He could have found guilty, and even if he was that does not mean society had no place for him.
Firstly a jury is not a representation of the will of the majority of the population. Not even close to that. And even if they were they still need to follow the law.
Secondly the laws that were thrown upon him were not the will of the population. In today's America laws do not reflect what people want. You can't possibly defend that US population want 100+ year copyright terms, can you?
And last, but not least, the majority of the population does not support copyright law. That is clear when you see how many people think it is ok to share songs, for example. I don't know anyone that it shouldn't be allowed, for example, or who haven't done that since the time of K7 tapes.
All your equivocated ideas stem for your belief that you live in a democracy, which is just an illusion.
I am quite sure you think nothing of this would apply to you, until it does. But you can rest assured that there are a few thousands more laws that can and will apply to you if a prosecutor ever feel the need to stretch them a little.
Oh I am quite sure 97% of the people charged are guilty in US, as only 3% of the accused do not plea guilty. Because you know US is THAT different from everywhere else and the government is right 97% of the time in this even though it is usually wrong about pretty much everything else much more often than it is right.
That certainly is a much more reasonable explanation than thinking that maybe a lot of innocent people simply plea guilty because they cannot take the change of being judged guilty and spending a few decades in prison.
If by "more efficient" you mean putting people in jail despite their being guilty or not, and creating the biggest (by far) incarcerated population in the world, than by all means you are right. You know, the Holy Inquisition didn't convict you until you self-incriminated yourself either...
The difference? Maybe the fact that inflicted physical violence upon the woman? Maybe the fact that you actually damaged property and her physical and mental integrity in the process? He was accessing something that didn't belong to him in violation of an EULA. He should be sued by the damaged part, not criminally charged. "Damaged" parts, that weren't damaged at all, and explicitly asked the prosecution to drop the charges against him, but where ignored.
All analogies are useless, ridiculous and serve nothing but to generate confusion and disinformation. That said your analogy is not only ridiculous it is childish and completely out of touch with reality, as you probably are.
Maybe he wasn't very precise in the terms he chose, but regarding the meaning he implied the distinction exists on the intensity and proportionality to the crime. When the punishment applied is completely out of proportion to a crime it is clear that it is an instrument of terror not a reasonable deterrent.
No, someone committed suicide because society had no place for them. What he was doing may have had value to him, but society as a whole has, through its legal system, has made it so even in cases where there is no financial or physical harm to others, said that what he was doing had no value. Since what he was doing was at the core of who he was (obviously, since it drove him to kill himself when he was deprived of it), it is more accurate to say society had no place for him. Whether that's moral, or ethical, right, or wrong, I leave to you. But that is why he died.
You make it sound as if the legal system represents society's will, which is obviously not the true (and never was). Society had a place for him, but those who rule did not, and despite any illusions you may have of living in a democracy, rest assured those who rule are not the people.
You list the exact motive why such bargains shouldn't be allowed. As long as they are they will be used exactly like this, which is a derailment of the legal system's purposes. Plea bargains are an abomination of US justice system whose only purpose is to blackmail people into forfeiting their constitutional rights.
It does not work like this. The provider will charge as much as it can, and deliver as little as it can get away with. Price has little to do with costs. Cost is a limiting factor not a price definer.
Sorry, but today, a single game update can be anything from a few hundred MB to a few GB, and lets not even start on YouTube, Netflix and streaming traffic.
The vast majority of people do things that will be more than performant on systems that are 5 years old or more. Yes there are certain tasks that are exceptions, but they are done by very very few people.
That is what you think, and what you have no way of proving, especially considering the market says otherwise. You may think whatever you wish, but the truth is, you hardly know what the "vast majority" of people need.
Sure. Sorry, but a punctual and almost insignificant shrinking of a market is hardly a sign of anything. And, if you insist on practicing futurism, we can start here, from the very article you linked:
IDC foresees that the industry will return to positive growth between 2014 and 2017.
It is nice to pull off numbers from your ass isn't it? You have absolutely no clue about how many people need or want more processing power, or what part of the user population they represent. The fact that people keep making upgrades and the market is not collapsing is proof enough that you are talking bullshit.
A few seconds less to open big excel sheets, or large images is motive enough for many many people. So is being able to play the latest games or full HD videos encoded in high compression codecs is another, processing big chunks of data, encryption, and many more tasks.
If you intend to use a Chinese phone you will have to trust the company even. Even if you can inspect the source there is no guarantee the binary came from it and wasn't tampered. Unless of course you intend to build it yourself and flash the phone, but even them there is no guarantee the bootloader wasn't tampered either.
That is not a problem exclusive with Chinese phones, by the way. I actually am much less worried about anything Chinese companies would put in my phone than about what American companies would.
There is a bias against nuclear power everywhere, because it is scary in the sense that a disaster, at least locally is always extremely grave. On the other hand, there is simply no choice. Nuclear power will be increasingly used because there is simply no alternative. So even for those who dislike the idea it is better to accept it and work to make it safer than to resist the inevitable.
Maybe unsuitable for you, but hardly unsuitable per se. Sure it is not a design fit for long distance travelling cars, but most car do not travel hundreds of miles at once yet. Cars stay stopped most of the time. It is just a matter of charge points availability and desired autonomy.
Did you miss the story? It's about problems with SpaceX thrusters, Falcon is approaching a MANNED space station with dodgy thrusters. There are real consequences here. It's not a conspiracy against Elon here, his companies have problems, he doesn't address those problems, he attacks the messenger. NASA should be launching not SpaceX.
There are more cases of dangerous problems with spacecraft in NASA's history (and even recent history) than cases where it all went smoothly. It happens when you are pushing technology to its limit. Sending people to space is as hard as rocket science mainly because it is rocket science.
That said apparently their redundant systems worked as designed and they were able to fix the failure on the fly which means the mission is at this time a success. So I see absolutely no problem here. The scenario was way better than many other missions from NASA and so were the results.
Are they toys when a computer is calculating SpaceX trajectory? No? Word games.
I truly hope they are not using iPads to do that. On the other hand that would explain a lot of failures.
What is your point (if you have any)? Basically the reporter ignored all common sense and expected the car to compensate for his lack of brains, as you probably do.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, rather, at what point does someone wake up and develop a system that can be trusted out of the box to be secure
Sorry, but that is simply impossible. Nothing is perfectly secure and nothing will ever be.
He could have found guilty, and even if he was that does not mean society had no place for him.
Firstly a jury is not a representation of the will of the majority of the population. Not even close to that. And even if they were they still need to follow the law.
Secondly the laws that were thrown upon him were not the will of the population. In today's America laws do not reflect what people want. You can't possibly defend that US population want 100+ year copyright terms, can you?
And last, but not least, the majority of the population does not support copyright law. That is clear when you see how many people think it is ok to share songs, for example. I don't know anyone that it shouldn't be allowed, for example, or who haven't done that since the time of K7 tapes.
All your equivocated ideas stem for your belief that you live in a democracy, which is just an illusion.
I am quite sure you think nothing of this would apply to you, until it does. But you can rest assured that there are a few thousands more laws that can and will apply to you if a prosecutor ever feel the need to stretch them a little.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
Oh I am quite sure 97% of the people charged are guilty in US, as only 3% of the accused do not plea guilty. Because you know US is THAT different from everywhere else and the government is right 97% of the time in this even though it is usually wrong about pretty much everything else much more often than it is right.
That certainly is a much more reasonable explanation than thinking that maybe a lot of innocent people simply plea guilty because they cannot take the change of being judged guilty and spending a few decades in prison.
If by "more efficient" you mean putting people in jail despite their being guilty or not, and creating the biggest (by far) incarcerated population in the world, than by all means you are right. You know, the Holy Inquisition didn't convict you until you self-incriminated yourself either...
The difference? Maybe the fact that inflicted physical violence upon the woman? Maybe the fact that you actually damaged property and her physical and mental integrity in the process? He was accessing something that didn't belong to him in violation of an EULA. He should be sued by the damaged part, not criminally charged. "Damaged" parts, that weren't damaged at all, and explicitly asked the prosecution to drop the charges against him, but where ignored.
All analogies are useless, ridiculous and serve nothing but to generate confusion and disinformation. That said your analogy is not only ridiculous it is childish and completely out of touch with reality, as you probably are.
Maybe he wasn't very precise in the terms he chose, but regarding the meaning he implied the distinction exists on the intensity and proportionality to the crime. When the punishment applied is completely out of proportion to a crime it is clear that it is an instrument of terror not a reasonable deterrent.
No, someone committed suicide because society had no place for them. What he was doing may have had value to him, but society as a whole has, through its legal system, has made it so even in cases where there is no financial or physical harm to others, said that what he was doing had no value. Since what he was doing was at the core of who he was (obviously, since it drove him to kill himself when he was deprived of it), it is more accurate to say society had no place for him. Whether that's moral, or ethical, right, or wrong, I leave to you. But that is why he died.
You make it sound as if the legal system represents society's will, which is obviously not the true (and never was). Society had a place for him, but those who rule did not, and despite any illusions you may have of living in a democracy, rest assured those who rule are not the people.
You list the exact motive why such bargains shouldn't be allowed. As long as they are they will be used exactly like this, which is a derailment of the legal system's purposes. Plea bargains are an abomination of US justice system whose only purpose is to blackmail people into forfeiting their constitutional rights.
It does not work like this. The provider will charge as much as it can, and deliver as little as it can get away with. Price has little to do with costs. Cost is a limiting factor not a price definer.
Sorry, but today, a single game update can be anything from a few hundred MB to a few GB, and lets not even start on YouTube, Netflix and streaming traffic.
The vast majority of people do things that will be more than performant on systems that are 5 years old or more. Yes there are certain tasks that are exceptions, but they are done by very very few people.
That is what you think, and what you have no way of proving, especially considering the market says otherwise. You may think whatever you wish, but the truth is, you hardly know what the "vast majority" of people need.
IDC foresees that the industry will return to positive growth between 2014 and 2017.
It is nice to pull off numbers from your ass isn't it? You have absolutely no clue about how many people need or want more processing power, or what part of the user population they represent. The fact that people keep making upgrades and the market is not collapsing is proof enough that you are talking bullshit.
A few seconds less to open big excel sheets, or large images is motive enough for many many people. So is being able to play the latest games or full HD videos encoded in high compression codecs is another, processing big chunks of data, encryption, and many more tasks.
Which I don't see happening with desktops anytime soon if ever. Tablets are not really an alternative.
640KB should be enough for everyone...
As I said there is always the bootloader.
If you intend to use a Chinese phone you will have to trust the company even. Even if you can inspect the source there is no guarantee the binary came from it and wasn't tampered. Unless of course you intend to build it yourself and flash the phone, but even them there is no guarantee the bootloader wasn't tampered either.
That is not a problem exclusive with Chinese phones, by the way. I actually am much less worried about anything Chinese companies would put in my phone than about what American companies would.
There is a bias against nuclear power everywhere, because it is scary in the sense that a disaster, at least locally is always extremely grave. On the other hand, there is simply no choice. Nuclear power will be increasingly used because there is simply no alternative. So even for those who dislike the idea it is better to accept it and work to make it safer than to resist the inevitable.
(6) Some weird hypothesis you (and nobody) have thought about.
There is never any guarantee that you have identified all alternatives, no matter how carefully you think about it.
Some do have doctorates, usually when they opt for the academic career, but it is not necessary to have one to be an optometrist.
Maybe unsuitable for you, but hardly unsuitable per se. Sure it is not a design fit for long distance travelling cars, but most car do not travel hundreds of miles at once yet. Cars stay stopped most of the time. It is just a matter of charge points availability and desired autonomy.
Did you miss the story? It's about problems with SpaceX thrusters, Falcon is approaching a MANNED space station with dodgy thrusters. There are real consequences here. It's not a conspiracy against Elon here, his companies have problems, he doesn't address those problems, he attacks the messenger. NASA should be launching not SpaceX.
There are more cases of dangerous problems with spacecraft in NASA's history (and even recent history) than cases where it all went smoothly. It happens when you are pushing technology to its limit. Sending people to space is as hard as rocket science mainly because it is rocket science.
That said apparently their redundant systems worked as designed and they were able to fix the failure on the fly which means the mission is at this time a success. So I see absolutely no problem here. The scenario was way better than many other missions from NASA and so were the results.
Are they toys when a computer is calculating SpaceX trajectory? No? Word games.
I truly hope they are not using iPads to do that. On the other hand that would explain a lot of failures.
What is your point (if you have any)? Basically the reporter ignored all common sense and expected the car to compensate for his lack of brains, as you probably do.