose legitimate business may have been harmed by the seizure. I wish that DoJ had used a finer hand in their seizure and found a way to take control only of the files that they allege are infringing and left the rest alone. Maybe they will, but based on today's news it looks like the finger pointing is only escalating.
As I pointed out in this thread though, their hands could be tied by the rules of evidence in criminal court. It may be that to allow less intrusive seizures in the future, laws may have to be modified to allow the government to take and use copies of original evidence in court.
bad analogy. You can get arrested in the USA for a murder committed in a foreign jurisdiction but the US courts won't claim jurisdiction over it. You will be tried, if at all, in the country in which the crime occurred.
That's true. But the process of writing it down is often the first time that a coder thinks of what the code is supposed to do. If code comes without documentation the programmer might not have thought about what the code is supposed to do at all.
That's why some of us were taught to write the interface documentation before starting on the code.
As long as you don't mind not being able to gtell further what you are seeing, hearing and feeling is real.
Unfortunately those natural substances have serious side effects.
Respectfully I think the Dalai Lama may have confused cause and effect. Lack if affection is considered a symptom of depression isn't it?